Carbon 14 dating and the shroud of turin
Each sub-sample was then burned with oxygen to produce carbon dioxide.An Accelerator Mass Spectrometer was then used to measure the ratio of carbon 14 to carbon 12 isotopes.Do we imagine the authors Sue Benford and Joe Marino are wrong?Do we imagine the reviewers and editors who scrutinized the article, are also wrong?He found extraordinary evidence of medieval mending that explains the chemical differences.He also found clear chemical reasons to believe that the cloth is several centuries older than the carbon dating results.To believe in the tests, we must also ignore Christopher Ramsey, the current head of the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, a lab that participated in the original carbon 14 dating of the Shroud.In March of 2008, he said that because of new information “further research is certainly needed.” He went on to say: It is equally important that experts assess and reinterpret some of the other evidence.
To still accept the old carbon dating, we must also imagine that a comprehensive twelve page article in the scientific journal (Jul/Aug 2008) is simply wrong.
He published his findings in the peer-reviewed journal (Vol 425 (2005) 189–194).
We must imagine, too, that Georgia Tech’s Principal Research Scientist, forensic materials chemist John L.
That sample was divided among three radiocarbon dating laboratories and a reserved piece was set aside in case it was needed.
The labs, in turn, divided their pieces into sub-samples in order to run multiple tests.
But what we should be reading, if scientific accuracy is important, is that the carbon dating is well understood to be invalid. Thanks to the Internet, many of today’s readers are well informed and this makes reporters’ stories that mostly rely on regurgitated old information look lame.