polonium halos

Your doing great work making your strawman images which aren't EVIDENCE of anything. But the picture below is.... Do you see the three halos that I told you were cropped, and then blown up larger to make them look fuzzy. It's the only group of three halos in the picture. Do you see that faint halo to the right of them? That happens to be a Po210 halo. Gentry has many pictures of these also. They are the best evidence for primordial Po210 being encapsulated in the crystals as they solidified. Can you explain that one with your Rn222 fuzzy halo/hydrothermal U238 flow?

Thanks RAZD: Well I have, but you apparently haven't read anything. I cited Gentry's website Evidence for Earth's Instant Creation - Polonium Halos in Granite and Coal - Earth Science Associates where all of his professional scientific peer reviewed work resides. Your assumptions are not false, they just were tested in the lab by Gentry using non microscopic techniques to determine the material at the center of the halo. Your argument has been nothing more than a evo-babble rehash of Henderson's 1939 hypothesis who was one of the earlier pioneers in examining these halos. Even, as I showed, ntskeptics agrees that Gentry easily dismissed the uranium ion "flow" hypothesis of Henderson even though they incorrectly identified who originated this hypothesis.Also if you read Gentry's work you will see that not only did he analyse mica from biotite, he looked at many halos in florite. The Rn222 rings are very discernable microscopically in florite.I will present Gentrys work one publishing at a time. I think this is important to present this information in a way that the readers can understand, so be patient. These comments display your entire ignorance on this subject. Again, I will discuss this in detail, but for now just rest assured that Gentry debunked this argument by analyzing the center of the Halos with the ion microprobe. He showed conclusive evidence that the centers showed Pb206 which is absolute evidence that Rn222 was not one of the rings.I suggest you do your homework now and read Gentrys actual work that was published in peer reviewed publications. You're going to have to come up with some new arguments other than Henderson's.

I've always found it facinating in these forums as to what people determine to be "childish emotional and petty". I wonder if any of these comments would fit that description? These are all from this thread.(Note to admins...The only reason I am posting this is that RAZD's post was deemed appropriate) RAZD message 42

I appreciate your comments, and I concurr.

Let's just clear up a couple of things so you can properly understand. I did not call Wakefield a liar or a fraud. Actually, he told the truth on his website clearly showing his credentials. It was you who claimed that his work was peer-reviewed scientific work. It was you who diminished Gentry's science on the basis that he was not a PhD and a geologist. Which was a fallacy.The purpose of the spelling W(F)akefield was to illuminate the fact that you represented him as a Geologist with superior experience and credibility relative to Gentry.Since, you like facts. Here are some.Fact: Gentry has a BS and MS in physics.Fact: Gentry spent his whole career as a field scientist and a Physics Professor.Fact: Gentry is published in 20 peer reviewed well known scientific publications including Nature and Science multiple times.Fact: Gentry's work is cited in a substantial number of peer reviewed scientific articles.Fact: Gentry has substantial credentials and credibility on the subject of granite, fluorite, coalified wood, uranium halos, and Polonium halos. Fact: Wakefield is a professional firefighter

​

Fact: Wakefield does not have a degree in geology.

​

Fact: Wakefield didn't even study geology in school, he is "self taught"

​

Fact: Wakefield is not published one time in any scientific peer reviewed magazine.

​

Fact: Wakefield has zero credentials as a geologist and a physicist.

​

Fact: Wakefield has no credibility on the subject of Geology, Physics, granite, fluorite, coalified wood, uranium halos, and Polonium halos.Therefore, I properly and humorously identified this credibility fact by parenthetically emphasizing his name. W(F)akefield. Now do you understand?Now as far as the term "evo-babbler" . This is my term, and I will define it for you. The term was used very early on in this forum, and I used it as a test to see how much response it would get. The term refers to evolutionists who falsely represent scientific "facts" in books and on the web. We have had quite a bit of that over the years. Gill slits and embryos come to mind as well as many fossil finds. Radon Halos is another one. The term also applies to those followers of these dogmas who parrot them.Now, having said that, no scientist anywhere is suggesting that Po218 halos are actually Rn222 halos. You cannot present evidence of this in any published peer reviewed work. The argument only appears on W(F)akefield's website which happens to be hosted by Collins and is referenced by Collins. But Collins does not make the argument of Rn222 Halos and neither does Bailleieu. So here is the chain of misinformation and zero credibility and evo-babbling.First Wakefield publishes his undergraduate self taught amateur geological refutation of Gentry's scientific work in a teacher's journal. Collins picks up on this and cites Wakefield and bases many of his conclusions on his work. Collins then hosts Wakefield's Gentry's Tiny Mystery. Then TalkOrigins has Bailleieu write an article and he bases his evidence on Wakefield and Collins. Talk Origins then has another "amateur scientist" John Brawley submit the theory that these are Rn222 halos and not Po218 halos. Then Wakefield copys Brawleys diagrams onto his website sometime after 1992. Then people like you pick up this pseudoscience and begin to parrot it. So there you have it. That is clear evidence of the evo-babbling decay chain.Now do you understand?Now to demonstrate evidentially that the science community is not questioning whether these are indeed Po Halos, I will refer to this peer reviewed work by Meier in Geochemical Journal vol 10 page 185-195 1976.It can be found here: http://www.terrapub.co.jp/journals/GJ/pdf/1004/10040185.PDFHere are some interesting quotes from this paper...

quote:

---

The greatest portion of halos, however, could be clearly identified as polonium halos.

---

​

quote:

---

Therefore, the existence of polonium halos should no more be questioned.

---

Now these are not quote mines, these are summary statements made by Meier. Now to further support the credibility, Meier is presenting a hypothesis contrary to Gentry's hypothesis for the formation of these halos. Meier again is supporting the Rn222 transport theory through the concept of chemical weathering and leaching. Unfortunately for him, his publication came out after Gentry had already published new evidence which refuted his hypothesis. This is evidenced by ntskeptics which you cited earlier...The Newsletter of The North Texas Skeptics

quote:

---

The first attempts to dispute his assertions, though on the right track, fell short and were easily dismissed by Gentry. They included hydrothermal injection of polonium (York 1979), uranium release during weathering (Meier 1976), and varients of uranium halos (Moazed 1973).

---

It is also agreed by Collins: http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/revised8.htm

quote:

---

Numerous attempts have been made to counteract Gentry's claim and to show that Po halos are formed by less dramatic processes. None of these has been fully satisfactory.

​

Attempts to explain Gentry's conundrum include the following:

​

(A) The halos were created by hydrothermal fluids that carried or injected the polonium into the crystals (Joly 1917; Kerr-Lawson 1927; Henderson 1939; Henderson & Sparks 1939; York 1979; Chaudhuri & Iyer 1980).

​

(B) The halos were formed from Po ions in fluids that were released during the weathering of uranium-bearing minerals (Meier & Hecker 1976).

​

(C) The large numbers of 210Po halos can be explained by diffusion of beta-emitting Pb isotopes (Hashemi-Nezhad et al. 1979).

​

(D) The halos were not really formed by disintegration of polonium but are merely variants of uranium halos (Moazed et al. 1973).

​

Gentry has met the counter claims with additional arguments, pointing out that:

​

(A) There is no evidence for hydrothermal fluid injection, which might bring radioactive precursors into position to create the isolated Po halos, since the mineral samples containing Po halos are from fresh, unweathered rock.

​

(B) Distribution of the beta-particle-emitting lead isotopes is inadequate to explain the presence of short-lived 218Po and 214Po nuclei.

​

(C) No remnants of uranium or other precursors occur in the biotite and fluorite crystal nuclei to support the contention that the Po halos are variants of uranium halos.

---

Now is this enough EVIDENCE for you to concede that these are indeed Polonium halos? Or do you want to continue the evo-babbler rant that these are Rn222 halos? Don't you understand that it is impossible for Rn222 to be the emmitting source of Po214 and Po210 halos? The choice is yours.Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : added "emmitting"Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : Added the info about John Brawley's article in TO

RAZD:In reference to my use of the term evo-babbler So the use of the term "cognitive dissonance" is not trying to demonize and belittle a critic? As spelled out clearly in my earlier message, the only people displaying cognitive dissonance is those who continue to claim that Po218 halos are actually Rn222 halos. This is pseudo-science paraded as science by evolutionists on the web.And if you don't believe that thousands and millions of people will not believe and follow lies then just look at this years campaigns in America. Both sides are lying. And the followers are lying also, because they "believe" in their candidate. I don't believe this is a conspiracy though, I just think it is human nature.In regards to Polonium halos, the science community is honest and correct. These are indeed Po218,Po214,and Po210 halos. They all agree now. It is only the pseudo-scientists that persuade the millions like you to believe that these are actually Rn222 halos.

With your permission, I would like to just have a comment on the appeal to authority fallacy. It is true that no authority can be absolutely trusted based on their credentials. However, the credentials and experience in a given field of knowledge do give weight to the credibility of an argument. That's why we use this all the time in the legal field and in science. This is the type of fallacy that RAZD is employing. Wakefield and Brawley are the creators of the logic that RAZD is presenting. Neither are qualified in any way to be speaking with authority on this topic. And with all due respect, it does matter if a hypothesis comes from a thousand monkeys with typewriters. This is the type of appeal to authority that I have employed.The reason I am posting this is it is vitally important to science and the scientific method. Science relies on the appeal to authority within the process of peer review. You must demonstrate a knowledge of prior scientific publications (appeal to authority), scientific methods, presentation of evidence and interpretation of eviedence in order to get published. You must demonstrate your authority on a given scientific subject. All of science relies on this. Being published, does not make it true, but it does meet the level of initial credibility in the world of science.I know I am not supposed to argue with an administrator. I hope you respectfully recognize though that this is an important part of science and the scientific method.If I am suspended for this post, then so be it. My convictions regarding fairness and honesty moved me to write it anyway.Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : No reason given.

I will be on vacation thru Monday. I don't know if I will be able to post during this time. See you Tuesday RAZD.

Thanks RAZD,I think it is important to discuss a few basics, so we can understand what is being talked about in the scientific documents.1. What is a radiohalo? A radio halo is a spherical visible discoloration that can be seen in semitransparent mineral formations. They are not round, they are spherical. In some cases where the emitting particles are very large, the halos may be elliptical. That would mean that the central inclusion would also be relatively elliptical.2. There are two main families of radiohalos. They are extinct and extant. Extinct halos will only have stable isotopes in the inclusion, because the unstable isotopes in the decay chain have decayed away. All polonium isotopes are extinct, because all of the isotopes of Po218, 214, and 210 have very short half lives and have decayed away. Uranium and Thorium halos may be extinct or extant depending on when they were encapsulated.3. Halos can only be formed when radioactive material is encapsulated. Any material flow into or out of a radio center cavity will not create a halo. The radioactive material cannot be flowing (mobile). The radioactive material must be fixed in a defined space from which it will radiate outward in a spherical manner.Note: Other radioactive mineral damage can occur from alpha decay. Other mineral discoloration can occur from radioactive decay from mobile isotopes, but this damage will not be spherical in shape.4. The name of the halo refers to the original emitting isotope at the center of the halo.5. Halo measurement is done at the largest diameter of the sphere.6. Any picture showing multiple halos is not evidence of anything in regards to halo ring determination. The multiple halos are not all at the diameter cross section. The multiple halo pictures will have varying colors, focuses, and diameter measurements. Only single halos are measured, and they are measured thru multiple cross sections until the largest diameter section is found. This is an outright lie. This is what he said in context: pg 186-187

quote:

---

Results:

​

By systematic optical measurements of specimens consisting mostly of biotite some halos with rings attributable to the alpha decay of 146Sm (Ea=2.2MeV) and the members of the 238U and/or 232Th series, have been observed. The greatest portion of halos, however, could be clearly identified as polonium halos. In this context it should be noted that polonium halos are defined as halos which seem to result form the decay of polonium isotopes of the 238U series without any visible connection to other alpha emitting nuclides of the 238U series. 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 Po210. Therefore, in accordance with ranges and energies, resp., of alpha particles emitted from these isotopes (see Table1) which are decaying in the series 218Po->214Po->210Po, several structures of polonium halos can be expected.

​

Table 1: (snipped)

​

I.e., the different types of polonium halos are: 218Po halos which are characterized by three ring structure due to the decay of three isotopes; 214Po halos which are characterized by a two ring structure due to the decay of two isotopes; 210Po halos which consist only of a disk.

​

In Fig. 3 these distinct types of polonium halos are schematically shown; see also (Gentry, 1973; Henderson and Sparks, 1939; Moazed et al., 1973)

​

By observing a great number of halos which can be definitely ascribed to polonium isotopes (see Fig.4 and Fig. 5) the results of Henderson and Sparks (1939), Henderson (1939), and Gentry (1968, 1974) concerning these halos could be confirmed. Therefore, the existence of polonium halos should no longer be questioned.

---

I did not quote mine Meier. He says unequivocally that these are polonium halos. He says unequivocally that you and everyone else should not question this any longer. He says that the results and conclusions regarding the identification of these halos from Henderson, Sparks, Gentry and Meier all agree. Even Collins and Baillieu agree. These are indeed polonium halos. You cannot show one scientist that says otherwise. Trying to claim that these are Rn222 halos is a fraudulent web claim from spurious sources that present zero evidence, only conjecture and assertions. All of your drawings with fuzzy lines and conjectures are not evidence of anything. If you provide images of halos with measurements on them, and they are at the diametrical section of the sphere, then you might have some evidence. But so far you have dazzled the audience with a bunch of nothing. Either you didn’t read this publication, or you cannot comprehend it. Meier is unequivocally saying that “only polonium (218Po, 214Po, and 210Po) contributes to these halos.” That’s what he is saying when he states “without any visible connection to other alpha emitting nuclides of the 238U series.” In other words, there is no visible connection to 222Rn. Do you get it? None. Zero visible evidence. No matter what your scriptures on TalkOrigins say. Again, I don’t think you understand what you are reading. What radioactive isotopes do you think he is talking about? 222Rn is the alpha emitting isotope precursor to 218Po. How else are you going to get 218Po inclusions unless you have a substantial flow of 222Rn according to his hypothesis? Only if you ignore the previously submitted evidence from Gentry. I highlighted it in red. The fact is that there are plenty of polonium halos without any visible defects in the mica, or cracks or fissures. That evidence which is visible and available negates this whole argument. This is why ntskeptiks and Collins declare that Meier’s arguments were easily dismissed by Gentry. Since they are now your arguments, they will be easily dismissed by me:Here are some quotes from his first peer reviewed article in Science 1968Fossil Alpha-Recoil Analysis of Certain Variant Radioactive Halos

quote:

---

I have observed the polonium halos in many Precambrian biotites, and the halos in Fig. 1 were found in biotites from the Baltic (Norway) and Canadian shields, respectively. Since these polonium isotopes are daughter products of 238U, it was initially conceived (10) that they were preferentially fixed out of uranium-bearing solutions at localized deposition centers along small conduits or veins within the host mineral (mica, for example).

​

While coloration surrounding minute veins in the mica is an indication of the flow of radioactive solutions (very weak solutions may show no staining whatsoever), it does not follow that halos that formed around small nuclei in the conduits were necessarily derived from radioactivity in solution. For example, polonium, uranium, and thorium halos also form around very small inclusions, with no visible conduit or crack in the mica connecting the halo nuclei, and it is certainly not clear that these halos are of hydrothermal origin.

---

Please note that in Gentry’s first publication he identified granites from Canada and Norway and later in the paper he mentions Ireland. Wakefield’s whole argument is a strawman about certain locations in Canada only. Since this time Gentry has found Po halos in granites from the Americas, Scandinavia, Europe, Russia, Japan, and Madagascar. Within these biotites and fluorites, some have visible cracks and fissure and some do not. Here are some photos from Gentry's site that show both situations.Creation's Tiny Mystery: Radiohalo Catalogue, Plate 1The above page shows pictures of four fully developed uranium halos in biotite. Pictures a, b, and c show no visible evidence of fissures cracks or conduits. Picture d does show clear conudits.Creation's Tiny Mystery: Radiohalo Catalogue, Plate 2The above page shows Po210 halos in biotite. Picture a shows some conduits, some to the center of the halo and some not. Many of the halos are not near conduits. Pictures b, c, and d show no evidence of conduits.Creation's Tiny Mystery: Radiohalo Catalogue, Plate 3The above page shows Po214 halos in biotite. Pictures a and b show conduits. Pictures c and d show no evidence of conduits.Creation's Tiny Mystery: Radiohalo Catalogue, Plate 3The above page shows Po218 halos in biotite. Pictures a, b, and d show evidence of conduits and c does not.The facts are there is evidence of conduits for some halos, and there isn’t any evidence of conduits on others. The same is true in fluorites, except that fluorite eliminates the possibility of a cleavage plane, because it doesn’t cleave like the micas.
The fact is that Gentry originally desired to test the possibility of isotope precursor flow in this first publication. And he did by two methods. The first was fission track analysis, and the second was by alpha recoil analysis. FISSION TRACK ANALYSIS

quote:

---

Fission-track techniques (15) may serve this purpose. Uranium-238 fissions spontaneously, and the damaged regions in the host mineral, produced by the fission fragments, can be enlarged sufficiently by acid etching for visibility under an optical microscope. Immersion of biotite samples, containing the polonium and uranium halos in hydrofluoric acid for a few seconds and subsequent observation of the areas in the vicinity of the inclusions reveal a striking difference: the polonium halos are characterized by complete absence of fission tracks, whereas the uranium halos always show clusters of fission tracks.

---

quote:

---

If a uranium solution had been in a conduit feeding the central inclusions of the polonium halos with daughter-product activity, about 70 fission tracks per centimeter of conduit would be expected by use of Henderson's model (10). This result depends on such parameters as the uranium concentration in the solution, the rate of flow (conservatively I have assumed that the solution ceased to flow when the polonium halos formed), and the total number of polonium atoms (5 108) necessary to form a well-developed 218Po halo. This last value I determined by observing the degree of coloration in uranium halos as a function of the number of fission tracks emanating from the halo nucleus, the total number of -particles required for production of a halo being computed as eight times the number of fission tracks times the ratio of the half-lives for spontaneous fission and alpha decay for 238U. While fission tracks are observed along stained conduits, in general I cannot correlate the distribution of fission tracks along clear conduits with the presence of polonium halos.

---

So what Gentry did was test the hydro thermal flow theory of a uranium bearing liquid with daughter-product activity (decay chain isotopes) by checking for fission tracks which would be present along any conduits and around any halos. The uranium halos had the fission tracks (as expected), but the Po218 halos showed no sign of the fission tracks. Then the conduits were analysed. Stained conduits showed fission tracks. Clear conduits as are identified in all the photos cited above showed no fission tracks.This is clear evidence that a liquid fluid flow did not supply the Po for these halos. ALPHA RECOIL ANALYSIS

quote:

---

Polonium halos are also found randomly distributed throughout the interior of large mica crystals far removed from any conduit. (A limited survey may indicate halos occurring within certain cleavage planes, but more extensive search shows this is not the case.) The question now arises of whether the source of the short-half-life radioactivity, characteristic of such polonium halos, was due to (i) the laminar flow of a non-uranium-bearing solution, containing disequilibrium amounts of daughter-product -activity, through a thin cleft parallel to the cleavage plane, or (ii) the diffusion of gaseous radon through the mica. The latter case has been considered (8), but only recently has the discovery of -recoil tracks in micas (16) enabled quantitative checking of either of these mechanisms. This technique is based on the fact that an atom recoiling from -emission impinges on the host mineral and forms a damaged region large enough to produce a pit which is visible in phase contrast when etched with hydrofluoric acid.

---

Now please note that it is a complete strawman argument to suggest that Gentry did not realize or did not consider the permeability of Rn222 gas through the micas through either cleavage planes or conduits. It should be unequivocally accepted that Gentry not only recognized this, but he tested for it.

quote:

---

As far as the experimental analysis is concerned, there is no detectable difference in the microscopic distribution of -radioactivity (with respect to background density) near either the uranium or the polonium halos. [I note that thin clefts, which usually result near the edges of the mica from weathering (but not within the bulk of the mica), are easily detected by an acid etch since -recoil tracks appear throughout the extent of the cleft area.] This finding seems to imply that there was no gross transport of -radioactivity to the polonium-halo inclusions (i) by way of laminar flow of solutions (through thin clefts) disequilibrated as to uranium daughter-product activity, or (ii) by diffusion of radon, since an increased -recoil density, higher than background by several orders of magnitude, should be evident within a l0- radius of the halo inclusions in either case.

---

Now the tests showed conclusive evidence that the presence of Rn222 gas is way below the levels needed to produce a Po218 halo. So the very first publication of Gentry destroys your Rn222 gas transport theory and the hydro thermal liquid flow theory.I will stop here due to length, but I have more!

Thanks. It was busy few days in Orlando with a son in college and a grandchild at Sea World. This is an assertion. It certainly isn't based on evidence. There is no argument that U halos aren't encapsulated. Any opening in a fissure that would allow fluid flow would allow the escape of the alpha radiation energy. This is evidenced by staining along fissures where there is evidence of alpha radiation and fission tracks. The mineral damage from the alpha radiation is not spherical in shape. When there is fluid flow the radiation will show by fission tracks and alpha recoil pits along the fissures into and out of any accumulation pit. There is no evidence of this. In fact it is dramatically absent with the Polonium halos. The visual evidence shows an encapsulated radio center in every halo.Please present physical evidence that a halo "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." The evidence suggests otherwise. This is a strawman argument. He unequivocally states that these are indeed Po halos, and he states that their existance should not be questioned by RAZD. He unequivocally concludes that there is no evidence that these are Rn222 halos or any other U238 isotope.There is no question that he thinks they are not primordial, but he evidently wasn't aware of Gentry's earlier publication in 1968 which debunks his and your hypothesis of fluid flow to deposit the Po. And without any flow evidence, that only leaves the primordial conclusion.So where's your evidence of flow? Where is your evidence of fission tracks? Where is your evidence of alpha recoil pits near the halos. Where is your evidence of alpha recoil pits in the visible conduits? Call it ad hominen if you want, but the statements are true in context. When you say .. The fact is that Meier says unequivocally that these are polonium halos with no visible evidence of any other isotope precursors which includes Rn222. Now you either aren’t reading this, or you don’t comprehend it. That’s the only conclusion that I can draw. You are arguing a fallacious web argument that has no basis in fact. All of the evidence refutes your argument, but you still persist.And when you say . You are making it obvious that you don’t understand what you are reading and what you are writing. When a scientist talks about “radioactive isotopes” being transported in various different ways that eventually deposit Polonium isotopes which create a halo in the mineral, they are talking about Rn222. Rn222 is the “radioactive isotope” that is the precursor to Po218 in the U238 decay chain. There is no other possibility. I wouldn’t use that word “PROVE” if I were you, especially in a scientific context. Please present your evidence of this claim. And please don’t just post pictures. I want the source cited. And the smaller the fissure and crack, the less flow of Rn222 that is possible. You are getting yourself into a catch22 with your argument. You cannot have an “abundant” supply of the trace element Rn222 and have it flowing in a non-visible crack or fissure. Have you heard of the fluid laws which state that fluids flow towards the path of least resistance? In a non visible crack, the pressure to create flow would be immense.So what is the source of the Radon? If the source is U238 internal to the granite, then there would be abundant evidence of fission tracks and alpha recoil pits. But there isn’t any. If the source is from radon gas penetrating the rocks from an outside source like hydrothermal, then you are going to have to answer the question as to what is the mechanism that causes Rn222 to flow from open areas into cracks and fissure not microscopically visible? And then if you can answer this, then why isn’t there any evidence of alpha decay along the way?. Yes, and that width and the diameters of that wide ring are very important. If you measure the width of the Po210/Rn222 rings you will measure a width of about .002-.003mm. The delta in radius of Po210 to Rn222 is .001mm. The width of each is about .001mm, so the combination is about .002mm. If you will scale these pictures, you will see these measurements. The two rings do “fuzzy” together, but the width of that fuzz is about .002-.003mm. The Po210 radius is about .0195mm +-.0005mm and the radius of Rn222 is .0205 +-.0005. These measurements agree with the theoretical as well as the measured values. The definitive determination of whether Rn222 is in the rings is the measurement of the rings. Po218 halos have a maximum radius of .020mm (the outer part of the ring) to about .019 the inner part of the ring. The Rn222 ring has a maximum radius of .021mm and a minimum radius of .020mm. When both Rn222 and Po218 are present, two identifiers are visible. The first is that the rings will appear “fuzzy” and will have a with of .002-.003mm, and the maximum radius will be .021. When only Po218 is present, the ring will have a maximum radius of .020mm and the width of the ring will be .001mm or less.This is why Meier et all can conclude that these are indeed Po218,214,210 halos. Wrong. Just another unsubstantiated assertion of yours. If you actually measure these Po218 halos, you would see that the Po210 ring is not .002-.003mm wide, and its maximum radius is .020mm. Over and over again, Meiers, Gentry, Henderson and Sparks all agree on the measurements here. The measurements eliminate the possibility of Rn222.If you want to present something beyond your wild assertions then produce some measurements. But it does refute the Rn222 from alpha decaying in the area of the Polonium halos. You can’t disagree with the evidence. You can only disagree about the reasoning regarding the evidence. Or like you are doing, you can ignore the evidence as many have done for years. Amazing!. You can see things I can’t see. You can see things Gentry can’t see. You can see things Meiers can’t see. You can see four rings as an amateur scientist like Brawley and Wakefield, while scientists with the proper microscopes and measuring equipment only see three rings.By the way, I like how you blew these up larger to make them even “fuzzier” to fit your false claims. Oh. Ok, now I see it! Yes there is “fuzziness” at the “inner ring. But what? Could it be?... There is no inner ring? You see, what you are claiming to be a fuzzy ring combination of Rn222 is nothing more than some discoloration in the Po210 ring. Now how do we know this? Well it is quite simple. The maximum diameter of the Po210 ring is .020 mm or less. That means all the fuzziness that you claim to be evidence of two rings together is actually impossible because the inner diameter of the fuzziness that you see would be way below the Po210 ring size. Sorry, that’s why this is an internet scam, and you fell for it. And so have many others. It is John Brawley’s scam. Brawley presents no evidence only conjecture, just like you have. It’s a lie. Now if you are any kind of honest scientific person, you should admit it. It’s OK if you just say that it is a tiny mystery that you cannot explain right now. Again, another wild assertion with no evidentiary support. No, because there is no evidence of Rn222, but I do argue that the polonium is primordial. Notice the lack of quotation marks.Enjoy.Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : changed some erroneous sizes

---

-AlphaOmegakid-
I am a child of the creator of the beginning and the end

Thanks RAZD, It looks like your having a good time as well. Have you seen those photo shopped images of Palin? I bet you would do an excellent job on some of those. They are quite believable! You are beginning to defeat yourself now. That's what people do when they deceive; they eventually get caught up in their deceit. Yes you are correct that "it is based on the evidence that radioactive isotopes will decay where ever they happen to be." If there is flow of Rn222 into and/or out of a cavity, then there will be evidence of that decay along the way. Gentry knew that. That's why in his earliest papers he tested for it by analyzing the alpha recoil pits. And there was no evidence of Rn222 decay or any other isotope decay near the Po halos.You have made an assertion, because you are claiming that there was flow of Rn222 gas in small cracks and fissures on the way to the infamous Po218 deposit pit. So where is your evidence that you absolutely agree must exist wherever the Rn222 flows?You also agree that there is visible evidence of this decay along cracks and fissures. That evidence is not spherical is it? No, it appears as a stain in the 2-D plane, but it is really a 3-D somewhat “cylindrical shape” with varying radius all along the fissure. The reason it isn't spherical is the alpha decay emits in all directions randomly and the particles aren’t fixed at one location. Some of the alpha decay particle directions are in line with the direction of the flow. Those alpha particles don’t leave any fossil evidence. So to summarize, when you have flow, the fossilized alpha decay patterns will be present, but they will not be spherical. The fossilized evidence will appear as an outward radiation along the fissure. That's what you just said above, but you didn't realize it. It is an assertion that flowing, radioactive particles can form in a pit and create a visible spherical damage zone in the crystals. The evidence shows otherwise as you have stated.Another assertion. I have asked already that you cite the paper/ author, that is making such claims. You have ignored my request. May be you missed it, so I will ask again.Please back up this claim with evidence. That is if you can. Go ahead and have a good laugh. You are only demonstrating your lack of knowledge on this subject.The staining in the crystal lattice is not perpendicular to the fissure and into the crystal lattice. The alpha particles emit in all random directions relative to the point of decay. Some might be perpendicular to the centerline of the fissure, some at any angle other than 90 degrees, and some will emit along the centerline leaving no fossil evidence as I said above.If all the emissions were perpendicular then you would have a cylindrical halo effect. But we don't see this, and we wouldn't expect to see this if there is flow (moving particles). What we do see is staining which is evidence of alpha decay in all directions, but we cannot visually discern any isotopes because the alpha particles are not uniformly emitted from an encapsulated central source like they are in U, Th , and Po halos. Yes, I have been preaching this from the beginning. The directions of the alpha decay are randomly dispersed from a fixed position. This is unlike fissures and cracks where flow is present, because the location isn't fixed. The alpha particles still emit in random directions (not perpendicular)to the axis of flow, but you don't get a spherical halo when you have flow. That's what the evidence shows. That's why I have asked you repeatedly to supply evidence of a flow situation that can create a spherical halo. You haven't provided any evidence. You only have provided assertions. You are beginning to understand this, but you just can't reconcile it with your belief system. Yes, flow of radioactive material creates stains and alpha particle recoil pits. Non-flowing encapsulated "concentrated" radioactive particles create a spherical halo. It's quite simple. OK. Let me see if I understand. All it takes is one Rn222 isotope decaying into one Po218 isotope every thousand years or so in the same spot. And after a billion or so of these events take place, (because that the number of atoms calculated needed to create a halo) then we have about a trillion years. Wow!. I thought the magic of millions of years was pretty neat for evolution of stars, planets, life, and the species. Now you've just invoked trillions of years for just one lousy halo!??? Bring on those smiley faces!Well that depends upon which theory you are discussing at the moment. If water is the fluid creating the flow of uranium isotopes, then there would be evidence of fission tracks. There is none. But they are measurable. Gentry showed this. It is evidence. Again you are just making more unsubstantiated assertions. It seems to me there is a forum rule about this somewhere. I wonder if it only applies to creationists. All halos have inclusions. Not all inclusions are visible partly because of the staining. Mostly this is in Po210 halos. I must be blind. Where was it? I haven’t seen any. Is it in those invisible fissures? He states that Po218,Po214, and Po210 are the emitting source for the halo. He unequivocally denies the possibility that Rn222 is the emitting source which has been one of your many arguments. And it continues to be. See below . . So now you flip flop again and agree that they are Po halos and not Rn222 halos. I can’t see anything in the image above. It’s too small! But I do see that you are willing to blatantly deceive with photographs. You deceive, because you are ignoring the data of the ring measurements that coincide with the pictures and have been documented and agreed to by all the scientists who have looked at this. Instead you deceive like Brawley and Wakefield who ignore the data also and draft web arguments that have no data and no evidence. You are following suit.Would you like me to post my images of the risen Christ in toast, on trees, and in showers to demonstrate the validity of the resurrection? That’s what you are doing. So now you have flip flopped again back to the Rn222 halo argument. Can you make up your mind? No, I don’t think that is your intent. Your intent is to continue to present no evidence, but to distort photos and to deceive. I will continue to chide evidence that is photo shopped and enlarged and doesn’t have any data attached. It is deceitful. The evidence has been published by Gentry and others. The evidence is not just visual images. The evidence is hundreds of thousand of halos that have been identified and measured in biotite, fluorite, and corderite from multiple continents on this earth.(not just one location in Canada). The evidence is the enhanced color bands that Gentry created with 4He ions. Evidence is the confirmation of other scientists like Meiers who confirm that these are indeed Po halos (observable and repeatable). Evidence is the results of the ion microprobe which confirm that the Pb206 is a result of Po decay. Evidence is the results of densitometer profiles that Gentry presented. And evidence are the results from the x-ray fluorescence analyses that Gentry did. All of this evidence is here for your reading . .Radiohalos in a Radiochronological and Cosmological PerspectiveAll we have seen from you and Brawley, and Wakefield is assertions that these are Rn222 halos by using enlarged images with no measurement data attached. And you further deceive by photo shopping images that are enlarged and fuzzy to magically illustrate a claim. The definition of magic is illusion and slight of hand. That’s all you have done, and evidently this is OK with the administrators. But in my book, I will chide it as deceitful.Enjoy.

Hi Bluescat48, According to uniformitarianism, you are correct. Both processes involve melting and cooling and crystalization. And we know that primordial (when the rock was formed) uranium can be encapsulated during this process. And that uranium source can produce halos over the years. The cooling process for the creation of granites requires much longer times though than would allow the encapsulation of Po218, Po214, or even Po210 due to their short half lives. They would have decayed before encapsulation.But they exist by the oodles.The evidence shows that there wasn't any transport mechanism involved. That's what both the fission track analysis and the alpha recoil pit analysis demonstrate.The evidence shows that the Po was primordial (when the rock was formed) from the Pb206/207 ratios.The evidence shows that there aren't any U238 isotope precursors responsible for these halos.That means that the granite would have had to solidified within minutes. And that means that the unformitarian principle, upon which all of geology is built is in question. Remember that uniformitarianism leads to assumptions about the past, which lead to assumptions about dating methods. It is assumptions built upon assumptions that make the science. If those assumptions are invalid, then the science that is built upon them is invalid.I am not trying to prove anything. I am just demonstrating that there is indeed evidence that the earth may be young. And so far RAZD is not doing a very good job dealing with the evidence. Primordial to you means when the earth was formed. Rocks supposedly 4.5-3.5 billion years old. You wouldn't consider 1 billion years old as primordial. But if all the granites were formed within minutes, as the evidence suggests, then there really aren't any billion year old rocks. If the earth is young, then all the granites would be primordial.

How do you know? Have you ever observed granite formed within minutes? Has any scientist? Is it observable and repeatable. It is a hypothesis that the granites formed with slow cooling.Actually most if not all attempts a making a synthetic granite from magma with slow cooling have produced fine grains. I don't know of any experiments that have produced large grains. But I'm no geologist.By the way, Gentry for over twenty years now has challenged the scientific community to falsify his primordial Polonium theory by producing a synthetic piece of large grained granite with one Po218 halo in it. I susspect many have tried, but none have published. It should be a rather simple experiment. Take a piece of biotite, melt it, cool it however fast or slow that you want, and put it into an environment with an abundance of U238 isotopes. Voila, you should be able to erase Gentry off the map. But nobody has accepted the falsification challenge.

Nope, I don't want to explain any of this. I am trying to avoid off topic red herring arguments.Wiki has a good article on this if you want to learn more.Granite - Wikipedia

If you want to make an argument or present some evidence in this forum then do it. I will not respond any more to your irrelevant comments.