Is Nuclear Energy the reason for Global Warming?

Is this perhaps the main reason of our changing climate?
I read this interesting post a few times to try to understand it.

Source: www.wetenschapsforum.nl...

I am absolute not a scientist so I cannot say if this is possible.

Maybe here at ATS are people who can, so what is your opinion about this.

Nuclear energy and PLANET EARTH.

Nuclear fission and fusion as employed today for energy production and military uses are killing this planet, and no one in the scientific community has any idea why it's dying or how to save it. The reason for this is simple - they do not understand atomic structure, solar structure, or the complete dynamics of falling bodies. Physics textbooks erroneously declare our sun to be, in effect, a nuclear reactor. It is not. Because the scientific community feels confident that nuclear power is a part of nature they, as a body, have ceased to consider the possibility that perhaps they do not have all of the answers. Due to this arrogance, they are not even looking at nuclear technologies as possible causes of the damage we see occurring to our ionosphere, and if they do not look they will not see. Our planet is very sick and is weakening daily. It has reached a point where Earth's own mechanisms can no longer heal the wounds as quickly as they're being inflicted. In other words, we have reached a point of no return in that if nuclear fission and fusion are not abandoned and salvage operations begun immediately, the ionosphere will continue its rapid disintegration until life on Earth ceases to exist.



THE PROCESS OF NUCLEAR FISSION

During the process of nuclear fission and fusion an atom is forced open a electrons escape. Science and industry assure us that this process is safe, because even though our knowledge of atomic structure is incomplete, any unforeseen damaging effects are prevented by the massive steel and concrete containment vessels. They are correct insofar as containing electrons is concerned, but what they have yet to realize is there exists much smaller particles of mass and energy which pass easily through the containment walls, and which strip off particles from the containment vessels themselves as they pass through. This results in an unforeseen and rapid decay of the containment structure itself - weakening it greatly within a decade - which in turn allows even larger particles (still smaller than an electron) to escape. Obviously, the problem quickly becomes progressive.
These minute particles released from an atom are negative in respect to planet earth. This means that these particles will be repelled from earth's surface to the outer regions of the ionosphere. Of course these particles are yet more negative in value than solar energy, and are also repelled from the energy emitted from the sun. Because these very negative particles are repelled from solar energy, they move around the earth, staying on the dark side of the planet in order to avoid direct contact with solar energy. These very negative particles tend to 'settle in" at any location which remains in darkness for substantial periods of time. For a part of the year this area is at the Southern Polar region (Antarctica). Accumulating at the South Pole, these particles assemble themselves with the normally positive ions of the ionosphere, which results in the production of an extremely negative plasma.
As the South Pole again begins to face toward the sun (Sept.-Oct.) this highly negative plasma is repelled, and now has nowhere to go but to Earth.

End of part 1, the rest is in my second post.

Part 2,

This results in a hole in the ionosphere in the South Pole region. Because of the massive amounts of these very negative particles being released, the hole in the ionosphere will be found to have increased dramatically in size in 1986, possibly as far as the 600 parallel line.
If the phenomena is monitored, it will be noticed that the hole will develop a 24 hour oscillation, and that the oscillation will always be away from the suns light. This again is due to the fact that these very negative particles, now assembled into a very negative plasma, will be repelled from solar energy.
As the South Pole faces toward the sun, the North Pole lies in darkness. Therefore, the negative, unassembled particles in the upper atmosphere will tend to "settle in" near the North Pole, and will assemble with positive ion there. When once again the North Pole faces toward the sun, the resulting negative plasma will be forced to the surface of Earth. Our calculations indicate that in the early months of 1987, a hole in the ionosphere will be found to have appeared over the North Pole.
Some of the results of this disruption of the ionosphere will have immediate effects. For instance, as great shells of this negative plasma are pushed into existing shells of plasma, very adverse and abnormal weather conditions will be experienced world wide. In areas where the ionosphere is thicker, there will be an over filtering of solar energy, causing a reduction of sunlight available on earth and a subsequent increase in rainfall. In areas where the ionosphere has thinned, expect severe heat waves and drought conditions. Also, iron deposits attract these negative particles of mass and energy, and so areas with large deposits of iron can expect drastic changes in their weather cycles. A less immediate effect of this attraction to iron deposits will be that life forms in these areas will experience genetic changes, and an alarming increase in birth defects will be seen in these areas. Likewise, incidents of cancer and other diseases related to a breakdown in immune system activities will be noted.
As the destruction of the ionosphere continues, more drastic effects will be observed. For example, as these undetected particles of mass and energy are accepted at the poles (and elsewhere) they will undoubtedly result in an increase in the energy exchange of our planet. This will cause an increase in the rotation rate of the Earth. At first this increase will be considered a negligible factor, but the increase will be progressive, and will eventually result in the earth changing it's orbit. The elliptic will increase, and the Earth will begin it's drift away from the sun.
The increase in energy exchange will also 'wheat" up the interior of our planet, resulting in great internal pressure. This pressure will be released in the form of great earthquakes and increasingly greater volcanic actions. The end result of these actions will be great continental shifts, and areas lying along existing fault lines will be at great risk. This increase in energy exchange will also cause a warming of the earth's surface, and the polar ice caps will begin to melt. Coastline areas will begin to disappear.
Much more could be said, but this outline of events will give the reader a fair idea of why we say the situation on Earth is critical. To date the focus of the anti-nuclear movement has been to eliminate bombs and testing, control radioactive wastes, etc. Few people have considered that perhaps the splitting of atoms in and of itself is anti-nature. Unless it is stopped and decontamination procedures initiated, our future is bleak. The problems will not go away by themselves. Humankind has done the damage, and now we must repair it.


[edit on 27/7/07 by spacevisitor]

No. It's CO2.
Thanks for playing

Actually... interesting theory. Seems to tie in to what's going on now-a-days. I'd like to look into it further. Thanks for bringing it up... good post!

It's funny, and possibly ironic, that nuclear power it being touted as a cure for global warming.

[edit on 27-7-2007 by mecheng]

Originally posted by spacevisitor
Is this perhaps the main reason of our changing climate?
I read this interesting post a few times to try to understand it.

I am absolute not a scientist so I cannot say if this is possible.

Maybe here at ATS are people who can, so what is your opinion about this.

Nuclear fission and fusion as employed today

I wouldn't have thought so. Also to the person who wrote this, we don't have sustained fusion yet.

And proposing that it produces negative gravity affected particles? Anti gravity in any form has never been confirmed, as it needs negative mass, which would also need negative energy to come from. Now, IIRC negative energy particles would be really handy, since I think it would allow something like star trek style Warp technology.

[edit on 27-7-2007 by apex]

Originally posted by apex
Anti gravity in any form has never been confirmed,

Hi apex,
Anti gravity technology is already an reality for some decennia now.

These technologies are real — I have seen them. Anti-gravity is a reality and so is free energy generation. This is not a fantasy or a hoax.
Do not believe those who say that this is not possible: they are the intellectual descendants of those who said the Wright brothers would never fly.

source: disclosure-project.blog.de...

But those technologies are “still” deep hidden on the so cold black shells of very secret black projects.
Where do you think most of this money is spend on?

"According to some estimates we cannot track
$2.3 Trillion in transactions"
Donald H. Rumsfeld, 9/10/2001 - Video here, speech here, article here

source: disclosure-project.blog.de...

If you are really interested look also to this footage, I have paid [the dvd] for this.

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...


[edit on 27/7/07 by spacevisitor]

Originally posted by spacevisitor

Originally posted by apex
Anti gravity in any form has never been confirmed,

Hi apex,
Anti gravity technology is already an reality for some decennia now.

No, it hasnt and it isnt a reality at all and none of what you posted proves otherwise.

Originally posted by Chorlton

Originally posted by spacevisitor

Originally posted by apex
Anti gravity in any form has never been confirmed,

Hi apex,
Anti gravity technology is already an reality for some decennia now.

No, it hasnt and it isnt a reality at all and none of what you posted proves otherwise.

Originally posted by Chorlton
No, it hasnt and it isnt a reality at all and none of what you posted proves otherwise.

Hi Chorlton,
You are free to believe what you want, and I respect that.

Originally posted by mecheng
No. It's CO2.
Thanks for playing

Then why has the Earth had much higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations in the past with not the predicted increase in Global Temp that current models suggest? What caused previous warming patterns before the world was industrialized?

The Debate of the Causes of Global Climate change is not as simple as you put forth. I do agree that Nuclear energy has nothing to do with Climate change.

Well, if we do have anything that would give anti gravity, I think that someone like Stephen hawking would of mentioned it by now. And even if there is rumors that a black project has it, I'm not going to believe it until I see something like a B2 hovering in a hangar, up close so I can see there are no wires.

And it depends on what you mean by anti gravity. Because I think it's possible using the earth's magnetic field to lift something from the ground with enough electricity. Whereas true anti gravity would be using gravity (which is always attractive) to give a repulsing effect.

Originally posted by apex
Well, if we do have anything that would give anti gravity, I think that someone like Stephen hawking would of mentioned it by now. And even if there is rumors that a black project has it, I'm not going to believe it until I see something like a B2 hovering in a hangar, up close so I can see there are no wires.

And it depends on what you mean by anti gravity. Because I think it's possible using the earth's magnetic field to lift something from the ground with enough electricity. Whereas true anti gravity would be using gravity (which is always attractive) to give a repulsing effect.

Well apex, with all respect, lets stay focus on my first post.
The question, is anti gravity fact or fiction is not an item for this forum, right?

No, sorry for the going off topic.

But the point remains, how can particles smaller than electrons which are not susceptible to the electromagnetic force, and according to this article, react negatively to gravity, heat anything up?

Originally posted by apex
But the point remains, how can particles smaller than electrons which are not susceptible to the electromagnetic force, and according to this article, react negatively to gravity, heat anything up?

Personally, I have absolute not enough knowledge to judge the reality of the content in this article.
My hope is that there are people here at ATS who can.
I post it because I have a “feeling” that it is a possibility, and why not.
Who can say for sure that it isn’t?
Look at the ongoing discussion about the real cause of the changing climate.
In reality, so far, nobody knows the real cause, so you must look to all the possibilities.

The possibilities are,
• A natural cause?
• A result of CO2 emissions?
• Solar activity and cosmic radiation?
• A sum of one or more off these possibilities?

• Other such as stated in this article, the Nuclear energy????

If the cause is one of these two, or both.
• The CO2 emissions
• The Nuclear energy
there are possibilities to solve it, but time is running out.

If the cause is one of those others, well,

“fasten your seatbelts people”

I don't know, it feels like someone who has correlated two completely non linked things with statistics. I'm sure I saw somewhere how someone had struck a correlation between items sold at a supermarket throughout the day and number of ducks at a village pond. Correlation, but sheer BS.

In fact, someone has probably got a correlation on global temperatures and number of known saturns moons.


[edit on 28-7-2007 by apex]

So do nuclear power stations chop down rainforests, cover the land in concrete and tarmac, send soot and sulphur into the atmosphere, generate cirrus clouds ...... And anyway, how come global temps fell from the 1940s until the mid 1970s? If this idea is correct there should be a clear correlation between global temps and nuclear power generation. There isn't. The idea is thus falsified.

Edit: I've just realised that the writer of the article doesn't have a clue what the ionosphere is! You can't have a 'hole' in it - the ionosphere is caused by the solar wind interacting with the upper atmosphere. The only way to get rid of the ionosphere is to get rid of the solar wind (or, I suppose, the atmosphere). It varies according to time of day and time of year.

And any significant changes to the ionosphere could be readily detected because of the effect it has one radio transmissions

[edit on 28-7-2007 by Essan]

So much of what was in this article is incorrect that I don't really know where to begin.

I think that he got a "Big Book of Scientific Terms" and started sticking them together.

But no, he's completely incorrect, starting with his basic assumptions.

The Global Warming Debate
By James Hansen — January 1999

The only way to have real success in science ... is to describe the evidence very carefully without regard to the way you feel it should be. If you have a theory, you must try to explain what's good about it and what's bad about it equally. In science you learn a kind of standard integrity and honesty. — Richard Feynman

source: www.giss.nasa.gov...

Here some figures.
On June 27, 1954, the world's first nuclear power plant to generate electricity for a power grid started operations at Obninsk, USSR. The reactor produced 5 megawatts (electrical), enough to power 2,000 homes.
En from there the number of nuclear power plants increase.



Source: en.wikipedia.org...:Nuclear_Power_History.png

Here you see the increase of global surface temperatures.



Is there an possible connection?

Source: en.wikipedia.org...:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

Here is the increase of CO2.



Source: en.wikipedia.org...:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide.png

Here the Sun cycle variations



Source: en.wikipedia.org...:Solar-cycle-data.png

I actually did some research on this too spacevisitor, and you have made some important observations IMHO.

here is a little tid bit, I will go look through my links.

Global warming? Look at the numbers

Last week, NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies -- whose temperature records are a key component of the global-warming claim (and whose director, James Hansen, is a sort of godfather of global-warming alarmism) -- quietly corrected an error in its data set that had made recent temperatures seem warmer than they really were.

The hottest year since 1880 becomes 1934 instead of 1998, which is now just second; 1921 is third.Four of the 10 hottest years were in the 1930s The 15 hottest years since 1880 are spread over seven decades.In other words, there is no discernible trend, no obvious warming of late.

www.canada.com...

[edit on 14-8-2007 by Stormdancer777]

It's much more likely that above-ground nuclear weapon testing was the cause for a long cool period between the late 40's and the early 60's.

So the cure for global warming is obvious - resume above ground testing as soon as possible, and cause a sustained low-level nuclear winter due to high-altitude suspended particulates.

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
It's much more likely that above-ground nuclear weapon testing was the cause for a long cool period between the late 40's and the early 60's.

DANG!, What an interesting observation.

I sorta believe we are still warming out of the last ice age, so with out our nuclear testing I wonder what would have happened by now.

Interesting theory. I dont think theres much evidence to support it but luckily we dont have to worry about killing the planet by either fission or fusion power use.

If the use of uranium stays the same, which is obviously not the case, we will have about 80 more years before we run out of it. 40-50 years seems a bit more likely number as more nuclear plants are being built all the time.

As for the fusion power causing the planet harm... As I recall we are about 50 years out of any commercial use plants that could be in theory built to produce fusion energy for the masses. Now the only problem there is that unless we manage to completely overhaul the theory and technology behind it we are out of luck, as the fuel needed to produce any energy from it is extremely rare thing to find on earth. The Moon however has plenty of the needed material, only problem being to actually have a way of being able to use it.

So unless the current warming of the earth withing the next 40-50 years will destroy us all or we are able to get some serious mining and transportation industry from or on the moon or come up with a totally different way to achieve fusion the whole idea, even if it did affect our planet so badly as is being claimed, seem just a bit silly.

I would be more worried about the attitude and lack of support towards sun and wind power and any other seemingly "free" and "endless" energy sources around the world. Its not like the world as we know it can really function without electricity or similar source of energy to power our world as we know it.

The prospect of running out of nuclear power, fossil fuels and the need to mine our moon in order to power the supposed next big thing, quite frankly, makes me wonder why we still want to ignore the possibilities for endless energy sources around us. Endless until the moon disappears or the sun dies out and there is no more liquid water or molten lava on the planet that is.

I am personally more interested in finding better and more plentiful ways to produce energy for everyone on this planet than to try and destroy the old and current ones that we are running out of as it is.

[edit on 14/8/07 by Gonjo]