I assume you are referring to Gentry's work ....
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html
----------------------------------
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. Gentry rationalizes any evidence which contradicts his hypothesis by proposing three "singularities" - one time divine interventions - over the past 6000 years. Of course, supernatural events and processes fall outside the realm of scientific investigations to address. As with the idea of variable radioactive decay rates, once Gentry moves beyond the realm of physical laws, his arguments fail to have any scientific usefulness. If divine action is necessary to fit the halo hypothesis into some consistent model of Earth history, why waste all that time trying to argue about the origins of the haloes based on current scientific theory? This is where most Creationist arguments break down when they try to adopt the language and trappings of science. Trying to prove a religious premise is itself an act of faith, not science.
http://www.halos.com/reports/index.htm
It is interesting to note that he was published in Science, and yes with some controversy. But, no actual studies to undermine the conclusions.
I can surmise, as you provided, anything I want, however, the surmising is without and contradiction provided by studies, only educated opinions.
I do see a publication or 2 that attempted an alternative explanation without directly challenging Gentry that were published in Science, however, no indication of a study.
I do see claims of Gentry disproved on the internet, but again, not without publication or another study.
There may be another individual that explored this in a study. But I haven’t found it.
However, if your asserting that someone disagreeing with Gentry is proof that he is wrong, then we that disagree with you is all that’s needed to declare you inept....but I won’t.
I honestly have to go, so maybe we can continue this later.