BBC science fail?
Discussion
Was listening to the story about antique ivory and how they can date it to pre/post-1947 by using radio carbon dating. That was news to me; the half life of C14 is so long I thought it was only useful for much older things.
And then they said the 1947 date was due to the 'atomic age'. Since when did atom bombs make C14?
And then they said the 1947 date was due to the 'atomic age'. Since when did atom bombs make C14?
Bomb-curve radiocarbon measurement of recent biologic tissues and applications to wildlife forensics and stable isotope (paleo)ecology
In fact, carbon dating can't be used to date very old things. It's only useful up to about 50-60,000 years.
pnas said:
Above-ground thermonuclear weapons testing from 1952 through 1962 nearly doubled the concentration of radiocarbon (14C) in the atmosphere. As a result, organic material formed during or after this period may be radiocarbon-dated using the abrupt rise and steady fall of the atmospheric 14C concentration known as the bomb-curve. We test the accuracy of accelerator mass spectrometry radiocarbon dating of 29 herbivore and plant tissues collected on known dates between 1905 and 2008 in East Africa. Herbivore samples include teeth, tusks, soft tissue, hair, and horn. Tissues formed after 1955 are dated to within 0.3–1.3 y of formation, depending on the tissue type, whereas tissues older than ca. 1955 have high age uncertainties (>17 y) due to the Suess effect. 14C dating of tissues has applications to stable isotope (paleo)ecology and wildlife forensics. We use data from 41 additional samples to determine growth rates of tusks, molars, and hair, which improve interpretations of serial stable isotope data for (paleo)ecological studies. 14C dating can also be used to calculate the time interval represented in periodic histological structures in dental tissues (i.e., perikymata), which in turn may be used as chronometers in fossil teeth. Bomb-curve 14C dating of confiscated animal tissues (e.g., ivory statues) can be used to determine whether trade of the item is legal, because many Convention of International Trade of Endangered Species restrictions are based on the age of the tissue, and thus can serve as a powerful forensic tool to combat illegal trade in animal parts.
So no, no fail on the BBC's part.In fact, carbon dating can't be used to date very old things. It's only useful up to about 50-60,000 years.
Eric Mc said:
I always think replies like this rank high in the "internet rudeness" scale.
Agreed. I endeavoured to find the actual news item to check what I'd heard but no luck, and part of the 'social' aspect of forums is discussion, not being a geek who reads Google all day.LandR said:
Bomb-curve radiocarbon measurement of recent biologic tissues and applications to wildlife forensics and stable isotope (paleo)ecology
In fact, carbon dating can't be used to date very old things. It's only useful up to about 50-60,000 years.
Interesting link, thanks. I'd imagined the isotope they'd be looking for post-1947 would be thorium 234; hadn't realised fresh doses of C14 were made too.In fact, carbon dating can't be used to date very old things. It's only useful up to about 50-60,000 years.
Simpo Two said:
Eric Mc said:
I always think replies like this rank high in the "internet rudeness" scale.
Agreed. I endeavoured to find the actual news item to check what I'd heard but no luck, and part of the 'social' aspect of forums is discussion, not being a geek who reads Google all day.
I was watching Tomorrow's World with my young lad and the presenter said that if a car going at 70mph collided head on with an identical car also going at 70mph it would be damaged as much as if it had collided with a concrete support to a bridge while going at 140mph.
I said that it was wrong but my lad, 9 or so, was not convinced, TV trumping all. I chatted to him but it was clear that whilst he understood what I was saying, the fact that the TV said it must mean I had it wrong.
I wrote to TW explaining the situation and asking them to confirm they got it wrong.
I got a letter back within a week or so. It merely mentioned that I was right and went on to suggest that my lad not to believe everything on TV, even if a scientist said it as they might have made a mistake or, more exciting, is that the theory they based it on might have been proved wrong. It was a fabulous letter.
Enclosed was a sealed envelope addressed to my lad. I gave it to him, his first letter. He opened it and it explained the physics in easily understood terms.
They took a lot of time over it. I was impressed.
I said that it was wrong but my lad, 9 or so, was not convinced, TV trumping all. I chatted to him but it was clear that whilst he understood what I was saying, the fact that the TV said it must mean I had it wrong.
I wrote to TW explaining the situation and asking them to confirm they got it wrong.
I got a letter back within a week or so. It merely mentioned that I was right and went on to suggest that my lad not to believe everything on TV, even if a scientist said it as they might have made a mistake or, more exciting, is that the theory they based it on might have been proved wrong. It was a fabulous letter.
Enclosed was a sealed envelope addressed to my lad. I gave it to him, his first letter. He opened it and it explained the physics in easily understood terms.
They took a lot of time over it. I was impressed.
LandR said:
Bomb-curve radiocarbon measurement of recent biologic tissues and applications to wildlife forensics and stable isotope (paleo)ecology
In fact, carbon dating can't be used to date very old things. It's only useful up to about 50-60,000 years.
It's also why you don't have to pay for thyroxin if you require it...pnas said:
Above-ground thermonuclear weapons testing from 1952 through 1962 nearly doubled the concentration of radiocarbon (14C) in the atmosphere. As a result, organic material formed during or after this period may be radiocarbon-dated using the abrupt rise and steady fall of the atmospheric 14C concentration known as the bomb-curve. We test the accuracy of accelerator mass spectrometry radiocarbon dating of 29 herbivore and plant tissues collected on known dates between 1905 and 2008 in East Africa. Herbivore samples include teeth, tusks, soft tissue, hair, and horn. Tissues formed after 1955 are dated to within 0.3–1.3 y of formation, depending on the tissue type, whereas tissues older than ca. 1955 have high age uncertainties (>17 y) due to the Suess effect. 14C dating of tissues has applications to stable isotope (paleo)ecology and wildlife forensics. We use data from 41 additional samples to determine growth rates of tusks, molars, and hair, which improve interpretations of serial stable isotope data for (paleo)ecological studies. 14C dating can also be used to calculate the time interval represented in periodic histological structures in dental tissues (i.e., perikymata), which in turn may be used as chronometers in fossil teeth. Bomb-curve 14C dating of confiscated animal tissues (e.g., ivory statues) can be used to determine whether trade of the item is legal, because many Convention of International Trade of Endangered Species restrictions are based on the age of the tissue, and thus can serve as a powerful forensic tool to combat illegal trade in animal parts.
So no, no fail on the BBC's part.In fact, carbon dating can't be used to date very old things. It's only useful up to about 50-60,000 years.
Derek Smith said:
I got a letter back within a week or so. It merely mentioned that I was right and went on to suggest that my lad not to believe everything on TV, even if a scientist said it as they might have made a mistake...
I suspect TW dumbed it down to the point that what they said was wrong. They should have been more careful. If TW is wrong then frankly don't have the show!Derek Smith said:
I was watching Tomorrow's World with my young lad and the presenter said that if a car going at 70mph collided head on with an identical car also going at 70mph it would be damaged as much as if it had collided with a concrete support to a bridge while going at 140mph.
I said that it was wrong but my lad, 9 or so, was not convinced, TV trumping all. I chatted to him but it was clear that whilst he understood what I was saying, the fact that the TV said it must mean I had it wrong.
I wrote to TW explaining the situation and asking them to confirm they got it wrong.
I got a letter back within a week or so. It merely mentioned that I was right and went on to suggest that my lad not to believe everything on TV, even if a scientist said it as they might have made a mistake or, more exciting, is that the theory they based it on might have been proved wrong. It was a fabulous letter.
Enclosed was a sealed envelope addressed to my lad. I gave it to him, his first letter. He opened it and it explained the physics in easily understood terms.
They took a lot of time over it. I was impressed.
I like this. I said that it was wrong but my lad, 9 or so, was not convinced, TV trumping all. I chatted to him but it was clear that whilst he understood what I was saying, the fact that the TV said it must mean I had it wrong.
I wrote to TW explaining the situation and asking them to confirm they got it wrong.
I got a letter back within a week or so. It merely mentioned that I was right and went on to suggest that my lad not to believe everything on TV, even if a scientist said it as they might have made a mistake or, more exciting, is that the theory they based it on might have been proved wrong. It was a fabulous letter.
Enclosed was a sealed envelope addressed to my lad. I gave it to him, his first letter. He opened it and it explained the physics in easily understood terms.
They took a lot of time over it. I was impressed.
It's OK to be wrong, so long as you're willing to learn from it.
So many people need to learn this lesson.
Boring_Chris said:
It's OK to be wrong, so long as you're willing to learn from it.
So many people need to learn this lesson.
Generally yes but I don't find it acceptable for a TV programme to impart wrong information to a young audience. If you have to make it dumb at least use Olympic size swimming pools for volume, tennis courts for area and elephants for weight So many people need to learn this lesson.
. It's a kind of fail; carbon dating works by comparing the ratio of carbon 12 which is stable, to carbon 14 which decays.
However, since the 'nuclear age' it's much harder to date samples than previously, when carbon 14 was produced by the action of cosmic rays alone.
If you want to date a piece of Ivory is the process destructive?
If say you have a 300 year old spinet and want to sell it,
do you have to remove each Ivory veneer on each key and remove a small sample
(which of course may have been re-glued on at a later date with animal glue so contaminating the sample)
and put each small sample in some kind of test tube??????
I don't recommend Googling 'carbon 14 dating' , you will probably get results with 'carbon' removed
.
However, since the 'nuclear age' it's much harder to date samples than previously, when carbon 14 was produced by the action of cosmic rays alone.
If you want to date a piece of Ivory is the process destructive?
If say you have a 300 year old spinet and want to sell it,
do you have to remove each Ivory veneer on each key and remove a small sample
(which of course may have been re-glued on at a later date with animal glue so contaminating the sample)
and put each small sample in some kind of test tube??????
I don't recommend Googling 'carbon 14 dating' , you will probably get results with 'carbon' removed
.Simpo Two said:
Generally yes but I don't find it acceptable for a TV programme to impart wrong information to a young audience. If you have to make it dumb at least use Olympic size swimming pools for volume, tennis courts for area and elephants for weight .
That battle's been lost I'm afraid. It is something frequently mentioned in a science magazine but it soon stopped shocking. . It is a shame that most TV programmes on science are aimed rather low, not only the BBC. But there have been some excellent history programmes.
The Sky at Night is quite good for much of the time.
Derek Smith said:
Simpo Two said:
Generally yes but I don't find it acceptable for a TV programme to impart wrong information to a young audience. If you have to make it dumb at least use Olympic size swimming pools for volume, tennis courts for area and elephants for weight .
That battle's been lost I'm afraid. It is something frequently mentioned in a science magazine but it soon stopped shocking. . It is a shame that most TV programmes on science are aimed rather low, not only the BBC. But there have been some excellent history programmes.
The Sky at Night is quite good for much of the time.
dickymint said:
As a kid my all time favorite were The Christmas Lectures.
My parents liked those. But as a student who'd just got home for holiday after 12 solid weeks of lectures, I wasn't inclined to watch more - and the pace by then was too slow for me. But good for bright youngsters I agree.I expect they do everything in elephants now too...
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff