Other critics, perhaps more familiar with the data, question certain aspects of the quality of the fossil record and of its dating.These skeptics do not provide scientific evidence for their views.The danger of inheritance (previously accumulated cosmogenic isotopes in a boulder) means that some scientists argue that, in the case of geological scatter, the youngest age is likely to be most accurate.However, if your moraine was unstable (perhaps it was ice cored?Scientists can use optically stimulated luminescence to date the burial of sand grains like quartz and feldspar.Optically stimulated luminescence relies on quartz grains being fully bleached by the sun between burial episodes – so if your glacial meltwater stream is very murky, your quartz may not have received the full blast of the sun’s energy and the signal may not be fully reset.Scientists must understand the sources of error in their dating techniques before calculated ages can be reliably used.
If we use the analogue of a clock we can investigate this further.), then many of your boulders may have rolled or been covered with snow. It is the job of the scientist to sample carefully to minimise these potential sources of inaccuracies in cosmogenic nuclide dating.Radiocarbon dating relies on the regular radioactive decay of carbon-14 in organic matter.It is therefore very important to sample landforms where partial bleaching is likely to be minimal. Measurements on ages are often reported very precisely, and ever-improving laboratory techniques mean that uncertainties are always decreasing.But it is important not to take these ages at face value, and to think critically about whether or not they may be accurate.
Be) atoms in a boulder yield measurements of an exposure age with very low uncertainties. This analytical uncertainty does not take into account geological uncertainties – has your boulder rolled over, or has it been reworked and does it contain Be from a previous exposure?