Re: C-14 Dating

["Mike Bohan" <mike.bohan@yale.edu>]

        Reply to:   RE>>C-14 Dating

Hi RadSafers:

A general question comes to my mind regarding this post.  If you can answer
these questions, please reduce my ignorance.

If C-14 has a half life of 5,730 years, can C-14 dating techniques relibly date
materials as old as 43,000 years ago???  That's about 0.55% of a current sample.
 Can mass spec. isotopic techniques go down that low???

Thanks for your support!

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
Michael J. Bohan, RSO   |  e-mail: mike.bohan@yale.edu
Yale-New Haven Hospital |    Tele: (203) 785-2950
Radiological Physics    |     FAX: (203) 737-4252
20 York St. - WWW 204   |    As usual, everything I say may be plausibly
New Haven, CT    06504  |    denied at my employer's convenience ...
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
  

--------------------------------------
Date: 07/09/1997 12:03 PM
To: Mike Bohan
From: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
It's in the interpretation.  The fossil remains dated to 43,000 years.
The living plant was not dated, but inferred to be a clone of the
same plant.  The material in the clone would not necessarily be old,
but they are referring to it as being part of the same plant that
had lived continuously since circa 43,000 years ago.  Clear as mud?

Dale