Helium in the atmosphere. Evidence for or against a young earth?

quote:

---

...but you see my point.

---

Actually, I don't see your point. I wonder, though, whether the Oklo reactors are relevant to your point?

quote:

---

My point any way was that the earth would be irradiated extremely.

---

If by "extremely" you mean "somewhat more than at present" then you would be correct.The Oklo reactors are an interesting natural phenomenon. Modern fission reactors rely on a certain isotope of Uranium, U-235. Most uranium ores are mostly the relatively useless U-238, and so must be extensively processed in order to get increased U-235. But the half-life of U-235 is much shorter than U-238, so that it decays faster. So as time goes on, the proportion of U-235 must decrease in a given sample of ore.This means that as we backwards in time, the relative proportion of U-235 must increase. About 2 billion years ago, about 3% of uranium in a typical sample would have been U-235 -- which is enough to sustain a fission reaction, like in modern reactors, if the conditions were right. In western Africa, there are the remains of uranium ore bodies with anomalous characteristics -- characteristics that can be explained if the conditions at these locations were just right for a sustained fission reaction.So, the Oklo reactors are the remains of a naturally occurring nuclear reactor.

Enough to know that their results have been refuted.

Did the link I supply not deal with the results to which you are referring? If not, specify which results you find interesting; perhaps I or someone more knowledgeable than I can find more information on it.

Hello, christ_fanatic.The link I supplied earlier has a side-bar, at the beginning, that mentions this particular "refutation" by Humphreys.

JonF has already answered this. The only thing I will add is a link to a short explanation of Gentry's polonium halos.