The United States should significantly increase its use of nuclear energy.

I disagree with my opponent that the US, or any other country, should increase its use of nuclear energy. My opponent's argument relies on 3 contentions, namely that nuclear energy is relatively environmentally friendly, economically sound and safe. 1. Relatively economically friendly. It is not without reason that my opponent used the word "relatively". In effect what he's saying, and rightly so, is that nuclear energy is more environmentally friendly than some other options. It is also less environmentally friendly than others. While typically the running of a nuclear plant (leaks and accidents aside) has indeed little harmful effects on the environmnet, the construction and maintenance of one is anything but environmentally friendly. The amount of fossil fuel spent in the construction of a nuclear power plant is nothing short of astounding. A serious nuclear waste leak (not to even mention a reactor meltdown) would have truly devastating effects on the environment. 2. Economically sound It is true that the cost of nuclear energy is somewhere in the vicinity of 4.2 cents per kWh. This compares with 4-6 cents for wind power, 2-10 for large hydropower, 3-12 for biomass energy, 0.5-5 for geothermal energy, 1-6 for biomass heat. (. http://en.wikipedia.org...) These sources, so called "renewable" energy sources, are admittedly more expensive at the current time. However, with continuing development and improvement as well as the implementation of mass-production technologies, these costs have been decreasing and will continue to decrease. Yes, at the moment these alternatives are more expensive. But let us remember, nice things cost money. The costs of cleaning up serious cases of contamination are enormous and vary from financial to life and limb. The financial costs by themselves can be huge. For example the 1987 costs of cleaning up contamination caused by the Hanford Engineer Works reached over 48 BILLION dollars. (. http://www.lutins.org...). More on this incident later. Electricity costs are marginal as a factor of costs of living and are also a minor component of the cost of production per unit of most products. I would much rather pay 50% more in my electricity bill than risk even a single nuclear disaster and its potential to contaminate the environment and put human life and health at risk. This brings me to my final point. Risk. 3. Safety It is one thing for my opponent to say that nuclear energy is safe. It is another to look at cold facts. a) Hanford Environmental Dose Reconstruction Project released its statistics in 1997. It was revealed that in all 270,000 people were affected by radiation spilled into the atmosphere and the Columbia River. Of these, 13,500 received radiation levels 1,300 (ONE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED) times higher than the annual dose considered safe for civilians by the Dept of Energy. (. http://www.lutins.org...) b) May 1997. A 40 gallon tank of toxic chemicals, stored illegally at the U. S. Government's Hanford Engineer works exploded, causing the release of 20,000-30,000 gallons of plutonium-contaminated water. (same source) c) August 1999 The Washington Post reported that thousands of workers were unwittingly exposed to plutonium and other highly radioactive metals over a 23-year period. One might say this is high cost of having jobs. d) July 2000 Wildfires in the vicinity of the Hanford facility hit the highly radioactive "B/C" waste disposal trenches, raising airborne plutonium radiation levels in the nearby cities of Pasco and Richland to 1,000 above normal. e) December 1962 A summary report was presented at an Atomic Energy Commission symposium in Germantown, Maryland, listing 47 accidents involving shipment of nuclear materials to that date, 17 of which were considered "serious. " f) Between 1962 and 2000, an additional 25 or so incidents occurred. Two of these involved trucks accidentally dumping radioactive material en route. In one of them this was not noticed untill the truck arrived at its destination (. http://www.lutins.org...). g) The ultimate disaster would involve a reactor meltdown. This has in fact occurred in Chernobyl in the Ukraine. The total cost to life and health is still not fully known but is in the thousands. One could argue that this was not in the USA and that the USA has superior technology. It does. But we would be kidding ourselves if we said it could not happen in the US. A partial meltdown did in fact occur at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Power Station in 1979. It is true that the chances at any one time of a devastating nuclear disaster are remote. But they are there. When assessing risk, we must look not only at the odds but also at the gravity of its consequences. The more plants we build, the higher these risks. No amount of control and safety measures can eliminate them. What price tag could we put on the lives of 2,000 civilians? Let's keep in mind the laws of probability. If something can possibly happen, it will, given sufficient time. I firmly contend that nuclear power is a thing of the 20th century. We now have the technology to explore infinitely safer and less environmentally harmful options. Renewable energy is the only way to a safe future.