re: How about
If I concede to the following parameters.
1) The energy from the sun is the major contributor to life and climate on this planet.
2) At this moment in time, the energy balance of this planet is normal.
[Although I suspect that something is wrong with the atmospheric energy balance.]
3) Up to this moment in time, the energy from man induced nuclear fission has not modified the energy balance of the atmosphere.
[Although I suspect that it has]
Now to the heart of the matter.
The following information was taken from this site:
http://www.chem.ox.ac.uk/vrchemistry/energy/default.htm
“in chemical reactions. Neither the total mass nor the net oxidation number of reactants and products can change during a chemical transformation“
“Combustions and many other reactions give off energy in the form of heat, and this makes these processes useful to us. But if we draw an imaginary box around the reacting substances, large enough to contain the substances and everything else they interact with, then the total energy within that box will not change during the reaction. (This is one form of the first law of thermodynamics.)â€
This is true for all chemical reactions, but is it true for nuclear reactions?
In a nuclear reaction mass (which is potential for energy) is converted into kinetic form of energy.
Since energy can not be destroyed, and in this kind of reaction the energy does not convert back into mass, then it must give a permanent increase of (kinetic) energy to the surroundings.
Sufficient accumulation of kinetic energy in the atmospheric molecules will cause disruptions in the climate of the planet.
Since neither one of us knows the exact quantities of energy or the effects that are involved in this nuclear experiment, we can only speculate about the outcome.
I can not “falsify†the laws of nature.
If the predicted environmental changes do not happen, then I will concede that I was in error, but I would ask you to observe the environmental conditions now, record what you see, then compare them to the environmental conditions in the future, say 20 to 30 years from now.
If there is no change in the temperature fluctuations, storm intensity or frequency, earthquake activity, ozone depletion, and your three minute egg looks the same then as it does now, then perhaps I was wrong.
Cheers :-)