polonium halos

Tranquility Base:
Your link states that the half life is dependent on Q (the KE release) but it may be dependent on other things. It actually poinys out that you can get 24 orders of magnitude half life change from a doubling of Q so maybe the 6 orders of magnitude change in half-life we are talking about could even use a small Q change. I'm an ex- particle physicist but I'll take a look at the RATE book before wasting too much time on it.The half-life may certainly be dependent on other factors, but I still don’t see how you can change the half-life without changing the kinetic energy release, and therefore the halo diameter. With that said, I’m not a physicist, and if you know of such a way, I’d love to see it.I suppose that the point you’re trying to make is that you don’t need much of a change in Q to get a big change in half-life. It seems that you’re arguing that perhaps Q changed enough to result in a big change in the half-life but not a measurable change in the halo diameter. I don’t think that’s a workable idea. From the reprints of Gentry’s papers available on his website or in the appendix of his book (these data are from his 1968 (not available on his web site) and 1973 papers):Isotopes of polonium:Isotope-alpha particle kinetic energy-Half-life-Halo radius218Po-6.0MeV-3.0min-23micrometers
214Po-7.69MeV-164microseconds-34micrometers
210Po-5.30MeV-138days-19micrometersThe difference in alpha particle kinetic energy between 210Po and 218Po is 0.7MeV, an increase of 13%, and the difference in half-lives is 5 orders of magnitude. The difference between 218Po and 214Po is 1.69MeV, an increase of 28%, and the difference in half-lives is 6 orders of magnitude. Based on these data, it seems that changing the decay of Po by six orders of magnitude will result in measurable differences in the size of the halos, even assuming that such a change were possible.Based on the alpha particle kinetic energy of the isotopes in the decay series of 238U that Gentry lists in the 1973 paper, isotopes that differ by as little as 0.1MeV produce halos that are far enough apart to be optically resolvable. This seems to me to indicate that even very small changes in the kinetic energy release will result in measurable differences in the halo size.Tranquility Base:
I've actually got Gentry's 1980s book. On the halo.com site he is certainly claiming that the 'refutations' are invalid.I picked up a used copy of Gentry’s book a while back. I wasn’t trying to dismiss his refutations in my previous post, but I was trying to put off a discussion of them until after you’d read his work.The refutations by Gentry that I can find are:
Page not found – Creation In The Crossfire
and
http://www.halos.com/finger.htmOne of the problems with Gentry’s work that I pointed out is that his rocks are from younger dikes emplaced in an older rock, and so dikes cannot be Genesis rocks since the physical relationships indicate that the metamorphic rocks are older than the halo-bearing dikes. One of the refutations that Gentry makes to this is that the age relationships are based on radioisotope dating, which he dismisses (which in fact, if true, would invalidate his work for reasons we’ve been discussing). He also attempts to refute the problems caused by the age relationship of the dikes with the metamorphic rocks by saying that they’re both creation rocks, and that the metamorphic rocks were created earlier in the creation week than the dikes. The biggest problem here is that this ignores the history recorded in the metamorphic rocks. The metamorphic rocks did not start out as metamorphic rocks, they were metamorphosed when they were subjected to intense heat and pressure. In some cases it’s still possible to see what the parent of the metamorphic rock was, it’s possible to identify what type of rock the metamorphic rock was before it was metamorphosed. There are still recognizable pillow basalts near the locations in Ontario where Gentry collected his samples. This indicates that these rocks initially formed as basalts that were erupted underwater and were later subjected to heat and pressure to form the metamorphic rock that exists today. In fact, the rocks in the Bancroft area record several different episodes of deformation and accompanying metamorphism. Gentry can attempt to dismiss these problems as uniformitarian assumptions, but that just ignores these problems.Another refutation that I’ve encountered is that it’s not possible to make granite in the lab, and this indicates that the formation of granite requires miraculous creation. The biggest problem with this claim is that not all granites are Precambrian, there are granites and granitic rocks that are quite young. For example the large granitic intrusions in the Bingham canyon copper mine in Utah (the largest or perhaps second largest open pit mine in the world — an irrelevant but interesting bit of trivia), are Tertiary. This is not indicated by radioisotope dating (although radioisotope dating does confirm this), it is indicated by the fact that these intrusions cross-cut pre-Tertiary rocks, and so the intrusions are younger than those rocks. In fact there are huge inclusions of these pre-Tertiary rocks (referred to as xenoliths, if you’re familiar with the term) in the intrusions that are 10s to 100s of meters long. Gentry can claim that the Tertiary age can be discarded because it’s based on uniformitarian assumptions, but that just ignores the physical relationships between the intrusion and the surrounding rocks, in no way does it invalidate the age. Quite clearly, granites cannot be remnants of the creation week.I’ll have to stop there for now, I’d rather sit here and type for the rest of the day, but I have to go to work. Thanks for the interesting discussions.

John SI agree with you and creationists are generally reinterpreting Gentry's findings including this Nov 2002 ICR impact article:Acts and Facts Magazine | The Institute for Creation Research

From Snelling’s article:
Furthermore, such accelerated radioactive decay would have generated a large pulse of heat during the Flood. This in turn would have helped to initiate and drive the global tectonic processes that operated during the Flood year, and to accomplish catastrophically much geologic work, including the regional metamorphism of sedimentary strata and the melting of crustal and mantle rocks to produce granitic and other magmas.The first problem here is that Snelling is missing the point that the halos aren’t compatible with the idea that radioactive decay was faster in the past. I think Snelling is also significantly underestimating the amount of heat the would be generated by accelerated radioactive decay, as Joe Meert has previously pointed out:
ROASTING ADAM-Creationism's Heat ProblemFrom Snelling’s article:
The implications are far-reaching. Because the half-lives of these Po isotopes are very short, the hydrothermal fluid transport had to be extremely rapid. The hydrothermal fluids are generated as the granitic magmas cool, so the timeframe for the cooling of these granitic magmas has to have been extremely short (only days!) as the expelled hydrothermal fluids also carried away the heat.The short half-lives of the polonium isotopes do not indicate that the granite cooled in a matter of days. This seems to me to be a move toward Gentry’s original premise that the short half-lives of the polonium isotopes indicate that the granites formed in a matter of microseconds. The half-lives are not related to the time it takes the granite to crystallize. All that’s required for polonium halos to form is for a source of the polonium to move through the rocks (as I discussed earlier radon-222 looks like the most likely candidate). As I mentioned in my first post, the area where Gentry collected his samples in Ontario is very rich in radioactive minerals. Since radioactive decay is still occurring in this rocks, Rn-222 is still being generated, and so there is still a source of polonium moving through the rocks there. I also don’t see how the presence of polonium halos provides any information about the cooling history of the igneous rocks that contain them since the halos can form at any time after the rock has cooled.I understand that the article you linked to is most likely only a brief summary of Snelling’s thoughts on polonium halos. If/when he provides more detailed information, I’ll be happy to take it into account. However, based on this article Snelling’s claims about the implication of the occurrence of polonium halos are not workable. I am encouraged to see that Gentry’s arguments are being discarded, however based on this article, I do not think Snelling’s are any more supportable.

give me a few minutes

Whatever in his latest evolution as John Fulton want's to discuss Polonium halos, so I am reviving this thread for this purpose.This is the history. To see the last reply see Message 22In Message 18whatever said: He was told it was off topic there. Now he has revived it on Paging johnfolton. Bring your evidence for a young earth.On Message 20 he posted AdminNosy said "You haven't finished with the RATE group yet. You can get to Gentry's halos later." and there were no other replies on polonium to that message.On Message 26 he replied to AdminNosy with My reply was Message 28 where I said Coragyps replied in Message 29 where he said In whatever's reply to me, Message 30, he posted (On Message 31 he replied to Coragyps with comments not about polonium)My reply, Message 34, to whatever said In Message 35 he responded with I replied with Message 44
he responded with Message 46
And my last reply before redirecting the replies here was Message 60, and this is now Message 22 on this thread.This has now been deleted from the other thread in order to direct replies here.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : moved most recent reply to a new message on this thread

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Was there perhaps some point at which even you began to wonder if maybe you weren't running a bit long? This is a rhetorical question, no response necessary.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Well whatever, Which doesn't prove Gentry right, nor does it show that he has answered those critics in any way other than bluff.Perhaps the reason no one has taken him up is a problem with credibility as a geologist:"Polonium Haloes" Refuted

quote:

---

Gentry is a physicist, not a geologist. He doesn't follow accepted geologic reporting practice and consistently fails to provide the information that a third party would need to collect comparable samples for testing. For his research, Gentry utilized microscope thin sections of rocks from samples sent to him by others from various places around the world. Thus, he is unable to say how his samples fit in with the local or regional geological setting(s). He also does not provide descriptive information about the individual rock samples that make up his studies - i.e., the abundance and distribution of major, accessory, or trace minerals; the texture, crystal size and alteration features of the rocks; and the presence or absence of fractures and discontinuities.

​

Gentry does not acknowledge that the Precambrian time period represents fully 7/8 of the history of the Earth as determined by decades of intensive field and laboratory investigations by thousands of geologists. Consequently, he does not recognize the wide diversity of geologic terranes that came and went over that enormous time span. His claim that his samples represent "primordial" basement rocks is patently incorrect . In Gentry's model, any rock looking vaguely like a granite and carrying the label Precambrian is considered to be a "primordial" rock. True granites are themselves evidence of significant crustal recycling and elemental differentiation (see for example, Taylor and McLennan, 1996), and cannot be considered primordial. A little detective work by Wakefield (1988) showed that at least one set of rock samples studied by Gentry are not from granites at all, but were taken from a variety of younger Precambrian metamorphic rocks and pegmatite veins in the region around Bancroft, Ontario. Some of these rock units cut or overlie older, sedimentary and even fossil-bearing rocks.

---

Your source has problems too:

quote:

---

Necessary condition to form radio-halos:
1. Radio-active material must first enter the rock before the rock becomes solid - because you cannot put any material into a solid rock (example: how can you put a bean inside an ice-cube ? You put the bean inside water and then freeze it)
2. Halos can only form when the radio-active decay is going on after the rock has become solid (has crystal structure)

---

The first point is a false assertion: radioactive material can be carried by air and water, so all you need are cracks and fissures in the rock for uranium and other radioactive materials to be carried into the rock.As we saw previously, the rocks that Gentry used were all rocks that have had an extensive period in their existence, since they cooled from magma, where the rock was fissured and later recrystallized, they were all cases where the rocks were infected with uranium inclusions, and where radon gas had plenty of opportunity to fill every void and fissure in the rock. Let me carry the logic one step further, the radon being a gas would decay from anywhere inside a pocket, the Polonium result would fall to the bottom of the pocket and concentrate in a smaller spot."Polonium Haloes" Refuted

quote:

---

Perhaps the most damaging challenge to Gentry's hypothesis comes not from what has been observed, but from what is missing. Of the three major, naturally occurring radioactive elements, uranium, thorium, and potassium, two - uranium and thorium - are marked by decay series involving alpha particle emissions. Gentry's polonium haloes are attributed to alpha particle decay of the polonium isotopes Po-210, Po-214, and Po-218, all part of the uranium-238 decay chain. Thorium-232 decays to stable Lead-208 through a series of steps which include two additional polonium isotopes, Po-212 and Po-216. Thorium has an elemental abundance between three and four times that of uranium in the Earth's crust. Also, in areas of uranium enrichment, such as those from which Gentry's halo samples apparently have come, thorium is also enriched. These thorium decay series polonium isotopes have alpha decay energies well within the range documented for uranium-series polonium decay. Thus, polonium isotopes which result from the decay of naturally occurring thorium-232 should also produce characteristic haloes. In fact, according to Gentry's model, all polonium isotopes should be represented equally. However as Collins (1997) points out, Gentry has identified only halos for those isotopes of polonium associated with the decay of uranium-238; halos attributable to polonium-212 and polonium-216 are not found. Additionally, haloes attributable to the two polonium isotopes in the decay series of uranium-235 (Po-211 and Po-215) are also missing. Uranium-235 currently comprises 0.71% of naturally occurring uranium (uranium-238 makes up 99.3%); 3 billion yeas ago, uranium-235 accounted for greater than 3% of natural uranium isotopes.

​

Gentry's polonium halo hypothesis for a young Earth fails, or is inconclusive for, all tests. Gentry's entire thesis is built on a compounded set of assumptions. He is unable to demonstrate that concentric haloes in mica are caused uniquely by alpha particles resulting from the decay of polonium isotopes. His samples are not from "primordial" pieces of the Earth's original crust, but from rocks which have been extensively reworked. Finally, his hypothesis cannot accommodate the many alternative lines of evidence that demonstrate a great age for the Earth.

---

And from the sidebar

quote:

---

Expanding on the Radon migration idea

​

While Gentry does not provide a conclusive argument for demonstrating the relationship between concentric haloes and Polonium decay, the contribution of alpha-decay to halo development cannot be discounted entirely either. Collins (1997) reports that concentric ring halo structures commonly line up along visible micro-fractures in the host mineral grains, implying some association of the haloes with the fractures. An interesting argument can be developed to support the idea that concentric ring haloes are created following the migration of radon gas along mineral fractures and explain Gentry's missing haloes.

​

Polonium isotopes are produced in the radioactive decay chain of naturally occurring uranium-238, thorium-232, and uranium-235.

Decay Series    Polonium Isotopes/Particle Energy (MeV)
​
Uranium-238     Po-218/6.00
Po-214/7.69
Po-210/5.3
​
Uranium-235     Po-215/7.38
Po-211/7.45
​
Thorium-232     Po-216/6.78
Po-212/8.78

Gentry's studies identify concentric ring structures correlated with each of the three polonium isotopes in the uranium-238 decay series. Ring haloes correlated with polonium isotopes from the uranium-235 or the thorium-232 decay series are not reported, although they would have to be present under Gentry's primordial origin hypothesis.

​

The first polonium isotope in each decay series is the daughter of a different radon atom; these radon precursors have greatly different half-lives.

​

Decay Series     Radon Isotope     Radon half-life
​
Uranium-238      Rn-222            3.823 days
Uranium-235      Rn-219            3.92 seconds
Thorium-232      Rn-220            51.5 seconds

If polonium ring structures are the result of radon migration along micro-fractures (Collins' hypothesis), then the half-life of the specific radon precursor is important. Clearly, radon-222 can migrate much further than the other two radon species before it decays away. Also, because of its significantly longer half-life, radon-222 can accumulate in more significant concentrations in structural traps along the micro-fracture surfaces. Under these circumstances, one would expect to see many more radiogenic ring haloes associated with uranium-238 series polonium isotopes than those of the other two decay chains.

​

This explanation is more consistent with what is observed than Gentry's hypothesis, and is completely consistent with the standard geological model for rock formation.

---

The only Polonium halos found are for Polonium-218 that is a product of Radon-222 decay? And this too is falsified by the evidence showing radon halos along fissures.The bottom line is that Gentry et al cannot eliminate Radon as an explanation for Polonium halos, and because they cannot eliminate it, they cannot conclude that the only explanation is a young earth.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

You did not respond to these points, etc... right? If you could deal with these points you could likely get your rebutal published in a peer reviewed journal. right?P.S.When elements decay from a single point halos of different size form. If radon was decaying producing a polonium halo you'd have another halo ring of a different size formed. Radon is not evident alongside a polonium halo because its too mobile to decay in a single point. Its absense prove proves Gentry's polonium is primordial no parent, etc... However talk origins is a pseudo science site all double talk (no substance). right?++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++If the Radon did gather to a single "positively charged" location and did decade into Po-218; the alpha particle emitted by Radon-222 (when it decades to Po-218) would have form an extra ring in the halosAlthough Rason-222 is initially negatively charged (because Radiun-226 emitted 2 positive protons away when it decaded into Radon-222), the Radon-222 will lose the extra (2) electrons when it collides with other molecules. Especially if the negatively charged Radon-222 is "directed towards a positively charged" location - Radon-222 will shet its electrons.After shedding the excess electrons, the radon gas is neutral and diffusion will make the radon gas go in every possble direction and will not "gather" at a negatively charged spot.Bottomline: radon gas will not accummulate in a single spot - and without high concentration of Po-218 in a single spot, you don't get halos (the discoloration will only happen by billions of Po-218 decades concentrated in a single spot - without high concentration, it will be a undetectable smear) Study Pages Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

Wrong. Irrelevant: already done.The Newsletter of The North Texas Skeptics

quote:

---

All of these theories and others were put fourth during the 1970s and early 1980s7. This is important because, in his 1994 video, Gentry claimed no one has even attemped to dispute his evidence. He decribed it as “stunned silence.” As a response to a book writen by Gentry4 (1986), a few geologists, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, studied the sites where Gentry got his granite samples and the specific type of granite Gentry used. They published their findings in some of the same journals as Gentry 8. Even our very own Ron Hastings apparently wrote a commentary on the subject. I guess if Gentry doesn’t agree with reviews of his work then he ignores them all together, a response seemingly contageous among “creation scientists.”

---

Ignoring already existing rebuttals does not make them go away. Falsified by evidence.The Newsletter of The North Texas Skeptics

quote:

---

There are several odd facts surrounding Gentry’s claims. Each of Gentry’s samples came from granites which formed as veins during the precambrian period, long after the primordial origin of nearby terrain. Second, polonium halos are only found at sites rich with uranium ores. All of Gentry’s samples came from sites near uranium mines (Wakefield 1988). Third, polonium halos only appear in certain biotite and flourite bearing granites and not in any of the surrounding rocks. Biotite and flourite are products of replacement mineral intergrowth that formed the veins in the first place (Hunt 1992). Last, only Po218 halos and those of its daughter isotopes are ever found. Apparently God was picky about the types of halos he formed and where he put them.

​

The facts all come together when you consider radon, an inert gas, dissolves in hydrous fluids. Polonium, on the other hand, is a solid and easily falls out of solution once formed. Ra222, the parent of Po218, has a half-life of 3.82 days, plenty of time to circulate through cracks and fissures. This is evident by the many companies selling home radon detectors. There are several less abundant radon isotopes which decay to different polonium isotopes than those of Ra222. The longest half-life of these other radon isotopes is 54.5 seconds. Their polonium daughter halflives are measured in fractions of seconds, not allowing much time for travel to isolated secondary locations.

​

Seismic activity opens cracks causing a vacuum into which hydrous fluids carry Ra222. The Ra222 falls out of solution when it decays to Po218. The crystal lattice structure of biotite and flourite contain sites that can accommodate negatively charged fluoride and hydroxyl ions. Po218, Po214, and Po210 are also negatively charged ions similar in size to fluoride and hydroxyl ions. Consequently, polonium isotopes take up lattice positions and concentrate in the biotite and fluorite crystals. The continued replacement mineral intergrowth fills in some of the original cracks giving the appearance of undisturbed granite (Hunt 1992). Although most pictures show halos either along or near obvious cracks.

---

bold for empHAsis.There's more there for the curious. Like a picture by Gentry that shows the blurred rings from radon-218\polonium-210 decay.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

YOur source seems to be talking about water causing a depositing of polonium as a solid out of solution as radon decays. This too is what Andrew Snelling seems to be saying about accelerated decay and biotite flakes polonium halos. A problem in granite is over long periods of time your cracks would seal due mineralization. right? If water is your means of moving billions of radon decays to a common location. right? but wouldn't mineralization seal the pathway over a long earth point of view defeat this theory that polonium halos happened due radon dissolved. It just sounds like a strawman too me! No wonder Gentry did not respond its the kind of stuff you would expect coming from someone citing a pseudo site like talk origins as a reference. right?+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++At the surface, Gentry’s interpretation seems compelling. His halos do not have the additional rings found in complete uranium-238 halos, as shown in Figure 2. Measurements show the rings have radii indicative of certain polonium isotopes. There is no evidence of uranium at the halo center. According to Gentry, there are no means for polonium to be inserted into the granite after cooling. If everything Gentry claims is true then the earth had to cool in about three minutes, the half-life of Po218, the first ring to form. Longer cooling periods, especially the millions of years science suggests, would deplete the polonium long before halos could form in the hardened rock. Even the most commited atheist couldn’t explain a 3 minute cooling time without invoking a creator.With further investigation however, Gentry’s interpretation is obviously flawed. 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). All of these theories and others were put fourth during the 1970s and early 1980s7.The Newsletter of The North Texas SkepticsAt the temperatures of these metamorphic processes such water would become hydrothermal fluids capable of transporting any U-decay products from nearby zircon grains and depositing Po in biotite flakes to form Po radiohalos.Polonium Radiohalos: The Model for Their Formation Tested and Verified | The Institute for Creation ResearchEdited by johnfolton, : No reason given.Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

If, and only if, the mineralization occurred long ago and then all fissure forming stopped altogether.Instead we can comprehend a continuous process of fracture, flow, mineralization, fracture, flow, mineralization ... etc. ... over billions of years.Consider another piece of compelling evidence from the polonium halos themselves:They are not dark filled in halos like many of the uranium ones but very light on the numbers of decay cycles needed to form them. You need less Polonium atoms than formed the uranium halos, and those took hundreds of millions of years of decay to form.Thus for every uranium-235 halo in the rock, you need less than one radon-222 atom every (703,800,000 years/3.823 days) to get close enough to the same place and decay to get the same density halo.Not very hard odds wouldn't you say?Notice that Gentry says that "A concentration of 10^8 to 10^9 decayed atoms is needed to create visible damage rings" with no differentiation between whether we are talking uranium halo or polonium halo. And we just need them some time in the last 3+ billion (10^9) years ... And have also been published later ...Collins, L.G. (1997), "Polonium Halos and Myrmekite in Pegmatite and Granite", in Hunt, C. W., Collins, L. G., and Skobelin, E. A., Expanding Geospheres, Energy And Mass Transfers From Earth’s Interior, Calgary: Polar Publishing Company, pp. 128-140, .

quote:

---

New Evidence Against Gentry's Hypothesis

​

Richard Wakefield (1987-88, 1988) demonstrated that some rocks near Bancroft, Ontario, Canada, which contain Po halos in biotite, are uranium-rich, calcite-biotite veins associated with granite pegmatites. Careful documentation of the geological relationships show that these veins and pegmatites must have been introduced in Precambrian time, long after the primordial origin of the regional terrane. Such an age spread is, of course, incompatible with Gentry's interpreted time scale.

​

Wakefield's study, however, did not satisfy Gentry, who [illogically] disregards the time relationships implicit in the crosscutting of veins and dikes and the sequences of events in their metamorphism (Gentry 1983, 1988, p. 325-327). Moreover, in Gentry's hypothesis creation of metasediments, metavolcanic rocks, and metamorphosed intrusive gneiss complexes are all permitted from Day 1 to Day 3 of the Genesis Week. His model makes any Po-halo-bearing granite or pegmatite primordial, regardless of any complex history of the terranes in which they are found.

​

Therefore, although the ancient age of the Po-bearing rocks may be resolved for geologists, Gentry remains unconvinced and persists with his argument:...

​

The True Origin of Polonium Halos

​

The properties of radon are germane to this understanding. Radon (222Rn) is the radioactive decay product of 226Ra which evolves into 218Po. As an inert gas, it (222Rn) moves freely through cracks in rocks unimpeded by reactions with minerals lining the cracks. Evidence for this ease of radon travel is noticeable in water wells prior to earthquakes. The creeping rock movements associated with seismically-active terranes open avenues for radon-bearing water to move into lower-pressure pore space and to the surface. Therefore, on the basis of this mobility, we would expect radon to move into a shattered and sheared habitat of diorite or gabbro that was in the process of being converted to myrmekite-bearing granite.

​

The volumes of radon that emerge from deep in the Earth's Crust, dissolved in hydrous emanations, can be tremendous where uranium is abundant. Concentrations of this ambient radon can provide the enormous numbers of atoms needed to produce the Po decay halos. Radon emanating from a uranium source is a continuous chain of disintegration episodes that can provide a constant supply of new gas to a diorite or gabbro body as it is transformed into granite or pegmatite.

​

From these insights it follows that Po halos in a granite need not have been produced in a short time. Some halos may have formed early, some later. Rapid entry of radon and precipitation of polonium could occur if a gabbro or diorite site were made porous and depressurized by tectonism.

​

The frequent coexistence of Po halos in biotite with myrmekite in plagioclase and microcline of the same rock fabric gives a clear indication that a progressive replacement process in solid, unmelted rock has taken place. No magma is involved in this process.

​

Polonium Halos Explained

​

The formation of granite by replacement of solid rocks means that Gentry's theory is no longer tenable. He can no longer legitimately say that Po-halo-bearing granites must form by supernatural means.

​

Solid diorite and gabbro rock, which had previously crystallized from magma, has been subjected to repeated cataclasis and recrystallization. This has happened without melting; and the cataclasis provided openings for the introduction of uranium-bearing fluids and for the modification of these rocks to granite by silication and cation deletion.

​

In uranium ore-fields the extra uranium provides an abundant source of inert radon gas; and it is this gas that diffuses in ambient fluids so that incipient biotite and fluorite crystallization is exposed to it. Radon (222Rn) decays and Po isotopes nucleate in the rapidly growing biotite (and fluorite) crystals whence they are positioned to produce the Po halos.

---

Published. Refutes Gentry.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Johnfolton, don't you ever get tired of going out to those creationist websites and searching out information supporting a young earth only to have it totally eviscerated on this forum?Doesn't it ever occur to you that your sources are lying to you? And that you don't have the background to tell where and how? And that you don't know a good argument from a bad one when you post them here proudly? Only to see them eviscerated?It would be far more effective if you studied the subject in some depth, and not just on the creationist websites. You would then have some idea of the validity of those things you post.You may believe they are true because they agree with your a priori beliefs, but that doesn't make them true or correct.No answer really required. Your posts speak for themselves. Consider this a rhetorical post.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

The problem is not that radon diffuses but that were talking micropores in granite and radon as it decays to polonium it needs to precipitate in the exact center of the halo that requires billions more to form the concentric 218 ring. right?If a billion more were decaying slightly off center Gentry has it that it would not be concentric but a smudged image. right? You need long periods of time with exact points of depositions of polonium from radon decaying precipitating polonium out of solution to support your old earth. It sounds like your trying to sell snake oil. Note: Gentry has good reason to believe its Primordial polonium for one there is no evidence of uranium at the halo's center, the image is not smudged. right? With radon gas in solution its trapped within granite. right? It can only precipitate into polonium all over the place within the granite and not a precise particular point. Gentry seems to be saying this is not possible radon trapped or as a gas too mobile, etc... this is why you see no radon halo's is because they are not decaying at any particular spots within granite. right? Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

Does it bother you that I believe your sources are lying to you?

No. From the posts of yours that I have read I have developed a very poor opinion as to the accuracy or meaninfulness of anything you say.But this is off-topic, and I won't be responding to any more such statements from you.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.