As I often say during Facebook arguments: link, or it didn’t happen. Our flagship program is called the Peer Revue, where we teach scientists to perform stand-up comedy then throw them on stage in front of a live audience.WYLONA But it has to be true, it says so on their wikipedia page. We have to assume, for example, that the rate of decay (that is, a 5,730 year half-life) has remained constant throughout the unobservable past.However, there is strong evidence which suggests that radioactive decay may have been greatly accelerated in the unobservable past.When a creature dies, it ceases to consume more radiocarbon while the C-14 already in its body continues to decay back into nitrogen.So, if we find the remains of a dead creature whose C-12 to C-14 ratio is half of what it's supposed to be (that is, one C-14 atom for every two trillion C-12 atoms instead of one in every trillion) we can assume the creature has been dead for about 5,730 years (since half of the radiocarbon is missing, it takes about 5,730 years for half of it to decay back into nitrogen).If you're behind a web filter, please make sure that the domains *.and *.are unblocked.
After about 10 half-lives, the amount of radiocarbon left becomes too miniscule to measure and so this technique isn't useful for dating specimens which died more than 60,000 years ago.
The new isotope is called "radiocarbon" because it is radioactive, though it is not dangerous.
It is naturally unstable and so it will spontaneously decay back into N-14 after a period of time.
The dating process is always designed to try to extract the carbon from a sample which is most representative of the original organism.
In general it is always better to date a properly identified single entity (such as a cereal grain or an identified bone) rather than a mixture of unidentified organic remains.