The main con is that it is only accurate on things that are less than , years old (about 10 carbon half-lives). Also, some things can. I posted it if anyone cares to check it out. It covers a lot of the pros and cons of radiocarbon dating and discusses a lot of the points mentioned. Radiocarbon dating measures the carbon in dead animals and plants in order to give a precise time period in which the plants/animals died.
Pros and cons of radiocarbon dating - Homeschool Curriculum
Anything that incorporates carbon from a source other than the atmosphere will date as old as the source of carbon. Animals that eat land plants which derive their carbon directly from atmospheric CO2 eat plants that are at most a few years old so may date two or three years older than they actually are , but animals that get their food from deep water may date much older recently dead penguins often date several hundred to several thousand years old, depending on what fish they eat.
The deeper the water, the longer it's likely to have been since the CO2 in the local food web was in the atmosphere this is referred to as "carbon reservoir". Permalink Reply by Donald Smith on March 30, at 8: Permalink Reply by Mariana on March 31, at 9: Does it give correct readings to materials we actually know the dates of?
It depends on what you mean by "correct". It gives consistent readings for particular materials of known ages, but the readings are slightly different than a simple 14C decay curve would predict and the older the materials, the more they diverge from the curve.
The method scientists use to deal with this is to measure as many things with known ages as possible to calibrate the readings.
If they measure a bunch of wood that is known to be years old and it measures an uncalibrated years old, for example, then unknown wood that measures years old is "corrected" to years old. Permalink Reply by Ruby Faraday on March 31, at Are there any other documents that would help in the understanding of radiometric dating?
Anything which you guys have helped publish or in the midst of publishing? Permalink Reply by Ruby Faraday on April 1, at 3: Could someone explain what this report is? All necessary chemical and mechanical pretreatments of the submitted material are applied at the laboratory to isolate carbon 14, which may best represent the time event of interest.
When interpreting the radiocarbon dating results, it is important to consider the pretreatments. Some samples cannot be fully pretreated, making their carbon 14 ages more subjective than samples that can be fully pretreated. Some materials receive no pretreatments. The graphite is then analyzed for carbon 14 content in an accelerator mass spectrometer. The final result is corrected for isotopic fractionation then converted into a calendar-calibrated date.
Radiocarbon Age and Calendar Calibration The "Conventional Carbon 14 Age" is the result after applying carbon carbon12 corrections to the measured age and is the most appropriate radiocarbon age. Applicable calendar calibrations are included for organic materials and freshwater carbonates between 0 and 42, BP. Since the universe is estimated to be millions of years old, it was assumed that this equilibrium had already been reached. However, in the s, the growth rate was found to be significantly higher than the decay rate; almost a third in fact.
They attempted to account for this by setting as a standard year for the ratio of C to C, and measuring subsequent findings against that. In short, the answer is… sometimes. Sometimes carbon dating will agree with other evolutionary methods of age estimation, which is great. Most concerning, though, is when the carbon dating directly opposes or contradicts other estimates.
At this point, the carbon dating data is simply disregarded. It has been summed up most succinctly in the words of American neuroscience Professor Bruce Brew: If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote.
And if it is completely out of date, we just drop it. For example, recently science teams at the British Antarctic Survey and Reading University unearthed the discovery that samples of moss could be brought back to life after being frozen in ice.
That carbon dating deemed the moss to have been frozen for over 1, years. Now, if this carbon dating agrees with other evolutionary methods of determining age, the team could have a real discovery on their hands.
Taken alone, however, the carbon dating is unreliable at best, and at worst, downright inaccurate. Read comments0 Do you like or dislike what you have read? To leave comments please complete the form below. Providing the content is approved, your comment will be on screen in less than 24 hours. Leaving comments on product information and articles can assist with future editorial and article content. Post questions, thoughts or simply whether you like the content.
Carbon dating accuracy
Most oxygen is O Are there any other documents that would help in the understanding of radiometric dating?
- Who can edit:
- Downloading prezi...
- Report Abuse
What are the pros and cons of radioactive dating?