Dating mt st helens rocks
Austin's paper or at any scholarly criticism of it, your eyes will quickly glaze over from the extraordinary detail and intricacy.
So I thought this would be a great place to point Skeptoid's skeptical eye, and see how much of the chaff we can cut through to see what the bare facts of the case really are.
But for a sample with little or no argon, it would produce a falsely old result. The papers all go into great detail describing the various ways that argon-containing compounds can be incorporated into magma.
These include the occlusion of xenoliths and xenocrysts, which are basically contaminants from existing old rocks that get mixed in with the magma; and phenocrysts, which are crystals of all sorts of different minerals that form inside the rock in different ways depending on how quickly the magma cools. Austin claims that xenoliths and xenocrysts were completely removed from the samples before testing, and that the wrong results are due to phenocrysts, which form to varying degrees in all magma, and thus effectively cast doubt on all potassium-argon testing done throughout the world.
And even that threshhold applies to only the most sensitive detection equipment.
This happens to K, 1.2 billion years later you'll have 500, and 1.2 billion years after that you'll have 250.
You'll also have 83 argon atoms, and 667 calcium atoms.
There are two possible reasons that the old dates were returned.
The first has to do with the reason Geocron's equipment was considered useful only for high concentrations of argon.
If I take a sample and measure an argon to potassium ratio of 0, I know that this sample is 2.4 billion years old.