text:
Carbon Dating: How old is it really?
Articles (Papers)
Carbon Dating: How old is…
(This is a variation of an article first published in "Chronology & Catastrophism Review" 2013. It also comprises the bulk of Chapter 3 in Science and Religion: Reconciling the Conflicts, 2013.)
Radiocarbon dating is not employed to test theories, but to support them . . .
radiocarbon always gives a scattered set of dates.
The theorists then pick the ones they believe to be correct.
—Charles Ginenthal, 1997
Many of the most obvious conflicts between science and religion involve timing issues—the dating of events in Earth's history. Bible chronologies typically list Adam and Eve at about 4,000 BC. In contrast, science textbooks can hardly be found that do not refer to human or "pre-human" remains 10,000 to millions of years old. Why the discrepancy?2
A Valuable Tool, But With Limitations
Since the 1950s, the carbon-14 system has achieved a particularly high prominence. Thomas Higham described it:
Radiocarbon dating has been one of the most significant discoveries in 20th century science. Renfrew (1973) called it "the radiocarbon revolution"…. Desmond Clark (1979) wrote that were it not for radiocarbon dating, "we would still be foundering in a sea of imprecisions sometime bred of inspired guesswork but more often of imaginative speculation". . . .
According to one of the scientists who nominated Libby as a candidate for this honour [the Nobel Prize in Chemistry]; "Seldom has a single discovery in chemistry had such an impact on the thinking of so many fields of human endeavor. Seldom has a single discovery generated such wide public interest."3
Theoretically, carbon dating can be used to estimate the ages of once-living samples as old as 40,000 years, although some earlier claims were as high as 100,000 years.4 Due to the minute amounts of carbon-14 in any specimen, "the radioactive emanations from older objects are difficult to separate from background radiation."5 "So few parent atoms remain after seven or eight half-lives (less than 1%) that experimental uncertainty creates a limit for radiometric methods."6 (Note: for simplicity, in this paper carbon-14 is usually written "C14," however, when variants such as "C14," "14C" or "C-14" appear within a quote, they are shown as they were published.)
Contrary to popular perception, carbon dating is not a precise answer-all to chronology questions. This fact is openly recognized by scientists involved in the field. For instance, T. C. Aitchison and E. M. Scott wrote: "It has long been acknowledged, though not always fully acted upon, that radiocarbon dating measurements are not definitive, i.e. they do not produce precise age estimates."7
Failing to acknowledge this lack of precision, a Nova program that aired in 2009 showed a paleontologist who had found a skeleton of an extinct animal deep in a cave. The narrator indicated that they have samples dated "because they want to know exactly how old the skeleton is."8 Sorry—but the scientific dating methods are tools for estimating ages—not determining them exactly.
At the Proceedings of the Twelfth Nobel Symposium on carbon dating, an important detail about how carbon-14 dates are actually used was shared:
A famous American colleague, Professor Brew, briefly summarized a common attitude among archaeologists. . . .
"If a C14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a foot-note. And if it is completely 'out of date,' we just drop it."
Few archaeologists who have concerned themselves with absolute chronology are innocent of having sometimes applied this method."9
Although the symposium was held in 1970, the point is still relevant. It would seem that practices should have improved as technology advanced—but more recent accounts suggest that the accuracy of the results hasn't changed much. For example: "Nobody cites the many hundreds of C14 dates . . . from Thera. According to C14, Thera erupted c. 1660 BC . . . a date which is more than 110 years too early for even conventional historians. C14 dates are still only cited when they agree with your chronology!"10
How Carbon Dating Works
Carbon-14 is radioactive—therefore, it decays over time. It can be used as a dating tool because creatures and plants accumulate it during their lifetimes, and cease doing so when they die. The system is conceptually very simple. If four essential facts are known, an age can be calculated with precision. They are: (1) the C14 concentration in a specimen at its time of death; (2) the decay rate of C14; (3) the current C14 concentration in the specimen being "dated"; and (4) if anything else has affected the specimen's C14 content. Note: only the third of those four necessary facts can be measured, the other three must be estimated, assumed, or extrapolated.
Figure 1. Radioactive decay of C14. The curved line represents the declining amount of C14 atoms over time due to radioactive decay. During each half-life (~5,730 years), about half of the remaining C14 atoms in a specimen are expected to decay.
Radioactive decay causes once-living specimens to lose half of their C14 atoms in about each 5,730-year half-life. Thus, if the level today is half of what it was estimated to be when the thing died, it is said to be 5,730 years old. If its current level is only one quarter of the original estimate, 11,460 years old, and so on. See Figure 1.
Essential Fact #1: The Original Content
Since scientists aren't able to take sophisticated equipment back in time to actually measure the C14 concentration when a plant or animal died, it is necessary to estimate. It was natural for Willard Libby, the inventor of the method, to assume uniformity in this estimation.11 No doubt, he had been taught it from his youth, and he reasoned that living things in the past must have had the same C14 levels as seen in living things in modern times. Therefore, he used modern C14 levels to approximate the ancient.12 This is graphically represented in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Estimated years since a specimen died based on how much C14 was believed to have decayed since the death of the specimen. The curved line represents the loss of C14 over time due to radioactive decay. The bold line at the 100% level represents the generally accepted assumption that for thousands of years the original content has been at the same level as what is observed in the atmosphere in modern times. The small box on the decay curve represents the current level of a particular once-living specimen, in this instance measured at 50% of its assumed original content. The technique suggests that the specimen died about 5,730 years ago (one half-life).
Testing has not verified Libby's assumption of uniformity. Indeed, experiments have led to a startling conclusion: that C14 levels in the past were lower than they are now. If the experimental data was correctly collected and interpreted, Libby's assumption in estimating the original content is wrong.13 That assumption error causes C14 dates to appear "older" than the actual ages of the specimens dated. (See the "Assumption Error" section later in this paper for more details.)
Essential Fact #2: The Decay rate of C14
The decay rate of C14 is estimated by comparing measurements taken in the recent past with C14's current radioactivity levels. Early estimates of C14's half-life ranged from 1,000 to 25,000 years.14 The 5,730-year half-life was selected as the standard at the 5th Radiocarbon Dating Conference at Cambridge University, July 1962. Immediately prior to that time, some labs had been using 5,568 years, which introduced undesirable discrepancies in age estimates.15 More recently, 5,715 years was published for C14's decay rate.16 C. Bronk Ramsey noted: "The half-life is really not that well known and some scholars think that it may be substantially longer, perhaps as much as 6000" years.17
Alasdair Beal noted a frailty in estimating the half-life: "It is worth remembering that the half-life of C14 used in the calculations (5,730 years or thereabouts) has been calculated from measurements taken over only a few decades. It is also worth remembering that in a sample from 3000 BC the C14 content is now only diminishing at a rate of 0.0066% per year, . . . it would take only slight contamination to affect the result."18
Although there is still some uncertainty regarding the precise decay rate of C14, perhaps a more important question is whether the decay rate is consistent over time. Experiments have been performed to try to determine if radioactive decay rates can be affected when the materials involved are subjected to unusual conditions. As early as 1954 Kalervo Rankama reported: "the decay constant may be slightly altered by putting the nuclide in a different chemical combination or physical state."19 A more recent report suggests:
The constancy of rate of radioactive decay in all physical and chemical conditions is the mainstay of radiometric dating. However, "changes in radioactive decay constant depending on the physical and chemical environment of the nuclide have been known for 40 years." In particular a researcher . . . found that with a mixture of titanium and radioactive tritium "its radioactivity declined sharply" as it was heated from 115 to 160 degrees C. As the discovery was not of direct relevance to the research involved it was not published until 1994, when it appeared to have relevance to the problem of "cold fusion."20
That test involved other radioactive elements, but it showed that radioactive decay rates can be altered, thus creating more uncertainty regarding the second of the facts essential to precise C14 dates. Other things affecting decay rates were mentioned by G. Brent Dalrymple, including electric fields, pressure, and chemical combination.21
Radioactive decay is described as "spontaneous." In other words, "not due to any known cause."22 What if a cause is identified some day? Some scientists already favor the idea that sub-atomic particles such as neutrinos may affect radioactive decay. Frederic Jeuneman expressed this thought in 1972. He suggested that a supernova—one that is believed to have exploded about 11,000 years ago and only 1,500 light-years away—could have thrown dating measurements into a "cocked hat!" "Being so close, the . . . neutrino flux of the superexplosion must have had the peculiar characteristic of resetting all our atomic clocks."23
Alvin J. Sanders also suggested that neutrinos affect the process: "The precise value at any given time of the 'half-life' of any unstable isotope including 14C—must now be considered in doubt, since the Jenkins-Fischback effect implies that we may no longer view the decay rate of an isotope as intrinsically governed and therefore a constant in Nature."24
Supernova 1987-A was studied carefully by scientists. It was the first exploded star close enough to Earth and large enough for detailed analysis—made possible by the emplacement of modern neutrino-detection equipment. Roland Pease reported that it was the only supernova that could be seen well since 1604.25 Although it was outside our galaxy, estimated to be 160,000 light-years away, "a 100-fold spike in the neutrino counting rate, a peak never seen before or after"26 was discovered by detectors both in the Japanese Alps and in a salt mine under the shore of Lake Erie. Thus, neutrinos and other sub-atomic particles from nearby supernovas may have had an important effect on radioactive decay.
The decay rate may not be certain, or everlastingly set, however, it appears to be consistent enough to be useful in the formula for C14 date estimates during historical times.
Essential Fact #3: Measuring Current Levels
Measuring the current levels of C14 in a specimen is—by far—the most precisely determinable of the four essential facts. With the advent of AMS technology,27 scientists can determine the current composition of a sample with an impressive level of precision. However, "AMS tends to be significantly more expensive than decay counting,"28 and the less-precise technique is often employed.
Essential Fact #4: Has Anything Else Affected the Specimen's C14 Content?
This component of the formula is the most difficult to estimate due to the incalculable number of variables and unknowns. Contamination of some samples has been identified, leading scientists to take extra precautions in order to protect specimens. Testing the accuracy of this required fact is limited and subject to a huge array of possible assumptions.
Where does Carbon-14 come from?
Carbon-14 is rare,29 and it forms when nitrogen-14 (N14) reacts with free neutrons.30 Neutrons are "freed" from their nuclear bonds in chain reactions when cosmic rays
collide with atoms in Earth's atmosphere.31 C14 has the same chemical properties as C12 and C13 (stable isotopes of carbon),32 and any of the carbon isotopes can react with oxygen to form carbon dioxide, which enters plants "as a result of photosynthesis and by absorption through the roots."33 Plants are eaten by animals, and living things on Earth become ever-so-slightly radioactive due to ingesting things containing C14. When something dies, it no longer assimilates C14, at least not by the means described above. If an artifact is preserved from physical decay and leaching of chemicals, radioactivity may be the sole means whereby it gradually loses its C14.
Figure 3. Carbon-14 formation. Cosmic rays continually bombard the earth. When they strike atoms in the atmosphere, chain reactions occur, some of which result in free neutrons (n) that readily react with nitrogen-14 to form C14.
Assumption Error
Libby assumed that C14 levels must have remained constant during at least the last 20,000 to 30,000 years.34 Therefore: "a steady-state condition should have been established, in which the rate of formation of carbon-14 would be equal to the rate at which it disappears to reform nitrogen-14."35
To test the assumption, the rate that C14 forms in Earth's atmosphere was estimated (based on measurements from various locations around the globe). This was compared with C14's decay rate. The testing indicated that C14 is forming faster than it is decaying. A simple analogy may be helpful: Suppose water is steadily dripping into a large tub. As long as water drips in faster than it escapes, the water-level increases. If it reaches a point where the rate water is dripping in is matched by the rate it escapes, it is in a steady-state or equilibrium. Similarly, for C14 to be in a state of equilibrium, its formation rate would need to be matched by its decay rate.
Initial estimates indicated the formation rate was "about 10 percent" higher than the decay rate. This difference was attributed to "experimental errors."36 Other measurements were made, and a startling conclusion was reached. In 1963 R. E. Lingenfelter (one of Libby's collaborators) wrote: "There is strong indication, despite the large errors, that the present natural production rate exceeds the natural decay rate by as much as 25%."37 Here is a perplexing question: If this was true in 1963, what logical deduction can be made about the distant past? Isn't it that C14 has likely been building for some time, and thus, past levels were lower than current? In 2008 Ramsey suggested that the production rate of C14 "is surprisingly poorly known" and that "further fundamental research is certainly needed."38
Figure 4. A buildup curve contrasted with the assumed constant level. The curved line going up from 0% represents a rough estimate of the C14 levels in the atmosphere over the past 12,000 years or so. It is based on the 30,000 years Libby suggested was needed for C14 to build to a level close to equilibrium. The bold horizontal line represents the popular assumption that levels have remained constant over at least the past 12,000 years and are expected to remain the same in the future. Since current levels are about 80% of the equilibrium as calculated from the difference between the formation and decay rates, the line is drawn at 80% rather than the 100% used in figures 1 and 2.
It seems an odd twist of logic to ignore the strong experimental evidence, and instead assume that C14 levels have been constant for many thousands, if not millions of years! Are there any compelling reasons to continue to assume what appears to be erroneous? There is one that is very persuasive: if C14 has been building for thousands of years, the assumption of uniformity in the atmosphere is wrong, and the current concentration of C14 is not an acceptable estimate for the past levels. What a horrible thought for staunch uniformitarianists! Could this be the main reason most scientists ignore the evidence for non-equilibrium? Perhaps it is—but the most common cause is likely ignorance of these details.
Another compelling reason seems to be that the C14 dating system has already been adjusted (calibrated) to fit better with tree-ring dating—which has been used to adjust conventional chronology. Changing it would upset the apple cart—that is, it would again cause the C14 dates to be out of sync with the claimed "historical dates."
Figure 5. A carbon-14 "date" based on buildup versus uniformity as is commonly assumed. The bold horizontal line represents the assumption that C14 levels have remained constant in the atmosphere (at about 80% of estimated equilibrium). The downward curve represents the decay of C14 over time. The curved line going up from 0% represents a rough estimate of buildup of C14. If it is actually building as depicted, a specimen that died about 3,700 years ago would be "dated" by conventional means at 5,730 years—more than 2000 years too old simply because of an assumption error.[note]See Cook. Scientific Prehistory. 1993, p. 11. This is a simplified version of his Figure 2-1.[/note]
If C14 levels have, in fact, been building for say at least the past 4,000 years, the original C14 content in an ancient specimen would have been significantly less than current levels suggest. Therefore, failure to recognize buildup, causes the ages of specimens to appear older than they actually are, and it introduces a significant error into the first of the four components of the calculation formula! Would it be better not to buck the system and continue using an established—but invalid assumption? No. It appears that a re-vamping of the radiocarbon dating technique is needed.
Since the C14 levels appear to be increasing, how does one correctly estimate the original content of a specimen? Using the difference between the formation rate and the decay rate, a buildup curve may be derived—as Cook has done.39 Simplified versions of his graphs are presented in Figures 4 and 5.
If the buildup curve as shown in Figures 4 and 5 is reasonably accurate, the original C14 content of the specimen (represented by the small square at the intersection of the buildup and decay curves) would have been only about 60% of equilibrium rather than the assumed 80%. Thus the older the artifact, the less C14 it originally contained at its time of death, and the greater the error of those C14 "ages" which fail to take this into consideration. Cook wrote: "I raised an issue [non-equilibrium] in 1955 that to this day has not been successfully rebutted."40
"Known" Historical Dates
From the beginning of the C14 system, discrepancies were found between its dates and the supposed "known dates" from historical and archaeological sources. The "historical dates" were often "older" than the ages obtained from C14. In 1965 Libby wrote:
At the present time, radiocarbon dates seem to be accurate within one or two centuries back to about 3500 years ago and possibly to 4000, but beyond that there appears to be a discrepancy between the Egyptian historical and radiocarbon dates which increases to some 500 years or more. . . . It may be, of course, that this is historical error rather than error in the radiocarbon dating method.41
Since then, evidence has been amassed showing that many of the "known historical dates" were wrong by a significant margin. Serious studies by chronologists have led to major revisions of the Egyptian dating (see chapter 9 of Science and Religion for some specifics). In the mean time scientists had adjusted the C14 system to fit erroneous Egyptian dates.
It is ironic that since C14 dating was "corrected" (calibrated) to fit the older dates, it is now out of sync with the corrected historical dates. Paul Damon et al. wrote: "The key date for fixing the time the Egyptian Middle Kingdom and the periods preceding it is the seventh year of the reign of Pharaoh Sesostris III of the Twelfth Dynasty. This date is fixed by a heliacal rising42 of the star Sirius."43 Although Damon referred to it as a "fixed" date, a number of contrary estimates for the age of this event have been claimed. I have collected thirty-two different dates from published sources attributed to the beginning of Sesostris III's reign. They range from 1300 to 2099 BC. Nineteen of them were radiocarbon dates that range from 1300 to 1895 BC. This so-called fixed date is by no means certain.
Calibration from Tree-ring Dates
As carbon dating gained acceptance it was believed necessary to calibrate the results of the technique to agree with tree-ring dates.44 Pearson et al. suggested more than one calibration was needed.45 However, calibration has led to dates substantially older than those from uncalibrated C14 date estimates.
R. M. Porter criticized an introductory statement made at the 17th International C14 Conference by H. Bruins indicating his "confidence in 14C's ability to solve all problems overlooks the fact that 14C dates have to be corrected by dendrochronology [tree-ring dating]."46 Bernard Newgrosh was also critical of the C14 calibrations when he wrote: The "adoption of calibrated radiocarbon dates has led to artificially stretched chronologies and non-existent 'dark ages.'"47 Porter noted:
By 1977 calibration had arrived. Callaway and Weinstein. . . . admitted that they had to reject almost all of the previously published Ai dates as "deviant." For some of these they had sent fresh test pieces—from the same specimens—for a retest at Texas and also at Pennsylvania. Both laboratories gave results which again roughly agreed with conventional dates. These results, however, incorporated radiocarbon calibration. If one looks at the "raw" radiocarbon results, before calibration, there is effectively a 600 year difference between the later and earlier results on the very same specimens!48
Circulation Lag in the Oceans
In the early days of carbon dating it was assumed that various segments of the biosphere would contain roughly equal levels of C14. Libby noted that one predicted difference was that "sea shells should differ and be richer in C-14 than organic matter in general; yet we find . . . that this is not so."49 Goodfriend and Hood noted: "Shell organic carbon is largely derived from plant material but apparently also contains carbon derived from . . . bicarbonate. This makes it subject to a small age anomaly (estimated at up to ca 150 years) due to incorporation of carbon ultimately derived from limestone."50
Libby estimated that it would take about 1,000 years for C14 to mix with and spread throughout the oceans after forming in the atmosphere.51 More recently, Shackleton et al. presented actual lag time data for surface water in the eastern Pacific Ocean indicating it "has an 'age' of ~580 yr whereas deep water has an 'age' of ~2,100 yr."52 In addition, "errors in radiocarbon age may be as much as 3000 years for shell samples from rivers."53
Certain other watery environments can cause the carbon levels of some samples to contain diluted amounts of C14, depending on the nature of the source of the water.54 A specific instance was mentioned by Libby: "It has recently been shown that a New England lake whose bed was entirely ancient limestone and which was fed mainly by water leached through ancient limestone . . . whose radiocarbon content was only 77 ± 2 per cent of the value for the carbon in modern wood."55 Thus something living in that lake would have a C14 content only about 77% of expected, and an uncorrected radiocarbon "age" of about 2,200 years.
Douglas J. Keenan studied the effects of C14 variations in portions of the Mediterranean, and noted: "The existence of three widely-separated dates with such high statistical confidence implies that there are serious problems with the statistical analyses that were employed. Hence, almost any conclusions based on those analyses should be regarded as being at least questionable."56
Charcoal and Bones
Charcoal and bones are favorites among archaeologists as carbon dating candidates. Although they are often dated, the accuracy of their age estimates is in question. J. Van der Merwe reported: "Charcoal which is buried in the ground is subject to contamination by rootlets, carbonates, and humic acid."57 Jesse Lasken also noted difficulties:
"The same standard techniques are too frequently used in ignorance to combine the results of determinations of dissimilar events or materials (e.g. heartwood charcoal and animal bone). Such combinations give an unjustified air of precision to a date, and they disguise real uncertainty.". . .
. . . Since the wood could have come from the inner rings of an old tree,58 its radiocarbon age could vary by centuries from the time of the historical event with which it is associated.59
R. E. Taylor indicated:
Discussions concerning the reliability of 14C-based age determinations on bone have occurred throughout all four decades of radiocarbon research. . . . Despite the amount of attention given . . . a tradition of skepticism concerning the general reliability of bone 14C values remains. . . .
From the point of view of the archaeologist or paleoanthropologist, this is an unfortunate situation, since bone material is present in many sites where other organics are not. . . .
. . . Carbon-containing inorganic materials . . . are transported into the bone matrix from the groundwater and soil environment by chemical exchange.60
In other words, since bones can absorb minerals containing carbon through soil and groundwater, their C14 content can be altered—causing "dates" to appear younger, or older, than the actual age of the bone. Can other materials be similarly affected by chemical exchange?
Inconsistencies with Other Methods
Although most of the geologic dating procedures are used to estimate ages believed to be much older than the C14 dating, one that is claimed to overlap is the Uranium-Thorium (U-Th) method. Unfortunately, the results have not been consistent. For things that lived more than 9,000 years ago, according to Bard et al., "the 14C ages are systematically younger than the U-Th ages, with a maximum difference of ~3,500 yr at ~20,000 yr BP." They then suggested that the Uranium-Thorium technique can be used to calibrate carbon dating beyond the realm of tree-ring calibrations.61 Here is another example where, a different dating method produced older age estimations than C14, and it was assumed that the C14 method was less accurate.
Bard et al. also noted that various techniques produce different "dates" for the same samples. Large discrepancies have been found between Carbon-14 and potassium-argon "ages" as well as between C14 and thermoluminescence.62
What causes people to suppose that less-testable methods such as U-Th, and K-Ar, are more accurate than the C14? Could it be the preference for "older" dates? What historical dates can be used to check their validity? There are none. Wouldn't it be more logical to first fix the C14 system for known problems, and then use it to calibrate the other overlapping methods?
Misleading Terminology
Two terms frequently used in describing scientific age estimations are misleading, namely "absolute date" and the "±" (plus or minus) symbol. "Absolute date" gives the impression—at least to non-scientists—that the age listed is certain, or assured to be correct. However, in common scientific usage it simply means the date estimate is expressed in years. The following definition is fairly typical in science texts: "We can consider geologic time from two points of view: as relative or as absolute. Relative time—that is, whether one event in Earth history came before or after another event disregards years. . . . On the other hand, if we can determine [estimate] how many years before the present an event took place—whether it was 10,000 years or 60 million years—we deal in absolute time."63
The definition of "absolute time" found in the Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms states: "Geologic time measured in years, as determined by radioactive decay of elements."64 The words "absolute," "measured," and "determined" imply much more confidence than the dating processes deserve. The definition would be more accurate if the terms were replaced by some that accurately depict the uncertainty. In her introductory remarks to Nuclear Methods of Dating, Etienne Roth expressed more clearly that "absolute" referred to "an estimate . . . expressed in years." She also noted that "the term is questionable because of the uncertainties which still affect established time scales."65
When the plus or minus symbol (±) is used to portray the margin of error in C14 dates, it is particularly misleading. For example, a C14 age expressed as "3,000 ± 100 years" leads readers to believe that the age is assured to be accurate within 100 years of 3,000; that the thing being dated almost certainly died some time between 2,900 and 3,100 years ago. What it really represents is the laboratory's estimate of the accuracy of their measurement of current levels of C14 in the specimen. Thus, the margin of error is based on only one of the four essential facts for accurate date calculations—and the most precise one at that. Aitchison and Scott described an additional concern:
Every radiocarbon age has an associated error term of which a major component is the counting error of the radioactive measurement process. . . . The quoted error terms are estimated in different ways by different laboratories. . . .
. . . Analysis of the results from twenty laboratories throughout the world suggest that commonly quoted counting errors should be approximately doubled and that several of the laboratories which participated in the study were systematically biased with respect to others and to the overall trend by an amount up to several hundred years.66
Although only taking into account a small portion of the many uncertainties, scientists are at least recognizing that the stated precisions (±) are not to be relied on.67 Pearson, Pilcher, and Baillie noted: "The error associated with the 14C date, ie, the precision quoted . . . should include all inaccuracies, the error in the calibration, the choice of sample material and knowledge of the growth period."68 Although they only listed three out of the large number of factors which can contribute to inaccuracy, they were on the right track.
Scientists presumably do not use this terminology to deliberately mislead readers, nevertheless laymen and scientists who haven't studied the details can, in fact, be misled. I remember being intimidated by such terms in my early chronology studies, particularly when a date I was working on was outside the claimed precision range of a corresponding carbon date, or an "absolute date" contrary to my findings—not so now.
Of the four facts essential to precise carbon dating: The first (the original C14 content) is based on an assumption—one that is contradicted by experimental evidence. The second (the C14 decay rate) appears to be accurate enough to support the system during historical times. The third (the current content) is by far the most sure of the four (when AMS is used). And the fourth (other factors that may have affected the process) presents serious problems. Newgrosh expressed his concern: "Radiocarbon dating is based on assumptions which are now known not to hold true. If we were going to re-invent the method, knowing what we do about those assumptions, there is a real possibility that the method would now be deemed inadmissible."69
Ramsey cautioned: "Although the measurements have become markedly more precise . . . , this means that we need to be even more careful now about the chain of reasoning that allows us to go from a radiocarbon measurement to an understanding of chronology."70
Despite its weaknesses, radiocarbon is a valuable tool for estimating dates of once-living things—as long as people realize that it produces only estimates, not precisely accurate dates. Although the errors increase with the actual age of the specimen, dates of things that died after about 2000 BC are usually close enough to be useful. Earlier dates appear to be grossly inaccurate and should be "put on the shelf." Until more facts are built into the estimation formula and the known problems are corrected, the inaccuracies will persist. The C14 dating technique would be much better if many of the so-called corrections made in the past, which were based on faulty information, were abandoned. Then revisions could be made to account for non-equilibrium and other known effects. Dates prior to about 4,000 BC (the time usually attributed to Adam) should be considered spurious (to those of us who believe that the fall of Adam introduced profound physical changes into the world).
Those who have read and understood this paper thus far should be able to see inconsistencies in the following quote:
We know very little about the earliest inhabitants of the Nile Valley because no human remains have been found from that period. We do know that the area was first inhabited around 500,000 B.C. by settlers who had as their only tool the hand ax. This marked the beginning of the Paleolithic, or Stone Age, Period. By modern standards change was slow. When we think of the changes in our civilization in the last hundred years, it is almost inconceivable that in the first 450,000 years of Egyptian civilization the only improvement was a better hand ax!71
I do not wish to demean the author of the preceding quote, because much of the information in his book is excellent, but he has obviously been indoctrinated by the assumptions popular in dating. Two of his statements deserve criticism:
"We know that the area was first inhabited around 500,000 B.C." How is this known? This statement cannot be based on carbon dates since realistic estimates only claim theoretical ages up to about 40,000 years. On what then was it based? Particularly, what assumptions? Wouldn't it have been more accurate to say something like: "The . . . [naming the estimation method used] suggests that the area was first inhabited around 500,000 B.C."? Yes it would! Was he concerned that such wording, though more accurate, would inspire a lack of confidence among his readers?
"It is almost inconceivable that in the first 450,000 years of Egyptian civilization the only improvement was a better hand ax!" Almost inconceivable indeed! On what basis was this almost inconceivable idea conceived?
Even after realizing that the C14 dating technique has been calibrated using tree-ring dating and indirectly conventional Egyptian chronology, some fail to recognize the significance. For example Paul Standring reported an odd position held by Baillie: "I believe the revisionists [of Egyptian chronology] are wrong because calibrated radiocarbon dates broadly support the conventional Egyptian chronology. For the revisionists to be correct, calibration and dendrochronology would have to be wrong and that is not possible [sic] given the degree of tree-ring replication."72 If one method has been adjusted to fit the other because the other was thought to be more accurate, then when they agree, it is merely a tautology.73 Another question has been raised: had Libby—earlier in his studies—openly acknowledged that the formation rate of C14 was significantly higher than its decay rate as experiments have shown, what would have been the ramifications? Had he done so, his system would have directly challenged the fundamental assumption of uniformity. Would it then have been the means of his receiving a Nobel Prize, which it was, or might he have been ostracized and labeled a pseudo-scientist like many others who challenged popular thinking?
Once the deficiencies in C14 dating are recognized, the conflicts between radiocarbon dates and those from the scriptures are reconcilable. However, a resolution of the problem is a challenge for scientists who ask the out-of-the-ordinary questions and dare to pursue the answers.
ADDENDUM: Carbon 14's Effect on Longevity
Dr. Melvin A. Cook proposed that higher levels of C14 in the biosphere since the Flood contributed to a significant decrease in human lifespans. To understand the ramifications, recall that carbon is a primary building block of life on Earth. Although radioactive carbon (C14) is only estimated to be .00000000010% of the total of naturally occurring carbon,74 like other radioactive elements, the decay process can damage living cells. Life forms apparently do not distinguish C14 from C12 or C13. As they assimilate carbon in the growth process, they do so in the same proportion it is found among other isotopes of available carbon.
At some time in Earth's history, a vast portion of the total carbon in the biosphere was "locked out." That is, it was removed from the reach of living things by burial. The vast coal, oil, natural gas, limestone, and similar deposits composed of once-living matter that lie beneath the surface of the earth attest to that fact. Although there is no dispute that vast quantities of carbon were removed from the biosphere, there is ongoing debate about whether that burial was slow or sudden. It has been proposed that the carbon was locked out suddenly in conjunction with the Flood/continental shift event.
Before the carbon was buried, there was a substantially larger amount of total carbon available for living things to assimilate at or near Earth's surface. Thus, C14 was much more dilute, having been mixed with a much larger carbon pool at that time. So prior to the great Flood, as living things ingested carbon, they did so at a significantly lower dose of radioactivity.
To understand, an analogy may be helpful: Picture a large aquarium filled with non-radioactive carbon atoms (C12 and C13). Imagine that carbon has the appearance and properties of clear water. Now suppose that C14 atoms also have the properties of water, but are a very dark-purple color, and toxic. Then, an apparatus starts to drip the dark purple C14 atoms into the aquarium at a rate of one drop each hour. Because the dark purple fluid would dissipate throughout, it would take quite some time before the clear water-like substance would start to discolor.
Now suppose that half of the mixture in the aquarium is suddenly removed and buried. Immediately after removal, the remaining half would have the same concentration as before, but as the drops of the radioactive C14 continue to be added each hour, the mix continues to discolor. Since no more C12 or C13 atoms are added, and since the C14 is dispersing amidst a smaller volume of carbon, its concentration increases at a faster rate.
Compare this analogy with the C14 forming and mixing amongst the other carbon atoms remaining in the biosphere after the Flood. Apparently, since Creation, C14 has been building as a result of the cosmic rays' interaction with Earth's atmosphere, but C12 and C13 have not. As C14 atoms were formed, they mixed with the other available carbon isotopes in the reservoir. Since that reservoir was much larger before the Flood/continental shift event, the concentration of radioactive carbon within the carbon
mix was much less. After the Flood, a much smaller reservoir was available in which newly forming C14 could disperse. Over time, the reservoir became more and more concentrated until it reached its current level. Therefore, before the Flood any living thing
absorbing carbon did so from a mixture much less concentrated in C14. After the Flood, anything obtaining carbon from the reservoir (which was increasing in C14 concentration more rapidly), would have receive a higher dose of radioactive carbon.
If the continents did slide suddenly, there is no doubt that some things would have subducted (or been buried) beneath other parts of the crust. Although the common tectonic theory is generally associated with the assumption of slow continental movement, if its timing is modified, it seems to fit with the flood hypothesis proposed earlier in this book. Ham et al. summed up the idea quite nicely: "The Genesis flood would have greatly upset the carbon balance. The Flood buried a huge amount of carbon, which became coal, oil, etc., lowering the total [carbon]… in the biosphere.… Whereas no terrestrial process generates any more 12C, 14C is continually being produced.… Therefore the 14C/12C ratio in plants/animals/the atmosphere before the flood had to be lower."75 Since radioactivity damages living cells and can cause cancer and other diseases, if radioactive C14 really has been increasing in concentration since the Flood, the higher levels of C14 in humans would naturally decrease longevity.
See Cook. Scientific Prehistory. 1993, p. 11. This is a simplified version of his Figure 2-1.
The information in this article is based primarily on the writings of Dr. Melvin A. Cook, and his sources. This is a simplified version intended to be understandable to non-scientists.
Higham, Thomas "Radiocarbon Web-info." http://www.c14dating.com/int.html, p. 1.
Baillie, M.G.L. Tree-Ring Dating and Archaeology. 1982, p. 223.
Hedges and Gowlett. "Radiocarbon Dating by AMS." Scientific American, Jan. 1986, p. 100.
Pipkin. Geology and the Environment. 1994, p. 36.
Aitchison and Scott. "A Review of Calibrating." In Applications of Tree-Ring Studies. 1987, p. 188.
Nova: Bone Diggers. Air Date June 19, 2007.www.pbs.org/wgbn/nova/nature/bone-diggers.html. (last accessed 9/19/12)
Säve-Söderbergh and Olsson. "C14 Dating and Egyptian Chronology." In Proceedings of 12th Nobel Symposium. 1970, p. 35.
Notes and Queries. "Tutankhamun radiocarbon dates." C&C Review. SIS, 1996:1, p. 34.
Libby. "Accuracy of Radiocarbon Dates." Science, Vol. 140, no. 3564, April 19, 1963, p. 278.
Otlet. "Impact of Atmospheric Carbon-14." In Radiocarbon after Four Decades. 1992, p. 529.
See Cook. Scientific Prehistory. 1993, pp. 10-22.
Arnold. "Early Years with Libby at Chicago." In Radiocarbon after Four Decades. 1992, p. 3.
Libby. "Accuracy of Radiocarbon Dates." Science, April 19, 1963, p. 278.
CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 72nd ed. 1991, p. 11.29.
Ramsey. "Radiocarbon Dating." Archaeometry, Vol. 50, #2, 2008, p. 9.
Beal. "A Bit Creaky?" C&C Review. SIS, 1991, p. 40.
Rankama. Isotope Geology. 1954, p. 63.
Monitor. "Radioactivity declines with temperature." C&C Workshop. SIS, 1994:2, p. 30.
Dalrymple. The Age of the Earth. 1991, p. 89.
Curie. Radioactive Substances. Reprint edition 1971, p. 6.
Jueneman. "Will the Real Monster Please Stand Up." Industrial Research, Sept., 1972, p. 15.
Sanders. "Implications for 14C Dating." p. 1. http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0808/0808.3986.pdf
Pease. "Supernova Brightens the Horizon." Nature, April 15, 1993, p. 585.
Morrison, "Wonders: On Neutrino Astronomy." Scientific American, Nov. 1995, p. 108.
AMS: Accelerator Mass Spectrometry. A highly sophisticated scientific technique designed to measure different elements, and even to distinguish their rare isotopes. Of particular interest is its ability to identify quantities of the rare C14 relative to the abundant C12, and do so using smaller amounts of sample material.
Rafter Radiocarbon Laboratory GNS Science. http://www.gns.cri.nz/Home/Services/Laboratories-Facilities/Rafter-Radiocarbon-Laboratory/Measuring-Radiocarbon/Accelerator-Mass-Spectrometry.
There are several isotopes of carbon, with C12 being the most abundant (98.90%), C13 next at (1.10%), CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 72nd ed. 1991, p. 11.29. Radioactive C14 is less than 0.0000000001% of total carbon on the earth, Higham. "Radiocarbon Web-info." http://www.c14dating.com/int.html, p. 2.
Nitrogen-14 is the most abundant element in Earth's atmosphere, about 78% by volume. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 72nd ed. 1991, p. 4.19.
Cosmic rays are high-energy nuclear particles which continuously bombard the earth from all directions. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. 1991, p. 11.133. Cosmic rays travel at nearly the speed of light. These collisions cause cascades of secondary nuclear particles, some of which are free neutrons. McGraw-Hill Concise Encyclopedia of Science. 1997, pp. 501, 1289-1290.
Faure. Principles of Isotope Geology. 1977, p. 307.
Libby. Radiocarbon Dating, 2nd Ed. 1955, pp. 8-9.
Libby. "Radiocarbon Dating." Science, March 3, 1961, p. 622.
Lingenfelter. "Production of Carbon 14 by Cosmic-Ray Neutrons." Reviews of Geophysics. 1963, p. 51.
Ramsey. "Radiocarbon Dating." Archaeometry, Vol. 50, #2, 2008, pp. 5, 9.
Cook. Scientific Prehistory. 1993, p. 11.
Cook. The Autobiography of Melvin A. Cook. Vol. 2. 1977, p. 72.
Libby. "Natural Radiocarbon and Tritium." In Radiocarbon and Dating. 1965, p. 749.
Heliacal: of or near the sun; the apparent rising, or setting, of a star or planet just after conjunction with the sun. Webster's College Dictionary, 4th ed. 2005.
Damon et al. "Fluctuation of Atmospheric C14." In Radiocarbon and Dating. June 7-11, 1965, p. 417.
Becker. "History of Radiocarbon Calibration." In Radiocarbon after Four Decades. 1992, pp. 34-48.
Pearson, Pilcher, and Baillie. "High-Precision 14C Measurement." Radiocarbon, Vol. 25, 1983, p. 184.
Porter. "Recent Developments in Archaeology." C&C Review. SIS, 2002:1, p. 14.
Newgrosh. "Calibrated Radiocarbon.'" C&C Review. SIS, 1991, p. 37.
Porter. "Ai, Jericho and 'Deviant' C14 Dates." C&C Review. SIS, 1992, p. 26.
Goodfriend and Hood. "Carbon Isotope Analysis." Radiocarbon, Vol. 25, No 3, 1983, p. 827.
Shackleton et al. "Radiocarbon Age of Deep Water." Nature, Oct. 20, 1988, p. 709.
Keith and Anderson. "Radiocarbon: Fictitious Results." Science, Vol. 141, no. 3581, 1963, p. 636.
Hedges. "Sample Treatment in 14C Dating." In Radiocarbon after Four Decades. 1992, p. 173.
Libby. Radiocarbon Dating, 2nd Ed. 1955, p. 11.
Keenan. "Why Early Radiocarbon Dates Downwind are Too Early." Radiocarbon, Vo. 44, #1, 2002, p. 232.
Van der Merwe. Carbon-14 Dating of Iron. 1969, p. 66.
The inner rings are the oldest while the outer rings are the most recently grown.
Lasken. "Misusing Radiocarbon." C&C Review. SIS, 1992, pp. 17-18.
Taylor. "Radiocarbon Dating of Bone." In Radiocarbon after Four Decades. 1992, pp. 375, 377.
Bard et al. "Calibration of the 14C Timescale." Nature. May 31, 1990, p. 405.
Ibid., p. 408.
Judson and Kauffman. Physical Geology, 8th ed. 1990, p. 3.
Absolute time. McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms. 1974.
Roth. "Dating Using Radioactive Phenomena." In Nuclear Methods of Dating. 1989, p. 4.
Aitchison and Scott. "A Review of Calibrating." In Applications of Tree-Ring. 1987, pp. 188-189.
Pearson, Pilcher, and Baillie. "High-Precision 14C Measurement." Radiocarbon, 1983, p. 184.
Newgrosh. "Scientific Dating Methods." Journal of the Ancient Chronology Forum, Vol. 2, 1988, p. 67.
Ramsey. "Radiocarbon Dating." Archaeometry, Vol. 50, #2, 2008, p. 28.
Brier. Ancient Egyptian Magic. 1981, p. 14.
Standring. "Pot Pourri." C&C Review. SIS, 2001:2, p. 50.
Tautology: a needless repetition of an idea. Often, the restated version is intended to establish the validity of the first, or visa versa.
Higham. "Radiocarbon Web-info." http://www.c14dating.com/int.html, (last accessed 9/4/12).
Ham et al. "How Accurate are Carbon-14 and Other Radioactive Dating Methods?" http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html?zoom_highlight=how+the+carbon+clock+works. (last accessed 9/4/12)
Category: Articles (Papers), David M. Barker (Papers), PapersBy papers August 13, 2016
Tags: age of the earthBiblescience
PreviousPrevious post:First Presidency Message of October 1942NextNext post:David M. Barker

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
By Meghan Greeley Style & Grooming April 24, 2017
Pink Tartan: Highlights From The Spring/Summer Line
Pink Tartan, the brainchild of designer Kimberly Newport-Mimran, has been one of the more buzz-worthy Canadian fashion labels in recent memory. Since the founding of its first showroom in New York in 2004, the brand has established roots on both sides of the border; its flagship location opened in Yorkville, one of Toronto's most prestigious neighborhoods, in 2010. The line is also available in specialty stores across Central America, the Middle East, and Europe.
She and her family now split their time between Toronto, New York, and Palm Beach, and to say that their lives are deeply immersed in the fashion industry would perhaps be a bit of an understatement; Newport-Mimran's husband is Joe Mimran, who launched the Club Monaco and Joe Fresh brands. While they're something of a power couple in the Canadian fashion world, and Newport-Mimran honed her skills while working with Club Monaco for a time, Pink Tartan is quintessentially Kimberly. "I'm a sportswear designer," she says of herself. "I make clothes to live your life and easily transition from day to dinner."
We here at KHACHILIFE are loving the new spring/summer 2017 line from Pink Tartan, and so we've decided to round up some of its highlights for readers looking to invigorate their wardrobes this season. "New Romantic" is the name of the line, and it's a fitting choice; delicate ruffles and blouses are appropriately reimagined here with all the streamlined gravitas of a power wardrobe.
Ruffle Tuxedo Tie Blouse – $195
Split Sleeve Shirt Dress – $495
Contrast Shirt Dress – $395
Ruffle Back Blouse – $295
Lined Clara Dress – $395
Ruffle Jacket – $395
Boxy Roll Sleeve Tee – $95
Meghan Greeley
Meghan Greeley is an actor and writer originally from Newfoundland. She has performed in films that have screened at festivals around the world, including Cannes, Karlovy Vary, the Utah Indie Film Festival, the Montreal World Film Festival, and the Toronto International Film Festival. As a writer, her works have been published in The Stockholm Review, Metatron, Riddlefence, Nelson Publications, and the Breakwater Book of Contemporary Newfoundland Drama. She is a winner of the Magnetic North Theatre Festival's Playwriting Contest and first place winner of the Sparks Literary Festival's Poetry Competition. She currently resides in Toronto.
Latest Posts By Meghan Greeley
10 Luxurious Reading Rooms Designed To Impress
Objets D'art: The Luxe Curiosity Pieces We Love
Transforming The White Blank Page: 8 Paper Artists On The Cutting Edge
Previous articleRedefining Curves: An Interview With Miriam Baker
Next articleReimagining The Subversive: Raf Simons' Robert Mapplethorpe Line
The Blue Room: Serious Luxury In A Secret Ice Cavern
Foodie culture isn't just about food. It isn't even about the presentation. Rather, it's about the experience; a memory, intrinsically tied to each of…


Natural Balance Ultra Premium canned dog food receives the Advisor's second-highest tier rating of 4 stars.
The Natural Balance Ultra Premium product line includes 5 canned dog foods.
Natural Balance Ultra Premium Lamb formula was selected to represent the others in the line for this review.
The first ingredient in this dog food is lamb broth. Broths are of only modest nutritional value. Yet because they add both flavor and moisture to a dog food, they are a common addition component in many canned products.
The third ingredient is lamb liver. This is an organ meat sourced from a named animal and thus considered a beneficial component.
The eighth ingredient is dried potato, a dehydrated item usually made from the by-products of potato processing. In most cases, dried potato can contain about 10% dry matter protein which can affect our estimate of the total meat content of this recipe.
Next, this food includes lamb meal. Lamb meal is considered a meat concentrate and contains nearly 300% more protein than fresh lamb.
Judging by its ingredients alone, Natural Balance Ultra Premium dog food looks like an above-average wet product.
The dashboard displays a dry matter protein reading of 36%, a fat level of 23% and estimated carbohydrates of about 33%.
As a group, the brand features an average protein content of 38% and a mean fat level of 23%. Together, these figures suggest a carbohydrate content of 32% for the overall product line.
Near-average protein. Near-average fat. And above-average carbs as compared to a typical canned dog food.
Even when you consider the mild protein-boosting effect of the dried potato, this looks like the profile of a wet product containing a moderate amount of meat, excluding the Vegetarian recipe.
Natural Balance Ultra Premium is a meat-based canned dog food using a moderate amount of named meats as its main sources of animal protein, thus earning the brand 4 stars.
Those looking for a kibble from the same product line may wish to visit our review of Natural Balance Ultra dry dog food.


text:
Conspiracy Watch: The Pentagon's Secret Death Ray
Illustration: Peter Hoey
The latest installment in our ongoing collection of wonderfully weird (and totally whack) conspiracy theories. Find more Conspiracy Watch entries here.
THE THEORY: The Air Force and Navy say that their High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) in Gakona, Alaska, does cutting-edge research into the mysteries of the upper atmosphere. Of course, that's just the cover story. The 35-acre "ionospheric heater," which can blast 3.6 megawatts of energy skyward and create its own version of the northern lights, is really a high-tech weapon, though promoters of this idea are unclear on exactly what kind. Maybe a massive mind-control device? A death ray (which accidentally shot down the space shuttle in 2003)? A weather-modification system?
THE THEORISTS: The latter theory has been put forward by Michel Chossudovsky, a Canadian economics prof who wrote a 2007 article in the normally sane environmental magazine the Ecologist in which he described HAARP as "a weapon of mass destruction." He accuses global warming researchers of ignoring the impacts of "climatic warfare." A leading proponent of the mind-control theory is Nick Begich, brother of Alaska Democratic Sen. Mark Begich and coauthor of the book Angels Don't Play This HAARP.
MEANWHILE, BACK ON EARTH: HAARP, launched in 1990 with an earmark from then-Sen. Ted Stevens, has some secretive uses related to submarines and protecting satellites from nuclear blasts, but there's no evidence that it's a weapon. And why build a giant system to wreak global meteorological havoc when our tailpipes are doing such a great job of it?
Kookiness Rating:
(1=maybe they're on to something, 5=break out the tinfoil hat!)
Conspiracy Watch: Were the Dark Ages Faked?
Conspiracy Watch: Operation Couch Potato
Elizabeth Gettelman
Conspiracy Watch: Obama, Hypnotist in Chief
Conspiracy Watch: Bill and Hill's Thrill Kill
Leigh Ferrara


Over 100,000 devices monitored. Keeping the UK safe.
SMS and NMS is the UK's leading monitoring station, providing dependable fire, intruder, water and flood detection, asset tracking, temperature monitoring and much more.
We tailor our service to meet your individual needs and requirements.
Our unique entity services monitor multiple events and alarms from one contact.
We have recently invested nearly £1million in our infrastructure. New tech for innovative systems and monitoring.
Industry leading ratios of training to operational staff and a proprietary review and loopback training system.
A senior management team with vast experience of keeping property and people safe across the UK.
Two ARCs, two working operational teams (all the time), multiple network connections and power backup gives peace of mind, all the time.
Why Southern and Northern Monitoring Services?
PRIORITY ALARMS DON'T GET DELIVERED BY ANSWER MACHINE. AT SMS AND NMS, PEOPLE DEAL WITH ALARMS AND RESPOND.
REQUIRE DIFFERENT RESPONSES FOR DIFFERENT CUSTOMERS? NO PROBLEM.
TWO FULLY WORKING, FULLY STAFFED ARCS WITH MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL EXPERTISE IN EACH. FULL REDUNDANCY-ON POWER, NETWORKS AND PREMISES.
Speak to us to see the difference.


The list of things from which you can make vodka is a long one. Now it's even longer thanks to one enterprising chap in Holland.
If you read "Holland" and immediately thought "tulips," congrats! You hit the nail on the head. That's exactly what he's doing. Making vodka out of tulips.
The mad genius behind this creation is Joris Putman, a 34-year-old former child actor and current filmmaker who was searching for his true calling. He set out to create a new product. What it would be, he had no idea. Only that it would involve the flower the world instantly associates with his home country.
Putman told Munchies it took him mere minutes to sketch out the idea once it struck him. He set up a business, Clusius Craft Distillers, named after the 16th century Flemmish botanist who kickstarted Holland's tulip industry.
Putman doesn't use the flowers. It's the tulip bulbs that are used to produce the distillery's signature vodka. Think of them as a smaller, firmer and much more floral version of a potato.
Initial results were promising but far from perfect, but you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs — or tulip vodka without mashing several thousand tulip bulbs.
Putman eventually figured things out. Clusius Craft Distillers has produced 40,000 bottles in its first year. The pure tulip vodka goes for about $340 each and contains 350 flower bulbs. You can find it alongside other top-shelf liquors at some of the best restaurants around Europe.
Clusius also makes a grain-based vodka that also has tulips in the mix. It's priced at a much more modest $55.
Tulip bulbs certainly seems like a strange thing to use when distilling vodka. It only seems that way until you find out there was already vodka made from soy, milk, and horseradish. Those are separate vodkas. You won't find all three used in the same bottle, at least we hope not.


Laos is the only landlocked country in Southeast Asia. After many years of war and isolation, this country with its most pristine environment, intact cultures is now fast developing. Vientiane- the capital, is still refreshingly simple, if not say a little languid. There is the historic royal city of Luang Prabang, where watching as hundreds of saffron-robed monks move silently among centuries-old monasteries is as romantic a scene as you'll experience anywhere in Asia. Away from the cities, there is so much more to see- its thickly forested landscape consists mostly of rugged mountains, the highest of which is Phou Bia at 2,818 metres, with some plains and plateaus, the Mekong River forms a large part of the western boundary with Thailand, whereas the mountains of the Annamite Range form most of the eastern border with Vietnam and the Luang Prabang Range the northwestern border with the Thai highlands. There are two plateau, the Xiangkhoang in the north and the Bolaven Plateau at the southern end.


text:
Josh Bell
Dec 05 2018 . 6 min read
Unapologetically Uncouth
Comedian Ron White trades blue-collar humor for his own brand of comedy
Ron White is tough to pin down. Most comedy fans first got a taste of the Texas-born stand-up's work in the hugely successful Blue Collar Comedy tours, albums and specials, when White teamed up with fellow Southern-affiliated comedians Jeff Foxworthy, Bill Engvall and Larry the Cable Guy. But White was always a bit of an outlier among his Blue Collar buddies, with a more refined sense of style and jokes that tended to be more off-color than blue-collar. "I was always a little on the wild side compared to the other guys," White says. "There was a little bit of backlash when people saw the Blue Collar [tour] and then they came out to see me live by myself, and it was way bluer than they thought it was going to be. But I saw no future in me trying to be more like somebody else."
While Foxworthy, Engvall and Larry have stuck more closely to their original Blue Collar stage personas, honing catchphrases and recurring bits, White has branched out further. "[My management company] wanted me to be more like Jeff and Bill, and there'd be bags of corporate money," he says, "I'm like, 'I don't think so.' I work in bars, as do they, every night, and I see people just like me all over the place, that may drink too much and may smoke too much and may talk too much, and I'll just go for those guys. Maybe they'll be my fans."
Those people and many more ended up becoming Ron White fans, allowing White to follow his own instincts and carve out a unique comedic identity. White's current act references such non-blue-collar pastimes as golfing, hanging out with celebrities, and spending tens of thousands of dollars on home renovation. Even when he's talking about eating at the Four Seasons in Beverly Hills, though, White remains unapologetically uncouth, and his gleefully vulgar description of a certain kind of duck taco becomes a running bit in his recent Netflix special (released in October), If You Quit Listening, I'll Shut Up.
White has also been a longtime supporter of marijuana legalization and has never been shy about his own regular marijuana use. When he was arrested in Florida in 2008 for possession of 7/8 of a gram of marijuana, he famously joked that "when I have 7/8 of a gram of marijuana, I consider myself to be out of marijuana." White's Twitter timeline is full of retweets from cannabis advocacy groups, along with posts celebrating the recent legalization of recreational marijuana in Canada and Michigan. "It's a ridiculous prohibition that we'll look back on in 20 years and laugh like crazy that it was ever illegal," White says.
"If you want to make a dent in the drug problem in this country, you can't make that dent doing the easy thing," he adds, citing the serious problems with meth and opioids in the U.S. "You have to make doing it the hard thing. So, you can't just go around arresting me and Willie Nelson. That's a soft target." White doesn't hesitate to advocate for marijuana use as therapeutic and beneficial, and he doesn't mind if his penchant for speaking out turns off any potential fans. "They're yelling at somebody that's not hearing what they're saying because I do not pay attention to any of that kind of stuff," he says.
In general, White doesn't pull any punches when expressing his point of view. Asked about working with Netflix for his new special, he first responds with a curt "Next question!" before then expounding on the pros and cons of the monolithic streaming service and the way it's become a repository for so much stand-up comedy programming. "Netflix is smart, smart, smart, because they see these hourlong shows that don't cost them hardly anything, and they're really, really, really good shows, and they can show them over and over and over and over," he says. "Most of them they pay less for than it would cost NBC to make an episode of a shit sitcom that nobody will ever see again."
At the same time, he says that If You Quit Listening has done "really, really well" since its October release, and that Netflix's worldwide presence has allowed him to reach audiences that he'd never previously had the chance to connect with. "That's why I did it, to open up European markets, and whatever those three towns in the whole country of Australia are," he says. At this point in his career, White could be coasting on past glories, but he's still touring regularly and creating new material, looking to make new fans.
And he's still a big draw in Vegas, where he's been performing steadily since the Blue Collar Comedy days in the early '00s. "I genuinely look at it as a week off," he says. "You can wake up and play some really great golf, and go have a bottle of wine with lunch, and take a five-hour nap, and you wake up and you've still got two hours to kill, and then you're wide awake after the show's over."
Of course, the legalization of recreational cannabis gives White another reason to love Vegas, and he hopes to see that expand. "I really can't wait for the next step, where there's actually clubs we can go to and places we can go, social scenes that'll eventually come around," he says.
Whenever that happens, there's no reason to think that White won't incorporate the experience into his comedy, which remains a distinctive and idiosyncratic representation of his life. He wouldn't have it any other way. "About the only common denominator between people that have made a lot of money doing stand-up—really successful guys—is that they were basically true to their nature," he says. "I just do what I do the best I can do it, and whoever likes it, likes it, and whoever doesn't like it can just go watch somebody else."
Ron White performs December 7-8, 14-15 as part of the Aces of Comedy series at the Mirage.
Cannabis Klatch
A summer roundup of canna-culture t ...
420-friendly Escapes Around the Coachell ...
Julie Vigil
Cannabis Cinema: The Blueberry Farmer


text:
Q: Dynamically select the value of a select item javascript/jquery I have a select list of options, and when the user selects one of those options, I want to dynamically select the same option on another similar select list on the page.
So these are the two lists:
<select id='b_orientation'><option>Horizontal</option><option>Vertical</option></select>

<select id='orientation'><option>Horizontal</option><option>Vertical</option></select>

Now after the user changes b_orientation, I want orientation to mirror the change. So this is the relevant line of code for that:
$('#orientation').val($('#b_orientation'));

but it doesn't make a difference to orientation. Why not?

A: You forgot to mention val()
As of now you are adding element not  element's value.
Change your line to
$('#orientation').val($('#b_orientation').val());

A: You need to get the value like this - $('#b_orientation').val()
$('#orientation').val($('#b_orientation').val());

A: jQuery
$('#orientation').val($('#b_orientation').val());

A: You can do this:
$('#b_orientation').change(function(){
    $('#orientation').val(this.value);
});

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


The Chevrolet Colorado returned to the midsize-truck market in 2015 after a brief hiatus -- and things have only been getting better for this just-right pickup.
Corvette is powered by more than Chevy performance pedigree, it's also powered by the pride performance car owners across boundaries and decades have taken in owning one. The 2017 Chevrolet Corvette carries on that tradition.
Here at Jim Ellis Buick GMC Mall of GA, right around the corner from Buford, Roswell, Atlanta, Gainesville and Alpharetta, we're very excited for the arrival of the 2016 Buick Envision, available this summer. This luxury crossover truly has a lot to offer Buick lovers and is a very versatile model, from the exterior of the model to the technological features inside.