{ "id": "epmvxkn8w5", "slug": "uranium-thorium-helium-thermochronology", "title": "Uranium–thorium–helium thermochronology", "updated": "2026-10-15", "topic_path": [ { "id": "physical", "label": "Physical world and mathematics", "api_url": "https://www.edgepedia.org/api/v1/topics/physical" }, { "id": "physical.earth", "label": "Earth sciences", "api_url": "https://www.edgepedia.org/api/v1/topics/physical.earth" }, { "id": "physical.earth.geology", "label": "Geology and mineralogy", "api_url": "https://www.edgepedia.org/api/v1/topics/physical.earth.geology" }, { "id": "physical.earth.geology.geology_general", "label": "Geology overview, history, and methods", "api_url": "https://www.edgepedia.org/api/v1/topics/physical.earth.geology.geology_general" } ], "geo": [ { "id": "geo.nongeo.t1946.physical.earth", "label": "Non-geographic · 1946 to 2000: Earth sciences", "api_url": "https://www.edgepedia.org/api/v1/geo/geo.nongeo.t1946.physical.earth", "path": [ { "id": "geo.nongeo", "label": "Non-geographic", "api_url": "https://www.edgepedia.org/api/v1/geo/geo.nongeo" }, { "id": "geo.nongeo.t1946", "label": "Non-geographic · 1946 to 2000", "api_url": "https://www.edgepedia.org/api/v1/geo/geo.nongeo.t1946" }, { "id": "geo.nongeo.t1946.physical", "label": "Physical world and mathematics", "api_url": "https://www.edgepedia.org/api/v1/geo/geo.nongeo.t1946.physical" }, { "id": "geo.nongeo.t1946.physical.earth", "label": "Earth sciences", "api_url": "https://www.edgepedia.org/api/v1/geo/geo.nongeo.t1946.physical.earth" } ] } ], "excerpt": "Uranium–thorium–helium ((U-Th)/He) thermochronology is a geochronology method dating minerals by radiogenic helium from uranium and thorium decay, used to study exhumation, fault slip, and landscape evolution.", "snippet": "Uranium–thorium–helium ((U-Th)/He) thermochronology is a geochronology method dating minerals by radiogenic helium from uranium and thorium decay, used to study exhumation, fault slip, and landscape evolution.", "node": "physical.earth.geology.geology_general", "markdown": "# Uranium–thorium–helium thermochronology\n\nUranium–thorium–helium ((U-Th)/He) thermochronology is a geochronology method that dates minerals by measuring radiogenic \\( ^{4}\\mathrm{He} \\) produced by alpha decay of \\( ^{238}\\mathrm{U} \\), \\( ^{235}\\mathrm{U} \\), \\( ^{232}\\mathrm{Th} \\), and \\( ^{147}\\mathrm{Sm} \\), and interprets the resulting age through temperature-dependent helium diffusion to reconstruct low-temperature cooling histories.[1](https://gchron.copernicus.org/articles/3/351/2021/gchron-3-351-2021.pdf) Because helium is retained only below modest temperatures, an apatite (U-Th)/He date records cooling through roughly 70 °C, depths of about 1–3 km in a typical crust,[2](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0012821X02010695) making the method a tool for studying exhumation, fault slip, and landscape evolution. Dated materials span ca. 4.5 Ga to ca. 2 ka.[3](https://eprints.gla.ac.uk/269859/3/269859.pdf)\n\n| Key fact | Value |\n| --- | --- |\n| Parent nuclides | \\( ^{238}\\mathrm{U} \\), \\( ^{235}\\mathrm{U} \\), \\( ^{232}\\mathrm{Th} \\), \\( ^{147}\\mathrm{Sm} \\), with the \\( ^{238}\\mathrm{U} \\), \\( ^{235}\\mathrm{U} \\), and \\( ^{232}\\mathrm{Th} \\) decay chains emitting 8, 7, and 6 alpha particles[1](https://gchron.copernicus.org/articles/3/351/2021/gchron-3-351-2021.pdf) |\n| Apatite He closure | ~70 °C nominal at 10 °C/Myr; ~40–115 °C depending on radiation damage[4](http://noblegas.berkeley.edu/~noblegas/files/ShusterFarley%282005%29RiMG.pdf) • [3](https://eprints.gla.ac.uk/269859/3/269859.pdf) |\n| Zircon He closure | ~140–220 °C rising with damage, then <50 °C after a percolation threshold[3](https://eprints.gla.ac.uk/269859/3/269859.pdf) |\n| Titanite He closure | ~200 °C nominal at 10 °C/Myr[4](http://noblegas.berkeley.edu/~noblegas/files/ShusterFarley%282005%29RiMG.pdf) |\n| Alpha stopping distance | ~5–30 µm, requiring the Ft ejection correction[1](https://gchron.copernicus.org/articles/3/351/2021/gchron-3-351-2021.pdf) |\n| Typical precision | Durango apatite 31.1 ± 1.4 Ma at <5% (1σ); modern labs report 1–3%[1](https://gchron.copernicus.org/articles/3/351/2021/gchron-3-351-2021.pdf) • [5](https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2026/ja/d5ja00473j) |\n| Datable age range | ca. 4.5 Ga to ca. 2 ka[3](https://eprints.gla.ac.uk/269859/3/269859.pdf) |\n\n## How it works\n\nEach decay of a uranium or thorium isotope emits an alpha particle that becomes a \\( ^{4}\\mathrm{He} \\) atom: 8 alphas per \\( ^{238}\\mathrm{U} \\) chain, 7 per \\( ^{235}\\mathrm{U} \\) chain, and 6 per \\( ^{232}\\mathrm{Th} \\) chain. The age equation sums these ingrowth terms,\n\n\\[ ^{4}\\mathrm{He} = 8\\cdot[^{238}\\mathrm{U}](e^{\\lambda_{238}t}-1) + 7\\cdot[^{235}\\mathrm{U}](e^{\\lambda_{235}t}-1) + 6\\cdot[^{232}\\mathrm{Th}](e^{\\lambda_{232}t}-1) \\]\n\nand is solved iteratively for \\( t \\).[6](https://www.geotrack.com.au/uthhe/u-th-he-techinfo.htm) The decay constants are \\( \\lambda_{235} = 9.849 \\times 10^{-10} \\ \\mathrm{yr}^{-1} \\), and \\( \\lambda_{232} = 4.948 \\times 10^{-11} \\ \\mathrm{yr}^{-1} \\), with a present-day \\( ^{235}\\mathrm{U}/^{238}\\mathrm{U} \\) ratio of 1/137.88; a \\( ^{147}\\mathrm{Sm} \\) term is usually negligible.[4](http://noblegas.berkeley.edu/~noblegas/files/ShusterFarley%282005%29RiMG.pdf) • [7](https://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucfbpve/geotopes/indexch7.html)\n\nHelium is lost by thermally activated volume diffusion following Fick's law with an Arrhenius coefficient \\( D = D_{0} \\cdot \\exp(-E_{a}/RT) \\), determined from step-heating experiments.[7](https://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucfbpve/geotopes/indexch7.html) The closure temperature concept of Martin H. Dodson, formalized in his 1973 paper in Contributions to [Mineralogy](https://www.edgepedia.org/mineralogy) and Petrology, defines the temperature at which the measured age corresponds to linear He accumulation during cooling.[8](https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00373790) For apatite the helium partial retention zone (HePRZ), where ages fall between 90% and 10% of the holding time, lies between about 40 °C and 70 °C for a 50 Myr holding time, and the closure temperature is about 75 °C at a cooling rate of 10 °C/Ma.[9](https://community.middlebury.edu/~wamidon/pdfs/wolf_1998.pdf) At a 30 °C/km geothermal gradient this corresponds to roughly 1.5–2 km depth.[7](https://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucfbpve/geotopes/indexch7.html)\n\n[Radiation damage](https://www.edgepedia.org/radiation-damage) from alpha recoil and fission tracks changes helium retentivity, and it is the factor with the greatest leverage on closure temperature, shifting single-mineral values by tens to more than 100 °C.[10](https://par.nsf.gov/servlets/purl/10483009) In apatite, diffusion experiments on 39 samples show closure temperatures from about 50 to 115 °C at 10 °C/Myr cooling, positively correlated with radiogenic \\( ^{4}\\mathrm{He} \\) concentration as a damage proxy; a trapping model predicts effective closure temperatures differing from 70 °C by up to ±15 °C depending on cooling rate and eU.[11](http://noblegas.berkeley.edu/~noblegas/files/shuster%282006%29raddamageapatite.pdf) Increasing damage impedes diffusion and raises closure temperature, producing positive date-eU trends, but at high eU interconnected damage lowers retentivity again.[12](https://par.nsf.gov/servlets/purl/10149969) These behaviors are captured by the apatite radiation damage accumulation and annealing model (RDAAM) of Rebecca M. Flowers, Richard A. Ketcham, David L. Shuster, and [Kenneth A. Farley](https://www.edgepedia.org/kenneth-a-farley) (2009).[13](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gca.2009.01.015) Zircon behaves differently: accumulating damage first disrupts c-axis-parallel diffusion pathways, raising closure temperature from about 140 °C to 220 °C, but once a percolation threshold is crossed the damaged lattice becomes interconnected and diffusivity increases, dropping closure temperature below 50 °C.[3](https://eprints.gla.ac.uk/269859/3/269859.pdf) • [14](https://doi.org/10.2475/03.2013.01) Date-eU plots are therefore a standard interpretive tool for both minerals.[10](https://par.nsf.gov/servlets/purl/10483009)\n\n## How it is done\n\nThe standard workflow separates apatite or zircon grains, picks clear crystals larger than about 60 µm, and measures their dimensions to compute the alpha-ejection correction.[1](https://gchron.copernicus.org/articles/3/351/2021/gchron-3-351-2021.pdf) Helium is extracted by laser heating in Pt–Nb tubes under ultrahigh vacuum (<10⁻⁹ mbar) and measured with a quadrupole or magnetic-sector mass spectrometer; a repeated step-heating schedule, continued until degassed He returns to within 2% of background, screens for He-retentive inclusions such as zircon or titanite.[1](https://gchron.copernicus.org/articles/3/351/2021/gchron-3-351-2021.pdf) One laboratory protocol heats zircons twice for 15 min at 1200 °C and apatites twice for 10 min at 900 °C with a 970 nm diode laser, releasing 99% of \\( ^{4}\\mathrm{He} \\) with measurement uncertainty below ±2%.[15](https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/geochemj/56/4/56_GJ22008/_html/-char/en) Parent U and Th are then measured, typically by isotope-dilution ICP-MS, and the age is calculated from the ingrowth equation with the Ft correction.[5](https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2026/ja/d5ja00473j) [Uncertainty](https://www.edgepedia.org/uncertainty) propagation for conventional aliquot data is supported by the HeCalc software of Peter E. Martin, James R. Metcalf, and Rebecca M. Flowers (2023).[16](https://doi.org/10.5194/gchron-5-91-2023)\n\nAlpha ejection is the main geometric correction: alpha particles travel about 5–30 µm before stopping or leaving the crystal, so a significant fraction of produced He is ejected, and the fraction retained (Ft) is computed with [Monte Carlo](https://www.edgepedia.org/monte-carlo) simulations using the measured grain size, shape, and Th/U ratio.[1](https://gchron.copernicus.org/articles/3/351/2021/gchron-3-351-2021.pdf) • [17](https://doi.org/10.1016/s0016-7037%2896%2900193-7) Grains from which more than 50% of alphas escape (combined Ft < 0.5) are generally not analyzed because the correction becomes unreasonably large.[3](https://eprints.gla.ac.uk/269859/3/269859.pdf) Effective uranium, \\( eU = [\\mathrm{U}] + 0.234 \\cdot [\\mathrm{Th}] + 0.0046 \\cdot [\\mathrm{Sm}] \\), is used to compare grains and interpret radiation-damage effects.[12](https://par.nsf.gov/servlets/purl/10149969)\n\n## Origin\n\nHelium dating was a radiometric method used to date geologic materials.[3](https://eprints.gla.ac.uk/269859/3/269859.pdf) It was applied only intermittently through the twentieth century because ages came out unreliably low, a problem then viewed as unpredictable \"He leakage\" and attributed to diffusive helium loss.[18](https://doi.org/10.2138/rmg.2002.47.18) A 1987 paper by P.K. Zeitler and colleagues in [Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta](https://www.edgepedia.org/geochimica-et-cosmochimica-acta), titled \"U-Th-He dating of apatite: A potential thermochronometer,\" examined apatite He ages as cooling ages; its Durango fluorapatite diffusion data gave an activation energy of 38.5 ± 8.1 kcal/mol and a closure temperature of 105 °C ± 30 °C at 10 °C/m.y. cooling.[19](https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-7037%2887%2990164-5) The development of thermochronology and the recognition that He leakage is predictable, thermally activated volume diffusion drove the method's resurgence.[3](https://eprints.gla.ac.uk/269859/3/269859.pdf) Subsequent work included (U+Th)/He dating of apatite from varied geochemical environments by Hans Joachim Lippolt and colleagues (1994) in Chemical Geology,[20](https://doi.org/10.1016/0009-2541%2894%2990113-9) quantitative apatite diffusion calibration by R.A. Wolf, K.A. Farley, and L.T. Silver (1996) in Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta that supported a closure temperature near 75 °C,[21](https://doi.org/10.1016/s0016-7037%2896%2900192-5) and Farley's 2002 review in Reviews in Mineralogy and [Geochemistry](https://www.edgepedia.org/geochemistry) consolidating techniques, calibrations, and applications.[18](https://doi.org/10.2138/rmg.2002.47.18)\n\n## Variants\n\n**4He/3He thermochronometry** constrains the spatial distribution of radiogenic \\( ^{4}\\mathrm{He} \\) within a crystal by stepwise degassing of proton-induced synthetic \\( ^{3}\\mathrm{He} \\); David L. Shuster and Kenneth A. Farley described the approach in a 2003 [Earth and Planetary Science Letters](https://www.edgepedia.org/earth-and-planetary-science-letters) paper, building on earlier work showing that energetic proton irradiation generates sufficient uniform \\( ^{3}\\mathrm{He} \\) in apatite and titanite without altering He diffusion properties.[22](https://doi.org/10.1016/s0012-821x%2803%2900595-8) • [4](http://noblegas.berkeley.edu/~noblegas/files/ShusterFarley%282005%29RiMG.pdf)\n\n**In situ (U-Th-Sm)/He dating** ablates the grain surface with a laser and measures He and parent isotopes on the same spot; Pieter Vermeesch, Sarah C. Sherlock, Nick M.W. Roberts, and Andy Carter published a simple in-situ U–Th–He method in 2011, and laser-ablation dating of detrital apatite followed in 2020.[23](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gca.2011.11.042) • [24](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemgeo.2020.119683) RDAAM and ZRDAAM were adapted for in situ (U–Th–Sm)/He dating with full alpha-stopping distances and cylindrical geometries, finding that in situ dates are approximately 30% older than alpha-ejection-corrected whole-grain dates in most cases, largely because radionuclide zoning, which strongly affects whole-grain analyses, can be measured directly.[25](https://gchron.copernicus.org/articles/6/697/2024/) **Hematite and goethite systems** extend the method to iron oxides: Shuster, Paulo M. Vasconcelos, Jonathan A. Heim, and Kenneth A. Farley developed weathering geochronology by (U-Th)/He dating of goethite in 2005,[26](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gca.2004.07.028) and hematite He closure temperature spans about 25–250 °C at 10 °C/Myr, increasing with domain size, while goethite closes around 25–40 °C.[12](https://par.nsf.gov/servlets/purl/10149969) Thermal-history modeling software such as HeFTy, described in Ketcham's 2005 review of forward and inverse modeling of low-temperature thermochronometry data, is used to interpret (U-Th)/He datasets.[27](https://doi.org/10.2138/rmg.2005.58.11)\n\n## Applications\n\nApatite He ages increase systematically with sample elevation in mountain ranges, the signature of exhumation-induced cooling through a low closure temperature, which makes elevation profiles a standard application.[18](https://doi.org/10.2138/rmg.2002.47.18) In extensional settings, footwall rocks of normal faults record younger He ages than hanging walls, allowing the timing, rate, and extent of fault motion to be deduced.[2](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0012821X02010695) Because crustal isotherms mimic surface topography, apatite He ages can be used to infer the existence and evolution of past topography.[2](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0012821X02010695) Hematite from hydrothermal systems and goethite from weathering profiles extend dating to supergene alteration.[18](https://doi.org/10.2138/rmg.2002.47.18) • [26](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gca.2004.07.028)\n\n## Limitations and alternatives\n\nSeveral effects bias ages old. Implanted \"parentless He\" from adjacent high U-Th phases causes erroneously old dates, with small, low U-Th crystals most susceptible.[3](https://eprints.gla.ac.uk/269859/3/269859.pdf) He implantation, mineral inclusions, and excess He in fluid inclusions similarly skew date populations toward old values.[10](https://par.nsf.gov/servlets/purl/10483009) Parent nuclide zonation matters for the Ft correction mainly when most eU sits within 15 µm of the rim or more than 15 µm from it; in apatite the resulting inaccuracy is <2%–5%, but zircon, especially with metamorphic overgrowths, can show larger errors.[10](https://par.nsf.gov/servlets/purl/10483009) \\( ^{147}\\mathrm{Sm} \\) matters for low-U minerals, particularly grains with U <5 ppm and ages >100 Ma.[15](https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/geochemj/56/4/56_GJ22008/_html/-char/en) Slow cooling through the partial retention zone yields ages that depend on the full thermal path, not a single temperature.[9](https://community.middlebury.edu/~wamidon/pdfs/wolf_1998.pdf)\n\nCompared with apatite fission-track dating, the He system closes about 35 °C cooler: the HePRZ lies about 35 °C below the fission-track partial annealing zone, so He ages are predicted to be younger than fission-track ages for the same sample.[9](https://community.middlebury.edu/~wamidon/pdfs/wolf_1998.pdf)\n\n## References\n\n1. [Technical note: Analytical protocols and performance for apatite and zircon (U–Th)/He analysis on quadrupole and magnetic sector mass spectrometer systems between 2007 and 2020 (Gautheron et al., GChron, 2021)](https://gchron.copernicus.org/articles/3/351/2021/gchron-3-351-2021.pdf)\n2. [Apatite (U–Th)/He thermochronometry: methods and applications to problems in tectonic and surface processes (House, Farley, Ehlers et al., Earth and Planetary Science Letters)](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0012821X02010695)\n3. [(U-Th)/He chronology: Part 1. Data, uncertainty, and reporting (Flowers, Farley, Ketcham, Dunai, Zeitler et al.)](https://eprints.gla.ac.uk/269859/3/269859.pdf)\n4. [ShusterFarley(2005)RiMG (noblegas.berkeley.edu)](http://noblegas.berkeley.edu/~noblegas/files/ShusterFarley%282005%29RiMG.pdf)\n5. [Analytical methods and reproducibility of reference material dates for (U–Th)/He thermochronology at the geochronology laboratory of the IGGCAS, China (J. Anal. At. Spectrom., 2026, 41, 1212, DOI 10.1039/D5JA00473J)](https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2026/ja/d5ja00473j)\n6. [(U-Th)/He Technical Information (Geotrack International)](https://www.geotrack.com.au/uthhe/u-th-he-techinfo.htm)\n7. [Thermochronology (Chapter 7, UCL geotopes textbook)](https://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucfbpve/geotopes/indexch7.html)\n8. [Martin H. Dodson (1973). Closure temperature in cooling geochronological and petrological systems. Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology.](https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00373790)\n9. [Modeling of the temperature sensitivity of the apatite (U-Th)/He thermochronometer (Wolf, Farley, Kass, Chemical Geology, 1998)](https://community.middlebury.edu/~wamidon/pdfs/wolf_1998.pdf)\n10. [(U-Th)/He chronology: Part 2. Considerations for evaluating, integrating, and interpreting conventional individual aliquot data (GSA Bulletin, via NSF PAR)](https://par.nsf.gov/servlets/purl/10483009)\n11. [shuster(2006)raddamageapatite (noblegas.berkeley.edu)](http://noblegas.berkeley.edu/~noblegas/files/shuster%282006%29raddamageapatite.pdf)\n12. [Innovations in (U–Th)/He, Fission Track, and Trapped Charge Thermochronometry (via NSF PAR)](https://par.nsf.gov/servlets/purl/10149969)\n13. [Rebecca M. Flowers and colleagues (2009). Apatite (U–Th)/He thermochronometry using a radiation damage accumulation and annealing model. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta.](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gca.2009.01.015)\n14. [W. R. Guenthner and colleagues (2013). Helium diffusion in natural zircon: Radiation damage, anisotropy, and the interpretation of zircon (U-Th)/He thermochronology. American Journal of Science.](https://doi.org/10.2475/03.2013.01)\n15. [An investigation of factors affecting the reproducibility of (U–Th)/He ages of high- and low-U minerals (Geochemical Journal)](https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/geochemj/56/4/56_GJ22008/_html/-char/en)\n16. [Peter E. Martin, James R. Metcalf, Rebecca M. Flowers (2023). Calculation of uncertainty in the (U–Th) ∕ He system. Geochronology.](https://doi.org/10.5194/gchron-5-91-2023)\n17. [The effects of long alpha-stopping distances on (U‐Th)/He ages (Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 1996)](https://doi.org/10.1016/s0016-7037%2896%2900193-7)\n18. [K. A. Farley (2002). (U-Th)/He Dating: Techniques, Calibrations, and Applications. Reviews in Mineralogy and Geochemistry.](https://doi.org/10.2138/rmg.2002.47.18)\n19. [U-Th-He dating of apatite: A potential thermochronometer (Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 1987)](https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-7037%2887%2990164-5)\n20. [(Uranium + thorium)/helium dating of apatite: experience with samples from different geochemical environments (Chemical Geology, 1994)](https://doi.org/10.1016/0009-2541%2894%2990113-9)\n21. [Helium diffusion and low-temperature thermochronometry of apatite (Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 1996)](https://doi.org/10.1016/s0016-7037%2896%2900192-5)\n22. [4He/3He thermochronometry (Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 2003)](https://doi.org/10.1016/s0012-821x%2803%2900595-8)\n23. [Pieter Vermeesch and colleagues (2011). A simple method for in-situ U–Th–He dating. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta.](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gca.2011.11.042)\n24. [Julia Pickering and colleagues (2020). Laser ablation (U-Th-Sm)/He dating of detrital apatite. Chemical Geology.](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemgeo.2020.119683)\n25. [Interpreting cooling dates and histories from laser ablation in situ (U–Th–Sm)/He thermochronometry: a modelling perspective (Glotzbach & Ehlers, Geochronology, 2024)](https://gchron.copernicus.org/articles/6/697/2024/)\n26. [David L. Shuster and colleagues (2005). Weathering geochronology by (U-Th)/He dating of goethite. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta.](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gca.2004.07.028)\n27. [R. A. Ketcham (2005). Forward and Inverse Modeling of Low-Temperature Thermochronometry Data. Reviews in Mineralogy and Geochemistry.](https://doi.org/10.2138/rmg.2005.58.11)\n\n---\n*Topic: Encyclopedia › Physical world and mathematics › Earth sciences › Geology and mineralogy › Geology overview, history, and methods*\n\n*Initially written Sep 29, 2026 · Edited: Oct 15, 2026*\n\n*Copyright 2026 EdgeChat AI, a subsidiary of Biostate AI.*\n\nLicense: Edgepedia Community License 1.0, https://www.edgepedia.org/edgepedia/license\n", "same_as": [ "http://noblegas.berkeley.edu/~noblegas/files/ShusterFarley%282005%29RiMG.pdf", "https://community.middlebury.edu/~wamidon/pdfs/wolf_1998.pdf", "http://noblegas.berkeley.edu/~noblegas/files/shuster%282006%29raddamageapatite.pdf" ], "url": "https://www.edgepedia.org/uranium-thorium-helium-thermochronology", "markdown_url": "https://www.edgepedia.org/uranium-thorium-helium-thermochronology.md", "license": { "name": "Edgepedia Community License 1.0", "url": "https://www.edgepedia.org/edgepedia/license", "summary": "Free with credit, commercial use included. AI training is open to everyone. For other uses, organizations over USD 100M in revenue or 100M monthly users license separately.", "spdx": "LicenseRef-Edgepedia-Community-1.0" }, "credit": "\"Uranium–thorium–helium thermochronology\", Edgepedia (EdgeChat), https://www.edgepedia.org/uranium-thorium-helium-thermochronology. Edgepedia Community License 1.0.", "credit_md": "\"[Uranium–thorium–helium thermochronology](https://www.edgepedia.org/uranium-thorium-helium-thermochronology)\", Edgepedia (EdgeChat), [https://www.edgepedia.org/uranium-thorium-helium-thermochronology](https://www.edgepedia.org/uranium-thorium-helium-thermochronology). [Edgepedia Community License 1.0](https://www.edgepedia.org/edgepedia/license).", "credit_html": "\"Uranium–thorium–helium thermochronology\", Edgepedia (EdgeChat), https://www.edgepedia.org/uranium-thorium-helium-thermochronology. Edgepedia Community License 1.0.", "speakable": "Uranium–thorium–helium thermochronology is a geochronology method dating minerals by radiogenic helium from uranium and thorium decay, used to study exhumation, fault slip, and landscape evolution." }