Nuclear power should be banned

Yay, I managed to get this short enough at last!I thank con for getting this going. In doing this debate, I follow in the great tradition of New Zealand's former prime minister David Lange. In 1985 at Oxford Union, in a debate so intense even the US president tuned in, he fought against Jerry Falwell, a noted friend of then-US-president Ronald Regan, arguing against the motion "nuclear weapons are morally indefensible". Lange became the first person in decades to recieve a standing ovation from both sides of the house [1]. Today I am arguing against nuclear energy. Not just big civilian nuclear power plants. Not just nuclear weapons. Not just nuclear clocks or submarines. I argue that the use of nuclear power in all its forms is morally indefensible.After Lange's awesome speech, New Zealand abolished nuclear weapons. Despite claims by the US that we'd need nuclear power plants, nuclear submarines patrolling our shores, and so on and so forth, we have remained nuclear free to this day [2]. And guess what? We're not facing an energy crisis. Our national defense is far less at risk than that of every single nuclear country. And our people have never regretted the decision.Recently, Germany, a major nuclear nation, said they will move toward doing the same as New Zealand by 2022. So far progress has been good, indicating that it is not beyond the realm of possibility for other large nations to follow our lead.Today, I argue that such a model would be beneficial to the whole world, for one simple moral reason. Every nuclear device, when it generates energy, generates waste that we cannot safely dispose of. Take, for instance, the United States in America. The very latest in nuclear technology. The wisest of scientists and engineers. And yet even they dispose of most of their waste by throwing it to the bottom of swimming pools. Incredulously, some people at the NAS actually bothered to examine whether this was dangerous or not, and their results were exactly as you would expect [3]. Some waste is thrown to the bottom of "sealed" tunnels, and my opponent's source suggests this is ideal (though they agree it is not what's currently happening due to "political will"). But consider this - the EPA was recently told, in America, that many of their nuclear deposits could last a million years [4]. No seal can survive that long. Even pure diamond, several meters thick would crack and break, just as all the diamonds from the past million years have cracked and broken. The ground may be stable now, but as it has been unstable in the past million years, so too will it be unstable again.The problem with the waste is that it's radioactive. According to almost every expert, there is no safe level of radioactivity [5]. A Geiger counter only measures how quickly you are approaching your death. We know that miners and plant workers who recieved only mild doses of radiation have died of various cancers [6]. People die from nuclear energy, even when done correctly (mind you, human error doesn't help).Construction costs are rising, construction is taking longer, operational costs are rising [8], and while there are promising next-generation reactors (some of which my opponent mentioned) they should not be legalised for construction until they have been properly scientifically tested. All this is to fund the creation of over 12.3 million kilograms of toxic waste every year, from the United States alone [7]. No renewable energy source has a by-product that dangerous or large. This is immoral, because of the heavy cost in human lives. Just as nuclear weapons are bad because of the immediate cost in human lives, so nuclear power is bad because of the long-term cost in human lives. Never forget that just one month before Chernobyl, the Economist said nuclear power was "as safe as a chocolate factory."The danger of nuclear weapons is already well-known. A nuclear power station is nothing more than an extremely slow nuclear weapon, not designed to unleash its power in one explosion, but designed slowly to poison.And now on to con's case.Con gives four reasons why recklessly and dangerously polluting the world is OK. I'll deal with them in reverse order. Jobs, his fourth point, is moot because any jobs lost from not having nuclear might equally be gained from having another power source. So instead of people checking on the safety of nuclear reactors, perhaps they can employ engineers to monitor tidal energy constructions.Thirdly con says we get cheap electricity. The US Department of Energy researched this in their "Levelized Cost of New Generation Resources in the Annual Energy Outlook 2011". They found that an advanced nuclear power plant could produce electricity at $109-$124 per megawatt hour. That's cheap - but wind energy was only $81-$115. Geothermal was only $91-$115. Hyrdoelectric was $58-$121. Biomass, still in its infancy, was already just $99-$133. So clearly nuclear is far from the cheapest option! Con's sources are largely from the lobby group "World Nuclear Association" - in their words, they are "promoters" and "supporters" of nuclear energy [9] so not exactly an unbiased group! Their membership is comprised of companies who all have a financial stake in nuclear power [10]. Just because my opponent sources some assertions by this unscientific lobby group doesn't mean their claims hold water. His only other relevant source states "I’m quite frankly more interested in cheaper solar and fuel cell options, which is where I think the primary future of energy generation is headed (with some supplementation from wind and geothermal)" (emphasis added).Secondly con says nuclear power is safe. I agree completely that nuclear is just as safe as other energy. The only problem is that when a solar panel breaks down, a couple of people moan because the electricity goes out. When a nuclear plant breaks down, the whole planet jumps up and starts screaming. As I've already sourced, nuclear plants are on a trend of becoming more expensive, countering that part of the argument. And his Wikipedia source about workers being competant states there is a serious accident once every 8 years or so. When dealing with things so contaminative, so dangerous, this is completely unacceptable. And con thinks he can hold these things for a million years after they're in the plant without anything ever going wrong! And we can keep making advancements with my exemption for scientific research. Until we know how to properly contain the waste, we should not deal with it.Firstly, con says nuclear energy is cleaner. There is a danger, I think, of environmentalism being confused with climate change. Climate change is one problem - we face MANY more, including a radiation-filled environment which causes cancers and death. So while nuclear emits less CO2 than solar (if you foolishly exclude construction emmissions and refinement emmissions), the point is that they have a wildly different effect on the environment anyway. I believe renewability may be a problem (uranium is a finite resource) but even if nuclear power was totally sustainable, the sustained destruction of our planet and people would be still worse than temporary destruction. And that thing he says about waste being safe and containable... oh look, that's another unsupported assertion from our new favorite lobby group, the World Nuclear Association. Nuclear power is not green.All of con's arguments just don't hold water.Recently the world has been angry at Iran for developing nuclear technology. I think they're right, but the rest of the world shouldn't be so hypocritic about it! Nuclear power is dangerous. I'll continue my case in a moment, once con has had a chance to respond.Sources1 - http://goo.gl...2 - http://goo.gl...3 - http://goo.gl...4 - http://goo.gl...5 - http://goo.gl...6 - http://goo.gl...7 - calculated from figures given at http://goo.gl...8 - http://goo.gl...9 - http://goo.gl...10- http://goo.gl...