Nuclear power Vs Natural Gas

~refutations~~CHERNOBYL~My opponent claims that we should not have access to this power due to the accident. Should we abandon one great power source based off of poor workers and a bad design? I have stated that poorly trained workers in a old and poor model are gonna defect. This debate seems to be american oriented as natural gas is mainly US and well that's where we are both from. Now, the US workers as I have stated get extensive training and need to get federal permits before working one of these plants. This decreases the chances of a Chernobyl accident, and the newer reactors are safer. Every US power plant has extensive emergency procedures to prevent and or stop this accident from occurring. [1] New regulations make it so that there is constant tests of the plant improving safety. [1] The NRC has regulations with plans leading to quick and good response to any nuclear power threat. [2] The NRC forces high quality designs and highly trained personnel to basically he a good defense is a good offense type deal. [3] They have structures that can be quickly accessed to contain the nuclear fuel. [3] The NRC requires plans to prevent these instances, plans to act if this ever happens, and other regulations forcing good nuclear power designs keeping the community safe and preventing accidents. [4] The NRC continually inspects the plants so any worn out materials will be replaced before its to late. [4] Nuclear power is safe to the public communities around the plants due to these precautions. [5]---> The point is that another problem like Chernobyl was due to untrained people and poor designs. This has been prevented by new regulations and newer designs and better training/ education. Another accident like this is unlikely if we have trained personnel. [6] Due to the fact their trained nowadays your scenario is false. ~Environment~My opponents refutations are not about environmental concerns, rather safety. This could be prevented with once again better design and personnel. [7] The earthquake that cause the plant to partially melt down was a 9.0 and japan was not expecting this. [7] Therefore other plants that actually are made to withstand this will not have these problems. The accident was due to failure of the cooling systems. [8] The FRC continually check these cooling mechanisms in the US to make sure their top quality. [9] This decreases the chance of a problem. [9] Also as I have stated the emergency plans have been updated in the US so if this happens here there will be an efficient response. The US is planning to make 30 new nuclear plants! [10] They are making 2 new plants as we speak, and these new plants are made to prevent all the types of meltdowns or problems, even fukushima. [11]----> The plants we have are not going away soon, and stalling the production of newer plants is detrimental, the newer plants are not likely to melt down and are very safe. Newer plants are, in fact, going to prevent the accidents my opponent has stated. The unsafe nuclear power is a myth!----> Just because Japan is getting rid of it means nothing as they will not likely switch to gas (unless if you have proof otherwise). Coal and oil are their largest electricity makers. [12] This will likely be their source as they have abundant coal in the region and import the majority of the gas, making it impractical for them. [12] This argument is odd. ----> My opponent dismissed the risks of gas. It pollutes water and air quality ALWAYS. Nuclear power generally has controlled problems. Only one accident (Chernobyl) was uncontained. [13] Accidents with nuclear power are rare, and their safety record is great. [13] Gas ALWAYS pollutes and hurts water, nuclear power very very very rarely breaks down. If you look at it from this perspective, gas is actually 100% of the time dangerous, therefore nuclear is safer. Many people die of lung cancer, natural gas often causes cancer, therefore gas kills people. [14] 36 people dies because of direct nuclear power problems. [15] Natural gas is a major power source. Natural gas is 24% of power generation, [16] due to that fact is it safe to assume gas has killed more people then nuclear through pollution of the air and water. --->conclusionNuclear is safe unlike my opponent has stated, and has likely killed fewer people then gas has, he has dropped many of my arguments from the second round and hasn't disproved the environmental effects or the safety of nuclear power. The fact is nuclear power is much safer then gas in all cases. I urge a PRO vote. http://www.google.com... Sources:http://www.nei.org... [1]http://www.nrc.gov... [2]http://www.nrc.gov... [3]http://www.nrc.gov... [4]http://www.nrc.gov... [5]http://www.msnbc.msn.com... [6]http://www.world-nuclear.org... [7]http://world-nuclear.org... [8]http://www.nrc.gov... [9]http://www.nei.org... [10]http://abcnews.go.com... [11]http://www.eia.gov... [12]http://en.wikipedia.org... [13]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [14]http://www.world-nuclear.org... [15]http://www.naturalgas.org... [16]