Nuclear power.

== Rebuttal == (1) Pro says Chernobyl led to 200,000 deaths. According to recent studies, the actual number is much higher: 985,000 people died. [17] [19] Even if the number is 200,000, that's still a massive impact. The consequence of a nuclear meltdown is an unacceptable risk. (2) Pro says the "overriding message for nuclear" is to "assess what went wrong, and work to make sure it doesn't happen again." The problem is that there's no guarantees it won't happen again. The reality is that nuclear power is extremely dangerous and there's nothing we can do to mitigate that risk entirely. (3) Pro offers evidence of the Pacific Bluefin Tuna as an example of a "deadly dangerous 'fallout' from the Fukushima disaster." The impact of that evidence seems to weigh in my favor, so I'm not gonna spend more time there. (4) Pro suggests that radiation isn't bad for us, because his son eats tons of bananas, but that's simply not what's at stake here. The radiation that comes from nuclear power, from nuclear waste or from a nuclear meltdown, causes death. The radiation used on bananas is calculated to ripen bananas quickly, but it's also calculated to remain at a safe level for consumption. (5) Pro makes an argument about the land affected by a disaster. For example, Pro notes that a bigger chunk of land than Florida was affected by Chernobyl. That's a chunk of land bigger than Florida that can't grow food or can't be used to sustain life. Pro says one day we might -- the key word there is "might" -- have technology to clean up disasters. However, these technologies are untested, and some might -- yes, "might" -- carry even greater risks. There's no way to know. The onus is on Pro, not the rest of us, to demonstrate the safety of these technologies, as well as their effectiveness. Furthermore, note that the technology doesn't exist today, so it's ultimately speculation. Technology that doesn't exist today isn't justification for investing in nuclear today. Finally, clean-up technologies that technology won't guarantee that disasters don't happen -- it just means we can use the land sooner than we otherwise could AFTER the disaster has already happened. (6) Pro makes an argument about the waste from nuclear power. I'm not sure what the argument is. He seems to be suggesting that we store nuclear waste in our backyards, specifically 2 pounds each. Except that number's gonna keep growing as nuclear waste increases. That argument is simply insane and unsustainable. Pro says the casks are safe, but anyone who says nuclear waste is entirely safe simply misunderstands the nature of nuclear waste. Contingencies can't be predicted ahead-of-time, which is why storage is such a big problem. The waste from nuclear power lasts thousands of years. And note: storing that waste effectively not only costs money, but it also poses a serious environmental problem. The Yucca Mountain plan isn't ever going to happen. Pro frames the issue as solely political, but it's more than that; it's the fact that it's so expensive and time-consuming. Waste storage isn't just political (i.e. we don't want waste in our backyards); it's also about the economics. == My Advocacy == Pro seems to have dropped my main arguments. Specifically, Pro drops my argument about the economic costs of nuclear. The costs include building the plants, storing waste, decommissioning plants, securing plants from terrorism, insurance, mining uranium, and then running the plants. Most of these costs must be passed onto taxpayers, because they're too high for private investors to choose nuclear power. I want to emphasize this point: The market prefers other options. That is one of the most important reasons to prefer renewables; they're not only cleaner and safer but also cheaper. Pro also drops my argument about nuclear power's vulnerability to terrorism, the risk of weaponized uranium, and the vulnerability to climate change. Finally, Pro ignores climate change almost entirely, including my argument that renewables are a better solution. Extend all these arguments. There's simply no reason to prefer nuclear over renewables, since renewables are proven clean, safer, and cheaper. They're available and they carry none of the risks associated with nuclear. == Sources == [19] http://www.globalresearch.ca...