Climate change

Jan 22, 2023
3
0
10
Visit site
My daughter is bugging me to do something about climate change and she just will not stop so I read that the interaction of CO2 and infrared light is what increases the atmospheric temperature. Does that sound right?
 
Jan 22, 2023
3
0
10
Visit site
Climate Change

Climate change is said to be caused by the greenhouse effect of CO2 but only .04% (400 ppm) of the Earth’s atmosphere is composed of CO2. In addition, the greenhouse effect represents heat that is trapped in the Earth’s atmosphere but the outer edge of the Earth’s atmosphere is open and does not trap heat. Infrared light is said to be reflected by the Earth’s outer atmosphere but there is not a physical barrier that can reflect the infrared light that is said to be causing the greenhouse gas effect. In a glass greenhouse, the glass reflects the infrared light which is said to be heating the interior of a glass greenhouse but the Earth’s outer atmospheric reflective surface is not present since the outer atmosphere is open and does not trap the infrared light that is said to be heating the atmospheric CO2; consequently, a Harvard scientist stated that astronomic clouds trap the heated air which is said to be the primary cause of climate change but in the summer months, the temperature, in general, decreases on cloudy days. In addition, climate scientists state that the increase of the atmospheric temperature due to climate change is cause by CO2 absorbing infrared light. Sun light composed of infrared light propagates through the atmosphere and is reflected by the Earth’s surface where the infrared light interaction with the atmospheric CO2 is said to be increasing the temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere resulting in climate change but experimentally, increasing the 400 ppm CO2 (.04%) in a small glass greenhouse to 3,000 ppm (.3%) does not increase the temperature differential (400 ppm / 3,000 ppm) using an infrared heater and small fans yet one would expect a 13° F temperature differential at the higher 3,000 ppm CO2 concentration; consequently, Princeton scientists claim that the small volume of air within a ten meter high glass greenhouse does not compare to the ten mile thickness of the Earth’s atmosphere yet the glass greenhouse represents a small sample of the Earth’s atmosphere. Example, to determine the chlorine level in a swimming pool, every milliliter of the water in the pool does not have to be tested. A one milliliter sample can be used to test the chlorine level within the entire pool which is similar to the glass greenhouse example which analyses the CO2 interaction with infrared light which can be used to represent the infrared light interacting with the atmospheric CO2; consequently, the negative result is experiment proof climate change is not caused by elevated levels of atmospheric CO2 that is said to be the primary cause of climate change.

The effect of once-through cooled natural gas, coal and nuclear power plants on climate change is analyzed. The fuel of a nuclear plant is uranium where 200 uranium fuel rods (75 tons) are used to produce the power of a nuclear power plant. In a once-through cooled nuclear reactor (nuclear reactor that does not use a cooling tower) water is pumped into the interior of the core to cool the reactor then the heated water is discharged back into the water source where 1.2 million gallons per day of heated water (90° F) is discharged into the water source.

“Supporters of nuclear power like to argue that nukes are the key to combating climate change. Here’s why they are dead wrong. Every nuclear generating station spew about two-thirds of the energy it burns inside its reactor core into the environment. Only one-third is converted into electricity. Another tenth of that is lost in transmission……..Every day, large reactors like the two at Diablo Canyon, California, individually dump about 1.25 million gallons of water into the ocean at temperatures up to 20 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than the natural environment. Diablo’s “once-through cooling system” takes water out of the ocean and dumps it back superheated, irradiated and laden with toxic chemicals. Many U.S. reactors use cooling towers which emit huge quantities of steam and water vapor that also directly warm the atmosphere.” (Wasserman).

The world’s 326 once-through cooled nuclear power plants are discharging 390 million gallons per day of heated water into rivers, lakes, and oceans. In addition, more than 2,000 natural gas and 940 coal power plants also use a once-through cooling system where more than 3.5 billion gallons per day of heated water (90° F) is discharged back into the water source. Plus, the thermodynamic pollution produced by a nuclear power plants’ cooling pools (120° F) that are cooling the spent uranium fuel rods is also discharged into the environment.

The thermodynamic pollution produced by the nuclear power plants’ cooling pools (120° F) is discharged into the environment. A single nuclear reactor core contains 75 tons of uranium fuel rods where the world’s 440 nuclear reactors contain


440 reactors x 75 tons = 33,000 tons of uranium fuel rods………………………1


Every six years a nuclear reactor is refueled with new uranium rods; consequently, the world’s spent fuel rods have a total weight of


33,000 tons of spent x 6 refueling = 198,000 tons…………………………………2


which is equivalent to


(1.98 x 105 tons) / 75 tons = 2,640 reactors…………………………………………3


that are operating just before refueling. Using the half-life of uranium, the capacity of spent fuel rods is approximated,


(.700 billion yr / 4.5 billion yr) = .17 or 17 % capacity…….....................................4


After the cooling of the spent fuel rod, the capacity of the spent fuel rods reduces to approximately 5 %. Using equations 3 and the 5 % capacity, the 2,300-reactor equivalence (cooled spent fuel rods) is equal to,


(1 /.7) x (2,300 reactors) x .05 = 164 once-through cooled nuclear reactors.........5


operating at 70% capacity discharging 197 million gallons per day of heated and highly radioactive water (90° F) into the rivers, lakes and oceans.

“They point to a 2003 research paper that was coauthored by Macfarlane when she was a Massachusetts Institute of Technology researcher. That paper warned that if the cooling water were to leak out of a damaged storage pool, a fire would result, causing radioactivity to be released that could rival that from the 1986 Chernobyl disaster in Ukraine.” (J. Johnson).

“Water circulates through the pool, helping keep the rods cool and the pool temperature at around 49°C (120°F)……..Without water, the spent fuel rods would jump in temperature, reaching 1,000°C, according to NRC and DOE laboratory studies” (J. Johnson).

“Ten years after removal of spent fuel from a reactor, the radiation dose 1 meter away from a typical spent fuel assembly exceeds 20,000 rems per hour. A dose of 5,000 rems would be expected to cause
immediate incapacitation and death within one week.” (NRC, 2002).

At a distance of 1 mm from the surface of a spent uranium fuel rod, the radiation level would reach 20,000,000 rem/hr (20,000 Sv/hr). The cooling pool water is directly contacting the fuel rods that gamma ray emissions are producing tritium (radioactive water). A single 36-year-old nuclear reactor’s cooling pool would be discharging approximately 450,000 gallons per day of highly radioactive water (tritium) into the rivers, lakes and oceans. Physicists and nuclear engineers knowing concealing, from the people, the extent of the radioactive water (tritium) discharged into the water source, from the cooling pools, represents criminal negligence.

Until 1993, it was common practice by the Europeans, USA, Russians and the Japanese to dissemble the spent fuel rods and stored the uranium pellets in steel barrels then dumped the barrels into the ocean.
“By 1991, the US had dropped more than 90,000 barrels and at least 190,000 cubic meters of radioactive waste in the North Atlantic and Pacific. Other countries including Belgium, France, Switzerland and the Netherlands also disposed of tons of radioactive waste in the North Atlantic in the 1960s, 70s and 80s.” (Schauenberg).

In an attempt to store the spent uranium fuel rods without using cooling pools, a dry cask storage system of the spent uranium fuel rods was developed where 37 spent fuel rods are stack together (fig 1) and encased in concrete and steel (dry cask) to minimize the storage space of the fuel rods but the high concentration of uranium in the spent fuel rods would not allow the bundling of 37 rods since the spent uranium rods are highly radioactive. It is argued by a Berkeley physics professor that the radioactivity of the spent fuel rods decreases to a 20,000-year half-life and 1%; consequently, the spent fuel rods cannot heat up which would allow for the dry cask storage. In addition, the spent fuel rods do not discharge heated radioactive water from the cooling pools in to the water source yet the uranium fuel rods were removed from the reactors that were partially functioning just before the refueling and the spent fuel rods are composed of uranium that has a minimum half-life of 700,000 years. A single 36-year-old nuclear reactor’s cooling pool would be discharging approximately 450,000 gallons per day of radioactive water into the rivers, lakes and oceans. In addition, A. Johnson states,

“Estimates provided by Ontario Hydro indicated the following values for radiation levels on their fuel in pool storage:

Fresh, High-Exposure Fuel - Equiv. to 105 R/hr at 1 ft in air

Aged (5 y), High-Exposure Fuel - Equiv. to 3 x 102 R/hr at 1 ft in air" (Johnson, A., p. 37).

A. Johnson is diametrically stating that a spent fuel rods radiation level is 3 x 102 rem/hr at 1 foot from the surface of a spent fuel rod, after five years in a cooling pond, to justify using a higher density of spent fuel rod to be stored in the cooling pools allowing for the expansion of the nuclear power industry but the uranium fuel rods were removed from the reactors, during refueling, that were partially functioning just before the refueling and the spent fuel rods are composed of uranium that has a minimum half-life of 700,000 years. Plus, according to a NRC report, after ten years, the radiation level at one meter away from the surface of the uranium spent fuel rod exceeds 20,000 rem/ hr (NRC, 2002) or 20,000,000 rem/hr 20,000 Sv/hr) at 1 mm from the surface of a fuel rod. A. Johnson and his cohorts are committing fraud.

The world’s 2,000 natural gas and 940 coal power plants use a once-through cooling system where approximately 3.5 billion gallons per day of heated water (90° F) is discharged back into the water source. Plus, the world’s 326 once-through cooled nuclear power plants are discharging 390 million gallons per day of heated water. The world's natural gas, coal, and nuclear once-through power plants are dumping a total of 4 billion gallons per day of heated water (90° F) in the rivers, lakes and oceans is causing climate change. The intensification of winter storms, larger and more frequent hurricanes and typhoons, temperature peaks during the summer months, and ice melts are the result of slowing ocean currents caused by the 4 billion gallons of heated water (90o F) discharged into the western hemispheric oceans.

Johnson, Jr., A. B. Behavior of Spent Nuclear Fuel in Water Pool storage. DOE. 1977. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/7284014

Johnson, Jeff. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to reexamine how to safely store a mountain of radioactive waste for decades to come. c&en chemical and engineering news. Vol 91, Issue 44. 2013.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission. NUREG/BR-0216, Rev. 2. May 2002.

Schauenberg, Tim. Fukushima: How the Ocean became a Dumping Ground for Radioactive Waste. DW—Made for Minds. 2020.

Wasserman, Harvey. How Nuclear Power Causes Global Warming. Progressive Magazine. Sept. 21, 2016.
 
Jan 22, 2023
3
0
10
Visit site
I wrote this last night since it is my daughter's birthday today and I thought that I would surprise her. Surprise Honey. She likes surprises and puppies.
 
Mar 18, 2023
3
0
10
Visit site
Climate change is an urgent and pressing issue that has major implications for the future of our planet. It is an issue that cannot be ignored, and the scientific evidence clearly shows that human activity is the primary cause. The effects of climate change are already being felt around the world, particularly in the form of extreme weather events and rising sea levels. We all have a responsibility to take action to reduce our emissions and mitigate the impacts of climate change. The sooner we take action, the better chance we have of avoiding the most catastrophic outcomes.
 
The unprecedented spate of polar stratospheric clouds seen in the UK, Italy and across Scandinavia indicate deep cold in the statosphere, usually devoid of clouds.

The current temperature in the arctic stratosphere is -108F, a 40 year record.

I find this interesting in view of the doomsday broadcasts concerning runaway global warming.

switzerland_clouds.jpeg
Photo by Branca Christina above Locarno, Switzerland

The current cold wave, unusual for December, has given the season an early start, and could herald many more PSCs in the weeks ahead.

Hartmann352
 
Feb 16, 2023
109
14
605
Visit site
if the sun is not big enough to stop its heat and light from escaping its gravity well, then the earth is not big enough to prevent the heat from escaping the atmosphere.
And yes, I know the three laws of thermodynamics, who doesn’t?
They are such an important part of the daily life.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JAXX1
Feb 16, 2023
109
14
605
Visit site
then google it?
Anyhow, I will humour you.
So from the head.
first law, energy can not be created or destroyed.
second law, entropy always increases.
third law, entropy in a system at zero kelvin, is zero
 
  • Like
Reactions: JAXX1
Jun 12, 2023
34
2
105
Visit site
The unprecedented spate of polar stratospheric clouds seen in the UK, Italy and across Scandinavia indicate deep cold in the statosphere, usually devoid of clouds.

The current temperature in the arctic stratosphere is -108F, a 40 year record.

I find this interesting in view of the doomsday broadcasts concerning runaway global warming.

View attachment 3400
Photo by Branca Christina above Locarno, Switzerland

The current cold wave, unusual for December, has given the season an early start, and could herald many more PSCs in the weeks ahead.

Hartmann352
Hello, Hartmann. You mentioned that the current temperature in the arctic is a 40 year record. But you didn’t mention whether it was a record low or a record high. I have to guess. In view of your other comments, I am guessing that it is a record low. Am I correct? Or did I guess wrong?

Also, what are PSCs?
 
Feb 16, 2023
109
14
605
Visit site
Hello, Hartmann. You mentioned that the current temperature in the arctic is a 40 year record. But you didn’t mention whether it was a record low or a record high. I have to guess. In view of your other comments, I am guessing that it is a record low. Am I correct? Or did I guess wrong?

Also, what are PSCs?
PSCs = polar stratospheric clouds
 
Jun 12, 2023
34
2
105
Visit site
If this was a debate about whether or not there is climate change (in particular global warming), then I would conclude there is no danger at all. Loverboy put forth a lengthy detailed argument, Milton replied with just rhetoric and had not contested a single point brought forth by Loverboy. I think Hartmann provided a specific example in favor of Loverboy. (Not sure.). And Debed also supports Loverboy in saying that since the sun is not big enough to retain its heat and light, then the Earth certainly isn’t.

The scientific community, which included the late Carl Sagan, claimed global warming is a clear and present danger. Yet here, in Live Science Forums, this thread indicates that the scientific community doesn’t know what it is talking about. That there is no global warming. No one has contested the detailed points brought out by Loverboy.

What gives???
 
Jun 12, 2023
34
2
105
Visit site
If this was a debate about whether or not there is climate change (in particular global warming), then I would conclude there is no danger at all. Loverboy put forth a lengthy detailed argument, Milton replied with just rhetoric and had not contested a single point brought forth by Loverboy. I think Hartmann provided a specific example in favor of Loverboy. (Not sure.). And Debed also supports Loverboy in saying that since the sun is not big enough to retain its heat and light, then the Earth certainly isn’t.

The scientific community, which included the late Carl Sagan, claimed global warming is a clear and present danger. Yet here, in Live Science Forums, this thread indicates that the scientific community doesn’t know what it is talking about. That there is no global warming. No one has contested the detailed points brought out by Loverboy.

What gives???
I’m still waiting …

If no one rebuts Loverboy’s contentions, then I am guessing that all the real scientists are busy elsewhere, perhaps too busy doing their history changing research to bother with us, and only inept pseudo-science types are here, along with some religious types who don’t even believe in science. I am wondering if I should abandon this website. Only the admins seem to really care about science. The rest seem to stick to their own “artificial thinking”, lol. And I would never call it intelligence.
 
Feb 16, 2023
109
14
605
Visit site
If you have an alternative view, then feel free to share it.
But making fun of others and being rude will generally just lead to the post being scrubbed.

And it can take weeks to get replies at things at times.
 
Last edited:
Jun 12, 2023
34
2
105
Visit site
If you have an alternative view, then feel free to share it.
But making fun of others and being rude will generally just lead to your post being scrubbed.

And it can take weeks to get replies at things at times.
You’re calling me rude? After the things you said in the other thread? lol!
 
Jun 12, 2023
34
2
105
Visit site
I wrote it to apply generally and not specifically. I shall edit my post to make that point more clear, thank you.
Oh, I see. You aren’t blatantly accusing me. You are just insinuating it. That way you can hurt others without being blamed for anything. Sort of like having your cake and eating it too.
 
Feb 16, 2023
109
14
605
Visit site
While I do find you hilarious, I think that this is straying too far away from the topic itself. If you would like to exchange cordial messages, please do so in DM.
 
Last edited:
Jun 12, 2023
34
2
105
Visit site
While I do find you hilarious, I think that this is straying too far away from the topic itself. If you would like to exchange cordial messages, please do so in DM.
I agree it is off topic. It went off topic ever since you said that I was rude and could or would be banned.

Meanwhile, I am still waiting to hear from anyone who is intelligent enough to counter Loverboy’s statements. And I am not interested in the arguments. I already know them. I am interested in finding someone intelligent on this forum. Someone I can trust talking to.
 
Mar 17, 2024
317
7
205
Visit site
Climate Change

Climate change is said to be caused by the greenhouse effect of CO2 but only .04% (400 ppm) of the Earth’s atmosphere is composed of CO2. In addition, the greenhouse effect represents heat that is trapped in the Earth’s atmosphere but the outer edge of the Earth’s atmosphere is open and does not trap heat. Infrared light is said to be reflected by the Earth’s outer atmosphere but there is not a physical barrier that can reflect the infrared light that is said to be causing the greenhouse gas effect. In a glass greenhouse, the glass reflects the infrared light which is said to be heating the interior of a glass greenhouse but the Earth’s outer atmospheric reflective surface is not present since the outer atmosphere is open and does not trap the infrared light that is said to be heating the atmospheric CO2; consequently, a Harvard scientist stated that astronomic clouds trap the heated air which is said to be the primary cause of climate change but in the summer months, the temperature, in general, decreases on cloudy days. In addition, climate scientists state that the increase of the atmospheric temperature due to climate change is cause by CO2 absorbing infrared light. Sun light composed of infrared light propagates through the atmosphere and is reflected by the Earth’s surface where the infrared light interaction with the atmospheric CO2 is said to be increasing the temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere resulting in climate change but experimentally, increasing the 400 ppm CO2 (.04%) in a small glass greenhouse to 3,000 ppm (.3%) does not increase the temperature differential (400 ppm / 3,000 ppm) using an infrared heater and small fans yet one would expect a 13° F temperature differential at the higher 3,000 ppm CO2 concentration; consequently, Princeton scientists claim that the small volume of air within a ten meter high glass greenhouse does not compare to the ten mile thickness of the Earth’s atmosphere yet the glass greenhouse represents a small sample of the Earth’s atmosphere. Example, to determine the chlorine level in a swimming pool, every milliliter of the water in the pool does not have to be tested. A one milliliter sample can be used to test the chlorine level within the entire pool which is similar to the glass greenhouse example which analyses the CO2 interaction with infrared light which can be used to represent the infrared light interacting with the atmospheric CO2; consequently, the negative result is experiment proof climate change is not caused by elevated levels of atmospheric CO2 that is said to be the primary cause of climate change.

The effect of once-through cooled natural gas, coal and nuclear power plants on climate change is analyzed. The fuel of a nuclear plant is uranium where 200 uranium fuel rods (75 tons) are used to produce the power of a nuclear power plant. In a once-through cooled nuclear reactor (nuclear reactor that does not use a cooling tower) water is pumped into the interior of the core to cool the reactor then the heated water is discharged back into the water source where 1.2 million gallons per day of heated water (90° F) is discharged into the water source.

“Supporters of nuclear power like to argue that nukes are the key to combating climate change. Here’s why they are dead wrong. Every nuclear generating station spew about two-thirds of the energy it burns inside its reactor core into the environment. Only one-third is converted into electricity. Another tenth of that is lost in transmission……..Every day, large reactors like the two at Diablo Canyon, California, individually dump about 1.25 million gallons of water into the ocean at temperatures up to 20 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than the natural environment. Diablo’s “once-through cooling system” takes water out of the ocean and dumps it back superheated, irradiated and laden with toxic chemicals. Many U.S. reactors use cooling towers which emit huge quantities of steam and water vapor that also directly warm the atmosphere.” (Wasserman).

The world’s 326 once-through cooled nuclear power plants are discharging 390 million gallons per day of heated water into rivers, lakes, and oceans. In addition, more than 2,000 natural gas and 940 coal power plants also use a once-through cooling system where more than 3.5 billion gallons per day of heated water (90° F) is discharged back into the water source. Plus, the thermodynamic pollution produced by a nuclear power plants’ cooling pools (120° F) that are cooling the spent uranium fuel rods is also discharged into the environment.

The thermodynamic pollution produced by the nuclear power plants’ cooling pools (120° F) is discharged into the environment. A single nuclear reactor core contains 75 tons of uranium fuel rods where the world’s 440 nuclear reactors contain


440 reactors x 75 tons = 33,000 tons of uranium fuel rods………………………1


Every six years a nuclear reactor is refueled with new uranium rods; consequently, the world’s spent fuel rods have a total weight of


33,000 tons of spent x 6 refueling = 198,000 tons…………………………………2


which is equivalent to


(1.98 x 105 tons) / 75 tons = 2,640 reactors…………………………………………3


that are operating just before refueling. Using the half-life of uranium, the capacity of spent fuel rods is approximated,


(.700 billion yr / 4.5 billion yr) = .17 or 17 % capacity…….....................................4


After the cooling of the spent fuel rod, the capacity of the spent fuel rods reduces to approximately 5 %. Using equations 3 and the 5 % capacity, the 2,300-reactor equivalence (cooled spent fuel rods) is equal to,


(1 /.7) x (2,300 reactors) x .05 = 164 once-through cooled nuclear reactors.........5


operating at 70% capacity discharging 197 million gallons per day of heated and highly radioactive water (90° F) into the rivers, lakes and oceans.

“They point to a 2003 research paper that was coauthored by Macfarlane when she was a Massachusetts Institute of Technology researcher. That paper warned that if the cooling water were to leak out of a damaged storage pool, a fire would result, causing radioactivity to be released that could rival that from the 1986 Chernobyl disaster in Ukraine.” (J. Johnson).

“Water circulates through the pool, helping keep the rods cool and the pool temperature at around 49°C (120°F)……..Without water, the spent fuel rods would jump in temperature, reaching 1,000°C, according to NRC and DOE laboratory studies” (J. Johnson).

“Ten years after removal of spent fuel from a reactor, the radiation dose 1 meter away from a typical spent fuel assembly exceeds 20,000 rems per hour. A dose of 5,000 rems would be expected to cause
immediate incapacitation and death within one week.” (NRC, 2002).

At a distance of 1 mm from the surface of a spent uranium fuel rod, the radiation level would reach 20,000,000 rem/hr (20,000 Sv/hr). The cooling pool water is directly contacting the fuel rods that gamma ray emissions are producing tritium (radioactive water). A single 36-year-old nuclear reactor’s cooling pool would be discharging approximately 450,000 gallons per day of highly radioactive water (tritium) into the rivers, lakes and oceans. Physicists and nuclear engineers knowing concealing, from the people, the extent of the radioactive water (tritium) discharged into the water source, from the cooling pools, represents criminal negligence.

Until 1993, it was common practice by the Europeans, USA, Russians and the Japanese to dissemble the spent fuel rods and stored the uranium pellets in steel barrels then dumped the barrels into the ocean.
“By 1991, the US had dropped more than 90,000 barrels and at least 190,000 cubic meters of radioactive waste in the North Atlantic and Pacific. Other countries including Belgium, France, Switzerland and the Netherlands also disposed of tons of radioactive waste in the North Atlantic in the 1960s, 70s and 80s.” (Schauenberg).

In an attempt to store the spent uranium fuel rods without using cooling pools, a dry cask storage system of the spent uranium fuel rods was developed where 37 spent fuel rods are stack together (fig 1) and encased in concrete and steel (dry cask) to minimize the storage space of the fuel rods but the high concentration of uranium in the spent fuel rods would not allow the bundling of 37 rods since the spent uranium rods are highly radioactive. It is argued by a Berkeley physics professor that the radioactivity of the spent fuel rods decreases to a 20,000-year half-life and 1%; consequently, the spent fuel rods cannot heat up which would allow for the dry cask storage. In addition, the spent fuel rods do not discharge heated radioactive water from the cooling pools in to the water source yet the uranium fuel rods were removed from the reactors that were partially functioning just before the refueling and the spent fuel rods are composed of uranium that has a minimum half-life of 700,000 years. A single 36-year-old nuclear reactor’s cooling pool would be discharging approximately 450,000 gallons per day of radioactive water into the rivers, lakes and oceans. In addition, A. Johnson states,

“Estimates provided by Ontario Hydro indicated the following values for radiation levels on their fuel in pool storage:

Fresh, High-Exposure Fuel - Equiv. to 105 R/hr at 1 ft in air

Aged (5 y), High-Exposure Fuel - Equiv. to 3 x 102 R/hr at 1 ft in air" (Johnson, A., p. 37).

A. Johnson is diametrically stating that a spent fuel rods radiation level is 3 x 102 rem/hr at 1 foot from the surface of a spent fuel rod, after five years in a cooling pond, to justify using a higher density of spent fuel rod to be stored in the cooling pools allowing for the expansion of the nuclear power industry but the uranium fuel rods were removed from the reactors, during refueling, that were partially functioning just before the refueling and the spent fuel rods are composed of uranium that has a minimum half-life of 700,000 years. Plus, according to a NRC report, after ten years, the radiation level at one meter away from the surface of the uranium spent fuel rod exceeds 20,000 rem/ hr (NRC, 2002) or 20,000,000 rem/hr 20,000 Sv/hr) at 1 mm from the surface of a fuel rod. A. Johnson and his cohorts are committing fraud.

The world’s 2,000 natural gas and 940 coal power plants use a once-through cooling system where approximately 3.5 billion gallons per day of heated water (90° F) is discharged back into the water source. Plus, the world’s 326 once-through cooled nuclear power plants are discharging 390 million gallons per day of heated water. The world's natural gas, coal, and nuclear once-through power plants are dumping a total of 4 billion gallons per day of heated water (90° F) in the rivers, lakes and oceans is causing climate change. The intensification of winter storms, larger and more frequent hurricanes and typhoons, temperature peaks during the summer months, and ice melts are the result of slowing ocean currents caused by the 4 billion gallons of heated water (90o F) discharged into the western hemispheric oceans.

Johnson, Jr., A. B. Behavior of Spent Nuclear Fuel in Water Pool storage. DOE. 1977. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/7284014

Johnson, Jeff. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to reexamine how to safely store a mountain of radioactive waste for decades to come. c&en chemical and engineering news. Vol 91, Issue 44. 2013.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission. NUREG/BR-0216, Rev. 2. May 2002.

Schauenberg, Tim. Fukushima: How the Ocean became a Dumping Ground for Radioactive Waste. DW—Made for Minds. 2020.

Wasserman, Harvey. How Nuclear Power Causes Global Warming. Progressive Magazine. Sept. 21, 2016.
Good evening ! Climate change based on scientific opinion implies that the change is due to greenhouse emissions .
However , I disagree with these findings because I have advanced information on physics that implies something different .