And if the decay rates did change, then the energy of the decay would change and the halos would be different: the uranium halos would be blurred over measurable distances instead of still found in the rings dictated by the energy of the decay in modern times.
Here RAZD clearly identifies his target audience. He's out to fool those who don't follow links & examine the evidence for themselves. Look at how many sources he cites in order to create the impression that he's done his homework before trying to sneak this false claim in under the radar.
Changing the decay rate would result in
more decay - not more energetic decay. In alpha decay, for example,
more alpha particles would be produced in a given amount of time, but the energy of each alpha particle would remain exactly the same. The exact same halo would result, only faster. The energy contained by decay particles is a function of their source atom. It has nothing at all to do with
how many atoms are decaying in a given timeframe.
Now, how many will call his bluff? That's the question. I expect at least a couple have already followed some links and come to understand the process of halo formation. They're immunized. Might be interesting to see the results if we could accurately poll the readership.
