Theory regarding Radiation and its cumulative effects on Weather Patterns.

page: 1
3

log in

join

posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 12:30 PM
link   
In light of the Fukushima Nuclear Reactors in Japan melting down, it inspired me to do some research about radiation (ionizing, gamma). This led me to research the Chernobyl Incident. Workers who were sent to Chernobyl experienced the ionization of their bodies (free electrons bashing through their body, leading to cell damage).

This got me thinking that if Gamma Radiation could ionize your body, it could probably ionize the atmosphere as well (over time). The atoms inside your body largely react to electrons and protons the same as atoms outside your body, the only difference really is the density, which means that in the air ionization would spread far and wide.

Wikipedia - Ionizing Radiation



Ionizing radiation (or ionising radiation) consists of particles or electromagnetic waves that are energetic enough to detach electrons from atoms or molecules, thus ionizing them. Direct ionization from the effects of single particles or single photons produces free radicals, which are atoms or molecules containing unpaired electrons, that tend to be especially chemically reactive due to their electronic structure. The degree and nature of such ionization depends on the energy of the individual particles (including photons), not on their number (intensity). In the absence of heating or multiple absorption of photons (a rare process), an intense flood of particles or particle-waves will not cause ionization if each particle or particle-wave does not carry enough individual energy to be ionizing (e.g., a high-powered radio beam). Conversely, even very low-intensity radiation will ionize, if the individual particles carry enough energy (e.g., a low-powered X-ray beam). Roughly speaking, particles or photons with energies above a few electron volts (eV) are ionizing, no matter what their intensity.



Learning about ionizing radiation inspired me to look at weather, since I remember hearing the term "ionization" and "lightening" being put together, but I wasn't sure, so I looked it up, and sure enough, ionization is part of a lightning storm.


Wikipedia - Lightning



The voltage involved for both is proportional to the length of the bolt. However, lightning leader development is not just a matter of the electrical breakdown of air, which occurs at a voltage gradient of about 3 megavolts per metre (MV/m). The ambient electric fields required for lightning leader propagation can be one or two orders of magnitude (10−2) less than the electrical breakdown strength. The potential ("voltage") gradient inside a well-developed return-stroke channel is on the order of hundreds of volts per metre (V/m) due to intense channel ionization



en.wikipedia.org...]Wikipedia - Ionization



Classical ionization
Applying only classical physics and the Bohr model of the atom makes both atomic and molecular ionization entirely deterministic; that is, every problem will always have a definite and computable answer. According to classical physics, it is absolutely necessary that the energy of the electron exceeds the energy difference of the potential barrier it is trying to pass. In concept, this idea should make sense: The same way a person cannot jump over a one-meter wall without jumping at least one meter off the ground, an electron cannot get over a 13.6-eV potential barrier without at least 13.6 eV of energy.

Applying to positive ionization
According to these two principles, the energy required to release an electron is strictly greater than or equal to the potential difference between the current bound atomic or molecular orbital and the highest possible orbital. If the energy absorbed exceeds this potential, then the electron is emitted as a free electron. Otherwise, the electron briefly enters an excited state until the energy absorbed is radiated out and the electron re-enters the lowest available state.

Negative Ionization:
Due to the shape of the potential barrier, according to these principles, a free electron must have an energy greater than or equal to that of the potential barrier in order to make it over. If a free electron has enough energy to do so, it will be bound to the lowest available energy state, and the remaining energy will be radiated away. If the electron does not have enough energy to surpass the potential barrier, then it is forced away by the electrostatic force, described by Coulombs Law, associated with the electric potential barrier.

Sequential Ionization:
Sequential ionization is a description of how the ionization of an atom or molecule takes place. For example, an ion with a +2 charge can be created only from an ion with a +1 charge or a +3 charge. That is, the numerical charge of an atom or molecule must change sequentially, always moving from one number to an adjacent, or sequential, number.


With all this research about Ionization it got me wondering about our current predicament as far as the planet goes. We are dealing with increased natural disasters, storms, floods, earthquakes etc. but what if it's not the Sun, or CO2.

Maybe radiation causes a cumulative ionization effect on our atmosphere which causes it to become more unstable, thus leading to more turbulence in the atmosphere over-time. I came up with this theory while reading another thread about a giant storm in the Pacific Ocean.

Maybe every single nuke we tested, and every reactor we set up was us shooting ourselves in the foot decades down the road. The Pole Shift could be our own doing if we were to ionize the earth too much, thus messing with its magnetic field (which is also tied to ionization).

Maybe this is a wild crackpot theory but I have never heard it before so I wanted to hear what everybody thought about it. Thank You!
edit on 23-3-2011 by Section69 because: Punctuation and Grammar




posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 01:23 PM
link   
Interesting theory .. But more so is along the same lines. Over many years we have had solar flares the earth has survived by its own magnetic protection. But with NASA reports of a breach in this protection. Is more radiation more magnetic energy now being allowed into our world, effecting our magnetism. There is a reason NASA is warning of Solar flares. Not only because of our advanced technology, could be damaged. But that technology in itself has now been able to show breaches in our protection from the sun. Solar radiation is a term used to describe visible and near-visible (ultraviolet and near-infrared) radiation emitted from the sun. Terrestrial radiation is a term used to describe infrared radiation emitted from the earth.

Outside the earth's atmosphere, solar radiation has an intensity of approximately 1,370 watts per square meter. This is the value at mean earth-sun distance at the top of the atmosphere and is referred to as the Solar Constant. On the surface of the earth on a clear day, at noon, the direct beam radiation will be approximately 1,000 watts per square meter for many locations.

The availability of energy is affected by location (including latitude and elevation), season, and time of day. All of which can be readily determined. However, the biggest factors affecting the available energy are cloud cover and other meteorological conditions which vary with location and time.

In South Africa, solar radiation reaches up to 6.5kWh/m² and is one of the highest levels in the world. By comparison, parts of Europe only receive about 2.5kWh/m². So in this country, solar energy is an abundant source of renewable energy, a logical solution to the global energy crisis.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by bluedog7
Interesting theory .. But more so is along the same lines. Over many years we have had solar flares the earth has survived by its own magnetic protection. But with NASA reports of a breach in this protection. Is more radiation more magnetic energy now being allowed into our world, effecting our magnetism. There is a reason NASA is warning of Solar flares. Not only because of our advanced technology, could be damaged. But that technology in itself has now been able to show breaches in our protection from the sun. Solar radiation is a term used to describe visible and near-visible (ultraviolet and near-infrared) radiation emitted from the sun. Terrestrial radiation is a term used to describe infrared radiation emitted from the earth.

Outside the earth's atmosphere, solar radiation has an intensity of approximately 1,370 watts per square meter. This is the value at mean earth-sun distance at the top of the atmosphere and is referred to as the Solar Constant. On the surface of the earth on a clear day, at noon, the direct beam radiation will be approximately 1,000 watts per square meter for many locations.

The availability of energy is affected by location (including latitude and elevation), season, and time of day. All of which can be readily determined. However, the biggest factors affecting the available energy are cloud cover and other meteorological conditions which vary with location and time.

In South Africa, solar radiation reaches up to 6.5kWh/m² and is one of the highest levels in the world. By comparison, parts of Europe only receive about 2.5kWh/m². So in this country, solar energy is an abundant source of renewable energy, a logical solution to the global energy crisis.


Right! I think its all connected but I believe this is a piece of the puzzle that hasn't been analyzed yet.

Can ionizing radiation affect weather patterns and the magnetic field long term due to electrons ionizing the atmosphere?



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Section69
Can ionizing radiation affect weather patterns and the magnetic field long term due to electrons ionizing the atmosphere?


I don't think it needs to permanent - short term surges could start a feedback loop, and it's the loop that could go on, and cause long term effects.

Maybe ???



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow

Originally posted by Section69
Can ionizing radiation affect weather patterns and the magnetic field long term due to electrons ionizing the atmosphere?


I don't think it needs to permanent - short term surges could start a feedback loop, and it's the loop that could go on, and cause long term effects.

Maybe ???


Aren't we sending ionizing radiation into the environment all the time through various methods? Doesn't that effectively keep the feedback loop sustained?



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 04:51 PM
link   
In regards to weather. hurricanes that effect the USA, many, or what becomes hurricanes start off the lower part of africa basically not far from South Africa in which, has the highest solar radiation on earth. So is solar radiation and solar energy , the start of very strong weather patterns??



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by bluedog7
In regards to weather. hurricanes that effect the USA, many, or what becomes hurricanes start off the lower part of africa basically not far from South Africa in which, has the highest solar radiation on earth. So is solar radiation and solar energy , the start of very strong weather patterns??


I found this map which would seem to corroborate your point:


I also found this map (storm activity):



I agree that solar radiation has something to do with storms and hurricanes. The radiation from the sun is charged particles that hit our atmosphere but are largely deflected, due to our magnetic field.

So if charged particles OUTSIDE the atmosphere can cause storms (even with our magnetic field intact), then isn't it reasonable to guess that charged particles INSIDE the earth (such as gamma radiation) would also have the same effect?



edit on 23-3-2011 by Section69 because: added another map



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 07:44 PM
link   
Tornado warning in California.

I don't ever remember a tornado warning being issued for California before.



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 11:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Section69
 

do you have any more information on this topic i am very interested, i am doing research to find connections between higher than normal radiation affecting the cooling systems of the world.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by 187Requiem
reply to post by Section69
 

do you have any more information on this topic i am very interested, i am doing research to find connections between higher than normal radiation affecting the cooling systems of the world.


I am only theorizing.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Section69
 


Probably. But tptb are stuck on simple cause-and-effect, and won't look at whole systems.




posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 09:38 PM
link   
Bumping this thread back up into view.

I had the same thought the last couple days and by chance just came across this thread already addressing it.

Hopefully theres minds greater than mine in this ATS community that can add some information to the theory.

Surely man made nuclear radiation cannot be good for the atmosphere....but has anyone ever studied the effects of it properly? on weather and climate? and is it even possible to test this on a smaller scale?

EDIT: some extra info to add.

Nuclear Effects on Weather Patterns


Question:
A few years ago, when we were still doing nuclear testing, I read a report that drew a parralel between nuclear testing and it's connection to adverse weather (huge storms, tornados, etc) thousands of miles away. Seems they were able to trace radiation from the tests to global weather patterns---the study seemed to think that the testing was at least partially responsible for killer weather patterns.

Answer:
Professor Kato came to these conclusions:

There is a direct relationship between abnormal atmospheric phenomena, earthquakes and nuclear testing. Atmospheric testing, Dr. Kato states, "caused the temperature of the Earth's exosphere to rise...from 100 to 150 degrees absolute temperature...obvious[ly]...this rise affects the atmospheric phenomena of the Earth."

Professor Kato goes on to prove this through a series of graphs. For a year, the satellite tracked atmospheric density, highs and lows, ultraviolet rays and the like which are directly related to temperature changes.

A "stable temperature table" would be a reading of those elements which cause normal temperature change, such as day versus night and the effects of solar activity.

"Charred particles" from the sun constantly bombard our planet and are known as solar winds. Their fluctuations effect weather and the earth's magnetic fields.

Adjusting the various factors one to the other should give "a stable temperature table" and usually does.

However, high temperatures were found in the data that couldn't be explained by natural phenomena. But by plotting information from nuclear tests against these abnormal temperatures, it was found that the two graphs almost completely overlap.

In other words, the exospheric temperatures rose abnormally immediately after a nuclear test was conducted. How far this temperature change extended was not reported. But, within the recording range of the satellite, temperatures differed up to 150 degrees absolute.

An example is the 60-80 degrees absolute temperature change after a test in the Soviet Union on August 23rd, 1975. Six other tests between October 18 and 29, 1975, revealed similar drastic changes.

This phenomena might explain any adverse weather conditions recorded during the same period and needs to be studied. Even though this data is on atmospheric tests, underground blasts reveal similar disruptions.

When you factor in the recent discovery that the earth's core, at its very center, is a whirling iron crystal surrounded by magnetically-charged molten iron, underground tests might have proven to be far more dangerous than atmospheric.

That's frightening enough. However, it's Professor Kato's next revelation which is the "killer."

"Also, it has been found that nuclear testing is the cause of abnormal polar motion of the Earth."

Although the Earth turns on an axis, and poles (here the North pole is measured) are not stationary. Rather, they move in a circle of approximately ten meters. This is called the Chandler Cycle.

During data gathering, polar movement was observed to deviate from the usual, almost uniformly smooth Chandler Cycle. Dr. Kato's graph, accurate within one hundredth of a second, conclusively shows "very unusual, sudden shock-wave changes of considerably acute angles."

Professor Kato goes on to say, "I must confess that I shuddered with horror at discovering this abnormality."
When dates of testing with a force of over 150 kilotons were applied to the pattern of deviation, it was "obvious that the position of the pole slid radically at the time of a nuclear explosion.

"However, there was movement which could not be explained by the nuclear test data alone. After information [was] collected...on world earthquakes with an intensity of over magnitude 7, the effect of the earthquake on polar movement was also evident."

To conclude his study, Professor Kato reminds us of the effects that could be possible if the earth's axis rotation is disturbed. One can only imagine. Ultra-violet rays, ozone, weather patterns, time and life itself could be altered.

Which takes us to the '95-'96 nuclear test series by China and France. There were seven quakes over M7 that fell within seven days after individuals tests. It should be noted several of these occurred after the same test. Still, only nine tests were conducted.



Point being.....how will Fukushima Radiation release into the atmosphere affect Ozone, global warming, extreme weather events etc.
edit on 3/3/13 by Melbourne_Militia because: added more info.





new topics
 
3

log in

join