From: George Murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Date: Fri Oct 03 2003 - 15:47:22 EDT
Mccarrick Alan D CRPH wrote:
.............................
> The preferred method of C14 dating is to use a mass spectrum to
> actually separate the carbon isotopes. This does not involve counting
> radioactive decays which would be subject to background decays.
> Atomic Mass Spec (AMS) in principle would be much more sensitive. The
> claim of the ICR publication is that those samples which are expected
> to have zero C14 left appear to have residual C14.
>
> I still wonder whether the problem still lies in the noise when
> looking at the lowest amounts of C14. They do report attempts to
> exclude contamination in several ways. They hint that isotopically
> pure "zone refined, reactor grade graphite samples" were tested by the
> anonymous laboratory - although the results were not given (p. 10).
It is worth noting a parallel between these claims for presence of C-14 and
those made 27 years ago by Gentry _et al_ for the presence of superheavy elements in
paleochroic haloes. The original paper was published in Physical Review Letters & no
statements were made there about implications of such a discovery for the age of the
earth or the universe. But since the lifetimes of superheavies wouldn't be expected to
be more than a few times 10^5 years, such a discovery would pose questions about the age
of this material.
In fact, some plausible scenarios were quickly proposed for a relatively recent
origin of superheavies. & then the evidence for the supposed superheavies went away
anyway, so this all went into the limbo of non-discoveries. But it's worth remembering
in the present situation.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Oct 03 2003 - 15:48:35 EDT