Cloud Seeding Should Be Used
Debate Rounds (3)
Often times, cloud seeding does not achieve the desired effect, and produces harmful side effects. These include
-Silver Iodide Toxicity
Silver Iodide is a chemical found in much higher quantities in seeded cloud rain then regular cloud rain. The Office of Environment, Health and Safety, UC Berkeley, rates silver iodide as a Class C, non-soluble, inorganic, hazardous chemical that pollutes water and soil. Your sources were wrong in telling you that it was not harmful to the environment, because it very much is. Seeded clouds have hazardous chemicals that pollute water and the soil. This can be harmful to animals and plants alike. This is an article describing the effects of Silver Iodide on the human body:
"Chronic Exposure/Target Organs: Chronic ingestion of iodides may produce "iodism", which may be manifested by skin rash, running nose, headache and irritation of the mucous membranes. Weakness, anemia, loss of weight and general depression may also occur. Chronic inhalation or ingestion may cause argyria characterized by blue-gray discoloration of the eyes, skin and mucous membranes. Chronic skin contact may cause permanent discoloration of the skin"
In conclusion, cloud seeding should not be used worldwide. This is because it is harmful to the environment and animals, and the rain from the seeded clouds is high in harmful chemicals.
According to the Colorado National Park Service, the result of cloud seeding Silver Iodide runoff has had adverse effects on the soil and vegetation. Testing the rainwater has also been a faulty and hazardous experience. According to the PGCD, since they can't control where the seeded clouds dump water, the sampling process is nearly impossible. Many ecosystems may be harmfully affected by the seeded clouds we don't even know about. Since the contaminated water sinks into soil and can runoff into streams and other bodies of water, it doesn't make sense the dangerous chemical wouldn't harm aquatic or land animals. If it has such dangerous effects on humans, the same should happen with any organism. Saying it doesn't harm the organisms would be going against facts I have found on several websites.
As for the dry ice method, unless you can give to me a specific example where this has worked, I have no way of knowing if the dry ice would help anything.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bsh1 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||5|
Reasons for voting decision: Con successfully shows the possible harms of cloud seeding. Pro's only response is that dry ice could be used as a safer alternative, but provides not examples, statistics, or any in-round evidence for that claim. Pro is essentially committing an ipse dixit fallacy. Args go Con. Sources to Con for using them.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.