At least on this board. Hopefully my reasoning will become clear to you at the end of this message.
R.L.- The only way for the atsmospheric molecules to escape earth is by heating the atsmosphere...
J= I was referring to the possibility of radioactivity migrating to and increasing the kinetic energy of the particles in the thermosphere or exosphere.
R.L- If you were to heat us up enough for us to lose even a fraction of a percent then we would all be very crispy critters....
J- Not necessarily, the atmosphere has very high kinetic energy at the level of the exosphere, (more than 1000 degrees) according to information from various sources, yet we are not “crispy critters”, the reason should be obvious to any one that understands physics to any extent. (even me :-)
R.L.-Venus the Hottest planet in the solar system has a far denser atmosphere than we do.....
J-Agreed; the question is; why?
R.L.- Next off... radioactive materials exist on earth if we use them or not... they still decay, and dump heat into the planet... that is part of the reason we have a molten core... We can controll the rate of decay by fission reactors, but once dispersed in the atsmosphere they decay at their natural rate.
J- Agreed; and once “dispersed” in the atmosphere the radioactive molecules distribute themselves more or less evenly throughout the volume that is available. (See chemistry, Avogadro’s hypothesis.)
R.L- And despite your deceptive claim I do NOT think radioactivity in our air is a good thing,
J- Good, at least we agree on that.
R.L.- all I am saying is your claim is full of crap...
J- And what “proof” do you have for such “deceptive claim”.
R.L.- any high school student that paid attention in class could see that....
J- And you can not think or evaluate events for yourself, but must rely on what someone else tells you in school? Don’t get me wrong, I think schools are great, but at some point or another, a person should be able to use their own brain.
All I am saying is that; the POTENTIAL for radioactive elements to migrate to the upper atmosphere is real and when they are there, the fission products CAN impart kinetic energy to the (sparsely distributed) particles that are there.
Now; PROVE the error of my assumptions, please, I DO want to learn.
R.L.- I find it humorous that you talk so condecendingly to me about radioactivity... You clearly have zero knowledge of physics... And I have spent 15 years studying it.... guess those years were wasted, I'll have to forward your truth to the prof that taught me graduate particle physics.....since an internet kook clearly knows SO much more....
J- Why don’t you do that, perhaps he can explain to me why the radioactive element such as Uranium hex fluoride can not migrate to the thermosphere, perhaps he can also explain why some radioactive element that may encounter other elements/ions (regardless the distance from the surface of the Earth) can not impart kinetic energy to that element/ion. (Just to let you know; I realize that the density of particles is much lower up there and the chance of such an encounter is much smaller than in the atomic reactor or at the surface of the planet, but the question is; IS IT POSSIBLE? And if not then why not?)
R.L- You do not understand that the VAST majority of radioactivity is natural...
J- I understand that perfectly. As long as the “natural” radioactivity is confined to the crust of the Earth it will not migrate to the upper reaches of the thermosphere.

R.L- If I were you I would worry more about all those light bulbs heating up tha air.... Hey lets turn out all the lights! And while we are at it, humans produce heat too... Lets get rid of them too! The heat from all these bodies is causing more air to escape the planet than the _man made_ releases of radioactive material....
J- I think there is more ‘hot air’ created on this bulleting board than all the light bulbs in the world combined. :-)
I will try to explain my viewpoint one more time. I know that you and several others have made up their mind to dismiss everything that I say, but I am hoping that there are some people reading this who can think by them selves and are willing to look at the possible consequences of any increase in the kinetic energy of the thermosphere particles.
I am not associated in any way with any organization of any kind, the only reason I would like to see scientific scrutiny of this idea, is that I believe that the ambiguous “global warming” information can be explained by taking into account the possibility of some extra kinetic energy distribution in the thermosphere.
First, the area of study is the Exosphere
The exosphere is the highest layer of the atmosphere. Together with the ionosphere, it makes up the thermosphere. The exosphere extends to 10,000 km above the Earth's surface. This is the upper limit of our atmosphere. The atmosphere here merges into space in the extremely thin air. Air atoms and molecules are constantly escaping to space from the exosphere. In this region of the atmosphere, hydrogen and helium are the prime components and are only present at extremely low densities. This is the area where many satellites orbit the Earth.
According to this information on the thermosphere and exosphere, there is a constant flow of atoms and molecules escaping to space, and this is assumed to be strictly from the amount of kinetic energy that the sun and the cosmic radiation impart on them.
Just to refresh my memory I picked up and looked into some of the physics books that I studied some forty years ago and realized that my memory and mathematical abilities have tarnished. (lack of use I suppose.)
But I did find some information that is relevant to this quest.
I found that if the nucleus of uranium-235 is penetrated by a neutron, fission occurs, In one of the very large number of possible reactions, the fission products are the nuclei of cesium 132, ruthenium-99, four more neutrons, and a burst of energy, How much energy is released in one such fission? [The masses of the particles involved are: neutron, 1.009 atomic mass units (amu); uranium nucleus, 235.128 amu; cesium nucleus, 132.942 amu; and ruthenium nucleus, 98.933 amu. 1 amu= 1.66*10-28 gm]
If energy is released by this reaction, a comparison of the total masses of the particles before and after fission will show a decrease. This decrease is (1.009 amu + 235.128 amu) - (4-1.009 amu +132.942 amu +98.933 amu)= (236.137 amu) – (4.036 amu +132.942 amu + 98.933 amu)=(236.137 amu) – (235.911 amu) = 0.226 amu
Converting to grams and substituting into Einstein’s equation:
0.226 amu 1.66*10-24 gm/amu = 0.375*10-24 gm
E=mc2=0.375*10-24 gm*(3*10^10 cm/sec)^2=0.375*10-24 gm*9*20^20 cm2/sec2=3.38*10-4 gm-cm2/sec2=3.38*10-4 erg
The energy /mass ratio is 3.38*10-4 erg/236.137 amu, or 1.23*10-6 erg/amu.
Now converting it to power it turns out that it is about one watt/second per nucleus of U-235.
Now the question is how many nuclei are there in 500,000 Kg of material. I can’t find my program that does the calculation.
Anyway I’d like to get another opinion on the calculation that was done on this site.
Now it has been established that there is a lot of power or energy in the splitting atom. (Should have been obvious without the math)
Gay-Lussac’s law states that at constant pressure the volume of a gas varies directly with its absolute temperature, or V1/V2=T1/T2 which may be rewritten, V1/T1=V2/T2
In other words, the higher the temperature of a gas is, the more volume it takes, if the pressure is constant.
It so happens that the Earth’s gravitational force gives a relatively constant pressure to the atmosphere, If the atmosphere is heated by any means at all, it will expand towards space. If the atmosphere expands towards space there will be more molecules and atoms in the thermosphere. Many of he satellites are in the thermosphere and if the molecular/atomic/ionic density increases, then the satellites will experience more resistance while going trough it.
If more of the particles in the upper thermosphere obtain ‘extra’ kinetic energy then they will have a better chance of escaping into space.
The consequences of such a ‘increased escape’ scenario is many fold, and in my opinion should be investigated.
The question still remains: Can it happen? Is it happening? If not then, why not? Give me ‘proof’ in the form of mathematics, pictures, or any other verifiable form that you wish.
R.L.- TY for educating me.... on how insane people can get...
J- I also have learned something about the behavior of people on this site. It seems to me that it is an acceptable and ‘normal’ behavior to call other people names rather than try to understand what the other persons viewpoint is or question why they have such a view.
I will allow all you ‘normal’ people to argue about the things that will become evident in the long run anyway. If you are normal then I refuse to associate myself with you.
It is fun to watch animals in a zoo. I have noticed that some animals are smarter than others.
LOL and Cheers
Johannes