we should expand nuclear energy

Debate accepted. As Pro hasn't specified whether round one is for acceptance or not, I will proceed straight to my opening argument: C1.] Environmental EffectsThe most obvious issue here is the negative impact that nuclear has on the environment. Pro asserts that "every technology has problems, air pollution, oil spills etc" but none have been as problematic as nuclear. I'd also point out that one of their primary causes of air pollution is nuclear itself. The radioactive waste from nuclear can be extremely hazardous to the environment and can additionally be used to create nuclear weapons [1.] http://www.conserve-energy-future.com... and [2.] http://content.time.com...Nuclear bombs naturally pose huge dangers to the environment [3.] http://www.theguardian.com...C2.] Health and Safety Once again, this is a large problem with the production of nuclear. The Chernobyl disaster that Pro refers to is a prime example of how drastically nuclear can go wrong and how severely it can effect people. An estimated 220,000 people were displaced from their homes, and the accident made 4,440 square kilometers of agricultural land and 6,820 square kilometers of forests in Belarus and Ukraine simply unusable. [4.] http://www.psr.org...Accidents and waste caused by the nuclear has hugely contributed to cancer-related deaths, and if a big nuclear fallout was to occur the deaths caused by cancer alone could potentially be in the millions [5.] http://umich.edu...C3.] High Cost of NuclearIt should also come as no surprise that the cost of nuclear is significantly high--both in terms of establishing nuclear power plans and producing the nuclear itself. On average it takes around 5-10 years to construct the plants, and there is almost always vocal opposition from people living directly in the area. [see link one.] Additionally a 2009 UCS report estimated that taxpayers could pay anywhere from $360 billion to $1.6 trillion if current proposals for nuclear expansion were realized. [6.] http://www.ucsusa.org...Thus showing again how incredibly expensive it actually is. As it already stands nuclear energy costs a lot, but the expansion of it [assuming Pro is also arguing for worldwide expansion] would cost literally billions. And the costs of damage to the environment and the considerably negative health effects on people significantly outweigh any "benefits". Regarding what nuclear can do to people, one can also take the example of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings in which approximately 200,000 mostly innocent civilians were killed. It wasn't just the case that people were immediately wiped off the earth, rather there was prolonged and widespread suffering as a result of the nuclear. This provides another piece of evidence in the damage that nuclear can cause, and expanding on what we already have more or less equates making it more accessible and increasing the possibility of such events happening again. Rather than building on the nuclear energy that we have, we should be looking at improving standards and ensuring it is used as safely and responsibly as possible. To reiterate once more, these costs enter the billions for each power plan and nuclear building activity [7.] http://www.smh.com.au...In the U.K alone the cost of actually clearing up the nuclear waste has reached a huge 47.9 billion [8.] http://www.dailymail.co.uk... So again, if we were to develop the nuclear energy that we already have and build more power stations; the financial cost would substantially increase.