Nuclear Power

I will be debating the Con position of. .. .well, I'm not quite sure. I'm going to use this round to untangle Pro's opening statement, as the resolution "Nuclear Power" is a bit broad and vague. I'll take them one sentence at a time. 1. "I would like to argue that Nuclear power as a technology, which have been largely underrated due to events such as Chernobyl, is detrimental to the environment more so than the danger radioactive substances. " Pro first argues that nuclear power, as a technology, which h(as) been largely underrated due to events such as Chernobyl, is detrimental to the environment more so that the danger(ous? ) radioactive substances. Before we can make any sense out of this, we need to define what 'the danger radioactive substances' are. If Pro is referencing the dangerous radioactive substances that are produced as a by product of nuclear reactors, then his first statement could be interpreted as saying that Nuclear power, as a technological idea (as contrasted by physical manifestations of that technology, such as a nuclear reactor) is detrimental to the environment more so than radioactive substances produced by actual applications of Nuclear technology. That is to say, that the idea of Nuclear power is more dangerous than the actual radiation it produces. This is an absurd point to hold, and I would hope that this was not the intended meaning behind the statement. If this is not the case, then the 'danger radioactive substances' must be external from those produced as a by product of nuclear power as a technology, which would suggest that Pro is referencing radioactive elements that occur naturally in the environment. He would then be arguing that the idea of nuclear technology is more dangerous than the dangerous radioactive substances found in nature. I would countermand this argument by stating that a technological idea or advancement is not inherently dangerous until put into physical application, and I may have to pursue that idea further if this was in fact my opponent's meaning. 2. "Although nuclear fission reactors have the downside of producing radioactive substances which take decades to decay to safe levels of emissions, Nuclear power has otherwise a safe history, and it could be argued has produced hardly and pollution relative to conventional fuel sources. " Here it is a bit easier to define a clear resolution made by Pro. I am interpreting this to mean that, other than the unfortunate property of radioactivity displayed by the waste produced in a nuclear reaction, nuclear power has had an otherwise safe history, and when compared to other conventional fuel sources, has produced less pollution. "Pollution" is a hard idea to quantify, I'm unsure if we are debating physical tonnage of pollutant, or the area affected by said pollution. Perhaps the number of people affected? I think 'detrimental to the environment' would be a bit clearer, but even then, are we talking in terms of area? Time the affected area is damaged? I could counter any of my opponents arguments to the contrary by positing that the effects of nuclear radiation are far more permanent than those caused by conventional fuel sources, and that the measure for danger must be hinged upon severity of the damage, rather than the amount of area it affects. So, to assemble all this into some kind of definable position: The resolution seems to be "Nuclear Power", which isn't really enough of a statement to debate. My opponent has taken a Pro position, which I am taking to mean that he is arguing in favor of nuclear power, all of its effects and applications as a whole. His major points seem to be: 1. Nuclear power, as a technology, has been demonized due to events like Chernobyl, and is in actuality less dangerous than radioactive isotopes produced by Nuclear reactors. 2. Other than producing dangerous radioactive waste as a by product, nuclear power has had an otherwise safe history. 3. When compared to other conventional fuel sources, Nuclear power causes less pollution. I am unsure by what rules we should constitute a victory. If burden must fall on me, as Con, to refute each point individually, assuming that victory on any one point would lead to Pro winning the resolution "Nuclear Power: Yes. ", then I will attempt to refute each point above. If not, and just one point must be negated by me to achieve victory, then pick your favorite from below. 1. This statement is a near contradiction in itself. The position that nuclear technology as an abstract idea is more inherently dangerous than the aggregate of all the dangerous substances produced as by product of that technology is ludicrous. Even if I were to cede that an idea, in and of itself, can be harmful without being acted upon, there is no way that an idea can be more dangerous than the affects it itself produces. Nonsense. 2. For me to win this point, I must simply show one example other than the generic waste produced under normal operation when nuclear power has been demonstrably unsafe. A quick visit to wikipedia shows that between 1952 and 2009 there have been 99 accidents at nuclear power plants ". .. defined as incidents that either resulted in the loss of human life or more than US$50,000 of property damage, the amount the US federal government uses to define major energy accidents that must be reported" (source: wikipedia. com/wiki/Nuclear_Disasters) Anyway, I'll pick one at random. Ibaraki Prefecture, Japan. 2 people died, $54,000,000 in damages and cleanup. If that's not enough, I'll keep referencing then until it is, there are 98 more on the wiki alone. 3. I am hesitant to debate this point until we come to a more concise definition of 'pollution', but I put forward that if I can show one example of a conventional fuel source that is less 'polluting' than nuclear power, then I will have won this point. Again, I'll reach into the random hat and pull one. Wind power. I welcome my opponent's responses, I hope he can shed some light as to his position in this debate, and clarify a few points that I may more accurately countermand his stance.