Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does radio-carbon dating disprove evolution?
ChrisS
Junior Member (Idle past 5662 days)
Posts: 5
From: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 151 of 308 (341809)
08-20-2006 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by PurpleYouko
08-18-2006 1:07 PM


Re: An emerging pattern maybe?
There has been some early (1980's) theoretical and field work done on the production of (i) neutrons and (ii) Carbon 14 in "soils" which may be of some help. These papers are probably not available in the 'net but should be available in a good university library.
  1. Y.Feige et al "Production Rates of Neutrons in Soils Due to Natural Radioactivity", Journal of Geophysical Research 73,3135(1968)
  2. Mark W. Kuhn et al "Measurements of Thermal Neutrons in the Subsurface" Geophysical Research Letters 11,607(1984)
  3. Richard Zito et al "Possible Subsurface Production of Carbon-14" Geophysical Research Letters" 7,235(1980)
  4. W. Kutschera et al "Spontaneous Carbon-14 Emission from Ra-223" Physical Review C 32,2036(1985)
  5. D. Barker "Excess Carbon-14 Abundances in Uranium Ores: Possible Evidence for Emission from Uranium Series Isotopes" Geophysical Research Letters" 12,737(1985)
  6. A.J.T.Jull et al "On the Carbon-14 Content in Radioactive Ores" Chemical Geology(Isotope Geoscience Section) 66,35(1987)
If you can't access them I would be happy to discuss their content here.
Chris

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by PurpleYouko, posted 08-18-2006 1:07 PM PurpleYouko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by AdminJar, posted 08-20-2006 9:55 PM ChrisS has not replied
 Message 154 by PurpleYouko, posted 08-21-2006 10:26 AM ChrisS has not replied

  
ChrisS
Junior Member (Idle past 5662 days)
Posts: 5
From: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 170 of 308 (342655)
08-23-2006 3:49 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by PurpleYouko
08-22-2006 4:10 PM


Re: Decay rates in soil
PurpleYouko, I take you haven't got to your university library yet. Here is the abstract from the first reference I gave you.
The relative neutron yield of several targets of light elements exposed to monoenergetic ionised helium beams form the Argonne tandem accelerator was determined for alpha energies ranging from 4.8 to 8.8 Mev. Our ratio of the neutron yields for 5.3 Mev are in agreement with published data on thick target yields obtained with Po-210 alpha particles. The average (alpha, n) yield per alpha particle of the natural radioactive series for some elements and for different soil compositions was calculated from our results assuming an (alpha, n) yield of 75 neutrons per 10e8 alpha particles of Po-210...If 3ppm U-238 and 11ppm Th-232 are assumed as representative of the earth's upper crust, a production rate of 6.7 +/- 0.7 n/g/yr in sand and 13.5 +/- 1.3 n/g/yr in granite is obtained. Additional 1.4 n/g/yr will be generated because of spontaneous fission of U-238. As the production rate of neutrons through interactions of cosmic rays with the earth's surface at sea level is of the order of 800 n/g/yr these (alpha, n) reactions cannot be of any significance to exposure rates of human populations. They may be of some interest to geologists however, and may be the main contributors to neutron fluxes in tunnels, deep caves, or mines, where cosmic-ray background is low.
Kuhn et al in the second paper made field measurements of thermal neutrons in mines deeper than 800m which yielded counts varying from 1.1 to 33 n/cc/yr with larger counts of up to 116 from shallow subsurface. Using a conversion factor of (say) 4 g/cc these figures are in fairly good agreement with Feige and indicate that there is a pretty sizable subsurface neutron flux despite JF's denial.
This reply may be a bit OT to the topic of your post 165 - perhaps more to the point is the magic figure 3.72.10e10 - the number of alpha particles emitted each second for each gm of product of the decay series (determined by Rutherford and Geiger over 90 years ago).
Chris

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by PurpleYouko, posted 08-22-2006 4:10 PM PurpleYouko has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024