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


"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:7386l3ll61ev5rupo275d79g45aiglhs3c@xxxxxxxxxx
On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 15:46:42 -0500, "Steve Marcus"
<smarcus_spamout_@xxxxxxx> wrote:


"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:2j36l3pqa7fcq1v1abi0jdli9veboptpda@xxxxxxxxxx
On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 08:50:36 -0500, "Steve Marcus"
<smarcus_spamout_@xxxxxxx> wrote:

--- snip ----

---- snip ----

I generally try to avoid rsponding to you but on this occasion I must
seek clarification. What significance do you see in the nearby
presence of a large body of water? I see none and your repeated
references make me wonder what I have missed.

See: http://www.c14dating.com/corr.html

It discussions corrections that may be necessary to a Conventional
Radiocarbon Age that result may be necessitated due to a variety of
causes.
Specifically:

"
Radiocarbon samples which obtain their carbon from a different source (or
reservoir) than atmospheric carbon may yield what is termed apparent ages.
A
shellfish alive today in a lake within a limestone catchment, for
instance,
will yield a radiocarbon date which is excessively old. The reason for
this
anomaly is that the limestone, which is weathered and dissolved into
bicarbonate, has no radioactive carbon. Thus, it dilutes the activity of
the
lake meaning that the radioactivity is depleted in comparison to 14C
activity elsewhere. The lake, in this case, has a different radiocarbon
reservoir than that of the majority of the radiocarbon in the biosphere
and
therefore an accurate radiocarbon age requires that a correction be made
to
account for it.


I see. By 'large body of water' you were actually referring to the
'reservoir effect' known to be associated with marine carbonates. This
was dealt with by H&J who hopefull separated the residual old marine
carbonates from the the new carbonates of the mortar by mechanical and
chemical means. I have never questioned this aspect of their work. I
have every reason to accept that it was done properly. All that I
question falls outside the laboratory.

One of the most commonly referenced reservoir effects concerns the ocean.
The average difference between a radiocarbon date of a terrestrial sample
such as a tree, and a shell from the marine environment is about 400
radiocarbon years (see Stuiver and Braziunas, 1993). This apparent age of
oceanic water is caused both by the delay in exchange rates between
atmospheric CO2 and ocean bicarbonate, and the dilution effect caused by
the
mixing of surface waters with upwelled deep waters which are very old
(Mangerud 1972). A reservoir correction must therefore be made to any
conventional shell dates to account for this difference. Reservoir
corrections for the world oceans can be found at the Marine Reservoir
Correction Database, a searchable database online at Queen's University,
Belfast and the University of Washington. Human bone may be a problematic
medium for dating in some instances due to human consumption of fish,
whose
C14 label will reflect the ocean reservoir. In such a case, it is very
difficult to ascertain the precise reservoir difference and hence apply a
correction to the measured radiocarbon age."

Newport is on an island in Narragansett Bay, which opens on Rhode Island
Sound and the Atlantic ocean. This "may" raise issues. See for example:
http://tinyurl.com/2ed6lt which discusses repairs made to old mortar that
was originally from US colonial times.

"Peet mixes a lime-based mortar that has a lot of the same properties of
the
early mortars. While he works with an industrial lime, early colonists
used
ground oyster shells that are made of the mineral, too.

To the extent that mortar used in colonial Rhode Island may have been
derived from ground shells that would have had their origin in water, the
C14 date of the mortar could be off. See also this, from a source that I
do
not respect, but which I'm certain that you respect:
http://tinyurl.com/27jthb

This is an article by Hu McCulloch. Whether or not you respect him is
irrelevant. The question is, is he correct?

To the extent that he believes that carbon dating of the Newport Tower,
properly adjusted for the reservoir effect, would yield a pre-1636 date, and
that the Newport Tower is therefore an artifact left behind by pre-17th
century visitors to Newport, he would be incorrect.


Much of McCulloch's paper is in line with the discussions in
sci.archaeology in the late late 90s. The technical aspects of what he
has written were not much questioned - and indeed received support
from a number of people - at the time and I see no reason reason why
they are any less valid now.

But you obviously fail to understand, or more likely are simply ignoring,
the fact that radio carbon dating of the Newport Tower is irrelevant to the
question of its age.


and which I believe you already knew about before this thread going.


Oh, and yes, my only concern is with the specific H&J dating of the
Newport Tower.


In that case, the thread does belong on sci.archaeology, and you continue
to
be an ass. Given that C14 dating may be iffy, every artifact found on the
site of the Newport Tower is dated to post 1636, **and there are no
records
of any comments at all by the original colonists, or their progeny, that
the
Newport Tower existed when they arrived and founded the colony, why in the
world would you have any doubts that the Newport Tower was built
post-1636?

Hmm....

I wonder why, with all your huffing and puffing, you choose to not respond
to the paragraph immediately above. Could it be that you are unable to post
a cogent response?

But let me assist you. If you choose not to respond to that paragraph in
response to the present post, we will take it as an admission that you've
simply been engaging in tilting at windmills (so to speak) with this red
herring regarding carbon dating of an artifact that simply didn't exist
prior to 1636.



Eric Stevens

Steve


Steve
--
The above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal advice,
because we do not have an attorney-client relationship, and
should not be construed as either. This posting does not
represent the opinion of my employer, but is merely my personal
view. To reply, delete _spamout_ and replace with the numeral 3

Eric Stevens


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Problems with the radio carbon dating of the Newport Tower
    ... close to a large body of water may be, ... have any impact on illuminating when the Newport Tower was constructed. ... Radiocarbon Age that result may be necessitated due to a variety of causes. ... reservoir) than atmospheric carbon may yield what is termed apparent ages. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Best Books on Hydrogen Future Possibilities
    ... shift reaction of water with carbon to form hydrogen. ... In the higher carbon alkanes more of the hydrogen comes from the water ... agree that for bulk energy storage applications, ... Please consider the tremendous value each ton of carbon burning is ...
    (sci.energy.hydrogen)
  • Re: Best Books on Hydrogen Future Possibilities
    ... By this accounting natural gas coal and oil are energy sinks since ... by this accounting hydrogen made from water and sunlight by solar ... water and carbon by ancient biomass ...
    (sci.energy.hydrogen)
  • Re: Just in case you had a hydrologically uninteresting day...
    ... As I recall the explanation for the lower reservoir being essentially connected to the East Fork of the Black River, it was to provide a water source to compensate for natural evaporation at the upper reservoir, and losses due to leakage. ... That dam does have a conventional spillway, and though water did flow over the dam, it did so in the manner in which it was designed.Since it normally held back the water for the upper reservoir, and since much of the energy was removed from the water in the elevation drop/scouring and destruction before it went back into the river at Johnsons Shut-Ins the lower dam was spared much of the brunt of the impact. ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • More about IRW 2007 HPR site.
    ... you come to the approximately square body of water that extending this ... narrower reservoir to the lower right). ... If anyone would like a copy of the OS Pathfinder Map of the FMS ... FMS, this should be used on any rocket going above 4,000 Feet (1,220 ...
    (uk.tech.rocketry)
Loading