This topic has been of interest to me for some time. It's the only question ever put to me by a creationist that wasn't obviously flawed. I'm still not sure I'm fully up to speed so I don't want to let it go. This is a bump.
Well, first of all you didn't line up the circles correctly:
You'll find that image 222rnhalo1v2ym1.jpg the right hand image with the misaligned circles is originally from
Message 205, where RAZD said this about it:
I've also redone the image to move the 23.5 circle to the outer limits of the discoloration there in order to make the inner circles smaller:And I still get 20.24 for the 222Rn band, within the margin of error for 222Rn and still too big for 210Po; and I still get 19.07 for the 210Po band, within the margin of error for 210Po; but the outer ring is 34.08 -- small for this band, when the first version above is a better fit to the published data. Thus the first picture is a better overall fit to the outer rings.
Clearly it was originally a test piece rejected for the better fit of this image:
which RAZD used in all instances following with the exception of
Message 215 where he picked the argument back up after a longish pause. I'll bet you he used the wrong image and your argument's for nought.
Razd's method for finding the ring sizes is much more accurate the yours. It's much easier to find the peak of a Gaussian distribution then the edge. Especially since there ain't one.
Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.