One FACT seems to be that you R.L. Do not have the ability to understand written material.
My CONJECTURE about that subject is that sometime in the past you smoked some 'waki tubaki' and that action has somehow eliminated your ability to understand some concepts, perhaps the chemicals in the smoke 'boiled' away some brain cells and left a vacuum in your cranium. FACT is that AIR is composed of molecules, I SUPPOSE that if some of those molecules were in your head there would be 'something' in there that could combine to form thought patterns.

Now that the flame is out of the way and since you gave a 'hint' of a promise to be 'intelligent' by saying:

"PROVE you have a clue as to what you are talking about and maybe we can have an intelligent discusion."

I will try one more time to communicate with you.
I have been under the impression that I gave you all the information that you would need in order to understand the CONJECTURE (read as thought/idea/supposition) about the possibility of NUCLEAR FISSION in the atmosphere creating an increase in the avarage or 'normal' velocity of the molecules. Hmmm..... The thought pattern may be too long for you to grasp. How about if I say that: PERHAPS the EXTRA fission material that IS in the air HEATS the said air.

1) PROOF that there is air around the Earth is here
2) PROOF that the Earth has an 'escape velocity' is here
3) PROOF that there are radioactive elements in the atmosphere is here
4) PROOF that radioactive elements create 'heat' can be found on the 'net' under 'nuclear power'.
5) PROOF that some atmospheric molecules are escaping into space is here
6) PROOF that the CONJECTURE exists is here

I do apreciate the numbers that you and Nick presented in defence of your argument that the radioactive elements do not pose any serious problem as far as 'heating' the atmosphere is concerned. But your numbers do not answer any of my questions. Also I think that your numbers are biased in your arguments favour. For instance; According to Nick, all the nuclear power plants that can ever be built in the world, will only be able to light up about 58 million 100 watt lightbulbs.
If this is so, then I would say that it is hardly worth the billions of dollars to build the nuclear power plants.

In conclusion I will repeat myself with a question that I posted previously.
Now my question is: Are we increasing the kinetic energy of the atmospheric molecules, by allowing radioactivity to increase in the atmosphere, to such a state that some of the atmospheric molecules can escape into space?
I wish that I knew the truth of this subject matter, and I hope this clarifies my viewpoint to you.
Johannes