So, Doubling the Halflife and Assuming a Rising C14 Level Doesn't Fix It ...

Creation vs. Evolution Am I Wrong in Assuming a Stable C14 Level for Last Millennia? · So, What Are the Possible Solutions? · New blog on the kid : Assume Twice the Halflife ... · So, Doubling the Halflife and Assuming a Rising C14 Level Doesn't Fix It ...

Again, the problem is why we have only 200 extra years and not 960 in 1950. Why do samples from 1950 carbon date as 1750 and not as 990, as per raw dates?

There are basically two options left, apart from the CO2 levels being measured too high in 1960 or too low in 1860. They are not mutually exclusive.

1) Most of the released CO2 (and other atmospheric carbon) is not fossil carbon but due to a higher bio-mass of men and beasts and fungi that breathe air and exhale CO2. Or reduced biomass in green plants.

2) The carbon 14 production is in this timespan quicker than normal.

This would mean that the part of the background radiation that is cosmic is normally, for maintaining 100 pmC (or for maintaining the steady rise outlined in previous, supposing it is in fact not refuted, though I somewhat expect it to be), lower than the present 0.34 milliSievert per year.*

But this would mean two more things.

a) Getting ten times as fast a carbon 14 production as normal over these 3000 years since Troy doesn't need tenfold or hundredfold or thousandfold 0.34 milliSievert per year. It so happens, we don't know what kind of function between linear, square or cubic the radioactivity mostly approximates in relation to the carbon 14 reduced. We also know that with 0.34 milliSievert per year a hundredfold radioactivity would be at the breaking point of what men could have endured (34 milliSievert per year is more than Fukushima) and thousandfold would be lethal. But if the present 0.34 milliSievert per year is more than the normal cosmic radiation that has upheld the normal production, we would not get 340 but a lower figure for thousandfold even.

b) A faster carbon 14 production means more radioactivty, and more radioactivity means colder weather. The green house effect of CO2 emissions would if so be counterbalancing the chilling effect of the radioactivity.

This is where I think I should be contacting Minze and Stuiver to hear their view.**

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Bridget of Kildare
1.II.2022

Apud Kildariam, in Hibernia, sancts Brigidae Virginis, quae cum lignum altaris tetigisset in testimonium virginitatis suae, lignum ipsum statim viride factum est.

* 0.34 at medium height of inhabited places - lower further down, higher higher up. The total background radiation is mostly from the ground and from radioactive technical applications, like X-rays in hospitals and some more : around (or slightly above) 3 milliSievert in Europe and around (or slightly above) 6 milliSievert in Princeton, US.

** Minze Stuiver and Bernd Becker, sorry!