Does radio-carbon dating disprove evolution?

Wouldn't be the first time that wrong information was found at wikipedia. Anybody can post an article there.
Having said that though, the particular article in question does appear to be quite well written.The thing is that every other source that I have so far found says that alpha fusion with Nitrogen produces Oxygen plus a proton. These sources have pretty much all been directly talking about Rutherford's experiments as I detailed in Message 118
I have found absolutely no information regarding Alpha-Carbon interaction or Alpha-Oxygen interactions other than articles about steller processes of Helium fusion and the triple Alpha process.It may be that certain other isotopes can be involved but it seems unlikely to me. I can't say for sure though.The vast majority of sites that I have found which talk in depth about Alpha particle interactions with lighter gasses, actually describe a process where the Alpha particle simply ionizes the atoms and breaks apart molecular bonds, thereby expending its energy without an actual collision.
In the case of direct collisions they describe it like two pool balls hitting each other and bouncing off in different direction with no actual transmutation taking place at all.

Agreed.
IMO it would be ludicrous to suggest there will not be some C14 formation by one or more of the discussed routes. Its rate of formation would appear to be in equilibrium with its rate of decay.Further, this could be confirmed by measuring the C12/C14 ratio in various rocks and comparing it to the concentration of radioactive isotopes in that rock.If we are correct then we should see a higher C14 component in rock such as uranium-rich granite than we would in something like sandstone.Of course we have to choose a rock or soil that contains significant Carbon/Nitrogen to start with and calculations would need to be made to take into account the Beryllium levels, without which we would have far fewer neutron.Sounds like an very interesting study for somebody to do. Unfortunately I don't have access to the kind of mass spec that would need to be used for Carbon ratios. I can measure the trans-uranics and Beryllium in the rock though.

In air?... yes.
In Soil?... some of the time. Unless the alpha impacts an atom of Lithium or berylium that is. Boron is questionable. Both these elements are equally as abundent as uranium and it is well known and documented that the coulomb barrier is not enough to prevent fusion when an alpha particle impacts one of them.
So a potential source of neutrons unquestionably exists. This relies on 2 assumptions.
First, that the original C14 is all that we ever had (ie. all the other potential sources in situ are discounted)
Second, that C14 does not leach out (during the mineralisation process) proportionally to C12.As to the first assumption, It is best not to enter into an investigation with the intent to make the answer come out the way we want it to so let's just let the evidence speak for itself.As Percy, myself and others have listed before in this thread, there are numerous potential in situ sources of C14, including one fission path in which Uranium directly fissions into C14. This has been observed, measured and repeated. It does happen. There is no doubt of that. It may not happen very often, perhaps one atom in 10,000,000 or so (pure guesstimate). This means that for any soil containing Uranium (remember that a Kg of average soil contains 2.52E19 atoms of Uranium) it's going to happen relatively often. A few C14 atoms per year is all we need.
And let's not forget the other radioactive elements in the Uranium decay chain. There are a number of steps before it becomes lead. Some of them are extremely short and in every step, Alphas, the odd fission neutron and potentially fission directly to C14 is going to happen.Percy stated that.. I don't know if this is correct or not. It seems to me that this is a prediction made by the theory that C14 in the soil is created in situ by decay (fission or otherwise) of Uranium. If it has already been observed then it is corroborating eveidence. If not then it would be an extremely useful experiment to perform.If it is found to be true (or has been) for a representative number of samples, then it pretty much confirms beyond a shadow of a doubt that C14 is being created in situ and thereby making older soils (which should not have any C14) look younger.As to your "isotopic fractionation due to leaching" theory, I wonder if you are even using it correctly in the context of this discussion.You suggest.. that C12 is being preferentially removed during the mineralization of a fossil.
Think it through a little.
This would increase the proportion of C14 in the sample and would result in an artificially lowered age. NOT a higher age as you suggest here.. For this to happen you would have to remove the C14, not the C12.
Remember that any production of C14 in situ results in artificially lowered age readings as well.Besides this, there is no chemical leaching process that I know of that is able to change the C12/C14 ratio in any kind of sample. Please correct me with relevent links if I'm wrong here.
Also I note that you are still refering to mineralized samples (fossils if you will) while I am being more general and discussing samples that have not yet even begun to undergo such a process.
Soil is the medium I am focussing on for the moment. Mineralized soils are a similar but more complex scenario that I haven't even moved on to yet.A good example of such soils are the lake varves which Razd loves to bring up.
They are a great example.
No mineralization has taken place here. They are still just compacted mud with organic (not mineralised fossil) specimens contained therein.
I would say that these varves would be a great place to perform the experiment I described earlier.

Thanks for the link. That looks like an extremely interesting paper. It is going to take me some time to read though all the information in there and get a grasp of exactly how it impacts our discussion here. I think I see what you are suggesting now. You think that in deep sediment, the C14 is being converted preferentially to Co2 then bubbled up through the layers and deposited in the upper layers as the Aerobic mechanisms take over.
This raises a number of questions though. If it was to happen this way, we should see the depth profile dating in the reverse direction should we not? Surface sediments aught to date older than deeper sediments due to the fractionation effects of this process.I don't doubt that there are chemical processes going on. They may well be the prevalent processes in some areas. Whether they have an effect on Radio-Carbon dating is the question.
Either way you cannot entirely discount nuclear processes. They undoubtably happen. Again the question is to what extent? I wouls suggest that in certain places the nuclear processes would likely be prevalent. places like deep dry soil with a high content of granite would be the kind of place where it would likely be so.
Wet marshy soils would be the most likely candidates for chemical processes to prevail.Over the next day or two I will carefully read your article and also do as JohnF suggested and see if I can find any relevent research papers through the university systemI have to say that it makes a really nice change to actually discuss the science for both sides of an argument in one of these threads instead of mudslinging

The Article referenced specifically addresses "Gassy Sediments".
I haven't read the whole thing yet but it is appears to be very specific in the type of sediment effected.
I don't think that Lake Suigetsu falls under than catagory anyway so for this particular case it is not even relevent.

I am in the middle of a rather extensive search of all the relevent scientific literature I can find that relates to the issues of Radiocarbon dating and Uranium.
I am beginning to find myself drawn in directions that I did not anticipate. Yet what i am finding would tend to indicate that some of the things mentioned in this thread with respect to an in ground source of C14 may well be the case.Many researchers are describing a consistent trend of disagreement when comparing C14 dates to those obtained by other methods such as Uranium/Thorium dates and K/Ar to name a few.here are a couple of examples

quote:

---

Thorium-230/uranium-234 and carbon-14 ages obtained by mass spectrometry on corals. Bard, Edouard; Arnold, Maurice; Fairbanks, Richard G.; Hamelin, Bruno. Lab. Geosci., Univ. Aix-Marseille III, Marseille, Fr. Radiocarbon (1993), 35(1), 191-9. CODEN: RACAAT ISSN: 0033-8222. Journal written in English. CAN 120:12049 AN 1994:12049 CAPLUS

​

Abstract

​

Results are presented of the accelerator mass spectrometric (AMS) and thermal ionization mass spectrometric (TIMS) detns. on scleractinian coral samples from the Mururoa Atoll (French Polynesia) and from Isabela Island (Galapagos, Pacific Ocean). The 14C ages are systematically younger than true ages during most of the 14C application range; similar discrepancies are also obsd. between the 14C and K-Ar ages. An age of .apprx. 9700 14C yr BP is estd. for the midpoint of the Younger Dryas/Preboreal 2H-13C transition.

​

Indexing -- Section 53-8 (Mineralogical and Geological Chemistry)

---

Strangely though, Corals are of marine origin so I don't really understand how the C14 age could be expected to be correct. Maybe I am missing something here.

quote:

---

U-Th vs. AMS 14C dating of shells from the Achenheim loess (Rhine Graben). Innocent, Christophe; Flehoc, Christine; Lemeille, Francis. Service Analyses/Isotopes, BRGM, Orleans, Fr. Bulletin de la Societe Geologique de France (2005), 176(3), 249-255. Publisher: Societe Geologique de France, CODEN: BSGFAE ISSN: 0037-9409. Journal written in English. CAN 144:195480 AN 2005:683013 CAPLUS

​

Abstract

​

Shells extd. from loess deposits at Achenheim (Rhine Graben) have been investigated for AMS 14C and for U-Th age detns. by the isochron method on single shells. The two chronometers provide results that are not in agreement: the obtained 14C age is 38 ka B.P. In contrast, U-Th results provide much older ages. The 238U/232Th-230Th/232Th isochron diagram gives an age of 69 kyr, whereas a slightly younger age of 64 kyr is derived from the other (234U/232Th-230Th/232Th) diagram. 234U/238U ratios have not been found to vary from a shell to another: the av. value is 1.199, slightly higher than radioactive equil. For both isochrons, the Y-axis intercept is slightly neg., which indicates that there is no evidence for a significant detrital component. Thorium 232 that is present in the shells is probably incorporated in the material. The neg. intercepts suggest that the two ages have been probably "aged" resulting from a slight mobilization of uranium. By constraining the Y-axis intercepts at 0, ages that are in good agreement from one to another, can be calcd. at 60.9 kyr and 60.4 kyr, resp. In both cases, the statistical quality of the alignment is only slightly deteriorated. Since U-Th ages are in agreement with stratigraphic data, in contrast to the 14C date, one may believe that they date the end of early diagenesis, with uranium trapping. In contrast, the AMS 14C date is either thought to reflect anal. limitations of AMS 14C dating for such type of material, or to date a younger geol. event. In this latter case, a possible hypothesis is that this event has triggered the slight opening of the 238U-234U system. In any case, this study demonstrates once again that surface formations often tell such complex stories that only one single dating method cannot usually be sufficient to describe precisely these histories. Instead, informations derived from different independent chronometers have to be compared.

​

Indexing -- Section 53-8 (Mineralogical and Geological Chemistry)

---

Again these are shells though I don't know if they are of marine origin or not.This one shows an agreement but I don't put much stock in these results, even though they are peer reviewed. The U/Th ratios were obtained via ICP-MS and that methodoligy is not a very precise tool for high precision ratio measurements. I will have to read more on this to see what their claimed precision is.

quote:

---

234U and 230Th determination by FIA-ICP-MS and application to uranium-series disequilibrium in marine samples. Godoy, Maria Luiza D. P.; Godoy, Jose Marcus; Kowsmann, Renato; dos Santos, Guaciara M.; Petinatti da Cruz, Rosana. Instituto de Radioprotecao e Dosimetria, Comissao de Energia Nuclear, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity (2006), 88(2), 109-117. Publisher: Elsevier B.V., CODEN: JERAEE ISSN: 0265-931X. Journal written in English. CAN 145:95367 AN 2006:391645 CAPLUS

​

Abstract

​

A 234U and 230Th detn. method based on an extn. chromatog. sepn. on a flow injection system coupled to a quadruple ICP-MS was developed. Two-milliliter UTEVA (Eichrom Co.) cartridges were applied as sepn. tool and 236U and 229Th as spikes. Loading and washing steps were carried out in 3 M HNO3 soln. and 0.05 M ammonium oxalate applied to elute both uranium and thorium. The method was applied initially to the IAEA-327 soil ref. sample and NIST SRM 4357 ocean sediment ref. material, with the obtained 234U and 230Th concns. in agreement with the ref. levels. Samples from a deep-sea sediment core (2450 m water depth) were analyzed and based on 230Th/234U dating, a mean sedimentation rate of 3.3 cm ky-1 was calcd. Samples from two sediment layers were also dated by 14C-AMS and the obsd. ages agree with the 230Th/234U results.

​

Indexing -- Section 79-6 (Inorganic Analytical Chemistry)

---

Now this one is interesting. They artificially mixed some thorium in with a representative sample and experimentally proved an age bias can be introduced

quote:

---

New 230Th/U and 14C ages from Lake Lahontan carbonates, Nevada, USA, and a discussion of the origin of initial thorium. Lin, J. C.; Broecker, W. S.; Anderson, R. F.; Hemming, S.; Rubenstone, J. L.; Bonani, G. Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia Univ., Palisades, NY, USA. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta (1996), 60(15), 2817-2832. Publisher: Elsevier, CODEN: GCACAK ISSN: 0016-7037. Journal written in English. CAN 125:305306 AN 1996:561004 CAPLUS

​

Abstract

​

Five sets of coeval lacustrine carbonate samples from Pleistocene Lake Lahontan in western Nevada were dated by both the AMS 14C and 230Th/U isochron methods. All five groups of samples were analyzed for U-Th isotopes by alpha spectrometry and one of the groups was addnl. measured by thermal and secondary ionization mass spectrometry (TIMS and SIMS) for comparison. The 14C ages were cor. to calendar years using the calibration curve recommended by Bard et al. (1992). Without local reservoir correction on the 14C ages, mean 230Th/U isochron ages of some sets are apparently older than their calendar-cor. 14C ages by up to 2300 yr. Modern carbon contamination of these carbonate samples through recrystn. or deposition of secondary calcite is likely to be responsible for part of the age discrepancies. We explored addnl. biases assocd. with the isochron ages, maybe produced by the presence of initial Th copptd. from the lake water. It can be shown that if dissolved (hydrogenous) Th is directly incorporated into the pure carbonates, then the three-component mixing among (1) detrital Th, (2) hydrogenous Th adsorbed on detritus, and (3) hydrogenous Th incorporated by the carbonate can introduce a pos. age bias. We have developed an approach to est. the magnitude of this bias of the Lake Lahontan carbonates. The preliminary ests. suggest a pos. age bias of 1000 to 2000 yr for two sets of the samples.

​

Indexing -- Section 53-8 (Mineralogical and Geological Chemistry)

---

That is a big enough post for now. I will keep you all informed if i turn up anything else of interest.
I should note though, that I have been unable to obtain the papers cited in the post that Razd linked.

Yes I noticed a number of references to "reservoir age" and even a number of papers dedicated entirely to it. I got the idea that they consider it a non-issue that just has to be corrected for.

Same numbers that I came up with. You've been doing your research haven't you I really can't say if there is any evidence of it happening with naturally occurring beryllium or not at the moment. That is a very good question. If refined elemental Beryllium exhibits a different magnitude coulomb barrier than it would were it bonded to another element then this would indeed pose a possible problem for the hypothesis.
I will see what i can dig up on the subject. I strongly suspect though , that Be compound will not exhibit any differences due to the usually ionic nature of bonds formed by alkali earth metals such as Be or Li.While searching for research on the subject I came across this reference.

quote:

---

Leo Szilard, and T.A. Chalmers, ”Detection of neutrons liberated from beryllium by gamma-rays: a
new technique for inducing radioactivity,“ Nature, 134, 494-95 (1934), on 495.

---

It would appear that Gamma rays can also induce neutrons when they impact Be atoms. I will attempt to pursue this line of investigation a little later.

Thanks ChrisS. I will look into your references and see if I can get them from my local University library

From the first reference given by ChrisS i was able to pull up the abstract pretty easily.

quote:

---

Production rates of neutrons in soils due to natural radioactivity. Feige, Yehuda; Oltman, B. G.; Kastner, Jacob. Argonne Nat. Lab., Argonne, IL, USA. Journal of Geophysical Research (1968), 73(10), 3135-42. CODEN: JGREA2 ISSN: 0148-0227. Journal written in English. CAN 68:116473 AN 1968:116473 CAPLUS

​

Abstract

​

The relative neutron (n) yield of several targets of light elements exposed to monoenergetic ionized He beams from the Argonne tandem accelerator was detd. for a-energies ranging 4.8-8.8 Mev. The ratio of the neutron yields for 5.3 Mev. are in agreement with published data on thick target yields obtained with 210Po a-particles. The av. (a, n) yield per a-particle of the natural radioactive series for some elements and for different soil compns. was calcd. from the results by assuming an (a, n) yield of 75 neutrons/108 a-particles of 2 10Po a for Al. If 3 ppm. 238U and 11 ppm. 232Th 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. Addnl. 1.4 n/g./yr. will be generated because of the spontaneous fission of 238U. 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 (a, 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 very low.

​

Indexing -- Section 53 (Mineralogical and Geological Chemistry)

---

Unfortunately I cannot access an electronic version of the full paper. (I work 3 miles off campus so actually going to the library is difficult)From one of the other papers, I got this.

quote:

---

Excess carbon-14 abundances in uranium ores: possible evidence for emission from uranium-series isotopes. Barker, D.; Jull, A. J. T.; Donahue, D. J. NSF Accel. Facil. Radioisot. Anal., Univ. Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA. Geophysical Research Letters (1985), 12(10), 737-40. CODEN: GPRLAJ ISSN: 0094-8276. Journal written in English. CAN 103:218445 AN 1985:618445 CAPLUS

​

Abstract

​

The U, B, total C, and 14C contents were detd. in various U ores, including uraninite, pitchblende, carnotite, uranophane, etc. The 14C concn. was detd. using the tandem accelerator mass spectrometer and ranged (0.8-8.2) ’ 106 atoms/g. The amt. of 14C detected in a U mineral is proportional to the concn. of U in that mineral, with an av. of (2.2 0.5) ’ 10-5 14C atoms/1 U atom. These data are consistent with the assumption of direct 14C emission for 1 nuclei in the 238U decay chain with a branching ratio of (1.0-2.0) ’ 10-9 relative to a-decay. The uncertainty results from the possible prodn. of 14C from 11B(a,p)14C.

​

Indexing -- Section 53-2 (Mineralogical and Geological Chemistry)

---

This would appear to bear out the previously asserted point that C14 concentration in uranium rich soils is proportional to the Uranium concentration.

I think I hit the jackpot this time.
This is by far the most informative information that I have come across so far.
In This Article we see tables of low Z elements that will release a neutron via collision with alpha particles. There are actually a lot more of them than I had previously thought.Sorry for leaving this as a bare link. The darn thing is a pdf and doesn't easily lend itself to conversion to text.(Try loooking at the html version for a laugh)
Here are a couple of google's html translations that i felt particularly amusing. And especially this one. So now we know. It's all down to "the diffiwin in bindingergh% between the two initial nuclei".
Bet you are all really relieved to hear that. As to the issue of there being a difference between the chance of a Be atom accepting an Alpha particle, depending on its chemical form... Consider the following.From table 11.4, the coulomb barrier of Be9 is 2.9 MeV
From table 11.3, the average energy of an alpha emitted by the decay of U238 is 4.19 MeV.
From this we can see that there is far more energy than is needed to overcome the coulomb barrier.
If we compare MeV to the typical bond strengths of covalent bonds, we find that the bond strength is utterly insignificant in comparrison.For example, the strongest covalent bond known is the Nitrogen Nitrogen triple bond. It's strength is 945 Kj/mol.
However we are looking at the strength of 1 bond, not a mol of them.
945/6.022 E23 (Avogadro's number) comes to 1.66 E-22 Joules of energy required to break a single (triple)N-N bond.1 megaelectron volt (MeV) = 1.60217646 E-13 joulesThat means that one of our alpha particles (4MeV) has about 4,000,000,000 times the amount of energy needed to cleeve that covalent bond. Berylium bonds are a whole lot weaker than N-N so I think you get the picture.

Of course the alpha is pretty much immediately absorbed by the sediment.
The vast majority of alpha particles are going to hit something else than beryllium. It only takes a few. Sure the conversion factor of the alpha-neutron reaction is only about 30 parts per million. I just don't see whay that is a problem. There are many many billions of radioactive disintegrations in a single kilogram of soil in any given year. It only takes one or two to make a C14 atom in order to raise the background to a continuous level. I'm sure they do in a lot of cases.
Remember that an alpha particle from a high mass radioactive isotope has somewhere in the vicinity of 4-5 MeV of energy. Beryllium has a coulomb barrier of about 2.9 MeV. The alpha can interact with a whole bunch of stuff before it loses enough energy to prevent it overcoming beryllium's coulomb barrier. The sediments will certainly take away some of the energy from the alpha. The further it has to travel, the less energy is left.Again, though, all it takes is the odd successful transmutation to produce a continuum C14 background.

Not quite percy, although it might appear that it should.
Almost all nuclear interactions like this are able to proceed along various different pathways. A specific pathway has a specific yield percentage.
JohnFolton is correct that for ever million Alpha-Beryllium impacts, only 30 neutrons producing reactions occur.
However these neutrons often impact other heavier nuclei resulting in "Induced fission" in some cases. Since fission often produces 3 or more neutrons, it becomes possible that a single Alpha-Be fusion can set off a cascade of 10 or more neutrons.

Dunno really. it was a "off-the-top-of-my-head" estimate due to limited time to do the actual math.Tell you what, i will do it noe and find out for sure.From my earlier post Message 100
The half life of U238 is 4.47E9 (4.47 billion) years
That means that half of the U238 present in soil right now will be gone in 4.47 billion years so a quick estimate (if it were linear rather than exponential) would be just a case of dividing the number of atoms lost in that time by the time itself.2.52E19 / 4.47E9 / 2 = 2.82E9That makes an average of 2.82 billion disintigrations per year from Uranium alone. The real number is much higher for right now since the real fit is exponential. Nearer to 10 billion.Now take into account the disintigrations from U235, Thorium, Radium, Radon and all of the other semi and meta-stable isotopes in the Uranium decay chainI'm not going to bother doing all the math for every one of them but I think you must get the picture by now.I think many many billions of disitigrations per year per Kg of natural soil is actually quite a conservative estimate.Scary isn't it?

1. The colomb barrier is not being violated. It is being overcome by a sufficiently energetic particle.
2. The initial settings of the clocks are not what is being changed. What we are seeing is a decrease in the C14/C12 ratio with depth of sediment(age of artifact) that tails off to a continuum (but incredibly small) level. ie. beyond a certain age reading, all readings give the same result.
3. The continuum level has been shown to be proportional to the concentration of radioactive isotopes in the samples but only when the sample has a lower ratio than can give an accurate age reading..

I'm not quite sure what you mean here. I'm also not sure what relevence you ascribe to an alpha pareticle bouncing around. Coulomb forces do not combine in this way. The coulomb force we are discussung is the repulsive force between an alpha particle and a single nucleus of beryllium. Atomic nuclei are way too far apart for any one of them to have any effect on another one.
If you mean "combine" in the sense that coulomb forces from other atoms will have an effect on the mean free path of an alpha particle then I'm not arguing with you. The mean free path is incredibly short. I would be surprised if it was any more than a fraction of a milimeter in soil.What is it that makes you think that some Be atoms are not allowed to be right next to a U238 atom though? This isn't the way it works.
An alpha from a U238 has way too much energy to be reflected. It is going to travel in a pretty much straight line till it directly hits something, encounters an atom with a coulomb barrier higher than its own energy or simply picks up stray electrons to become Helium.The 30ppm cited in this thread is an experimentally derived fractional reaction path based on the successful fusions between a Be nucleus and an Alpha particle.
out of 1,000,000 successful fusions, only 30 produce a fast neutron. The rest produce something else.
It has nothing to do with the crystaline structure of Beryllium. All that serves to do is to narrow the inter neucleic distance and therefore make direct collisions a little more likely. Molecular weight has absolutely nothing to do with the coulomb barrier of a single atom. I have already shown in message 156 Message 156 that the energy of an energetic alpha particle has more than 4,000,000,000 times the energy of the strongest known molecular bond.What you suggest is a little like saying that by hanging a sheet of paper in front of a glass window, it will help to prevent the cannon ball that I have just fired, from breaking it.Molecular effects on neucleic coulomb barriers are less than negligable.