Changes

*Knapp, Alex (May 3, 2011). [https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2011/05/03/radioactive-decay-rates-may-not-be-constant-after-all/#4634f095147f Radioactive Decay Rates May Not Be Constant After All]. ''Forbes''. Retrieved January 4, 2018.</ref>

*Knapp, Alex (May 3, 2011). [https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2011/05/03/radioactive-decay-rates-may-not-be-constant-after-all/#4634f095147f Radioactive Decay Rates May Not Be Constant After All]. ''Forbes''. Retrieved January 4, 2018.</ref>

As early as of 1673, John Ray, an English naturalist, wrote ''"in the primitive times the Creation of the earth suffered far more concussions and mutations in its superficial part than afterwards"''.<ref>{{cite book |title=Time's Arrows: Scientific Attitudes Toward time|author=Richard Morris|publisher=Simon and Schuster|year=1986|pages=240|isbn=978-0671501587|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=NOZ-r3YZrf0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Time%27s+arrows&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiIkL6dqK7ZAhWl2YMKHa0QCAkQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=Time's%20arrows&f=false}}</ref> He was referring to the geological controversy that would later be dubbed "gradualism" vs. "catastrophism"; this long predated any knowledge of radioactivity.

As early as of 1673, John Ray, an English naturalist, wrote ''"in the primitive times the Creation of the earth suffered far more concussions and mutations in its superficial part than afterwards"''.<ref>{{cite book |title=Time's Arrows: Scientific Attitudes Toward time|author=Richard Morris|publisher=Simon and Schuster|year=1986|pages=240 pages|isbn=978-0671501587|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=NOZ-r3YZrf0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Time%27s+arrows&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiIkL6dqK7ZAhWl2YMKHa0QCAkQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=Time's%20arrows&f=false}}</ref> He was referring to the geological controversy that would later be dubbed "gradualism" vs. "catastrophism"; this long predated any knowledge of radioactivity.

The process of decay is as follows.  Atoms consist of a heavy central core called the [[nucleus]] surrounded by clouds of lightweight particles (electrons), called [[electron shell]]s. The energy locked in the nucleus is enormous, but cannot be released easily. The phenomenon we know as heat is simply the jiggling around of atoms and their components, so in principle a high enough temperature could cause the components of the core to break out. However, the temperature required to do this is in in the millions of degrees, so this cannot be achieved by any natural process that we know about. The second way that a nucleus could be disrupted is by particles striking it. However, the nucleus has a strong positive charge and the electron shells have a strong negative charge. Any incoming negative charge would be deflected by the electron shell and any positive charge that penetrated the electron shells would be deflected by the positive charge of the nucleus itself.

The process of decay is as follows.  Atoms consist of a heavy central core called the [[nucleus]] surrounded by clouds of lightweight particles (electrons), called [[electron shell]]s. The energy locked in the nucleus is enormous, but cannot be released easily. The phenomenon we know as heat is simply the jiggling around of atoms and their components, so in principle a high enough temperature could cause the components of the core to break out. However, the temperature required to do this is in in the millions of degrees, so this cannot be achieved by any natural process that we know about. The second way that a nucleus could be disrupted is by particles striking it. However, the nucleus has a strong positive charge and the electron shells have a strong negative charge. Any incoming negative charge would be deflected by the electron shell and any positive charge that penetrated the electron shells would be deflected by the positive charge of the nucleus itself.