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

The you website reffed didn't say when Dr. Vardiman was quoted as saying this. This is quite conspicuous as they give a date on everyone else's statements. As they didn't I can't be sure as to whether or not you are using outdated info.

Your point is very interesting. The main point I have to make at this time is that the further you go back in time, the more radioactive our soil becomes. This probably wouldn't effect much in the last few "million" years, but you see my point. I'll look for some Tc articles and reff them for you if I find them. As to your point about lead, I was taught that most, if not all of the lead we have comes from nuclear decay, and only a small fraction of the product lead would be radioactive.

My point was that as you go back in time, past a few million years, the soil becomes more radioactive. My point any way was that the earth would be irradiated extremely. I've never heard of Oklo reactors.

Ok, are you familiar with the RATE project?

Did you know that they were well received at a geoscience conference? To get to this article go to The Institute for Creation Research | The Institute for Creation Research and hit research, then go to research papers, then scroll down until you see RATE posters well received at AGU conference. This bears the question, if their results have been refuted, wouldn't these well educated scientists have noticed?This message has been edited by christ_fanatic, 09-16-2005 02:15 PM

The refutation you reffed was refuted by Humphreys. Here is the link http://www.trueorigin.org/helium01.asp . As to the part about the AGU conference, I see your pointThis message has been edited by christ_fanatic, 09-16-2005 09:11 PM

I'll take your point there for now, but I want to ask what you know about polonium radiohalos.