Dating uranium 238
We need to explore just how accurate these determinations are, whether there really is consensus on standard values for the half-lives and decay constants, and just how independent and objective the standard values are from one another between the different methods. “Absolute Ages Aren’t Exactly.” Science 282 (5395): 1840–1841. Of course, it is to be expected that every long-lived radioactive isotope is likely to show similar variation and uncertainty in half-life measurements because these are difficult measurements to make.
2006; Schön, Winkler, and Kutschera 2004; Villa et al. Therefore, the aim of this contribution is to further document the methodology behind and history of determining the present decay constants and half-lives of the parent radioisotopes used as the basis for the long-age dating methods. Indeed, in order to discard such outliers in any data set, one must establish a reason for discarding those data points which cannot be reasonably questioned. In order to rectify this deficiency, Snelling (2014a, b; 2015a, b; 2016) has documented the methodology behind and history of determining the decay constants and half-lives of the parent radioisotopes K which are used as the basis for the Rb-Sr, Lu-Hf, Re-Os, Sm-Nd, K-Ar, and Ar-Ar long-age dating methods respectively. “Isotopic ‘Fingerprints’ for Natural Uranium Ore Samples.” International Journal of Mass Spectrometry 193 (1): 9–14. The recognition of an urgent need to improve the situation is not new (for example, Min et al. It continues to be mentioned, at one time or another, by every group active in geo- or cosmochronology (Schmitz 2012). From a creationist perspective, the 1997–2005 RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) project successfully made progress in documenting some of the pitfalls in the radioisotope dating methods, and especially in demonstrating that radioisotope decay rates may not have always been constant at today’s measured rates (Vardiman, Snelling, and Chaffin 2000, 2005). U decay constants and half-lives have been made using direct counting experiments and geological age comparisons, as well as by critical reviews and reevaluations of those determinations. “Natural Reactor Studies.” In Uranium in the Pine Creek Geosyncline.
By 1971 the direct counting experiments had provided U half-life values with small uncertainties which ever since have been the recommended values used in all U-Pb age calculations.
(1969), have not been accompanied by any comparable improvement in the accuracy of the decay constants (Begemann et al.
2001; Steiger and Jäger 1977), in spite of ongoing attempts (Miller 2012).
This is consistent with the several lines of impeccable evidence that radioisotope decay rates were grossly accelerated during the year-long biblical global Flood cataclysm, and then the decay rates decelerated.
That we may still be detecting the radioisotope decay rates decelerating is likewise consistent with the Flood occurring only about 4300 years ago.
Ideally, the uncertainty of the decay constants should be negligible compared to, or at least be commensurate with, the analytical uncertainties of the mass spectrometer measurements entering the radioisotope age calculations (Begemann et al. Clearly, based on the ongoing discussion in the conventional literature this is still not the case at present.