To: Lessismore
I wonder how accurate radiocarbon dating is in a situation involving a volcanic eruption. Perhaps the percentage of radioactive material spewed out impacts the readings in some way, although one would think more radioactive material would result in a younger date.
43 posted on
04/28/2006 6:42:59 AM PDT by
ZULU
(Non nobis, non nobis, Domine, sed nomini tuo da gloriam. God, guts, and guns made America great.)
To: ZULU
A volcanic eruption produces very, very little C14, it is enriched in C12 compared with living sources; so the volcano skews dates older, even in living things (or formerly living things, such as the old olive tree found buried by an eruption, but formerly growing in volcanic soil).
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1622847/posts?page=26#26
52 posted on
04/28/2006 10:37:34 AM PDT by
SunkenCiv
(https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
To: ZULU
I wonder how accurate radiocarbon dating is in a situation involving a volcanic eruption. Perhaps the percentage of radioactive material spewed out impacts the readings in some way, although one would think more radioactive material would result in a younger date. That shouldn't bother radiocarbon dating. The old limestone mentioned in a previous post would be a greater worry.
67 posted on
04/29/2006 4:59:01 PM PDT by
Coyoteman
(Interim tagline: The UN 1967 Outer Space Treaty is bad for America and bad for humanity - DUMP IT!)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson