Russia Adv – 1ac

***Nuclear Power Adv

Nuclear Power Adv – 1ac

A new generation of nuclear propulsion in the space will accelerate the nuclear power industry

Carter 03—Director of Corporate Communications at The Babcock & Wilcox Company (BXW Technologies, Inc.)

(Regina W., “Powering Space Exploration”, Explorer BXWT, The Future of Nuclear Power: Building a Better Reactor”, A Publication for Powering Transformation, October 2003, http://www.babcock.com/library/explore/pdf/2003_October.pdf)//AW
The Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL), established in 1949 on a former naval artillery range on the northern half of the Snake River Plain, brought its own breed of pioneers: men and women dedicated to developing nuclear energy for power and propulsion and who would harness the untamed atom and eke out, kilowatt by kilowatt, the power to turn on light bulbs, submarines, and cities. Over its 54-year history, the laboratory has been the site of 52 test reactors, many first-of-a-kind, and its scientific research and testing have contributed immeasurably to the development, safety, and success of commercial and naval nuclear power in the United States and worldwide. INEEL and Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) first produced electricity by nuclear power, first lit a city - Arco - using nuclear energy, developed the reactor technology that powers the U.S. nuclear navy, built the first light water and pressurized water reactors, and developed many of the computer codes still used by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in licensing, re-licensing, and evaluating the safety of commercial nuclear power plants. The testing, done at INEEL's Materials Test Reactor in the 1950s and ‘60s, influenced the design of every nuclear reactor built and operated in this country. BWXT played an important role in the early years of INEEL, providing components, fuel, and specialty products for what was originally a rapidly growing industry. But use of nuclear power for commercial purposes diminished with growing public concern over waste streams, and with the accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. Orders for new nuclear power plants were cancelled, and INEEL's mission changed - focusing more on reprocessing spent nuclear fuel, and environmental cleanup then on new nuclear power research and development. For nearly 10 years INEEL was designated the Department of Energy's (DOE) lead lab for Environmental Management. As the Department's lead for spent nuclear fuel (SNF), INEEL managers and engineers tackled one of the hardest problems in the nuclear power industry. Their programmatic, nationwide, dual agency Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on SNF was unparalleled in scope, and completed in an unprecedented two years. The document laid the foundation needed to implement an SNF solution, including a permanent geological repository. It was also the basis for a profound long-term agreement between the State of Idaho, the Navy, and the DOE. The "Idaho Settlement Agreement" as it came to be known, is unique in its scope and detail, and it laid out the path forward for INEEL. Without it and without the relationships forged during the years it was negotiated and implemented, it is unlikely that INEEL would be where it is today - poised to lead the country in developing the next generation of nuclear reactors - reactors that will help meet world energy needs for the next 50 years, and power a new generation of space probes that will explore the outer solar system. Generation IV reactors, the latest generation of commercial power reactors, will be more economical to build, safer to operate, produce less waste for disposal, and reduce the danger of nuclear materials falling into the hands of hostile organizations. They will help meet projected world energy demands that are expected to more than double today's needs by 2050, contribute to improved environmental quality and support this country's energy security. The DOE placed INEEL and ANL in the forefront to lead this national effort. In 1999, the DOE named INEEL and ANL as lead laboratories for nuclear reactor technology. In 2001, the United States National Energy Policy endorsed nuclear energy as a major component of future U.S. energy supplies. And, in July 2002, the DOE designated INEEL as the department's nuclear energy laboratory. INEEL was to be "the central command for the federal government's Generation IV nuclear systems research." It will also be the focal point for developing and demonstrating the Advanced Fuel Cycle Technology Initiative that would treat and reduce SNF and high-level waste. INEEL's Strategic Plan is to be the leading contributor to our Nation's energy security and environmental quality by developing advanced, sustainable, safe, and economic nuclear energy and fuel cycle technologies. BWXT, its management team, and its production plants, will be an important part of achieving that plan. In 1991, BWXT increased its presence on the INEEL site by assuming the management and operation of the Army's "Specific Manufacturing Capability," at that time a highly secretive operation that manufactured depleted uranium armor for U.S. military vehicles. BWXT's management role continued to grow at INEEL through the 1990s to the present, where they are now responsible for all nuclear operations as part of Bechtel BWXT of Idaho, a limited liability corporation. INEEL represents DOE in coordinating the Generation IV International Forum (GIF). This group of 10 nations is working together to develop future generation nuclear energy systems that can be licensed, constructed, and operated to produce competitively priced and reliable energy while addressing safety, waste, and proliferation issues. Its objective is to deploy multiple energy systems worldwide before 2030. The GIF has identified six reactor technologies to be investigated. Of these proposed technologies, the concept selected by the U.S. for research and demonstration at INEEL is the Very High Temperature Reactor (VHTR). The VHTR's mission is to demonstrate high-efficiency electricity and hydrogen production. INEEL's goal is to demonstrate improved economics through reduced capital costs and expanded product markets. Other goals include demonstration of naturally safe, high-temperature capabilities, zero emissions and energy security, plutonium burn-up capability, deep burn or closed fuel cycle technology, and facility security. Advanced fuel cycle research will be another major INEEL nuclear energy initiative. Researchers will explore technologies for recycling spent fuel to reduce the volume (by up to 96 percent) and lifetime (to a few hundred years) of disposable waste, and to reduce nuclear materials proliferation concern. Directors of six of DOE's premier national laboratories have endorsed a comprehensive and integrated plan to further the development and deployment of nuclear energy and the management of nuclear materials. Their joint endorsement stressed that by 2050, half of the U.S. electricity and a quarter of the U.S. transportation fuel production should be produced by nuclear energy (fuel production coming from nuclear-produced hydrogen), and that by 2020 a closed fuel cycle system should be demonstrated. With the Idaho Congressional delegation and DOE leadership strongly supporting INEEL's nuclear mission; with the increased focus on nuclear propulsion for space missions; with the dedicated and high-caliber efforts of its talented workforce; and with the support Congressional committees are showing in proposed legislation for 2004, INEEL's reputation as a pioneering institution is poised to continue. BWXT will be there to help lead the way.
History proves that propulsion technology development is key to inspiring a major technological revolution in the nuclear industry

Ellis 03—BXWT Contributor

(Laura P., “Dr. Don Roy: Keeping in Step with the Changes of Time”, Explorer BXWT, The Future of Nuclear Power: Building a Better Reactor”, A Publication for Powering Transformation, October 2003, http://www.babcock.com/library/explore/pdf/2003_October.pdf)//AW
Since the development of nuclear power in the 1940s, the nuclear industry has evolved at a rapid pace. From the first experimental reactor to full-scale nuclear power plants and space nuclear power and propulsion systems, the industry has experienced a vast history of change. A key participant in many of the milestones that helped define and redefine the nuclear industry is Dr. Don Roy, a recent retiree of BWXT who served the company for 41 years. The Early Years Roy began his professional engineering career by joining the company's Lynchburg operations in 1959, working in the commercial nuclear power plant business. It proved an exciting time for the young engineer as the construction of new domestic nuclear power generating plants surged. "The company had just won a contract to build the first nuclear commercial units for Duke Power Company's Oconee site in South Carolina." Oconee was among the first nuclear power plants to be built out of more than 100 constructed in the U.S. The economic tide would eventually turn and orders for building new plants dropped off. With the last reactor order placed in the late 1970s, Roy said the company strategically assessed the industry's direction and ultimately refocused its efforts on servicing the existing nuclear plants, starting with steam generator inspections. "You had to have the confidence to make the change," says Roy. "It proved a successful transition from building plants to servicing them." It was March 28, 1979, that the nuclear industry would find itself enveloped in a crisis when an accident occurred at the Three Mile Island Unit 2 (TMI-2) nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania. The event had an immediate impact on the world's perspective of nuclear power as a safe energy source - a change in perception that would take years to overcome. Following the incident, Roy spent much time and effort before investigative committees, providing depositions supporting the engineering integrity of the reactor. Among others, Roy worked closely with Duke Power President Bill Lee, a renowned figure in the nuclear business, in assisting the industry in responding to the TMI-2 incident. Ultimately, the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO) was formed, a premier group for promoting safety and reliability in the operation of nuclear power generating plants. Roy was later appointed Chief Technical Witness to the Emergency Core Cooling System Rulemaking hearings, spending 14 months in Washington, DC, promoting new rules and defending the nuclear industry. "In the end, we were able to demonstrate that ultimately we designed safe, quality reactor systems," says Roy. A New Direction Roy's career later journeyed to a new horizon space technology. At BWXT's Nuclear Products Division (NPD), Roy began working on a compact reactor for space power and propulsion that would produce large amounts of power in a small volume. In this endeavor, BWXT teamed with Brookhaven National Laboratories, Aerojet Nuclear Company, Grumman, and Sandia National Laboratories to design the reactor. The DOE later awarded NPD a contract to build Particle Bed Reactor fuel elements, which according to Roy was an innovative project because the elements used small kernels of uranium. "In working with Oak Ridge National Laboratories to develop the manufacturing technology, we found ourselves in the compact space reactor business." BWXT's space nuclear work scope expanded when it won a contract to design a compact Particle Bed Reactor for the Star Wars project, which was part of the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) created under the Reagan Administration. The contract included developing and manufacturing high-temperature coated particle fuel for nuclear rocket applications, and designing, constructing, and operating a related critical experiment facility. Following five years as Program Director for the Star Wars program, the initiative was terminated as SDI shifted its focus on laser-based technologies. "Even though the program ended, the effort demonstrated it is possible to put nuclear in space," says Roy. Roy states he is supportive of NASA's new initiative to improve the radioisotope thermal generators that are already in use and to develop fission energy systems. According to the scientist, "A fission space reactor is the only way to get the power needed for detailed mapping, deep space probes, and data streams when we want them and not just when the planets are favorably aligned." Beginning in 1991, Roy would make the first of some 20 trips to Russia to work with various Russian institutes and ministries during a technology exchange program. He and an associate were reportedly the first foreigners to ever be allowed into Russia's underground testing facilities for its space reactors. The technology exchange included information on space power, fuel cells, and gas turbine plant design. Global Change The 1990s marked a significant period in world history that would have far-reaching implications for the nuclear industry. With the ending of the Cold War, nuclear disarmament began to take political center stage. As the world became more global, new business ventures began to emerge. In response, NPD expanded its capabilities to include dow nblending - the conversion of high-enriched uranium into low-enriched uranium for commercial use. To assist with the company's positioning efforts, Roy was tapped as a lead expert. Tasked with developing a Uranium Processing Services department (UrPS), Roy worked to help design the layout of NPD's facilities, assess its needs, and to pursue and win down blending work. The UrPS business got under way with Project Sapphire whereby weapons-grade material was converted to commercial nuclear fuel as part of the Non-Proliferation Treaty initiatives under the Clinton Administration. The success of Project Sapphire resulted in a 50-metric ton contract with the US Enrichment Corporation (USEC) - a contract that NPD is still working today. Though retired, Roy remains active in the nuclear industry serving as a consultant to BWXT. Having witnessed the many evolutions of nuclear power he acknowledges that the industry is still progressively developing. And with those evolutions, BWXT has successfully proven it can keep in step with the changes of time.
MULTIPLE IMPACTS – First is the ECONOMY –
The nuclear power industry is key to the US job sector and the economy.

World Nuclear News 09

(“NEI: Nuclear is good for jobs and economy”, Industry Talk, World Nuclear News, February 6, 2009, http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/newsarticle.aspx?id=24616)//AW
The US industry body, the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), has published a report into the role of new nuclear power plants in job creation and economic growth. According to the NEI, "nuclear energy is one of the few bright spots in the US economy - expanding rather than contracting." It says that the prospect of new nuclear power plant construction in the USA has already stimulated significant investment and job creation among companies that supply equipment and services to the nuclear industry. The NEI says that "over the last several years, the nuclear industry has invested over $4 billion in new nuclear plant development, and plans to invest approximately $8 billion in the next several years to be in a position to start construction in 2011-2012." In the course of this, NEI said, "private investment in new nuclear power plants has created an estimated 14,000-15,000 jobs". The number of new jobs "will expand dramatically after 2011 when the first wave of these new nuclear projects starts construction.
Expansion of the nuclear power industry is key to the US job sector and economy.

Weaver 09—President Emeritus of Florida Institute of Technology

(Lynn Edward, “Nuclear Power Good for the Economy”, The Ledger, January 29, 2009, http://www.theledger.com/article/20090128/COLUMNISTS/901280304?p=2&tc=pg)//AW

Is there any doubt that the construction of nuclear power plants would benefit our economy? A new study done for the American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness determined that the construction and operation of nuclear plants and facilities to provide fuel for the reactors would generate 500,000 jobs. The planned four new nuclear plants in Florida alone would bring 29,300 jobs, with wages estimated at $2.8 billion, according to the study by Oxford Economics. With the heavy loss of jobs in the current downturn, nuclear power is one of the few bright spots in the economy. Reactor designers and manufacturers are expanding their facilities as well as their payrolls in anticipation of new business. Nuclear job growth has already begun in North Carolina, Tennessee and Pennsylvania and is expected to spread to other states, mainly in the Southeast. So far utilities have filed for licenses to build up to 26 nuclear plants, calculating they will need to be the cornerstone of efforts to achieve energy independence and to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. Ultimately, the study forecasts construction of 52 new reactors, one new spent-fuel recycling facility and four uranium enrichment plants, resulting in total economic benefits of $61.5 billion. The new nuclear plants are expected to save $49 billion in imported oil and natural gas, while avoiding the atmospheric emission of 400 million tons of carbon dioxide, the principal greenhouse gas linked to climate change. Judging by public opinion polls, there are indications that Americans are awakening to the multiple benefits from nuclear power's revival - well-paid jobs, economic growth, energy independence and a cleaner environment. Seventy-four percent of Americans now favor the use of nuclear power, up from 63 percent in April, according to a poll by Bisconti Research. Nearly 70 percent agree that the United States "should definitely build new nuclear power plants in the future." According to the jobs study, 268,000 jobs nationally would be created during the reactor construction period, with an additional 136,000 jobs during construction of the recycling and uranium enrichment facilities. Operation of the new reactors and fuel facilities would bring another 96,000 jobs. "These are high-tech, high-value-added jobs that reflect high spending on research and development and fixed investment: jobs that the U.S. economy can ill afford to lose," the study says. Florida ranks among the top beneficiaries from the construction of new nuclear plants. The number of jobs created would be greater in just three other states - South Carolina, Texas and Illinois. South Carolina is expected to be the site of a nuclear recycling facility. At the heart of the nuclear renaissance is an unprecedented challenge. The U.S. electricity industry must invest up to $2 trillion in new power generation and transmission systems to meet an expected 25 percent increase in power demand by 2030. And it must achieve this while reducing greenhouse-gas emissions. Nuclear power accounts for 72 percent of the carbon-free energy produced in the United States and it's a clean energy source that must play a major role in meeting our energy needs.
US economy is key to the global economy.

Fisher 06—CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas

(Richard, “The United States: Still the Growth Engine for the World Economy?”, Remarks at the Institute of Economic Affairs’ 23rd Annual State of the Economy Conference, London, February 6, 2006, http://dallasfed.org/news/speeches/fisher/2006/fs060206.html)//AW 

My kind hosts, who had no idea that this event would follow so closely on the heels of the meager growth estimate reported for last year’s fourth quarter, have asked me to address the question: Is the United States still the growth engine for the world? The answer is yes. Let me explain why. The American economy has been on an upswing for more than four years. Growth advanced briskly at 4.2 percent in 2004. It slowed to a still solid 3.5 percent in 2005, although I would not be surprised if GDP were revised upward when we take a more definitive look at the fourth quarter. In January, the U.S. economy employed 134.6 million people, up 2.2 million in a year. Unemployment stood at a four-year low of 4.7 percent, which compares with the latest reading of 8.4 percent for Europe and even higher rates for some of the continent’s major economies. We have weathered hurricanes’ fury and record-high energy prices while continuing to grow and keep inflation under control. The statement the Federal Open Market Committee released Tuesday quite summed up our current situation succinctly: “Although recent economic data have been uneven, the expansion in economic activity appears solid.” This is especially true in what I call the “growth rim”—an arc of population centers with favorable demographics that begins in Virginia, runs down the southeastern seaboard through Georgia to Florida, then through the megastate of Texas and on to the uberstate of California and up to Seattle. I use “mega” and “uber” to describe the two largest states for a reason: to illustrate the depth and breadth of our economy. In dollar terms, Texas produces 20 percent more than India, and California produces roughly the same output as China. To the extent there is weakness in the U.S. economy, it is in the Northeast and North Central states. Netting all this out, the consensus of most economic forecasters is that growth in the first quarter will rebound to a rate well above 4 percent. To understand what this kind of growth means, we need only follow Margaret Thatcher’s wise hectoring to “do the math.” The United States produces $12.6 trillion a year in goods and services. Be conservative—once again, Lady Thatcher would like it—and assume that in 2006 we grow at last year’s preliminary rate of 3.5 percent. The math tells us we would add $440 billion in incremental activity—in a single year. That is a big number. What we add in new economic activity in a given year exceeds the entire output of all but 15 other countries. Every year, we create the economic equivalent of a Sweden—or two Irelands or three Argentinas. In dollar terms, a growth rate of 3.5 percent in the U.S. is equivalent to surges of 16 percent in Germany, 20 percent in the U.K., 26 percent in China and 70 percent in India. Of course, our growth is driven by consumption, a significant portion of which is fed by imports, which totaled $2 trillion last year. Again, do the math: Our annual import volume—what we buy in a single year from abroad—exceeds the GDP of all but four other countries—Japan, Germany, Britain and France. So, yes, the United States is the growth engine for the world economy. And it is important that it remain so because no other country appears poised to pick up the torch if the U.S. economy stumbles or tires. Are there reasons to worry it might do so? In fashionable circles and at various “chat shows” like Davos, you certainly hear many.
Nuclear war.

Friedberg and Schoenfeld 08

[Aaron, Prof. Politics. And IR @ Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School and Visiting Scholar @ Witherspoon Institute, and Gabriel, Senior Editor of Commentary and Wall Street Journal, “The Dangers of a Diminished America”, 10-28, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122455074012352571.html]

Then there are the dolorous consequences of a potential collapse of the world's financial architecture. For decades now, Americans have enjoyed the advantages of being at the center of that system. The worldwide use of the dollar, and the stability of our economy, among other things, made it easier for us to run huge budget deficits, as we counted on foreigners to pick up the tab by buying dollar-denominated assets as a safe haven. Will this be possible in the future? Meanwhile, traditional foreign-policy challenges are multiplying. The threat from al Qaeda and Islamic terrorist affiliates has not been extinguished. Iran and North Korea are continuing on their bellicose paths, while Pakistan and Afghanistan are progressing smartly down the road to chaos. Russia's new militancy and China's seemingly relentless rise also give cause for concern. If America now tries to pull back from the world stage, it will leave a dangerous power vacuum. The stabilizing effects of our presence in Asia, our continuing commitment to Europe, and our position as defender of last resort for Middle East energy sources and supply lines could all be placed at risk. In such a scenario there are shades of the 1930s, when global trade and finance ground nearly to a halt, the peaceful democracies failed to cooperate, and aggressive powers led by the remorseless fanatics who rose up on the crest of economic disaster exploited their divisions. Today we run the risk that rogue states may choose to become ever more reckless with their nuclear toys, just at our moment of maximum vulnerability. The aftershocks of the financial crisis will almost certainly rock our principal strategic competitors even harder than they will rock us. The dramatic free fall of the Russian stock market has demonstrated the fragility of a state whose economic performance hinges on high oil prices, now driven down by the global slowdown. China is perhaps even more fragile, its economic growth depending heavily on foreign investment and access to foreign markets. Both will now be constricted, inflicting economic pain and perhaps even sparking unrest in a country where political legitimacy rests on progress in the long march to prosperity. None of this is good news if the authoritarian leaders of these countries seek to divert attention from internal travails with external adventures.
Star this card – even if nuclear power is vulnerable, it is comparatively better than the alternatives

Epstein 11 (Alex, fellow at the Rand Institute, specializes in energy issues; BA from Duke University, was editor and publisher of the Duke Review for two years. “Nuclear Power Is Extremely Safe -- That's the Truth About What We Learned From Japan”. July 23, 2011. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/07/23/nuclear-power-is-extremely-safe-thats-truth-about-what-learned-from-japan/) AK

The grounds for this move, and similar proposals in Switzerland, Italy, and other countries, is safety. As the Swiss energy minister put it, “Fukushima showed that the risk of nuclear power is too high.” In fact, Fukushima showed just the opposite. How’s that? Well for starters, ask yourself what the death toll was at Fukushima. 100? 200? 10? Not true. Try zero. To think rationally about nuclear safety, you must identify the whole context. As the late, great energy thinker Petr Beckmann argued three decades ago in his contrarian classic "The Health Hazards of NOT Going Nuclear," every means of generating power has dangers and risks, but nuclear power “is far safer than any other form of large-scale energy conversion yet invented.” To date, there have been devised only five practical means of producing large-scale, affordable, reliable energy: coal, natural gas, oil, hydroelectric, and nuclear. (Although widely-hyped and frequently subsidized, solar and wind power -- which generate energy from highly diffuse and intermittent sources -- have failed for forty years to deliver.) Whether you’re concerned about a dangerous accident or harmful emissions, a nuclear power plant is the safest way to generate power. The key to nuclear power’s safety, Beckmann explains, is that it uses a radioactive energy source--such as uranium. In addition to having the advantage of storing millions of times more energy per unit of volume than coal, gas, or water, the radioactive material used in power plants literally cannot explode. Ridiculing the scare tactics that a nuclear power plant poses the same dangers as a nuclear bomb, Beckmann observes: “An explosive nuclear chain reaction is no more feasible in the type of uranium used as power plant fuel than it is in chewing gum or pickled cucumbers.” The one danger of running a nuclear plant is a large release of radiation. This is extremely unlikely, because nuclear plants contain numerous shielding and containment mechanisms (universal in the civilized world but callously foregone by the Soviets in their Chernobyl plant). But in the most adverse circumstances, as Fukushima illustrated, the cooling system designed to moderate the uranium’s heat can fail, the backups can fail, the radioactive material can overheat to the point that the plant cannot handle the pressure, and a radiation release is necessary. Yet, even then, it is extremely unlikely that the radiation levels will be high enough to cause radiation sickness or cancer--and radiation in modest quantities is a normal, perfectly healthy feature of life (your blood is radioactive, as is the sun). And even the worst nuclear accident gives neighbors a luxury that broken dams and exploding refineries do not: time. While many, many things went wrong at Fukushima, as might be expected in an unprecedented natural disaster, what is more remarkable is that thanks to the fundamental integrity of the nuclear vessel and the containment building, none of the power plant’s neighbors have died, nor have any apparently been exposed to harmful levels of radiation. (The Japanese government has announced that eight of 2,400 workers have been exposed to higher-than-allowed amounts of radiation, but these amounts are often hundreds of times less than is necessary to do actual damage.) Now imagine if a 9.0 earthquake and 40 foot tsunami had hit a hydroelectric dam; thousands of people could have died in the ensuing flood. Or what if they had hit a natural gas plant or oil refinery or coal plant? These structures could have suffered explosions, such as the type we saw on BP’s Deepwater Horizon platform in the Gulf of Mexico, or just collapsed and spewed debris and pollution throughout the area. The Fukushima nuclear plants, with their incredible resilience, almost certainly saved many, many lives. Nuclear power also saves lives that would otherwise be lost to pollution. A nuclear power plant has effectively zero harmful emissions. (It generates a small amount of waste, which France, among other countries, has demonstrated can be both re-used economically and stored safely.) By contrast, fossil fuel plants generate various forms of particulate matter that strongly correlate with higher cancer rates. We should not “‘knock coal,’” Beckmann stressed, as fossil fuel plants are vital for human survival for decades to come, but we should recognize that new nuclear power plants are far safer than the status quo. The perversity of using nuclear power’s demonstrated safety as a black mark against it is not new. Beckmann’s book came out in 1976--three years before the Three Mile Island “disaster,” which nuclear critics capitalized on, even though it was, as Beckmann later wrote, “history’s only major disaster with a toll of zero dead, zero injured, and zero diseased.” Still, environmentalists shut down nuclear plants, oblivious to the accidents they could have prevented. In just the three years leading up to Three Mile Island, Beckmann observed, “dam disasters have killed thousands of people (at least 2,000 in India in August 1979); many hundreds have died in explosions and fires of gas, oil, butane, gasoline, and other fuels . . . ” As a consequence of the anti-nuclear hysteria in Beckmann’s time, the U.S. government made it either impossible or economically prohibitive to build new plants, in the name of “safety.” Fukushima has affirmed that nuclear is the safest form of power in existence. Any government that fails to recognize this is endangering its citizens’ health.