Polonium halos revisited

[Deamiter]

Has any creationist even attempted to rule out the possibility of Radon gas as the source for the halos that are usually attributed to Polonium? The creationist community seems not to have dropped the claim that Po halos indicate a young earth, but have they totally ignored the fact that radiation from Polonium and Radon would have almost exactly the same energy (with the difference much lower than measurement error of the halos) and that the halos are much more common in uranium-bearing rocks?

Isn't this the sort of basic question that peer review is supposed to help rule out in the publication of repeated claims that the halos could only have been produced by Polonium?

 

[laptoppop]

This pdf, from Dec. 2006 discusses Radon and Polonium.

 

[busterdog]

Has any creationist even attempted to rule out the possibility of Radon gas as the source for the halos that are usually attributed to Polonium? The creationist community seems not to have dropped the claim that Po halos indicate a young earth, but have they totally ignored the fact that radiation from Polonium and Radon would have almost exactly the same energy (with the difference much lower than measurement error of the halos) and that the halos are much more common in uranium-bearing rocks?

Isn't this the sort of basic question that peer review is supposed to help rule out in the publication of repeated claims that the halos could only have been produced by Polonium?

I am not sure what you are saying. Are you saying that radon in fully formed crystal is responsible? The argument is that the halos formed prior to the time that the granite solidified. The radon remained.

 

[Deamiter]

This pdf, from Dec. 2006 discusses Radon and Polonium.

which pdf?

 

[Deamiter]

I am not sure what you are saying. Are you saying that radon in fully formed crystal is responsible? The argument is that the halos formed prior to the time that the granite solidified. The radon remained.

That's not the creationist argument so I'm kind of confused as to what you're claiming.

Radon is a decay product of Uranium, and because it's a gas, it's entirely possible for it to move around to some extent in granite especially since granite isn't made of homogeneous crystals and has many cracks. The creationist claim WAS that since these halos are apparently made by decay of Polonium (which has an extremely short half-life) they must have been created before the rock fully solidified in the event of creation. Radon is totally capable of generating the halos in fully solidified rock and as a decay product of uranium, Radon is constantly being produced in granite since granite is almost always found near uranium.

 

[laptoppop]

Sorry!
http://www.icr.org/pdf/af/af0612.pdf
or even better
http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/ICCRADIOHALOS-AASandMA.pdf
and of course
http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/rate-all.pdf

 

[Deamiter]

Ah brilliant! I wasn't aware of Dr. Snelling's recent articles at ICR. In the articles laptoppop cited at ICR, Dr. Snelling shows how the Po halos could have (and probably have) been produced as Rn and Po decayed from uranium in the surrounding rocks.

This directly refutes the claim made by Dr. Gentry since the 1980s that the existance of Polonium halos is PROOF that the earth was created instantly.

http://www.halos.com/

The only thing I find a bit dishonest about the ICR articles is that they claim that most scientists think that 'uranium halos' must have been created over millions of years. Scientists in the field know darned well that different radioactive isotopes decay at different rates and that the halos generated by different isotopes have different diameters based on the energy of the alpha and beta particles. The articles by Dr. Snelling aren't in the least news to the worldwide community of physicists, and it'd have been much more honest to point out that he was really refuting the earlier creationist claims of Dr. Gentry, not the general understanding of the scientific community!

If nothing else, next time a creationist comes in here claiming that Polonium halos prove a young earth, I can show them the creationist article that shows what scientists have known from the start of this whole mess -- that the halos attributed to Polonium can be created over a period of hundreds of years and aren't really evidence either way.

 

[busterdog]

That's not the creationist argument so I'm kind of confused as to what you're claiming.

.

I thought you were questioning the cause of the halo. The old Gentry version of this was the polonium decay formed the halo before the granite had fully solidified, which must have been comparable in time to the very short half life of polonium.

 

[Deamiter]

I thought you were questioning the cause of the halo. The old Gentry version of this was the polonium decay formed the halo before the granite had fully solidified, which must have been comparable in time to the very short half life of polonium.

I was indeed questioning the cause of the halo. I'd have to do more research than I have time for at the moment, but my understanding was that Po was not a decay product of Uranium. If it is, then Gentry's claim that Po halos could only come from a creation instant are bogus. Now the guy at ICR seems to claim that Po is a decay product of Uranium. I wonder of they're talking about different isotopes (it'll take me at least a couple hours to look up/calculate the energy of these different isotopes so with thesis work don't expect my clarification any time soon).

Anyway, the guy at ICR shows Gentry wrong by showing how the halos could have been created by uranium decay products (the basis of my claim in the first place).