Subject: Re: Carbon dating

From: "Stephen C. Carlson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 1996 23:09:22 -0400

At 08:10  8/25/96 -0700, Mike Phillips wrote:
>	Yes, that is what I was saying.  The rate of deposition is not a
>constant, while the rate of decay is.  If you have an unanticipated variable,
>you have too many variables (any variable unaccounted for by a formulaic
>expression makes the result variable).  Yet, given the great amounts of time
>we're dealing with, some results might actually be worth having around.  The
>problem is that we can't be certain which results are worth keeping without
>confirmation from other sources, hence, C-14 dating is not a stand-alone method
>(or at least, shouldn't be, though it has been used as such at times).

I think that is why the C-14 readings are calibrated to the dendro-
chronological (tree rings, very precise) findings.  The original point
in this thread that the precision (i.e., the range of possible dates)
of the C-14 dating is no better and perhaps worse than the paleo-
graphical dating is a good one.  C-14 dating is not the magic bullet.

However, I believe that the C-14 dating of the DSS have shown that the
old paleographical dating may have been off by a century.  Paleography
too has its drawbacks.

Stephen Carlson
--
Stephen C. Carlson                   : Poetry speaks of aspirations,
[email-masked]              : and songs chant the words.
http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/ :               -- Shujing 2.35

---

From: "Dave Washburn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 1996 22:48:37 -7

> old paleographical dating may have been off by a century.  Paleography

It's my understanding that Carbon-14 dating of some Dead Sea scrolls 
basically confirmed the accuracy of the paleographical datings that 
had been done.  Do you know of NT manuscripts that have been C-14 
dated that gave the results your describe?

Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/home.html
"Just reach out, and He'll reach in..."

---

From: Paul Farrar <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 08:39:09 -0500 (CDT)

> 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 incorrect.

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.)

-- 
| Paul Farrar                                                             |
| home -- http://www.datasync.com/~farrar/ | email -- [email-masked] |
| earth science pages -- http://www.datasync.com/~farrar/earth_sci.html   |
| work -- [email-masked]                                        |