Re:What Bikini Atoll Looks Like Today (2017)
by abound on Tuesday March 11, 2025 @04:31PM
(#43336697)
The note about using C-14 (introduced from nuclear blasts) to date the age of living cells is fascinating.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:What Bikini Atoll Looks Like Today (2017)
by ToucanLoucan on Saturday March 15, 2025 @02:53PM
(#43374444)
I read this several times as C-4 not C-14 and was very curious how one would date the age of living cells with plastic explosives. I think I need more coffee.
Re:What Bikini Atoll Looks Like Today (2017)
by prerok on Saturday March 15, 2025 @05:08PM
(#43375167)
Sorry, say what? C-14 comes from exposure to radiation also from the sun. Dating by it would make no sense in recent history because it would be too hard. Am I missing something?
Re:What Bikini Atoll Looks Like Today (2017)
by prerok on Saturday March 15, 2025 @05:12PM
(#43375198)
Answering my own question, after rereading TFA. It's more because the C-14 was doubled and not because C-14 did not exist before.
Re:What Bikini Atoll Looks Like Today (2017)
by eigenket on Sunday March 16, 2025 @07:24AM
(#43378178)
This graph [1] available on Wikipedia answers this question. The level of carbon 14 in the atmosphere (in the southern hemisphere) roughly doubled between 1955 and 1963 ish. This coincides with the era of above ground nuclear testing. Since then it has been decaying back to the baseline.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-14#/media/File%3ARadioc...
Re:What Bikini Atoll Looks Like Today (2017)
by prerok on Sunday March 16, 2025 @12:30PM
(#43380238)
Indeed, I may have misread the GP comment, understanding that it stated that C-14 appeared because of the nuclear tests. They may have meant the addition. I did try to correct my mistake by answering my own question...