JA>And of course carbon dating is not historically accurate. Look
  >at the dating of the trees buried during Mount St. Helens.

RM> My impression is it doesn't matter what the carbon based matter
RM> is buried in, they check the age by the break down of the
RM> radioactive isotope of the carbon which occurs at a relatively
RM> predictable rate over time, although it's harder to nail down
RM> as accurately when it gets quite old.

JA>Right - but my point is they 'carbon dated' trees that were buried
  >during the eruption that came out to be thousands of years old.

Okay, I looked into this and I saw the articles that you were
referring to. It looks like when things are buried during an
eruption it can mess up the dating and they are looking for
other ways to adjust for that.

I found info on a number of sites and most, a few thousand years
old, gave accurate dating to within a few hundred years, which
is the norm, but St Helens they got an estimate of 350,000 years
old when it should have been under 100 years, so something was
definitely wrong there..  That said, that may not have been
standard Carbon Dating since it doesn't give results from farther
back than around 50,000 years..

I appreciate your comments though. It's aways good to learn
something new.. It gives you more things to forget later..  B)

---
 * SLMR Rob  * Pride is the lower classes substitution for class
 * Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (618:250/1)