And though I have...understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; ... have not love, I am nothing.
1 Corinthians 13:2
"There are two basic types of nuclear fission.
---The second is induced fission in which an outside agent (such as a moving neutron) induces the nucleus to break apart.
Sometimes a nucleus splits into approximately equal halves (e.g., 110Pd + 110Pd) and sometimes into unequal parts (e.g., 92Kr + 141Ba). In both cases, free neutrons are released.
The yield of particular isotope fragments from this process can be approximately predicted using a formula developed by Rudstam and adapted to a computer program called FREYA.
Important questions must be asked about nuclear fission dating methods.
Q: Are they reliable?
Q: Do they agree with each other?
Q: What do these results say about the secular models?
A: Mostly they say the dating methods are inconsistent with each other.
--The U-Th-Pb and fission track data show a wide range of ages for Middle Cambrian rock strata and are thus highly discordant.
--Discordances are also observed within the fission track data from the Late Jurassic rock strata. Although the fission track data for the Early Miocene in the Cenozoic are clustered better than that for the Middle Cambrian and Late Jurassic samples, they still display some discordance.This discordance means that the U-Th-Pb and fission track dating methods give wildly different dates for the zircon samples measured, most of which strongly diverge from the secular age expected for the Middle Cambrian rock. Similarly, the fission track dating for the Late Jurassic samples gives results that diverge from the expected geologic age.
--Zircon samples from the Early Miocene samples give dates closer to those of conventional geology, but there is still some significant variation.
About the only reasonable conclusion that can be drawn from the secular models is that the current dating models give highly differing results for the same zircon sample and, using the central age of the sample groupings, there were between 125 and 200 × 10 years of decay, at today’s decay rates, which occurred during the Middle Cambrian and Late Jurassic.
Within the framework of a Biblically based model for creation, 
the data clearly show there must have been a period of accelerated decay sometime in the past, most likely during the Flood year.
--The decay rate of 238U appears to have gradually increased from the Middle Cambrian through the Late Jurassic and then began to decrease on or before the Early Miocene until it stabilized at the decay rate we observe today." ICR