Sure, your example here would simply demonstrate that people doing radio-metric work recognize various issues associated with it.
But by no conceivable stretch of imagination could such issues provide evidence to support an "young earth" hypothesis -- after all, even carbon-14 dating of wood found in old bogs can produce results older than "young earth" suggests.
Ice cores in Antarctica go back hundreds of thousands of years.
The many thousands of feet of geological strata beneath our feet cannot conceivably be laid down in a few thousand years -- and the list goes on and on...
MrB: "Besides, radiometric dating relies on the assumptions of initial “zero” condition, constant rate of decay, and no leaching or doping of the sample over the period of time in question."
All of which are testable and in any case cannot conceivably be so wrong as to support a "new earth" hypothesis.
Actually, I’m not proving anything. I’m just showing you the evidence you hang your hat on is nothing but vapor.
You might want to check out the strata laid down in a few weeks after the mt St. Helens eruption and also the airplanes found under ice in the arctic.
Once again, I’m not proving, I’m disproving your evidence as not indicating what you say it does.