Debate Rounds (4)
It will gives us many risk, for our environment or our health.
So I do BELIEVE, nuclear is HARMFUL !
Nuclear should be banned !
In 4th round, only tell the weakness of opponent arguments. NO NEW ARGUMENT !
"The real issue is that the use of nuclear power and nuclear weapons is forcing humankind, and indeed the whole ecosystem, to participate in a particularly cruel and totally uncontrolled experiment. Given the scientific evidence that there is no safe dose of radiation, this is an experiment that has already gone awry"
The real question is whether we, as a human race, can afford in good conscience to risk annihilation with our continued reliance on nuclear technology. Can we continue to despoil our environment with long-lived radioactive materials that are scattered to the wind and embedded in our precious soil, randomly exposing large populations, and foisting health impacts on unsuspecting future generations who have no choice in this matter?
We may choose to do so. But if we do, I am quite sure that our children and grandchildren will roundly condemn us for our lack of foresight and our selfishness. As they struggle to deal with a poisonous environment and waste that must be safeguarded for thousands of years, they will certainly wonder what possessed us to do this.
We must choose to halt this process. To do this we need to" make a dramatic and rapid retreat from the use of nuclear power to generate electricity."
In healthy side
If nuclear reactor explod, it can KILL everyone who effected by the radioactive which exploded.
You can see, Chernobyl in Ukraine. That's because the nuclear reactor explode, and now Chernobyl became a ghost town! and no one of us can enter the area that was contaminated radioactive.
The people who effected by radioactive, will effected by many disease.
1. Hair: Hair will disappear quickly when exposed to radiation at 200 Rems or more. (REMS is a unit of force radioactive)
2. Brain: brain cells will not be damaged directly unless exposed to radiation measuring 5000 REMS or more. Like the heart, radiation kills nerve cells and blood vessels and can cause seizures and sudden death.
3. Thyroid: thyroid gland is very susceptible to radioactive iodine. In a certain amount, radioactive iodine can destroy all or part of the thyroid.
4. Circulatory system: when a person is exposed to radiation about 100 Rems, blood lymphocyte count will be reduced, making the victim more susceptible to infection. Early symptoms are like the flu. According to current data explosion Nagasaki and Hiroshima, showed symptoms can last for 10 years and may have long-term risks such as leukemia and lymphoma.
5. Heart: when exposed to radiation measuring Rems 1000 to 5000 will result in direct damage to blood vessels and can lead to heart failure and sudden death.
6. Digestive tract: the radiation power of 200 Rems will cause damage to the lining of the intestinal tract and can cause nausea, vomiting and bloody diarrhea.
7. Reproductive Tract: reproductive tract will damage the reproductive tract enough to power under 200 Rems. In the long term, radiation victims will experience infertility.
Seeing the danger the impact of radioactive radiation, the Japanese government immediately set idle following a potential radioactive leaks at five nuclear reactors at two locations. Three thousand residents living around the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear reactor with a radius of 10 km immediately evacuated.
As many as 14,000 residents who lived in the eastern part sea Japan's still in locations Daiichi, helped also evacuated after got a warning of Tokyo Electric Power Co.
THINK MORE, SIR ! I BELIEVE YOU'RE CARE TO OUR HEALTH AND OUR ENVIRONMENT !
knighft forfeited this round.
Because here, there are many scientist did the reasearch about this.
1. Arjun Makhijani, PhD, President of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, wrote in the executive summary to his July 2007 book Carbon- Free and Nuclear-Free: A Roadmap for US Energy Policy, available at www.ieer.org:
"[A] zero-CO2 U.S. economy can be achieved within the next thirty to fifty years without the use of nuclear power and without acquiring carbon credits from other countries. In other words, actual physical emissions of CO2 from the energy sector can be eliminated with technologies that are now available or foreseeable"
The U.S. renewable energy resource base is vast and practically untapped. Available wind energy resources in 12 Midwestern and Rocky Mountain states equal about 2.5 times the entire electricity production of the United States. North Dakota, Texas, Kansas, South Dakota, Montana, and Nebraska each have wind energy potential greater than the electricity produced by all 103 U.S. nuclear power plants. Solar energy resources on just one percent of the area of the United States are about three times as large as wind energy, if production is focused in the high insolation areas in the Southwest and West"
Baseload power can be provided by geothermal and biomass-fueled generating stations. Intermediate loads in the evening can be powered by solar thermal power plants which have a few hours of thermal energy storage built in.
Finally, new batteries can enable plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles"
With the right combination of technologies, it is likely that even the use of coal can be phased out, along with nuclear electricity.
Complete elimination of CO2 could occur as early as 2040. Elimination of nuclear power could also occur in that time frame."
2. stated the following in a July 15-17, 2008 online debate titled "Is Nuclear Power Essential to Addressing Climate Change and Energy Independence?," published on www.newtalk.org:
"[I]s there 'enough potential in energy efficiency and renewable energy such as solar and wind that we can do what we have to do on climate based on them alone, without building new [nuclear] power plants?'"the answer, on a pure resource basis, is clearly yes. The US has enough potentially recoverable efficiency savings and renewable energy resources"direct solar radiation, indirect solar radiation, wind, geothermal, biomass, small hydro, and wave-tidal energy, to eventually power the entire US economy, essentially indefinitely, without nuclear or coal."
3. Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen, MSc, Senior Scientist at Ceedata Consultancy, et al., wrote in the Oxford Research Group's Mar. 2007 research report "Secure Energy? Civil Nuclear Power, Security and Global Warming," available at www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk:
"Global warming is without doubt humanity"s greatest challenge. In responding to this challenge, we need to accept that radical action is needed. Nuclear power has been put forward as part of a sensible energy policy for reducing CO2 emissions, sometimes by unexpected people including Patrick Moore, the co-founder of Greenpeace. Given the way this claim is reported it is understandable that many people assume that it is correct. This assumption can and should be questioned"
The claim of the nuclear industry that nuclear power emits low levels of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is not based on scientifically verifiable evidence. Emissions of greenhouse gases other than CO2, often with Global Warming Potentials many thousands of times larger than carbon dioxide, by nuclear power never have been investigated and/or published. Absence of data definitely does not mean absence of greenhouse gas emissions"
It is true that the operation of a nuclear reactor emits virtually no CO2, but this is not true of the nuclear power system as a whole [mining and processing of uranium and the construction of the nuclear power plant itself]"Our calculations indicate that within 45 to 70 years (depending on the scenario) nuclear power will emit as much CO2 emissions as a gas-fired power plant"
If the full nuclear chain [mining and processing of uranium and the construction of the nuclear power plant itself] is taken into account, as it should be, nuclear power emits much more carbon dioxide per delivered kilowatt-hour than wind power"
[T]he evidence presented in this report constitutes a case against building new nuclear power stations and for halting nuclear reprocessing altogether."
from that research we can conclude, using nuclear reactor for the electricity doesn't reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
And I do believe, using nuclear for electricity will give us many risk in terms of health, environment, economical, and human resources.
In economical, that it will spend big money. because we need a good technology to protect the nuclear reactor, and to decrease unsecure facility. We know, to make / buy it, it's not cheap absolutely it is EXPENSIVE !
The fact in Finlandia, to make new reactor that can until "1,5 billions. And if the nuclear reactor explode, we need the money again. The fact that in Chernobyl acident, government there spend the money until "358 billions.
So, THINK IT OVER, SIR !
Human Resources :
We need high quality human resources. High quality for the brain, for their decipline, and many more.
The fatc that, the Chernobyl acident it's because the human error. so, we need high quality human in this case to decrease the human error. So the acident will not happen.
Actually, to find the high quality human resources is not EASY! If you you think we can teach the people about nuclear, is not easy as you think. we need the money again to teach the people. LET THINK IT OVER, SIR.
I DO BELIEVE, NUCLEAR REACTOR ONLY GIVE THE ADVANTAGE IN ELECTRICITY. BUT THE RISK OF NUCLEAR REACTOR NOT ONLY IN TERMS OF HEALTH, BUT ALSO ENVIRONMENT, ECONOMICAL, AND HUMAN REASOURCES!
VOTE CONS! VOTE CONS! VOTE CONS! VOTE CONS! VOTE CONS! VOTE CONS! VOTE CONS! VOTE CONS! VOTE CONS! VOTE CONS! VOTE CONS! VOTE CONS! VOTE CONS! VOTE CONS! VOTE CONS! VOTE CONS! VOTE CONS! VOTE CONS! VOTE CONS! VOTE CONS! VOTE CONS! VOTE CONS! VOTE CONS! VOTE CONS! VOTE CONS! VOTE CONS! VOTE CONS! VOTE CONS! VOTE CONS! VOTE CONS! VOTE CONS! VOTE CONS! VOTE CONS! VOTE CONS! VOTE CONS! VOTE CONS! VOTE CONS! VOTE CONS! VOTE CONS! VOTE CONS! VOTE CONS! VOTE CONS! VOTE CONS! VOTE CONS! VOTE CONS! VOTE CONS! VOTE CONS! VOTE CONS! VOTE CONS! VOTE CONS! VOTE CONS!
knighft forfeited this round.
And SUN also use the nuclear energy to blame itself. and every creature in earth needs sun energy indirectly or directly, and this fact is admitted certainly by every scientist. So I think nuclear energy is one thing to conquer for ideal energy.
So I support using nuclear energy.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Gaurdian_Rock 3 years 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:||7||0|
Reasons for voting decision: FF
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.