polonium halos

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

---

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

---

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

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

quote:

---

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

​

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

​

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

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

---

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

---

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

Well AlphaOmegaKid, I have (only) two (brief) comments: 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 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) • • •

From your previous reference, AlphaOmegaKid, 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. 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. 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. 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 halosFrom (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, : clarityEdited by RAZD, : expanded on CollinsEdited by RAZD, : againEdited by RAZD, : moved photoEdited 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 is the second installment, AlphaOmegaKid,We will start again with the article you cited by Meier: 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, 34.4We 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: 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.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : SourcesEdited 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) • • •

Thanks, AlphaOmegaKid, I trust you had a restful vacation. 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. 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. Back to the ad hominems. tch tch. 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. 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. 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. Which, curiously, does not refute 222Rn mobility as a gas leaving the uranium inclusions in vast numbers with being due to fission. 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) • • •

Thanks, AlphaOmegaKid, glad you had a good time. 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. 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. LOL. I love a good joke. 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. 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. 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. 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. I already have - you have chosen to deny and ignore it. We'll come to more about this later. 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. 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. 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: 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. 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. 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. claudeEdited by Admin, : Reduce image size.Edited by RAZD, : 235 to 238UEdited 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) • • •

Thanks, AlphaOmegaKid, So rather than deal with the evidence provided by the pictures taken by Gentry, you accuse me of fraud?You do realize that you could duplicate what I did if you think I changed those pictures in any way other than to match their size for the outer Po bands. And yet he ALSO did not find evidence of such "alpha recoil" along the fissures where you have your "staining" (which btw is not constrained to a "tube" anymore than it is to a halo, as the fissures are planar, not lines)?It seems to me that his testing was inconclusive: it is difficult to "prove" a negative, and all he "proved" was that his test came up empty where he was looking. He could be missing the evidence in front of him -- just like the picture of the 222Rn halo of his that is posted on your cited website. It is in several places, one is the 238U truncated halos, where the 222Rn left the inclusion, and another is in the 222Rn halos you deny exist even when looking at a picture of one. Where the cracks and fissures are large enough to have flow of 222Rn (and various daughter isotopes) in significant quantities, then yes, you will see an accumulation of decay stains away from the plane of the fissures and cracks into the rock. This, of course is magnetudes greater amounts of decay than is required to build a halo.Likewise much much less volume is required for any fissure that can deliver a 222Rn atom to a void area every thousand years or so (all that is needed to make a 222Rn halo with the density of bands seen on 238U halos). The net staining is in a direction perpendicular to the fissure, but if you like I'll just say in a direction AWAY from the fissure: it still makes your argument that "Any opening in a fissure that would allow fluid flow would allow the escape of the alpha radiation energy" a false one -- the alpha particles penetrate the rock completely unaffected by the direction of any fluid flow. Do you know what that staining would look like from above the plane of the fissure? Gentry:

quote:

---

(g) Embryonic 238U halo in fluorite with only two rings developed.

---

Gentry: It is, very simple. Any place with "concentrated" radioactive particles can cause a halo formation. Flow rates change with the amount of opening along the fissures and cracks, and radiation is a time delay phenomena. Keep a particle in one place just long enough and it will decay there. But it doesn't need to be there before it decays, nor does it need to stay afterward.Take a shot glass and fill it with water, suspend a tube over it set to drip into the glass of water. When one drop falls into the glass a different drop spills over the side. The volume of water in the tube is based on the size of the tube and it's length, but the amount of water in the glass is much much greater than the volume in the tube. The other end of the tube is a bucket - emulating your 238U inclusion/s that provide the 222Rn. Let's say the flow in the tube takes 2 days to reach the end and drip into the glass. How long before that particular drop of water spills over the side?It is, indeed, very simple. Fission is the breaking up of a radioactive atom into two or more nuclii larger than an alpha particle, often close to 50-50 split of the 238U atom. This is what causes fission tracks. The flow of 222Rn does not create fission tracks, nor does the flow carrying any daughter isotopes of 222Rn. Such atoms, once free of the uranium inclusion due to the gas phase of 222Rn, especially behaving as an inert gas not bounded to anything, are free to float in any flow that passes without leaving traces at all ... until they decay. Yes, it seems the only way you can deal with the evidence in front of you is to deny that it exists, to hide it, to try to make it go away, and to accuse the person who shows you the picture of fraud.Sadly, this is typical of behavior of people confronted with evidence that contradicts their belief: it is called cognitive dissonance. Anyone confronted by contradictory evidence will experience cognitive dissonance - the dissonance caused by the conflict between belief and evidence - and there are several ways to resolve the conflict, one of which is to fit the evidence into a revised world belief system, another is to reject the evidence. And yet all I have done is scaled up pictures that Gentry took and that your cited website posted. As noted, all you need to do is repeat the process if you don't believe this: take the two pictures and adjust the magnification to where the two outer rings match diameters and then look at what the inner ring shows.I used MSPaint, which is why there was some loss of clarity. You can also deceive yourself if you try hard enough. Curiously that does not affect the evidence:

quote:

---

(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

​

(h) Normally developed 238U halo in fluorite with nearly all rings visible.

---

quote:

---

Uranium halos in fluorite in different stages of development: ... (c) - (d) ” Fully developed; ...

​

---

quote:

---

(a) - (h) ” 218Po halos in fluorite; ...

​

---

Those are Gentry's pictures, direct from your cited website. The widths of the bands match between the 238U halo and the 222Rn halo (that is labeled a "218Po" halo), for the 218Po band, for the 214Po band, and for the area covered by 222Rn and 210Po bands.I can also put these pictures into autocad (where all I can do with bitmap\jpeg pictures is scale them), and then set them to the proper diameters for those outer two rings and measure the next one in on both these halos: want to make any bets on what the cad program says they are?Enjoy.Edited by Admin, : Reduce image width.

---

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) • • •

Please, let's stick to the discussion, and not resort to name calling and gratuitous insult, these type of comments don't add anything worth wasting bandwidth on.

Your welcome AlphaOmegaKid, There are several websites that host free picture posting: do a google. Alternatively contact admin for what they can suggest.One source you may be interested in is
Herb Allure - Nature's Sunshine (NSP) Distributorsthey have an E/vs/C forum as well (but not as good as here)
Creation vs Evolution - The Orbis Vitae Communityand they also have a picture hosting capacity where you can resize pictures and they even provide the ubb code for posting the pictures (that also works here).There are also a number of sites like ImageShack - Best place for all of your image hosting and image sharing needs that have free picture hosting.Remember that evidence can be provided to support almost any position you care to discuss (flat maps show that the earth is flat, for instance), the trick is to deal with all the evidence. This includes

• 238U halos that take hundreds of millions of years to form,
• it includes evidence of 222Rn flowing in the rocks from the absence from Gentry's "embryonic" 238U halos,
• it includes evidence of 222Rn in the pervasive "staining" on larger fissures and cracks,
• it includes evidence of 222Rn in the absence of Po halos without nearby uranium or thorium inclusions,
• it includes evidence of 222Rn in the presence of wide 222Rn/210Po rings, especially in fluorite where gaps can even be distinguished, just as Gentry sees in the 238U "nearly complete" halos,
• it includes the evidence that the rocks where these halos are observed were subject to secondary processes, and
• it includes the evidence that the rocks come from many different age formations from Precambrian to Tertiary ...

quote:

---

The Tertiary geological time interval covers roughly the time span between the demise of the non-avian dinosaurs and beginning of the most recent Ice Age, approximately 65 million to 1.8 million years ago.

---

It means dealing with evidence like this: I may get to putting these into autocad tomorrow.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : moved photosEdited by RAZD, : sp, added

---

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) • • •

Just a note:I've just been banned from the Herb Allure - Nature's Sunshine (NSP) Distributors site, so I can't access my pictures there anymore. Some other site that is less emotional\paranoid\arbitrary would likely be better (Russ is big on conspiracy theories).Enjoy.

Hey Rox, Pictures from his book can be found at
Creation's Tiny Mystery: Radiohalo Catalogue, IndexThere is no lithographic description other than "in fluorite" or "in biotitie" etc. that I have seen, nor any that AlphaOmegaKid has produced.I doubt you will find much on the geology. You can also contact Dr Collins at to discuss gentry's geogolgy errors and mistakes.I'll get back to AlphaOmegaKid, I just don't have much time right now.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : spling

---

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

---

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

Thanks, AlphaOmegaKid for (a) proving my point and (b) showing that you can't see the evidence in front of you: Clearly does NOT line up with the outer rings - your diameters there show a gap between your "measured" diameter and the actual ring. This shows that you have fudged - over-scaled - your measurement to force your 210 diameter to fit the 222Rn ring, and you call my photos fraud? Curiously this one doesn't, it shows all the measurements in the outer bands, and voila there is the 222Rn right where it should be. It also shows your 210Po band right inside the gap between the 210Po and 222Rn decay bands - right where it should be.Thanks. Just to confirm this I'll do my own when I get the time. Message 135Your displayed ignorance of radioactive decay is stunning. The decay in question is by alpha particles (2 neutrons and 2 protons) and beta decay (an electron emitted from a neutron turning it into a proton). As a result, the inclusion does not decrease in size with decay, having the same numbers of atoms in it at the end as when it started.The faint evidence of 222Rn is from the few that did not leave the center, but the rest that would make rings as dense as the 238U to 226Ra rings have left. Decay does not happen sequentially with all to one isotope and the all to the next, but continuously.There is no way to have an absence of these outer rings without having an absence of the radioactive isotope OR some mechanism to magically stop radioactive decay from occurring for one isotope in a series, but not in the others. Actually there are halos along such cracks, but this still does not address the issue of the missing "embryo" (nobody else calls them that - only Gentry) 222Rn decay. The only difference is that now you are invoking two different sources of 238U when only one is needed.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : No reason given.Edited by RAZD, : qsEdited by RAZD, : 235U changed to 238U

---

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) • • •

Actually the second is also AlphaOmegaKid's image - he posted two. His mistake was to start with the ring/s where there is dispute. The proper procedure is to set up your rings based on the outer bands - the ones that you KNOW are from single isotope decay, with no possibility of confusion, and then see what the inner ones measure.He is also being a little free with who measured what:Radiohalos in a Radiochronological and Cosmological Perspective
Radiohalos in a Radiochronological and Cosmological Perspective: Table 1. What you see is a lot of NR (not resolved) and only two people - Gentry and Schilling (not the pitcher) - measuring 222Rn and 210Po and they disagree on how big 210Po is, and that ONLY in fluorite - for the 238U halo (where you KNOW there should be 222Rn).When you go over to the 218Po halos you see the numbers are different and it looks like some 222Rn data has been averaged in with the 210Po data by the growth in these numbers.This is why you should start with the (two outer) known bands and work in to what you actually have, then compare that to the recorded numbers.This is what I did, starting with the 238U halo picture from Gentry: As you can see, these numbers compare well with the published numbers, thus validating the process. You will see 3 small circles used on the 218Po band as the 214Po band is fairly indistinct - these were used to triangulate the center (3 points define a circle).Then I did the same thing with the 222Rn halo picture from Gentry: Here you see the outer two bands again in agreement with the published data, and the two inner bands slightly under the published data, but within the error margin, and there are still some places where the band coloration is outside the marked 222Rn band.As a double check, I then took the circles from the 238U picture and pasted them to the 222Rn picture: There was no scaling of these circles, they are exactly the same as shown on the 238U picture above. When you look closely you will see very good agreement with the two outer circles. The next two inner ones, for 222Rn and 210Po show more variation (as expected), BUT there is still band coloration outside the 222Rn circle from the 238U picture.Thus we have found 222Rn, it fits the band from 238U and there is still discoloration outside it. There is NOT a white gap all around between the discoloration and the circles for 222Rn, which would be the case if 222Rn was not in the picture. The only place where this occurs at all is the white area at ~10 oclock, where the outer bands are completely obliterated as well - probably a later intrusion.QED as they say, eh?Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : 235U to 238UEdited 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) • • •

Hello AlphaOmegaKid. Getting a little intense are we? This was in response to your methodology, not to how scientists should measure halos - not having access to their equipment the best either you or I can do is scale the pictures and draw circles over them. What you have done is assume that the inner ring is (must be) 210Po. The bias in your outer circles betrays this - they do not match either outer band.Unfortunately the pictures are not published with reference scales on them so that the could be scaled up from the actual photo dimensions, so the next best information is what is given by the photos themselves.Obviously, only the two outer bands are clearly and unequivocally from single isotope decay sources, and thus are the only ones that can legitimately be used to size the pictures. They also act as a double check, as both rings need to match the published data within the margin of error. I can see the outer ring in several places. The validity of it is how well the ring diameter matches the published value for fluorite. The values given in the table are 34.5 by Schilling and 34.7 by Gentry, so if anything the picture should be scaled up to make this ~34.6. This would increase the inside ring sizes by 100(34.6-34.52)/34.6 = 0.2%, because they are drawn to match the rings, not to duplicate data. Curiously I don't expect to duplicate measurements that are based on many observations and are an average value of all those observations. I expect to be within the margin of error, and on the uranium halo this is readily apparent:

   RAZD Gentry Schilling
14.15   14.2    14.0
16.89   17.1    16.9
19.50   19.5    19.3
20.54   20.5    20.5
23.50   23.5    23.5
34.52   34.7    34.5

Curiously cropping the picture to the same view as the 238U halo picture does not change the data on it nor the methodology used. You are grasping at straws here. I've redone the pictures (no change to the drawings) to show the complete rings.Strangely, if you look closely at ~2 oclock you will see one of my circles used for defining the 214Po halo.All the bands are distorted at 8 oclock, but this circle matches the outer band where it is faint as well as where it is strongly marked. The circle is through the maximum discoloration places (1) because there is no distinct "edge" and (2) because this matches how the faint rings were done on the 238U halo. If this were moved in there are places on the circumference where it would miss the discoloration.I used the same kind of inset for max color for the next rings inward as well. Except that the radius is too large to be 210Po. You tried to force it to be a 210Po radius and your outer circles missed the discoloration bands, thus demonstrating that it is too big for 210Po. Curiously I can see it several places, marked by slight gaps just inside the 222Rn band, just as seen on the 238U halo. Again we can compare data against the published values:

   RAZD Gentry Schilling
19.18   19.5    19.3
20.33   20.5    20.5
23.50   23.5    23.5
34.62   34.7    34.5

The outer bands match, the inner bands fall within the margin of error (+/-0.5 by one of your earlier posts). Note that there is still some discoloration outside the circle I have made for the 222Rn band, well outside the range for 210Po. That the circles from the 234U picture show the same match to the rings that the ones drawn for it. There is still some discoloration outside the 222Rn circle from the 238U set, further beyond the range for 210Po. You are not paying attention, or you are grasping at straws again. Remember, the process is to define the two outer bands and then scale the picture so that they match the published values, thus at that point they should be at the same magnification. In both pictures the two outer circles are very similar, demonstrating that the size of neither one was fudged nor faked.Then I took and copied the rings from the 238U picture to the 222Rn picture, and you can see that the outer two rings fall in the same places.And you can see the inner rings are on bands of discoloration.If this was fraudulently done as you have claimed, then there should be white gaps between the 222Rn circle from the 238U set and the discoloration bands. There isn't. So you're saying that my numbers are wrong - in spite of their agreement with published values - because the pictures were originally taken at different magnifications, then posted on a website at any possible magnification and without any scale reference distance marked on the pictures ...? Interesting thought process. Problem is that I corrected for this by setting the outer two rings to match the published data. At this point the two pictures should be at exactly the same magnification. Curiously I don't question the existence of polonium halos. What I question is that their source is "primordial" polonium and that there are no 222Rn halos.Having seen the evidence of 222Rn bands in these pictures, AND having seen the evidence of 222Rn bands MISSING from the so-called "embryonic" 238U halos, AND the evidence of decay up and down the fissures in these rocks, AND the evidence that "polonium" halos have formed from a different process than either 238U or 232Th halos that artificially concentrates the decay isotopes, I'd say the evidence is very strong that inert radon gas has played a pivotal role in their formation.To show you the difference, this is a 218Po halo: Which I think you will agree matches the published data rather well. Notice that the 214Po and 218Po bands are drawn in the same manner as on the 222Rn halo previously posted.Here it is with the same 238U circles superimposed on it: What you see here, that you do NOT see on the 222Rn halo is a clear and unequivocal separation between the discoloration and the 222Rn circle. Here again is the 222Rn halo for reference and comparison: So you have:

1. evidence of 222Rn leaving some uranium inclusions, where Gentry mis-identifies them as "embryonic" halos in spite of such things being physically impossible according to all the known physics.
2. evidence of 222Rn and lots of decay along fissures and cracks.
3. "polonium" halos only in rocks where 222Rn is plentiful and 238U is added to the rocks by a secondary formation process,
4. evidence of "polonium" inclusions being formed after uranium inclusions have already become embedded in the crystals
5. evidence of radioactive isotopes of the 238U series being "distilled" by higher than normal ratios of 206Pb to 207Pb
6. evidence of 222Rn in at least ONE halo.

Conclusion: 222Rn was instrumental in the formation of halos from 222Rn down to 210Po.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : eglisneEdited by RAZD, : clarityEdited by RAZD, : moreenglshnessEdited by RAZD, : 235 to 238UEdited 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) • • •