to the uranium haloes of the mica of
County Carlow.[1] Results for the age of the halo of from 20 to
400 millions of years have been obtained. This mica was probably
formed in the granite of Leinster in late Silurian or in Devonian
times.

The higher results are probably the least in error, upon the data
involved; for the assumption made as to the amount of uranium in
the nuclei of the haloes was such as to render the higher results
the more reliable.

This method is, of course, a radioactive method, and similar to
the method by helium storage, save that it is free of the risk of
error by escape of the helium, the effects of which are, as it
were, registered at the moment of its production, so that its
subsequent escape is of no moment.

[1] Joly and Rutherford, _Phil. Mag._, April, 1913.

22

REVIEW OF THE RESULTS

We shall now briefly review the results on the geological age of
the Earth.

By methods based on the approximate uniformity of denudative
effects in the past, a period of the order of 100 millions of
years has been obtained as the duration of our geological age;
and consistently whether we accept for measurement the sediments
or the dissolved sodium. We can give reasons why these
measurements might afford too great an age, but we can find
absolutely no good reason why they should give one much too low.

By measuring radioactive products ages have been found which,
while they vary widely among themselves, yet claim to possess
accuracy in their superior limits, and exceed those derived from
denudation from nine to fourteen times.

In this difficulty let us consider the claims of the radioactive
method in any of its forms. In order to be trustworthy it must be
true; (1) that the rate of transformation now shown by the parent
substance has obtained throughout the entire past, and (2) that
there were no other radioactive substances, either now or
formerly existing, except uranium, which gave rise to lead. As
regards methods based on the production of helium, what we have
to say will largely apply to it also. If some unknown source of
these elements exists we, of course, on our assumption
overestimate the age.

23

As regards the first point: In ascribing a constant rate of
change to the parent substance—which Becker (loc. cit.) describes
as "a simple though tremendous extrapolation"—we reason upon
analogy with the constant rate of decay observed in the derived
radioactive bodies. If uranium and thorium are really primary
elements, however, the analogy relied on may be misleading; at
least, it is obviously incomplete. It is incomplete in a
particular which may be very important: the mode of origin of
these parent bodies—whatever it may have been—is different to
that of the secondary elements with which we compare them. A
convergence in their rate of transformation is not impossible, or
even improbable, so far as we known.

As regards the second point: It is assumed that uranium alone of
the elements in radioactive minerals is ultimately transformed to
lead by radioactive changes. We must consider this assumption.

Recent advances in the chemistry of the radioactive elements has
brought out evidence that all three lines of radioactive descent
known to us—_i.e._ those beginning with uranium, with thorium,
and with actinium—alike converge to lead.[1] There are
difficulties in the way of believing that all the lead-like atoms
so produced ("isotopes" of lead, as Soddy proposes to call them)
actually remain as stable lead in the minerals. For one

[1] See Soddy's _Chemistry of the Radioactive Elements_ (Longmans,
Green & Co.).

24

thing there is sometimes, along with very large amounts of
thorium, an almost entire absence of lead in thorianites and
thorites. And in some urano—thorites the lead may be noticed to
follow the uranium in approximate proportionality,
notwithstanding the presence of large amounts of thorium.[1] This
is in favour of the assumption that all the lead present is
derived from the uranium. The actinium is present in negligibly
small amounts.

On the other hand, there is evidence arising from the atomic
weight of lead which seems to involve some other parent than
uranium. Soddy, in the work referred to, points this out. The
atomic weight of radium is well known, and uranium in its descent
has to change to this element. The loss of mass between radium
and uranium-derived lead can be accurately estimated by the
number of alpha rays given off. From this we get the atomic
weight of uranium-derived lead as closely 206. Now the best
determinations of the atomic weight of normal lead assign to this
element an atomic weight of closely

[1] It seems very difficult at present to suggest an end product
for thorium, unless we assume that, by loss of electrons, thorium
E, or thorium-lead, reverts to a substance chemically identical
with thorium itself. Such a change—whether considered from the
point of view of the periodic law or of the radioactive theory
would involve many interesting consequences. It is, of course,
quite possible that the nature of the conditions attending the
deposition of the uranium ores, many of which are comparatively
recent, are responsible for the difficulties observed. The
thorium and uranium ores are, again, specially prone to
alteration.

25

207. By a somewhat similar calculation it is deduced that
thorium-derived lead would possess the atomic weight of 208. Thus
normal lead might be an admixture of uranium- and thorium-derived
lead. However, as we have seen, the view that thorium gives rise
to stable lead is beset with some difficulties.

If we are going upon reliable facts and figures, we must, then,
assume: (a) That some other element than uranium, and genetically
connected with it (probably as parent substance), gives rise, or
formerly gave rise, to lead of heavier atomic weight than normal
lead. It may be observed respecting this theory that there is
some support for the view that a parent substance both to uranium
and thorium has existed or possibly exists. The evidence is found
in the proportionality frequently observed between the amounts of
thorium and uranium in the primary rocks.[1] Or: (b) We may meet
the difficulties in a simpler way, which may be stated as
follows: If we assume that all stable lead is derived from
uranium, and at the same time recognise that lead is not
perfectly homogeneous in atomic weight, we must, of necessity,
ascribe to uranium a similar want of homogeneity; heavy atoms of
uranium giving rise to heavy

[1] Compare results for the thorium content of such rocks
(appearing in a paper by the author Cong. Int. _de Radiologie et
d'Electricité_, vol. i., 1910, p. 373), and those for the radium
content, as collected in _Phil. Mag._, October, 1912, p. 697.
Also A. L. Fletcher, _Phil. Mag._, July, 1910; January, 1911, and
June, 1911. J. H. J. Poole, _Phil. Mag._, April, 1915

26

atoms of lead and light atoms of uranium generating light atoms
of lead. This assumption seems to be involved in the figures
upon, which we are going. Still relying on these figures, we
find, however, that existing uranium cannot give rise to lead of
normal atomic weight. We can only conclude that the heavier atoms
of uranium have decayed more rapidly than the lighter ones. In
this connection it is of interest to note the complexity of
uranium as recently established by Geiger, although in this case
it is assumed that the shorter-lived isotope bears the relation
of offspring to the longer-lived and largely