What are the errors in this reasoning?

[A Tripolation]

I was given a link to this article by a professor: http://www.halos.com/

 

A speck of polonium in molten rock can be compared to an Alka-Seltzer dropped into a glass of water. The beginning of effervescence is equated to the moment that polonium atoms began to emit radiactive particles. In molten rock the traces of those radioactive particles would disappear as quickly as the Alka-Seltzer bubbles in water. But if the water were instantly frozen, the bubbles would be preserved. Likewise, polonium halos could have formed only if the rapidly "effervescing" specks of polonium had been instantly encased in solid rock.

 

Unfortunately, I do not have the geology/chem background to point out the errors in this. And maybe there aren't any, but the authors are still inferring baseless 'facts'.

 

Does anything pop out that makes this either credible or psuedoscience?

[Mr Skeptic]

Its basically a description of radioactive dating methods. But the "instantly" part is wrong, and polonium has too short a half-life to be used for dating, and the dating would use isotope ratios rather than a halo. Also just because they call them "polonium halos" doesn't mean that that is what they are.

 

http://www.talkorigi...los/gentry.html

[A Tripolation]

Ah. I see. Thanks for the excellent article Mr S.