Nuclear power should be banned

To voters, don't think that just because con cited a million lobby groups he has any credibility. He has misquoted and twisted sources, as I have shown, quoted personal opinions of lobby group members as facts, and ignored almost all of my sources. But on to what actually matters in the debate - the arguments:WasteFirst, on solar energy. I've already said solar panels can be safely recycled. My opponent's source is an article detailing how solar companies are setting up recycling programmes. Con also drops pretty much all of my counter-arguments from last round, such as how their quantity is much smaller than nuclear and how we aren't "throwing out" anything, only REMOVING these dangerous chemicals from the environment and putting them into solar cells. Second, on wind energy. Hey look, it's a new argument in round four! My opponent claims wind is a waste of money. Well, that's much better from a moral perspective than a waste of human lives, which is what nuclear does! My opponent's main source that wind is a waste of money is a letter to the editor of a newspaper expressing an extremist opinion (and the author is the executive director of an organisation sponsored by nuclear lobbyists called "Great Lakes Wind Truth"). I've already provided evidence that wind is not any more costly than nuclear, and in fact the US government says it's cheaper. The wind lobbyists claim their turbines cost only five cents per kwh (cheaper than coal by a mile! ) [1], and I think they'd know better than the nuclear lobbyists. 500 homes is quite a bit considering that most wind farms have hundreds, if not thousands of turbines. Third, my opponent notes radiation occurs with geothermal energy. Wow, more new arguments. That's because geothermal requires an energy input - usually it requires about 1kw for a geothermal plant to generate 5kw. In the USA (con's source is from the US government), this initial current is usually generated with a nuclear reactor. I say - why not do what NZ does, and use hydroelectric or wind to generate that initial 1kw? No radiation is generated as part of the geothermal generation process, and NO byproducts are generated unless it's broken (waste fluid is re-injected back into the Earth). Fourth, hydroelectric. As with wind energy, don't believe con's assertions that it's more expensive. It isn't. Fish population displacement is a problem, so any potential site would need to be evaluated for this purpose to check that fish can still breed etc. Many newer hydroelectric dams have elaborate systems to allow fish to be elevated up and down the dam, circumventing this problem. Next my opponent sources three more lobby-group assertions (seriously, stop quoting World Nuclear! ) to boost his sources count. All three assertions I have already countered. It's not just that waste is the main issue. It's the danger that the waste poses to human lives. Con has never specifically addressed this fact. No other industry has so much waste - indeed, no green energy has ANY toxic byproducts from electricity generation. I never said I wanted to ban coal, I said I'm against coal power plants, so my opponent's coal assertions are irrelevant. I didn't drop any of the argument concerning safe waste disposal because it didn't exist. My opponent made no case in round three that it was safe except for a breif assertion that I answered with reference to a scientific study that I had already cited. Regulations do not make waste safe. No regulation can stop a major environmental disaster breaking them open, or the radiation that we KNOW is leaking out. More importantly, no regulation IS doing it. Also I did talk about Lead at the same time as I talked about Mercury - ever used a lead-acid battery, con? And about the economists who don't like solar cells, the Chinese point out that to make the solar panels they use American equipment, and sell them to America so that America can make money off them. It's really a win-win for both countries. Also my opponent confused exports and imports last round. I guess some economists really are stupid. .. [2]WeaponsMy weapons analogy was not to show that a nuclear power plant behaves like a nuclear weapon. My point was to show that they are the same except one is operating in a controlled fashion. That's not conceeding the debate, or even the argument. Con has never even addressed the point. I'm not referring to a dirty bomb or any explosive device at all. I'm just saying that the same dangerous effects felt by places around a nuclear bomb in ten seconds are felt in places around a nuclear power plant in 1000 years or so. JobsI said in round one that I would not instantly fire all nuclear workers. There are many jobs in decommissioning plants (usually even more than are required for their running), plus there would be jobs in all the other things that would need decommissioning. That would give time for capital investment to flow into the clean energy sector and create the jobs. Nuclear power has created more jobs because they've had more investment - and despite this, wind and solar have had far more new capacity additions [3]. I've already proven that solar is better in terms of job creation (see last round). It's not just that I'm scared. It's that there are tangible harms to me being right, and tangible benefits to following my model even if I'm wrong. More jobs is a tangible benefit of following my model. CostAgain, my opponent shows his ineptitude at reading sources. It doesn't say 67 cents, it says 67 dollars. And it included nuclear power plant tax breaks and subsidies. The study I cited did not include any government market manipulation and was therefore a much better way to evaluate relative costs. It also used a much larger number of data points, using the whole of the USA instead of just California. SafetyI've already provided a source proving that there is NO HARMLESS LEVEL OF RADIATION. Every tiny bit of radiation has some impact. X-rays last a few seconds at most - these people had to live with all that radiation for years! And his only source saying the contrary comes from World Nuclear's spin doctors, not the medical doctors whom I cited. On my opponent's round 2 case, I dealt with that in round 2, and my opponent did not respond - he dropped it, not me. GreenLess pollutants is needed - so why is con supporting a power generation system that creates 12.3 million kilograms of pollutants for his country alone? Preventing climate change is a start, but not polluting other aspects of the environment is part of environmentalism too. Just ask Lucy Lawless and her Arctic buddies. My opponent continuously reasserts that nuclear is safe, but he does so only by citing lobby group articles, when I have cited scientific research showing the opposite. He has given no responses to any of these. I have shown other alternatives (green energy), and that it is not the presence of alternatives that constitutes a ban, but the danger of the waste produced by nuclear. About the CO2 graph, I talked about CO2 in rounds 2 and 3 already, my opponent is still trying to get me to repeat myself. Finally, con claims my arguments are circular. Obviously he does not know what a circular argument is. None of my premises have made it into my conclusions. Anybody who has the vaguest understanding of formal logic will be able to see that. And then to claim that I haven't attempted to counter his refutations shows that he clearly hasn't even read any of my round 2 case and is just making stuff up. It's time that the world woke up to the dangers of nuclear energy. We cannot support a system that creates so much un-necessary waste when there are so many better alternatives available. That's why I'm proud to affirm the motion. Vote pro! Sources1 - goo. gl/0dm6a2 - goo. gl/Ami4W3 - goo. gl/YqHlE