I affirm the resolved: countries ought to prohibit the production of nuclear power

Value: Life, as it is a government's obligation to promote the life of it's citizen, and it is the
basis for all other values.

All values collapse into utilitarianism or tautological regression.

Green 2 (Joshua, Assistant Professor Department of Psychology Harvard University November
2002 "The Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Truth About Morality And What To Do About It",
314)
Some people who talk of balancing rights may think there is an algorithm for deciding which rights
take priority over which. If thats what we mean by 302 balancing rights, then we are wise to shun
this sort of talk. Attempting to solve moral problems using a complex deontological algorithm is
dogmatism at its most esoteric, but dogmatism all the same. However, its likely that when some
people talk about balancing competing rights and obligations they are already thinking like
consequentialists in spite of their use of deontological language. Once again, what deontological
language does best is express the thoughts of people struck by strong, emotional moral intuitions:
It doesnt matter that you can save five people by pushing him to his death. To do this would be a
violation of his rights!19 That is why angry protesters say things like, Animals Have Rights,
Too! rather than, Animal Testing: The Harms Outweigh the Benefits! Once again, rights talk
captures the apparent clarity of the issue and absoluteness of the answer. But sometimes rights talk
persists long after the sense of clarity and absoluteness has faded. One thinks, for example, of the
thousands of children whose lives are saved by drugs that were tested on animals and the rights of
those children. One finds oneself balancing the rights on both sides by asking how many
rabbit lives one is willing to sacrifice in order to save one human life, and so on, and at the end of
the day ones underlying thought is as thoroughly consequentialist as can be, despite the
deontological gloss. And whats wrong with that? Nothing, except for the fact that the deontological
gloss adds nothing and furthers the myth that there really are rights, etc. Best to drop it. When
deontological talk gets sophisticated, the thought it represents is either dogmatic in an esoteric sort
of way or covertly consequentialist.
VC: Maximize expected welbeing
Contention 1: Meltdown
Nuclear Meltdowns currently likely, Will Happen every 10 - 20 years
Dr. Johannes Lelieveld, 2012 [Max Planck Institute for Chemistry, Mainz] Probability of contamination
from severe Nuclear Reactor Accidents higher than expected
https://www.mpg.de/5809418/reactor_accidents
Catastrophic nuclear accidents such as the core meltdowns in Chernobyl and Fukushima are
more likely to happen than previously assumed. Based on the operating hours of all civil nuclear
reactors and the number of nuclear meltdowns that have occurred, scientists at the Max Planck
Institute for Chemistry in Mainz have calculated that such events may occur once every 10 to 20
years (based on the current number of reactors) some 200 times more often than estimated in
the past. The researchers also determined that, in the event of such a major accident, half of the
radioactive caesium-137 would be spread over an area of more than 1,000 kilometres away from
the nuclear reactor. Their results show that Western Europe is likely to be contaminated about once in
50 years by more than 40 kilobecquerel of caesium-137 per square meter. According to the
International Atomic Energy Agency, an area is defined as being contaminated with radiation from this
amount onwards. In view of their findings, the researchers call for an in-depth analysis and
reassessment of the risks associated with nuclear power plants. The reactor accident in Fukushima has

fuelled the discussion about nuclear energy and triggered Germany's exit from their nuclear power
program. It appears that the global risk of such a catastrophe is higher than previously thought,
a result of a study carried out by a research team led by Jos Lelieveld, Director of the Max Planck
Institute for Chemistry in Mainz: "After Fukushima, the prospect of such an incident occurring again
came into question, and whether we can actually calculate the radioactive fallout using our atmospheric
models." According to the results of the study, a nuclear meltdown in one of the reactors in operation
worldwide is likely to occur once in 10 to 20 years. Currently, there are 440 nuclear reactors in
operation, and 60 more are planned.

Due to the fact that the AFF prohibits production of Nuclear reactors, it then follows
that there is a decrease in the Chance for Nuclear Meltdown as Nuclear reactors will
no longer be in operation.
Nuclear currently has a large amount of fatalities

Sovacool, Benjamin K. Professor of public policy at the University of Singapore. "Nuclear Accidents Are
Common and Pose Inevitable Safety Risks." Nuclear Power. Ed. Lynn M. Zott and Helga Schier. Detroit: Greenhaven
Press, 2013. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from "The Dirt on Nuclear Power." www.projectsyndicate.org. 2011. Opposing
Viewpoints in Context. Web. 25 June 2015.

The International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale uses a seven-level ranking scheme to rate the
significance of nuclear and radiological events: levels 1-3 are "incidents," and 4-7 are "accidents," with a
"Level 7 Major Accident" consisting of "a major release of radioactive material with widespread health and
environmental effects requiring implementation of planned and extended countermeasures."
Under these classifications, the number of nuclear accidents, even including the meltdowns at Fukushima
Daiichi and Fukushima Daini, is low. But if one redefines an accident to include incidents that either resulted
in the loss of human life or more than $50,000 in property damage, a very different picture emerges.At least
99 nuclear accidents meeting this definition, totaling more than $20.5 billion in damages, occurred worldwide
from 1952 to 2009or more than one incident and $330 million in damage every year, on average, for the
past three decades. And, of course, this average does not include the Fukushima catastrophe.Indeed, when
compared to other energy sources, nuclear power ranks higher than oil, coal, and natural gas systems in
terms of fatalities, second only to hydroelectric dams. There have been 57 accidents since the Chernobyl
disaster in 1986. While only a few involved fatalities, those that did collectively killed more people than have
died in commercial US airline accidents since 1982.Another index of nuclear-power accidentsthis one
including costs beyond death and property damage, such as injured or irradiated workers and malfunctions
that did not result in shutdowns or leaksdocumented 956 incidents from 1942 to 2007. And yet another
documented more than 30,000 mishaps at US nuclear-power plants alone, many with the potential to have
caused serious meltdowns, between the 1979 accident at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania and 2009.

One meltdown will have world wide implications

Lelieveld, J., Kunkel, D., and Lawrence, M. G.: Global risk of radioactive fallout after major nuclear
reactor accidents, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12, 4245-4258, doi:10.5194/acp-12-4245-2012, 2012.
Subsequently, the researchers determined the geographic distribution of radioactive gases and
particles around a possible accident site using a computer model that describes the Earth's
atmosphere. The model calculates meteorological conditions and flows, and also accounts for chemical
reactions in the atmosphere. The model can compute the global distribution of trace gases, for
example, and can also simulate the spreading of radioactive gases and particles. To approximate the

radioactive contamination, the researchers calculated how the particles of radioactive caesium-137
(137Cs) disperse in the atmosphere, where they deposit on the earths surface and in what quantities.
The 137Cs isotope is a product of the nuclear fission of uranium. It has a half-life of 30 years
and was one of the key elements in the radioactive contamination following the disasters of
Chernobyl and Fukushima. The computer simulations revealed that, on average, only eight percent of
the137Cs particles are expected to deposit within an area of 50 kilometres around the nuclear accident
site. Around 50 percent of the particles would be deposited outside a radius of 1,000 kilometres,
and around 25 percent would spread even further than 2,000 kilometres. These results underscore
that reactor accidents are likely to cause radioactive contamination well beyond national
borders. The results of the dispersion calculations were combined with the likelihood of a nuclear
meltdown and the actual density of reactors worldwide to calculate the current risk of radioactive
contamination around the world. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), an area
with more than 40 kilobecquerels of radioactivity per square meter is defined as contaminated. The
team in Mainz found that in Western Europe, where the density of reactors is particularly high, the
contamination by more than 40 kilobecquerels per square meter is expected to occur once in about
every 50 years. It appears that citizens in the densely populated southwestern part of Germany run the
worldwide highest risk of radioactive contamination, associated with the numerous nuclear power plants
situated near the borders between France, Belgium and Germany, and the dominant westerly wind
direction. If a single nuclear meltdown were to occur in Western Europe, around 28 million
people on average would be affected by contamination of more than 40 kilobecquerels per
square meter. This figure is even higher in southern Asia, due to the dense populations. A major
nuclear accident there would affect around 34 million people, while in the eastern USA and in
East Asia this would be 14 to 21 million

Nuclear Meltdowns are worse than Nuclear Bombs

Lendman, Stephen. 2011. The Peoples Voice. Nuclear Meltdown in Japan.
http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2011/03/13/nuclear-meltdown-in-japan Date Accessed: 6/23/15

In fact, that disaster [Chernobyl] killed nearly one million people worldwide from nuclear radiation
exposure. In their book titled, "Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the
Environment," Alexey Yablokov, Vassily Nesterenko and Alexey Nesterenko said: "For the past 23
years, it has been clear that there is a danger greater than nuclear weapons concealed within
nuclear power. Emissions from this one reactor exceeded a hundred-fold the radioactive
contamination of the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki." "No citizen of any country can
be assured that he or she can be protected from radioactive contamination. One nuclear reactor
can pollute half the globe. Chernobyl fallout covers the entire Northern Hemisphere."

Contention 2: Terrorism
nuclear power expands proliferation risks
Michael Mariotte, Executive Director, Nuclear Information and Resource Service, May 2008, False
Promises, http://www.nirs.org/falsepromises.pdf
There is an inextricable link between nuclear power and nuclear weapons. The technology for producing nuclear
fuel is the same technology used to produce nuclear weapons materials. Proliferation-resistant technologies provide some barriers to
proliferation, but there

is no proliferation-free nuclear technology. Reprocessing and enrichment activities

cannot be safeguarded and international treaty obligations are clearly not enforceable. The associated
dangers cannot be overstated. In fact, a high level panel of international experts convened by the United Nations Secretary General, identified
nuclear proliferation as the number one threat to the international community, warning of a real danger that we could see a cascade of nuclear
proliferation in the near future.214 The panel recommended the implementation of firm and urgent measures to reduce the risk of a nuclear
attack, whether by State or non-State actors, and recommended States to forego the development of domestic uranium enrichment and
reprocessing facilities.215 Likewise, former Vice-President Al Gore has also expressed his concerns regarding proliferation risks associated with
civilian programs: For eight years in the White House, every weapons-proliferation problem we dealt with was connected to a civilian reactor
program. And if we ever got to the point where we wanted to use nuclear reactors to back out a lot of coal which is the real issue: coalthen
wed have to put them in so many places wed run that proliferation risk right off the reasonability scale. Reactor-grade plutonium is weaponsusable Plutonium exists only in trace amounts in nature and it is generated as a by-product of nuclear reactor operations as part of the spent fuel
mix. Under normal operating conditions, reactors produce low concentrations of plutonium-239, the isotope most useful for nuclear weapons.
However,

even if reactor grade plutonium is not the most convenient isotope to effectively build a nuclear

bomb, it can nevertheless be used to make weapons. According to the DOE, Virtually any combination
of plutonium isotopes can be used to make a nuclear weapon. [] In short, reactor-grade plutonium
is weapons-usable, whether by unsophisticated proliferators or by advanced nuclear weapon states.
Civilian power increases the risk of nuclear fuel cycle materials being used for weapons
America Magazine, June 23, 2008, http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?
article_id=10884
Nuclear energy actually increases the risks of weapons proliferation because the same technology used
for civilian atomic power can be used for weapons, as the cases of India, Iran, Iraq, North Korea and Pakistan illustrate. As
the Swedish Nobel Prize winner Hannes Alven put it, The military atom and the civilian atom are Siamese twins. Yet if the world
stopped building nuclear-power plants, bomb ingredients would be harder to acquire, more conspicuous
and more costly politically, if nations were caught trying to obtain them. Their motives for seeking
nuclear materials would be unmasked as military, not civilian.
THIS MEANS THAT BANNING NUCLEAR POWER IS THE ONLY WAY TO AVOID TERRORISM,
NOT SIMPLY JUST HEIGHTENING SECURITY

Nuclear Reactors are vulnerable to Terrorist Attack

Karl Grossman, 2016 [Karl Grossman is the professor of journalism at the State University of New York/College at Old

Westbury.Karl is also the author of Cover Up: What You Are Not Supposed to Know About Nuclear Power and other books on
nuclear technology, as well as hosting numerous TV programs on the subject including Chernobyl: A Million Casualties, Three Mile

] "Terrorism and Nuclear Power"

http://enformable.com/2016/03/terrorism-nuclear-power/
Island Revisited and The Push to Revive Nuclear Power.

Thats what nuclear power plants are. And thats another very big reasondemonstrated again in
recent days with the disclosure that two of the Brusselsterrorists were planning attacks on Belgian
nuclear plantswhy they must be eliminated. Nuclear power plants are sitting ducks for terrorists.
With most positioned along bays and rivers because of their need for massive amounts of coolant
water, they provide a clear shot. They are fully exposed for aerial strikes. The consequences of
such an attack could far outweigh the impacts of 9/11 and, according to the U.S. 9/11 Commission,
also originally considered in that attack was the use of hijacked planes to attack unidentified
nuclear power plants. The Indian Point nuclear plants 26 miles north of New York City
were believed to be candidates. As the Belgian newspaper Dernier Heure reported last week,
regarding the plan to strike a Belgian nuclear plant, investigators concluded that the target of
terrorists was to jeopardize national security like never before. The Union of Concerned
Scientists in a statement on Nuclear Security declares: Terrorists pose a real and significant
threat to nuclear power plants. The 2011 accident at Fukushima was a wake-up call reminding the
world of the vulnerability of nuclear power plants to natural disasters such as earthquakes and
floods. However, nature is not the only threat to nuclear facilities. They are inviting targets for
sabotage and terrorist attack. A successful attack on a nuclear plant could have devastating
consequences, killing, sickening or displacing large numbers of residents in the area surrounding
the plant, and causing extensive long-time environmental damage.

Terrorism is likely and already occurring

Nuclear Terrorism: A Clear Danger By KENNETH C. BRILL and KENNETH N. LUONGO MARCH 15,
2012 Kenneth C. Brill is a former U.S. ambassador to the I.A.E.A.Kenneth N. Luongo is president of
the Partnership for Global Security. Both are members of the Fissile Material Working Group, a
nonpartisan nongovernmental organization.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/16/opinion/nuclear-terrorism-a-clear-danger.html?_r=0
Terrorists exploit gaps in security. The current global regime for protecting the nuclear materials

that

terrorists desire for their ultimate weapon is far from seamless. I t

is based largely on unaccountable, voluntary

arrangements that are inconsistent across borders. Its weak links make it dangerous and inadequate to prevent nuclear
terrorism. Later this month in Seoul, the more than 50 world leaders who will gather for the second Nuclear Security Summit need to seize the

There is a consensus among international

leaders that the threat of nuclear terrorism is real, not a Hollywood confection. President Obama, the leaders of 46 other
opportunity to start developing an accountable regime to prevent nuclear terrorism.

nations, the heads of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the United Nations, and numerous experts have called nuclear terrorism one

At least four terrorist

groups, including Al Qaeda, have demonstrated interest in using a nuclear device. These groups
operate in or near states with histories of questionable nuclear security practices. Terrorists do not need to steal
of the most serious threats to global security and stability. It is also preventable with more aggressive action.

a nuclear weapon. It is quite possible to make an improvised nuclear device from highly enriched uranium or plutonium being used for civilian
purposes. And there is a black market in such material.

nuclear material.

There have been 18 confirmed thefts or loss of weapons-usable

In 2011, the Moldovan police broke up part of a smuggling ring attempting to sell highly enriched uranium; one member

A terrorist nuclear explosion could kill hundreds of

thousands, create billions of dollars in damages and undermine the global economy. Former Secretary General
is thought to remain at large with a kilogram of this material.

Kofi Annan of the United Nations said that an act of nuclear terrorism would thrust tens of millions of people into dire poverty and create a
second death toll throughout the developing world.

A terrorist attack on a reactor will be worse than Chernobyl

Greenpeace, 2006 "Nuclear Terrorism" 07/27/2006
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/nuclear/safety/nuclear-terrorism/
That's not our quote, it's UN General Secretary Kofi Annan's. He has good reason to be concerned
by the threat of nuclear terrorism. The UN's International Atomic Energy Agency believe it is "far
more likely" post 9/11 that terrorists could target nuclear facilities worldwide. Because of their
importance for the electricity supply system, the severe consequences of radioactive releases as
well as because of their symbolic character, nuclear power plants are "attractive" targets for
terrorist as well as for military attacks. An attack on a nuclear facility can lead to radioactive
releases equivalent to several times those released at Chernobyl. Nuclear facilities could be
targets in case of war if a military use is suspected. The spectrum of possible modes of attack is
very diverse. Attacks could be performed by air, on the ground and from the water. As further
evidence shows that more and more terrorists are considering the nuclear option, industry and
government plans to increase the number of reactors globally smacks of irresponsible stupidity.
As we see, the use of nuclear power opens up the threat for attacks on nuclear power
plants or a terrorist attack using nuclear material.