Nuclear power should be banned

~ WASTE ~Waste for SOLAR:Solar panels contain some of the most toxic metals in the business of electricity generation. [1] These modules last about 20 years so when you throw them out you are throwing out potentially toxic waste into the environment. [1]Waste from WIND: Other then the mining involved, the wastes for wind are another story: Money. [2] further more wind power can only power 500 homes per turbine on average. [3] So it is efficient and costly. Nuclear is one of the most efficient power sources. [4]Wastes from GEOTHERMAL:Actually geothermal has some radioactive waste products and emits many poisons gases into the air. [5]Wastes from HYDROELECTRIC: There is a lot of investment needed in hydroelectric costs and evaporate the water and displace local fish populations, and kill others. [6] So, all of his nothing statements are FALSE."Nuclear wastes are neither particularly hazardous nor hard to manage relative to other toxic industrial wastes." [7]"The amount of radioactive wastes is very small relative to wastes produced by fossil fuel electricity generation. " [7]"Nuclear power is the only large-scale energy-producing technology which takes full responsibility for all its wastes and fully costs this into the product. " [7]Really if waste is the main issue, then most electric industries should be banned, solar, and fossil fuels. If this is a major reason then we might as well say bye to all energy types. Now my opponent wants to ban coal?!?! Coal is a needed ingredient for steel making. [8] Still: If waste is an issue all fossil fuels and solar energies should be banned too. Your reasoning is very circular. Then my opponent talks about mercury. Actually it has lead and other metals that are linked to kidney and lung damage. [9] Solar panels are the FUTURE of toxic waste. Once again if waste is a problem then almost all energy types should be banned. This argument is all fallacious and has very circular reasoning. He drops all of my argument regarding SAFE waste disposal, regulations making it safe, and NRC and EPA checks making it safe. Actually the imports from china Solar cells hurt the US solar company's. [10] I found a whole bunch of economists on my side. Challenge accepted. ~Weapons! YAY! wait...~SPLITTING THE ATOM!!!!! MY opponent basically conceded here. Nuclear plants create nuclear fission which is where we let the atoms decay releasing photons and neutrons. [11] In that case, nuclear power has nothing to do with nuclear weapons, therefore you have basically unknowingly conceded. What you are referring to is known as a dirty bomb. [12] It is pop a grenade off goes the nuclear plant! The only way you can do this is if a crazy gets into the plant, there are many regulations, laws, and training that prevent this. [12] Also you then claim the plant can go boom like bomb, false. There are many barriers inside and outside of plants preventing these radiation leaks. [13]Also:Q. Can a nuclear plant explode like a nuclear weapon?A. " Absolutely not. A nuclear explosion is impossible in a commercial nuclear power plant. A power plant doesnâ€™t contain the type of fuel in the amount which is needed to make atomic bombs." [13]Your argument about weaponize is utterly false. Drops my enrichment argument.~jobs!~I seriously think your reasoning is well, a fallacy. Banning the power would mean thousands of people out of a job, and you try to claim it is ok. How? If they are fired they will not instantly get a job again! This reasoning is utterly false. Nuclear power has created new 15,000 jobs in only a few years, and solar only 7000. [14, 15] Nuclear power increases state economic worth and creates more revenues. [14] Even if other energies are better (name one in job creation), Nuclear still deserves to stay, and in my opinion your arguments are all just "I'm scared, so is Greenpeace, lets ban it" which is kind of a poor argument. ~cost~Um... OK he wants megawatts XD Nuclear in the US costs 67 cents per MWH. [16] On the table its the cheapest one except its tied with geothermal and barely over wind. Need I say more? (dang sources take up all the room... have to be brief). ~Safety~ Lol time for 3 miller! The amount of radiation exposure to people was so small it was harmless. [17] It gave less radiation exposure then an X-ray. [17] "There were no injuries or adverse health effects from the Three Mile Island accident. " [18] No accidents, little exposure, it must have been contained to only have this minor effects. He drops the majority of my round 2 case on the subject. ~Green~Emitting less pollutants is needed for a green energy! Preventing climate change is needed for being green. As I stated above Nuclear is actually very efficient (see above). My opponent claims I ignore the radiation. No I have not. I have stated many times how the workers keep it contained, have blocks preventing radiation leaks, and have proven many times that nuclear is safe. Also, you have cited no other single alternatives! Also, alternatives constitute a ban? If so then that is absurd! Macs in many peoples eyes are alternatives to PC's, wanna ban PC's? No. Wanna ban Macs because PC's may be alternatives? NO. The point is having alternatives doesn't constitute a ban, and I have proven the arguments of "crap radiation!" are false, and well fallacies. All of the arguments presented are circular as you have provided no reasons they are not green except for waste, I refuted this with great facts and you totally act like its not there and claim it is still dangerous. I have refuted all of this, and you have not countered my refutations. I am forced to extend much of my argument from round 3. Here's a pretty graph about polluting! http://world-nuclear.org... http://www.guardian.co.uk... [1]http://www.buffalonews.com... [2]http://library.thinkquest.org... [3]http://discovermagazine.com... [4]http://www.epa.gov... [5]http://ga.water.usgs.gov... [6]http://world-nuclear.org... [7]http://www.our-energy.com... [8]http://www.naturalnews.com... [9]http://mobile.bloomberg.com... [10]http://en.wikipedia.org... [11]http://www.nrc.gov... [12]http://www.nh.gov... [13]http://nei.org... [14]http://www.environmentalleader.com... [15]http://en.wikipedia.org... [16]http://www.nrc.gov... [17]http://www.world-nuclear.org... [18]