Geophysicist Dr John Baumgardner investigated the 14C in a group of diamonds. According to the halflife of 14C, there should be none left at all (or extremely little) in the diamonds, although the results showed that it was "10 times over the detection limit." This means that they had a radiocarbon age far less than that of million years. Dr Baumgardner also repeated this test with six alluvial diamonds from Namibia which contained even more radiocarbon.
from what im seeing there is plenty of reason to belive this research of yours was flawed anyway.
this site directly references his workhttp://www.asa3.org/...s/carbon-kb.htm
below are some other referances i foundCarbon
has two stable, nonradioactive isotopes
C), and carbon-13
C). In addition, there are trace amounts of the unstable isotope carbon-14 (14
C) on Earth. Carbon-14 has a relatively short half-life
of 5,730 years, meaning that the amount of carbon-14 in a sample is halved over the course of 5,730 years due to radioactive decay
. Carbon-14 would have long ago vanished from Earth were it not for the unremitting cosmic ray
flux interactions with the Earth's atmosphere
, which create more of the isotope. The neutrons
resulting from the cosmic ray interactions participate in the following nuclear reaction
on the atoms of nitrogen molecules (N2
) in the atmosphere:
Samples older than the upper age-limit cannot be dated because the small number of remaining intrinsic 14
C atoms will be obscured by 14
C background atoms introduced into the samples while they still resided in the environment, during sample preparation, or in the detection instrument. As of 2007[update]
, the limiting age for a 1 milligram sample of graphite is about ten half-lives, approximately 60,000 years.
This age is derived from that of the calibration
blanks used in an analysis, whose 14
C content is assumed to be the result of contamination during processing (as a result of this, some facilities
will not report an age greater than 60,000 years for any sample).
#1. The small apparent non-zero values are less than measurement error. In other words, the readings are consistent with zero C14 content. In fact, the experiments cited by the creationists appear to be attempts to establish the measurement error of there equipment. Older carbon dating techniques directly detected decays of C14 atoms. The problem: If the material is too old, the small amount of C14 present may not decay in the measurement interval. Newer, more accurate techniques use mass spectroscopy. Mass spectroscopy, like any man-made measurement, is not perfect. In particular, given a pure sample of C12, I suspect a mass spectrometer would indicate that a non-zero amount of C14 present. It is nigh impossible to measure exactly zero.
#2. Contamination. It doesn't take much contamination to spoil a sample with near-zero quantity of C14. Creationists pounce on this explanation as meaning all carbon 14 readings are suspect. False. While that same level of contamination (if this is the explanation) will add some error to the dating of some reasonably aged sample, the error will be small -- so long as the sample is not too old. The contamination is additive, not proportional.
#3. Alternate source of C14 production. Natural diamonds are not pure carbon. The most common contaminant is nitrogen, 0.1% in gem-quality diamonds. Nearby radioactive material could trigger exactly the same C14 production process from nitrogen as occurs in the upper atmosphere, albeit at a much reduced rate. Another possible avenue is C13, which has a small but non-zero neutron absorption cross section. By either mechanism, this is essentially internal contamination.
in short not only is carbon dating only fesable for materials around 60,000 years old or younger and is therefore redundant for mesuring diamonds, there are several way this geophysicist's results could have provided a false mesurement and is therefore completly unreliable
Edited by kilvehk, 31 July 2012 - 12:01 AM.