Radiometric dating

[npetreley]

1. Can the same daughter radioisotope result from two different parents?

2. Can an isotope we assume is a "daughter" product actually result from neutron capture instead of decay?

3. Should isotopes kiss on the first date?

 

[Sky]

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Can you repeat that in English?

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Sky77
I have no idea what you are talking about.

Then you probably wouldn't have the answers, so don't worry about it.

 

[Morat]

  Off the top of my head?

1) No. The decay series might hit some of the same elements, but always different isotopes. So there's no real chance of confusing them. For instance U238, U235,Th232  decay into Pb206, Pb207, and Pb208 respectively.

2) I suppose it's possible, but the neutron flux required to alter any date significantly would be somewhat "bad". Not to mention where would they come from?

3) Third date, as per usual.

 

 

[Lacmeh]

No nuclei don´t capture neutrons.
And thos emythical neutrons must come from somewhere, be not too fast, not too slow and flying around near a nuclei. The chance for this to happen is as big as having a frontal car crash in the desert when both drive offroad cars.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by npetreley
1. Can the same daughter radioisotope result from two different parents?

Seems like it should be possible from a theoretical standpoint. I don't think this is an issue with any of the commonly used dating methods, however.

2. Can an isotope we assume is a "daughter" product actually result from neutron capture instead of decay?

While neutron capture is a theoretical possiblity, it requires a very large number of free neutrons to be of any significance.

Also, some radioisotope sequences (U-Th for example) measure a daughter isotope that has fewer neutrons than the common stable form.

3. Should isotopes kiss on the first date?

That depends. Is it True Love?

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Lacmeh
No nuclei don´t capture neutrons.
And thos emythical neutrons must come from somewhere, be not too fast, not too slow and flying around near a nuclei. The chance for this to happen is as big as having a frontal car crash in the desert when both drive offroad cars.

I don't know if it's as rare as you make it out to be.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie
Seems like it should be possible from a theoretical standpoint. I don't think this is an issue with any of the commonly used dating methods, however.

Why wouldn't it be a potential issue?

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by npetreley
Why wouldn't it be a potential issue?

From what I understand, unstable isotopes go through a relatively predictable decay sequence. I don't believe that the decay sequences used in radiometric dating overlap in a significant way with the decay sequences of other isotopes.

 

[Morat]

  From the checking I've done, I can't find any overlap in the decay sequences. Same elements, sure, but different isotopes.  Anyone want to email the Radiometric guy from the other thread about it? I'd imagine he'd know, or could find out, rather rapidly.

  For that matter, Nick, why didn't you ask these questions in the thread he was already in?

 

[Joe Meert]

Yes, the same daughter products can be produced from different isotopes. For example, in the [SUP]40[/SUP]Ar/[SUP]39[/SUP]Ar dating method there are small, measurable and correctable interferences from Chlorine, Calcium and argon. For example:

[SUP]36[/SUP]Ar is produced from [SUP]40[/SUP]Ca and [SUP]36[/SUP]Cl

[SUP]37[/SUP]Ar is produced from [SUP]40[/SUP]Ca and [SUP]39[/SUP]K and [sup]37[/sup]Ar

[SUP]38[/SUP]Ar is produced from [SUP]42[/SUP]Ca, [SUP]39[/SUP]K, [SUP]41[/SUP]K, [sup]40[/sup]Ar and [SUP]38[/SUP]Cl

[SUP]39[/SUP]Ar is produced from [SUP]42[/SUP]Ca, [SUP]40[/SUP]K, [sup]38[/sup]Ar, [sup]40[/sup]Ar and [SUP]39[/SUP]K


[SUP]40[/SUP]Ar is produced from [SUP]43[/SUP]Ca, [SUP]40[/SUP]K, [SUP]41[/SUP]K and [SUP]44[/SUP]Ca

None of these cause a significant issue with regard to radiometric dating using the [SUP]40[/SUP]Ar/[SUP]39[/SUP]Ar system.   I can almost guarantee that these are the reactions 'questioned' at the start of this thread since they occur during the irradiation process as neutrons interact with these isotopes and they (the discussions regarding these isotopes) have found their way into the creationist literature.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Joe Meert
I can almost guarantee that these are the reactions 'questioned' at the start of this thread since they occur during the irradiation process as neutrons interact with these isotopes and they have found their way into the creationist literature.

Bzzzt. That's not where I was going at all. I haven't even seen that in creationist literature, but thanks for the tip. I'll check it out. (By the way, why do you know so much about creationist literature, and how is it that the neutrons found their way into it?)

 

[npetreley]

Oh, and thanks for being honest about the isotopes.

 

[Morat]

  So why do you ask?

 

[Joe Meert]

What a surprise.  Usually you accuse me of dishonesty, discarding data and adhering to dogma.  You've mellowed.  I know a lot about creationist literature because I've been called on to discuss these issues with schoolboard members and teachers.   By the way, there is nothing 'strange' or troubling about these reactions due to irradiation.  The daughter products are produced in the reactor.

 

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Joe Meert
What a surprise.  Usually you accuse me of dishonesty, discarding data and adhering to dogma.

I can see you still have that paranoia problem. Haven't you scheduled a doctor's appointment yet?

 

[JGMEERT]

Do you have anything substantive to discuss?  So far, you post questions, accusations and then hurl token insults (e.g. paranoia, dishonesty) at the respondent?  Is this the best we can get from creationists in defense of their ideas?  Surely not, because I've seen some coherent discussions on the subject elsewhere.  So what was your motivation for starting a new thread?

 

 

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by JGMEERT
Do you have anything substantive to discuss? 

 

Looks like he´s run out of ideas. His claims have been refuted, his lack of scientific knowledge has been demonstrated, obviously he is a bad looser.