CreateDebate


Debate Info

6
23
Yes No
Debate Score:29
Arguments:15
Total Votes:36
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (5)
 
 No (10)

Debate Creator

Malice(10) pic



Should we ban the civil use of nuclear power?

There are many people who think that the civil use of nuclear power is extremely dangerous (we can reacall many accidents such as the Chernobyl). But should civil nuclear power be banned?

Yes

Side Score: 6
VS.

No

Side Score: 23
1 point

Considering a) the high level of danger and b) the nuclear waste, we should ban the civil use of nuclear power and focus on alternative, renewable sources. Nuclear power is extremely dangerous and expensive, and we end up with nuclear waste, which is radioactive and we don't really know what to do with it.

Side: yes
coppersink(20) Disputed
2 points

In the short term while renewables are still being developed as a technology, nuclear is a very attractive option. It produces (when done correctly) no significant environmental impact (as oposed to burning fuels) and if treated properly can be safely disposed of. It should of course not be an either or between nuclear or anything else, but in the short term it is a viable option.

Side: No
1 point

Good, just what I was going to say.

For now it is a viable solution.

The problem is we tend not to pursue alternatives once we have an energy source.

We've known for decades that eventually we will run out of oil, and that it hurts the environment.

but we do nothing until the last minute.

And so I would support not using any nuclear energy even for the interim, as it would only be used as an excuse to not fully pursue renewable energy sources.

Side: No
1 point

Use the power of the sun - look up TRECS on google - we have a world infrastructure already in place (oil pipe lines) - there are places on the planet that are saturated in sunshine - the Sahara Desert for instance - if we covered .5% of the sahara in solar farms we could feed the entire worlds energy needs, by modifying existing pipe lines we could carry the suns energy to everyone!

One of the bi-products from this system is water! The Sahara could do with a drop or two!

ONE MILLION YEARS! thats how long the bi product of nuclear power remains dangerous!

The argument is not an argument! it is a power struggle and a globalisation issue!

Ferd

Side: yes
1 point

chernobyl and japan look at them both i mea baby's are still being born disformed that is all Im saying and should be all i have to say!

Side: yes
1 point

Nuclear Energy is very dangerous.

With a small mistake, it explodes.

We saw it in the Chernobyl disaster, becasue of the worker's mistakes, it killed a lot of people. And in Fukushima, a nuclear plant leaked causing many people to drink polluted water.

If nuclear energy does not guarantee safety, why is there a need to use such dangerous energy source when there are others?

Side: yes
garry77777(1796) Disputed
1 point

These debates are old, most of the people who these comments left this site a long time ago, but in response to your post:

Yes it is potentially dangerous, but it a lot safer than you think.

"With a small mistake, it explodes."

No, it actually takes a calamity of errors.

"why is there a need to use such dangerous energy source when there are others?"

Fossil fuels are finite, and are the primary cause of anthropogenic warming, renewable energy alone doesn't even come close to supporting our current needs, nuclear will be used, it's inevitable, it must be, I support it's use because it is badly needed to alleviate the impending threat of global wamring, it is the only technology that could sufficiently take over from fossil fuels as the technology and infrostructural requirments have been developed over many years.

Side: No
0 points

Nuclear power should not be used, even for civil things. There are many others ways clean energy can be obtained from. For example, hydroelectric, solar or geothermal power are clean, yet efficient ways of getting power. Using nuclear power also produces waste. The radioactive waste has to be stored safely (I'm talking underground chambers and special storage facilities). Depending on the waste, the storage can take thousands of years before it is safe.

There is also the risk of human endangerment. The Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine blew up from a flawed reactor design. Atleast 5% of the core was released into the atmosphere. 28 people died in the coming four months from radiation exposure and 19 others were suspected to have died due to sicknesses relating to this disaster.

Below is a link to a page with lots on the Chernobyl disaster and radiation sickness.

Supporting Evidence: World Nuclear Association: Chernobyl (www.world-nuclear.org)
Side: yes
4 points

Nuclear power is not as dangerous, because with the technology we posses now, we can be sure about the safety of the nuclear plants. Nuclear power produces a lot of the world's electricity and some countries really depend on it. If we ban nuclear power and we have no nuclear plants, then we throw away our chance to save the planet, because through the current use of nuclear, we can find a way to be able to use nuclear fusion, which gives us enormous amounts of energy and has no nuclear waste-yet it's still on experamental process. Also alternatives are not as sustainable and most of them-like wind power- have not yet proved us that they can give us back even the energy we used to build the equipment needed. So we should not by any means ban nuclear power.

Side: No
3 points

The use of nuclear power for weapons is a big no no. But, using it for cleaner energy, although it is radioactive, is a great way for a greener earth. We do not yet have a less costly way to produce electricity greener than burning fuel. So, if we ban the use of it, more fuel burning power plants will be built, increasing the greenhouse effect leading to global warming. For now, we should depend on the use of nuclear power for electricity until we have a less dangerous and less costly way to produce electricity.

Side: No
2 points

Nuclear power is not as dangerous, because with the technology we posses now, we can be sure about the safety of the nuclear plants. Nuclear power produces a lot of the world's electricity and some countries really depend on it. If we ban nuclear power and we have no nuclear plants, then we throw away our chance to save the planet, because through the current use of nuclear, we can find a way to be able to use nuclear fusion, which gives us enormous amounts of energy and has no nuclear waste-yet it's still on experamental process. Also alternatives are not as sustainable and most of them-like wind power- have not yet proved us that they can give us back even the energy we used to build the equipment needed. So we should not by any means ban nuclear power.

i didn't write this malice did and i think it was great!!!!

Side: No
2 points

the waste can be used for wepons

u pay aLOT to build power plants

Side: No
2 points

The use of nuclear power for weapons is a big no no. But, using it for cleaner energy, although it is radioactive, is a great way for a greener earth. We do not yet have a less costly way to produce electricity greener than burning fuel. So, if we ban the use of it, more fuel burning power plants will be built, increasing the greenhouse effect leading to global warming. For now, we should depend on the use of nuclear power for electricity until we have a less dangerous and less costly way to produce electricity ps this just to get ponits ididn't write this

Side: No
2 points

waste dumps can harm the world they pollute and they can blow up

Side: No
2 points

Well, at this rate, we're gonna be screwed without it, so hell no.

Side: No