Talk:Pleochroic halo

Physics Unassessed

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 18 May 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

What are the sources for this page? As of 7 Feb 2005 I see none. This is especially troublesome consider duplicate pages elsewhere on the web (i.e. http://www.freetemplate.ws/ra/radiohalo.html ). Could someone add sources here?

Bias

"However, Lorence G. Collins, J. Richard Wakefield and others have repeatedly and soundly rebutted the radiohalo evidence for a young earth in peer-reviewed publications." How do you qualify (or quantify) "soundly rebutted"? Isn't that a value statement of opinion? Also, there is no reference or futher statement regarding this. Justin Custer 08:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, though Gentry's work on radiohalos tends to support a young earth hypothesis, in is not necessarily ONLY about that hypothesis. Should this article, to be more encyclopedic, be limited to the discussion of the radiohalos and only mention the relation to the young earth hypothesis? Justin Custer 08:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

I added several sources to the acticle as well as made some clarifications and additions. I hope this provides a more thorough and comprehensive reference.

Link to current sources, needed revisions

The sources for the article are not the most recent, but more important ignore some of the sources that call Gentry's work into question. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html provides a current article with citations to recent Gentry work as well as links to older and current articles that detail attempts to reproduce his observations and explain radiohalos.

The term is certainly better than what seems to be more common, po halos or polonuim halos. It appears that the halos are caused by the alpha decay of uranium, thorium, radium, radon, and polonuim. The element in the chain that Gentry pointedly ignores, even after contemporary scientists pointed to radon as the key to understanding the different halos seen.

In addition to the creationist controversy, the initial attempt to use the halos for geodating and the earlier discovery should be noted. I think this captures my current thoughts on this article. Now it requires figuring out how to organize the article and the emphasis on each point, especially in light of the controversy this purports to support. Mulp 16:47, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the halos are not caused by any of those elements. You can measure the rings to find which elements actually caused the halos. Anyway, I suggest that you reference to a peer-reviewed journal rather a website.EMSPhydeaux 17:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused by your statement, "Well, the halos are not caused by any of those elements. You can measure the rings to find which elements actually caused the halos." Could you please clarify, EMSPhydeaux? Thank you. Justin Custer 08:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that I didn't get back to you sooner. Each element creates a different sized ring depending upon the radioactive element, because each radioactive element can shot out the alpha particles, which create the rings, to different distances (basically). Anyway, we know the size of the rings caused by uranium, thorium, radium, radon, and polonium. So, if we simply measure the size of the rings, we can tell that the element that caused the polonium-218 ring was polonium-218. Also, the idea that we cannot tell the difference between radon-222 and polonium-210 is incorrect. The difference has been shown, and the results published in peer-reviewed journals. So I'll be sure to correct the paper. EMSPhydeaux (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Also, the idea that we cannot tell the difference between radon-222 and polonium-210 is incorrect. The difference has been shown, and the results published in peer-reviewed journals."

Eh? Your basis for this, please? I thought this was the key point: that Radon²²²'s and Polonium²¹⁰'s alpha decay particles have energies (5.486MeV and 5.305MeV respectively) that are so similar as to make the diameter of their rings - and thus the identity of their originator - indistinguishable.

There may be ways to 'tell the difference', but do they work on archaic remnants in ancient crystal lattices, where there's nothing left but the ring damage? Serious question.

If not, then the hypothesis that the rings are caused by radon atoms - inert, monatomic and subject to gas pressure laws - migrating through crystal defects makes much more sense than that the polonium magically appeared in place by fiat of a creator deity. --Cdavis999 (talk) 10:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are not indistinguishable. That's just another myth that naturally comes when an article uses rebutted work for it's source. Here is a link to the Science article: http://www.halos.com/reports/science-1974-perspective.htm EMSPhydeaux (talk) 14:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The elements mentioned in the link [1] are Polonium, Radium, Thorium, and Radon (possibly others). It seems OK to me to cite that link, because its bibliography refers to many published papers and books. The Proceedings of the Royal Society are prestigious, and there are several citations to Science and at least one to an education journal. After all, if some person with a "cause" (such as young Earth, or maybe next time that Egyptian mummies were planted by extraterrestrials) you can't expect serious people to try to publish rebuttals in refereed works. We are luck that Thomas Baillieul managed to find serious refutations in prestigious journals and in apparently widely used textbooks. Of course, links can go away, so if somebody wants to copy the references into Wikipedia - go for it. Carrionluggage 23:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I have with the article is that it references papers which have been soundly rebutted in the peer-reviewed journals. If we actually referenced the peer-reviewed journals we would not have this problem of unverified information, but then again you would also find that all the peer-reviewed articles have been soundly rebutted and you couldn't make your case against the truth. EMSPhydeaux (talk) 14:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Necessary to explain Creationist connection

Previous deletion leaves the reader less informed as to why this rambling "debate" goes on and on. Gentry was reduced to letters-to-the-editor in Physics Today in the 1960's. His motive was then clear. He wanted to prove the Earth was young. Others (see main article) have answered him fully. The subject is virtually dead except that Creationists have singled it out for revival.Carrionluggage (talk) 21:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The subject may be dead in serious science discussion, but so is any debate over the fact of evolution - in such circles.

In the real world, alas, there are huge numbers of uninformed folk who actively distrust any science that contradicts their religious beliefs, and a host of organisations - some ignorant; some downright wicked - that have powerful platforms to spread their nonsense. They push the 'Po-Halo controversy', and similar discredited science, to bolster that nonsense. --Cdavis999 (talk) 11:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That may be so. Nevertheless, references belong at the end of the article, and the comment 'an example of creationist pseudoscience' is editorializing, and shows bias. This is an encyclopedia, not a soap box.

The statement "The claims are contested by the mainstream scientific community" is enough for paragraph 1.

Deipnosopher (talk) 21:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is true NPOV possible, especially in subjects like this? Would a similar subject in which an apparently scholarly article proposed evidence for the existence of fairies, say, be given immunity from characterisation as pseudoscience?

ISTM that if an encyclopaedia allows discussion of religion-related matters (including Creationism and its better-dressed cousin ID) as anything other than mythology, then it has already stepped over a neutrality boundary, by giving credence to subjects that have been scientifically and rationally established not to be factual. --Cdavis999 (talk) 11:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Searches

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL