polonium halos

Your doing great work making your strawman images which aren't EVIDENCE of anything. But the picture below is.... Do you see the three halos that I told you were cropped, and then blown up larger to make them look fuzzy. It's the only group of three halos in the picture. Do you see that faint halo to the right of them? That happens to be a Po210 halo. Gentry has many pictures of these also. They are the best evidence for primordial Po210 being encapsulated in the crystals as they solidified. Can you explain that one with your Rn222 fuzzy halo/hydrothermal U238 flow?

Thanks AlphaOmegaKid, Which is what you asked for. Don't you think the issue about getting the facts right is critical?Your original request was peer reviewed period, are we moving the goal-posts now? I understand where you are coming from, but you have not been completely honest about what is - and more importantly what is not - in Gentry's peer reviewed articles. None of his radical ideas are in those articles, and thus they are not peer reviewed.We also know he made mistakes in his geology, and the geology is critical to his radical interpretations. But none of those published peer-reviewed articles talk about "primordial polonium" or "genesis rocks" they just leave big questions on their origins, questions that are equally answered by the known physics of Radon and Uranium.This is a perfectly valid comment in a peer reviewed article: While this would most likely be rejected: His "solutions" to those questions are not peer reviewed. His claims of "primordial polonium" and "genesis rock" are just as much a part of the internet ballyhoo as all the evidence against these claims. Please do. If you have some real evidence that shows that 222-Radon could not possibly be involved, then please bring it forward (and why have you wasted so much time getting to it?)But if it is NOT part of any peer reviewed articles, then we have a different story. Once you leave the comfort of what is in the peer reviewed scientific journals, then you are on the same field as you have put Wakefield and everyone else that has ever criticized Gentry.This is called the old bait-and-switch game, or hide-the-pea, whichever you prefer.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : fixed ending (was cropped off)Edited by RAZD, : toned

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Thanks again AlphaOmegaKid, Curiously I don't see you showing how they do not model what you see in the pictures, that my assumptions are false, or that there is something incomplete in my images. Until you do so, calling them a "strawman" does not make it so.FACT: mature 238U halos show 5 ringsFACT: the decay chain of 238U has 8 α decay events before reaching 206Pb, a stable isotopeFACT: three of those decay events are hidden by scattering of decay eventsFACT: as you broaden the bands of all decay rings, the first overlap is for 234U and 226Ra.FACT: as you continue to broaden the bands of all decay rings, the second overlap is for 230Th combining with the 234U and 226Ra band.FACT: as you continue to broaden the bands of all decay rings, the third overlap is for 210Po and 222Rn.FACT: this results in 5 bands around the central inclusion.FACT: the space between these bands is larger than seen in any pictures of 238U halos.FACT: natural scattering is more than enough to blend the 210Po and 222Rn decay events into one wider band around the central inclusion.The pictures just depict these simple facts. They are evidence that just a minimal amount of scattering is needed to blur the 222Radon and 210Polonium rings into one visible ring, and that - no matter how carefully you make your pictures or choose your samples - you will not distinguish individual bands for 222Rn and 210Po decay.In the pictures of actual halos the rings are blurred wider than they are in my pictures, therefore the natural scattering that occurs is more than what is modeled, and this proves that no matter how carefully you make your pictures or choose your samples you will not be able to distinguish separate rings for 222-Radon and 210-Polonium. This means you cannot conclude that 222Radon was excluded from the three ring halos. And every three ring halo in that picture matches the pattern shown in my model - with a WIDER inner ring narrow outer rings: the logical conclusion is that these are 222Radon halos. Or a 222Radon halo, who can tell? The faintness would be explained by the rarer occurrence of the 222Ra decay in the scenario discussed previously.The fact that all these halos seem to be at the same exact depth in the crystal, rather than randomly distributed, is evidence that they all formed along the same plane within the crystal lattice. Obviously a path for 222Radon penetration along such a plane would account for every one of those halos. Which could just be more evidence of how much the radioactive material was being moved before the recrystallization occurred. I already have. See the end of Message 87: We still have the three ring halos matching the three outer rings of 238-Uranium halos in width and density, rings where we are POSITIVE that radon was involved. The match between them says that the three ring halos ALSO involved 222-Radon. No magic or mystery physics is needed to explain their existence: they are products of Uranium decay.And still we only have short-half life halos from daughter isotopes of 222-Radon, a gas notorious for penetrating rocks. We still have them in rocks that are misidentified by Gentry, and we still have them in rocks that formed and recrystallized through secondary processes. There are no other "primordial" isotope halos.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : clarity

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

These and similar comments are not becoming of mature debate. It is childish, emotional and petty. Is that the image you want to convey?Enjoy.

Thanks RAZD: Well I have, but you apparently haven't read anything. I cited Gentry's website Evidence for Earth's Instant Creation - Polonium Halos in Granite and Coal - Earth Science Associates where all of his professional scientific peer reviewed work resides. Your assumptions are not false, they just were tested in the lab by Gentry using non microscopic techniques to determine the material at the center of the halo. Your argument has been nothing more than a evo-babble rehash of Henderson's 1939 hypothesis who was one of the earlier pioneers in examining these halos. Even, as I showed, ntskeptics agrees that Gentry easily dismissed the uranium ion "flow" hypothesis of Henderson even though they incorrectly identified who originated this hypothesis.Also if you read Gentry's work you will see that not only did he analyse mica from biotite, he looked at many halos in florite. The Rn222 rings are very discernable microscopically in florite.I will present Gentrys work one publishing at a time. I think this is important to present this information in a way that the readers can understand, so be patient. These comments display your entire ignorance on this subject. Again, I will discuss this in detail, but for now just rest assured that Gentry debunked this argument by analyzing the center of the Halos with the ion microprobe. He showed conclusive evidence that the centers showed Pb206 which is absolute evidence that Rn222 was not one of the rings.I suggest you do your homework now and read Gentrys actual work that was published in peer reviewed publications. You're going to have to come up with some new arguments other than Henderson's.

I've always found it facinating in these forums as to what people determine to be "childish emotional and petty". I wonder if any of these comments would fit that description? These are all from this thread.(Note to admins...The only reason I am posting this is that RAZD's post was deemed appropriate) RAZD message 42

Let me correct any misimpression that posts not receiving moderator admonishment are therefore deemed appropriate.Explaining the Forum Guidelines and why or why not a given post was or wasn't sufficiently in compliance has been shown to be a hopeless task. Suffice to say that if discussion gets sufficiently out of hand that a moderator will step in. Or sometimes even before, like now.We don't expect people to behave like programmed debate-bots, but I am requesting that the participants in this thread try to insure that the greater part of most messages focuses on the topic of discussion, which has been the history so far throughout this thread.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I appreciate your comments, and I concurr.

Lol. If you hover over JohnFulton's same you will see some of the many aliases he has used, usually adopting a new one when the current one is banned for bad behavior.The first name I knew him as, several years ago, was "whatever" ... we go way back, and the banter is normal on both sides.Curiously none of the quoted statements reaches your level of calling people liars and frauds, as you do with "W(F)akefield", nor the implication that evolutionists are all babbling children incapable of independent thought.Most of what you list are facts:Gentry is not a Ph.D and not a geologist, and stating that is therefore NOT an insult.Gentry has been refuted.Oops, there's that nasty credibility thing again.Then there are comments like "Skeptic: it amuses me to see the mental gymnastics that people use to avoid admitting that reality has shown certain beliefs to be invalid."It amuses me that you object to this, as the only way this can be taken as an insult is if you admit that you are doing mental gymnastics, it's the old if-the-shoe-fits saga. Certainly, as a comment, it can apply to anyone, from Nobel scientist to ill-informed high school drop-out.And some are clearly responses to previous insults.But yes, everyone can run a tighter ship. It is part of the guidelines.I'll let you set the pace.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Thanks AlphaOmegaKid, Yet we are not talking about "ions" - rather it is the well known habit of radon gas to penetrate through various materials. Certainly Collins does not see this as an invalid explanation. Excellent idea. Or an open but skeptical mind, especially of any concept involving a young earth that doesn't explain all the evidence for an old earth. Well, you're going to have to do a lot better than that. From the decay chain for 238Uranium (see Message 88):

quote:

---

quote:

---

238U ::  :: 4.468x10^9 a :: 4.27 MeV to 234Th
234Th :: - :: 24.10 d :: 0.27 MeV to 234Pa
234Pa :: - :: 6.70 h :: 2.20 MeV to 234U
234U ::  :: 245,500 a :: 4.86 MeV to 230Th
230Th ::  :: 75,380 a :: 4.77 MeV to 226Ra
226Ra ::  :: 1,602 a :: 4.87 MeV to 222Rn

222Rn ::  :: 3.8235 d :: 5.59 MeV to 218Po
218Po ::  :: 3.10 min :: 6.12 MeV 99.98 % to 214Pb
218Po :: - :: 3.10 min :: 0.27 MeV 0.02 % to 218At
218At ::  :: 1.5 s :: 6.87 MeV 99.90 % to 214Bi
218At :: - :: 1.5 s :: 2.88 MeV 0.10 % to 218Rn
218Rn ::  :: 35 ms :: 7.26 MeV to 214 Po

214Pb :: - :: 26.8 min :: 1.02 MeV to 214Bi
214Bi ::  :: 19.9 min :: 5.62 MeV 0.02 % to 210Tl

214Bi :: - :: 19.9 min :: 3.27 MeV 99.98 % to 214Po
214Po ::  :: 0.1643 ms :: 7.88 MeV to 210Pb
210Tl :: - :: 1.30 min :: 5.48 MeV to 210Pb

210Pb :: - :: 22.3 a :: 0.06 MeV to 210Bi
210Bi ::  :: 5.013 d :: 5.98 MeV 0.00013% to 206Tl

210Bi :: - :: 5.013 d :: 1.43 MeV 99.99987% to 210Po
210Po ::  :: 138.376 d :: 5.41 MeV to 206Pb
206Tl :: - :: 4.199 min :: 1.53 MeV to 206Pb
206Pb :: - :: stable ::

---

​

If we just use the main paths (assuming that the minor paths don't contribute significant α decay events to affect the formation of rings\halos)

​

Then we can strike the ones that decay by β- events as these don't seem to be involved in halo formation (though this is not ruled out):

​

This gives us the common decay events that can cause halos to form:

​

quote:

---

238U ::  :: 4.468x10^9 a :: 4.27 MeV to 234Th
234U ::  :: 245,500 a :: 4.86 MeV to 230Th
230Th ::  :: 75,380 a :: 4.77 MeV to 226Ra
226Ra ::  :: 1,602 a :: 4.87 MeV to 222Rn

222Rn ::  :: 3.8235 d :: 5.59 MeV to 218Po
218Po ::  :: 3.10 min :: 6.12 MeV 99.98 % to 214Pb
214Po ::  :: 0.1643 ms :: 7.88 MeV to 210Pb
210Po ::  :: 138.376 d :: 5.41 MeV to 206Pb
206Pb :: - :: stable ::

---

---

Thus the existence of 206Pb does not prove that 222-Ra was not involved. I trust his other arguments are based on more sound evaluation of the evidence than this. I'll just point out that one of the characteristics of cognitive dissonance is trying to demonize any and all critics, to belittle them, rather than deal honestly with the material. The next level is to explain all the thousands of people involved by some conspiracy theory (they must all be lying for a reason). This is how people normally react initially to contradictory information. We'll see eh?Just so we are clear - what I am working from is the evidence as follows:FACT: mature 238U halos show 5 rings in even the best pictures and evidence.FACT: each of those rings shows scattering of decay impacts with wide bands for each halo.FACT: the decay chain of 238U has 8 decay events before reaching 206Pb, a stable isotope.FACT: the outer two rings show the radius characteristic of 218Po and 214Po, daughter isotopes of 222Ra in the 238U decay chain.FACT: three of the decay events are hidden by the observed scattering of decay events.FACT: as you broaden the bands of all decay rings, the first overlap is for 234U and 226Ra.FACT: as you continue to broaden the bands of all decay rings, the second overlap is for 230Th combining with the 234U and 226Ra band.FACT: as you continue to broaden the bands of all decay rings, the third overlap is for 210Po and 222Rn.FACT: this results in 5 bands around the central inclusion.FACT: at the earliest point where 210Po and 222Rn combine into one wide band, the space between these bands is larger than is observed in any pictures of 238U halos.FACT: natural scattering is more than enough to blend the 210Po and 222Rn decay events into one wider band around the central inclusion.FACT: the natural scattering can be due to a percentage variation in penetration depth versus decay energy, in which case each ring will be wider the further it is from the center.FACT: the natural scattering can also be due to the variation in point of origin within the radioactive inclusion, in which case each ring will be the same width regardless of distance from the center.FACT: combining these results in bands that still increase in size with distance from the center.Do you disagree with any of those facts?Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : Po not P0

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Let's just clear up a couple of things so you can properly understand. I did not call Wakefield a liar or a fraud. Actually, he told the truth on his website clearly showing his credentials. It was you who claimed that his work was peer-reviewed scientific work. It was you who diminished Gentry's science on the basis that he was not a PhD and a geologist. Which was a fallacy.The purpose of the spelling W(F)akefield was to illuminate the fact that you represented him as a Geologist with superior experience and credibility relative to Gentry.Since, you like facts. Here are some.Fact: Gentry has a BS and MS in physics.Fact: Gentry spent his whole career as a field scientist and a Physics Professor.Fact: Gentry is published in 20 peer reviewed well known scientific publications including Nature and Science multiple times.Fact: Gentry's work is cited in a substantial number of peer reviewed scientific articles.Fact: Gentry has substantial credentials and credibility on the subject of granite, fluorite, coalified wood, uranium halos, and Polonium halos. Fact: Wakefield is a professional firefighter

​

Fact: Wakefield does not have a degree in geology.

​

Fact: Wakefield didn't even study geology in school, he is "self taught"

​

Fact: Wakefield is not published one time in any scientific peer reviewed magazine.

​

Fact: Wakefield has zero credentials as a geologist and a physicist.

​

Fact: Wakefield has no credibility on the subject of Geology, Physics, granite, fluorite, coalified wood, uranium halos, and Polonium halos.Therefore, I properly and humorously identified this credibility fact by parenthetically emphasizing his name. W(F)akefield. Now do you understand?Now as far as the term "evo-babbler" . This is my term, and I will define it for you. The term was used very early on in this forum, and I used it as a test to see how much response it would get. The term refers to evolutionists who falsely represent scientific "facts" in books and on the web. We have had quite a bit of that over the years. Gill slits and embryos come to mind as well as many fossil finds. Radon Halos is another one. The term also applies to those followers of these dogmas who parrot them.Now, having said that, no scientist anywhere is suggesting that Po218 halos are actually Rn222 halos. You cannot present evidence of this in any published peer reviewed work. The argument only appears on W(F)akefield's website which happens to be hosted by Collins and is referenced by Collins. But Collins does not make the argument of Rn222 Halos and neither does Bailleieu. So here is the chain of misinformation and zero credibility and evo-babbling.First Wakefield publishes his undergraduate self taught amateur geological refutation of Gentry's scientific work in a teacher's journal. Collins picks up on this and cites Wakefield and bases many of his conclusions on his work. Collins then hosts Wakefield's Gentry's Tiny Mystery. Then TalkOrigins has Bailleieu write an article and he bases his evidence on Wakefield and Collins. Talk Origins then has another "amateur scientist" John Brawley submit the theory that these are Rn222 halos and not Po218 halos. Then Wakefield copys Brawleys diagrams onto his website sometime after 1992. Then people like you pick up this pseudoscience and begin to parrot it. So there you have it. That is clear evidence of the evo-babbling decay chain.Now do you understand?Now to demonstrate evidentially that the science community is not questioning whether these are indeed Po Halos, I will refer to this peer reviewed work by Meier in Geochemical Journal vol 10 page 185-195 1976.It can be found here: http://www.terrapub.co.jp/journals/GJ/pdf/1004/10040185.PDFHere are some interesting quotes from this paper...

quote:

---

The greatest portion of halos, however, could be clearly identified as polonium halos.

---

​

quote:

---

Therefore, the existence of polonium halos should no more be questioned.

---

Now these are not quote mines, these are summary statements made by Meier. Now to further support the credibility, Meier is presenting a hypothesis contrary to Gentry's hypothesis for the formation of these halos. Meier again is supporting the Rn222 transport theory through the concept of chemical weathering and leaching. Unfortunately for him, his publication came out after Gentry had already published new evidence which refuted his hypothesis. This is evidenced by ntskeptics which you cited earlier...The Newsletter of The North Texas Skeptics

quote:

---

The first attempts to dispute his assertions, though on the right track, fell short and were easily dismissed by Gentry. They included hydrothermal injection of polonium (York 1979), uranium release during weathering (Meier 1976), and varients of uranium halos (Moazed 1973).

---

It is also agreed by Collins: http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/revised8.htm

quote:

---

Numerous attempts have been made to counteract Gentry's claim and to show that Po halos are formed by less dramatic processes. None of these has been fully satisfactory.

​

Attempts to explain Gentry's conundrum include the following:

​

(A) The halos were created by hydrothermal fluids that carried or injected the polonium into the crystals (Joly 1917; Kerr-Lawson 1927; Henderson 1939; Henderson & Sparks 1939; York 1979; Chaudhuri & Iyer 1980).

​

(B) The halos were formed from Po ions in fluids that were released during the weathering of uranium-bearing minerals (Meier & Hecker 1976).

​

(C) The large numbers of 210Po halos can be explained by diffusion of beta-emitting Pb isotopes (Hashemi-Nezhad et al. 1979).

​

(D) The halos were not really formed by disintegration of polonium but are merely variants of uranium halos (Moazed et al. 1973).

​

Gentry has met the counter claims with additional arguments, pointing out that:

​

(A) There is no evidence for hydrothermal fluid injection, which might bring radioactive precursors into position to create the isolated Po halos, since the mineral samples containing Po halos are from fresh, unweathered rock.

​

(B) Distribution of the beta-particle-emitting lead isotopes is inadequate to explain the presence of short-lived 218Po and 214Po nuclei.

​

(C) No remnants of uranium or other precursors occur in the biotite and fluorite crystal nuclei to support the contention that the Po halos are variants of uranium halos.

---

Now is this enough EVIDENCE for you to concede that these are indeed Polonium halos? Or do you want to continue the evo-babbler rant that these are Rn222 halos? Don't you understand that it is impossible for Rn222 to be the emmitting source of Po214 and Po210 halos? The choice is yours.Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : added "emmitting"Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : Added the info about John Brawley's article in TO

RAZD:In reference to my use of the term evo-babbler So the use of the term "cognitive dissonance" is not trying to demonize and belittle a critic? As spelled out clearly in my earlier message, the only people displaying cognitive dissonance is those who continue to claim that Po218 halos are actually Rn222 halos. This is pseudo-science paraded as science by evolutionists on the web.And if you don't believe that thousands and millions of people will not believe and follow lies then just look at this years campaigns in America. Both sides are lying. And the followers are lying also, because they "believe" in their candidate. I don't believe this is a conspiracy though, I just think it is human nature.In regards to Polonium halos, the science community is honest and correct. These are indeed Po218,Po214,and Po210 halos. They all agree now. It is only the pseudo-scientists that persuade the millions like you to believe that these are actually Rn222 halos.

Thanks, AlphaOmegaKid, Testing responses to intentional insults is a delicate business, especially when dealing with emotional issues. I have found that many creationists seem to have a very thin skin when it comes to perceived insults, almost a persecution complex. I can go back to a term I have stopped using for this reason - "creatortionista" - defined as any creationist who distorts and misrepresents the facts, whether intentional or not. The term also applies to those followers who parrot them. This applies to 99% of the creationist websites, because they run such poor validation checks on the stuff that is posted.Gentry is a creatortionista by this definition: he has misrepresented the facts about the rocks he has investigated. You also qualify as one by saying that the existence of 206Pb in an inclusion is proof that 222Rn is not involved - a clear fallacy. The purpose of spelling it that way was clearly to call him a fake and a fraud, and to imply that he falsified the information in his articles that show Gentry has misrepresented the facts about the rocks he has investigated. FACT: He has more credibility than Gentry, amateur and self taught does not mean ignorant and unschooled. His work has been substantially reviewed by other geologists who agree with him. He not only talked to people who were familiar with the rocks, but listened to them: something that Gentry apparently did not do in at least one case.Denial of this is misrepresenting the facts. Fact: in this country you need to be a PhD to be a professor in any major institution, and he isn't. Now I can call the teacher at the local community college "professor" but that doesn't mean he has the credentials of a first year professor at a major university. Implying that he has those levels of credentials is misrepresenting the facts. Which (a) doesn't necessarily mean he is correct, and (b) it certainly does not mean any conclusions that are NOT in those articles are worth the paper they are printed on. To pretend the authority from (a) extends to (b) is a misrepresentation of the facts: creatortionistas would do that.Many of his articles were published before the mechanisms of halos were understood. It is possible to have many (old) articles on a topic that has been invalidated by later research: this occurs often in science. Yes, you are clearly calling him a fake and a fraud, and you think it is funny to insult people. Yes, Wakefield did some elementary field science to check the validity of Gentry's claims and found that it was grossly misleading and erroneous. He checked it with others, with people involved in Gentry's original work and with others that are experts in the field of geology and they confirmed his assessment. Curiously that is one of the ways science is done. Collins has also done additional work that has validated these findings.Saying that this work has not been published (yet) in a peer reviewed journal does not mean that the evidence is fake or fraudulent or erroneous or misrepresented or misunderstood. Failure to deal with this information will not make it go away or falsify it.You either deal with all the evidence or you distort and misrepresent reality.Now, do you want to have a pissing match or do you want to deal with the issues and the evidence? It's your choice.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

EvC Forum was created for the purpose of discussing the evidence and rational behind the science, not scientific credentials. It doesn't matter if a theory comes from Einstein or a thousand monkeys with typewriters, if it explains real world evidence better than any other theory then it wins.Since it might help to break the pattern that seems to have established itself over the last few posts, let me commit to issuing short suspensions to *anyone* posting messages after this one that address the person instead of the topic or that contain arguments based upon the fallacy of appeal to authority.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Thanks again, AlphaOmegaKid, Actually they do count as quote mines. This was in answer to the question of whether or not 3 ring halos existed at all. In the paper he says:

quote:

---

p 187: "In this context it should be noted that polonium halos are defined as halos which seem to result from the decay of polonium isotopes of the 238U series without any visible connection to other alpha emitting nuclides of the 238U series.

---

Bold for emphasis. Nor does he say anywhere that only polonium contribute to these halos. There are some other interesting facts in this article, including information on the relationship between alpha particle decay energy and penetration depth that I can use to refine my model/s.However, this is 1976, a lot has been learned since then, and this is not one of Gentry's articles. Again, you are misrepresenting the article. He barely mentions 222Rn in the article, but talks about the transport of radioactive isotopes in various different ways. He compares several scenarios and shows that one result in predicted behavior that has been observed in the distribution of different types of halos.

quote:

---

p188: "3. The results of petrologic studies which have shown that the nuclei of uranium or thorium halos are usually formed in biotite by small accesseory minerals such as apatite, zircon, monazite or xenotime (SNETSINGER, 1967; OSBORNE, 1947) can not be generally applied to the centers of polonium halos: There are a lot of polonium halos without any microscopic visible center. Furthermore, polonium halos are often found located at defects of mica, i.e. at cracks, veins, microscopic structural distortions or conduits. In flourite samples Po halos could be found - analogous to SCHILLING (1926) - only along cracks and never in undisturbed speciments; but see GENTRY (1973).

​

These observations point to an important difference between U and Th halos, on the one hand, and Pl halos on the other hand: Whereas the genesis of U and Th halos is connected with an inclusion of uranium or thorium nuclides into the lattice of small accessory minerals during their cyrstallization from the magma and before the later crystallization of biotite, polonium radiohalos are not formed by an entry of polonium isotopes into the lattice of accessories during the magmatic crystallization. The observation of an accumulation of polonium halos at distorted areas and cracks of biotite suggests that polonium isotopes must be deposited at defects of mica at a later stage.

---

Notice that there is a fundamental difference between "polonium" halos and either 238U or 232Th halos that shows they are a secondary process.

quote:

---

p192: " ... In this context the tendency of polonium isotopes to be strongly adsorbed on impurities or to form colloids in slightly acid or neutral solutions, eventually by hydrolyzing to hydroxides or by an interaction with an impurity in the solution (HAISSINGSKY and TUCK, 1964; KEPAK, 1974) should be mentioned.

​

According to this behavior it is natural to expect a high tendency of polonium isotopes to accumulate and to concentrate locally by slowly flowing uranium- or radium-bearing solutions at defects or small inclusions of impurities in veins, fissions or cracks or disturbed layers of the rock-forming minerals during a long period of time. ...

---

You will note that he does not mention Radon gas doing the same thing.And this also speaks to the condensation of polonium isotopes at specific places where they can then form halos. Such a process of adding only the radioactive decay products to such impurities or colloids would also result in a disproportionately high ration of 206Pb/207Pb:

quote:

---

p189: "5. By ion microprobe mass spectroscopic studies of polonium halos inclusions, GENTRY (1974), GENTRY et al. (1973), GENTRY et al. (1974) and MOAZED et al. (1973) yielded results exhibiting anomalously high 206Pb/207Pb isotope ratios which are not consistent with the Pb isotopic ratios in U and/or Th halos. Since these Pb isotopic rations can be considered as a consequence of the decay of polonium isotopes, such as 218Po, to 206Pb and obvousl evidence for a different kind of Po and U and/or Th halos is given."

---

The steady and continuous deposition of 222Rn, 218Po, 214Po OR 210Po onto an inclusion would over time result in just such an anomalous ratio of 205Pb/207Pb. The inclusion of a natural polonium inclusion, similar to 238U and/or 232Th, into the crystal lattice would not.Thus we have unequivocal evidence of secondary deposition of polonium after the rocks have formed. In a word, no. There is polonium in them, but the existence of 222Rn has not been ruled out, nor has the issue of these halos being unequivocally a secondary formation only in the presence of uranium decay been addressed. (comment hidden to meet admin request)What is obvious is this:238U has to be abundant in any rocks that have so called "polonium" halos ("defined as halos which seem to result from the decay of polonium isotopes of the 238U series without any visible connection to other alpha emitting nuclides of the 238U series" - italics mine for empHAsis), ...... the end product 206Pb/207Pb ratio in "polonium" halos shows on-going and accumulative deposition by radioactive isotopes being adsorbed into the central inclusion/location, ...... the "polonium" inclusions are formed by a secondary process fundamentally different than the inclusions of 238U and 232Th halos.Given that we know that 222Rn can and did flow through and permeate these rocks, especially along the fissures, micro-fissures and fractures that are abundant, and that 222Rn decays to 218Po AND the ring formed by 222Rn is indistinguishable from a 210Po ring, it is impossible to rule it out as a source for these halos. Anyone that claims otherwise is misrepresenting the evidence.This is evidence that 222Rn LEFT the 238U inclusion: This is the rest of the 222Rn to 206Pb decay chain halos: Put them together and they add up to Now I thought you were going to present some of Gentry's evidence.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : admin suggestionEdited by RAZD, : format

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •