http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEMDqTxfkmM

video 30 minutes

Polonium Halos: Unrefuted Evidence for Earth's Creation

By Dr. Robert Gentry

http://www.halos.com/

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.

Are the concentric haloes observed by Gentry actually caused by alpha particle damage to the host crystal structure?

Going back to Gentry's early research (Gentry, 1968, 1971; Gentry, et al., 1973), it is apparent that the association of concentric colored haloes with polonium is actually speculative. Gentry adopts and expands on the work of Joly (1917) that polonium isotopes were the most likely cause of the features observed. Joly did most of his work with discoloration haloes in the first decade of the Twentieth Century, a time when the structure of the atom was just being discovered, and before the crystal structure of minerals had been unraveled. This was also the period when the nature of radioactivity was just being uncovered. Joly made the very speculative assumption that if alpha particles could travel 3-7 centimeters in air, then they would only travel 1/2000 of that distance in biotite mica. From this generalization, and without considering the variability in the density and the crystal structure of the host mica (or even the variable density of air), Joly attempted to correlate the radial size of the concentric ring haloes with the alpha particles of specific isotopes (he was first to suggest polonium).

Odom and Rink (1989) examined giant radiohaloes in mica and proposed an alternative hypothesis for their formation. They compare the circular halo structures in mica with radiation-induced color halos (RICHs) in quartz. In the quartz crystalline structure, aluminum can occasionally substitute for a silicon atom, creating a slight charge imbalance. Alpha particles from uranium decay create hole-trapping centers around the aluminum atoms. This in turn creates a semi-conductive area where beta particles (also resulting from uranium decay) can cause diffusion and discoloration over a fairly large area. The width of the resulting halo can be correlated with migration of valence-band holes along a radiation-induced charge potential in the host crystal. While this is an attractive hypothesis, Odom and Rink cautiously note that the crystal structures and chemical composition of quartz and mica are significantly different. Quartz is known to have natural piezoelectric properties missing in the mica group minerals. Without further investigation, haloes caused by migrating hole trapping centers is speculative for minerals other than quartz.

Clearly, more work is required to resolve all of these questions. The association of ring-type haloes with any specific energy of alpha decay must be considered speculative.

If the concentric haloes are indeed caused by alpha radiation damage, is polonium decay the only possible cause?

Even if we assume that concentric ring haloes actually are due to alpha radiation damage, an immediate problem arises with the short half-life of the polonium isotopes themselves. In order to leave a visible radiation damage halo, the affected mica or fluorite grains would have to crystallize before the polonium decayed away to background levels - about 10 half lives. For polonium isotopes, this correlates to between a fraction of a second (Po-212, Po-214, Po-215) and 138.4 days (Po-210). Gentry's hypothesis calls for pure, concentrated polonium at the center of each ring. The model makes no distinction between which polonium isotopes should be present - thus, there should be equal likelihood for all. He points out that there is no known geochemical process by which such concentrations can occur during crystallization of a magma, concluding therefore that polonium haloes are indicative of some non-natural or supernatural occurrence.



An alternative possibility is explored by Brawley (1992) and Collins (1997). They note that many concentric ring haloes line up along visible fractures within the host mica. Such fractures are very common in mica crystals. Micro-fractures could provide conduits for the rapid movement and concentration of radon-222, a gaseous daughter product of uranium-238 which forms part way along the decay chain leading to polonium. Radon-222, itself an alpha emitter, has a half life of 3.82 days and is produced continuously in the decay of the parent uranium. Migration of radon along fractures with hold-up points at tiny structural traps would result in exactly the same concentric ring pattern assigned by Gentry to polonium alone (because polonium is a daughter isotope of radon decay). Assigning a halo diameter to radon is difficult as the radon alpha decay energy is very close to that of polonium-210 ; the two ring structures commonly cannot be distinguished (Moazed, et al., 1973).

Yes, I have heard of all of these.

Of these, and I am not sure what you mean referring to Lucy or the Australopithecus, the first two were examples of incorrect claims or information. The Pilt Down man was a deliberate fraud.

Who corrected these two misconceptions? Scientists did. In these cases, the self-correcting mechanism worked. Yes, it took a long time with Piltdown man. However, this was partly because the actual artifact was not made available for examination to other scientists.

Who is correcting the numerous incredibly bad claims made by creationists? Who is making sure that the alleged artificacts put forward by creationists are examined by other observers? On this site, for example, we have people referring to bones of giants and grooved spheres from South Africa. In the former case, none of these artifacts can actually be produced. All we have is hearsay evidence, almost all of it decades old, some of it centuries old.

Some creationists, Duane Gish for example, when confronted regarding erroneous information they are presenting actually have agreed that it was erroneous and that they would cease making the false claims. Then, when he is back in front of a creationist audience, he makes the same false claims again. He has even published claims he knows and acknowledged were false.

I am sorry, but it is ridiculous to consider the scientific community as being at the same level as the creationist community. Science is not perfect, but as far as its accuracy and self-correcting mechanisms, it is many orders of magnitudes better than the creationist community.

the evolutionists have ruined their credibilty

DNA can't fall together by accident

the simplest living cell is far too complex to fall together by accident

Evolution does not say either of these happens 'by accident.' If there is any part of evolution that one might say happens by accident, it is mutations. These occur at random.

However, mutations are but a small part of the mechanism of evolution. Sexual reproduction and, more importantly, natural selection are very powerful drivers of evolution.

We know from the fossil record that trilobites came long before dinosaurs, and dinosaurs before (and not concurrent with) primates. There is no way the fossil record could have been created by a global flood (even if we assume one occurred), unless God intentionally and miraculously decided to deceive us. I don't think such deception is consistent with the character of God.

The only other explanations are that some mysterious cause removed the remains our human ancestors from all but the most recent geological layers, and did the same for thousands of other species which exist today but are not found in the fossil record, or that somehow humans did not leave any remains in the far distant past.

I would challenge anyone to come up a plausible scientific explanation for such occurrences.

And yes, the polonium halos have been refuted. But still, they will continue to appear on creationist websites because most of the people who run these sites are not interested in searching for the actual truth, they are only interested in justifying their own beliefs to themselves and those they can persuade or deceive. This may sound harsh, but it is the truth.