Carbon-14: A Scientifically Proven Dating Method?

General - I quote myself from another thread on this subject a few weeks ago, addressing buzsaw, who never really answered:Please, for yourself and all of us here:
1) Go to Science | AAAS
2) Register. It's free. They won't spam you.
3) Find the Archive
4) Use the "search" function to find volume 279, page 1187.
5) Print out the article - Acrobat has nicer graphics, but the plain text is intelligible
6) Please, please, READ THE ARTICLE! Kitigawa & van der Plicht, "Atmospheric Radiocarbon Calibration to 45,000 yr B.P.: Late Glacial Fluctuations and Cosmogenic Isotope Production."
7) Reread, and ask questions here or elsewhere if there is something you don't know how to interpret.
8) Once you have an appreciation for what K. & vdP did, reread your post above.
9) Then let's discuss......
things like, "why would 45,000 individually counted layers in a lake in Japan - layers that are even now forming once per year - correlate in such a pretty fashion with 250 14C dates, and with tree ring dates from Germany?"Thanks.

General, should you return, you might want this for your files: Is apparently a reference to the paper "Radiocarbon Dating: Fictitious Results with Mollusk Shells", M L Keith and G M Anderson, Science, vol 141, pp 634-637 (1963). The entire article is in essence an explanation why river-dwelling snails give bad 14C dates - they get lots of their carbon from "old" groundwater and humus - and a warning to other scientists doing 14C dating to look out for these effects.
Whoever you got that list from, and my guess is that his initials are KH, is out to deceive, or at the very best never even read the title of the paper he referenced, though he did apparently find the time to find sample 62-48 in Table 1 and extract only that date.

General! I'm glad you're back! Post 7, please...