Wednesday, March 31, 2010

R.A.T.E. and Carbon-14 Dating

In the first RATE book (Volume 1), it was formally decided that any research into carbon-14 dating should not be done as it was not as relevant to the overall aim of researching radioisotopes with long half-lives. However, with a highly successful fundraising campaign, they apparently had a change of heart before the second book was to be published. Carbon-14 became a priority once again, and they did a research project on it that was probably the most interesting out of them all.

John Baumgardner did the presentation paper on 14C. To research the effectiveness of radiocarbon as a geologic clock, he turned to one of creationism’s oldest tricks: dating zero-sum samples. This is a tactic with a long tradition, going back to the 1960’s and 70’s, when recently deceased mollusks would be sent to laboratories to be carbon-dated, and they were found to be 2,000 years old, or more, in radiocarbon years.(1) (Isaac, 2005) Penguins or other Arctic/Antarctic creatures would sometimes also be used, ignoring the fact that ice is a repository for Carbon-12. For this test, however, a different kind of zero-sum was used. Instead of recently deceased samples, Baumgardner looked to the other end of the timeline, and dated extremely old samples. Coal, in fact.

It sounds absurdly simple: Do a radiocarbon date on a lump of coal, and because it’s so old, there should be virtually no 14C present. But the idea of doing a 14C date on a sample which should be completely radiocarbon-dead is not new. Creationists had claimed 14C trace-amount discrepancies inside coal and oil ever since at least the early 1970’s. (Whitelaw, 1970) But it had been noticed by other, more secular, scientists that trace amounts of radiocarbon were to be found in samples which are clearly far older than 50,000 years, even after the development of more accurate equipment, such as acceleration mass spectrometry, or AMS. Baumgardner has no end of fun in citing these sources in the opening sections of his paper. For example, he cites an article published by German scientists at the University of Kiel, stating how a barrier of 40,000 years could not be breached in dating the shells of foraminifera in sea-floor core samples due to apparent 14C contamination whose origin could not be determined. (Nadeau, et al., 2001) Another article cited openly states how “contamination” (Baumgardner’s quotation marks, not mine) is named as the cause of inaccuracy beyond the 40-50 thousand year mark. (Bird, et al., 1999). He even lists an exhaustive table detailing major scientific journals and the results of their radiocarbon measurements on samples deemed to be older than 100,000 years.

At this point, Baumgardner has successfully made his case, and no experiments really need to be done. But these cited sources do not simply establish the awareness among geochronologists of the problem. They also establish that the RATE team was well aware of this type of phenomenon, and saw an opportunity to use it.

For this study, samples of coal were obtained form the U.S. Department of Energy Coal Sample Bank maintained at Pennsylvania State University. These had previously been collected in 180kg quantities from recently exposed areas of active mines, placed in 115 liter steel drums, and then were purged with argon. The samples were then processed into representative 300g samples with .085mm particle size, and sealed under argon in foil multi-laminate bags. Ten out of 33 available coal samples were selected. These were then taken to “one of the world’s best AMS laboratories.” Baumgardner does not say which one, tacitly implying that there may be some legal consequences if it were named. The samples were combusted into CO2 and then converted to acetylene using a lithium carbide synthesis process. The acetylene was then dissociated in a high voltage AC electrical discharge to produce a circular disk of graphite on spherical aluminum pellets, which were to be the “targets” of the AMS system. Each target was then analyzed on 16 different spots as a variance check to help reduce any potential contamination of the sample. Four measurements were then done on each of the ten samples, with a standard background of 0.077±0.005 pMC (that’s percent of modern carbon) applied.

The results? Not surprisingly, trace amounts of 14C were found. In pMC the results ranged from 0.163 to 0.492. Faint traces, to be sure, but traces nevertheless.

So, Baumgardner showed that this discrepancy was much more than academic references to the scientific literature. It really was there. But the RATE team wasn’t quite done beating this dead horse just yet. Not content with their results on coal, they included another set of samples even more devoid of original radiocarbon – diamond!

About 50mg of sub-millimeter diamond chips were cut from a diamond obtained from the Kimberley district in South Africa. The sample had been shattered using a sapphire mortar and pestle. The diamond chips were then included with the ten coal samples sent to the unnamed AMS laboratory. These proved to be a challenge for the lab, since it had never before attempted to oxidize diamond. However, they were eventually successful, even though the results took considerably longer.

And those results? There were traces of 14C detected as well. This time, results on six measurements ranged from 0.1 to 0.15, ±.03, but no standard background correction was applied this time. These results, Baumgardner tells us, are statistically equivalent with the values given by the coal – approximately 0.12 pMC, or roughly the equivalent of 55,700 years. This, he says, confirms the accelerated decay model. Clearly, the reason these coals and diamonds are still showing some minute traces of age is because they aren’t the millions of years they are purported to be. Rather, they stem from the catastrophic geotectonic events surrounding the Flood event, with much of the coal stemming from the buried organic material which resulted.

The anomaly in 14C radiometric dating that Baumgardner helps unveil is interesting. But the conclusions he draws from them are questionable. The implication is that the 55,000 RCY produced in these 14C measurements somehow actually indicate a real age of something around 6,000. But Baumgardner cites the wrong sort of evidence for this. Were his scenario true, the accelerated decay, which he and every other RATE researcher seems to have decided took place during the Flood, and not the Creation Week, would have happened about 4,400 years ago – the time Biblical scholars have calculated that Noah’s flood happened. That means that 14C dating should show a consistent half-life pattern on all samples between modern-day and 4,400 years ago, but then suddenly leap into absurdly old ages on anything older than that. In other words, charcoal from, say, a Phonecian campfire, dated by other methods to be 5,000 years old, would yield a radiocarbon date of over 50,000 years! Baumgardner, however, cites nothing like this. Also, the trace amount of 14C does not quite fit the revised timeline of accelerated decay. As Baumgardner himself notes, any value of alpha decay large enough to produce 500 million years worth of decay in 87Rb with a half life of 48.8 billion years would entirely wipe out any and all 14C that might have been present before such an event occurred. In other words, coal and diamond should be radiocarbon dead anyway! His response?

"An important issue then arises as to how an episode of accelerated decay during the Flood might have affected a short half-life isotope like 14C. The surprising levels of 14C in fossil material from organisms that were alive before the cataclysm suggests that perhaps only a modest amount of accelerated 14C decay took place during the cataclysm itself, an amount insufficient to eliminate the 14C that existed in these organisms prior to the cataclysm. Accordingly, we here offer the tentative hypothesis that, whatever the physics was describing the decay acceleration, it did not operate in so simple a manner as to reduce temporarily the effective half-lives of all radioisotopes by the same factor." (Vardiman, et al., 2005:620)

The solution, it seems, is more fantastic than the puzzle!

Some procedural problems are noteworthy in Baumgardner’s work. For example, he doesn’t include the standard background of 0.077±0.005 pMC in his results for the diamond chips. Why did he do this? He fails to say, but one can surmise he did so in order to present results that looked more similar to his results on coal. Also, if a true test for contamination were intended, Baumgardner could have suggested a test be run upon a sample that is not only radiocarbon-dead, but outright carbon-devoid. Quartz would be an ideal choice, both because its structure is silicon dioxide, containing no carbon whatsoever, and because silicon has many properties which are similar to carbon, allowing a sample to be better prepared for the AMS. If, using quartz, some trace amount of 14C were detected, we would know the results were due to sample contamination from some outside source. This would have been a good control for Baumgardner’s experiments, and would have made his work a genuine bit of science instead of a deliberately planned foregone conclusion.

One thing bears noting: The RATE team does point out a legitimate anomaly in 14C dating techniques. Trace amounts of radiocarbon simply shouldn’t be present in coal or diamond. So how did it get there? The lack of information to be found on this matter seems to indicate that scientists have yet to adequately address this problem. But a likely answer, which is consistent with everything we already know, is that it’s simply a matter of trace amounts being detectable in anything, if the instruments are sensitive enough. Carbon 12 makes up 98.9% of all carbon, with Carbon-13 making up 1.1% The percentage taken up by Carbon-14 is already a trace element at today’s levels, only a million-millionth, or 10-8 %! The fact that we can do any radiometric dating at all with such tiny amounts is remarkable. The sources for the trace amounts of 14C could come from literally anywhere – the sweat of a coal miner’s brow, the oils secreted by fingers handling the sample without gloves, or even the CO2 exhaled by a nearby scientist. But even with painstaking precautions, the 14C seems to find a way into the AMS every time. It would be worthwhile to find out why.

Perhaps the most important lesson the RATE team has taught us, is that we oughtn’t be quite so smug. Even a blind squirrel may find a nut, and a legitimate criticism can come from any source, no matter how misguided. If nothing else, creationists force us to go over the data one more time, and that’s always a good thing.

(1) This was due, of course, to the reservoir effect, in which mollusks or certain benthics get the carbon in their shells from radiocarbon-dead source material, such as dissolved limestone.

R.A.T.E. and Fission Tracks

One might be tempted to say that of all the RATE team’s projects, the one dealing with radiohalos was the weakest. But the one dealing with fission tracks is equally poor, if not outright worse. Andrew Snelling again takes point on this project, and an objective reading will safely conclude that his work is again profoundly rickety, at best. A thorough recount will therefore neither be needed nor given here. Only a brief overview is needed.

Now, to clarify some things, it would help to give a crash-course in fission-track dating. The idea is that after a crystal forms, radio-decay will emit particles out of and through the solid crystal. This has the effect of "scoring" or "scratching" the crystalline structure at the atomic level, because the mass of the emitted particle slices through the surrounding atoms. This leaves a track, much the same way that a bicycle tire leaves a track through gravel. If acid is added to the crystal surface, the tiny atomic tracks can be widened, because with each successive layer of atoms removed by the acid, the "groove" becomes deeper. Eventually, one can see these tracks with a high enough resolution microscope, and then be able to count them. From this, one can make an estimate as to the age of the crystal, dating from the time it initially hardened.

To conduct his study, Snelling selected samples from a few locations, including the Cambrian Muav and Tapeats tuffs from the western Grand Canyon (which he ascribes to being “early Flood”), Jurassic Morrison Formation tuff beds in southeastern Utah (“middle Flood”), and the Miocene Peach Springs Tuff, southeastern California (“post Flood”). The fission track ages of the zircon grains in these samples was determined by Action Laboratories in Ontario using the external detector method and a zeta calibration factor. The fission track dating estimates were the same as the ages determined using U-Pb isotope measurements, and a thermal resetting event in the Grand Canyon samples corresponded precisely with the onset of the Laramide uplift of the Colorado Plateau. These results clearly indicated that more than 500 million years worth of radioisotope decay has taken place (“at today’s rates”), yet Snelling concludes that this is evidence for the same sort of accelerated nuclear decay that has been cited in the other RATE research papers.

There is nothing in Snelling’s evaluation of fission tracks that would, by itself, cause one to conclude that millions of years worth of radioactive decay had taken place. In other words, nothing indicates accelerated decay. To make that case, he calls upon independent verification of such a conclusion from other sources. And which sources does he cite? Why, you guessed it! The same work by Humphreys, Austin, and himself, as cited in earlier on this blog! (He also cites one other reference by Baumgardener, which will be dealt with shortly.) He simply researches the fission tracks, obtains dates reasonably consistent with old-earth geology, and then claims they support a young earth anyway. Not only does the Emperor have no clothes, but the clothes have no Emperor, either.

Even more fatal to his interpretation is the annealing of the fission tracks in the Grand Canyon samples, caused by the same geologic events responsible for the Kaibab upwarp. Snelling claims that it was accelerated decay which heated the zircons enough to erase the fission tracks and reset the radioisotope clock. But this same accelerated decay is also purportedly responsible for more than fifty million years of fission tracking since that point. So there is an inherent contradiction in his version of events. Either the accelerated decay would have heated the zircons enough to all but completely wipe out any fission tracks, or the accelerated decay did not take place within the past 50 million years – more than enough to disprove his 6,000-year creationist paradigm anyway. To reconcile this problem, Snelling again invokes the obligatory “rapid cooling” event, for which he has no evidence.

R.A.T.E. and Nuclear Decay Theory

The R.A.T.E. team's research project to “conduct a literature search for evidence and models of accelerated nuclear decay and adapt to a creationist worldview if appropriate” fell to Eugene F. Chaffin. He describes his approach:

"In this chapter we will advance the hypothesis that the coupling constants for the strong and possibly the weak force are actually not constants but variables. We shall point out many instances in the scientific literature where physicists have considered this as a real possibility." (Vardiman et al., 2005:526)

And, Dr. Chaffin does precisely that. There are, in fact many working scientists who have openly considered the possibility of whether or not the coupling constants of atomic nuclei were always as they are now. However, the context in which these speculations have been made have been regarding the conditions shortly after the “Big Bang,” or in singularities such as black holes. Chaffin finds lots of fun references in the scientific literature, though, citing everyone from Edward Witten in relation to string theory (or “M” theory, as it’s now called), to Stephen Hawking. He discussed everything from Kaluza-Klein theory to Calabi-Yau shapes. He left very few stones unturned in terms of modern quantum mechanics.

So how did he do? Did he point out any instances in which accelerated decay had been observed? No. Did he suggest any mechanism by which the Fermi coupling constants might shift? No. If the strong or weak forces had shifted, did he suggest when? No. Did he suggest any means by which accelerated decay might be detectable? Ah! Here he was just a little bit successful!

Chaffin suggests that one means of detecting accelerated decay involves double β-decay. This rare type of decay occurs when two electrons are emitted in the same decay, (not just two β-decays in succession). The only useful isotope for which the half-life for double β-decay has been directly measured is 82Se. So, Chaffin suggests, it is possible to use this to see if accelerated decay is indicated. If the Fermi constant (GF) is changing, then the half-life for double β-decay should change relative to that for ordinary β-decay. Hence, he suggests, what is needed is a suite of samples for which 82Se and its decay product 82Kr have been measured, and also some other measurements such as K/Ar or Rb/Sr.

To be completely honest, the logic behind this is somewhat lost on me. I don’t know enough about quantum mechanics to be able to say that the Fermi constant would be seen as shifting if the half life of double β-decay changes or not. However, it is a pure research proposal which goes to learning more about the precise nature of the atom. With continued experiments along these lines going on every day, particularly at the recently repaired Large Hadron Collider (LHC) in Europe, such an experiment may accidentally yield a glimmer of insight into such physics. As such, I’m in favor of Dr. Chaffin’s proposal. A good suggestion is a good suggestion, regardless of whether the person doing the suggesting might possibly be a complete crackpot with an axe to grind.

Would this sort of experiment find any confirmation for the creationist viewpoint? I strongly suspect not. In fact, if it is shown that the Fermi equation is “shiftable,” then it would have to have shifted after the onset of the existence of planet Earth, and I highly doubt that is the case. I agree with the other scientists quoted, that the “shift” would have occurred close to the point of the “Big Bang,” or perhaps within black holes.

All in all, Chaffin’s research project achieved very little in terms of advancing his agenda. But it made for some damned interesting reading!

Monday, March 22, 2010

R.A.T.E. and Radiohalos

Well, it's been another long stretch in posting anything to this blog, and I was wondering what should go on next. But to my surprise, I've realized that I'd forgotten to publish the other findings behind the R.A.T.E. team that I'd researched. So, in the interest of being thorough, here's the stuff I meant to put on this blog last year:

According to the R.A.T.E. team's second volume, Andrew A. Snelling tackled the problem of radiohalos, a subject which somehow keeps coming up in spite of repeated refutations. (Baillieul, 2005; Isaac, 2005) it bears noting, before we explore Snelling’s actual treatise, how the initial research proposal was phrased. The research was to, “resolve the question if Po halos are special evidence for the created rocks only or could they also occur in Flood rocks.” This, of course, is a false dichotomy. In other words, the possibility that polonium halos are evidence for neither Creation nor Flood, is not even considered.
Snelling begins with a radical shift in tactics. In the past, it had been argued, chiefly by Gentry, that polonium halos were evidence of in situ Creation. (Gentry, 1986) But Snelling destroys this argument forever. In the very opening sentence of his chapter, he states:

"The ubiquitous presence of 238U and 210Po, 214Po, and 218Po radiohalos in the same biotite flakes within granitic plutons formed during the Flood falsifies the hypothesis that all granites and Po radiohalos were created, but testifies to the simultaneous formation of these radiohalos." (Vardiman, et al., 2005:101)

In other words, Snelling has admitted the critics of Robert Gentry were right! The radiohalos don’t prove Creation. It was pointed out (in an earlier post) how Gentry worked closely with the RATE team, and so it stands to good reason that this means he endorses this new viewpoint. But, according to Snelling, these radiohalos do indicate that all such halos formed at the same time, and that they formed during Noah’s Flood. Why ever should that matter? What’s Snelling driving at?
Essentially, Snelling says that during the Flood event, rapid alpha decay occurred, causing uranium-238 to produce amounts of radon-222. This same Flood event caused some hydrothermic transporting of the radon within fissures of the biotite to other areas of the crystal, where it then decayed into polonium, leaving a halo.
This re-interpretation of polonium halos has some advantages. It acknowledges transport of radon through the biotite, which critics of Gentry’s work have always been quick to point out. It also acknowledges that the polonium halos should be along the same fissures as the uranium-containing grains. But right away it also runs into some problems. Here are a few of the major ones:
Snelling gives no particular reason why one should choose his model over the existing one, and leaves open some rather gaping holes. For example, even though he might be right about hydration within fissures of biotite, if there were something which accelerated alpha decay, then it would affect such decay in both 238U and 222Rn. The half-life for radon is a little less than four days (3.8, in fact), so if four billion years’ worth of alpha decay for 238U took place within one year (being generous to the 40 days and 40 nights of Noah’s Flood), then the half-life of radon’s alpha decay would have been reduced to a mere fraction of a millisecond (.08208 milliseconds, to be precise) – far too quick for transport to have taken place to form any separate Po halos. Also, choosing the Flood as the Biblical event which marked rapid decay rates is somewhat arbitrary. Why not some other point, such as when Egypt was struck with the ninth plague of darkness? Or perhaps the moment when the sun was purportedly halted in mid-sky while the Israelites slaughtered the Amalekites? Perhaps the parting of the Red Sea was caused by a rapid-decay event which vaporized the water? Snelling is biased in favor of Noah’s Flood only for reasons of theological continuity. But the biggest problem is one that was alluded to earlier. Any such rapid alpha decay would generate fantastic amounts of heat. Yet if biotite is heated much higher than 150° C, the halos become annealed and disappear! What mechanism does Snelling propose dissipated so much heat that Po halos were able to form in newly crystallized biotite? Amazingly, he doesn’t! He merely states that hydrothermal fluids might move and dissipate some of the heat from plutonic granites, but “an additional, as yet unknown mechanism would have been needed to remove the heat generated by the accelerated radioisotope decay.”
The above quote points to an Appendix C at the end of the chapter to deal with the problem further. There is a very special quote there which illustrates fully the failings of the creationist mindset on this matter:

…All creationist models of young earth history have serious problems with heat disposal, because there is simply too much geological work that has to be done in too short a time. Of course, the perception that there is a problem with disposal of heat is based on our present understanding and observations of heat production from radioactive decay and of heat flow, which are then applied using uniformitarian assumptions to geological processes in the past. But if geological processes have not been uniform in their rate and operation in the past, the uniformitarian assumption to project the present back into the past does not apply. In a nutshell, the perception that there is a heat problem is based solely on our understanding of these processes in the present, our ignorance of what actually happened during the catastrophic upheaval of the Flood year, and the Scriptural restriction to young earth modeling. (Vardiman, et al., 2005:184)

There is a logical fallacy known as ‘appeal to ignorance.’ One simply can’t find a better example of such than this.