Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   polonium halos
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 106 of 265 (486157)
10-16-2008 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Admin
10-15-2008 9:23 PM


Re: Moderator Request
With your permission, I would like to just have a comment on the appeal to authority fallacy. It is true that no authority can be absolutely trusted based on their credentials. However, the credentials and experience in a given field of knowledge do give weight to the credibility of an argument. That's why we use this all the time in the legal field and in science.
wiki writes:
There are two basic forms of appeal to authority, based on the authority being trusted. The more relevant the expertise of an authority, the more compelling the argument. Nonetheless, authority is never absolute, so all appeals to authority which assert that the authority is necessarily infallible are fallacious.
wiki writes:
The first form of the appeal to authority is when a person presenting a position on a subject mentions some authority who also holds that position, but who is not actually an authority in that area. For instance, the statement "Arthur C. Clarke released a report showing it is necessary to floss three times daily" should not convince many people of anything about flossing, as Clarke, a science fiction writer, was not a known expert on dental care. Much advertising relies on this logical fallacy in the form of endorsements and sponsorships. A sportsperson or actor, for example, is no more likely than average to have an specialist knowledge of watches or perfume, but their endorsement of a particular brand of watch or perfume is very valuable in advertising terms. In some cases, the advertisers use an actor's well-known role to imply that the person has authority in an area; an actor who plays a doctor on television may appear in their white coat, and endorse a drug or health product.
This is the type of fallacy that RAZD is employing. Wakefield and Brawley are the creators of the logic that RAZD is presenting. Neither are qualified in any way to be speaking with authority on this topic. And with all due respect, it does matter if a hypothesis comes from a thousand monkeys with typewriters.
wiki writes:
The second form, citing a person who is actually an authority in the relevant field, carries more subjective, cognitive weight. A person who is recognized as an expert authority often has greater experience and knowledge of their field than the average person, so their opinion is more likely than average to be correct. In practical subjects such as car repair, an experienced mechanic who knows how to fix a certain car will be trusted to a greater degree than someone who is not an expert in car repair. There are many cases where one must rely on an expert, and cannot be reasonably expected to have the same experience, knowledge and skill that that person has. Many trust a surgeon without ever needing to know all the details about surgery themselves. Nevertheless, experts can still be mistaken and their expertise does not always guarantee that their arguments are valid.
This is the type of appeal to authority that I have employed.
The reason I am posting this is it is vitally important to science and the scientific method. Science relies on the appeal to authority within the process of peer review. You must demonstrate a knowledge of prior scientific publications (appeal to authority), scientific methods, presentation of evidence and interpretation of eviedence in order to get published. You must demonstrate your authority on a given scientific subject. All of science relies on this. Being published, does not make it true, but it does meet the level of initial credibility in the world of science.
I know I am not supposed to argue with an administrator. I hope you respectfully recognize though that this is an important part of science and the scientific method.
If I am suspended for this post, then so be it. My convictions regarding fairness and honesty moved me to write it anyway.
Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Admin, posted 10-15-2008 9:23 PM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Admin, posted 10-17-2008 6:28 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 107 of 265 (486174)
10-16-2008 5:43 PM


On Vacation
I will be on vacation thru Monday. I don't know if I will be able to post during this time. See you Tuesday RAZD.

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by RAZD, posted 10-16-2008 9:46 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 108 of 265 (486213)
10-16-2008 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by AlphaOmegakid
10-16-2008 5:43 PM


Re: On Vacation - enjoy.
Well AlphaOmegaKid, I have (only) two (brief) comments:
This is the type of appeal to authority that I have employed.
No, the appeal to authority that you have used, is that the source is more important that the substance of the argument. You have used this appeal (a) to suggest that Gentry is an authority on geology because he has "authority standing" as a physicist, which is a false use, and (b) to suggest that the evidence provided by others (Wakefield, Collins, etc) is of no importance, because they don't have the "authority standing" of peer reviewed published papers of Gentry, which is also a false use.
The reason I am posting this is it is vitally important to science and the scientific method.
The heart of the scientific method is that it is repeatable, that anybody else can repeat the steps in the process published, whether in peer reviewed journals or not, and end up with the same results.
The heart of the scientific method is that when such steps are repeated and errors or misinterpretations are found that the science is adjusted, corrected, and we move on, with better knowledge than before.
Wakefield was unable to reproduce Gentry's claim of finding certain rocks in specific areas and he showed that there were gross errors in the collection and classification of rocks by Gentry. So far no argument has been advanced that suggests that Wakefield made any errors in his geology that would explain the discrepancy between Gentry's claims regarding the rocks and what Wakefield found when he tried to duplicate the findings.
The "authority" that falsifies Gentry's claim is the evidence, NOT who found it or where it was published.
The directive is to deal with the evidence, not with who said what when & where, and we can let the evidence decide who is right.
So I hope you have a peaceful (if brief) vacation, and return rested, relaxed and ready to present the evidence for Gentry's claims, based solely on the substance of the evidence.
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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 10-16-2008 5:43 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 109 of 265 (486225)
10-17-2008 6:28 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by AlphaOmegakid
10-16-2008 1:17 PM


Re: Moderator Request
I don't think I can say it any better than RAZD just did in Message 108:
RAZD in Message 108 writes:
No, the appeal to authority that you have used is that the source is more important than the substance of the argument.
About this from you:
AlphaOmegaKid in Message 106 writes:
Science relies on the appeal to authority within the process of peer review.
As much as is humanly possible, this is not true, but this is not the place to discuss this. If you'd like to discuss the degree to which the fallacy of appeal to authority is a factor in the peer review process, please propose a new thread over at [forum=-25].
In the remainder of this thread, participants are requested to argue the material issues and not the scientists associated with them.
That ends this matter. No replies, please.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 10-16-2008 1:17 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 110 of 265 (486336)
10-18-2008 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by AlphaOmegakid
10-15-2008 10:02 AM


The evidence for Radon grows: 206Pb/207Pb levels
From your previous reference, AlphaOmegaKid,
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.PDF
Here are some interesting quotes from this paper...
And here is another:
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."
First we'll track down the 206Pb/207Pb isotope ratios through the references and copies of the papers provided on your website link and I'll refer to them below as:
(A) GENTRY (1974): Radiohalos in a Radiochronological and Cosmological Perspective
Science, vol. 184, pp. 62-66, April 5, 1974.
Radiohalos in a Radiochronological and Cosmological Perspective
(A3) R. V. Gentry. Science 173, 727 (1971): "Radiohalos: Some Unique Pb Isotope Ratios and Unknown Alpha Radioactivity." Science 173, 727.
http://www.halos.com/.../science-1971-unique-lead-ratios.pdf
(unfortunately this article cannot be accessed from this website)
(B) GENTRY et al. (1973): Ion Microprobe Confirmation of Pb Isotope Ratios and Search for Isomer Precursors in Polonium Radiohaloes
Nature, vol. 244, no. 5414, pp. 282-283, August 3, 1973.
Ion Microprobe Confirmation of Pb Isotope Ratios and Search for Isomer Precursors in Polonium Radiohaloes
(C) GENTRY et al. (1974): 'Spectacle' Array of 210Po Halo Radiocentres in Biotite: a Nuclear Geophysical Enigma (reprinted from Nature, Vol. 252, No. 5484, pp. 564’566, December 13, 1974)
'Spectacle' array of Po-210 halo radiocentres in biotite: a nuclear geophysical enigma
(1) The evidence from "anomalously high 206Pb/207Pb isotope ratios"
From (A):
quote:
I have also reported (5) on a class of halos which had been tentatively attributed (6, 7) to the -decay of 210Po, 214Po, and 218Po. Earlier investigators (2, 7-10), possessing only a sparse collection of Po halos, at times confused them with U halos or invented spurious types such as "emanation" halos (2) or "actinium" halos (8) to account for them. (Figure 1, a to d, is a schematic comparison of U and Po halo types with ring radii drawn proportional to the respective ranges of -particles in air.) To explain Po halos, Henderson (7) postulated a slow accumulation of Po isotopes (or their respective -decay precursors) from U daughter product activity. I demonstrated that this secondary accumulation hypothesis was untenable and showed, using the ion microprobe (3), that Po halo radiocenters (or inclusions) exhibit anomalously high 206Pb/207Pb isotope ratios which are a necessary consequence of Po -decay to 206Pb.
Admittedly, compared to ordinary Pb types, the Pb isotope ratios of Po halos are unusual, but new ion microprobe analyses have confirmed (13) my earlier results (3). It is also apparent that Po halos do pose contradictions to currently held views of Earth history.
For example, there is first the problem of how isotopic separation of several Po isotopes [or their -decay precursors (13)] could have occurred naturally. ...
- (3) R. V. Gentry. Science 173, 727 (1971).
From (A3):
(Can't read the PDF file, I get a "The file is damaged and cannot be repaired" message)
What this implies is an unusual purity for any naturally formed rock carrying the polonium during the formation of the crystal or during it's recrystallization later.
If one set about to precipitate a purer form of polonium it would be through a process similar to the steps used for distilling water (concentrating purer H2O molecules):
Take a pot of water, boil it, collect the steam in a volume where the temperature is reduced so the steam condenses as water droplets, and those water droplets will have an "unusual" higher level of pure H2O molecules compared to background contaminants than the natural water.
This makes use of the different phases of water with temperature to separate pure water molecules from the naturally contaminated source water.
A similar use of different phases can separate radon from uranium and condense polonium, resulting in a purer concentration than would reside in a natural formed rock with naturally occurring contamination. In this case we start with a uranium containing rock, complete with the normal levels of contaminates from when it was formed, and then we make use of the gas phase of the decay chain, 222Rn, to separate the purer isotope atoms from the naturally contaminated source rock, and then condense the gas by radioactive decay into non-gaseous polonium, which will then continue to decay into stable 206Pb: those condensation points will have an "unusual" higher level of pure 206Pb atoms compared to background contaminants than the natural rocks. We can refer to this as the "radon gas distillation" process.
We also do not need to have a distillation apparatus set up to collect H2O molecules, as the partial pressure of gases will distribute the steam (gas) molecules evenly within a volume. I can put on a tea kettle and let it boil away, and across the room set up a cold point over a collection glass: over time droplets will form on the cold point and drop into the collection glass. Not every H2O molecule boiled away from the kettle will be collected, but enough will accumulate to form a puddle of water at the bottom, while a similar glass without the cold point will not. When the glass eventually fills it will overflow and form a distinctive ring on the napkin under the glass, a ring with an "unusual" higher level of pure H2O molecules in it's core (glass) compared to background contaminants than a similar ring formed by overfilling another glass with natural water.
(your quote from Collins) writes:
quote:
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.
Which doesn't negate the possibility\probability of 222Rn gas diffusion through the rocks and the subsequent distillation of polonium, especially given that there is evidence of incomplete 238U halos, halos that can best be explained by 222Rn leaving the original site and diffusing through the very same rocks by the very same channels:
Note the partially formed third ring (and even fainter outer rings) from ... 222Rn decay & daughter isotope decay. The extreme difference in half-lives for these inner ring isotopes and the Rn/Po isotopes - the longest is 22.3 years (β- decay of 210Pb) compared to 75,380 years for the shortest precursor (230Th) - means that if the 222Rn stayed with the inclusion, that their rings would also be fully formed. This evidence proves that 222Rn was able to diffuse through these (fluorite) rocks.
(your quote from Collins) writes:
quote:
Gentry has met the counter claims with additional arguments, pointing out that:
(B) Distribution of the beta-particle-emitting lead isotopes is inadequate to explain the presence of short-lived 218Po and 214Po nuclei.
While, curiously, we are talking about 222Rn diffusion through the rocks, a known process, and the subsequent concentration of 222Rn and daughter isotopes at certain opportunistic sites, so this does not apply.
(your quote from Collins) writes:
quote:
Gentry has met the counter claims with additional arguments, pointing out that:
(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.
Which, of course, would necessarily be the case with the 222Rn gas diffusion and polonium distillation by the process proposed above.
Collins goes on to show "New Evidence Against Gentry's Hypothesis" then he discusses "Odd Circumstantial Facts" and finally develops "The True Origin of Polonium Halos" where he shows that Gentry's mistakes about the geology are important:
quote:
The properties of radon are germane to this understanding. Radon (222Rn) is the radioactive decay product of 226Ra which evolves into 218Po. As an inert gas, it (222Rn) moves freely through cracks in rocks unimpeded by reactions with minerals lining the cracks. Evidence for this ease of radon travel is noticeable in water wells prior to earthquakes. The creeping rock movements associated with seismically-active terranes open avenues for radon-bearing water to move into lower-pressure pore space and to the surface. Therefore, on the basis of this mobility, we would expect radon to move into a shattered and sheared habitat of diorite or gabbro that was in the process of being converted to myrmekite-bearing granite.
As 222Rn is the precursor for 218Po, this polonium isotope is the first one to be formed in the decay process. Although the half life of 218Po is relatively short (3.05 minutes), enormous numbers of 222Rn concentrate as a dissolved element along with silica in hydrous fluids, which then migrate in response to tectonic pressures into porous sites in the mafic crustal rocks.
When atoms of 222Rn decay to form in succession 218Po, 214Po, and 210Po, the three polonium isotopes exist as negatively charged ions, Po-2, whose sizes are similar to the fluoride and hydroxyl ions. In this way polonium isotopes are naturally accommodated and concentrated into fluorite (CAF2) and biotite in granitic rock that is subjected to shear stress.
Curiously, now that you have mined Collins for his purported support of Gentry, you have now de facto accepted his authority to speak on the subject, AND you have introduced his counter-argument, based on the actual geology of the rocks in question, showing them to be a secondary formation, not "primordial" and occurring after the rocks have cooled, perhaps long after. Thus you need to deal with his argument and his evidence that 222Rn is responsible for the "polonium" halos.
(2) corollary: the evidence from relative density of 238U halos and Radon\Polonium halos
From (A) again:
quote:
... Second, a straightforward explanation of 218Po halos implies that the 1-m radiocenters of very dark halos of this type initially contained as many as 5 10^9 atoms (a concentration of more than 50 percent) of the isotope 218Po (half-life, 3 minutes), a problem that almost defies reason. ...
Unless one considers that they can easily have accumulated over time by "radon gas distillation" until this concentration (or higher) is reached. Once one considers such a concentration process is involved, then "a concentration of more than 50 percent" is really validation that this has occurred.
Now from (B):
quote:
The outstanding feature of the mass analysis is the prominent 206 signal which, when attributed to the presence of 206Pb in the inclusions, fits perfectly with the prediction based on ring structure measurements, that is, that the 206Pb is radiogenically derived, not from U or Th, but directly from 210Po decay. In this respect, the large difference in the 206/238 (206Pb/236U) ratio between the 'spectacle' halo and the U’Th halo (Figs 2 and 3) is especially significant. Clearly the 'spectacle' halo resulted from 210Po decay; an explanation for its geometry is still under study.
Because the Pb isotope in these inclusions is not explicable as any combination of common, primordial, or from in situ Pb derived radiogenically in situ from U or Th, we conclude that a different type of Pb, derived from Po decay, exists in nature. Supportive evidence comes from electron-probe and ion-probe analyses of a 218Po halo radiocentre found in a mica from the Iveland District, Norway, which yielded a 206Pb/207Pb ratio of 23. This is consistent with that expected from 218Po a decay to 206Pb. Such a Pb ratio is impossibly high based on normal isotopic 238U/235U decay, the theoretical maximum being 21.8.
Given that the normal decay of 210Po in the uranium decay chain and halos results in 206Pb, there is no need to postulate a "different" Pb for these halos. We still see the result of a condensation purification distillation process, the "radon gas distillation" process, resulting in the accumulation of concentrations of a purer form of an isotope than normally occurs in the formation of rocks.
And from (C):
quote:
In such cases a large excess of 206Pb compared with 207Pb was found to be incompatible with the radiogenic decay of 238U and 235U, yet was explainable on the basis of polonium decay independent of uranium3. A straightforward attempt to account for the origin of these Po haloes by assuming that Po was incorporated into the halo inclusion at the time of host mineral crystallization meets with severe geological problems: the half-lives of the polonium isotopes (t1/2 = 3 min for 218Po) are too short to permit anything but a rapid mineral crystallization, contrary to accepted theories of magmatic cooling rates.
So we discard the concept that they were "incorporated into the halo inclusion at the time of host mineral crystallization," and look for other ways the polonium could be transported within the rock structure later. Say by "radon gas distillation" perhaps.
More from (B):
quote:
There is a wide spectrum in the U and Th halo types”some inclusions contain just U or Th without the other element, while other inclusions contain varying amounts of U and Th and in some cases exhibit rings from both decay series; it seems that the same situation prevails with Po and U type haloes in certain micas. In the analyses thus far it seems that the larger the Po halo inclusion the greater the U content tends to be; but more work is needed to verify this. Also the larger inclusions seem to be definite mineral types (usually rare earths but not specifically identified as yet), whereas some of the point-like Po halo inclusions consist of only elemental Pb (without 204Pb) and Bi. Previously no detectable U was found in such cases as the latter type.
A greater U content would lead to a higher concentration of 222Rn gas and subsequent higher rate of distillation into "purified" deposits of polonium. Here we may have a catalyst for the condensation process with the rare earth minerals for the larger inclusions. Given that decay does not operate in reverse, the presence of U or Th in places where 222Rn has distilled into polonium would be remarkable.
More again from (B):
quote:
In contrast to the Pb ratios in the U and Th halo inclusions, we again report exceptionally high 206Pb/207Pb ratios which are characteristic of the 218Po decay sequence type Po halo. The results may be summarized as follows: 206Pb/207Pb ratios of 10, 12, 18, 22, 25, 40, and 100 were observed. In four of these cases no 204Pb was detected. In the other two cases 204Pb was almost background, so that no common Pb correction was made on any of the ratios (any such correction would have produced a larger 206Pb/207Pb ratio). In three of the cases (10, 12, and 22) the small uranium signal seen was 10 to 100 times less than that required to support the Pb observed. These results confirm the earlier ion microprobe analyses of Po halo inclusions in which Pb ratios were found that were impossible to explain on the basis of U decay. They give confidence that we are indeed dealing with a class of haloes that is distinct from the ordinary U and Th types as the optical microscopic measurements invariably suggest. Otherwise, the most important aspect of the results is that the decay product of the polonium (Pb) still exists in these inclusions in measurable quantities (108-1010 atoms) and has not diffused away. On such a basis we then expect that any isomer precursor of Po, if the half-lives were sufficiently long, would also still exist and be detectable by ion microprobe techniques.
... . It can be definitely stated that the exceptionally high 206 signal, compared with 207, occurs only in the Po halo inclusions and is not an artifact due to a molecular ion originating with the mica itself, the inclusion, or a combination of the mica and the elemental constituents of the inclusion. ...
Note that the half-life of 222Rn (3.8 days) is much less than the half-life of 210Po (138 days), so if the polonium has all decayed, then so would have all the radon. This still provides excellent evidence for the concentration of polonium by a purification process such as "radon gas distillation" would provide.
Note, that by this process, the formation of Radon\Polonium halos can take a long time to concentrate enough atoms to form a visible ring, but the process is accumulative and does not depend on any initial concentration at the central location.
We know that the 238U halos (known single source isotope ring) in the same rocks took hundreds of millions of years to form, and we only need one Radon decay event per one 238U decay event to form a ring with the same density. This means it would take only (100x10^6)x(3.8235 d/4.468x10^9 years) = 2.344x10^-4 years, 0.0856 days, or 2.05 hours, minimum to form from a continual decay from an original source with the same quantity of radioactive atoms that is not derived from the purification process.
With the "radon gas distillation" process this 2 hours of decay can be spread out over the hundreds of millions of years it took to form the uranium halos, making it a rather rare event, but still have sufficient opportunity to provide the materials in the locations during the times available: motive, means and opportunity.
Finally, again from (A):
quote:
... A further necessary consequence, that such Po halos could have formed only if the host rocks underwent a rapid crystallization, renders exceedingly difficult, in my estimation, the prospect of explaining these halos by physical laws as presently understood. In brief, Po halos are an enigma, and their ring structure as well as other distinguishing characteristics need to be made abundantly clear.
Except that rapid crystallization is not a necessary consequence at all for the formation of halos by the "radon gas distillation" process, rather the opposite: slow and gradual. The evidence of 222Rn leaving the sites of the incomplete 238U halos plus the evidence of some purification process being involved in the formation of these halos, plus the ability of radon gas to diffuse through rocks, especially rocks of this type, clearly is capable of explaining these halos.
From there he goes on to distinguishing Po from other isotopes, a subject I'll delay for another reply so these don't get too long for you. I am disappointed that the PDF article (A3) was not readable, however I don't expect much different than what we've seen in (B) and (C) for evidence of 206Pb/207Pb ratios. I'll have to see if they have it in the local library.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : clarity
Edited by RAZD, : expanded on Collins
Edited by RAZD, : again
Edited by RAZD, : moved photo
Edited by RAZD, : fixed photo callout

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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 10-15-2008 10:02 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 111 of 265 (486450)
10-20-2008 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by AlphaOmegakid
10-15-2008 10:02 AM


Differentiating 222Rn from 210Po bands
This is the second installment, AlphaOmegaKid,
We will start again with the article you cited by Meier:
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.PDF
Here are some interesting quotes from this paper...
And this is another one:
quote:
p185: "This interest results from the correspondence between the radii of halos and ranges of alpha particles and from the association of halo dimensions with alpha energies of decaying radionuclides. The halos, microscopic defects in the lattice of the minerals caused by alpha particles are very stable and stored in minerals of ancient rocks over long periods. Therefore, it is possible to find alpha emitters of the decay series 238U or 232Th in microscopic inclusions from the Precambrian up to the Tertiary, which might be of interest in chronological estimations (LINGINELLI, 1960; PRZIBRAM, 1953; MEIER, 1966; HIRSCHMANN, 1967) or in an examination of the constancy in time of the radioactive decay (GENTRY, 1973, SPECTOR, 1972).
Later he refers to earlier data on this mathematical relationship:
quote:
p186: "As mentioned above the ranges of alpha particles emitted from an invisible cluster of at least 10^8 - 10^9 radioisotopes (GENTRY, 1973) or from a radioactive inclusion are measure with the real radii of halos. Moreover, the energies of those alpha emitters can be derived from range-energy curves which are given, e.g., for mica as a host mineral (GENTRY, 1967); see Fig. 2."

And he gives some of these results in table form:
quote:
p187: "Since three polonium isotopes, i.e. 218Po and 214Po and 210Po, are members of the 238U series, the alpha decay of halos can principally start from 218Po, 214Po or 210Po. Therefore, in accordance with ranges and energies, resp., of alpha particles emitted from these isotopes (see Table 1) which are decaying in the series 218Po → 214Po → 210Po, several structures of polonium halos can be expected."

This kind of information is what is needed to properly model the decay penetrations in the various rocks and test the actual field observations against the theoretical values.
Being skeptical that the penetration depth for 210Po did not exclude 222Rn I excluded this value from the formula generation. I also used 0,0 as a value in the formula generation as Gentry showed (above), although it may be that a certain initial positive value of energy is required to get started. Certainly you cannot have penetration without energy. Finally, I used up-to-date values for the Eα (see previous posts). This gives me three points to generate theoretical curves to fit the data
0,0
6.115, 23.1
7.883, 34.4
We can model this simplistically using a binomial formula that gives a curve passing through these three points:
y = ax^2 + bx

where a and b are constants, y = the penetration depth in microns and x = Eα in MeV.
Solving these equations for the constants I get:
y = 0.3316x^2 + 1.750x

The first test of this formula is to see what it predicts for the value of the inner ring/s. If, as suspected, the penetration depth given above for the "210Po" ring is in fact a combination 210Po and 222Rn, then we would expect it to match (or come close to) an average value for both these α decay energies, whereas if this is indeed 210Po we would expect the values calculated to match (or come close to) the value for 210Po α decay energies.
The values calculated for formula are:
Mev = 5.407 ⇒ y = 19.16 microns
Mev = 5.590 ⇒ y = 20.14 microns
average = 19.65 microns
From this simple analysis it would appear that what was given as a "210Po" ring penetration depth is in fact due to the combination of 210Po and 222Rn decay energies. Based on these formulas I also calculated theoretical penetration depths in mica for the full 238U decay series:
While these results are not bad for this simplistic approach, it would be better to have additional points to use for the curve generations. In particular, it would be useful to have a penetration depth value for the 238U decay, as that is the only other ring that is unambiguously caused by a single isotope, and this would increase the accuracy significantly. With that in mind I wanted to look at the 1967 reference:
GENTRY (1967) "Extinct radioactivity and the discovery of a new pleochroic halo"
Nature 213, 487-489.
Unfortunately this is not provided on your website, and I could not access the full article on Nature, so I'll have to wait to see if the library has this article too. Alternatively I can look for more recent tabulations from Gentry, such as included in a previous reference {A} cited in the last post:
(A) GENTRY (1974): "Radiohalos in a Radiochronological and Cosmological Perspective"
Science, vol. 184, pp. 62-66, April 5, 1974.
Radiohalos in a Radiochronological and Cosmological Perspective
quote:
Biotite and fluorite are good halo detectors, but fluorite is superior because the halo rings exhibit more detail, often have smaller radiocenter diameters (< 1 m), and have almost negligible size variations due to dose effects in the embryonic to normal stages of development. Figure 1g shows an embryonic U halo in fluorite with only the first two rings fully developed; the other rings are barely visible because, due to the inverse square effect, threshold coloration has not been reached. Figure 1h shows a U halo in fluorite in the normal stage of development, when nearly all the rings are visible. This halo closely approximates the idealized U halo in Fig. 1a. Under high magnification even separation of the 210Po and 222Rn rings may be seen. Figure 1i shows another U halo in fluorite, with a ring structure that is clearly visible but not adequate for accurate radius measurements.
Fig. 1. The scale for all photomicrographs is 1 cm ‘ 25.0 m, except for (h') and (r'), which are enlargements of (h) and (r).
(a) Schematic drawing of 238U halo with radii proportional to ranges of -particles in air.
(b) Schematic of 210Po halo.
(c) Schematic of 214Po halo.
(d) Schematic of 218Po halo.
(e) Coloration band formed in mica by 7.7-Mev 4He ions. Arrow shows direction of beam penetration.
(f) A 238U halo in biotite formed by sequential -decay of the 238U decay series.
(g) Embryonic 238U halo in fluorite with only two rings developed.
(h) Normally developed 238U halo in fluorite with nearly all rings visible.
(h') Same halo as in (h) but at higher magnification.
(i) Well-developed 238U halo in fluorite with slightly blurred rings.

(j) Overexposed 238U halo in fluorite, showing inner ring diminution.
(k) Two overexposed 238U halos in fluorite showing inner ring diminution in one halo and obliteration of inner rings in the other.
(l) More overexposed 238U halo in fluorite, showing outer ring reversal effects.
(m) Second-stage reversal in a 238U halo in fluorite. The ring sizes are unrelated to 238U -particle ranges.
(n) Three 210Po halos of light, medium, and very dark coloration in biotite. Note the differences in radius.
(o) Three 210Po halos of varying degrees of coloration in fluorite.
(p) A 214Po halo in biotite.
(q) Two 218Po halos in biotite.
(r) Two 218Po halos in fluorite.
(r') Same halo as in (r) but at higher magnification.

So this is good news for you here, a fluorite 238U halo with six bands. Unfortunately the picture is of very bad quality and it is hard to see anything, so I went looking through the pictures on the website you cited to see if I could find this picture. Sadly, it did not appear to be in the ones posted.
I did, however, find this one of a 6-ring 238U halo in fluorite:
Creation's Tiny Mystery: Radiohalo Catalogue, Plate 6
(c) http://www.halos.com/images/ctm-rc-6-c.jpg
So there is enough difference in fluorite, with smaller inclusions and less degree of scattering of the decay, such that the 222Rn and 210Po rings can be distinguished in this crystal.
However, I also found these pictures of 4-ring "218Po" halos in fluorite, among the photos posted on your cited website, that show the same differentiation pattern:
Creation's Tiny Mystery: Radiohalo Catalogue, Plate 8
(b) http://www.halos.com/images/ctm-rc-8-b.jpg
& (d) http://www.halos.com/images/ctm-rc-8-d.jpg
The first has about the same degree of demarcation as the 238U halo above, while the second shows only a very small distinction at ~2:00 to ~3:30 and at ~9:00 orientations.
This, of course, proves beyond any reasonable doubt that 222Rn was involved in the formation of these rings. It also demonstrates that any wider bands can easily become blurred, obscuring the distinction between them. These two pictures also show the distinctive wider overall band for 222Rn and 210Po that would be apparent once such blurring is complete.
I’ll leave that to the next installment, so that this doesn’t get too long.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : Sources
Edited by RAZD, : moved photos

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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 10-15-2008 10:02 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by petrophysics1, posted 10-21-2008 12:14 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
petrophysics1
Inactive Member


Message 112 of 265 (486454)
10-21-2008 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by RAZD
10-20-2008 9:42 PM


Re: Differentiating 222Rn from 210Po bands
RAZD,
You know that everything Gentry is saying is based on the idea that granite is an intrusive igneous rock that was melted. A 9th grade understanding of granite, and a two year old’s understanding of pegmatites.
Is that what a granite or a granitic pegmatite is?
Try Google-ing "granitization".
Here is a hint....how do you get detrital zircon grains in a granite if it was molten?
http://www.terrapub.co.jp/journals/GJ/pdf/1001/10010013.PDF
or read this:
Granitization
You can argue with Gentry on the physics, but he is dead in the water on the geology!
That’s why none of his stuff is peer reviewed in the geologic literature. Same old bait and switch. “I have a scientific paper published, of course it doesn’t say anything like what I am telling you now, but I know you are too stupid to figure that out.”
Put your money in the collection tray . . . .and just wander off in a daze.
P.S. RAZD, i really do like reading your posts, Thanks!
Edited by petrophysics1, : No reason given.
Edited by Admin, : Shorten long link.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by RAZD, posted 10-20-2008 9:42 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 113 of 265 (486507)
10-21-2008 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by RAZD
10-15-2008 11:58 PM


This is why Meiers was easily refuted by Gentry
Thanks RAZD,
I think it is important to discuss a few basics, so we can understand what is being talked about in the scientific documents.
1. What is a radiohalo? A radio halo is a spherical visible discoloration that can be seen in semitransparent mineral formations. They are not round, they are spherical. In some cases where the emitting particles are very large, the halos may be elliptical. That would mean that the central inclusion would also be relatively elliptical.
2. There are two main families of radiohalos. They are extinct and extant. Extinct halos will only have stable isotopes in the inclusion, because the unstable isotopes in the decay chain have decayed away. All polonium isotopes are extinct, because all of the isotopes of Po218, 214, and 210 have very short half lives and have decayed away. Uranium and Thorium halos may be extinct or extant depending on when they were encapsulated.
3. Halos can only be formed when radioactive material is encapsulated. Any material flow into or out of a radio center cavity will not create a halo. The radioactive material cannot be flowing (mobile). The radioactive material must be fixed in a defined space from which it will radiate outward in a spherical manner.
Note: Other radioactive mineral damage can occur from alpha decay. Other mineral discoloration can occur from radioactive decay from mobile isotopes, but this damage will not be spherical in shape.
4. The name of the halo refers to the original emitting isotope at the center of the halo.
5. Halo measurement is done at the largest diameter of the sphere.
6. Any picture showing multiple halos is not evidence of anything in regards to halo ring determination. The multiple halos are not all at the diameter cross section. The multiple halo pictures will have varying colors, focuses, and diameter measurements. Only single halos are measured, and they are measured thru multiple cross sections until the largest diameter section is found.
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.
Here 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.
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:
This is an outright lie. This is what he said in context: pg 186-187
quote:
Results:
By systematic optical measurements of specimens consisting mostly of biotite some halos with rings attributable to the alpha decay of 146Sm (Ea=2.2MeV) and the members of the 238U and/or 232Th series, have been observed. The greatest portion of halos, however, could be clearly identified as polonium halos. In this context it should be noted that polonium halos are defined as halos which seem to result form the decay of polonium isotopes of the 238U series without any visible connection to other alpha emitting nuclides of the 238U series. Since three polonium isotopes, i.e. 218Po and 214Po and 210Po, are members of the 238U series, the alpha decay of halos can principally start from 218Po, 214Po, or Po210. Therefore, in accordance with ranges and energies, resp., of alpha particles emitted from these isotopes (see Table1) which are decaying in the series 218Po->214Po->210Po, several structures of polonium halos can be expected.
Table 1: (snipped)
I.e., the different types of polonium halos are: 218Po halos which are characterized by three ring structure due to the decay of three isotopes; 214Po halos which are characterized by a two ring structure due to the decay of two isotopes; 210Po halos which consist only of a disk.
In Fig. 3 these distinct types of polonium halos are schematically shown; see also (Gentry, 1973; Henderson and Sparks, 1939; Moazed et al., 1973)
By observing a great number of halos which can be definitely ascribed to polonium isotopes (see Fig.4 and Fig. 5) the results of Henderson and Sparks (1939), Henderson (1939), and Gentry (1968, 1974) concerning these halos could be confirmed. Therefore, the existence of polonium halos should no longer be questioned.
I did not quote mine Meier. He says unequivocally that these are polonium halos. He says unequivocally that you and everyone else should not question this any longer. He says that the results and conclusions regarding the identification of these halos from Henderson, Sparks, Gentry and Meier all agree. Even Collins and Baillieu agree. These are indeed polonium halos. You cannot show one scientist that says otherwise. Trying to claim that these are Rn222 halos is a fraudulent web claim from spurious sources that present zero evidence, only conjecture and assertions. All of your drawings with fuzzy lines and conjectures are not evidence of anything. If you provide images of halos with measurements on them, and they are at the diametrical section of the sphere, then you might have some evidence. But so far you have dazzled the audience with a bunch of nothing.
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.
Either you didn’t read this publication, or you cannot comprehend it. Meier is unequivocally saying that “only polonium (218Po, 214Po, and 210Po) contributes to these halos.” That’s what he is saying when he states “without any visible connection to other alpha emitting nuclides of the 238U series.” In other words, there is no visible connection to 222Rn. Do you get it? None. Zero visible evidence. No matter what your scriptures on TalkOrigins say.
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...
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.
Again, I don’t think you understand what you are reading. What radioactive isotopes do you think he is talking about? 222Rn is the alpha emitting isotope precursor to 218Po. How else are you going to get 218Po inclusions unless you have a substantial flow of 222Rn according to his hypothesis?
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.
Only if you ignore the previously submitted evidence from Gentry. I highlighted it in red. The fact is that there are plenty of polonium halos without any visible defects in the mica, or cracks or fissures. That evidence which is visible and available negates this whole argument. This is why ntskeptiks and Collins declare that Meier’s arguments were easily dismissed by Gentry. Since they are now your arguments, they will be easily dismissed by me:
Here are some quotes from his first peer reviewed article in Science 1968
Fossil Alpha-Recoil Analysis of Certain Variant Radioactive Halos
quote:
I have observed the polonium halos in many Precambrian biotites, and the halos in Fig. 1 were found in biotites from the Baltic (Norway) and Canadian shields, respectively. Since these polonium isotopes are daughter products of 238U, it was initially conceived (10) that they were preferentially fixed out of uranium-bearing solutions at localized deposition centers along small conduits or veins within the host mineral (mica, for example).
While coloration surrounding minute veins in the mica is an indication of the flow of radioactive solutions (very weak solutions may show no staining whatsoever), it does not follow that halos that formed around small nuclei in the conduits were necessarily derived from radioactivity in solution. For example, polonium, uranium, and thorium halos also form around very small inclusions, with no visible conduit or crack in the mica connecting the halo nuclei, and it is certainly not clear that these halos are of hydrothermal origin.
Please note that in Gentry’s first publication he identified granites from Canada and Norway and later in the paper he mentions Ireland. Wakefield’s whole argument is a strawman about certain locations in Canada only. Since this time Gentry has found Po halos in granites from the Americas, Scandinavia, Europe, Russia, Japan, and Madagascar. Within these biotites and fluorites, some have visible cracks and fissure and some do not. Here are some photos from Gentry's site that show both situations.
Creation's Tiny Mystery: Radiohalo Catalogue, Plate 1
The above page shows pictures of four fully developed uranium halos in biotite. Pictures a, b, and c show no visible evidence of fissures cracks or conduits. Picture d does show clear conudits.
Creation's Tiny Mystery: Radiohalo Catalogue, Plate 2
The above page shows Po210 halos in biotite. Picture a shows some conduits, some to the center of the halo and some not. Many of the halos are not near conduits. Pictures b, c, and d show no evidence of conduits.
Creation's Tiny Mystery: Radiohalo Catalogue, Plate 3
The above page shows Po214 halos in biotite. Pictures a and b show conduits. Pictures c and d show no evidence of conduits.
Creation's Tiny Mystery: Radiohalo Catalogue, Plate 3
The above page shows Po218 halos in biotite. Pictures a, b, and d show evidence of conduits and c does not.
The facts are there is evidence of conduits for some halos, and there isn’t any evidence of conduits on others. The same is true in fluorites, except that fluorite eliminates the possibility of a cleavage plane, because it doesn’t cleave like the micas.
The fact is that Gentry originally desired to test the possibility of isotope precursor flow in this first publication. And he did by two methods. The first was fission track analysis, and the second was by alpha recoil analysis.
FISSION TRACK ANALYSIS
quote:
Fission-track techniques (15) may serve this purpose. Uranium-238 fissions spontaneously, and the damaged regions in the host mineral, produced by the fission fragments, can be enlarged sufficiently by acid etching for visibility under an optical microscope. Immersion of biotite samples, containing the polonium and uranium halos in hydrofluoric acid for a few seconds and subsequent observation of the areas in the vicinity of the inclusions reveal a striking difference: the polonium halos are characterized by complete absence of fission tracks, whereas the uranium halos always show clusters of fission tracks.
quote:
If a uranium solution had been in a conduit feeding the central inclusions of the polonium halos with daughter-product activity, about 70 fission tracks per centimeter of conduit would be expected by use of Henderson's model (10). This result depends on such parameters as the uranium concentration in the solution, the rate of flow (conservatively I have assumed that the solution ceased to flow when the polonium halos formed), and the total number of polonium atoms (5 108) necessary to form a well-developed 218Po halo. This last value I determined by observing the degree of coloration in uranium halos as a function of the number of fission tracks emanating from the halo nucleus, the total number of -particles required for production of a halo being computed as eight times the number of fission tracks times the ratio of the half-lives for spontaneous fission and alpha decay for 238U. While fission tracks are observed along stained conduits, in general I cannot correlate the distribution of fission tracks along clear conduits with the presence of polonium halos.
So what Gentry did was test the hydro thermal flow theory of a uranium bearing liquid with daughter-product activity (decay chain isotopes) by checking for fission tracks which would be present along any conduits and around any halos. The uranium halos had the fission tracks (as expected), but the Po218 halos showed no sign of the fission tracks. Then the conduits were analysed. Stained conduits showed fission tracks. Clear conduits as are identified in all the photos cited above showed no fission tracks.
This is clear evidence that a liquid fluid flow did not supply the Po for these halos.
ALPHA RECOIL ANALYSIS
quote:
Polonium halos are also found randomly distributed throughout the interior of large mica crystals far removed from any conduit. (A limited survey may indicate halos occurring within certain cleavage planes, but more extensive search shows this is not the case.) The question now arises of whether the source of the short-half-life radioactivity, characteristic of such polonium halos, was due to (i) the laminar flow of a non-uranium-bearing solution, containing disequilibrium amounts of daughter-product -activity, through a thin cleft parallel to the cleavage plane, or (ii) the diffusion of gaseous radon through the mica. The latter case has been considered (8), but only recently has the discovery of -recoil tracks in micas (16) enabled quantitative checking of either of these mechanisms. This technique is based on the fact that an atom recoiling from -emission impinges on the host mineral and forms a damaged region large enough to produce a pit which is visible in phase contrast when etched with hydrofluoric acid.
Now please note that it is a complete strawman argument to suggest that Gentry did not realize or did not consider the permeability of Rn222 gas through the micas through either cleavage planes or conduits. It should be unequivocally accepted that Gentry not only recognized this, but he tested for it.
quote:
As far as the experimental analysis is concerned, there is no detectable difference in the microscopic distribution of -radioactivity (with respect to background density) near either the uranium or the polonium halos. [I note that thin clefts, which usually result near the edges of the mica from weathering (but not within the bulk of the mica), are easily detected by an acid etch since -recoil tracks appear throughout the extent of the cleft area.] This finding seems to imply that there was no gross transport of -radioactivity to the polonium-halo inclusions (i) by way of laminar flow of solutions (through thin clefts) disequilibrated as to uranium daughter-product activity, or (ii) by diffusion of radon, since an increased -recoil density, higher than background by several orders of magnitude, should be evident within a l0- radius of the halo inclusions in either case.
Now the tests showed conclusive evidence that the presence of Rn222 gas is way below the levels needed to produce a Po218 halo. So the very first publication of Gentry destroys your Rn222 gas transport theory and the hydro thermal liquid flow theory.
I will stop here due to length, but I have more!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by RAZD, posted 10-15-2008 11:58 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by RAZD, posted 10-21-2008 8:51 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 114 of 265 (486518)
10-21-2008 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by AlphaOmegakid
10-21-2008 5:36 PM


Still missing: addressing the evidence for 222Rn
Thanks, AlphaOmegaKid, I trust you had a restful vacation.
I think it is important to discuss a few basics, so we can understand what is being talked about in the scientific documents.
3. Halos can only be formed when radioactive material is encapsulated. Any material flow into or out of a radio center cavity will not create a halo. The radioactive material cannot be flowing (mobile). The radioactive material must be fixed in a defined space from which it will radiate outward in a spherical manner.
Sorry but this is false. All that is needed is for radioactive particles to decay in the same place, and this CAN occur with flow into and out of a void in the crystal structure, one sufficiently larger than the fissures that permeate such formation that the fluid stays there long enough for the decay to occur.
This is an outright lie. This is what he said in context: pg 186-187
quote:
By systematic optical measurements of specimens consisting mostly of biotite some halos with rings attributable to the alpha decay of 146Sm (Ea=2.2MeV) and the members of the 238U and/or 232Th series, have been observed. The greatest portion of halos, however, could be clearly identified as polonium halos. In this context it should be noted that polonium halos are defined as halos which seem to result form the decay of polonium isotopes of the 238U series without any visible connection to other alpha emitting nuclides of the 238U series. Since three polonium isotopes, i.e. 218Po and 214Po and 210Po, are members of the 238U series, the alpha decay of halos can principally start from 218Po, 214Po, or Po210. Therefore, in accordance with ranges and energies, resp., of alpha particles emitted from these isotopes (see Table1) which are decaying in the series 218Po->214Po->210Po, several structures of polonium halos can be expected.
ALL he is doing is using that definition, a definition that tacitly says that it IS part of the 238U decay chain, just that the link/s are not visible. He is NOT saying that they are "primordial" polonium.
Either you didn’t read this publication, or you cannot comprehend it.
Again, I don’t think you understand what you are reading.
Back to the ad hominems. tch tch.
I highlighted it in red. The fact is that there are plenty of polonium halos without any visible defects in the mica, or cracks or fissures. That evidence which is visible and available negates this whole argument.
The FACT that there are similar 238U halos that are missing 222Rn and subsequent daughter isotopes PROVE you are wrong. Not having visible defects or cracks does not mean not having any - just that you can't see them from the pictures.
Creation's Tiny Mystery: Radiohalo Catalogue, Plate 1
The above page shows pictures of four fully developed uranium halos in biotite. Pictures a, b, and c show no visible evidence of fissures cracks or conduits. Picture d does show clear conudits.
Which all show 5 rings, 1=238U, 2=234U+230Th+226Ra, 3=222Rn+210Po, 4=218Po and 5=214Po, and the 3rd ring is wide compared to the others.
Creation's Tiny Mystery: Radiohalo Catalogue, Plate 2
The above page shows Po210 halos in biotite. Picture a shows some conduits, some to the center of the halo and some not. Many of the halos are not near conduits. Pictures b, c, and d show no evidence of conduits.
Creation's Tiny Mystery: Radiohalo Catalogue, Plate 3
The above page shows Po214 halos in biotite. Pictures a and b show conduits. Pictures c and d show no evidence of conduits.
Creation's Tiny Mystery: Radiohalo Catalogue, Plate 3
The above page shows Po218 halos in biotite. Pictures a, b, and d show evidence of conduits and c does not.
You mean Creation's Tiny Mystery: Radiohalo Catalogue, Plate 4 on the last one. Been there, seen it, noticed that the inner ring is wider than the others.
This just means that some conduits are detected, and others are not. Again the evidence of the incomplete 238U halos prove that 222Rn is fully mobile in these crystals without any visible conduits.
So what Gentry did was test the hydro thermal flow theory of a uranium bearing liquid with daughter-product activity (decay chain isotopes) by checking for fission tracks which would be present along any conduits and around any halos. The uranium halos had the fission tracks (as expected), but the Po218 halos showed no sign of the fission tracks. Then the conduits were analysed. Stained conduits showed fission tracks. Clear conduits as are identified in all the photos cited above showed no fission tracks.
Which, curiously, does not refute 222Rn mobility as a gas leaving the uranium inclusions in vast numbers with being due to fission.
Now the tests showed conclusive evidence that the presence of Rn222 gas is way below the levels needed to produce a Po218 halo. So the very first publication of Gentry destroys your Rn222 gas transport theory and the hydro thermal liquid flow theory.
Curiously I disagree. Strangely my disagreement comes from a picture by Gentry:
This halo shows four (4) rings: 210Po then 222Rn then 218Po then 214Po, each band is about the same width: a complete 222Rn halo, evidence that 222Rn is the source of this halo. This picture:
... also shows the familiar blurred inner ring, with just a faint distinction at ~3 o'clock between the two inner rings.
(If you click on the link and use ctrl+(+) your browser should zoom in on these pictures)
Therefore 222Rn was able to penetrate these crystals and this led to the formation of halos without visible connection to the 238U -- or do you argue that the 222Rn was "primordial" now?
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : added end, 2nd picture

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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 10-21-2008 5:36 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 10-22-2008 2:23 PM RAZD has replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 115 of 265 (486568)
10-22-2008 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by RAZD
10-21-2008 8:51 PM


Still missing any evidence for Rn222
Thanks, AlphaOmegaKid, I trust you had a restful vacation.
Thanks. It was busy few days in Orlando with a son in college and a grandchild at Sea World.
I think it is important to discuss a few basics, so we can understand what is being talked about in the scientific documents.
3. Halos can only be formed when radioactive material is encapsulated. Any material flow into or out of a radio center cavity will not create a halo. The radioactive material cannot be flowing (mobile). The radioactive material must be fixed in a defined space from which it will radiate outward in a spherical manner.
Sorry but this is false. All that is needed is for radioactive particles to decay in the same place, and this CAN occur with flow into and out of a void in the crystal structure, one sufficiently larger than the fissures that permeate such formation that the fluid stays there long enough for the decay to occur.
This is an assertion. It certainly isn't based on evidence. There is no argument that U halos aren't encapsulated. Any opening in a fissure that would allow fluid flow would allow the escape of the alpha radiation energy. This is evidenced by staining along fissures where there is evidence of alpha radiation and fission tracks. The mineral damage from the alpha radiation is not spherical in shape. When there is fluid flow the radiation will show by fission tracks and alpha recoil pits along the fissures into and out of any accumulation pit. There is no evidence of this. In fact it is dramatically absent with the Polonium halos. The visual evidence shows an encapsulated radio center in every halo.
Please present physical evidence that a halo "CAN occur with flow into and out of a void in the crystal structure, one sufficiently larger than the fissures that permeate such formation that the fluid stays there long enough for the decay to occur." The evidence suggests otherwise.
ALL he is doing is using that definition, a definition that tacitly says that it IS part of the 238U decay chain, just that the link/s are not visible. He is NOT saying that they are "primordial" polonium.
This is a strawman argument. He unequivocally states that these are indeed Po halos, and he states that their existance should not be questioned by RAZD. He unequivocally concludes that there is no evidence that these are Rn222 halos or any other U238 isotope.
There is no question that he thinks they are not primordial, but he evidently wasn't aware of Gentry's earlier publication in 1968 which debunks his and your hypothesis of fluid flow to deposit the Po. And without any flow evidence, that only leaves the primordial conclusion.
So where's your evidence of flow? Where is your evidence of fission tracks? Where is your evidence of alpha recoil pits near the halos. Where is your evidence of alpha recoil pits in the visible conduits?
Either you didn’t read this publication, or you cannot comprehend it.
Again, I don’t think you understand what you are reading.
Back to the ad hominems. tch tch.
Call it ad hominen if you want, but the statements are true in context. When you say ..
RAZD writes:
Nor does he say anywhere that only polonium contribute to these halos
The fact is that Meier says unequivocally that these are polonium halos with no visible evidence of any other isotope precursors which includes Rn222. Now you either aren’t reading this, or you don’t comprehend it. That’s the only conclusion that I can draw. You are arguing a fallacious web argument that has no basis in fact. All of the evidence refutes your argument, but you still persist.
And when you say .
RAZD writes:
He barely mentions 222Rn in the article, but talks about the transport of radioactive isotopes in various different ways.
You are making it obvious that you don’t understand what you are reading and what you are writing. When a scientist talks about “radioactive isotopes” being transported in various different ways that eventually deposit Polonium isotopes which create a halo in the mineral, they are talking about Rn222. Rn222 is the “radioactive isotope” that is the precursor to Po218 in the U238 decay chain. There is no other possibility.
The FACT that there are similar 238U halos that are missing 222Rn and subsequent daughter isotopes PROVE you are wrong.
I wouldn’t use that word “PROVE” if I were you, especially in a scientific context. Please present your evidence of this claim. And please don’t just post pictures. I want the source cited.
Not having visible defects or cracks does not mean not having any - just that you can't see them from the pictures.
And the smaller the fissure and crack, the less flow of Rn222 that is possible. You are getting yourself into a catch22 with your argument. You cannot have an “abundant” supply of the trace element Rn222 and have it flowing in a non-visible crack or fissure. Have you heard of the fluid laws which state that fluids flow towards the path of least resistance? In a non visible crack, the pressure to create flow would be immense.
So what is the source of the Radon? If the source is U238 internal to the granite, then there would be abundant evidence of fission tracks and alpha recoil pits. But there isn’t any. If the source is from radon gas penetrating the rocks from an outside source like hydrothermal, then you are going to have to answer the question as to what is the mechanism that causes Rn222 to flow from open areas into cracks and fissure not microscopically visible? And then if you can answer this, then why isn’t there any evidence of alpha decay along the way?.
Creation's Tiny Mystery: Radiohalo Catalogue, Plate 1
The above page shows pictures of four fully developed uranium halos in biotite. Pictures a, b, and c show no visible evidence of fissures cracks or conduits. Picture d does show clear conudits.
Which all show 5 rings, 1=238U, 2=234U+230Th+226Ra, 3=222Rn+210Po, 4=218Po and 5=214Po, and the 3rd ring is wide compared to the others.
Yes, and that width and the diameters of that wide ring are very important. If you measure the width of the Po210/Rn222 rings you will measure a width of about .002-.003mm. The delta in radius of Po210 to Rn222 is .001mm. The width of each is about .001mm, so the combination is about .002mm. If you will scale these pictures, you will see these measurements. The two rings do “fuzzy” together, but the width of that fuzz is about .002-.003mm. The Po210 radius is about .0195mm +-.0005mm and the radius of Rn222 is .0205 +-.0005. These measurements agree with the theoretical as well as the measured values. The definitive determination of whether Rn222 is in the rings is the measurement of the rings. Po218 halos have a maximum radius of .020mm (the outer part of the ring) to about .019 the inner part of the ring. The Rn222 ring has a maximum radius of .021mm and a minimum radius of .020mm. When both Rn222 and Po218 are present, two identifiers are visible. The first is that the rings will appear “fuzzy” and will have a with of .002-.003mm, and the maximum radius will be .021. When only Po218 is present, the ring will have a maximum radius of .020mm and the width of the ring will be .001mm or less.
This is why Meier et all can conclude that these are indeed Po218,214,210 halos.
The above page shows Po218 halos in biotite. Pictures a, b, and d show evidence of conduits and c does not.
You mean Creation's Tiny Mystery: Radiohalo Catalogue, Plate 4 on the last one. Been there, seen it, noticed that the inner ring is wider than the others.
Wrong. Just another unsubstantiated assertion of yours. If you actually measure these Po218 halos, you would see that the Po210 ring is not .002-.003mm wide, and its maximum radius is .020mm. Over and over again, Meiers, Gentry, Henderson and Sparks all agree on the measurements here. The measurements eliminate the possibility of Rn222.
If you want to present something beyond your wild assertions then produce some measurements.
So what Gentry did was test the hydro thermal flow theory of a uranium bearing liquid with daughter-product activity (decay chain isotopes) by checking for fission tracks which would be present along any conduits and around any halos. The uranium halos had the fission tracks (as expected), but the Po218 halos showed no sign of the fission tracks. Then the conduits were analysed. Stained conduits showed fission tracks. Clear conduits as are identified in all the photos cited above showed no fission tracks.
Which, curiously, does not refute 222Rn mobility as a gas leaving the uranium inclusions in vast numbers with being due to fission.
But it does refute the Rn222 from alpha decaying in the area of the Polonium halos.
Now the tests showed conclusive evidence that the presence of Rn222 gas is way below the levels needed to produce a Po218 halo. So the very first publication of Gentry destroys your Rn222 gas transport theory and the hydro thermal liquid flow theory.
Curiously I disagree.
You can’t disagree with the evidence. You can only disagree about the reasoning regarding the evidence. Or like you are doing, you can ignore the evidence as many have done for years.
Strangely my disagreement comes from a picture by Gentry:
This halo shows four (4) rings: 210Po then 222Rn then 218Po then 214Po, each band is about the same width: a complete 222Rn halo, evidence that 222Rn is the source of this halo.
Amazing!. You can see things I can’t see. You can see things Gentry can’t see. You can see things Meiers can’t see. You can see four rings as an amateur scientist like Brawley and Wakefield, while scientists with the proper microscopes and measuring equipment only see three rings.
By the way, I like how you blew these up larger to make them even “fuzzier” to fit your false claims.
This picture:
... also shows the familiar blurred inner ring, with just a faint distinction at ~3 o'clock between the two inner rings.
Oh. Ok, now I see it! Yes there is “fuzziness” at the “inner ring. But what? Could it be?... There is no inner ring? You see, what you are claiming to be a fuzzy ring combination of Rn222 is nothing more than some discoloration in the Po210 ring. Now how do we know this? Well it is quite simple. The maximum diameter of the Po210 ring is .020 mm or less. That means all the fuzziness that you claim to be evidence of two rings together is actually impossible because the inner diameter of the fuzziness that you see would be way below the Po210 ring size. Sorry, that’s why this is an internet scam, and you fell for it. And so have many others. It is John Brawley’s scam. Brawley presents no evidence only conjecture, just like you have. It’s a lie. Now if you are any kind of honest scientific person, you should admit it. It’s OK if you just say that it is a tiny mystery that you cannot explain right now.
Therefore 222Rn was able to penetrate these crystals and this led to the formation of halos without visible connection to the 238U
Again, another wild assertion with no evidentiary support.
-- or do you argue that the 222Rn was "primordial" now?
No, because there is no evidence of Rn222, but I do argue that the polonium is primordial. Notice the lack of quotation marks.
Enjoy.
Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : changed some erroneous sizes

-AlphaOmegakid-
I am a child of the creator of the beginning and the end

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by RAZD, posted 10-21-2008 8:51 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by RAZD, posted 10-22-2008 9:41 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 116 of 265 (486592)
10-22-2008 9:41 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by AlphaOmegakid
10-22-2008 2:23 PM


Re: Still missing any refutation of the evidence for Rn222
Thanks, AlphaOmegaKid, glad you had a good time.
This is an assertion. It certainly isn't based on evidence.
Except that it is. It is based on the evidence that radioactive isotopes will decay where ever they happen to be, regardless of how you think they need to be constrained.
It is also based on evidence from many people, Gentry included, for decay damage along cracks and fissures, as well as centered on some wider sections, where more fluid would be needed to fill the area, thus having a higher likelihood of decay happening in those locations.
It is based on the chemistry of gases to equalize their partial pressure throughout continuous volumes.
There is no argument that U halos aren't encapsulated.
Except that there is: the truncated halos that show 238U through 226Ra decay rings, but missing or incomplete or faint rings for 222Rn, 210Po, 218Po and 214Po. These inclusions are obviously not "encapsulated" or the 222Rn gas would not have been able to escape as easily as they obviously did.
Any opening in a fissure that would allow fluid flow would allow the escape of the alpha radiation energy.
LOL. I love a good joke.
This is evidenced by staining along fissures where there is evidence of alpha radiation and fission tracks.
Yes, "staining" that is, curiously, perpendicular to the fissure and into the crystal lattice, rather than along the fissure. Places where the alpha radiation energy somehow fails to escape along the fissure that allows the fluid flow, the fluid flow that brings a constant supply of radioactive isotopes along the fissure.
The mineral damage from the alpha radiation is not spherical in shape.
AlphaOmegaKid, msg 113 writes:
I think it is important to discuss a few basics, so we can understand what is being talked about in the scientific documents.
1. What is a radiohalo? A radio halo is a spherical visible discoloration that can be seen in semitransparent mineral formations. They are not round, they are spherical. In some cases where the emitting particles are very large, the halos may be elliptical. That would mean that the central inclusion would also be relatively elliptical.
You do realize, don't you, that what is emitted that causes the halo is alpha particles, that they are emitted in random directions from the source isotope/s, and that the accumulation over time of such emissions with the same energy from any one central location is what causes the halo to be spherical?
The damage along the fissures ("staining") is the same process from any of the radioactive isotope particles contained in the fluid flow (whether 222Rn, 218Po, 214Po or 210Po), and the lack of halo structure is due to the random position of the particles. Concentrate them in a single location and you would have halo structures. To form a "polonium" halo all you need is one such decay in the same place every thousand years or so, and thus any small pocket that increases the duration time spent in the pocket can eventually create a halo.
When there is fluid flow the radiation will show by fission tracks and alpha recoil pits along the fissures into and out of any accumulation pit. There is no evidence of this.
Except (a) we are still not talking about fission, but alpha decay, and (b) this just demonstrates that the measurement of "alpha recoil pits" is not accurate: the damage along the fissures is due to alpha particles, and if the recoil is not measureable, it is the measurement that is in error.
The visual evidence shows an encapsulated radio center in every halo.
Composed mostly of 206Pb, the product of decay that has accumulated well above normal levels - where there is something. Not all halos have inclusions - see Gentry.
Please present physical evidence that a halo "CAN occur with flow into and out of a void in the crystal structure, one sufficiently larger than the fissures that permeate such formation that the fluid stays there long enough for the decay to occur." The evidence suggests otherwise.
I already have - you have chosen to deny and ignore it. We'll come to more about this later.
This is a strawman argument. He unequivocally states that these are indeed Po halos, and he states that their existance should not be questioned by RAZD. He unequivocally concludes that there is no evidence that these are Rn222 halos or any other U238 isotope.
There is no question that he thinks they are not primordial, but he evidently wasn't aware of Gentry's earlier publication in 1968 which debunks his and your hypothesis of fluid flow to deposit the Po. And without any flow evidence, that only leaves the primordial conclusion.
He states that they are caused by polonium, but that the source of the polonium is in question:
quote:
p188 "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."
They are formed by polonium getting into the crystals by a secondary process.
Yes, and that width and the diameters of that wide ring are very important. If you measure the width of the Po210/Rn222 rings you will measure a width of about .002-.003mm. The delta in radius of Po210 to Rn222 is .001mm. The width of each is about .001mm, so the combination is about .002mm. If you will scale these pictures, you will see these measurements. The two rings do “fuzzy” together, but the width of that fuzz is about .002-.003mm. The Po210 radius is about .0195mm +-.0005mm and the radius of Rn222 is .0205 +-.0005. These measurements agree with the theoretical as well as the measured values. The definitive determination of whether Rn222 is in the rings is the measurement of the rings. Po218 halos have a maximum radius of .020mm (the outer part of the ring) to about .019 the inner part of the ring. The Rn222 ring has a maximum radius of .021mm and a minimum radius of .020mm. When both Rn222 and Po218 are present, two identifiers are visible. The first is that the rings will appear “fuzzy” and will have a with of .002-.003mm, and the maximum radius will be .021. When only Po218 is present, the ring will have a maximum radius of .020mm and the width of the ring will be .001mm or less.
They say a picture is worth a thousand words. Not only is this inner ring as much wider as your numbers suggest, but if you look at the area from 2:30 to 3:30 (among others) you will see a clear gap between these 222Rn and 210Po bands.
Amazing!. You can see things I can’t see. You can see things Gentry can’t see. You can see things Meiers can’t see. You can see four rings as an amateur scientist like Brawley and Wakefield, while scientists with the proper microscopes and measuring equipment only see three rings.
By the way, I like how you blew these up larger to make them even “fuzzier” to fit your false claims.
Denial is not just a river in Egypt. Curiously "fuzzier" doesn't change the proportions you give above, nor does it hide the small gap visible in some, but not all, places between the inner two bands. Just as you see here with a 238U halo that Gentry says shows 6 rings:
Oh. Ok, now I see it! Yes there is “fuzziness” at the “inner ring. But what? Could it be?... There is no inner ring? You see, what you are claiming to be a fuzzy ring combination of Rn222 is nothing more than some discoloration in the Po210 ring. Now how do we know this? Well it is quite simple. The maximum diameter of the Po210 ring is .020 mm or less. That means all the fuzziness that you claim to be evidence of two rings together is actually impossible because the inner diameter of the fuzziness that you see would be way below the Po210 ring size.
Let's put the two together, matching the size of the outer rings (the ones we know are single isotope rings):
Notice how the 218Po bands match and that the next one in matches as well. Notice that in the second picture, at the upper right edge of the purple half you can see the gap between 210Po and 222Rn on the bottom half, just as it shows on the brown half. Brown = 238U halo with 6 rings, purple = 222Rn halo with 4 rings.
The Po210 radius is about .0195mm +-.0005mm and the radius of Rn222 is .0205 +-.0005.
Notice that the outer one is the 222Rn ring and that it matches in both these pictures. If you look closely you will see the same degree of gap between the 210Po and the 222Rn band in each of these pictures.
Notice how the 210Po/222Rn band has the same width in both top and bottom, as do the 218Po bands in both top and bottom.
Notice that this does indeed prove that 222Rn is in this halo.
There is no inner ring? You see, what you are claiming to be a fuzzy ring combination of Rn222 is nothing more than some discoloration in the Po210 ring. Now how do we know this? Well it is quite simple. The maximum diameter of the Po210 ring is .020 mm or less. That means all the fuzziness that you claim to be evidence of two rings together is actually impossible because the inner diameter of the fuzziness that you see would be way below the Po210 ring size. Sorry, that’s why this is an internet scam, and you fell for it. And so have many others. It is John Brawley’s scam. Brawley presents no evidence only conjecture, just like you have. It’s a lie. Now if you are any kind of honest scientific person, you should admit it. It’s OK if you just say that it is a tiny mystery that you cannot explain right now.
Ah, the old conspiracy gig. Don't bother actually looking at the evidence because you know beforehand that it is "impossible," and therefore it is a lie, a scam. Strange how you chide me for claiming proof, yet you say it is impossible.
At least Claude Rains knew he was ignoring the smoking gun in Bogey's hand when he said "Round up the usual suspects" ...
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : coding. claude
Edited by Admin, : Reduce image size.
Edited by RAZD, : 235 to 238U
Edited by RAZD, : moved photos

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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 10-22-2008 2:23 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 10-23-2008 5:04 PM RAZD has replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 117 of 265 (486691)
10-23-2008 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by RAZD
10-22-2008 9:41 PM


Still Shooting Blanks - Still Zero evidence of Rn222
Thanks RAZD, It looks like your having a good time as well. Have you seen those photo shopped images of Palin? I bet you would do an excellent job on some of those. They are quite believable!
This is an assertion. It certainly isn't based on evidence.
Except that it is. It is based on the evidence that radioactive isotopes will decay where ever they happen to be, regardless of how you think they need to be constrained.
It is also based on evidence from many people, Gentry included, for decay damage along cracks and fissures, as well as centered on some wider sections, where more fluid would be needed to fill the area, thus having a higher likelihood of decay happening in those locations.
It is based on the chemistry of gases to equalize their partial pressure throughout continuous volumes.
You are beginning to defeat yourself now. That's what people do when they deceive; they eventually get caught up in their deceit. Yes you are correct that "it is based on the evidence that radioactive isotopes will decay where ever they happen to be." If there is flow of Rn222 into and/or out of a cavity, then there will be evidence of that decay along the way. Gentry knew that. That's why in his earliest papers he tested for it by analyzing the alpha recoil pits. And there was no evidence of Rn222 decay or any other isotope decay near the Po halos.
You have made an assertion, because you are claiming that there was flow of Rn222 gas in small cracks and fissures on the way to the infamous Po218 deposit pit. So where is your evidence that you absolutely agree must exist wherever the Rn222 flows?
You also agree that there is visible evidence of this decay along cracks and fissures. That evidence is not spherical is it? No, it appears as a stain in the 2-D plane, but it is really a 3-D somewhat “cylindrical shape” with varying radius all along the fissure. The reason it isn't spherical is the alpha decay emits in all directions randomly and the particles aren’t fixed at one location. Some of the alpha decay particle directions are in line with the direction of the flow. Those alpha particles don’t leave any fossil evidence. So to summarize, when you have flow, the fossilized alpha decay patterns will be present, but they will not be spherical. The fossilized evidence will appear as an outward radiation along the fissure. That's what you just said above, but you didn't realize it. It is an assertion that flowing, radioactive particles can form in a pit and create a visible spherical damage zone in the crystals. The evidence shows otherwise as you have stated.
There is no argument that U halos aren't encapsulated.
Except that there is: the truncated halos that show 238U through 226Ra decay rings, but missing or incomplete or faint rings for 222Rn, 210Po, 218Po and 214Po. These inclusions are obviously not "encapsulated" or the 222Rn gas would not have been able to escape as easily as they obviously did.
Another assertion. I have asked already that you cite the paper/ author, that is making such claims. You have ignored my request. May be you missed it, so I will ask again.Please back up this claim with evidence. That is if you can.
Any opening in a fissure that would allow fluid flow would allow the escape of the alpha radiation energy.
LOL. I love a good joke.
This is evidenced by staining along fissures where there is evidence of alpha radiation and fission tracks.
Yes, "staining" that is, curiously, perpendicular to the fissure and into the crystal lattice, rather than along the fissure. Places where the alpha radiation energy somehow fails to escape along the fissure that allows the fluid flow, the fluid flow that brings a constant supply of radioactive isotopes along the fissure.
Go ahead and have a good laugh. You are only demonstrating your lack of knowledge on this subject.
The staining in the crystal lattice is not perpendicular to the fissure and into the crystal lattice. The alpha particles emit in all random directions relative to the point of decay. Some might be perpendicular to the centerline of the fissure, some at any angle other than 90 degrees, and some will emit along the centerline leaving no fossil evidence as I said above.
If all the emissions were perpendicular then you would have a cylindrical halo effect. But we don't see this, and we wouldn't expect to see this if there is flow (moving particles). What we do see is staining which is evidence of alpha decay in all directions, but we cannot visually discern any isotopes because the alpha particles are not uniformly emitted from an encapsulated central source like they are in U, Th , and Po halos.
You do realize, don't you, that what is emitted that causes the halo is alpha particles, that they are emitted in random directions from the source isotope/s, and that the accumulation over time of such emissions with the same energy from any one central location is what causes the halo to be spherical?
Yes, I have been preaching this from the beginning. The directions of the alpha decay are randomly dispersed from a fixed position. This is unlike fissures and cracks where flow is present, because the location isn't fixed. The alpha particles still emit in random directions (not perpendicular)to the axis of flow, but you don't get a spherical halo when you have flow. That's what the evidence shows. That's why I have asked you repeatedly to supply evidence of a flow situation that can create a spherical halo. You haven't provided any evidence. You only have provided assertions.
The damage along the fissures ("staining") is the same process from any of the radioactive isotope particles contained in the fluid flow (whether 222Rn, 218Po, 214Po or 210Po), and the lack of halo structure is due to the random position of the particles. Concentrate them in a single location and you would have halo structures.
You are beginning to understand this, but you just can't reconcile it with your belief system. Yes, flow of radioactive material creates stains and alpha particle recoil pits. Non-flowing encapsulated "concentrated" radioactive particles create a spherical halo. It's quite simple.
To form a "polonium" halo all you need is one such decay in the same place every thousand years or so, and thus any small pocket that increases the duration time spent in the pocket can eventually create a halo.
OK. Let me see if I understand. All it takes is one Rn222 isotope decaying into one Po218 isotope every thousand years or so in the same spot. And after a billion or so of these events take place, (because that the number of atoms calculated needed to create a halo) then we have about a trillion years. Wow!. I thought the magic of millions of years was pretty neat for evolution of stars, planets, life, and the species. Now you've just invoked trillions of years for just one lousy halo!???
Bring on those smiley faces!
Except (a) we are still not talking about fission, but alpha decay
Well that depends upon which theory you are discussing at the moment. If water is the fluid creating the flow of uranium isotopes, then there would be evidence of fission tracks. There is none.
(b) this just demonstrates that the measurement of "alpha recoil pits" is not accurate: the damage along the fissures is due to alpha particles, and if the recoil is not measureable, it is the measurement that is in error.
But they are measurable. Gentry showed this. It is evidence. Again you are just making more unsubstantiated assertions. It seems to me there is a forum rule about this somewhere. I wonder if it only applies to creationists.
The visual evidence shows an encapsulated radio center in every halo.
Composed mostly of 206Pb, the product of decay that has accumulated well above normal levels - where there is something. Not all halos have inclusions - see Gentry.
All halos have inclusions. Not all inclusions are visible partly because of the staining. Mostly this is in Po210 halos.
Please present physical evidence that a halo "CAN occur with flow into and out of a void in the crystal structure, one sufficiently larger than the fissures that permeate such formation that the fluid stays there long enough for the decay to occur." The evidence suggests otherwise.
I already have - you have chosen to deny and ignore it. We'll come to more about this later.
I must be blind. Where was it? I haven’t seen any. Is it in those invisible fissures?
This is a strawman argument. He unequivocally states that these are indeed Po halos, and he states that their existance should not be questioned by RAZD. He unequivocally concludes that there is no evidence that these are Rn222 halos or any other U238 isotope.
There is no question that he thinks they are not primordial, but he evidently wasn't aware of Gentry's earlier publication in 1968 which debunks his and your hypothesis of fluid flow to deposit the Po. And without any flow evidence, that only leaves the primordial conclusion.
He states that they are caused by polonium, but that the source of the polonium is in question:
He states that Po218,Po214, and Po210 are the emitting source for the halo. He unequivocally denies the possibility that Rn222 is the emitting source which has been one of your many arguments. And it continues to be. See below . .
They are formed by polonium getting into the crystals by a secondary process.
So now you flip flop again and agree that they are Po halos and not Rn222 halos.

They say a picture is worth a thousand words. Not only is this inner ring as much wider as your numbers suggest, but if you look at the area from 2:30 to 3:30 (among others) you will see a clear gap between these 222Rn and 210Po bands.
I can’t see anything in the image above. It’s too small! But I do see that you are willing to blatantly deceive with photographs. You deceive, because you are ignoring the data of the ring measurements that coincide with the pictures and have been documented and agreed to by all the scientists who have looked at this. Instead you deceive like Brawley and Wakefield who ignore the data also and draft web arguments that have no data and no evidence. You are following suit.
Would you like me to post my images of the risen Christ in toast, on trees, and in showers to demonstrate the validity of the resurrection? That’s what you are doing.
Notice that the outer one is the 222Rn ring and that it matches in both these pictures. If you look closely you will see the same degree of gap between the 210Po and the 222Rn band in each of these pictures.
Notice how the 210Po/222Rn band has the same width in both top and bottom, as do the 218Po bands in both top and bottom.
Notice that this does indeed prove that 222Rn is in this halo.
So now you have flip flopped again back to the Rn222 halo argument. Can you make up your mind? No, I don’t think that is your intent. Your intent is to continue to present no evidence, but to distort photos and to deceive.
There is no inner ring? You see, what you are claiming to be a fuzzy ring combination of Rn222 is nothing more than some discoloration in the Po210 ring. Now how do we know this? Well it is quite simple. The maximum diameter of the Po210 ring is .020 mm or less. That means all the fuzziness that you claim to be evidence of two rings together is actually impossible because the inner diameter of the fuzziness that you see would be way below the Po210 ring size. Sorry, that’s why this is an internet scam, and you fell for it. And so have many others. It is John Brawley’s scam. Brawley presents no evidence only conjecture, just like you have. It’s a lie. Now if you are any kind of honest scientific person, you should admit it. It’s OK if you just say that it is a tiny mystery that you cannot explain right now.
Ah, the old conspiracy gig. Don't bother actually looking at the evidence because you know beforehand that it is "impossible," and therefore it is a lie, a scam. Strange how you chide me for claiming proof, yet you say it is impossible.
I will continue to chide evidence that is photo shopped and enlarged and doesn’t have any data attached. It is deceitful. The evidence has been published by Gentry and others. The evidence is not just visual images. The evidence is hundreds of thousand of halos that have been identified and measured in biotite, fluorite, and corderite from multiple continents on this earth.(not just one location in Canada). The evidence is the enhanced color bands that Gentry created with 4He ions. Evidence is the confirmation of other scientists like Meiers who confirm that these are indeed Po halos (observable and repeatable). Evidence is the results of the ion microprobe which confirm that the Pb206 is a result of Po decay. Evidence is the results of densitometer profiles that Gentry presented. And evidence are the results from the x-ray fluorescence analyses that Gentry did. All of this evidence is here for your reading . .
Radiohalos in a Radiochronological and Cosmological Perspective
All we have seen from you and Brawley, and Wakefield is assertions that these are Rn222 halos by using enlarged images with no measurement data attached. And you further deceive by photo shopping images that are enlarged and fuzzy to magically illustrate a claim. The definition of magic is illusion and slight of hand. That’s all you have done, and evidently this is OK with the administrators. But in my book, I will chide it as deceitful.
Enjoy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by RAZD, posted 10-22-2008 9:41 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by bluescat48, posted 10-23-2008 5:59 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied
 Message 121 by RAZD, posted 10-23-2008 11:44 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 118 of 265 (486695)
10-23-2008 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by AlphaOmegakid
10-23-2008 5:04 PM


Re: Still Shooting Blanks - Still Zero evidence of Rn222
I am not sure what you are trying to prove, but the fundimental aspect is that all "natural" polonium has to have been formed from the decay of Rn222. If there is no Uranium in the sample than the Rn 222 has to have been somehow transported to where the Po218 is. Granite forms in 2 different ways, from the solidification of felsic magma or through the procees of metamophism called granitization where heat & pressure cause accessory minerals such as quartz, orthoclase, biotite, muscovite etc. to recrystallize as granite. The other point is that there would be little if any primordial granite exposed as outcrops do to the natural weathering processes, most outcrop granite is either of recent origin or recently exposed outcrops of formerly intrusive igneous intrusions.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 10-23-2008 5:04 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 10-23-2008 6:38 PM bluescat48 has replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 119 of 265 (486699)
10-23-2008 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by bluescat48
10-23-2008 5:59 PM


Not trying to prove anything.
Hi Bluescat48,
I am not sure what you are trying to prove, but the fundimental aspect is that all "natural" polonium has to have been formed from the decay of Rn222. If there is no Uranium in the sample than the Rn 222 has to have been somehow transported to where the Po218 is.
According to uniformitarianism, you are correct.
Granite forms in 2 different ways, from the solidification of felsic magma or through the procees of metamophism called granitization where heat & pressure cause accessory minerals such as quartz, orthoclase, biotite, muscovite etc. to recrystallize as granite.
Both processes involve melting and cooling and crystalization. And we know that primordial (when the rock was formed) uranium can be encapsulated during this process. And that uranium source can produce halos over the years. The cooling process for the creation of granites requires much longer times though than would allow the encapsulation of Po218, Po214, or even Po210 due to their short half lives. They would have decayed before encapsulation.
But they exist by the oodles.
The evidence shows that there wasn't any transport mechanism involved. That's what both the fission track analysis and the alpha recoil pit analysis demonstrate.
The evidence shows that the Po was primordial (when the rock was formed) from the Pb206/207 ratios.
The evidence shows that there aren't any U238 isotope precursors responsible for these halos.
That means that the granite would have had to solidified within minutes. And that means that the unformitarian principle, upon which all of geology is built is in question. Remember that uniformitarianism leads to assumptions about the past, which lead to assumptions about dating methods. It is assumptions built upon assumptions that make the science. If those assumptions are invalid, then the science that is built upon them is invalid.
I am not trying to prove anything. I am just demonstrating that there is indeed evidence that the earth may be young. And so far RAZD is not doing a very good job dealing with the evidence.
The other point is that there would be little if any primordial granite exposed as outcrops do to the natural weathering processes, most outcrop granite is either of recent origin or recently exposed outcrops of formerly intrusive igneous intrusions.
Primordial to you means when the earth was formed. Rocks supposedly 4.5-3.5 billion years old. You wouldn't consider 1 billion years old as primordial. But if all the granites were formed within minutes, as the evidence suggests, then there really aren't any billion year old rocks. If the earth is young, then all the granites would be primordial.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by bluescat48, posted 10-23-2008 5:59 PM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by bluescat48, posted 10-23-2008 7:51 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 120 of 265 (486706)
10-23-2008 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by AlphaOmegakid
10-23-2008 6:38 PM


Re: Not trying to prove anything.
But if all the granites were formed within minutes, as the evidence suggests, then there really aren't any billion year old rocks. If the earth is young, then all the granites would be primordial.
If the granite formed within minutes, it wouldn't be granite, it would be something akin to tephrite or basanite or even obsidian. The large crystals form only with slow cooling of the magma. Rapid cooling produces minute crystals or amorphous glass.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 10-23-2008 6:38 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 10-24-2008 9:12 AM bluescat48 has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024