Does radio-carbon dating disprove evolution?

You can not translate it because like cadmium dispaces zinc within the human body even though one consumes more zinc in ones diet than cadmium. This is the whole reason for the unclean foods (heavy metals) is these heavy metals are displacing elements within the body.All the article is saying is that N14 is being displaced with the human body with N15. It has nothing to do with the lesser concentration of N15 within the atmosphere.I did however look but could not find expressly saying what concentration if any of C13 N14 or N15 exists within the fossils dated. This being the target of your beliefs in neutrons hitting the target and converting. N14 N15 however appears quite stable so if it has not been reduced by denitrification it would be interesting what proportion if any of N14/N15 is within the mineralized fossils.Radon gas is only concerned about the alpha particle (helium minus its electrons part of radon radioactive decay). There are not concerned with neutrons flooding into your basement, should we be concerned about neutrons as these alpha particles attach to the skin.I however agree with you that the reflection from beryllium is interesting but with the alpha particle resistance being the sediment particles inhibiting its path to centimeters would be separating it from beryllium from generating a neutron is the problem.With the neutron itself only able to move centimeters within the earth it still needs to find an atom and the target is quite small if it exists. You've mentioned that upper atmosphere 14N is abundant yet only a small percentage is being converted. In the earth we have a much smaller percentage if any N14 in comparion to the upper atmosphere. Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.Edited by johnfolton, : corrected a few spelling problemsEdited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

You whole post is somewhat garbled. Where is it possible to read what you've written it seems you have not been reading what has been in the replies to you.It has been pointed out to you that nowhere is there any place where there is an amount of N15 that will make a difference. You N15 idea is simply wrong.Your discussion of the distance a neutron or an alpha particle may travel is forgetting that there are sources of radiation mixed into soils so there is no need for long distances. It has been pointed out to you that alpha particles can be a source of neutrons.Read more carefully and much more slowly.In addition, as I pointed out earlier this is all ignorning the propoer use of C14 dating where it has been shown to work very well.Address the real issue and drop the nonsense.

A more likely way is as others suggested thru the alpha particle supplemental collisions produce spontaneous fission. Nothing has been proven but it sure sounds better than the alpha particle can be a source of neutrons. If the alpha particle was a source of neutrons then why are we not concerned about radon gas being a source of neutrons. Truthfully are they only concerned about the alpha particle in respect to radon gas.

Yes, yes indirectly a source of neutrons.Now get off the stupid red herrings and address the real issues.

Yes, because it doesn't take a LOT of ¹⁴C in the ground to throw off the calculations for age based on the ratio of ¹⁴C to ¹²C (and it is the ratio that the age calculation is based on, not the raw amount) and fromHow Carbon-14 Dating Works | HowStuffWorks:
t = [ln(N_f/N_o)/(-0.693)]xt_1/2where t is the computed age, t_1/2 is the half life (5715 years), N_f is the ratio of 14C/12C atoms in the sample and N_o is the ratio of 14C/12C atoms at the time of death.
{corrected info by edit}As I noted before: Let's round that to 1% of the original amount which was 0.00000000010% of the number of 12C atoms -- now we have 0.0000000000010% of the number of carbon atoms in a sample, which is not very many eh?Or to look at it another way:To have a radioactive generated false age of 40,000 years you need one 14N atom converted to 14C for every 100,000,000,000,000 (=10^{^14}) carbon atoms in the sample ...-- that's not a heck of a lot of contamination --... and it seems (from the Kathleen Hunt article) that the false 40,000 years age is at the maximum level of contamination detected in {radioactive} ancient oils and coals.This same level of contamination in proper samples plays less of a role in creating a false age the younger the sample is, because of the expotential decay curve:If a sample that was really 10,000 years old had an extra 1% of 14C due to nearby radioactive contamination, the false age would still be 9,786 years, or a 2.1% error.If a sample was really 20,000 years old had an extra 1% of 14C due to nearby radioactive contamination, the false age would still be 19,301 years, or a 3.5% error.If a sample was really 30,000 years old had an extra 1% of 14C due to nearby radioactive contamination, the false age would still be 27,853 years, or a 7.2% error.If a sample was really 40,000 years old had an extra 1% of 14C due to nearby radioactive contamination, the false age would still be 34,284 years, or a 14.3% error.This is why they have to go outside the legitimate age range for 14C dating to find false data.Even without correction then, this is really rather insignificant over the legitimate age range for 14C dating methods (compare to the standard error reported with such ages).You'll also note that all these result in a false YOUNGER age for the samples, so we are still left with legitimate ages of legitimate samples being several times the assumed YEC age of the universe.Typical creatortionista screaming wolf over a molehill.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : added "{radioactive}"Edited by RAZD, : corrected formula info

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

...for the additional information and the correction.Just to briefly summarize for johnfolton:

• There is abundant ¹⁴N in the ground from which to form ¹⁴C.
  ​
• There are multiple sources of neutrons to strike the ¹⁴N and turn it into ¹⁴C.
  ​
• There are radioactive decay series that form ¹⁴C.
  ​
• For the above reasons, the level of ¹⁴C in a ground carbon sample should never be 0.
  ​
• Radiocarbon labs take the background levels of ¹⁴C into account when rendering a date.

--Percy

If what you say was true then radon gas which has an alpha particle would be causing a neutron problem in basements through spontaneous fission. If the EPA does not believe the alpha particle is producing neutrons through supplemental fission why should we believe its so. If its not happening in ones basement then why should we believe its a fact that its happening within the earth. Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

So what?The EPA is not particularly concerned with the details of the nuclear reactions involved. Simply that radon is a source of radiation exposure.And what fission reactions are you talking about? And why is this an issue?These are, again, red herrings. Just junk noise from you.

I'm not sure of the correct terminology, but when an alpha particle strikes a low atomic weight nucleus, the result is definitely not spontaneous fission. I would call it fusion, but perhaps there's a more accurate term.Regardless of the correct terminology, what you say is correct. Radon gas in the air gives off alpha particles which collide with oxygen atoms (in O₂, H₂O and CO₂ molecules), carbon atoms (in CO₂ molecules) and nitrogen atoms (in N₂ molecules) to give off neutrons. What leads you to believe the EPA is unaware of this? Because you didn't find it at the EPA website? I just looked at their Radon Frequent Questions page, and it doesn't even mention alpha particles. If you look at their List of Radon Publications page, they are all non-technical articles about testing and radon-proofing homes. The EPA is not a science education site, so you shouldn't expect to find technically detailed accounts about radioactive decay, spontaneous fission, and particle collisions. If you've got radon gas in your basement, then it's happening in your basement. The results of the impact of alpha particles with surrounding atoms are why radon gas is dangerous.--Percy

As would lead, gold, Mercury, Bismuth Thulium and any other atom above mass 200. The thing is that spontaneous fission is incredibly rare in most elements and only becomes significant at masses above 230.
I don't expect Radon to be a major Neutron contributor.
In my earlier examples I showed a kilogram of soil (10mg of U238) producing a few neutrons per day just from U238. At a pure guesstimate I would expect a similar mass of Radon to produce one or two per week.EPA guideline list the action level for Radon in the home at 4 pico-Curies per liter of air.
This translates to 0.148 alpha particle emmisions per second per liter of air
Spontaneous fission is (again guesstimated) a million or so times less frequent. Maybe one or two neutrons per week for your entire basement. Here is what the EPA has to say about Alpha particles

quote:

---

Alpha particles don't get very far in the environment. Once emitted, they travel relatively slowly (at approximately one-twentieth the speed of light) due to their electric charge and large mass. They lose energy rapidly in air, usually expending it within a few centimeters. Because alpha particles are not radioactive, once they have lost their energy, they pick up free electrons and become helium.

​

Alpha particles also cannot penetrate most matter they encounter. Even a piece of paper, or the dead outer layers of human skin is sufficient to stop alpha particles.

---

Remember that in order to produce a neutron, the alpha particle has to collide with, and fuse to, a very light isotope such as beryllium or Boron. (Note this is NOT cold fusion. It is actually very very hot)
It also has to do it in a very short distance before it captures a couple of electrons and becomes Helium.
In air, the probability of this kind of reaction makes spontaneous fission look positively common.
The only real danger of Radon is getting it inside your body where the Alpha particles can do some damage.The EPA have never said they do not believe spontaneous fission and/or alpha fusion is happening. They just don't consider it worth mentioning due to its infrequency in your basement.
It IS happening, just not at rates which pose a significant health risk.It's happening down in the ground too. It doesn't matter what the rate is. If a kilogram of soil only manages to produce 1 or 2 C14 atoms per year (by whatever method) then this is still enough to give a continuous background level when you measure it by mass spec.
Modern mass spectrometers can easily detect one atom in a 10E12 atoms (1part per trillion)

Does this actually happen?
I haven't been able to find any kind of information on Alpha particles fusing with Oxygen, Nitrogen or Carbon.
All I can find are references to Beryllium, Boron and possibly Lithium along with the reaction pathways.I'm not saying you are wrong. I simply don't know and want to find out.

It was JonF at the bottom of Message 66 that provided this information. Looks like I should have looked that message over again before posting. Where I said "nitrogen" I should have said "beryllium", and there's probably no beryllium in the air. One of the necessary criteria is low atomic weight, so nitrogen qualifies, but there are probably other necessary criteria.Does it actually happen? I can't see how it could avoid happening. How often does it happen? Don't know.--Percy

What I meant was does it liberate a neutron, not does it react in some way.
All I can find on Alpha-Nitrogen interactions is the research performed by Rutherford in which it says..

quote:

---

Rutherford was able to demonstrate, in 1919, that alpha particle could knock protons out of nitrogen nuclei and merge with what was left behind. The most common isotope of nitrogen is nitrogen-14, which has a nucleus made up of 7 protons and 7 neutrons. Subtract a proton and add the 2 protons and 2 neutrons of the alpha particle and you end with a nucleus possessing 8 protons and 9 neutrons. This is oxygen-17. The alpha particle can be considered as helium-4 and the proton as hydrogen-1.

​

It follows then that Rutherford had successfully carried through the first man-made nuclear reaction:

​

nitrogen-14 + helium-4 --> oxygen-17 + hydrogen-1

​

This is a true example of transmutation, the conversion of one element to another. In a way, it was the climax of the old alchemical goals but it involved elements and techniques of which the alchemists had never dreamed.

---

In this example, a proton was produced rather than a neutron. The proton quickly grabbed a free electron to become Hydrogen.
I suspect that "light" probably refers to "lighter than carbon" for this reaction to produce a free neutron. I haven't been able to find the information to substantiate this yet though.

PurpleYouko There is a triple alpha process that will achieve what you are looking for but only a stellar tempeatures and pressures.The Astrophysics Spectator: The Fusion of Helium in Stars

Thanks Sidelined.I have found a whole bunch of references to the triple alpha process (followed by a single Alpha capture)
As you say, they only talk about stellar temperatures and pressures.
It does appear that the stoichiometry of the reaction would not allow for the production of a free neutron though.
Again I would strongly suspect that this would also be the case at normal Earthlike conditions, but I can't be absolutely certain.What we do know is that Lithium, Berylium and Boron will fuse with a free Alpha particle (Helium4 nucleus) and release one of more free neutrons.
We also know that Nitrogen will fuse with an Alpha particle to make Oxygen and a proton (Hydrogen)
I have found hints that Oxygen can also be fused to form Neon without any other particle produced but that reaction is incredibly rare even at stellar temperatures and pressure so I doubt that it happens on Earth at any kind of measurable rate.Carbon would appear to make stable Oxygen when hit by an Alpha
from the site you linked

quote:

---

C12 + He4 ’ O16 +

---

I think at this point I feel confident enough to tentatively state that Radon in your basement does not cause the production of any free neutrons by Alpha decay (unless you have a basement full of airborn Beryllium dust in which case neutrons are the least of your worries)
The only possible route is via spontaneous fission and even that is incredibly rare.I wouldn't start worrying about neutron radiation at home if I were you.