polonium halos

It has been explained numerous times that uranium "embryonic" halos are possible according to "all the known physics". May I ask a moderator to intervene and ask RAZD to stop repeating this?The photos of many halos in coal are elliptical . This can be interpreted as the radiocenter moving. The purpose of wood is to transport water, therefore is not surprising that radiocenters in coal could have been moved by the water. As the radiocenter moves, alpha particles emitted will discolor the surrounding coal, and the halo will be elliptical. However, the major axis of these elliptical halos are of the order of 10 micro meters so I think that the daughter products only moved away by ~10um.Anyway, the topic in this thread is more focused on Polonium halos found in rocks. Rocks are not like wood where there can be solutions moving. The halos in rocks are circular, not elliptical.If people want to claim that Radon can leave the radiocenter and go somewhere else, why not prove it experimentally? Take a granite rock without halos, soak it in Rn222, and then check whether the 222Rn decayed inside the granite. The half life of 222Rn is just a few days, so this experiment can be stopped after 10 days.I bought a hydrogen balloon for my son some time ago. The gas diffused out in a few days. Radon atoms are much larger than helium atoms. Balloons are much more prone to diffusion than rocks. It is absurd to believe that diffusion of Radon-222 occurs within a few days in granite. There is some truth to this statement, as many of the polonium halo photos show cracks. Many polonium halo photos have only a single ring. If the radiocenter started off as 222Rn center, there should be 4 rings. Also, in some photos (in my opininon majority of the polonium halos do occur along cracks) Polonium halos occur without any visible cracks: The photo above is from Fossil Alpha-Recoil Analysis of Certain Variant Radioactive HalosEdited by peaceharris, : grammar

What's point in reexplaining it? I have explained it before, and you have not understood.
Refer:
1. Message 21
2. Message 27
3. Message 34
4. Message 34
5. Message 43
6. Finally in the thread about Concordia dating of the Indian basins it was explained
a) That for a system not in equilibrium, using the ratio 238U/206Pb to calculate age is erroneous. (This proves that Gentry's estimate of few hundred thousand years could be erroneous since he did not check whether all the daughter products of 238U have reached equilibrium)b) Radiogenic Pb need not be from the in situ decay of U(refer http://www.geocities.com/peaceharris/u238 )I hope that a moderator will request RAZD to stop repeating statements that amount to saying that U halos must be old according to accepted physical laws of radiometry.

Do you believe the dates obtained through K-Ar dating techniques? Why do evolutionists believe that Ar did not separate from its parent in solid rocks, but believe that Radon could separate itself from its parent isotope?Rn222 has just a half life of a few days compared to Argon-40 which is stable. If Rn222 could separate from its Uranium radiocenter within a few days, isn't it possible that Argon (having the luxury of all the time it needs) also leaves its Potassium center?Edited by peaceharris, : No reason given.

The definition of equilibrium is for every atom of 238U that decays, there is 1 atom of 234Th that decays.In the case of 238U, your formula is quite correct since HF_sum is much greater than HF_234Th.I have replied in more detail in Message 46