Talk:Radiocarbon dating/Archive 3

message: "Originally a Carbon-14 half-life of 5568±30 years was used, which is now known as the Libby half-life. Later a more accurate figure of 5730±40 years was determined, which is known as the Cambridge half-life."
If these are measurements then we can't say one is more accurate than the other without presuming some value.   You can't presume values for measurements.
Also, if this statement is referring to the error bars then a number with an error bar of ±40 is NOT more accurate than a number with a smaller error bar however it is less precise, that is all.  
According to the above statement the Cambridge half-life is simply less precise.  The above statement should be fixed.
Unsigned, by 68.70.247.219 00:54, April 15, 2006 
:A better instrument or method gives a more accurate result.
:A measurement can be more accurate and less precise.
:The quoted statement is correct. It might be incomplete vis-a-vis the precision of 40yr vs 30yr, which is, however, not relevant vs 5700yr.
:Jclerman 09:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cambridge half-life 

message: Jclerman is shouting:
:DON'T DELETE REFERENCES AND CALL IT CLEAN UP - EXPLAIN IN THE DISCUSSION PAGE WHAT YOU DON'T LIKE AND WHY BEFORE YOU TRY IT
First, this could be stated a little more politely.  Second, it was indeed a cleanup, as stated: a reference that was a link to another article in Wikipedia was moved to the See also section; items that were external links were moved from the References section to the External Links section; a dead external link was removed; unimportant German-language references were removed; and the references were sorted alphabetically.
Jclerman  could have checked this in under a minute.  Or s/he could have acted on the assumption that my claim to be doing a clean up was honest, and left a question for further explanation.  Okay?
—Daphne A 05:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discourtesy by Jclerman 

message: Thanks for the correction. I expanded the acronym to avoid further confusion between oceanic agencies. Jclerman 11:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NOSAM thanks 

message: "I will now point out the largest flaw of carbon dating, it assumes the rate of decrease in carbon on earth has ALWAYS been constant, which is absolute bogus. Carbon dating can only be trusted for smaller dates, such as a few thousand years, because it is mroe logical to assume that less "stuff" has hapenned in the last 2 thousand years or so."
Is he an idiot?--Greasysteve13 15:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the question you intended to ask is "Is he correct?" Whether or not your friend is an idiot is of no interest to this encyclopedia. First, ask yourself: why would it be logical to assume that "less has happened" in the last 2 000 years and what would this have to do with radiocarbon dating? Then, read the section "calibration" of this article and ask yourself: do scientists assume a constant level of C14 for absolute (non-approximate) dating? Hope that helps. jdbartlett 16:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thankyou--Greasysteve13 04:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some idiot told me: 

message: * Radiocarbon dating analyses are destructive. This means that the wood of treering samples is combusted to produce carbon compounds (carbon dioxide, benzene, etc) whose [specific raw (uncorrected, unnormalized) radio]activity can be detected by counting its disintegrations per minute.
* To attain the appropriate precision and accuracy, the determination of such raw   activity requires grams of wood and weeks of counting its radioactive disintegrations.
* The computation of the net specific activity of each sample requires extra weeks analyzing background ("dead" radiocarbon) and modern ("AD1950") standard samples, then to be normalized to a standard C13 value.
* The raw radiocarbon ages are evaluated from the standardized specific net activities described above.
* The series of treerings to be dendrochronologically & radiocarbon dated to be used  to calibrate the radiocarbon dating scale were the result of decades of explorations begun in the early 1960s. Remote sites were explored at diverse latitudes and elevations, searching for unique rare, living and dead millennary trees to obtain suitable samples. They were mostly from protected species. 
* All the determinations of the radiocarbon activities described above have been cross-correlated and preserved as calibration curves (or tables). By definition a calibration curve has quantities of the same kind on both axis, namely calibrated dates (given as Calendar Years) on the horizontal axis and raw ages (given as Before Present years) on the vertical axis. See Example 1.
* Should a conversion curve be preferred, rather than a calibration curve, the ages on the vertical axis can be converted to the original radiocarbon activities by a simple mathematical operation.
* Any radiocarbon activity from a sample to be dated might match the radiocarbon activities of more than a single tree ring. In Example 1, the sample whose activity dated as 900BP old matches 5 different calendar dates which were obtained from 5 different dendrochronologically dated treerings.
* In practice, things are complicated by the statistical uncertainties (a) of the curve itself, which is really a band, (b) the uncertainty distribution of the sample's activity, and (c) the non-monotonic character of the calibration band. Graphical examples covering the statistical uncertainties and their propagation are given here  and here .
--Jclerman 01:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  About calibration 

message: This straw poll is being conducted to determine which of the following points of view are favored by users so as to reach a neutral point of view. 
#In a sealed container where Carbon-14 is not replenished "Carbon-14 is never completely gone. It decays exponentially ad infinitum." 
#All Carbon-14 in a sealed container without benifit of replenishment will eventually decay into Nitrogen-14 as the result of Beta decay.
Please sign your name using four tildes (~~~~) under the position you support, preferably adding a brief comment. Since these are opposing points of view please do not sign your name to more than one. 
=== Those who favor the "never gone" point of view (POV number one) ===
=== Those who favor the "eventually gone" point of view (POV number two) ===
#I favor the expression of the second point of view as being neutral for the following reason:
#*Since atoms are indivisible then the number of parent isotopes atoms remaining when the variable P in the age equation  t = \frac{1}{\lambda} {\times} {\ln \left(1+\frac{D}{P}\right)}  is less than one will be zero.  ...IMHO (Talk) 22:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *This straw poll has nothing to do with deciding an issue in science. This straw poll is for the purpose of determining how best to synchronize the results of a model of the age equation with scientific reality by those who are apparently old school and learned the age equation prior to the development of personal computers which have allowed students and laymen to do extensive modeling and analysis that has taken them well beyond old school.  ...IMHO (Talk) 14:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: May I suggest closing and archiving this section?--Jclerman 17:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *This straw poll is for the purpose of providing a summary statement for the benefit of readers who may be confused when modeling the age equation and not the place for you to reiterate your inability to comprehend the problem from a lay or student point of view. Hiding information from students will not solve the problem but only make them question why the problem has not been addressed in the past only to learn that it was hidden away as if that would make it forever go away. Please give others who are confronted by this question the right and the opportunity to review previous coverage. Thanks.  ...IMHO (Talk) 01:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Straw poll 

message: #I favor the expression of the second point of view as being neutral for the following reason:
#*Since atoms are indivisible then the number of parent isotopes atoms remaining when the variable P in the age equation  t = \frac{1}{\lambda} {\times} {\ln \left(1+\frac{D}{P}\right)}  is less than one will be zero.  ...IMHO (Talk) 22:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Those who favor the "eventually gone" point of view (POV number two) 

message: #Irrelevant due to being based on a complete misunderstanding and attempted mis-representation of the issue by User:Pce3@ij.net. - Vsmith 00:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *This straw poll has nothing to do with deciding an issue in science. This straw poll is for the purpose of determining how best to synchronize the results of a model of the age equation with scientific reality by those who are apparently old school and learned the age equation prior to the development of personal computers which have allowed students and laymen to do extensive modeling and analysis that has taken them well beyond old school.  ...IMHO (Talk) 14:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Those who recognize the irrelevancy of this ''straw poll'' 

message: #Since the development of personal computers and sophisticated software packages such as Excel spreadsheet the ability of the student or laymen to model equations has become commonplace and routine. Therefore it has become necessary to clarify the results of such modeling when applied to the age equations…   ...IMHO (Talk) 10:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: May I suggest closing and archiving this section?--Jclerman 17:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *This straw poll is for the purpose of providing a summary statement for the benefit of readers who may be confused when modeling the age equation and not the place for you to reiterate your inability to comprehend the problem from a lay or student point of view. Hiding information from students will not solve the problem but only make them question why the problem has not been addressed in the past only to learn that it was hidden away as if that would make it forever go away. Please give others who are confronted by this question the right and the opportunity to review previous coverage. Thanks.  ...IMHO (Talk) 01:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary statement 

message: Quoting from NPOV:
We sometimes give an alternative formulation of the non-bias policy: assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert opinions themselves. There is a difference between facts and opinions. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." For example, that a survey produced a certain published result would be a fact. That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things. So we can feel free to assert as many of them as we can.
By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean "a piece of information about which there is some dispute." There are bound to be borderline cases where we are not sure if we should take a particular dispute seriously; but there are many propositions that very clearly express values or opinions. That stealing is wrong is a value or opinion. That the Beatles was the greatest band is a value or opinion. That the United States was wrong to drop the atomic bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a value or opinion.
Wikipedia is devoted to stating facts in the sense as described above. Where we might want to state an opinion, we convert that opinion into a fact by attributing the opinion to someone. So, rather than asserting, "The Beatles were the greatest band," we can say, "Most Americans believe that the Beatles were the greatest band," which is a fact verifiable by survey results, or "The Beatles had many songs that made the Billboard Hot 100," which is also fact. In the first instance we assert an opinion; in the second and third instances we "convert" that opinion into fact by attributing it to someone. It is important to note this formulation is substantially different from the "some people believe..." formulation popular in political debates. The reference requires an identifiable and objectively quantifiable population or, better still, a name (with the clear implication that the named individual should be a recognised authority).
In presenting an opinion, moreover, it is important to bear in mind that there are disagreements about how opinions are best stated; sometimes, it will be necessary to qualify the description of an opinion or to present several formulations, simply to arrive at a solution that fairly represents all the leading views of the situation.
But it is not enough, to express the Wikipedia non-bias policy, just to say that we should state facts and not opinions. When asserting a fact about an opinion, it is important also to assert facts about competing opinions, and to do so without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It is also generally important to give the facts about the reasons behind the views, and to make it clear who holds them. It is often best to cite a prominent representative of the view.
::Accordingly, I do not consider the Radiocarbon dating article to be NPOV because of the following reasons:
1.  Opinions are expressed in the articles as though they were facts, instead of attributing these opinions to prominent scientists or scientific bodies, which would make them facts.
2.  Alternative explanations or opinions of other scientists are excluded, even though painstaking effort has been make to merely present the opinions as facts by statements such as, "According to blah-blah, the truth is blah, blah."
Now if I'm wrong or out to lunch, please explain to me, specifically, why I am wrong or out to lunch citing Wikipedia policy so that I can better understand the process.  Thanks.200.121.111.113 13:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Facts and the NPOV Policy 

message: The article on the Holocene epoch links the term "radiocarbon years", and that page redirects to this one. But this page doesn't explain what a radiocarbon year is, why it's different from a solar year, or why it's used instead of solar years. —Largo Plazo 15:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Radiocarbon Year 

message: Well, since Wikipedia policy doesn't require peer-reviewed sources, I hereby announce that I plan to reinsert the disputed article on Friday and remove the NPOV tag, unless one of the other editors wishes to do it for me - perhaps I was being biased in my addition of the material without realizing it, accordingly this is your chance to clear up any subconscious bias I was expressing by including the article with relevant summaries yourself. 200.121.111.113 14:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The time has expired.  The information previously removed will be reinserted by me within a few minutes.  In doing so I am relying on the following quote from Jimbo Wales that is found on the NPOV section of this site, "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents...."  I hereby mention Andrew Snelling, Ph.D. as a prominent adherent of my point of view and the point of view of millions of Americans, whose views should not be excluded unfairly.  I am also including the rebuttal provided by another user, whose name I don't remember off the top of my head.  I am doing this even though it is, I believe, a violation of the Fairness of Tonepolicy.  I am doing this because I am trying to bend over backwards to be fair. I realize that there are some people who believe that what I am posting is pseudoscience.  This objection has already been handled by the Pseudosciencesection of NPOV policy.  Deletion is not an appropriate response.  Improvements, subtle changes of wording, etc. are very welcome. 200.121.111.113 13:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I already deleted it. You seem to be misrepresenting the article. He doesn't assume that the carbon dating method doesn't work, he only claims the rock therefore isn't millions of years old. I don't see how a debate about creation has any place here. Creation and carbon dating are two completely separate things.--Dacium 14:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Missrepresting(sic) the article, am I?  Let's review the facts of the case, shall we?  A piece of wood, impregnated with silica and hematite was found in Australia.  The place where it was found has been determined by geologists using the best scientific methods available to be 225-230 million years old (P.J. Conaghan, ‘The Hawkesbury Sandstone: gross characteristics and depositional environment,’ NSW Geological Survey Bulletin 26:188–253, 1980).  Andrew Snelling arranged for the wood to be carbon tested.  The results of that test were 33,720 ± 430 years BP.  Andrew Snelling believes that the wood is not really as old as that.  Scientific theory indicates that the wood should not have any carbon 14 in it at all because it has been determined by scientists to be in a site 225-230 million years old.  Andrew Snelling believes that the carbon date is wrong.  He further believes that it was actually deposited there during the flood approximately 4,500 years ago which I, personally, feel is speculation on his part and so I didn't include that in a scientific article.  By deleting my submission you must have felt that one or more of the above-mentioned facts was either wrong or poorly sourced.  Could you please identify exactly which fact stated above you disagree with and why?  If you do not respond by Monday I will reinsert the text. 200.121.111.113 17:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK - as for Andrew Snelling, see the following: . Seems this Snelling chap hasn't a clue about the "wood"/"iron concretions" he refers to - Seems this type of nonsense is exactly why peer-reviewed sources are needed here. Therefor, definitely both wrong and poorly sourced. Note, I'm not using the above link in the article - just providing it here to show the type of "scientist" our anon poster is enthralled with. That kind of junk is no reason for any npov tag. Vsmith 19:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is a classic examples of why an article by someone with a PhD does not equal credibility. Sorry but Snelling is largely non-notable and the way he hasn't provided any data to let people analysis his claims makes his whole claim unverifiable. If there are sources verifying such errors (or he does a proper published analysis and not just some page on some POV website) then a section could be added. Bad carbon dates are reported all the time due to contamination and misunderstanding/sampling.--Dacium 23:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Excellent research, Vsmith.  I'll include the entire thing a little bit later.  We may be able to get an NPOV version of the article, yet. 200.121.111.113 13:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer-reviewed sources