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

I regret that my opponent is disappointed with my debating style. However, should he wish for a different style debate, it might have been useful for him to stipulate so in his opening post and I would have been more than happy to oblige. There are many things I am but mind reader is not one of them. I will now address my opponent's contentions point by point. My opponent's numbered points: 1. My opponent has not shown that nuclear energy gives us more "bang for our buck" in an environmental sense. He has contended that nuclear power is more environmentally friendly than fossil fuel power. He has done so, I might add, by providing us with information (including statistical information) without adequately quoting a single source. Be that as it may, he has not addressed a single one of the many non-nuclear options other than fossil fuel power. He now contends that the Three Mile Island incident in 1979 has resulted in no deaths and no illness because of "stringent safety laws". He has not shown any causation between such laws and his contention. Additionally, he appears to completely disregard the fact that some 200,000 people were forced to evacuate during the incident. He claims that there were no deaths. And yet a study conducted by Prof Sternglass at the University of Pittsburgh concludes that the incident was responsible for 430 INFANT DEATHS (. http://www.lutins.org...). 2. My opponent says that other energy options (such as the ones I have proposed) are not available because the "technology does not exist on a broad enough scale". With respect, what I am proposing is that instead of investing billions of dollars into building new nuclear power stations (this construction will take significant time, I might add), we invest that money to MAKE those alternatives available on a broad enough scale. He then goes on to say that ONLY 8.5 percent of nuclear incidents have occurred since 1990. This is, he says, a testament to the fact that nuclear technology has advanced. No doubt it has. Does it make it safe? No, it does not. 8.5% of incidents is 8.5% of incidents. Radioactive spillage has huge destructive potential. 8.5% is 8 percent too many. It is true that fossil fuels are becoming more expensive. However, it is equally true that wind, solar and other options are becoming progressively cheaper. 3. As I said above, I am not a mind reader. That being said, it appears my opponent believes he is. He now claims to know what I "don't want to tell you". And what I allegedly don't want to tell you is that the disastrous incident at Columbia River took place in the 1940's, he claims. Well, I have resourced that. It's linked to a source. If anyone clicked on it, they would know when it happened. Did it happen in the 1940's? No, it did not. It happened between the 1944 and 1966. It was known in 1948 but remained classified and the pollution was allowed to continue. It is true that that was a long time ago. It was the most serious example from a long list of examples of nuclear incidents with varying degrees of risk and damage. These incidents have taken place throughout the last 70 years, beginning in the 1940s and going into the current century. This point was made to contradict my opponent's claimed safety of nuclear power. He claimed in his first argument that there was not a single serious incident. In fact there were many. A good record of the last 5 years is nothing to give us any sense of security, unless my opponent can show that a serious incident is impossible and WHY it is impossible. Otherwise, we remain with the status quo and that is that nuclear power carries with it risks that are nothing short of humongous. Other points: 4. Chernobyl. My opponent claims that this incident was the product of Soviet incompetence. He appears to be saying that the Soviets were inherently incompetent while the Americans are inherently competent. What I have demonstrated was that the ultimate disaster (meltdown) carries with it horrendous consequences. Has he demonstrated that this could not happen in the USA? No, he has not. Has he demonstrated that the US is more competent? No he has not. All he has done is referred to a (disproved by me) clean record. Well, prior to Chernobyl, a meltdown had not occurred in the USSR either. Could they have claimed back in 1985 that they have a good record and therefore it will not happen? I contend they could, very much like my opponent does now. 5. My opponent then goes on to repeat the woes of fossil fuel power and completely disregards the alternatives I have suggested. 6. At the end, my opponent claims that all I am trying to do is scare you with the events of the past. Two aspects to this: a) It was my opponent himself who had misrepresented the past and attempted to use it as evidence of how safe nuclear power is. I am therefore very much entitled to use the past to demonstrate otherwise; b) One of my opponent's main 3 contentions was that nuclear power is safe. I have shown otherwise. I have shown that it has been anything BUT safe. My opponent has done nothing to demonstrate why and now it is acceptably safer now. In conclusion, nuclear power carries with it huge risks. No evidence has been presented that those have been substantially alleviated. No evidence or argument has been presented to discount other non-fossil alternatives, even though I have argued that those are safer, more environmentally friendly and progressively cheaper. Therefore my opponent's case fails on two of his own grounds: environmental friendliness and safety.