David said: "Error #1. You wrote: a single U235 atom releases approximately 1 watt second of power. This is completely wrong by a factor of a trillion = 1012"

J--I obtained the stated value from a Reference Manual For Electronics Engineers. You are claiming that your information is correct and my information is faulty. If you wish to argue the validity of your information with the book publishers I will try to get their e-mail address for you.
Just look it up in any standard physics book.

D--"The energy released when an atom of uranium-235 of plutonium-239 fissions (either naturally or by having been induced) is about 200 MeV (200,000,000 eV), or about 50 million times the energy released in burning an atom of carbon."

J-- Would the pollution from it also be 50 million times more dangerous?
Unfortunately I do not have time to verify your information. Is there a difference between U235 that is a fission product of plutonium-239 and a U235 that has come to existence from some other nuclear combinations?
50 million times a much heat per atom, but you use 1/50 millionth as many atoms for the same heat.

D--"Error #2. You wrote: If this converted energy is absorbed by the atmosphere then the atmosphere will heat up, if the atmosphere that surrounds the Earth heats up then many environmental changes will occur. Incorrect. The energy released by fossil fuel or nuclear fuel (about 1.02 x 1011 MWh/year) is trivial compared to the energy influx of sunlight 3.372 x 1024 MWh/year. The ratio is nearly a million. Clearly, such a small increment has no significance. The significance of fossil fuel combustion is the emission of the greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, which traps solar heat."

J-- Are you saying that if "about 1.02 x 1011 Mwh/year" of energy is accumulated into the atmosphere over the time of a million years then the Earth will be twice as hot as it is today?
It can not just accumulate. The Earth is in a thermal equilibrium between the Sun's heat and the cold of outer space. The trivial amount of energy released by Humanity's technology is a millionth of this and does not accumulate, but radiates off into outer space.

D--Error #3. You wrote: if the external pressure of the atmosphere decreases then the internal pressure of the Earth will have a better change of exerting its self outwards and there will be more volcanic activity and more Earth quakes. Absurd. The compressive effect of the Earth's atmosphere on the Earth itself is negligable.

You seem to be saying that the pressure of about 14 lb. per square inch over the total surface area of the Earth has "negligable" effect. Could you quantify that assumption? What is the total pressure that the Earth experiences because of the atmosphere? 105N/m2
What would be the outward pressure from within the Earth if the atmospheric pressure was taken away? Exactly the same. The elasticity of the Earth is comparable to that of steel. Going from one atmosphere to zero atmospheres barely increases the size of steel at all. see: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/permot3.html, http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/24_773.html, http://badger.physics.wisc.edu/lab/manual/node19.html

I am not saying that the other theories for global warming should not be explored, all I am saying is that the potential effects from the release of radioactive elements into the atmosphere has not been explored thoroughly, and it should be.

Johannes

Not quantitatively even close.