Re: Problems with the radio carbon dating of the Newport Tower

"JerryT" <cgjt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:a3165cc6-78c3-4dcb-9dc1-9bf1c4834e46@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 30 Nov, 11:10, "Digger" <p.du...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Eric Stevens" <eric.stev...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:itduk395mvr0juk9d6hr219orfommfvc3q@xxxxxxxxxx

> On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 22:02:51 GMT, "Digger" <p.du...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:

>>I've not really been following this debate but I can't help >>commenting on
>>this. What on earth makes them think they can carbon date a >>building??
>>This
>>is possibly one of the most inappropriate applications of carbon >>dating I
>>have ever read about.

> It's possible to use radiocarbon methods to determine the date ate
> which the mortar used in the building set. The theory is explained > in
> the article. A problem is that the date at which the mortar set > can be
> some considerable time after the mortar was mixed, depending on > how
> deep inside the building the mortar is placed.

I remain extremely dusious that this can be anything but a very approximate
dating technique. Where else has it been employed and by whom?

http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/17236


The article in pdf format
http://www.phys.au.dk/ams/hale-jh-2003(jan17)datingancientmortar@.pdf


.

Relevant Pages