Radiocarbon Dating
... Oxford University says: The average difference between the radiocarbon date of a terrestrial sample and a marine sample is about 400 years. This difference is cause by both the delay in exchange rates between atmospheric CO2 and ocean bicarbonate, and the dilution effect caused by the mixing of surface waters with up welled deep waters, which are very old. (Higham) This is not the only anomaly that effects the radiocarbon dates on marine life. Marine life in an environment that contains large quantities of limestone can appear older for another reason. Limestone is comprised of, among other things, bicarbonate, which dilutes the levels of CO2 and therefore 14CO2, making the carbon-containing samples appear even older than they really are. One of the ways in which the atmospheric radiocarbon levels have been artificially altered began in the late 1800s with the onset of the Industrial Revolution; it is because of this that it is called the "Industrial Effect". The "Industrial Effect" refers to the mass release of CO2 since the Industrial Revolution due to the use of fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are made up of strings of hydrocarbons that contain no radiocarbon "because the source of industrial fuel has been predominately material of infinite geological age whose radioactive content is nil"(Higham). The reason there is no radiocarbon in materials of "infinite geological age" is that the radiocarbon has already decayed away, leaving only the stable carbon-12. When these hydrocarbons are burned, O2 in the atmosphere combines with carbon forming CO2 (a so-called "greenhouse gas"), which rises into the atmosphere diluting the radiocarbon concentrations to "about 2%"(Higham). This means that any dates that do not take the "Industrial Effect" into account would seem younger than they really are because there would be less radiocarbon in the atmosphere to compare to the depleted radiocarbon in the sample; therefore, it would be assumed that there was originally less radiocarbon then there in fact was. Possible errors brought on by changes in atmospheric radiocarbon has prompted critics to bring to attention another process by which this can occur. "The Atom Bomb Effect" is another artificial process responsible for altered atmospheric radiocarbon levels. The "Atom Bomb Effect" refers to the release of radioactive daughter elements (including radiocarbon) as a direct result of extensive nuclear weapons testing. When a Uranium-235 or Plutonium-242 (materials used to make both fission and fusion bombs) nucleus fissions (splits), the nucleus breaks into two or three neutron-saturated daughter elements. This is because both U-235 and Pu-242 are very large elements and require a disproportionate number of neutrons to keep the nucleus intact. Smaller elements, on the other hand, require only an even proton/neutron ration to keep the nucleus together. Since radiocarbon has two extra neutrons, it follows that it is one of the many possible daughter elements that result from the fissioning of U-235 or Pu-242. The radiocarbon then saturates the atmosphere, raising the radiocarbon concentration to abnormally high levels. This means that any radiocarbon dating processes that do not take the "Atom Bomb Effect" into account would yield dates that are older than the sample really is because there is more radiocarbon in the atmosphere to compare to the depleted radiocarbon in the sample; therefore, it would be assumed that there was originally more radiocarbon in the sample. As Dr. Higham says: . . . The amount of artificial radiocarbon (radiocarbon that was produced from nuclear weapons testing) in the atmosphere reached its peak in 1963 at about 100% above normal levels . . . have compiled data sets of changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide between 1962 and 1993.(Higham) These gross alterations in the atmospheric radiocarbon levels would obviously have drastic effects on radiocarbon dates. However, since scientists have been able to calculate these errors and thereby correct both dates and the method, critics have recently concentrated on the interpretation of the results of radiocarbon dating. There is a misconception that scientists will throw out radiocarbon dates on a whim. This is voiced by an anonymous Christian author who is writing for Contender Ministries: Radiocarbon dates that do not fit a desired theory are often excluded by allegations of cross-contamination of the sample. In this manner, a scientist can present a sample for analysis, and tell the laboratory that he assumes the sample to be between 50 thousand and 100 thousand years old. Dates that do not confirm this estimate are thrown out. (The Problems With Carbon-14 Dating) This is quite an accusation, especially since we are not provided with any instance in which this has occurred. Still if one accepts this as true then this could bring up a disturbing point. The scientist in question could have reasons, namely the fact that radiocarbon dating is useless after 60,000 years, to give the laboratory a time frame. However, since the author did not give any reason to believe that the scientist had some sinister motive, the alternative is just as possible. Even though most arguments are weak, there are some who have brought more convincing evidence to light. For a radiocarbon date to be accepted it must be considered reasonable when compared with conventional archaeological beliefs. This raises a conceptual issue in the way "reasonable" is defined, if everything must be reasonable according to the established theories then no corrections can be made to possible flaws in conventional beliefs. Therein lies a problem with archaeology and it follows that this would carry into the corner stone of modern-day archaeology, radiocarbon dating. There are few people who speak out against conventional theories and the asinine determination with which these theories, based on radiocarbon dates, are protected from criticism. Most notable of these few is author Graham Hancock, who in his book Fingerprints of the Gods complains about the way in which many objects in Egypt, most notably the Sphinx, have been dated using assumptions and not hard evidence: " . . . Lehner went on to point out, archaeologist had to 'date things by context'"(Hancock, 347). Theories built up with radiocarbon dating were considered infallible, therefore the Sphinx must be as old as archaeologists think it should be. This is why radiocarbon dating is so important to archaeology. With the risk of professional scorn and defamation of one's reputation, few are willing to challenge conventional views. The intimidation involved in keeping what is now the professional standard, and thereby the established beliefs of pre-history, from coming under fire, makes the entire situation somewhat suspicious. However, conspiracy theories are not important here. Scientists have worked hard to produce the results society takes for granted, so their word is not to be taken lightly. Scientists have plenty of rebuttals to the criticism that they are subject to; it is, after all, their job. As David Matson points out: Tree-ring dating gives us a wonderful check on the radiocarbon dating method for the last 8000 years. That is, we can use carbon-14 dating on a given tree-ring (the 8000-year sequence having been assembled from the overlapping tree-ring patterns of living and dead trees) and compare the resulting age with the tree-ring date. A study of the deviations from the accurate tree-ring dating sequence shows that the earth's magnetic field has an important effect on carbon-14 production. When the dipole moment is strong, carbon-14 production is suppressed below normal; when it is weak, carbon-14 production is boosted above normal. What the magnetic field does is to partially shield the earth from cosmic rays, which produce carbon-14 high in the atmosphere.(Ma...