Two replies to R.L.

First reply

R.L.- Was pushed aside because it was easily shown to be nonsense! I believe several of us wasted our time doing the calculations FOR YOU, since you are obviously too stupid or lazy to do the calculations yourself, and we showed you that your drivel was nonsense...

J- The only “calculations” I remember seeing were the ones that were done from the quantities of material that I presented. Those quantities were many years old and incomplete even for that time period. I have looked for updated figures but without success so far. IF you have the information please let me know.

R.L.- I see our time was wasted....

J- Not really, I learned a great deal about the behavior and language that the people use on this board. I would have enjoyed the experience much more, had I received intelligent answers to my questions.
I must say that there were SOME intelligent answers and those I really appreciated. Thank you; goes to those people who gave them.

R.L.- ONE MORE TIME: The radioactive materials released have had essentially ZERO effect on the atmospheric temperature...

J- Prove it.

R.L.- Why do you think the effect of "released" radioactive materials would be any different than the effect of the materials decaying naturally in the ground? the energy is still released!

J- Yes, the energy is released in both cases but there are two major differences.
First, when the material is in its ‘natural’ state in the ground, the energy that is released is absorbed by the surrounding mass which is dense, the resulting heat is then conducted into the surrounding mass. The heat travels in all directions (down as well as up) and when the heat reaches the atmosphere it is quite low in energy. The lower the thermal energy of the ground, the less kinetic energy it can impart on the air molecules. If you take the radioactive material out of the ground the energy will react directly with the atmosphere, the reaction is not only from the thermal energy but also from the nuclear fission/radiation that consists of energetic ‘particles’ as well as all manner of energetic photons. (Or if you prefer to call them electromagnetic radiation that is OK too) Such energetic particles and photons can impart more kinetic energy to air particles than thermal energy alone.
Second, when Uranium is in its ‘natural state’ in the ground, it is a mixture of many isotopes of many elements. In order to use it in a nuclear reactor or a bomb it must be purified. In the process of purification the isotopes that are highly radioactive are selected for use.
If these highly radioactive isotopes are ‘released’ into the atmosphere, they impart kinetic energy to the air molecules. The same ‘heating’ process that happens in the nuclear reactor or in the nuclear bombs, now heats the atmosphere. The only difference is that the material is widely distributed and the energy content per cubic meter of the material is far less than when it was in the reactor. But, the ‘total’ energy content of the radioactive material still remains and keeps accelerating the air molecules as long as it is radioactive and stays in contact with the air.
This is the ‘idea’ that I have been trying to get across to you. I do not mind if you rip this “favorite theory” apart, as long as you do it by showing figures and stating facts.

R.L.- The effect of billions of lightbulbs burning across america is FAR greater, and is still negligeable!

J- That may be true, but I do not believe it simply because you say so. Show me some figures, tell me where the energy to these billions of light bulbs comes from, tell me how efficient these electricity generators are, tell me how much kinetic energy the light bulbs transfer to the surrounding air molecules, then tell me how much kinetic energy has been ‘released ‘ into the atmosphere in the form of radioactive material.
Then compare the results and tell me how much more kinetic energy the light bulbs have imparted to the air molecules. If you do this and I can verify your figures then I will believe you.

Second reply.

R.L. - The sodium layer that marks the Mesosphere has DROPPED in average height by ~1 kilometer in the past 30 years...

J- If you do not know the reason 'why' it has dropped, then let me explain it to you someday.

R.L. - Really, you are WAY too attached to your pet "theory"...

J- You may be right, and if you would answer my questions, even from your 'all knowing' perspective, I would have a better grasp of 'why' it is silly to ask questions such as; 'How much radioactive material is there in the Earth's atmosphere today, and how much radioactive material was in the atmosphere before the first nuclear reactor was put into operation?'
The answers such as a 'kook' or a 'moron' are not very informative.
Also the answers such as "miniscule" or "if any" are also a sign that you do not know the answers and are unwilling to admit it.

R.L.- it is complete sillyness... AND YES we did waste our time proving it was nonsense but you ignored the facts...

J- I have not ignored the fact that I was called a kook and many other names simply because I dared to ask questions and present an idea that you had not thought of.

Cheers
Johannes