Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Polonium Radiohalos and the Age of the Earth - Update
Institute for Creaton Research ^ | November 2002 | Andrew Snelling, Ph.D.

Posted on 01/31/2003 9:04:13 AM PST by CalConservative

RADIOHALOS - SIGNIFICANT AND EXCITING RESEARCH RESULTS
- IMPACT No. 353 November 2002
by Andrew A. Snelling, Ph.D.*


© Copyright 2002 Institute for Creation Research. All Rights Reserved

Two years ago it was reported that polonium (Po) radiohalos were still "a very tiny mystery."1 Since then, extensive research into the geological occurrence and distribution of Po, uranium (U) and thorium (Th) radiohalos has been undertaken as part of the RATE project,2 so now there are some preliminary results to report that are both significant and exciting.

What are Radiohalos?

Radiohalos are minute spherical zones of discoloration surrounding tiny mineral crystals included in larger host mineral grains in certain rocks, particularly granites. Alpha-particles produced by radioactive decay of U, Th, and their decay products (including Po) in the tiny mineral inclusions (often zircons) penetrate the surrounding host minerals (often the dark mica, biotite) damaging their crystal lattices. Because the a-particles emitted by the different radionuclides in the U and Th decay chains have different energies, they travel different distances. Where the a-particles stop they do the most damage, resulting in spherical shells of intense discoloration, which are concentric ring structures when the rocks are studied in thin (cross) sections. Therefore, it is possible to identify which radionuclides were responsible for producing the observed radiohalos.

There are three Po radionuclides in the 238U decay chain—218Po, 214Po and 210Po. All decay very rapidly and so have very short half-lives—3.1 minutes, 164 micro-seconds and 138 days respectively. Thus the occurrence in granitic rocks of 218Po, 214Po, and 210Po radiohalos, exhibiting only the rings produced by these Po radionuclides because only these respective radionuclides were present in the radiocenters when the radiohalos formed (figure 1), has been interpreted as indicating instantaneous formation of both the Po radiohalos and the granitic rocks.3

U and Th radiohalos are not without significance either. Dark, fully-formed U and Th radiohalos are estimated to have required around 100 million years worth of radioactive decay at today's rates to have formed,4 so their presence in granitic rocks throughout the geologic record globally would seemingly imply that at least 100 million years worth of radioactive decay at today's rates has occurred during Earth history.5

The RATE Research

The initial focus of the research has been granitic rocks that had to have formed during the Flood year. In each case there is unequivocal evidence that the granitic rocks formed by the melting during metamorphism (changes in rocks induced by heat and pressure) of fossiliferous Flood-deposited sedimentary layers, and that the resultant granitic magmas (melted rocks) then intruded into other Flood-deposited layers. Such Flood-related granitic rocks investigated thus far include the Stone Mountain granite near Atlanta (Georgia), the La Posta zoned granodiorite and related granites in the Peninsular Ranges of southern California east of San Diego, and the Cooma granodiorite and four other granitic bodies in southeastern Australia.

The biotite grains in all these granitic rocks have large numbers of 210Po radio-halos within them, often 4-10 times the numbers of 214Po radiohalos. Dark, fully- formed 238U radiohalos (figure 2) usually occur as equally often as the 214Po radio-halos. 218Po radiohalos are very rare. However, in the Cooma granodiorite and the four other granites of southeastern Australia there are more 238U radiohalos than any of the Po radiohalos, while in two of these granites there are as many 214Po radio-halos as 210Po radiohalos. Dark, fully-formed Th radiohalos are also common in the Cooma granodiorite.

U Radiohalos and Accelerated Decay

What then is the significance of these radiohalos, discovered in this first ever systematic search in these granitic rocks? The presence in them of so many dark, fully-formed U and Th radiohalos clearly implies that at least 100 million years worth of radioactive decay at today's rates must have occurred in these granitic rocks since they formed. However, these granitic rocks evidently formed only recently during the Flood year, so this implies that at least 100 million years worth of radioactive decay at today's rates must have occurred during the Flood year, when geologic processes were operating at catastrophic rates. Thus the rates of radioactive decay had to have been accelerated during the Flood year and therefore conventional radioisotopic dating of rocks, which assumes constant decay rates, is unreliable and conventional "ages" are grossly in error.

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.

Po Radiohalo Formation and Rapid Geologic Processes

However, the Po radiohalos are also still highly significant, due to their exceedingly short half-lives. Because these granitic rocks containing them are neither created nor primordial, the Po that parented these Po radiohalos cannot have been primordial.6 Whatever secondary processes were thus responsible for separating the necessary Po from its parent U and concentrating it into the radiocenters, the timescale involved had to be very short.

Limited space here precludes a full technical explanation and detailed justification of a proposed mechanism for Po radiohalo formation, but a comprehensive paper is being prepared for presentation at next summer's International Conference on Creationism.7 In summary, many related lines of evidence suggest a viable hydrothermal (hot water) fluid transport model in which the immediate precursors to the Po isotopes, probably accompanied by the Po isotopes themselves, were carried exceedingly short distances within the biotite flakes from U decay in adjacent enclosed zircon grains. The Po isotopes were then continuously concentrated in appropriate radiocenters by attractive ions in lattice defects within the biotite flakes, and the Po radiohalos then formed.

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.8 Because hydrothermal fluids also transport other metals in solution (such as gold, tin, copper, lead, zinc), these rapid flows of hydrothermal fluids had the potential to also rapidly deposit metallic ores, again within days! And finally, preliminary reports of U, Th, and Po radiohalos in regionally metamorphosed rocks9 could confirm that large-scale rapid flows of hydrothermal fluids catastrophically formed regional metamorphic complexes.10

Perhaps the Po radiohalos are no longer "a very tiny mystery." If so, the U, Th, and Po radiohalos are potentially powerful evidence of the catastrophic geologic processes within the Flood year on a young Earth. Investigations are continuing on Flood-related granites; other investigations are now going to include pre-Flood granitic rocks that might extend this evidence even back into the Creation Week.

Endnotes and References



TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: agedating; creation; crevo; crevolist; evolution
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-82 next last
I've followed this research and find it to be very interesting. It tends to get ignored by the "mainstream" scientific community because of the implications, of course.
1 posted on 01/31/2003 9:04:13 AM PST by CalConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: CalConservative; Junior; PatrickHenry; longshadow
I've followed this research and find it to be very interesting. It tends to get ignored by the "mainstream" scientific community because of the implications, of course.

Or, perhaps it is ignored because it's idiocy.

2 posted on 01/31/2003 9:14:28 AM PST by balrog666 (If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything - Mark Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CalConservative
Thanks, that was hilarious. Where do you find this stuff?
3 posted on 01/31/2003 9:15:48 AM PST by dpwiener
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #4 Removed by Moderator

To: Buck Turgidson
I just emailed this to my geology teacher from high school...he's laughing so hard on the phone that he can't talk...
5 posted on 01/31/2003 9:22:09 AM PST by Poohbah (Beware the fury of a patient man -- John Dryden)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Comment #6 Removed by Moderator

To: balrog666; Condorman; *crevo_list; donh; general_re; Godel; Gumlegs; Ichneumon; jennyp; ...
An ancient creationist canard rears its hoary head.
7 posted on 01/31/2003 9:28:18 AM PST by Junior (Put tag line here =>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CalConservative
Everybody who thinks ICR has something to do with science has already copied every article onto FR's server space multiple times. This stuff is pure idiocy.
8 posted on 01/31/2003 9:29:39 AM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CalConservative
It tends to get ignored by the mainstream scientific community because it is hogwash. You write like a conspiracy nut ("they're trying to hide the truth!").
9 posted on 01/31/2003 9:29:56 AM PST by Junior (Put tag line here =>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CalConservative
"Polonium" halos get about all the mainstream attention they're going to get right here. It would be unrealistic to expect much more.
10 posted on 01/31/2003 9:42:44 AM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Junior
An ancient creationist canard rears its hoary head.

I think every creationist is really medved. Back again with the same thing, not even edited for typos, year after year.

11 posted on 01/31/2003 9:44:33 AM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: balrog666
"... it's idiocy."

Can you offer another theory explaining their occurrence?

12 posted on 01/31/2003 9:53:43 AM PST by nonsporting
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: nonsporting
Can you offer another theory explaining their occurrence?

Proof that creos do not read links.

"Polonium Haloes" Refuted
Professional geologist Tom Bailleul takes a second look at Gentry's claimed polonium haloes, arguing that there is no good evidence they are the result of polonium decay as opposed to any other radioactive isotope, or even that they are caused by radioactivity at all. Gentry is taken to task for selective use of evidence, faulty experiment design, mistakes in geology and physics, and unscientific principles of investigation and argument style.
 
Evolution's Tiny Violences: The Po-Halo Mystery
Amateur scientist John Brawley investigated Gentry's claims directly by studying local rock samples, and concluded that there is no good evidence that these "polonium" haloes are actually produced by polonium at all, as opposed to longer-lived radionuclides such as radon or uranium.

13 posted on 01/31/2003 10:11:59 AM PST by Junior (Put tag line here =>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: CalConservative
tends to get ignored by the "mainstream" scientific community because of the implications

What implications? Are careers on the line?

14 posted on 01/31/2003 10:16:47 AM PST by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: balrog666; Junior
Thanks for the ping, guys. I can't deal with this thrilling thread right now, because my perpetual-motion experiments are reaching a critical stage, and require my constant attention. I'm also nearing the conclusion of my "Why are there still monkeys?" research. I'll keep you all posted. Golly, these are exciting times!
[From the la-BOR-a-tory of PatrickHenry]
15 posted on 01/31/2003 10:33:16 AM PST by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Regarding your experiments in perpetual motion, recall this conversation that takes place in The Music Man:

Professor Harold Hill: Have you ever done any experiements with perpetual motion?

Tommy: Yes. I almost had it a couple of times.

Congressman Billybob

Click here for "Historians against History (HAH!)" latest UPI article, now up on FR.

16 posted on 01/31/2003 11:04:24 AM PST by Congressman Billybob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: CalConservative
Thus the rates of radioactive decay had to have been accelerated during the Flood year and therefore conventional radioisotopic dating of rocks, which assumes constant decay rates, is unreliable and conventional "ages" are grossly in error.

Radioactive decay rates turn out to have been accelerated even faster than this article indicates. Recent scientific analysis of DU fragments recovered from the 1991 Gulf War indicate an almost total absence of the isotope U-235. This conclusively proves that the Earth is really only 561 years old.

17 posted on 01/31/2003 11:05:02 AM PST by dpwiener
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CalConservative
"The initial focus of the research has been granitic rocks that had to have formed during the Flood year. "

What "Flood year?" What nonsense! This creationist stuff is pure pseudoscience. First you posit a global flood, then interpret real science in terms of this flood. There is no evidence for a global flood. None.

There is, however, ample evidence of localized flood feature that were formed millions of years before your global "flood." No evidence, however, of your global one.

This is not news. This is not anything but creationist propaganda.

I'll be waiting for f.Christian's comments.
18 posted on 01/31/2003 11:18:53 AM PST by MineralMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
Regarding your experiments in perpetual motion ...

Don't jest with me. I am on the verge of the greatest discovery in the history of the galaxy! I can give you this one little hint: My work involves chaining together several creationists in a rubber room. You get infinite output of hot air, yet there is no observable input of any kind.
[From the la-BOR-a-tory of PatrickHenry]

19 posted on 01/31/2003 11:20:37 AM PST by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: dpwiener
DU fragments ...

Had me going there for a second.

20 posted on 01/31/2003 11:35:18 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-82 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson