Australia Should Go Nuclear

Since this is the final round of the debate, this is the place where I will provide my sources. Considering that my opponent has provided no real sources, the evidence point in this debate should obviously go to the CON. Now, we move on to the final rebuttal in this debate: The only thing that my opponent has done in order to respond to my arguments about the environment and the public with regard to exposure of uranium radiation, the only thing that my opponent does is provides the iteration of the safety regulations for the disposal of nuclear waste rather than how effective the regulations are, which is what I was explaining throughout the course of my point about nuclear waste. My opponent in no way responds to that point, and at this level, it's clear that this point remains extended along with the point about mining for uranium, which also has remained unargued. Therefore, it is clear that not only that these points are still strong but I have effectively shown already that there are more disadvantages to nuclear energy than advantages, meaning that I am already winning on the argumentation aspect of this debate. My opponent basically capitalizes on the idea that nuclear reactors are created to be super-strong and whatnot. I don't disagree with that at all. The question that my opponent does not respond to in any way is about the effects that would come if somehow this event would occur. My opponent, for one thing, doesn't really defend the idea that nuclear power plants are completely safe when comparing to Chernobyl and Fukishima because does not explain why these events are just sporadic and a result of mistreatment. My opponent states that nuclear power plants have domes that can resist earthquakes, but it was an earthquake that cracked the Fukishima power plant and caused the radiation to leak out. My opponent basically describes power plants as safe when we have seen the negative effects of a total nuclear meltdown from Chernobyl, causing hundreds of deaths due to the radiation. It's clear that accidents can still occur, and when they do, they are disastrous at the very least.Reasons for voting CON:This debate comes down to three things:-The safety of nuclear power plants-The disposal of nuclear waste-The mining of uranium in order to power nuclear plants.The CON is actuality addresses the fact that nuclear power plants can cause catastrophic damage if a meltdown or natural disasters were to occur while my opponent only goes on about how it's really safe and whatnot, and the CON also takes the argument about the disposal of nuclear waste considering that my opponent only emphasizes on the regulations in place rather than the effectiveness thereof. My opponent in no way addresses the mining of uranium, meaning that the CON also takes this point. Resources:Mudd, Gavin M. "Uranium Mining: Australia and Globally." Energyscience, Nov. 2006. Web. <http://www.energyscience.org.au...;. "Environmental Aspects of Uranium Mining: WNA." World Nuclear Association. Feb. 2011. Web. 14 Feb. 2012. http://world-nuclear.org.... "Radioactive Waste: What Health Effects or Risks?" 53 (2005). Web. <http://www.cea.fr...;. "Uranium Mining Case Studies." EARTHWORKS. Earthworks. Web. 14 Feb. 2012. <http://www.earthworksaction.org...;