It quotes the Nature article as gospel, despite later discoveries that the statistical analysis on the measurements of the samples were incorrect ; in particular the Arizona results were inconsistent with the other labs.
Later work showed that there existed a relationship between the C-14 measured age of each sample and its distance from the edge of the Shroud; the first clue that the samples taken were not representative of the Shroud as a whole.
As it turns out, the Shroud had been patched in the 1530s to repair burns; and the sampling of the Shroud for testing picked up samples of the patch. (This was piss-poor protocol by the people who did the testing, as well as the custodians of the Shroud, who wanted to limit the damage to the Shroud: if they had followed proper procedure by making tests on independent samples from all over the Shroud, not only would one have guaranteed that the sample was "indicative of the Shroud as a whole" but any anomolous results from near the patch would have stuck out like a sore thumb).
One summary of developments since the C-14 paper was published is here.
Joe Nickell is a geologist and has not published his drivel in peer-reviewed scientific literature, unlike the reputable research on the Shroud.
My god, you are an unsuccessful troll.
Sorry, Grey, Joe is not even a scientist... he is a failed stage magician with a BA degree in English Literature...