Earth science curriculum tailored to fit wavering fundamentalists

Hi folks. Though I've been quiet on this thread for a while, I've been working pretty darn hard on my earth science education. Y'all were such a great resource and I've been studying hard with the material you all have provided. ThanksOne problem I have is there are some search terms that become swamped with garbage (as you all would know) that it's really hard to get down to something with hard science behind it. I have a question about C14 in diamonds. (I've read the kbertsche critique of RATE). Searching "C14 in diamonds" is one of those swamped terms.I have a lot of puzzle pieces and I'm trying to put them together and the question I'm asking here is not directly related to the RATE project but it is related.I know that C14 is produced by nitrogen being bombarded with radiation (layman description). I know that the most common impurity in diamonds is nitrogen. I know that decay in rocks produce measurable radiation. Do these puzzle pieces fit together?A: if I take a diamond with nitrogen impurities in it and bombard it with radiation (either lab, or take it to upper atmosphere or whatever) will it contain a fresh dose of measurable C14?B: If a diamond is positioned underground near a geological formation that is producing radiation, will there be a somewhat constant replenishment of C14 in the diamond?Again, I'm not trying to assert that this was the issue with the RATE diamonds, I'm just trying to figure out what would happen in the above scenarios..Thanks (again)JB

Then there were two.

quote:

---

A few kilometres away, on a pine covered hill, sits a stadium-sized concrete hanger.

​

Inside is a recreation of some of the Chauvet cave's most important features, reproduced to scale.

​

It's cost 55m euros to build, has taken eight years from inception to completion and has involved hundreds of people.

​

Hi-tech scans, 3D-modelling and digital images of the original cave were used to create the copy.

​

Layered over a huge metal scaffold, the limestone walls have been reproduced in concrete, the stalagmites and stalactites have been remade in resin.

​

Even the temperature has been set to match that of the original.

---

CONFIRMATION!!

One place to search for this stuff is in the archives here. We discussed this particular topic ad nauseum with a creationist sometime in the last six months. You might expect a small percentage (on order of 1 %) of N atoms to be included in the lattice of a diamond, and a local source of neutrons might well convert that Nitrogen to C-14. Thermal neutrons (meaning neutrons slowed to energies near caused by room temperature) are most easily absorbed by Nitrogen.Try the words nitrogen and diamonds in the local search facility.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Use of natural diamonds to monitor C-14 AMS instrument backgroundshttp://www.ess.uci.edu/pub/4372

Abstract: To examine one component of the instrument-based background in the University of California Keck Carbon Cycle AMS spectrometer, we have obtained measurements on a set of natural diamonds pressed into sample holders. Natural diamond samples (N = 14) from different sources within rock formations with geological ages greatly in excess of 100 Ma yielded a range of currents (similar to 110-250 mu A C-12-where filamentous graphite typically yields similar to 150 mu A C-12(-)) and apparent C-14 ages (64.9 +/- 0.4 ka BP [0.00031 +/- 0.00002 fm] to 80.0 +/- 1.1 ka BP [0.00005 +/- 0.00001 fm]). Six fragments cut from a single diamond exhibited essentially identical C-14 values - 69.3 +/- 0.5 ka-70.6 +/- 0.5 ka BP. The oldest C-14 age equivalents were measured on natural diamonds which exhibited the highest current yields.

Well, it is a plausible explanation.The point here is that the kinds of C14 values we can see with modern techniques (such as the ones that YECs expound) are on the order of counting individual atoms. It starts to become what we call 'background' values, in other words meaningless values because they are always present due to a number of extraneous inputs. Remember, 'the data is in the signal', not the noise. YECs focus on the noise...Now, where does this noise come from?Probably a number of sources, the most common of which is contamination (and with a common and light isotope, C14, this is a very real problem). But there are probably other sources (also under the heading of 'contamination') by recently produced C14. The commonness of radioactive minerals containing uranium and/or thorium in the earth's crust, along with the abundance of nitrogen in diamonds, etc., is just too much of a coincidence to ignore.It also turns out that the residence time of ground water (ultimately derived form rain water (and atmospheric CO2)) is on the order of tens of thousands of years. Well, guess what... that impinges on the range of radiocarbon usefulness in dating. So, if a sample were exposed to groundwater, some exchange of carbon might be expected causing another source of contamination.Another coincidence?Okay, all of the contamination that I am talking about occurs in the ground, before sampling. So notice that all of the heroic efforts referred to by YECs to reduce contamination in the lab are essentially meaningless. No matter what you do, contamination has already occurred...So, ignore that part of the YEC argument. Most contamination occurs before the sample gets to the lab.I guess my point is that there are just too many ways, including blunders by the lab, to be concerned with extremely low values of C14. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Exactly. Extremely low values are essentially meaningless. In pure, unaffected diamonds, you can see the theoretical limit of about 70ky ages. Few actual, natural materials can make this hurdle.Good reference. I've been looking for something like this.

Thanks Coyote. All I can find is a paywall for that article. Anyone have a copy? TIAJB

I think I have a copy at the office but won't be there until Tuesday.But maybe try E-mail: ervin.taylor@ucr.eduTaylor is a nice fellow, maybe he'll be able to send you a copy.

Thanks again Coyote. I'll try both routes. JB

First off thanks, Indeed, especially when it shows a continued "trendency" so that "all things considered" if there is no reason to posit changes one would expect them the represent reality. The best correlation is with a set of marine varves, however this introduces reservoir effect.Now Diamonds: I am more familiar with oil samples, and there is a good discussion on this on PRATT Claim CD011.6, but follow the link to Kathleen Hunt article Carbon-14 in Coal Deposits

quote:

---

... they are currently studying this exact question. It turns out that the origin and concentration of 14C in fossil fuels is important to the physics community because of its relevance for detection of solar neutrinos. Apparently one of the new neutrino detectors, the Borexino detector in Italy, works by detecting tiny flashes of visible light produced by neutrinos passing through a huge subterranean vat of "scintillation fluid". Scintillation fluid is made from fossil fuels ...

​

So, the physicists want to find fossil fuels that have very little 14C. In the course of this work, they've discovered that fossil fuels vary widely in 14C content. Some have no detectable 14C; some have quite a lot of 14C. Apparently it correlates best with the content of the natural radioactivity of the rocks surrounding the fossil fuels, particularly the neutron- and alpha-particle-emitting isotopes of the uranium-thorium series. Dr. Gove and his colleagues told me they think the evidence so far demonstrates that 14C in coal and other fossil fuels is derived entirely from new production of 14C by local radioactive decay of the uranium-thorium series. Many studies verify that coals vary widely in uranium-thorium content, and that this can result in inflated content of certain isotopes relevant to radiometric dating (see abstracts below). I now understand why fossil fuels are not routinely used in radiometric dating!

​

Dr. Gove and his colleagues are currently trying to improve AMS technology to be able to identify certain fossil fuels that have extremely low 14C content. Current AMS techniques have a 14C/C detection limit of about 10-15 (corresponding to 60,000 yrs), and Dr. Gove's current research, this year, is aimed at improving detectability to 10-18 (110,000 yrs).

​

Their ultimate goal is to reliably measure 14C/C ratios down to the unbelievably low levels of 10-22 (180,000 yrs). This AMS technology would then be used to identify certain oils that have very low 14C levels, and then those oils would be the ones used in the neutrino detectors.

---

The 14C detected levels correlate with radioactivity, varying widely for coals of the same approximate age.There is also information of 14C production in the carbon rods used in nuclear reactors (and spent rods have high radioactivity)And it should be obvious that any effect on one sample of old carbon can be applied to all others such samples (coal, oil, diamonds, etc)So there is a LOT of evidence of radioactivity causing 14C in old carbon.Enjoy

I wouldn't expect much if any N in diamond. As a crystal crystallizes, it tends to push impurities away. Impurities generally mess up the crystal structure, so they end up at grain boundaries between crystals. (Coal is a different story; coal can have high levels of nitrogen.). {ABE: I misspoke here. N can be incorporated into the crystal lattice of diamond, so is not all pushed away.}N-14 has a high "cross section" for an (n,p) reaction, producing C-14. So if any nitrogen is present and there is a neutron source (e.g. Uranium or thorium) nearby, some C-14 will be created.I also highly recommend the Taylor & Southon paper. It's pretty terse; you'll need to read it a few times to get what they are saying. Throughout their paper they comment that the radiocarbon they measure does not actually come from inside the diamond, but from the surface of the diamond (due to ion source contamination) and from the instrument. In fact, this was the whole purpose of their experiment; since diamond is hydrophobic they reasoned that it would exhibit less ion source contamination than graphite does.(BTW, John Baumgardner of the RATE project finally commented on my explanations of "radiocarbon in diamonds" and the Taylor & Southon paper a few months ago. His comments were featured on the Answers In Genesis website just a few weeks back. I encourage you to read his comments next to the Taylor & Southon paper. You'll see that Baumgardner mischaracterizes and misinterprets what they wrote.)Edited by kbertsche, : Added correction about N in diamond and comments about neutron range in solids.Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.Edited by kbertsche, : Corrected neutron range comments after coffee.Edited by kbertsche, : Deleted comments about neutron range after more coffee.

Interesting. Most of the literature I've seen indicates that Nitrogen and Boron can be incorporated into a diamond lattice, but rarely show up as interstitial impurities.Not in large amounts, but certainly amounts that might interfere with C-14 dating are possible.But generally the amounts to be expected are low and diamonds with any C-14 in them from N impurities might well be the exception rather than the rule.

Oops, maybe I spoke too quickly. Wikipedia has a nice discussion of impurities in diamond; apparently nitrogen can be incorporated into the crystal lattice in amounts up to about 1%. This is higher than I thought.

I sent you a copy.