FUNDAMENTAL ASSUMPTION, Report on C14 Conference (145 International Scientists), Science, Vol. 150, p. 1490. "Throughout the conference...."
From 1965. And the statement here is tempered at several other spots in the piece, which is an informal synopsis of a conference.
Science, Vol.162, p.265 "Ages calculated from these measurements increase with sample depth up to 22 million years for lavas deduced to be recent."
The
next sentence in that abstract is "Caution is urged in applying dates from deep-ocean basalts in studies on ocean-floor spreading." This one's from 1968, as well.
Science, Vol.157, p.726 (1967) Just before the bit mined in your source, this says "It is well established that the ages obtained on the assumption of constant, initial concentrations of radiocarbon in the specimens can differ by several hundreds of years for historical and dendrochronological dates for several periods over the last 6000 years." The report goes on to talk about early (1967!!) work toward calibration to account for these
known fluctuations.
Quote mines? Yup. From near-antique material, too. Whoever compiled them should be ashamed.