polonium halos

quote:

---

The Cascade Slide: A mineralogical investigation of a calc-silicate body on Cascade Mountain, Town of Keene, Essex County, New York (Contribution - Department ... of Massachusetts, Amherst ; no. 27) by Thomas A Baillieul (Unknown Binding - 1976)

​

Uranium in the Glen Wild area, Woodbridge, New York, 7.5-minute quadrangle (GJBX ; 46) by Thomas A Baillieul (Unknown Binding - 1978)

​

Scranton quadrangle, Pennsylvania, New York, and New Jersey (GJQ) by Thomas A Baillieul (Unknown Binding - 1980)

​

National uranium resource evaluation, Charlottesville quadrangle, Virginia and West Virginia (PGJ/F) by Thomas A Baillieul (Unknown Binding - 1982)

​

National uranium resource evaluation, Grand Canyon quadrangle, Arizona (PGJ/F) by Thomas A Baillieul (Unknown Binding - 1982)

​

A vein-type uranium environment in the Precambrian Lovingston Formation, central Virginia (Virginia Division of Mineral Resources publication) by Thomas A Baillieul (Unknown Binding - 1982)

---

quote:

---

A reconnaissance survey of the cover sands in the Republic of Botswana, TA Baillieul - Journal of Sedimentary Research, 1975

​

Makgadikgadi Pans Complex of central Botswana: Summary, TA BAILLIEUL - Geological Society of America Bulletin, 1979

​

Airborne Geophysics: Application to a Ground-Water Study in Botswana,” by J. Bromley, B. Mannstrom .
TA Baillieul - Ground Water, 1994

​

Patterns of Uranium Mineralization in Reading Prong, GHP Popper, TA Baillieul - 1983

​

Uranium in the New Jersey and New York Highlands of the Reading Prong, TA Baillieul, GJ Indelicato - Economic Geology, 1981 - SecG

​

RH-TRU Waste Shipments from Battelle Columbus Laboratories to the Hanford Nuclear Facility for . J Eide, TA Baillieul, J Biedscheid, T Forrester, B . - Conference: Waste Management 2003 Symposium, Tucson, AZ (US) . , 2003 - osti.gov

---

quote:

---

I disagree, you have the problem, not I. I and Gentry only have a problem if the uniformitarian model assumption of constant radioactive decay is a correct assumption. The whole point of Gentry's work is that it calls into question the validity of the unformitarian assumption. And as you know, any dating method is only as good as its assumptions.

​

And the substantial evidence that validates it. There is NO evidence that the natural processes, such as radioactive decay, we significantly different at any time in earth's past. There is SUBSTANTIAL evidence that it has remained the same for billions of years.

​

In science, ALL of science, theory is based on observation of actual objective evidence, and then the theory is tested for validity by a number of various tests. The problem with asserting that this is just an assumption is that there is objective evidence that validates the uniform process of radioactive decay virtually unchanged for billions of years.

​

Science publications must hold up to the scrutiny of scientific peers. Gentry's has. Evo-babblers make assertions and don't publish them, because they know they will get demolished.

​

Which still does not mean that his conclusions are correct.

​

Nor does it mean that the evidence and arguments in the internet papers are wrong, particularly those by people with degrees in the field. It is just another version of the argument from authority, and it assumes that there are no other reasons for not being published. Did you email Ph.D. Geologist Dr Collins and ask him?

​

I and Gentry only have a problem if the uniformitarian model assumption of constant radioactive decay is a correct assumption.

​

Translation: Gentry's model is (remotely) tenable IF AND ONLY IF all we know about physics is discarded, and we create a whole new physics based on imagination.

​

The whole point of Gentry's work is that it calls into question the validity of the unformitarian assumption.

​

Only if we totally disregard the numerous and pervasive problems and errors in his "geology" part of the work and the evidence of old age all around us, as well as the evidence of natural processes occurring in the past just as they do today.

​

And as you know, any dating method is only as good as its assumptions.

​

By your argument it doesn't really question anything, because it is ONLY based on ASSUMPTION. He uses the a priori ASSUMPTION of creation to explain the polonium halos (when a perfectly valid explanation exists), and then finds that it requires A FURTHER ASSUMPTION of changing physical processes in order to explain away the evidence of uranium halos. Then because the alpha particle energy is tied to the decay rate, he will need ANOTHER ASSUMPTION to form rings that, curiously, LOOK JUST EXACTLY LIKE NO CHANGE IN DECAY RATES OCCUR.

​

Gentry proposes the thoery of a maximum of three singularities to account for the U and T halos and other phenomena.

quote:

---

A creation model with three singularities, involving events beyond explanation by known physical laws, is proposed to account for these evidences.

---

​

Just as predicted: now we have THREE MORE ASSUMPTIONs. Assumptions for which there is NO EVIDENCE other that wishful thinking. Calling them "singularities" is just playing semantic "hide-the-pea" games, the kind of thing done to delude gullible people.

​

He starts by assuming one miracle occurs, and now to explain the evidence that refutes that miracle he needs three more miracles. One wonders how long it will be before he needs three miracles for each of those new miracles ... until we end up with the old scenario that all the evidence was made by miracle but with complete and accurate in every way appearance of occurring purely by normal processes ... and we have the Loki creation theory.

​

Now you may not like this hypothesis, because known physics laws can be violated in a singularity. However, let me remind you that this is exactly what is promoted by mainstream science in the BBT (the uniformitarian creation model). A singularity in which the known laws of physics and quantum mechanics breaks down.

​

Which, curiously, does not validate Gentry's claim in any way. Like I said, calling them "singularities" is word games - looks like you got suckered. Is this the new "explanation" for every little bit of inconvenient evidence? Trees rings 12,000 years old, caused by a singularity. Over 25,000 summer/winter varve layers in a lake, caused by a singularity.

​

Please.

​

According to the uniformitarian model and its assumptions, you are correct. That same model cannot account for the existance of polonium radia halos in granite. it's imposible.

​

It explains the existence of polonium halos in the types of granite in which polonium halos are found. Curiously Gentry does not explain their absence in the other kinds of granite, the ones where radon and uranium intrusion did not or cannot occur. It explains why polonium halos are ALWAYS accompanied by uranium, another point that Gentry does not explain. Must be another miracle.

---

quote:

---

In message 31 you show undocumented, unreferenced photographs and you claim they represent radon damage. This is nothing more than an unsubstantiated assertion.

​

They were referenced, they came from Gentry. Message 31:

​

quote:

---

This is the predicted picture with a "clean" Polonium halo (top)and a "smudged" Radon-222 halo (bottom):

​

This is a Gentry photo

---

​

Here's another view of the same picture:

quote:

---

Figure 2. Concentric haloes in biotite mica considered by Gentry to be caused by polonium isotope decay (Gentry, 1992).

​

Gentry, Robert V., 1992, Creation's Tiny Mystery, Earth Science Associates, Knoxville, TN, 3rd Edition.

---

​

Same wide dark rings for polonium-210 and radon-222 instead of the narrow clear rings for the other isotopes in the decay series after radon-222.

​

Hence the reason for a new hypothesis and model. One based on primordial granite which does explain the polonium halos as well as every other radiohalo.

​

With the addition of a few miracles here and there to do away with the inconvenient evidence of simple normal processes without needing to invent a whole new physics.

​

Please provide documented, peer reviewed evidence that Radon222 is in the Polonium halos. There is none.

​

CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 87, NO. 5, 10 SEPTEMBER 2004
662.pdf | sep102004 | currsci | Indian Academy of Sciences

quote:

---

Radii of individual rings surrounding tiny radiocentres (< 2 mm) in diametral/near-diametral sections are consistent and the mean radii of 32.4 mm (outermost), 22.0, 18.3 and 15.2 mm (innermost) compare well with the experimentally determined, theoretically calculated and observed penetration depths of a-particles emitted by 214Po (the outermost ring), 218Po, 210Po/222Rn, and 226Ra/234U/230Th (innermost ring) in biotite. Such ring structures can be assigned to the decay chain of 238U in which the above radioactive atoms correspond to daughters in the decay series and each of them emits a-particles of different energies.

​

The radius of each ring will correspond in such a case to a step in the decay series. 238U is one of such radionuclides and it decays through eight alpha-decay steps (Table 1). The a- emitters in the decay chain of 238U are 238U, 234U, 230Th, 226Ra, 222Rn, 218Po, 214Po and 210Po. Accordingly, eight concentric rings are expected in well-developed radiohalos. However, as shown in Table 1, the energies of a particles in air (Ea) emitted by 234U, 230Th and 226Ra are very close. Similarly, Ea for 222Rn is close to that of 210Po. Consequently, characteristic rings of 234U, 230Th and 226Ra and those of 222Rn and 210Po cannot be distinguished in the resolution of common transmitted light microscope. Thus on microscopic examination, five distinct rings corresponding to 214Po, 218Po, 222Rn/210Po, 234U/226Rn/230Th and 238U are often visible in well-developed radiohalos. Best ring structures are developed when the radiocentre is extremely small in size. Larger radiocentres generally develop poor ring structure, partly because of overlapping thick shells/spheres produced by alphas emitted from the centre as well as those from the boundary of radioactive inclusion.

At least four clear rings are discernible in many halos. Typical concentric radiohalo rings in chlorite from the Turamdih U-ore are shown in Figure 4.

​

The four rings (marked by solid curves in Figure 5 b and data in Table 1) from outermost to innermost, correspond to the penetration depths of alpha particles emitted by 214Po (outermost ring), 218Po, 210Po/222Rn, and 226Ra/234U/230Th. The gaseous 222Rn can escape the micro-system related to each radiohalo through favourable conduits in the form of micro-fracture and cleavage. However, the presence of radiohalos related to the daughters (218Po 214Po, 210Po) of 222Rn indicates that radon loss was not pervasive, though part of it can escape the system. The suspected fifth ring, mentioned earlier, may correspond to 238U (innermost ring with dotted boundary in Figure 5 b). Strong radiation damage caused by 234U/ 226Rn/230Th resulting in dark discoloration surrounding the radiocentre might have smeared the fifth ring. The ring pattern as found in the present study can thus be assigned to the chain decay of 238U.

---

​

So you get blurring of ALL rings from large inclusions, because the source atoms are in different enough locations to cause have overlapping patterns, and you get blurring between 234U, 230Th and 226Ra because they are so similar in energy/radius, AND you get blurring from 222Rn and 210Po because they are so similar in energy/radius. What you end up with is wider rings for 234U/226Rn/230Th and 222Rn/210Po than you do for 214Po, 218Po, or 238U.

​

Because the inclusion doesn't change size during decay - unless it has a gaseous isotope that escapes - it always has the same number of atoms involved in the decay series, the thickness of the rings should be consistent. Thus IF you have a halo with a wide 222Rn/210Po ring and thinner 214Po, 218Po rings, THEN you have radon-222 and polonium-210 overlapping each other exactly as they do in complete uranium halos.

​

If you have the exact same pattern of thin 214Po, thin 218Po and thick 222Rn/210Po rings without the inner 234U/226Rn/230Th or 238U, then you have a radon ring.

​

What it looks like is that geology scientists are doing geology, publishing papers that document the objective evidence that continues to refute Gentry, while ignoring him rather than answering his challenge.

​

Enjoy.

---

quote:

---

In the papers he has published in scientific journals, Gently has avoided making creationist statements, but his other publications on the matter give the distinct impression that he is trying to link the rocks of the Precambrian to the rocks that existed right after Earth's formation (or creation). For example, Gentry states in one publication (1974, p. 63) that.

"It is also apparent that Po halos do pose contradictions to currently held views of Earth history."

​

"The Question is, can they be explained by presently accepted cosmological and geological concepts of the origin and development of Earth?" (1974, p· 56)

and

"Do Po halos imply unknown processes were operative during the formative periods of the Earth?" (Gentry and others, 1974, p. 564)

Gentry’s book, however, is far more bold and less cryptic than his refereed papers. Comments like

"Were tiny polonium halos God's fingerprint in Earth's primordial rocks? Could it be that the Precambrian granites were the Genesis rocks of our planet." (Gentry, 1986, p. 32)

and

"...polonium halos in Precambrian granites identify these rocks as some of the Genesis rocks of our planet - created in such a way that they cannot be duplicated without intervention of the Creator." (p. 133)

are common.

---

quote:

---

252Cf  ::    ::     2.645 a   ::   6.1181 MeV
248Cm  ::    ::  3.410^5 a   ::   6.260  MeV
244Pu  ::    ::     8107 a   ::   4.589  MeV
244Cm  ::    ::        18 a   ::   5.8048 MeV
240Pu  ::    ::      6561 a   ::   5.1683 MeV
236U   ::    ::  2.3x10^7 a   ::   4.494  MeV

---

quote:

---

232Th  ::    ::  1.40510^10 a  ::  4.08 Mev

236U   ::    ::     2.310^7 a  ::  4.49 Mev
244Pu  ::    ::       810^7 a  ::  4.59 Mev
240Pu  ::    ::         6561 a  ::  5.17 Mev
228Th  ::    ::       1.9116 a  ::  5.52 Mev
224Ra  ::    ::       3.6319 d  ::  5.79 Mev

244Cm  ::    ::           18 a  ::  5.80 Mev
252Cf  ::    ::        2.645 a  ::  6.12 Mev
212Bi  ::    ::        60.55 m  ::  6.21 Mev

248Cm  ::    ::     3.410^5 a  ::  6.26 Mev
220Rn  ::    ::         55.6 s  ::  6.40 Mev
216Po  ::    ::        0.145 s  ::  6.91 Mev
212Po  ::    ::         299 ns  ::  8.96 Mev

---

222Rn  ::    ::  3.8235 d  ::  5.59 MeV
210Po  ::    :: 138.376 d  ::  5.41 MeV

quote:

---

Three main decay chains (or families) are observed in nature, commonly called the thorium series, the radium series (not uranium series), and the actinium series, representing three of these four classes, and ending in three different, stable isotopes of lead. The mass number of every isotope in these chains can be represented as A=4n, A=4n+2, and A=4n+3, respectively. The long-lived starting isotopes 232Th, 238U, and 235U, respectively, of these three have existed since the formation of the earth. The plutonium precursor 244Pu has also been found in minute amounts on earth[1].

​

Due to the quite short half-life of its starting isotope 237Np (2.14 million years), the fourth chain, the neptunium series with A=4n+1, is already extinct in nature, except for the final rate-limiting step, decay of bismuth-209 (209Bi). The ending isotope of this chain is now known to be thallium-205 (205Tl). Some older sources give the final isotope as 209Bi, but it was recently discovered that 209Bi is radioactive, with half-life of 1.91019 years.

---

quote:

---

This is the predicted picture with a "clean" Polonium halo (top)and a "smudged" Radon-222 halo (bottom):

---

quote:

---

The facts all come together when you consider radon, an inert gas, dissolves in hydrous fluids. Polonium, on the other hand, is a solid and easily falls out of solution once formed. Ra222, the parent of Po218, has a half-life of 3.82 days, plenty of time to circulate through cracks and fissures. This is evident by the many companies selling home radon detectors. There are several less abundant radon isotopes which decay to different polonium isotopes than those of Ra222. The longest half-life of these other radon isotopes is 54.5 seconds. Their polonium daughter halflives are measured in fractions of seconds, not allowing much time for travel to isolated secondary locations.

​

Seismic activity opens cracks causing a vacuum into which hydrous fluids carry Ra222. The Ra222 falls out of solution when it decays to Po218. The crystal lattice structure of biotite and flourite contain sites that can accommodate negatively charged fluoride and hydroxyl ions. Po218, Po214, and Po210 are also negatively charged ions similar in size to fluoride and hydroxyl ions. Consequently, polonium isotopes take up lattice positions and concentrate in the biotite and fluorite crystals. The continued replacement mineral intergrowth fills in some of the original cracks giving the appearance of undisturbed granite (Hunt 1992). Although most pictures show halos either along or near obvious cracks.

---

quote:

---

Gentry has described his work on halos and his interpretations of the significance of the halos in a series at papers and in a recent book Creation’s Tiny Mystery (Gentry 1986). How these halos form is not difficult to understand. They are formed by alpha particles released during the decay of radioactive nuclides. As an alpha particle nears the end of its path and slows, it causes disruption of the crystal structure and leaves a small damage track. Over time, repeated decays from the parent nuclide will leave a spherical halo of discolouration. The distance that an alpha particle travels depends on the energy of the decay and that, in turn, is a function of the particular nuclide that decays. Theoretically, then, the radii of a series of halos that surround a radioactive inclusion permit identification of the specific decaying nuclides.

---

quote:

---

---

quote:

---

---

quote:

---

Before learning the locations of two of the sites, I suspected that Gentry had used samples from the Superior Province of Archean age in northern Ontario because this Province has some of the oldest rocks in North America. Thus, I was surprised to find that his sites were located in the much younger Grenville Province. This is a major blunder an Gentry’s part. Louis Moyd made this very point to Gentry in person, when Gentry visited to get samples (Moyd, personal communication, February 1987). It is apparent that Gentry knows next to nothing about Precambrian geology because he lumps all Precambrian rocks into one unit -- the created one.

---

quote:

---

From this description it is clear that this is a small calcite vein-dike, a rock body containing mostly large crystals of calcium carbonate and other minerals like mica. Gentry's sample came from the vein lining. The biotite grew outward from the syenitized wall rock, replacing the calcite, (see Figure 13) as a result of reactions between the wall rock, the calcite core and volatile fluids. (Moyd, personal communication, August 1987).

---

quote:

---

The vein-dike is small in length and width, it cuts metasedimentary rocks which still retain bedding planes, and radioactive minerals abound. In another mineral-collecting guidebook (Sabina,1986, p. 79), it was noted that at this site "Uraninite was found in cavities in pegmatites with magnetite, mica or calcite-fluorite intergrowths." Clearly, radioactive minerals are common at this locality. Percolating water from the hill the deposit occurs within is strongly radioactive and was sold in the 1920s for therapeutic purposes. Hornblende crystals 2 m long, biotite 0.3 cm across, apatite 0.3 cm long, feldspars 1 m long, and zircons 5 cm long have been found in this deposit. Also mentioned are pegmatites completely surrounded by metasediments and derived from partial melting of those metasediments during metamorphism.

---

quote:

---

The geology of the Silver Crater Mine site is similar to the geology of the Fission site, and the calcite vein-dike is part of the same group of calcite vein-dikes that dot the countryside near Bancroft. ...

​

Let me make one thing very clear at this point. The Silver Crater and the Fission Mine dikes are not granites at all. The composition and mode of origin is totally wrong for a granite and Gentry has made a major error in identifying the source rocks of his biotite as granites. In his book Gentry erroneously criticizes Dalrymple for comparing the textures of basaltic lava and granite (Gentry, 1986,p. 130), yet Gentry can't tell the difference between granite and calcite vein-dike rock.

​

Recently a consensus has emerged among geologists as to the origin of the calcite vein-dike material, the biotite, and the other large mineral grains in the dikes. Because of the presence of rounded calcite within the biotite, it is thought that the biotite grew as a replacement within the solid calcite vein-dike matrix. This process occurs when vein-dike, which was hydrothermally deposited or injected as a molten liquid, is reheated enough to cause the evenly distributed biotite, hornblende, betafite, apatite, and so forth, in the wall-rock in the calcite vein-dike to start to migrate and form larger crystals in the calcite vein-dike.

​

Gentry claimed that "Halos occur in many mica samples which have not undergone metamorphism of any kind' (1986. p- 299). In fact, however, these micas were indeed formed during metamorphism at moderate depth (10-15 km), and overburden has since been removed by erosion. To put it simply and directly, the biotite was metamorphically derived.

---

quote:

---

In other words, material was eroded from some preexisting rock, deposited as a sedimentary rock (probably in a volcanic island arc setting (Windley, 1986)), then deformed and recrystallized by high-grade metamorphism (referred to as the Grenville Orogeny (Lumbers, 1982)) which altered this rock to paragneiss. The paragneisses were in turn intruded by the gabbro, which later underwent a metamorphic episode during the latter stages of the orogeny. Finally, the rocks were intruded by the granite pegmatite. Gentry’s biotite came from this pegmatite.

​

The Faraday Mine pegmatites have been dated at between 992 Ma and 1088 Ma by several methods (Easton, 1986a,c). The Faraday Batholith, just to the north, was dated at 1190 Ma. Though no dating of the Faraday gabbro has been done, other gabbros of similar composition, (like the Tudor Gabbro just to the south) in the area have been dated at 1180 Ma (Easton, 1986a). The Silver Crater deposit has been dated at 1000 Ma (R. Gait. Mineralogist, Royal Ontario Museum, personal communication, February 1987), and the Fission mine is closely related to the Silver Crater in age.

---

quote:

---

238U   ::     ::  4.468x10^9 a  ::  4.27 MeV to 234Th
234Th  ::  -  ::       24.10 d  ::  0.27 MeV to 234Pa
234Pa  ::  -  ::        6.70 h  ::  2.20 MeV to 234U
234U   ::     ::     245,500 a  ::  4.86 MeV to 230Th
230Th  ::     ::      75,380 a  ::  4.77 MeV to 226Ra
226Ra  ::     ::       1,602 a  ::  4.87 MeV to 222Rn
222Rn  ::     ::      3.8235 d  ::  5.59 MeV to 218Po
218Po  ::     ::      3.10 min  ::  6.12 MeV 99.98% to 214Pb
218Po  ::  -  ::      3.10 min  ::  0.27 MeV  0.02% to 218At
218At  ::     ::         1.5 s  ::  6.87 MeV 99.90% to 214Bi
218At  ::  -  ::         1.5 s  ::  2.88 MeV  0.10% to 218Rn
218Rn  ::     ::         35 ms  ::  7.26 MeV to 214 Po
214Pb  ::  -  ::      26.8 min  ::  1.02 MeV to 214Bi
214Bi  ::     ::      19.9 min  ::  5.62 MeV  0.02 % to 210Tl
214Bi  ::  -  ::      19.9 min  ::  3.27 MeV 99.98 % to 214Po
214Po  ::     ::     0.1643 ms  ::  7.88 MeV to 210Pb
210Tl  ::  -  ::      1.30 min  ::  5.48 MeV to 210Pb
210Pb  ::  -  ::        22.3 a  ::  0.06 MeV to 210Bi
210Bi  ::     ::       5.013 d  ::  5.98 MeV  0.00013% to 206Tl
210Bi  ::  -  ::       5.013 d  ::  1.43 MeV 99.99987% to 210Po
210Po  ::     ::     138.376 d  ::  5.41 MeV to 206Pb
206Tl  ::  -  ::     4.199 min  ::  1.53 MeV to 206Pb
206Pb  ::  -   ::        stable  ::

---

quote:

---

238U   ::     ::  4.468x10^9 a  ::  4.27 MeV to 234Th
234Th  ::  -  ::       24.10 d  ::  0.27 MeV to 234Pa
234Pa  ::  -  ::        6.70 h  ::  2.20 MeV to 234U
234U   ::     ::     245,500 a  ::  4.86 MeV to 230Th
230Th  ::     ::      75,380 a  ::  4.77 MeV to 226Ra
226Ra  ::     ::       1,602 a  ::  4.87 MeV to 222Rn
222Rn  ::     ::      3.8235 d  ::  5.59 MeV to 218Po
218Po  ::     ::      3.10 min  ::  6.12 MeV 99.98 % to 214Pb
218Po  ::  -  ::      3.10 min  ::  0.27 MeV  0.02 % to 218At
218At  ::     ::         1.5 s  ::  6.87 MeV 99.90 % to 214Bi
218At  ::  -  ::         1.5 s  ::  2.88 MeV  0.10 % to 218Rn
218Rn  ::     ::         35 ms  ::  7.26 MeV to 214 Po
214Pb  ::  -  ::      26.8 min  ::  1.02 MeV to 214Bi
214Bi  ::     ::      19.9 min  ::  5.62 MeV  0.02 % to 210Tl
214Bi  ::  -  ::      19.9 min  ::  3.27 MeV 99.98 % to 214Po
214Po  ::     ::     0.1643 ms  ::  7.88 MeV to 210Pb
210Tl  ::  -  ::      1.30 min  ::  5.48 MeV to 210Pb
210Pb  ::  -  ::        22.3 a  ::  0.06 MeV to 210Bi
210Bi  ::     ::       5.013 d  ::  5.98 MeV  0.00013% to 206Tl
210Bi  ::  -  ::       5.013 d  ::  1.43 MeV 99.99987% to 210Po
210Po  ::     ::     138.376 d  ::  5.41 MeV to 206Pb
206Tl  ::  -  ::     4.199 min  ::  1.53 MeV to 206Pb
206Pb  ::  -   ::        stable  ::

---

quote:

---

238U   ::     ::  4.468x10^9 a  ::  4.27 MeV to 234Th
234Th  ::  -  ::       24.10 d  ::  0.27 MeV to 234Pa
234Pa  ::  -  ::        6.70 h  ::  2.20 MeV to 234U
234U   ::     ::     245,500 a  ::  4.86 MeV to 230Th
230Th  ::     ::      75,380 a  ::  4.77 MeV to 226Ra
226Ra  ::     ::       1,602 a  ::  4.87 MeV to 222Rn
222Rn  ::     ::      3.8235 d  ::  5.59 MeV to 218Po
218Po  ::     ::      3.10 min  ::  6.12 MeV 99.98 % to 214Pb
214Pb  ::  -  ::      26.8 min  ::  1.02 MeV to 214Bi
214Bi  ::  -  ::      19.9 min  ::  3.27 MeV 99.98 % to 214Po
214Po  ::     ::     0.1643 ms  ::  7.88 MeV to 210Pb
210Pb  ::  -  ::        22.3 a  ::  0.06 MeV to 210Bi
210Bi  ::  -  ::       5.013 d  ::  1.43 MeV 99.99987% to 210Po
210Po  ::     ::     138.376 d  ::  5.41 MeV to 206Pb
206Pb  ::  -   ::        stable  ::

---

quote:

---

238U   ::     ::  4.468x10^9 a  ::  4.27 MeV to 234Th
234U   ::     ::     245,500 a  ::  4.86 MeV to 230Th
230Th  ::     ::      75,380 a  ::  4.77 MeV to 226Ra
226Ra  ::     ::       1,602 a  ::  4.87 MeV to 222Rn
222Rn  ::     ::      3.8235 d  ::  5.59 MeV to 218Po
218Po  ::     ::      3.10 min  ::  6.12 MeV 99.98 % to 214Pb
214Po  ::     ::     0.1643 ms  ::  7.88 MeV to 210Pb
210Po  ::     ::     138.376 d  ::  5.41 MeV to 206Pb
206Pb  ::  -   ::        stable  ::

---

quote:

---

common &alpha decay events, sorted by decay energy
238U   ::    ::  4.468x10^9 a  ::  4.27 Mev  ::  18.23 to 234Th
230Th  ::    ::  75380 a       ::  4.77 Mev  ::  22.75 to 226Ra
234U   ::    ::  245500 a      ::  4.86 Mev  ::  23.61 to 230Th
226Ra  ::    ::  1602 a        ::  4.87 Mev  ::  23.73 to 222Rn
210Po  ::    ::  138.376 d     ::  5.41 Mev  ::  29.24 to 206Pb
222Rn  ::    ::  3.8235 d      ::  5.59 Mev  ::  31.25 to 218Po
218Po  ::    ::  3.10 min      ::  6.12 Mev  ::  37.39 (99.98%) to 214Pb
214Po  ::    ::  0.1643 ms     ::  7.88 Mev  ::  62.14 to 210Pb

---

quote:

---

---

• The innermost ring is formed by the 238U (4.27 Mev), this ring is yellow in the above picture.
• The next ring is formed by 230Th (4.77 Mev), 234U (4.86 Mev) and 226Ra(4.87 Mev) - average 4.83MeV +/-0.93% (smaller than the width of the ring observed), this ring is white, and thicker than the orange ring
• The next ring is formed by 210Po (5.41 Mev) and 222Rn (5.59 Mev) - average 5.50 MeV +/-1.66% (also smaller than the width of the ring observed), this ring is white as well, and thicker than all the other rings,
• The next ring is formed by 218Po (6.12 Mev), this ring is faint compared to the previous one and thinner than the previous two rings, about the same as the inner ring.
• The outermost ring is formed by 214Po (7.88 Mev), and this ring is very faint compared to the others

• 238U
• 230Th, 234U and 226Ra
• 210Po and 222Rn
• 218Po
• 214Po

quote:

---

The Effect of Using Inquiry and Multiple Representations on Introductory Geology Students' Conceptual Model Development of Coastal Eutrophication

​

Environmental History of the Southwest as a General Science Education Course

​

Some Cycles of Nature - Applications of M. Montessori's Cosmic Education in a Nursery School

​

Integrating Topics in an Introductory Hydrogeology Course through a Semester-long Hydraulic Containment Design Project

​

Professional Development Needs and Outcomes for Education-Engaged Scientists: A Research-Based Framework

​

Demonstrating the Stratification of Dimictic and Meromictic Lakes in a Fish Tank

​

Geoscience Conceptual Knowledge of Preservice Elementary Teachers: Results from the Geoscience Concept Inventory

​

The Dry-erase Cube: Making Three-dimensional Visualization Easy

​

Improving Urban Earth Science Education: The TRUST Model

​

Increasing Learning in Introductory Geoscience Courses Using Lecture Tutorials

---

quote:

---

The Journal of Geoscience Education (JGE) is the premier peer-reviewed publication for geoscience education research at the undergraduate and pre-college levels. JGE is the publication of record for NAGT, and serves as the only international forum for the publication of research concerning the pedagogy, assessment, and philosophy of teaching and learning about the geosciences.

---

quote:

---

In his early career, Robert V. Gentry served as a physicist (B.S., M.S.; University of Florida) in the nuclear/space defense industries and taught college/university math and physics. He then developed an absorbing interest in testing the conventional evolutionary model of Earth’s origin and age, and has dedicated his scientific career to finding answers that could only be obtained through years of investigating fossil traces of an extraordinary type of radioactivity inscribed in Earth’s basement rocks, the granites. His research so far has resulted in authoring or co-authoring over twenty research papers in scientific publications, such as Science, Nature, Geophysical Research Letters, Annual Review of Nuclear Science, and Earth and Planetary Science Letters. Most of these reports were published during the thirteen years (1969-1982) he spent as a Visiting Scientist in the Chemistry Division of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, some of which detailed discovery of evidence of Earth’s rapid creation and its young age. In 1977 these discoveries led to an honorary D.Sc., and subsequently to his being called to testify in defense of the state’s creation position at the 1981 Arkansas creation/evolution trial. There he testified his discoveries disproved Earth’s evolutionary origin and instead affirmed the Genesis account of Earth’s six-day creation and young age.

---

quote:

---

About the Author

​

Richard Wakefield is a professional firefighter for the City of Scarborough, Ontario, Canada, a self-taught amateur geologist, and a software developer. He was the Liaison for the Ontario Committee of Correspondence (OASIS) and was on the Executive Committee for the Ontario Skeptics. His main interest is the Precambrian Canadian Shield. Currently he is studying the rocks of the complex Grenville Supergroup, not far from his home. Wakefield attended the University of Toronto part-time where he studied zoology and physics. He hopes to return to university to finish his degree and eventually get his PhD in geology. He lives, with his wife and four children, in Pickering, Ontario.

---