RSR: The Origin of Earth's Radioactivity
* How Did Radioactive Decay Start in Earth's Crust? (Re-run during recovery from a minor accident while Bob was out boating. "See you guys, Lord-willing, next week!") Real Science Radio co-hosts Bob Enyart and Fred Williams describe Walt Brown's Hydroplate Theory from his book, In the Beginning, and Dr. Brown's discovery of the origin of Earth's radioactivity. Ways to learn about the origin of Earth's radioactivity:
- Listen to today's program (above)
- Read this written show page
- Read Bob's brief 2019 RMCF articles Part 1 & Part 2
- Read Walt's theory right here at hpt.rsr.org
- See this visually just below in Bryan Nickel's video tutorial
- Read Walt's theory starting on page 380 of the ITB 9th Edition pdf.
Consider:
- God created a paradise for mankind so no radioactivity would have existed on the original Earth because radioactive decay can cause birth defects, disease, and death with lowered lifespans.
- For ex., uranium formed on Earth, as evidence by its worldwide ratio (see below)
- The fourth state of matter, beyond solid, liquid, and gas, is plasma (lightning, neon lights, etc.) which is like a gas but with the electrons stripped away.
- By the piezoelectric effect, pressure on quartz produces an electric voltage and the granite in the Earth's crust is more than one-fourth quartz.
- Z-pinched electrical pulses produce nuclear combustion by stripping away electrons and then squeezing together nuclei producing radioactive and other elements.
- Decay rates speed up by a billion times or more when half lives are measured for atoms stripped of their electrons; for example when ionized the 41-billion year half life of rhenium's beta decay speeds up to 33 years.
- Atmospheric lightning produces new isotopes (most of which decay within minutes).
2017 Update: Nature reports that lightning storms "trigger atmospheric photonuclear reactions" that produce isotopes. [In 2010 Dr. Brown published his Radioactivity theory including references to little noticed research showing that atmospheric lightning produces radioisotopes (and also explains the Oklo Natural "Reactor").]
- Earthquake Lights: Earthquakes produce piezoelectric lightning flashes in the ground and also, coming out of the ground. (See also rsr.org/eql.)
2017 Update: Twitter video of this phenomenon during Mexico's deadly magnitude 8.1 quake. [Thanks to RSR London listener Remy for the heads up.]
2016 Update: Video of earthquake lights surface, this time after New Zealand's magnitude 7.8 quake epicentered between Christchurch and Wellington.
2014 Update: A paper in the journal Seismological Research Letters is reported on in USA Today's Scientists find records of rare 'earthquake lights'.
2013 Update: This may be the phenomena causing the apparent pre-quake disturbances in the ionosphere that led scientists to consider a possible earthquake warning system, as reported in 2008 by BBC News, and pursued by the U.K. and Russia in 2011 and generating continued interest and research in 2013 in a European Geophysical Union conference presentation, and here with RSR's 2014 interview with QuakeFinder.
- The journal Nature reports that an average earthquake produces hundreds of millions of volts.
- During the upheaval of the global flood pressure in the crust produced enormous voltages that produced plasma surges in the crust.
- Those voltages smashed together the nuclei of atoms to create, in the crust, radioactive elements and massive, instantaneous apparent radioactive decay.
- Missing uniform distribution of earth's radioactivity: From our RSR debate with theoretical physicist (emphasis on the theoretical), Lawrence Krauss... The theory of chemical evolution claims that all of our radioactive elements were created in the explosion of stars, but that would predict a relatively uniform distribution on Earth. However, in an otherwise contentious interview, Krauss agreed with Enyart's statement on air that 90% of Earth's radioactivity (uranium, thorium, potassium-40, etc.) is located in the continental crust, and Krauss added, a mystery for him, that it tends to concentrate around granite! That is, that 90% is not in the mantle nor in the enormous amount of the crust which lies under the oceans, but our planet's radioactivity is concentrated in 1/3rd of 1% of the Earth's mass, in the continental crust. (Further, the release of the crust's heat has not yet reached a steady state. And "hotspot" lava allegedly arising from the mantel doesn't support any claim of a lot of deep radioactivity.) Krauss offered a partial explanation: that uranium was originally evenly distributed throughout (an alleged) molten earth but being a large atom, it floated toward the surface. The bias of this physicist led him to forget, apparently, that it is density, and not size, that causes things to float. Uranium is 70% more dense than lead, almost as dense as gold, and one of the most dense elements (excluding atheists and other manmade phenomena). Further, for argument's sake, that would only explain the relative absence of radioactivity deep in the Earth, but would not explain uranium's distancing itself from the mantle and from the oceanic crust, nor its affinity for the continents and even, of all things, for granite. Further, under Krauss' belief in the widespread falsehood that the planet was once molten, if so, then the gold in the crust should have sunk to the core! The creationists, on the other hand, have a theory based on observational science as to why radioactivity is concentrated around granite.
- Absurd consistency of uranium isotope ratio IF formed in space: Consider this from Walt Brown's Origin of Earth's Radioactivity chapter:
The isotopes of each chemical element have almost constant ratios with each other. ... Why is the ratio of 235U to 238U in uranium ore deposits so constant almost everywhere on Earth? One very precise study showed that the ratio is 0.0072842, with a standard deviation of only 0.000017. [There's less than one U235 atom, with its 700M year half-life, for every hundred U238s, with their 4.5B year half-lives.] Obviously, the more time that elapses between the formation of the various isotopes (such as 235U and 238U) and the farther they are transported to their current resting places, the more varied those ratios should be. The belief that these isotopes formed in a supernova explosion millions of light-years away and billions of years before the Earth formed and somehow collected in small ore bodies in a fixed ratio is absurd. Powerful explosions would have separated the lighter isotopes from the heavier isotopes.
Some radioisotopes simultaneously produce two or more daughters. When that happens, the daughters have very precise ratios to each other, called branching ratios or branching fractions. Uranium isotopes are an example, because they are daughter products of some even heavier element. Recall that the Proton-21 Laboratory has produced superheavy elements that instantly decayed. Also, the global flux of neutrons during the flood provided nuclei with enough neutrons to reach their maximum stability. Therefore, isotope ratios for a given element are fixed. Had the flux of neutrons originated in outer space, we would not see these constant ratios worldwide. Because these neutrons originated at many specific points in the globe-encircling crust, these fixed ratios are global.
- Waltbrownium, the IUPAC, and the Nobel Prize in Physics: The element that decayed into daughter products U-235 and U-238 is the naturally occurring though now-extinct waltbrownium.
Symbol Wb.
Atomic number (Z) > 118
Atomic weight of > 294
> 118 protons, > 118 electrons
> 176 neutrons
Half-life perhaps ~10 ns.
Waltbrownium is the heaviest chemical element yet discovered (though indirectly). It is in, or above, the post-Actinide series. Wb is not [yet] an IUPAC officially named element but has been preliminarily named, here, by RSR. The identification of this element should earn its discoverer a Nobel Prize in Physics after he identified the evidence for its existence and the experimental evidence for its formation. The uniform uranium ratio provides the evidence to confirm that waltbrownium existed on the Earth. (This evidence provides as much, or even more, confirmation as neutrinos provide for solar fusion.) Further, the thousands of Proton-21 Laboratory experiments in the Ukraine (and similar experiments in the U.S. at Sandia Nat'l Labs, Russia, Germany, and in Sweden at the Dept. for Applied Physics and Electronics, Umea University) provide the experimental evidence for Wb formation. This element was predicted in January 2012 when Brown, Ph.D. from MIT in mechanical engineering, published the two paragraphs immediately above. Dr. Brown himself has since termed this element Proto-Uranium.
- Non-HPT flood models (including Catastrophic Plate Tectonics) have a "heat problem" including because their accelerated decay explanation of Earth's radioactive elements (presented in its R.A.T.E. project) would melt much of the Earth, they admit, if it had actually happened as they envision and the heat was not suspernaturally removed. Regarding CPT for example, see RSR's Global Flood video just below, beginning at 25:29. The HPT on the other hand explains the origin of Earth's crustal radioactive materials in a way that removes heat! Wikipedia's nuclear binding energy article accurately explains: "For elements that weigh more than iron (a nucleus with 26 protons), the fusion process no longer releases energy. In even heavier nuclei energy is consumed, not released, by combining similar sized nuclei."
- Carbon 14 Dating Subject to Less Havoc: From rsr.org/14c: "Dr. Brown's theory for the origin of Earth's crustal radioactivity intrinsically explains the unreliability of heavy element radiometric dating of Earth rocks while recognizing Carbon 14 dating as relatively accurate (adjusting for the old earthers' erroneous assumption that 14c levels have been constant over the past 100,000 years). In the HPT, what appears to be accelerated radioactive decay applies to elements in the crust and inside the subterranean water chamber (i.e., beneath the firmament). This effect would not have applied to an element in the atmosphere, such as 14c. So as a result of widespread misunderstanding of Earth's history, old-earth geologists contend with infamously contradictory million- and billion-year radiometric dates, whereas carbon dating is not subject to the same extreme physical forces that play havoc with other radiometric dating methods."








* Zealandia vs. Plate Tectonics: Real Science Radio's Bob Enyart and Fred Williams give an update on the Workin' for Walt Brown (WWB) discovery of the mostly submerged 1.9 million square-mile continent of Zealandia. 