Tue Aug 27 09:34:29 1996

From owner-tc-list  Tue Aug 27 09:34:29 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id JAA26097; Tue, 27 Aug 1996 09:33:32 -0400
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 09:33:23 -0400 (EDT)
From: "James R. Adair" 
To: TC List 
Subject: Re: Carbon dating (fwd)
Message-ID: 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 1249

This message ended up in my mailbox, but was intended for the list.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 08:12:34 -0500 (CDT)
From: Paul Farrar 
To: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: your mail

> The most significant problem with C-14 dating is the
> assumption that C-14 decays at a constant rate.
> 
> It has been shown in a laboratory (I can't remember
> the guys name off hand but I can look it up) that when
> C-14 is placed across a potential difference ie. in an
> electrical field, the rate of decay speeds up significantly
> 
> This means that everytime an electrical storms passes
> by the C-14 is decayed much more rapidly than usual.
> 
> Therefore, the dates obtained always indicate older ages.
> 
> cheers,
> Andrew
> 

That is false.

The largest known variation for element transmutation is 0.18% for
7Be. C has no significant natural variation.

I've seen some accurate explanations, and a lot of complete nonsense
on this thread. May I recommend a book, such as Sheridan Bowman,
_Radiocarbon Dating_ from the UC/British Museum Interpreting the Past 
Series? Also check _Radiocarbon_ magazine, especially their calibration
issues. (I believe the last one was vol. 35.)

Back