Carbon dating of dinosaur fossils
This, of course, raises some ethical questions, but let's brush these aside for now.We proceed with the examination of the research done by Miller and his fellow researchers from the CRSEF.In particular, it is implausible that it would have been considered worthwhile to try to use radiocarbon dating methods on these bones, since the rocks that they were taken from were determined to be 99 million years old, as shown in this paper by Kowallis et al.Now, it is known that $^\text$ decays at a fast enough rate (half-life ~6000 years) for this dating method to be absolutely useless on such samples. would not have been able to obtain this sample, had they been honest about their intent.At a horizon of 40,000 years the amount of carbon 14 in a bone or a piece of charcoal can be truly minute: such a specimen may contain only a few thousand 14C atoms.Consequently equally small quantities of modern carbon can severely skew the measurements.is a special issue that focuses on the investigation of dinosaur proteins inside fossil bones.
What solutions are available for increasing accuracy of the tests? From the source linked above: Carbon-14 is considered to be a highly reliable dating technique.This has been argued before, but the testing process itself is loaded with procedures that rigorously remove contaminants.