I know this person If you know the person, ask what the person can not tolerate, allergies and other stuff they get sick from. When a person have asthma even things they are not allergic to can make their airways kick back and make trouble in form of an asthma attack. When you know what the person get sick from keep this away from the person at all times. If it is something you use yourself. Even if you think in your own mind that it must be a silly thing. Den normale pustefrekvens for friske voksne er alt fra 8 til 16 pust per minutt. Den respirasjonsfrekvens hos spedbarn er mye raskere. Og som med mennesker. Din helsepersonell er interessert i dine vitale tegn: temperatur, puls, respirasjonsfrekvens og blodtrykk. Pulsen gir et bilde av din generelle helse og fitness. I do not know this person Around you there are many people who have asthma. One count that about 20-25% of the population in a country have asthma. Worldwide (numbers from 2011) 300 million people have asthma, in Europe (counting from 2014) approximately 30 million people have asthma, and it is estimated that around 2036 about 400 million people will have asthma worldwide (information from World Health Organization WHO, Ginasthma.com, and EFA). In Norway for example there is in 2015 about 5 million people. 20% out of 5 million people (counting low) is 1 million people who have asthma (5.000.000 x 0,20 = 1.000.000). How many live in your country? Count how many ( x million people times 0,xx equals?) So you see out of the hundred of people you see around you about 20 of those have asthma. And that is if we count low with 20%. That is 20 people! So what can you do for all of those? The nature of asthma is like this: A person can be allergic to different things that causes asthma attacks, and in addition there are substances that causes irritation to the airways in the lungs causing asthma attacks even if the person is not allergic to them. Asthma comes in 4 different levels from mild to severe. Asthma can be deadly. To live you must be able to breathe, and the nature of asthma is trouble breathing. Think about this when you travel in the room where the public have access, and also in your home if your friends or family have asthma. Common triggers for asthma: • Tobacco smoke • Vaping – some but not all react to vaping • Fragrance (both male and female scents) – both from the bottle and added to other products. • Incense • Scented candles and candles • Air fragrance, also known as signature scent • Airfreshener – what you use to hide bad odor or to fragrance the room • Animals – most common is fur and birds. But remember that it is not only the fur and the feathers that is source for the allergy, saliva and skin dandruff too. • Food – most commonly known is nuts and peanuts and that is both the whole nut or added to food and oils. Nut allergy can be fatal both taken in and airborne. But even milk, egg, fish and other foods can give such reaction both by eating it and airborne. • Exhaust from vehicles, both diesel and gasoline, and maybe others. Gas – actually most people have it bad from gas, but people with asthma have it even worse since they do not tolerate even smaller amounts. • Gassing from stuff – it can be gas from filling petrol, diesel, oil, alcohols, solvents, new plastic, cleaning products, ammonia, among many other things. • Dust of various kinds, not only house dust. • Pollen • Flowers • Grass • Evaporates So how can you make the world better for a person having asthma to avoid the person get an asthma attack? It is actually rather easy. • Do not smoke or vape around other people. Smoke outside away from entrances and ask before you light a cigarette or e-cigarette. • Cut out the fragrance and fragranced products, only use fragrance free. The emissions, pollution, from fragrance and fragrance products cause asthma attacks. If you use fragrance and someone tells you to stay clear it is not to be rude it is to stay healthy. Take the hint and go fragrance free. • Do not use incense, it pollutes the air. A sensitive person gets asthma attacks from it (even outdoors). If a person tells you not to use it, it is not to be rude, it is not to be against your religion, it is to stay healthy. • Do not use candles and scented candles since they emit a lot of invisible chemicals to the air that triggers an asthma attack. And the smoke from putting them out is just as bad. • Airfresheners, products giving away scent and signature scent for marketing is a big no! It goes under the same as Fragrance. • Turn the engine off as soon as you have stopped the car. • Think of fire smoke and other kinds of smoke, gas and off-gassing as pollution and keep such away from others. Ask before you do something that can emit to the air. • Avoid if possible to bring animals where there are a lot of people. A rather big percent of the 20% of the population is allergic. That also goes for your clothes if you have been around animals. Change your clothes to allergen free clothes and wash yourself. • Flowers are lovely, unfortunately many is allergic, so if possible try to keep the flowers packed in during transport home. And if you are going to give someone flowers, ask if they are allergic to it before buying it. Maybe something else is a better gift? • Dust and dirty – Keep the place clean from dust, but use as less chemicals as possible to get as clean air as possible. Cleaning and washing agents goes under the same as fragrance products, it causes asthma attacks. Go fragrance free here! • Pollen, yes it is a natural thing and not your fault. What you can do is to think of all that is allergic to it, do not brush or dust it off indoors, and if someone tells you to hand your coat outside it is not to be rude it is to stay healthy. • Food – Avoid eating where other people travel the society. Of cource you can eat in a restaurant or a cafe’, but avoid eating other places. Rather many get sick from airborne food emits, and when you eat you might get it on handles, seating, doors and so on, and the next one get it on their hands and then in their mouth for example (grown and children). Remember that things that emits and evaporates to the air can be for sensitive people as pollution regardless of the smell. It is not the smell that hurts it is what is in the smell. We are constructed to breathe air, nothing else. If someone tells you – No!, it is not to be rude, it is to stay healthy. Avoid to have things that evaporate and emits to the air where the public is. Make the air as fresh as possible without additives, additives that is for all of us sensitive nothing more than pollution. Maybe it is a new way of thinking for you, but regardless what you think of it, it is all sensitive persons reality. If you adopt the way of thinking you can make the air cleaner and fresher for us all to breathe. In that way you can help us stay healthy. In polluted air we get sick, in fresh air we are healty. It is that simple. Have a nice day. Happy Holidays? It is this time of year when all families gather together and salubrate the holidays together, first Christmas and then New Years. Invitations are sent and everyone is expected to come on the invitation like the host want it. I am visiting in different asthma and allergy, and sensitivity fora online and read page up and page down about relatives inviting their kids, cousins, grandkids, siblings and other relatives to the holidays and everyone want to come, just they can not. Family can sometimes be even worse than other friends in life, it seems like they are deaf to life and others needs. They want to be presentable and they want to make a cozy holidays for all and make a happy party – on their terms. I then wonder why they are not listening to what their family and friends tell them about their asthma and allergies, that they can not be around cats, dogs, birds,, tobacco smoke, vaping, fragrance, air fresheners, incense, scented candles, and can not eat a range of different things. Many allergies are even airborne so if any of the things they are allergic to is there they get sick from breathing. I read about families who invite to holidays and parties and demand to have the gathering at their home even though they know and have been told many times their friends or family members are sick from their animals, fragrance products, tobacco smoke (second and third hand), vaping and some food, fragrance, aftershave and other things. They are told all year-long and every year at Christmas and New Years that the family member is sick from these things, still it is like the host behave like they are thick in the head. Either they have a hearing problem, or it must be they are either thick in their head and do not grasp for a moment what is the problem, or they just do not care. But actually it should not have to be explained in detail what happens in the body when a person is exposed to allergens and irritants, it should be enough they are told the person get sick from it, and when told – Could you please come to our place instead? And could you please come fragrance free, smoke free, fur free, and bring no food or what ever the allergy and asthma is against? They should do that without hesitating, all for the cause and best for the person we all love who has allergies and asthma. Every year it is the same thing, and every year I wonder what is wrong with these people? They say they love their family and friends, but still they seem to not care and go on hurting them. In the end the person having asthma and allergies end up having a Christmas and New Years being sick, really sick, being on medication and having a bad health. All because some people do not listen. It should be easy. They could just listen and do as asked of them for the greater good and good health of someone they claim to like and love, and someone they claim they care for. If you claim these things, that you love and care for a person, please step up and show for real that it is true by showing it with your actions. Caring about your loved ones should be more important than where and how you salubrate your Christmas and New Years. Or your loved ones end up sitting alone at the Holidays, or getting really ill just because you do not care. Read about asthma and allergy by looking through the menu, and links. Also read about testimonials, Go fragrance Free archives, and all the other knowledge. Take your time and be a better family and friend. Please, let it be a Happy, including and Healthy Merry Christmas and Happy New Year for everyone. I was talking to a person I know very well today that have not been taken care of their asthma lately and had a violent asthma attack yesterday. Too few understand how dangerous this is, that goes both for them who are sick in asthma and those around who have not. Why do we need fresh air? About 20% of inhabitants in society have asthma, and more are getting it from year to year. When a person having asthma is exposed to allergens and irritants and stuff that the lungs is ill from MUCUS is formed in the lungs and clogs the airways. In addition to the mucus clogging the bronchies (airways in the lungs) cramp due to muscles around the airway cramping making the already mucus filled airways even tighter. This is what makes it hard to breathe. It is also important to note oneself that even insensitive and uncaring behaviour that cause emotional stress to a person having asthma can cause the same Health issue. This is what happens if a person having asthma is subjected to airborn allergens and irritants, or eating something they get sick from, and it worsen by the hour they are subjected to it. If the person do not get treatment this is what happen: 1 The asthma attack is sneaking on the person making it hard to breathe until he /she get too little oxygen and ultimately die from it. 2 Have a acute asthma attack that is very violent, with violent coughing, violent breathing problems, muscle cramps and ace, it is easy to spot and in the long run just as deadly. Often you can not stand up straight because you cough so violently. 3 A combination of the two above. 4 Anaphylactic shock. Death comes quickly. So before you say “take a pill” and “let me smoke and fragrance in Peace”, give us fresh air. That is what we need! A boy Ryan Gibbons was not allowed to carry his inhalor With him at School and died from a asthma attack. “Sandra Gibbons knew something needed to change when her son Ryan, 12, died after an asthma attack at his school in Straffordville last year (2012). Ryan wasn’t allowed to carry his inhaler with him at school, Gibbons said. So she started a petition to require school boards to adopt standardized asthma plans. Gibbons’ petition garnered more than 1,500 signatures. The bill passed second reading with all-party support at Queen’s Park this week. The government has an obligation to ensure that (when) kids are at school that they have the safest environment possible. It would also allow asthmatic students to carry a reliever inhaler at all times, with a doctor’s approval. “There will be, of course, discretion,” Yurek said. “You’re not going to have a four-year-old carrying around their own puffer.”. And why a four year old can not carry his own puffer to use whenever the kid needs it is for me not understandable. I have asthma myself and I know that sometimes you do not have the possibility to run all over a School yard to get the teacher to get Your medicine, you must have it there and then, not later. Asthma medicine should be taken at once one feel a problem evolving, not wait 10 minitues to half an hour or more. The puffer is a life saviour and should be handled as such and carried With oneself eat all times. It should not even be a matter of questioning it. I get upset, sad, angry and a lot more and tears are coming. I have a question for all wanting to deny a person having asthma their puffer: – Would you deny a heart patient to wear his heart medicine? It should be a human right to have ones medicine at hand at all times. We have sertant organs that is crusual for living: heart, lungs, kidneys, liver, stomach, brain a.s.o. Without those organs functioning we are no more. Medicine helps the organ function so if you deny the person having or using their medicine they die. Rest in Peace Ryan Annelie Read the Whole story. Alpha 1 Antitrypsin deficiency I found some really good videos on YouTube.com about Alpha 1 Antitrypsin deficiency. This is about Alpha 1, but the first part also describes the sensation having asthma without Alpha 1. So to understand the nature of asthma you really need to see the first part of the video. That asthma and Alpha 1 Antitrypsin deficiency is not the same even though the experience of the symptoms are in many ways much similar. Part 1 Part 1 show you what it feels like having Alpha 1 Antitrypsin deficiency, but also what it feels like having asthma even though asthma and Alpha 1 Antitrypsin deficiency is not the same. Part two Part two show you the real severity view of Alpha 1 Good Reading on Alpha 1 Antitrypsin deficiency There are many with Alpha 1 also has some form of asthma, others have bronchiestase, fibrosis, cyatisk fibrosis, chronic bronchitis, etc. Many people experience emphysema early in life because of its Alpha 1. It is often when you have emphysema you get infusion therapy. Alpha-1 Antitrypsin Deficiency (Alpha-1) is a genetic (inherited) condition – it is passed from parents to their children through their genes. Alpha-1 may result in serious lung disease in adults and/or liver disease at any age. For each trait a person inherits, there are usually two genes; one gene comes from each parent. People with Alpha-1 have received two abnormal alpha-1 antitrypsin genes. One of these abnormal genes came from their mother and one from their father. Alpha-1 occurs when there is a lack of a protein in the blood called alpha-1 antitrypsin, or AAT. AAT, the alpha-1 protein, is mainly produced by the liver. The main function of AAT is to protect the lungs from inflammation caused by infection and inhaled irritants such as tobacco smoke. Source and Read more: Because Alpha-1 is genetic, Alpha-1 lung disease is commonly called “genetic COPD.” People with Alpha-1 lung disease have two abnormal genes (one from each parent). The most common abnormal genes are called Z and S genes. Early diagnosis of Alpha-1 is very important because quitting smoking (if the Alpha smokes) and early treatment are both essential to help slow the progression of Alpha-1 lung disease. However, Alpha-1 Antitrypsin Deficiency can’t be diagnosed by symptoms or by a medical examination alone; you need to get a blood test to know for sure. Alpha-1 is often first diagnosed as asthma or smoking-related Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). COPD includes emphysema and chronic bronchitis. Alpha-1 is the most common genetic risk factor for COPD. About 3 percent of all people diagnosed with COPD may have undetected Alpha-1. The World Health Organization (WHO), American Thoracic Society (ATS), and the European Respiratory Society (ERS) recommend that everyone with COPD, bronchiectasis, or asthma that isn’t controlled with usual medications, be tested for Alpha-1. Source and Read more: Treatment There is no cure for Alpha-1 lung disease, but treatments are available. Alphas with lung diseases such as asthma, COPD or bronchiectasis can be helped by the same drugs used by non-Alphas for these conditions. These include drugs to open up the lung passages (bronchodilators) and reduce the chronic inflammation that is common in the lungs of Alphas (corticosteroids). Since infections in the lung can bring millions of extra white blood cells into the lungs, many doctors who care for Alphas recommend that lung infections be treated early and aggressively with antibiotics. One sign of a lung infection is when the Alpha starts to cough up mucus or phlegm that is yellow or green in color. Besides the usual treatments for COPD in general, there is a specific therapy available to Alphas with lung disease. Augmentation therapy consists of intravenous infusions, usually weekly, of alpha-1 antitrypsin protein purified from healthy plasma donors. The goal is to increase the level of alpha-1 protein in the blood and lungs in order to slow or stop the progression of Alpha-1 lung disease. Augmentation therapy has been shown to increase blood and lung levels of alpha-1 antitrypsin protein, reduce the rate of decline of lung function, and improve survival. Augmentation therapy cannot restore lost lung function and is not considered a cure. However, this therapy is currently the standard of care for Alphas with COPD. Source and Read more: Transplant Neither medicine or transfusion Cure Alpha 1 Antitrypsin deficiency. In the end all having Alpha 1 Antitrypsin deficiency die. To survice they need to have a lung transplant. But the medicine and the transfusion help those having Alpha 1 Antitrypsin deficiency live longer. Article is written With help of a friend having Alpha 1 Antitrypsin deficiency and my own knowledge in normal asthma. Please contact for more Information on Alpha 1 Antitrypsin deficiency. Fact Source: my friend having Alpha 1 and. Two types of asthma • Asthma Cardiale • Asthma Bronchiale Asthma cardiale Asthma Cardial, airway obstruction due to declining heart function. Originally a term for nighttime breathlessness in patients with heart failure. The term was later used in heart failure patients where an acoustics can hear the beeps of bronchial asthma. Source: MD A Hegge Hansen and Asthma bronchiale Asthma Bronchiale is the best known sort of asthma among most people. This type of asthma got several kinds of severness from mild ot severe and leathal. It is very well described on this website at page. Is it possible to die from asthma? The possibility to die from asthma is real. According to figures by WHO and GinAsthma 2011 about 300 million person have asthma world wide, and about 250000 die from asthma every year. Nearly all cases of asthma-related deaths result from a lack of oxygen and not from cardiac arrest. This is significant because rapid oxygen administration can prevent asthma-related deaths. Most fatal asthma attacks do not occur in the hospital. Most patients who reach the hospital with an intact central nervous system survive. Most people who die from a severe asthma attack delayed going to the hospital which is something people not taking asthma seriously enough tend to do. Most asthmatics who suffer a near fatal attack hadn’t been taking their medicines as prescribed or they delayed seeking treatment. Both people with severe and mild asthma can die from asthma. Don’t play with your health Some people do not take their asthma seriously, they think they know how to take care of their asthma, but they don’t and don’t really try to learn how to manage their asthma properly. Those having asthma who do not have a proper asthma treatment and stay away from what make them ill are more likely to have asthma attacks. They are also more likely to have to go to the emergency room. After being at the emergency room they go back to doing what they use to and being unattentive to health and medicine. They maybe only take som rescue medicin onee in a while, but not all subscribed. Then they go back to having fun, until the next asthma attack. But the longer they go without proper asthma management, the more they risk permanent damage to their lungs. If your doctor do not give you the information you have to hunt it. Another type of asthmtics are those who think they are tuffer than asthma. They do are those who do not go to the hospital whatever. They could in fact be dying but they still do not contact the emergency room. Go to the doctor? Those asthmatics seam to think their own toughness and sheer willpower will beat their asthma symptoms into submission. They don’t seek breathing help when they need it and may have forgotten their asthma medication. Your lungs are not protected by your toughness. Asthma is a difficult disease and it requires some toughness. But you should never ignore breathing trouble, get help immedietly when you need. The asthmatics who care These asthmatics are a doctor’s best patients. They have their bronchodilator with them at all times, but only use it when necessary. They religiously take their controller, anti-inflammatory medicines. These are the patients that may visit the emergency room rarely, for breathing emergencies, but they seek information and education, or take the information and education they are given and follow it, so they don’t have to return to the emergency room. Asthma Attitude: “I have asthma. Asthma doesn’t have me.” Take care of your asthma Stay away from what make you ill, do not let it in your life. Take your medicines as prescribed and if you still get problems breathing take contact with the health care where you are. Remember that a asthma not controlled might be able to take your life. Source: healthcentral.com. Today I read a blog that made a big impression on me. Was so cleaver written. It is about a girl who got something called Lupus. This theory of hers is actually applicable to asthma too. One have to change the point a bit but it nicely explains the strains living with asthma. Everyone has heard about asthma but if you have never experienced it yourself you are not likely to understand what it is like to live with it, and friends need to understand what it is like to be fully able to be considerate enough to brighten your day. The Spoon Theory on Asthma What does it feel like? What is it like being sick? Not physically but in other ways in the ordinary life. You get a bunch of spoons in your hand. Those are your health this day. “I explained that the difference in being sick and being healthy is having to make choices or to consciously think about things when the rest of the world doesn’t have to. The healthy have the luxury of a life without choices, a gift most people take for granted. Most people start the day with unlimited amount of possibilities, and energy to do whatever they desire, especially young people. For the most part, they do not need to worry about the effects of their actions. So for my explanation, I used spoons to convey this point. I wanted something for her to actually hold, for me to then take away, since most people who get sick feel a “loss” of a life they once knew. If I was in control of taking away the spoons, then she would know what it feels like to have someone or something else, in this case my illness, being in control.” This is very applicable to asthma. For a person with Lupus you lose energy for every little thing you do. If we translate this to asthma every little thing you get exposed to that make your asthma react will take a way one spoon from your daily health. “She grabbed the spoons with excitement. She didn’t understand what I was doing, but she is always up for a good time, so I guess she thought I was cracking a joke of some kind like I usually do when talking about touchy topics. Little did she know how serious I would become? I asked her to count her spoons. She asked why, and I explained that when you are healthy you expect to have a never-ending supply of “spoons”. But when you have to now plan your day, you need to know exactly how many “spoons” you are starting with. It doesn’t guarantee that you might not lose some along the way, but at least it helps to know where you are starting.” One spoon is one part of your health, the possibility to breathe. What takes away the spoons when you have asthma is the allergens and irritants you get exposed to through the day. You start your morning with taking your medicine and you go off to meet the rest of the world. In my case I am an all year asthmatic. What does this mean? Is there any half-year asthmatic? No not really, but some having asthma got seasonal problems like with pollen. I and others have asthma to things that is all year. Chemicals you meet all year everywhere. They are hard to avoid since you find them on people using them for beauty treatment, smelling nicely, washing and cleaning a.s.o. If I am lucky I start my day with a hundred spoons, like in 100% ok this day, but very often I wake up with a goose nesting in my lungs and it needs to be cleared out with inhalation medicine and pills. In such days I start with about 70-80 spoons. I leave for work, or other duties, fun and pleasures, and meet hundreds of allergens and irritants a day. For every allergen and irritant I get exposed to I lose a spoon. I loose breathing ability. And note that the allergens and irritants are on most people using fragrance, fragrance products, smoking, and also when cleaning and washing clothes and buildings a.s.o. It is everywhere, also in the everyday air cause of fragrance, exhaust, scented candles, air-fresheners, road dust, and much more in addition to all what people wear and use. And at party’s and holiday’s there are even more of it since people tend to bathe in it, to in their minds make themselves more attractive. What they actually do is make themselves unattractive to people like me. So without taking medicines I lose a spoon every time I get exposed to any of this. And every time I lose a spoon I get breathing problems. If I continue loosing my spoons the breathing continuously get worse throughout the day. To help the situation I take medicine to get better throughout the day. This can give me a spoon back for a while, but only until I get exposed to allergens and irritants the next time, then it starts over again. If exposure to allergens and irritants get too much to handle then hopefully I can manage it myself by using medicine I have gotten from the pulmonary clinic at the hospital. If not I get a massive asthma attack and need to go to the hospital for help. I always need to save spoons so I do not run out of them, so I can avoid a big asthma attack. However medicine has its limits. It is only allowed to take so much of it before one get side-effects from it, and those side-effects are scary and take away a spoon too. When overusing Ventoline your heart starts ticking really hard and very fast, it is pounding and racing, and you can not take any more of the medicine. Then you start loosing spoons fast. “I asked her to list off the tasks of her day, including the most simple. As, she rattled off daily chores, or just fun things to do; I explained how each one would cost her a spoon.” Most people do what ever they want without even have to think of doing or not doing it? Or even am I able to do that? For a person with asthma one has to avoid what make one sick. This actually mean you have to avoid places and situations known to you to make your asthma break out. Imagine you got asthma. Put yourself in the position of the asthmatic, and do this while you read this. You got asthma. What does that mean to you? When you breathe in things that are bad for you, your immune system tells the lungs that this stuff is really bad for you, and your lungs react to the impulse and your bronchi in the lungs get filled with mucus and the muscles around the bronchi spasm and narrows the airways even more so that you get hard to breathe. This is your position and it follows you wherever you go in life. How much you would even want to get rid of the problem this brings you, you can never really be free of it. You are asthmatic and this is your life. Very many things can make you sick. Some depends on what your immunesystem reacts on. You either react against one thing or several (most common is to react against several), but one thing that is sure is that if you keep the stuff around you get sick from, then your health decline. Your declining health about asthma means that the more you are subjected to what makes you sick, the more asthma problems you get. You use the problem solver you got, your asthma medicine, the inhalations that is your life saviour. If you are able to avoid the allergens and irritants you will not get as sick. At home you clear out all that make you sick to have a good life, to not have to medicate so much and not have to get sick all the time. The doctor told you to take your medicines, and you do, but you also know that it is best to stay clear of all that make you sick, since it is the only way to not become unnecessarily ill. Even so, you kan not stop using your medicines, and you know this. You can not stop because if you do you would let the chronic inflammation flare free with heavy difficulty breathing as a result. At home you got your free haven, you managed to clear it for as many allergens and irritants as possible. The air is clear for all the stuff that you get sick from, and you are constantly aware of not bringing any “bad stuff” into your home. All to not provoke your illness. Taking your medicines and having the free space, your home free for allergens and irritants, you can manage the illness rather good. Most days are good, even though not all. Your biggest problem is the rest of the world. The problem is the use of others of stuff you get ill from, and they do not know you get ill from it, and they put themselves and their preferred wants and likes first. And in this world you must join if you are not going to lock yourself inside your home and live your life alone. Those people believe that by using all the stuff you get ill from they are more pleasing to other people, that others find them more attractive and sociable. It starts every day already in the morning. I blog here to inform. I hope you my reader have use of the information I give. Not too many know what asthma REALLY is, and what those allergic, asthmatic and sensitive people can get sick from. My hope is that if you do not know as much about asthma, that after reading my blog you are a bit better informed and care about what you use in the future. When other people make you sick That is a way of saying that most people take for a person who behave in a way that make the other person say “you make me sick”, the term of disgust, but this is not about that. This is about when other people makes people physically sick. Now how is that possible? Very many persons in the world are allergic, asthmatic and sensitive against different things that others are using. To make another person sick you do not have to physically touch the person. And it is not about the mentally making someone ill either. Lets just take a look at the daily life of just anyone. It is socially accepted and normal amongst very many to use for example tobacco and perfume daily. They actually feel it is their human right to do so, and no one is allowed to tell them otherwise. Very many use perfume to indulge themselves, and to make them look nice to others, or even attract others. But for some people this use is a hazard to their health and possibly to their very life. And what happens when those people meet in the same room and must co-exist? Perfume got the effect on an allergic, asthmatic and sensitive person that is repellent and off-putting. It does not have the effect that the user want. I can take an example here. Yesterday I met a lady in the grocery shop who often travels with my bus. She is very nice and I was glad to see her. It was also an unexpected meeting since she does not live in the area. She started talking and we had a nice conversation. But in the instant I came 2,5 meters from her I could feel the stank of her perfume in far, and it was so VERY STRONG. Even if I stood 2,5 meters away it was like putting my nose right in her bottle. There were a cloud of perfume around her that reached 3 meters away. I came 1,5 meter away from her that is the normal distance to keep when socializing here, and I got ill. I felt my lungs tighten and felt it was coming that I would soon be unable to breathe. Since I got asthma I can not be around and too near people having perfume on them. I get so really sick from perfume. And I am not alone in the world to have this problem. Even if she is a nice lady to chat with, I really wanted to leave because I got ill from her use. Another time I was exposed to perfume was in May 2011 and the evening came and I got a phone call. A friend asked if I would like to go to the restaurant? I got very glad and said Yes! I’ll pick you up in half an hour.: ) I parked outside and waited for him. When he entered the car I smiled at him and said hello, and in the same second I had an asthma attack. He forgot I have asthma and had sprayed aftershave all over him. The aftershave was so strong, the fragrance filled the whole car. I had to open all the windows same time as I was coughing badly trying to get air, and take my medicine. Did not help. The perfume stank spread in all of my car. It was cold outside and we drove with the windows open. My friend froze but I could not close the windows, because if I did I would get even more, really, really sick. I can not sit in a car with all that perfume, and it was a 15 minutes drive to the restaurant. I had to have the windows open. Only other option would have been to let him out of the car and let him walk home. At the restaurant I was sick all evening. He stank all a cross the table. I tried to medicate, it helped a bit but it never really ended. It was even possible to hear it on my talking. My breathing made my voice sound strange and raspy. After a while I needed to visit the ladies room. Took my Symbicort Turbuhaler medicine and needed to rinse my mouth. I got in to the ladies room and a wall of perfume in form of washing agents and air-freshener met me. I just took medicine and needed to rinse my mouth, and now I again got breathing problems because of the air-freshener. From the ashes in to the fire. Rinsed my mouth and then quick out again. It happens that I enter a store to go shopping. Such happened for example this summer. I needed new batteries for my hearing aid and entered the local farmacy to buy some, but they were sold out and I had to go to the Clock and Juwelery store to buy it. I entered the store and the lady in the store stank of perfume and I got sick. I bought my batteries, that costed about 40 NOK more than at the farmacy (robbery if you ask me) and on top of it I got sick from the staff’s perfume use. I will never enter that store again. I can not have getting sick from going shopping. There they lost a costumer. I would rather drive far to a shop that is scent free, than go shopping there. And then you got the smoking that is a hot topic for many. Very many smokers feel they are herrassed by the anti-smokers, and then again there are us who get sick from the smoke. An example of this is: We stroll around. It is a sunny day and my friend suggest a coffee or a beer in the sun. Ok, I say, and think to myself that this is nice. At the same time I get worried over smokers. I look around to see if there is any clear table, a table without smokers sitting around it. There is one! We sit and order our drinks, and talks. Half way through the beer and the coffee the person(s) at the table next to me lights a cigarette. Wind drives the smoke in my direction. I feel the asthma strike my health again, just as many other times. We sit outside, the smoker is allowed to smoke there, still I get sick. It gets bad, and I have to leave. A stroll on the docks along the canal. Some smokers walk in front of me. I have to sick- sack to avoid their fumes, still it hits my lungs. I get sick again and get breathing problems. Silently I suggest to my friend to take another road in hope of there are no smokers. It is ok for a while, so comes that smoke again. I go around it to avoid it. Worst is when they go on all sides of me. Where to escape then? We want to enter the mall, or pass the doors to the waiting hall at the buss/train station or airport. They are either going in the mall or they are taking a bus, train, or flight. It is not allowed to smoke inside the mall and waiting hall so people stand in front of the entrance for the “last smoke”, smoking them up. The smoke is thick in front of the doors. I get scared and worried thinking I must pass that. If I want or need to get in there I have to pass it. I go through it and it takes a second or two for the smoke to hit my lungs, and then it takes a few seconds again before I feel my lungs protest and tighten, and I get trouble breathing. Sometimes i try to hold my breath to avoid the smoke because if I do not I will get sick. If there are to many standing there in front of the door I maybe can not hold my breath long enough. Then I get sick again. Now of course this is only a few examples of what happends. I have experienced many more, and lots of people could tell you other times they got ill from others use. You can read more and also personal true stories here: If you want to know how many people have asthma, you need to prepare yourself for the answer! It is such a large number that you would be surprised! It has been estimated that more than twenty million people in America suffers from asthma, and Norway in the year 2011 have a total of about 4.920.400 inhabitants, out of those are approximately 1.230.100 persons with allergies, asthma and other sensitivities, and about 639.600 of those got asthma. That is roughly 7% of the population of the US and 13% of the Norwegian population. A report (WHO 2006) also showed that as many as 300 million people worldwide suffers from this condition. It has been estimated that by the year 2025, there will be at least one 400 million people who suffers from asthma. I addition to those 80 million people with diagnosed moderate to severe COPD, and millions of others with mild COPD, allergic rhinitis, and other chronic respiratory diseases, which are often undiagnosed. And chronic respiratory diseases caused over 4 million deaths in 2005, including over 3 million deaths from COPD and 255,000 deaths from asthma. Remember that you can make many people sick, but also remember that you have the power to prevent that. If you stop using fragranced products and quit smoking you help many thousands of people who get sick from the use. Thank you /Annelie You can also read: Sources and read more: World Health Organization (WHO), and professor Kjell Aas. When you read or hear about asthma you are told asthma is in the airways. Many believes it is therefore in the throat since that is what most people know as the airways. They therefore deny it is in the lungs. But asthma is located in the lungs. You have upper airways (mouth, nasal cavity, pharynx and larynx) and lower airways (trachea, bronchi, bronchiole, alveoli) that is in the lung, then lung tissue, blood veins, muscles a.s.o. In the lungs that looks almost like a sponge with small pipes air and oxygen is transported. Those pipes are air-ways called Bronchi and out from them springs the even smaller ones called Bronchiole and in the end of those the Alveoli is located. The Alveoli is connected to the blood stream of the body, oxygen is going in to the blood, and the blood transports the oxygen to the rest of the body including the brain, liver, kidneys, muscles and so on. Asthmatics need oxygen too. Air is breathed in through the mouth and nose and goes through the wind-pipe to the lungs. When the air/oxygen arrive to the lungs it is first transported to the bronchi and over into the bronchiole which then transport the air/oxygen further to the alveoli that is the last stop in the lungs before the oxygen is transported to the rest of the organs in the body including your brain. An asthma attack can be started by several things, either something a person is allergic to airborne og eaten, or things that simply irritate the lungs airways. The bronchiole in an asthmatic person narrows (see image) when subjected to perfume, smoke, dust, exhaust or other things the person having asthma get sick from. When the bronchiole’s narrows it hinder air to get through to the alveoli, the lung tissue gets to little air and oxygen, and the person get hard to breathe or what we call an asthma attack. When breathing fresh air with no pollution, irritants or allergens in the air breathed in, the asthmatic person usually can breathe rather normally. Note that food allergies can also be airborne. When a person having an asthma attack get all tight lungs then it is the bronchiole that get inflamed and cramp, and the asthmatic person can not breathe. Therefore oxygen can not be transported to the rest of the body and organs. If not helped and the person having asthma do not get to breathe normally again the person can in worst case suffocate and die. The help needed is to get away from irritants and allergens that make the person sick, and also to give medicine at once. If the person do not get better, or are fading away, the person should be brought to the Emergency Room to get stronger medicine. The lungs also transport oxygen to the rest of the body including your brain. If you are careless with your lungs it can end up bad for you. Your lungs are designed for fresh air, not smoke, perfume or any other pollution. Asthma is a chronic illness of the lungs, where the airways tighten and causes problems breathing. It is caused by allergies and irritants inhaled. When this happens the musculature around the airways cramps and mucus i produced in in the lungs in an increased grade. This together make it hard for the person having asthma to breathe. It feels like the lungs shrinks, and one get trouble breathing. In Norway about 20% of children got asthma, about 5% of the adults got asthma. If both the mother and the father got asthma then the child are in 50% higher risk of developing asthma. More and more of the population get asthma. Smoking during pregnancy and the first years of life increases the risk for children to get asthma. The environment is very important for if the children and also if adults develop asthma. Colds, cold temperatures, wet weather, mist, and wet damages, and allergies and irritants are some of what causes asthma. Irritants can be just anything, it depends on what the person having asthma is sensitive against. Asthma can be inherited, but do not have to be inherited. Even people with parents without allergies and asthma can develop asthma. During evening, night and in the mornings asthma can be worse. Exercise is good for a person having asthma, but can also be what give an asthma attack and breathing problems. An asthmatic person need to exercise in its own pace. An asthma that is not right treated with medicine and staying away from irritants can develop into COPD (KOL/KOLS). People that smoke and got asthma often do not have the same benefit from the asthma medicines provided as those who do not smoke. Active smoking and passive smoking worsen asthma. Hormone changes and pregnancy can worsen asthma. Psychological stress can worsen asthma. It is very important to be in control of your asthma. Control you gain by taking your medicines daily as prescribed, stay away from what make your asthma break out, and see to that you get fresh air. It is important to use medicines even more when having a cold, because a cold can worsen your asthma. No medicines can cure asthma. Medicines available reduces the symptoms and effect of the illness. But even when taking the medicines a person can get sick if not being careful, and if not staying away from what make the asthma break out. Asthma is an invisible handicap, and it can cause trouble for a person working in surtant environments. Those work environments can be kitchen, welding halls, factory, cleaning, car repair garages, or any environment where the person is subjected to pollution of the air. Asthma is a chronic (long-term) lung illness that inflames and narrows the airways. Asthma causes recurring periods of wheezing (a whistling sound when you breathe), chest tightness, shortness of breath, and coughing. Asthma affects people of all ages. As an example in the United States, more than 22 million people have asthma. Nearly 6 million of these people are children. Ginasthma and has estimated that in 2011 about 300 million people got asthma world wide. In approximately 1,5 millioner people got asthma and allergies. Facts from WHO: Chronic respiratory diseases worldwide caused over 4 million deaths in 2005, including over 3 million deaths from COPD and 255,000 deaths from asthma. Overview The airways in the lungs are tubes that carry air into and out of your lungs. Those airways in the lungs are called the bronchioles. People who have asthma have inflamed airways. This makes the airways swollen and very sensitive. This is not an inflammation as we normally know it like a sore throat, this one is chronic and will not go away. Only treatment is using asthma medicine that keep the asthma down. They who have asthma tend to react strongly to certain substances that are breathed in. When the airways react, the muscles around them tighten. This causes the airways to narrow, and less air flows into the lungs. The swelling also can worsen, making the airways even narrower. Cells in the airways may make more mucus than normal. Mucus is a sticky, thick liquid that can further narrow your airways. This chain reaction can result in asthma symptoms. Symptoms are likely to happen each time the airways are irritated. Figure A shows the location of the lungs and airways in the body. Figure B shows a cross-section of a normal airway. Figure C shows a cross-section of an airway during asthma symptoms. (Click image for bigger picture.) Sometimes symptoms are mild and go away on their own or after minimal treatment with an asthma medicine. At other times symptoms continue to get worse. When symptoms get more intense and/or additional symptoms appear, this is an asthma attack. Asthma attacks also are called flare-up or exacerbation. What happens in the airways? There are three factors in particular which individually trigger attacks; • Spasm of the musculature surrounding the airways. Airways tighten and you get a problem breathing. • Inflammation of the mucosa in the airways – not due to infection. The inflammation leads to swelling of the mucosa and hence the bronchi become narrower and tighter. The work of breathing is increased and the sufferer feels short of breath. • Collection of mucous in the airways. It’s important to treat symptoms when you first notice them. This will help prevent the symptoms from worsening and causing a severe asthma attack. Severe asthma attacks may require emergency care, and they can cause death. Outlook Asthma can’t be cured. Even when you feel fine, you still have the illness and it can flare up at any time. But with today’s knowledge, medicines and treatments, most people who have asthma are able to manage the disease. They may have few, if any, symptoms, or have more but can treat it themselves. Treatment with asthma medicines increase the chance to live normal active lives, and sleep through the night without interruption from asthma. For successful, comprehensive, and ongoing treatment, take an active role in managing the illness. What Causes Asthma? The exact cause of asthma isn’t known. Researchers think a combination of factors (family genes and/or certain environmental exposures) can interact to cause asthma to develop, most often early in life. No more than one factor is needed, but more than one factor together can be the cause. These factors include: • An inherited tendency to develop allergies, called atopy (AT-o-pe) • Parents who have asthma • Certain respiratory infections • Contact with some airborne allergens or exposure to some viral infections. • Non-inhereted asthma is developed by for example tobacco smoke, chemicals, dust, compounds in home decor products, sprays, damage caused by damp in houses, mould, cold and more. • Some people develop asthma because of exposure to certain chemical irritants, fumes or industrial dusts in the workplace. This is called occupational asthma. If you got asthma exposure to airborne allergens (for example, house dust mites, cockroaches, and possibly cat or dog dander, chemicals) and irritants (for example, tobacco smoke, parfume a.s) make your airways more reactive to substances in the air you breathe. Different factors may be more likely to cause asthma in some people than in others. Researchers continue to explore what causes asthma. Most, but not all, people who have asthma have allergies. What Are the Signs and Symptoms of Asthma? Common asthma symptoms include: • Coughing. (Coughing from asthma is often worse at night or early in the morning, making it hard to sleep. But it also occur in daytime or when you are exposed to things you are sensitive to.) • Wheezing. Wheezing is a whistling or squeaky sound that occurs when you breathe. • Chest tightness. This may feel like something is squeezing or sitting on your chest. • Shortness of breath. Some people who have asthma say they can’t catch their breath or they feel out of breath. You may feel like you can’t get air out of or in your lungs. A lung function test, done along with a medical history (including type and frequency of your symptoms) and physical exam, is the best way to diagnose asthma for certain. Your doctor will use a test called spirometry (PEF) to check how your lungs are working. This is an instrument used for messuring the airflow. You hold the handle and blow in the front. You get the results at the left side. Here I blow 350 as you see to the left, and the right side shows the normal value for a healthy person. This test measures how much air you can breathe in and out. It also measures how fast you can blow air out. When your asthma get worse the result from the test gives a lower rate, and the more sick you are in asthma at the time of the test the lower result you get. Your doctor also may give you medicines and then test you again to see whether the results have improved. If the starting results are lower than normal and improve with the medicine, and if your medical history shows a pattern of asthma symptoms, your diagnosis will likely be asthma. If your suspect your asthma is work related it is smart to make separate tests at home and at work at the same time over time to see if there is any difference in your lung capasity between the places. This helps determine if your lungs works best at home or at work. Other tests that may be taken by your doctor is allergy testing. One measure the lung capacity and also forces an attack to break out the check if there really are asthma. A test to measure how sensitive your airways are. This is called a bronchoprovocation test. Using spirometry, this test repeatedly measures your lung function during physical activity, after you receive increasing doses of cold air or a special chemical to breathe in. (This one is a real nightmare. I got so tight airways that I could not breathe. Like putting a sock down your throat. Had to inhale a lot of medicine after to be ok again. I never want to do that again if I can help it. It took all afternoon the get my strength back. Annelie’s comment) The types of asthma symptoms you have, how often they occur, and how severe they are may vary over time. Sometimes your symptoms may just annoy you. Other times they may be troublesome enough to limit your daily routine. Severe symptoms can threaten your life. It’s vital to treat symptoms when you first notice them so they don’t become severe. With proper treatment, most people but not all who have asthma can expect to have few, if any, symptoms either during the day or at night. But it is important to avoid what makes your asthma break out if possible. Subjecting yourself to what makes your asthma break out will make the illness worsen over time. It is also very important that the people round you is considerate and caring to help you avoid that when necessary. (September 2008 I have had my asthma for one year. In November 2008 I have had an astma attack that made me have to go the hospital and get connected to a machine that gave me asthma medicine to inhale for 15 min. I coughed very hard and had a tight chest. I got very weak and had trouble breathing and got sick leave. Annelie’s comment) What Causes Asthma Symptoms To Occur? A number of things can bring about or worsen asthma symptoms. Your doctor will help you find out which things (sometimes called triggers) may cause your asthma to flare up if you come in contact with them. Triggers may include: • Allergens found in dust, animal fur, cockroaches, mold, and pollens from trees, grasses, flowers a.s • Irritants such as cigarette smoke, smoke, fumes, air pollution, chemicals or dust at home, public places, transportation or in the workplace, compounds in home decor products, and sprays. • Certain medicines such as aspirin or other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and non-selective beta-blockers • Sulfites in foods and drinks • Viral upper respiratory infections such as colds and airway infections • Exercise (physical activity) • People with food allergies (f.eks nuts) can in addition to normal allergy reactions get an asthma attack. •, including stress, grief, depression a.s • Laughter, big a.s. • Fright, is a kind of stress and can trigger asthma. • Excitement do a reaction to the body, that can trigger asthma. •, involves all of the emotional levels mentioned and can trigger asthma. Other health conditions—such as runny nose, sinus infections, reflux disease, psychological stress, and sleep apnea—can make asthma more difficult to manage. These conditions need treatment as part of an overall asthma care plan. In dayly contact with an asthmatic person you should always consider these facts. Employ it in your dayly rutines to help the asthma sick person to remain well. Causing unnecessary psychological stress on an asthma sick person can cause serious effects on that person’s health. Asthma is located in the same groups of illness as psoriasis and eczema that worsens from stress, grief and psychological stress. Try to solve problems to help the asthma sick person remain well. Great stress are damaging for the health of an asthmatic. Asthma is different for each person. Some of the factors listed above may not affect you, other factors that do affect you may not be on the list. It is very personal what triggers asthma and how much you react to them. Source: nhlbi.nih.gov,, and own experiences. On Wikipedia you can read even more: Annelie First posted 30. November 2008 19:39 Read. I appreciate humor in the daily words, some words at the site can be a little on the edge but that is not like I am. It is only translations. Private I am very tidy in both language and ways. Humor is humor and the “buisness” of entertainment is to entertain. My asthma blogging is not a complaint wall, it is made to fill the lack of information that is about this wide spread lung illness, called asthma. In 2011 about 300 million people got asthma world wide according to Ginasthma and WHO. My blogg tell you the plain and brutal truth you do not find on your doctors website - what it is, how it affects, and what it feels like. Some is self lived, some is others statements and other info and news. Learn also what you can do to make the days of any asthmatic person a better place to be. Maybe some posts can at times sound like complainting, but the reality is it is not always a sunday strawl either. But the purpouse is not complainting, read it as info. You can also read about what it is like to be hearing disabled and other stuff. Can a person with asthma and hearing aid work? - Yes, I work full time, and blog on my free time. Happy reading folks and have a nice visit! Knowledge is not a heavy burden to carry. The prevalence of SRDB in children and adults is about 10–15% and that for the most serious type, OSAS (Obstructive Sleep Apnoea Syndrome), is about 2–4%. A sleep study is required to confirm the diagnosis. The clinical symptoms of SRBD in adults are heavy snoring, observed apnoeas, gasping for air leading to frequent arousals, disturbed sleep and daytime sleepiness. Children are often hyperactive and have learning and behaviour difficulties. Untreated patients have increased mortality and morbidity. The primary treatment option for patients with medium to serious breathing disorders is continuous positive-pressure ventilation. Other treatment options are oral devices and surgery. In children, surgery (adenotonsilectomy) is the treatment of choice.
0 Comments
I've been asked for this list enough times that I thought it was time to get it online. Plus, then you have links instead of having to type the addresses.:) Enjoy!!! Ben Creative Date Ideas for Utah Valley Adapted from Brother Goodman and Brother Allen's list with additions by Ben Larson Outdoor Activities • Airplane (sky diving) • • Alpine slides • • Barbeque • Batting cages • Beach volleyball at the Sand Dunes • Bike riding • Biking • Build a fort and share favorite kid stories • Build a tree fort competition • Bungee jumping • • Camping • Canoeing • Capture the flag • Carriage ride • Catch fish with hands • Chalking • Climb Mt. Dating is a big part of college life. Let's all admit it and move on. At BYU, dating might as well be a four-credit class. With so many weekends to fill and so few dollars to spend, ideas tend to run dry fast. Below are some of our favorite websites and blogs to keep you up to date and in the know on the coolest dating scenes in Utah Valley. The Universe has the 'where,' 'when' and 'what.' You just have to supply the 'who'! Provo Buzz You might know Provo Buzz as the “Silicon Slopes”people. You might not know that what started as a platform for startup technology companies in Utah Valley is now one of the best websites for Provo activities. Check out its list of. The Date Bank One feature of this website is the ability to filter your searches. You can narrow your search by single or group dates and by price range. You can also upload your own date ideas for others to steal. After all, all is fair in love and war. Before you plan your next big night. Utah Valley Fun The folks at Utah Valley Fun promise they will help you to “never be bored again.” They keep that promise by providing an up-to-date database of current events in Utah Valley. One of Salt Lake City's top attractions, Utah's Hogle Zoo is a 42-acre space located at the base of the Wasatch Mountain Range within Emigration Canyon. Vacations for Couples, Packages, Offers, Tours, Date Night Ideas around me, Pictures of Romantic Hotels, Fall vacations for seniors, Free things to do in December. The site has an entire section devoted to dating ideas. You can browse by the type of date you would like to have — romantic, adventurous, emotional, cultural, service, educational, seasonal — or you can spend time exclusively in the site’s collection of free and inexpensive dates. It doesn’t matter what type of outing you are looking for. Utah Valley events and information When you need reliable information, go straight to the source. The compiles all events in the area on its website. Even though you live here, you can still take advantage of all the things that bring people from far and wide to the happy valley. The list of promises to keep you coming back for more. Blogs As blogging takes the world by storm, plenty of Provo-ites join the scene. AJ Oneal created, a blog specifically aimed toward enhancing the dating experience in Provo. Others have moved away from P-town but continue to share their dating experiences. BYU alumna Camille Whiting documents her weekly dates with her husband in the dating blog Two years ago, we. Young lovers have flocked to the Whitings for dating advice ever since. Still wishing there was a four-credit class called Romance 101? Check out these articles from the Universe. Astro-Vision SoulMate 11.0 Kundli Matching Marriage Software also provides you a choice of chart formats, like, North Indian, South Indian, East Indian, Kerala and Sri Lankan chart styles. This means you can generate Kundli Matching reports from the Kundli matching Software according to the individual requirement of your customers. You can also select the regional preferences based on which a match is made. The minimum check performed is the star compatibility check or Gun Milan Check. Other optional checks include Kuja Dosha Check or Manglik check, Papa Samyam Check and Dasa Sandhi Check. These optional checks can be enabled or disabled according to your customer's preference. Astro-Vision SoulMate 11.0 Kundali Matching Software performs horoscope matching of two individuals based on a number of factors. Vijay Tendulkar, Marathi playwright, is one of the prominent modern playwrights. One such writer is Vijay Tendulkar- the avant-garde Marathi playwright. She has tried to seduce and propose marriage to every male present there, and that she is to be dismissed soon on the charge of moral turpitude by the school where. The minimum matching check done is star compatibility or nakshatra porutham. Star Check or Nakshatra Compatibility check is used for calculating the compatibility between birth stars. There are various options for calculating the compatibility. Although the basic principles of judging compatibility are the same, there are variations in the standards applied in different places. Different methods are provided to suit regional practices. I जन्म नक्षत्र, राशी, गुणमिलन तपास जन्मनक्षत्र, राशी, गुणमिलन इत्यादींवर आधारीत तपास अनुरूपता I दक्षीण भारत/उत्तर भारत आकडेमोड दक्षीण भाारत, उत्तर भारत पद्धतींवर आधारीत कुंडली व आकडेमोड निर्माण करा I वेद दोष, रज्जु दोष आणि इतर दोष जुळवणीसाठी जन्मकुंडली तपासतांना काही दोष राहीलेत का हे जाणा. I मांगलीक, छेव्वाई, छोव्वा, मंगल किंवा कुज दोष तपास जन्म लग्न (जन्म वेळ), शुक्र आणि चंद्र विश्लेषणाच्या आधारे कुज दोष तपासा. I पापसाम्य तुलना मुलगा आणि मुलगी यांची पाप दोष तुलना पुरवतो आणि अनुरूपता दर्शवतो. I दशा-संधी तपास जोडप्यांसाठी दशा संधी विश्लेषण पुरवतो आणि अनुरूपता दर्शवतो. नमूना रिपोर्ट. Free Matchmaking For Marriage In Marathi ★★ Is Daenerys And John Snow Dating ★ Connecting Colorado Cubline Free Seoul Dating Dating My Daughter Game V0 6 It's. The largest Kolhapur Marathi Matrimonial Website with 10,000s of Marathi Kolhapur Matrimony. A talathi in kolhapur. Marathi brides and grooms meet for marriage. 1.0 2017-09-18 weekly 1.0 2017-09-18 weekly 1.0. Ukraine Talk Makes It Easy. Finding the lady of your dreams is as easy and taking the free tour and leaving a free message with the Women of your desires. Online dating site to find real Russian or Ukrainian women for dating. Mailing, chat rooms & video chat for more comfortable conversation. The process of finding an Eastern European lady to date is much easier than you think. Younger women in the former Soviet republics usually speak some English, and legitimate agencies generally offer phone translations where you can actually chat with these foreign women before you make the long trip to meet them. While I will tell you that the romance tours are the best and most trustworthy way to meet honest ladies looking to marry foreign husbands, you can also go it alone. If you find a lucky Russian or Ukrainian girl you want to meet, there is plenty of information about how to make a safe and pleasant trip to the Eastern bloc to meet for the first time. The world is so small these days, it’s hardly a problem to meet a beautiful Russian lady and fly to meet her when you’re ready! When you log on to one of these so-called mail order brides sites, generally the information is available in English. Many of the introduction agencies offer translation services, including automatic (computer-assisted) translations of the ladies’ profiles. When you decided to correspond with a lady on a, stick to some common sense rules. What's the best website to meet English-speaking Ukrainian. Reviews and comments, tips for dating. Ukrainian Women. TIPS: These dating site only. Jun 16, 2012. Making sense of all the Russian bride matchmaking sites on the Web is no easy task. Which are honest foreign dating sites, and which are scams? Look no further. On this page you will find honest reviews of foreign introduction agencies (sometimes called mail-order bride sites) that specialize in. Before we discuss tips how to use VKontakte.ru for looking for a match from Ukraine, I would like to explain some essential disadvantages. VK.com is not a dating site. Never send money to a woman you have not met in person. While most of the girls are honest, there are scammers out there, and the fact is that a true would NEVER ask someone she has not met to send her money. If a Russian woman is serious about meeting a future husband through one of these agencies she will not ask you to send money, she will ask you to come visit her hometown! You can learn more about how to avoid these scammers on some of the sites reviewed here. One last thing you should be aware of: there is a new law in the United States called the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act (IMBRA). Most companies that are in the business of introducing men to foreign women for the purpose of marriage are required to follow the steps outlined in this law. It protects these women and it protects you. Only American-based companies are required to comply with this law, and most of the sites listed here do. If you are serious about finding a Russian wife, A Foreign Affair (aka Loveme) is a great starting place. They have been in business about 14 years and are one of the first so-called mail order brides sites to go online. They have been featured on 60 Minutes, in Time Magazine and dozens of other publications. There was even a movie based on AFA and the foreign brides industry. The three principles of the company all have met and married Russian woman. AFA advertises that they have over 30,000 profiles of foreign women on their site and they offer conference calls every week for those who want to learn more about their romance tours. They also conduct open house seminars in various large cities around the country like Chicago, Dallas and Atlanta. Since they are an American company they are compliant with the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act (IMBRA) Read the full. BeHappy2Day is for western men who want to date or marry Russian, Ukrainian, Asian or Latin women. The concept behind this dating website is expressed in its name. Men who want to be happy as soon as possible with the sultry and voluptuous woman of their dreams can do just that by joining the website. Services include live chat (with automatic translation to the 13 languages), live video chat, 2-way live video chat, flowers&gift delivery (which we have recently updated), Date a Lady service. They also have a Blog on the website with weekly posts that usually feature helpful dating tips; you may include the information about it to the review as well, it can be interesting.Joining the site is simple. Read the review for –. CharmDate is one of the newer international dating sites and is sister to ChnLove and iDateAsia. Membership categories include free and paid. A free membership will allow you to browse profiles of women based on your preferences (e.g., age, location, etc.). As with some of the other Russian and Ukrainian sites, you must purchase credits to communicate with the ladies. They also offer quality paid services, such as: Express Mail Forwarding (EMF), Live Chat, Love Call, Video Show, etc. Read the full –. Anastasia International is an personal introduction company that also lists profiles of very beautiful Russian and Eastern European women. And has been in business since 2001. They tout having over 15,000 active profiles of these lovely ladies. They are a family run business and have physical offices in Russia and the USA. We like the site’s layout as it was recently redesigned and has lots of photos of the ladies and navigation easy logical. The one thing we do not care for is the method of payment. To contact or read e-mails you are required to buy credits and redeem them. We would prefer to see an all inclusive pricing structure. Read the full–. Friend Finder is an international online dating site that touts almost 2 million active members. The reason we list them under the Russian mail order bide section is they are a reasonably priced alternative to meet Russian girls. They list about 2,500 Russian women looking for men and other eastern European countries such as Poland, Ukraine, and the Czech Republic add thousands more to the list. The basic membership id free but you need to be a paying member to receive the full benefit of the site. One thing they do not offer is romance tours or help with visas and travel. Friendfinder is your basic online dating site and is worldwide so it is possible to meet people from almost any country.- Read the. UkraineDate.com is a very specialized online dating site that features the beautiful women of the Ukraine and other eastern European ladies. Memberships total just over 100,000 which also includes men that are interested in contacting these gorgeous women. Membership is free but if you go for the Platinum membership which will cost you between $8.00 and $30 per month depending on the number of months you sign up for. The Platinum membership allows you to send and receive video messages, translation of messages to and from your Ukrainian ladies. Gold and Platinum memberships allow you to post personal information so you can contact your potential Ukrainian bride out side of the site to get the next steps of your relationship underway and move closer to that Ukraine Date. If this sounds like something you would like to try: Read the full–. International Cupid is another site that offers the opportunity to contact potential foreign brides from Russia, Europe, Asia or Latin America. They are owned by Cupid Media who also owns RussianEuro as well as other sites reviewed here. They do not offer matchmaking tours as some of the others They tout having 258,000 members which would include the foreign women as well as the men that are searching for a bride. It’s hard to tell just how many of the members are women so it’s hard to gauge the odds of meeting one of them. They do list profiles of some very attractive girls from around the world. Read the full. Sesile.com is a simple site featuring thousands of profiles of Bulgarian, Russian and Eastern European women. The free basic membership takes just a couple of minutes to sign up for and you can view photos of Bulgarian women looking for a relationship and/or marriage. The women’s profiles are somewhat limited and there is no translation service. The profiles do list what language the ladies speak though which is helpful. The site claims to only list profiles of women with recent activity so you can hope that the women you attempt to contact are still interested in meeting you. Read the full review to learn how you can meet one of these Eastern European, Bulgarian or Russian potential brides. Read the full–. Charming Brides is a international marriage agency located in Karkov, Ukraine. They list some really nice profiles of Ukrainian women of all ages. We like that they list at the top the section where you can view ladies up to 40 years old or ladies above 40. Not every man is looking for a 21 year old bride. They also offer contact information of men that have used their service as references. Charming Brides also offers personal tours which include an interpreter up to 6 hours a day and meeting with up to ten Russian ladies. The site is fairly easy to navigate but the index page seems to go on forever. They do offer a lot of personalized services and the Ukrainian women listed on the site seem very “real”. Read the full–. The best online dating sites in Ukraine are equal in quality to. Dating in Ukraine can be quite fruitful if you have patience and are willing to put in hours of work searching profiles and sending messages. Also, you will be at a huge advantage if you know how to speak some Russian or Ukrainian since most of the men and women on these sites do not speak a bit of English. Your best success with online dating in Ukraine will be in Kiev and Kharkiv. These two big cities have the largest pools of singles from which to choose. Men in the Ukraine are outnumbered as Ukraine has one of the lowest sex ratios (ratio of males to females) of any country in the world. In fact, the other countries in this region also have low sex ratios. Great news guys! A woman from Ukraine Ukrainian women are amazingly gorgeous. Their beauty is the thing of legends. In fact, some of the most beautiful women I have ever seen in my life come from this part of the world. If you decide to sign up for one of the dating sites I discuss below, you will see what I’m talking about. As is the case with most online dating sites, you will at times come across sketchy or fake profiles. Poorly written profiles or overly Photoshopped photos are usually the red flags. Without further ado, here is the quick list of the top two dating sites in the Ukraine. I’ll go into more detail below. Ukraine Date I was a long time member of one of the sister sites of UkraineDate, AfroIntroductions.com, while I was living in both Mauritius and South Africa as an expatriate. I used their Brazilian site, BrazilCupid.com when I was in Brazil and actually ended up meeting my wife on there. In short, going with a Cupid Media-run site like UkraineDate will put you in the best position for success. A search for women living in Kiev between 18 and 35 years old who have been active on the site within the last 3 months will turn up more than 1000 profiles. If you have your heart set on Ukrainian women, then UkraineDate is worth your time and money. Sign up Process Signing up is free and takes only a couple of minutes. Enter your name, gender, email and a password, or link up your Facebook to speed up the process even more. After describing yourself and your ideal partner, you’re free to search for matches. It’s up to you to decide whether you want to finish your profile now or start searching for your ideal match immediately. If you opt for finishing later, UkraineDate will sporadically require you to answer 2-3 more questions for your profile before you can continue with what you were doing. How to Locate Potential Matches After specifying what you want from your ideal match, UkraineDate will recommend matches for you to browse through. You can also make searches of your own. Both of these features are highly adaptable to your style and taste, giving you different options for browsing, sorting, and narrowing down. UkraineDate also makes it easy to change your original ideal match criteria or save your custom searches to use again in the future. How to Communicate with Other Members If you’re looking to genuinely connect with other members on UkraineDate, you’re going to have to pay. Only premium members can actually send text, audio, and video messages, and also chat live using audio, video, and IM. Unique Site Features One of UkraineDate’s best and most unique features is its on-site support for videos. I found videos to be potent tools for communication and self-expression on this site. You can video chat with other members live, send video messages in lieu of simple text, and even upload a video welcome-message to your profile. Note that these features are only available to Gold and Platinum members. Mamba.ru I sure hope you speak some Ukrainian or Russian or have a translator with you because you will need it when using this site. Many of the members on here don’t speak a lick of English. Most of Mamba’s over 23 million users live in Russia and Ukraine, with others scattered around the globe. Mamba has been around since the early days of the internet, and its experience in the dating world shows. The website packs in a lot of features without making the display overwhelming. Searching for matches is made simple and easy, and there are enough communication options to keep things interesting. All-in-all, Mamba is a great site, but I would only recommend it if you speak Russian or Ukrainian and if you plan on going to that part of the world soon. Not many women on here speak English or are interested in meeting (let alone travelling to be with) Western men. Sign up Process Sign up by connecting your Facebook, Google, Twitter, Yahoo or Vkontakte account, or by manually entering your email, name, location, birthday, gender and match gender. At this point, you are an official member of the site, but you’ll need to activate your account with an SMS verification to show up in search results or search and contact other members. How to Locate Potential Matches Searches can be filtered by all the typical basic information (age, location, relationship status, etc.). You can also filter by new and active members, and use all these filters to look through either profiles or personal ads. Personal ads are further organized into 5 categories (Male seeking Female, Male seeking Male, Female seeking Male, Female seeking Female, and Dating for Couples), each with 4 sub-categories (Romantic/serious relationship, Travel together, Virtual conversation, Sex). A typical ad might say something like: “nice looking girl, looking for a guy to entertain me” or “moving to X, looking for some friends”. These ads don’t show the profile or photos of the poster however, which felt like a missed opportunity. You can also look through the Top 100 members (either men or women), voting on each profile with an “I Like” or a “Skip”. Those whom you like will be sent your photo, and if they like you back, you’ll be notified and free to start chatting with them. Finally, at the bottom of each profile, you’ll find a “Might interest you” section of similar profiles. How to Communicate with Other Members Once you’ve found a match you like, you have a few communication options. You can start with a virtual gift, then take things up a notch by sending a message (text only). When you’re really excited about someone, you can even give them VIP status as a gift! And if you get tired of sending messages, you can always post a personal ad and see who comes to you. And then there is the Questions-Answers feature, a well-designed forum. You can post questions of your own, or like, comment on and share questions already posted. Questions range from the fun (If a time-machine could take you anywhere for one day, when/where would you go?) to the banal (are you stupid?), and can be filtered by gender, country and age range. Unique Site Features Mamba.ru also has a feature for finding Travel Buddies. You can search through posted trips, specified by who you’re looking for (girl, guy, male/female/mixed group, or family), why you’re travelling (beach break, sport, concert/festival, exotic countries, cruise, bus tour, road trip, family holiday, shopping trip, short/weekend trip), the country and date/time. Or you can post a trip of your own. What is Included in Each Membership Level • Standard – Create a profile, search for members, visit profiles • Premium – Advanced search options, highlighted profile in search results Online Dating Strategy: • A lot of what I learned while dating online was through trial and error, planting a lot of seeds in order to get successlearning what works and doesn’t work and refining my approach along the way. You might have your own online dating strategy, and that is cool, but if you don’t and need a starting point, go and buy my e-book,. In the book I go into detail about how to set up a profile, what I recommend writing for your initial and follow up messages, when to ask the woman/man you’re interested in to go offline for a date, and more. Further Reading • Worldwide Online Dating Site Reviews: Be sure to check out my country-by-country reviews of. • Worldwide Moving Guide: Everything you need to know in order to to 65+ countries around the world. • Worldwide Jobs Guide: If you are interested in working in this country, be sure to check out my posts on in this country and other countries around the world. • Worldwide Apartments Guide: If you are interested in renting an apartment in another country, take a look at my articles on in various countries around the world. About Addison Sears-Collins Hey! I'm Addison Sears-Collins, the founder of. My dream is for a border-free world. I seek to destroy the barriers that prevent people from traveling or living in another country. You can learn more about me. Join me in the border-free movement by liking my fan page on, connecting with me on, or adding me to your circle on. Visahunter.com accepts no responsibility or liability whatsoever with regard to the accuracy of the information contained on this site. Please read the. If you think there is an error in the information, please bring it to our attention so that we can correct it. Also, some of the links above could be affiliate links, which means that I will earn a commission (at no additional cost to you) should you decide to click on the links and make a purchase. I recommend sites from time to time, not because I get a tiny commission if you click on the links and make a purchase, but because, I want you to focus on the places that will deliver you the most value and the best results. Thank you for subscribing! Could not subscribe, try again later Invalid Email A new 178 bedroom hotel will be made in China and imported to a new site at Birmingham Airport it has been revealed. New Hilton hotel at Birmingham Airport to be assembled like a Lego set. Hotel rooms to be built in China and shipped over for assembly on site. East Midlands Airport, UK Adult Dating website - free registration so join now. UK sex dating website for East Midlands Airport with thousands of adult members. International Airports throughout the UK and Ireland. Nottingham East Midlands. Accessible rooms are available for guests with alternative. MySingleFriend is the only online dating site that puts your friends in charge of your profile. Launched by Sarah Beeny in 2004 we've helped hundreds find love. The Hilton Garden Inn Hotel will be put up on Concorde Road using an innovative modular construction technique, like a Lego set, under which its parts, including the guest rooms, are manufactured in the Far East and shipped over for assembly. The new hotel follows a franchise deal between Hilton and Castlebridge Hotels Birmingham Airport Ltd, a wholly owned subsidiary of Wylam Investments. Patrick Fitzgibbon, senior vice president for development with Hilton said: “Often cited as the best place to invest in the UK outside of London, demand in Birmingham is growing fast. Infrastructure projects will only boost that growth and Hilton Garden Inn Birmingham Airport is in a terrific location. We can’t wait for it to open next year.”. Hilton Garden Hotel at Birmingham Airport to open in 2018 Read More • The construction is being carried out by contractor Bowmer & Kirkland in partnership with CIMC Modular Building Systems. The company has already used the same concept on Hampton by Hilton airport hotels in Aberdeen and Bristol. Jenna Dienn, commercial director, Castlebridge Group said: “We are thrilled to be working in partnership with Hilton and Birmingham Airport to develop the new Hilton Garden Inn. We feel that this is a great time to be developing the hotel and restaurant due to the increase in passenger numbers and the airport expansion. The hotel is going to be a huge success and we look forward to the opening in the summer of next year.” Hilton Garden Inn Birmingham Airport will be situated next to the airport’s terminal building and joins more than 100 Hilton Garden Inn properties trading or under development in Europe and more than 20 Hilton airport hotels in the UK. Phillipa Le Roux, of Hilton Worldwide, Melanie Cameron and Jo Lloyd from Birmingham Airport, West Midlands deputy mayor Bob Sleigh, Alistair Cattrell of Castlebridge Group, and Andrew Waumsley from Bowmer & Kirkland breaking the ground of a new Hilton Garden Inn Hotel to be opened at Birmingham Airport in 2018. Read More • Jo Lloyd, commercial director for Birmingham Airport said: “We are delighted to be working with both Castlebridge and Hilton to develop this new hotel, which is an exciting addition to our hotel offering at Birmingham Airport. We have been experiencing record passenger growth as more and more passengers and airlines realise the enormous benefits of travelling from Birmingham and we are delighted to provide our customers with more choice and a great hotel product which we look forward to opening in 2018.”. The International History Project. Archeology is the scientific study of past human culture and behavior, from the origins of humans to the. Radiometric Dating. How radiometric dating works in general. Why methods in general are inaccurate. Why K-Ar dating is inaccurate. The branching ratio problem. Unreliability of Radiometric Dating and Old Age of the Earth Radiometric Dating Photo Gallery of Dating errors by David A. Plaisted 'Proof of the pudding.' There are circumstances that provide opportunities for testing. Dinosaurs which are supposed have lived at least 60 million years ago, should not yield dates of thousands of years. Rocks known to have formed in historical times should not yield dates of millions of years. (Illium bone of an Acrocanthosarus) Radio carbon dated at 19,000 years old! Radio carbon dated at 890 years old! Radio carbon dated at 12,900 years old! The new lava dome (dacite) from the at Mount St. Helens was formed in 1986. In 1997 five specimens were taken from this dome at five different locations and subjected to conventional Potassium-Argon dating. The results indicated ages of less than one half to almost three million years old, all from eleven year old rock. (Click on photo for high resolution) We know when this dome formed. When we date rock of known age we test the claims and we see obvious failures. Sep 13, 2017 - 45 sec - Uploaded by Question ForceRelative and absolute dating there are two major ways to date geologic events relative how. How do you date a rock (and who would want to)? How you date a rock depends on what type of rock it is and how old it might be. Different radioactive isotopes have different half lives and so they are useful for dating different types and ages of rocks. Who would want to? Why, geologists, of course! But, when we date rock of unknown age, we are assured that the results are accurate. Radiometric Dating Scientific Essay by David A. Plaisted Radiometric Dating? The Radiometric Dating Game Radiometric dating methods estimate the age of rocks using calculations based on the decay rates of radioactive elements such as uranium, strontium, and potassium. On the surface, radiometric dating methods appear to give powerful support to the statement that life has existed on the earth for hundreds of millions, even billions, of years. We are told that these methods are accurate to a few percent, and that there are many different methods. We are told that of all the radiometric dates that are measured, only a few percent are anomalous. This gives us the impression that all but a small percentage of the dates computed by radiometric methods agree with the assumed ages of the rocks in which they are found, and that all of these various methods almost always give ages that agree with each other to within a few percentage points. Since there doesn't seem to be any systematic error that could cause so many methods to agree with each other so often, it seems that there is no other rational conclusion than to accept these dates as accurate. However, this causes a problem for those who believe based on the Bible that life has only existed on the earth for a few thousand years, since fossils are found in rocks that are dated to be over 500 million years old by radiometric methods, and some fossils are found in rocks that are dated to be billions of years old. If these dates are correct, this calls the Biblical account of a recent creation of life into question. After study and discussion of this question, I now believe that the claimed accuracy of radiometric dating methods is a result of a great misunderstanding of the data, and that the various methods hardly ever agree with each other, and often do not agree with the assumed ages of the rocks in which they are found. I believe that there is a great need for this information to be made known, so I am making this article available in the hopes that it will enlighten others who are considering these questions. Even the creationist accounts that I have read do not adequately treat these issues. At the start, let me clarify that my main concern is not the age of the earth, the moon, or the solar system, but rather the age of life, that is, how long has life existed on earth. Many dating methods seem to give about the same ages on meteorites. Thus radiometric dating methods appear to give evidence that the earth and meteorites are old, if one accepts the fact that decay rates have been constant. However, there may be other explanations for this apparent age. Perhaps the earth was made from older pre-existing matter, or perhaps decay rates were briefly faster for some reason. When one considers the power of God, one sees that any such conclusions are to some extent tentative. I believe that life was recently created. I also believe that the evidence indicates that the earth has recently undergone a violent catastrophe. Geologic time is divided up into periods, beginning with the Precambrian, followed by the Cambrian and a number of others, leading up to the present. Some fossils are found in Precambrian rocks, but most of them are found in Cambrian and later periods. We can assume that the Precambrian rocks already existed when life began, and so the ages of the Precambrian rocks are not necessarily related to the question of how long life has existed on earth. The Cambrian period is conventionally assumed to have begun about 550 million years ago. Since Cambrian and later rocks are largely sedimentary and igneous (volcanic) rocks are found in Cambrian and later strata, if these rocks are really 550 million years old, then life must also be at least 550 million years old. Therefore, my main concern is with rocks of the Cambrian periods and later. How radiometric dating works in general Radioactive elements decay gradually into other elements. The original element is called the parent, and the result of the decay process is called the daughter element. Assuming we start out with pure parent, as time passes, more and more daughter will be produced. By measuring the ratio of daughter to parent, we can measure how old the sample is. A ratio of zero means an age of zero. A higher ratio means an older age. A ratio of infinity (that is, all daughter and no parent) means an age of essentially infinity. Each radioactive element has a half-life, which tells how long it takes for half of the element to decay. For potassium 40, the half-life is about 1.3 billion years. In general, in one half-life, half of the parent will have decayed. In two half-lives, half of the remainder will decay, meaning 3/4 in all will have decayed. In general, in n half-lives, only 1/(2^n) of the original parent material will be left. Potassium 40 (K40) decays to argon 40, which is an inert gas, and to calcium. Potassium is present in most geological materials, making potassium-argon dating highly useful if it really works. Potassium is about 1/40 of the earth's crust, and about 1/10,000 of the potassium is potassium 40. Uranium decays to lead by a complex series of steps. Rubidium decays to strontium. Thus we obtain K-Ar dating, U-Pb dating, and Rb-Sr dating, three of the most common methods. When it is stated that these methods are accurate to one or two percent, it does not mean that the computed age is within one or two percent of the correct age. It just means that there is enough accuracy in the measurements to compute t to one or two percentage points of accuracy, where t is the time required to obtain the observed ratio of daughter to parent, assuming no initial daughter product was present at the beginning, and no daughter or parent entered or left the system. For isochrons, which we will discuss later, the conditions are different. If these conditions are not satisfied, the error can be arbitrarily large. In order to use these methods, we have to start out with a system in which no daughter element is present, or else know how much daugher element was present initially so that it can be subtracted out. We also need to know that no parent or daughter has entered or left the system in the meantime. Radiometric dating is commonly used on igneous rocks (lava), and on some sedimentary minerals. But fossils can generally not be dated directly. When lava is hot, argon escapes, so it is generally assumed that no argon is present when lava cools. Thus we can date lava by K-Ar dating to determine its age. As for the other methods, some minerals when they form exclude daughter products. Zircons exclude lead, for example, so U-Pb dating can be applied to zircon to determine the time since lava cooled. Micas exclude strontium, so Rb-Sr dating can be used on micas to determine the length of time since the mica formed. I found the following statement in an on-line (non creationist) reference, as follows: 'This is possible in potassium-argon (K-Ar) dating, for example, because most minerals do not take argon into their structures initially. In rubidium-strontium dating, micas exclude strontium when they form, but accept much rubidium. In uranium-lead (U-Pb) dating of zircon, the zircon is found to exclude initial lead almost completely.' [from the Britannica Online, article 'Geochronology: The Interpretation and Dating of the Geologic Record.' ] So because of this, one can do Rb-Sr dating on micas because they exclude strontium when the micas form. Thus one would know that any strontium that is present had to come from the parent rubidium, so by computing the ratio and knowing the half life, one can compute the age. In general, when lava cools, various minerals crystallize out at different temperatures, and these minerals preferentially include and exclude various elements in their crystal structures. So one obtains a series of minerals crystallizing out of the lava. Thus the composition of the lava continues to change, and later minerals can form having significantly different compositions than earlier ones. Lava that cools on the surface of the earth is called extrusive. This type of lava cools quickly, leaving little time for crystals to form, and forms basalt. Lava that cools underground cools much more slowly, and can form large crystals. This type of lava typically forms granite or quartz. Why methods in general are inaccurate I admit this is a very beautiful theory. This would seem to imply that the problem of radiometric dating has been solved, and that there are no anomalies. So if we take a lava flow and date several minerals for which one knows the daughter element is excluded, we should always get the exact same date, and it should agree with the accepted age of the geological period. Is this true? I doubt it very much. If the radiometric dating problem has been solved in this manner, then why do we need isochrons, which are claimed to be more accurate? The same question could be asked in general of minerals that are thought to yield good dates. Mica is thought to exclude Sr, so it should yield good Rb-Sr dates. But are dates from mica always accepted, and do they always agree with the age of their geologic period? I suspect not. Indeed, there are a number of conditions on the reliability of radiometric dating. For example, for K-Ar dating, we have the following requirements: For this system to work as a clock, the following 4 criteria must be fulfilled: 1. The decay constant and the abundance of K40 must be known accurately. There must have been no incorporation of Ar40 into the mineral at the time of crystallization or a leak of Ar40 from the mineral following crystallization. The system must have remained closed for both K40 and Ar40 since the time of crystallization. The relationship between the data obtained and a specific event must be known. 'But what about the radiometric dating methods? The earth is supposed to be nearly 5 billion years old, and some of these methods seem to verify ancient dates for many of earth's igneous rocks. The answer is that these methods, are far from infallible and are based on three arbitrary assumptions (a constant rate of decay, an isolated system in which no parent or daughter element can be added or lost, and a known amount of the daughter element present initially).' 'All of the parent and daughter atoms can move through the rocks. Heating and deformation of rocks can cause these atoms to migrate, and water percolating through the rocks can transport these substances and redeposit them. These processes correspond to changing the setting of the clock hands. Not infrequently such resetting of the radiometric clocks is assumed in order to explain disagreements between different measurements of rock ages. The assumed resettings are referred to as `metamorphic events' or `second' or `third events.' ' And again, 'It is also possible that exposure to neutrino, neutron, or cosmic radiation could have greatly changed isotopic ratios or the rates at some time in the past.' It is known that neutrinos interact with atomic nucleii, so a larger density of neutrinos could have sped up radioactive decay and made matter look old in a hurry. Some more quotes from the same source: a. In the lead-uranium systems both uranium and lead can migrate easily in some rocks, and lead volatilizes and escapes as a vapor at relatively low temperatures. It has been suggested that free neutrons could transform Pb-206 first to Pb-207 and then to Pb-208, thus tending to reset the clocks and throw thorium-lead and uranium-lead clocks completely off, even to the point of wiping out geological time. Furthermore, there is still disagreement of 15 percent between the two preferred values for the U-238 decay constant. In the potassium/argon system argon is a gas which can escape from or migrate through the rocks. Potassium volatilizes easily, is easily leached by water, and can migrate through the rocks under certain conditions. Furthermore, the value of the decay constant is still disputed, although the scientific community seems to be approaching agreement. Historically, the decay constants used for the various radiometric dating systems have been adjusted to obtain agreement between the results obtained. In the potassium/argon system another adjustable 'constant' called the branching ratio is also not accurately known and is adjusted to give acceptable results. Argon-40, the daughter substance, makes up about one percent of the atmosphere, which is therefore a possible source of contamination. This is corrected for by comparing the ratio argon-40/argon-36 in the rock with that in the atmosphere. However, since it is possible for argon-36 to be formed in the rocks by cosmic radiation, the correction may also be in error. Argon from the environment may be trapped in magma by pressure and rapid cooling to give very high erroneous age results. In view of these and other problems it is hardly surprising that the potassium/argon method can yield highly variable results, even among different minerals in the same rock. In the strontium/rubidium system the strontium-87 daughter atoms are very plentiful in the earth's crust. Rubidium-87 parent atoms can be leached out of the rock by water or volatilized by heat. All of these special problems as well as others can produce contradictory and erroneous results for the various radiometric dating systems. So we have a number of mechanisms that can introduce errors in radiometric dates. Heating can cause argon to leave a rock and make it look younger. In general, if lava was heated after the initial flow, it can yield an age that is too young. If the minerals in the lava did not melt with the lava, one can obtain an age that is too old. Leaching can also occur; this involves water circulating in rock that can cause parent and daughter elements to enter or leave the rock and change the radiometric age. Thus it is easy to rationalize any date that is obtained. If a date is too old, one can say that the mineral did not melt with the lava. (Maybe it got included from surrounding rock as the lava flowed upward.) If the date is too young, one can say that there was a later heating event. One can also hypothesize that leaching occurred. But then it is claimed that we can detect leaching and heating. But how can we know that this claim is true, without knowing the history of rocks and knowing whether they have in fact experienced later heating or leaching? The problems are compounded because many of the parent and daughter substances are mobile, to some extent. I believe that all parent substances are water soluble, and many of the daughter products as well. A few sources have said that Sr is mobile in rock to some extent. This could cause trouble for Rb-Sr dating. In fact, some sources say that Sr and Ar have similar mobilities in rock, and Ar is very mobile. Especially the gaseous radioactive decay byproducts such as argon, radon, and helium are mobile in rock. So if a rock has tiny cracks permitting gas to enter or escape or permitting the flow of water, the radiometric ages could be changed substantially even without the rock ever melting or mixing. For example, suppose that 1/300,000 of the argon in a rock escapes in one day. Then in 1000 years the rock will have less than 1/(2.7) of its original argon. In 5000 years the rock will have less than 1/(2.7^5) of its original argon. Now, there is probably not much argon in a rock to start with. So the loss of a tiny amount of argon can have significant effects over long time periods. A loss of argon would make the rock look younger. In a similar way, argon could enter the rock from the air or from surrounding rocks and make it look older. And this can also happen by water flowing through the rock through tiny cracks, dissolving parent and daughter elements. It would be difficult to measure the tiny changes in concentration that would suffice to make large changes in the radiometric ages over long time periods. I also question the assertion that argon, for example, is excluded from certain minerals when they crystallize and never enters later on. Geologists often say that ages that are too old are due to excess argon. So it must be possible for that excess argon to get in, even though the crystal is supposed to exclude it. Here is one such reference, although this is to a mineral that does not exclude argon: 'As in all dating systems, the ages calculated can be affected by the presence of inherited daughter products. In a few cases, argon ages older than that of the Earth which violate local relative age patterns have even been determined for the mineral biotite. Such situations occur mainly where old rocks have been locally heated, which released argon-40 into pore spaces at the same time that new minerals grew. Under favourable circumstances the isochron method may be helpful, but tests by other techniques may be required. For example, the rubidium-strontium method would give a valid isotopic age of the biotite sample with inherited argon.' [from the Online Encyclopedia Britannica article, 'Geochronology: The Interpretation and Dating of the Geologic Record, Potassium-argon methods.' ] Another problem is that the crystal structure typically has imperfections and impurities. For example, different kinds of quartz have different colors due to various impurities that are included but not part of the repetitive unit of the quartz crystal. So even if the crystal excludes the daughter element, it could be present in impurities. Thus crystals, as they form, may have tiny imperfections that accept parent and daughter products in the same ratios as they occur in the lava, so one can inherit ages from the lava into minerals in this way. It is also possible that parent and daughter elements could be present in boundaries between regular crystal domains. I don't know how we can be sure that a crystal will exclude argon or other daughter substances except by growing it in the laboratory under many conditions. There can also be argon or other daughter products added from the air or from other rocks. One could say that we can detect whether the daughter is embedded in the crystal structure or not. But this would require an atom by atom analysis, which I do not believe is practical. Why K-Ar dating is inaccurate Since K-Ar (potassium-argon) dating is one of the most prevalent techniques, some special commentary about it is in order. Potassium is about 2.5 percent of the earth's crust. About 1/10,000 of potassium is K40, which decays into Ar40 with a half-life of 1.3 billion years. Actually, only about 1/8 of the potassium 40 decays to argon, and the rest decays to calcium. Thus after n half-lives, (1/2)^n of the original potassium 40 will remain. Of the 1 - (1/2)^n which has decayed, about 7/8 will have decayed into calcium, and the remaining 1/8 will have decayed into argon 40. Argon is about 3.6 x 10 ^ -6 of the earth's crust. We can assume, then, that the magma is probably about 1/40 potassium and about 1/400,000 K40. After 570 million years, about 26 percent of this potassium will have decayed, so that there will be about 1/3 as much decay product as K40. About 1/8 of the decay product will be Argon 40, so there will be about 1/24 as much argon 40 as K40. Thus we should expect about 1/9,600,000 of a rock having an average concentration of potassium, to be argon, if the rock is really 570 million years old. This is about one ten millionth of the mass of the rock, a very tiny percentage. And yet, with a large amount of argon in the air and also filtering up from rocks below, and with excess argon in lava, with argon and potassium water soluble, and argon mobile in rock, we are still expecting this wisp of argon to tell us how old the rock is! The percentage of Ar40 is even less for younger rocks. For example, it would be about one in 100 million for rocks in the vicinity of 57 million years old. To get one part in 10 million of argon in a rock in a thousand years, we would only need to get one part in 10 billion entering the rock each year. This would be less than one part in a trillion entering the rock each day, on the average. This would suffice to give a rock having an average concentration of potassium, a computed potassium-argon age of over 500 million years! We can also consider the average abundance of argon in the crust. If we assume that a rock has 1/400,000 K40, that is, 2.5 x 10 ^ -6 K40, and 3.6 x 10 ^ -6 Ar40, then eight times this much K40 must have decayed, thus about 28.8 x 10 ^ -6 parts of K40 have decayed, so there is less than 1/10 of the original K40 left. This implies a radiometric age of over 4 billion years. So a rock can get a very old radiometric age just by having average amounts of potassium and argon. It seems reasonable to me that the large radiometric ages are simply a consequence of mixing, and not related to ages at all, at least not necessarily the ages of the rocks themselves. The fact that not all of the argon is retained would account for smaller amounts of argon near the surface, as I will explain below. This could happen because of properties of the magma chambers, or because of argon being given off by some rocks and absorbed by others. I don't see how one can possibly know that there are no tiny cracks in rocks that would permit water and gas to circulate. The rates of exchange that would mess up the dates are very tiny. It seems to me to be a certainty that water and gas will enter rocks through tiny cracks and invalidate almost all radiometric ages. Let me illustrate the circulation patterns of argon in the earth's crust. About 2.5 percent of the earth's crust is believed to be potassium, and about 1/10,000 of this is K40 which decays to Ar40 with a half life of 1.3 billion years. So argon is being produced throughout the earth's crust, and in the magma, all the time. In fact, it probably rises to the top of the magma, artificially increasing its concentration there. Now, some rocks in the crust are believed not to hold their argon, so this argon will enter the spaces between the rocks. Leaching also occurs, releasing argon from rocks. Heating of rocks can also release argon. Argon is released from lava as it cools, and probably filters up into the crust from the magma below, along with helium and other radioactive decay products. All of this argon is being produced and entering the air and water in between the rocks, and gradually filtering up to the atmosphere. But we know that rocks absorb argon, because correction factors are applied for this when using K-Ar dating. So this argon that is being produced will leave some rocks and enter others. The partial pressure of argon should be largest deepest in the earth, and decrease towards the surface. This would result in larger K-Ar ages lower down, but lower ages nearer the surface. As for K-Ar dating, here is a quote given above: 'As in all dating systems, the ages calculated can be affected by the presence of inherited daughter products. In a few cases, argon ages older than that of the Earth which violate local relative age patterns have even been determined for the mineral biotite. Such situations occur mainly where old rocks have been locally heated, which released argon-40 into pore spaces at the same time that new minerals grew. Under favourable circumstances the isochron method may be helpful, but tests by other techniques may be required. For example, the rubidium-strontium method would give a valid isotopic age of the biotite sample with inherited argon.' So this confirms that argon can travel from rock to rock when one rock is heated. Now, argon is very soluble in magma, which can hold a lot of it: 'Laboratory experiments have been conducted on the solubility of argon in synthetic basaltic melts and their associated minerals.31, 32 Minerals and melts were held near 13000C at one atmosphere pressure in a gas stream containing argon. After the material was quenched, the researchers measured up to 0.34 ppm 40Ar within synthetic olivine. They noted, 'The solubility of Ar in the minerals is surprisingly high'.33 Their conclusion is that argon is held primarily in lattice vacancy defects within the minerals.' I note that this concentration of argon, if it were retained in the rock, would suffice to give it a geological age well over 500 nillion years, assuming an average concentration of potassium. This is from a paper by Austin available at ICR. This paper also discusses Mount St. Helens K-Ar dating, and historic lava flows and their excess argon. So magma holds tremendous amounts of argon. Now, consider an intrusive flow, which cools within the earth. All its argon will either remain inside and give an old age to the flow, or will travel through surrounding rock, where it can be absorbed by other rocks. If one assumes that the amount of argon in the magma is consistent with an age of 4 billion years, then there should be about 7/8 as much argon 40 as potassium 40. For a rock 570 million years old, there should be about 1/24 as much argon as potassium 40. So magma should have at least 20 times as much argon as a rock 570 million years old by K-Ar dating. In fact, the argon in the magma may well be even higher, as it may concentrate near the top. This amount of argon is enough to raise 20 times the volume of magma to a K-Ar age of 570 million years, and probably 200 times the volume of the magam to an age of 57 million years. So one sees that there is a tremendous potential for age increases in this way. It is not necessary for this increase in age to happen all at once; many events of this nature can gradually increase the K-Ar ages of rocks. In general, older rocks should have more argon because they have been subject to more exposure to such argon, but their true age is not necessarily related to their K-Ar radiometric age. We can also consider that most volcanoes and earthquakes occur at boundaries between plates, so if the lava has flowed before, it is likely to flow again nearby, gradually increasing the age. I suppose earthquakes could also allow the release of argon from the magma. Other mechanisms include dissolving of rock, releasing its argon, fracturing of rock, with release of argon, argon from cooling lava under water entering the water and entering other rocks, and argon from cooling lave entering subterranean water and being transported to other rock. There are so many mechanisms that it is hard to know what pattern to expect, and one does not need to rely on any one of them (such as more argon in the magma in the past) to account for problems in K-Ar dating. Since even rocks with old K-Ar dates still absorb more argon from the atmosphere in short time periods, it follows that rocks should absorb quite a bit of argon over long time periods, especially at higher pressures. In fact, if a rock can absorb only a ten millionth part of argon, that should be enough to raise its K-Ar age to over 570 million years, assuming an average amounts of potassium. It wouldn't require many internal cracks to allow a ten millionth part of argon to enter. Also, as the rock deforms under pressure, more cracks are likely to form and old ones are likely to close up, providing more opportunity for argon (and other gases) to enter. I mentioned a number of possibilities that could cause K-Ar dates to be much older than the true ages of the rocks. Here is another way that K-Ar dates can be too old: If we assume the earth went through a catastrophe recently, then the crustal plates might have been agitated, permitting lava and argon to escape from the magma. Thus a lot of argon would be filtering up through the crust. As intrusive flows of lava cooled inside the crust, they would have been in an environment highly enriched in argon, and thus would not have gotten rid of much of their argon. Thus they would have hardened with a lot of argon inside. This would make them appear old. The same goes for extrusive flows on the surface, since argon would be filtering up through the earth and through the lava as it cooled. The following was sent to me by a friend: In areas where tremendous tectonic activity has taken place, highly discordant values for the ages are obtained. The difficulties associated are numerous and listed as follows: 1. There seems to be a great deal of question regarding the branching ratio for K40 into Ar40 and Ca40. The value that has been used for Ar40/Ca40 has varied from 0.12 to 0.08. But the value is not really known. The observed value is between 0.11 and 0.126, but in order to match K-Ar ages, which average somewhat higher [lower?] than the U-Th-Pb ages, to the latter ages, the value 0.08 is arbitrarily taken. However, this doesn't remedy the situation and the ages are still too high [low?]. The geochronologists credit this to 'argon leakage'. There is far too much Ar40 in the earth for more than a small fraction of it to have been formed by radioactive decay of K40. This is true even if the earth really is 4.5 billion years old. In the atmosphere of the earth, Ar40 constitutes 99.6% of the total argon. This is around 100 times the amount that would be generated by radioactive decay over the age of 4.5 billion years. Certainly this is not produced by an influx from outer space. Thus, a large amount of Ar40 was present in the beginning. Since geochronologists assume that errors due to presence of initial Ar40 are small, their results are highly questionable. Argon diffuses from mineral to mineral with great ease. It leaks out of rocks very readily and can move from down deep in the earth, where the pressure is large, and accumulate in an abnormally large amount in the surface where rock samples for dating are found. They would all have excess argon due to this movement. This makes them appear older. Rocks from deeper in the crust would show this to a lesser degree. Also, since some rocks hold the Ar40 stronger than others, some rocks will have a large apparent age, others smaller ages, though they may actually be the same age. If you were to measure Ar40 concentration as function of depth, you would no doubt find more of it near the surface than at deeper points because it migrates more easily from deep in the earth than it does from the earth into the atmosphere. It is easy to see how the huge ages are being obtained by the K40-Ar40 radiometric clock, since surface and near-surface samples will contain argon due to this diffusion effect. Some geochronologists believe that a possible cause of excess argon is that argon diffuses into mineral progressively with time. Significant quantities of argon may be introduced into a mineral even at pressures as low as one bar. If such [excessive] ages as mentioned above are obtained for pillow lavas, how are those from deep-sea drilling out in the Atlantic where sea-floor spreading is supposed to be occurring? Potassium is found to be very mobile under leaching conditions. As much as 80% of the potassium in a small sample of an iron meteorite was removed by running distilled water over it for 4 and 1/2 hours. This could move the 'ages' to tremendously high values. Ground-water and erosional water movements could produce this effect naturally. Rocks in areas having a complex geological history have many large discordances. In a single rock there may be mutually contaminating, potassium- bearing minerals. There is some difficulty in determining the decay constants for the K40-Ar40 system. Geochronologists use the branching ratio as a semi-emperical, adjustable constant which they manipulate instead of using an accurate half-life for K40. A number of recent lava flows (within the past few hundred years) yield potassium-argon ages in the hundreds of thousands of years range. This indicates that some excess argon is present. Where is it coming from? And how do we know that it could not be a much larger quantity in other cases? If more excess argon were present, then we could get much older ages. It is true that an age difference in the hundreds of thousands of years is much too small to account for the observed K-Ar ages. But excess argon is commonly invoked by geologists to explain dates that are too old, so I'm not inventing anything new. Second, there may have been a lot more more argon in the magma in the past, and with each eruption, the amount decreased. So there would have been a lot more excess argon in the past, leading to older ages. For rocks that are being dated, contamination with atmospheric argon is a persistent problem that is mentioned a number of times. Thus it is clear that argon enters rock easily. It is claimed that we can know if a rock has added argon by its spectrum when heated; different temperatures yield different fractions of argon. It is claimed that the argon that enters from the atmosphere or other rocks, is less tightly bound to the crystal lattice, and will leave the rock at a lower temperature. But how do we know what happens over thousands of years? It could be that this argon which is initially loosely bound (if it is so initially) gradually becomes more tightly bound by random thermal vibrations, until it becomes undetectable by the spectrum technique. The fact that rock is often under high pressure might influence this process, as well. The branching ratio problem We now consider in more detail one of the problems with potassium-argon dating, namely, the branching ratio problem. Here is some relevant information that was e-mailed to me. There are some very serious objections to using the potassium-argon decay family as a radiometric clock. This is harmful to the position of those holding to the theory of sea-floor spreading since their time scale has been calculated using K40/Ar40 dates mainly. About 11% of K40 decays by electron capture and gamma ray emission to Ar40 and the remaining 89% of the K40 decays by B-particle emission to form Ca40. The geochronologist considers the Ca40 of little practical use in radiometric dating since common calcium is such an abundant element and the radiogenic Ca40 has the same atomic mass as common calcium. 'Juggling' is also performed by geochronologists in this K-Ar system. Here the actual observed branching ratio is not used, but rather a small ratio is arbitrarily chosen in an effort to match dates obtained method with U-Th-Pb dates. The branching ratio that is often used is 0.08, while the true value is probably about 0.12. This means that K-Ar dates computed with the lower branching ratio are a third too large, that is, the actual K-Ar date should be 2/3 of the computed date. Thus we have another source of error for K-Ar dating. Cross examination: The Branching Ratio Dr. Henke criticized some statements in my article taken from Slusher about the branching ratio for potassium. Slusher asserted that the best known value of the branching ratio was not always used in computing K-Ar radiometric ages. Unfortunately, Dalrymple (1991) says nothing about the calculation of the branching ratio. He simply gives the correct value for the K-Ar system. The issue is not just how well this was known in the past, but which value was actually used, and whether dates published in the past have been computed with the most recent value. Often values for constants are standardized, so that the values actually used may not be the most accurate known. All that Dalrymple (1991) says is that his ages were all recomputed using the most accurate values of the constants. This implies that some of them were originally computed using less accurate values, which is similar to Slusher's point. Dalrymple (1984, p. 91) does discusses the branching ratio. He admits that Slusher's statements about it would have been true in the 1940's and early 1950's, but are no longer true. But he didn't say when the correct value for the branching ratio began to be used. Even some figures from (Faure, Principles of Isotope Geology, 1977) are based on another constant that is 2 or 3 percent too low, according to Dalrymple, and so there may be many ages in the literature that need revision by small amounts. However, Harland et al (1990) imply that nearly the correct value for the branching ratio has been known and used since the mid-fifties. How Errors Can Account for the Observed Dates Thus there are a number of sources of error. We now consider whether they can explain the observed dates. In general, the dates that are obtained by radiometric methods are in the hundreds of millions of years range. One can understand this by the fact that the clock did not get reset (if one accepts the fact that the magma 'looks' old, for whatever reason). That is, we can get both parent and daughter elements from the magma inherited into minerals that crystallize out of lava, making these minerals look old. Since the magma has old radiometric dates, depending on how much the clock gets reset, the crust can end up with a variety of younger dates just by partially inheriting the dates of the magma. Thus any method based on simple parent to daughter ratios such as Rb-Sr dating is bound to be unreliable, since there would have to be a lot of the daughter product in the magma already. And Harold Coffin's book Creation by Design lists a study showing that Rb-Sr dates are often inherited from the magma. Even the initial ratios of parent and daughter elements in the earth do not necessarily indicate an age as old as 4.5 billion years. Radioactive decay would be faster in the bodies of stars, which is where scientists assume the heavy elements formed. Imagine a uranium nucleus forming by the fusion of smaller nucleii. At the moment of formation, as two nucleii collide, the uranium nucleus will be somewhat unstable, and thus very likely to decay into its daughter element. The same applies to all nucleii, implying that one could get the appearance of age quickly. Of course, the thermonuclear reactions in the star would also speed up radioactive decay. But isochrons might be able to account for pre-existing daughter elements. Furthermore, some elements in the earth are too abundant to be explained by radioactive decay in 4.5 billion years (such as calcium, argon, and, I believe, strontium). Some are too scarce (such as helium). So it's not clear to me how one can be sure of the 4.5 billion year age, even assuming a constant decay rate. Why older dates would be found lower in the geologic column especially for K-Ar dating In general, potassium-argon dates appear to be older the deeper one goes in the crust of the earth. We now consider possible explanations for this. There are at least a couple of mechanisms to account for this. In volcano eruptions, a considerable amount of gas is released with the lava. This gas undoubtedly contains a significant amount of argon 40. Volcanos typically have magma chambers under them, from which the eruptions occur. It seems reasonable that gas would collect at the top of these chambers, causing artificially high K-Ar radiometric ages there. In addition, with each successive eruption, some gas would escape, reducing the pressure of the gas and reducing the apparent K-Ar radiometric age. Thus the decreasing K-Ar ages would represent the passage of time, but not necessarily related to their absolute radiometric ages. As a result, lava found in deeper layers, having erupted earlier, would generally appear much older and lava found in higher layers, having erupted later, would appear much younger. This could account for the observed distribution of potassium-argon dates, even if the great sedimantary layers were laid down very recently. In addition, lava emerging later will tend to be hotter, coming from deeper in the earth and through channels that have already been warmed up. This lava will take longer to cool down, giving more opportunity for enclosed argon to escape and leading to younger radiometric ages. Another factor is that rocks absorb argon from the air. It is true that this can be accounted for by the fact that argon in the air has Ar36 and Ar40, whereas only Ar40 is produced by K-Ar decay. But for rocks deep in the earth, the mixture of argon in their environment is probably much higher in Ar40, since only Ar40 is produced by radioactive decay. As these rocks absorb argon, their radiometric ages would increase. This would probably have a larger effect lower down, where the pressure of argon would be higher. Or it could be that such a distribution of argon pressures in the rocks occurred at some time in the past. This would also make deeper rocks tend to have older radiometric ages. Recent lava flows often yield K-Ar ages of about 200,000 years. This shows that they contain some excess argon, and not all of it is escaping. If they contained a hundred times more excess argon, their K-Ar ages would be a hundred times greater, I suppose. And faster cooling could increase the ages by further large factors. I also read of a case where a rock was K-Ar dated at 50 million years, and still susceptible to absorbing argon from the air. This shows that one might get radiometric ages of at least 50 million years in this way by absorbing Ar40 deep in the earth without much Ar36 or Ar38 present. If the pressure of Ar40 were greater, one could obtain even greater ages. Yet another mechanism that can lead to decreasing K-Ar ages with time is the following, in a flood model: One can assume that at the beginning of the flood, many volcanoes erupted and the waters became enriched in Ar40. Then any lava under water would appear older because its enclosed Ar40 would have more trouble escaping. As time passed, this Ar40 would gradually pass into the atmosphere, reducing this effect and making rocks appear younger. In addition, this would cause a gradient of Ar40 concentrations in the air, with higher concentrations near the ground. This also could make flows on the land appear older than they are, since their Ar40 would also have a harder time escaping. Cross-examination: The Mobility of Argon Dr. Henke criticizes my concern that argon can move in and out of minerals: Dr. Plaisted wants to give his readers the impression that argon can readily move in and out of minerals and, therefore, the gas is too volatile for radiometric dating. Specifically, he quotes one of his anonymous friends that claims that argon easily diffuses from minerals (p. 11, also the identical statement is made in Slusher, 1981, p. Of course, these statements are inaccurate generalizations. Young (1982, p. 101) notes that argon would more likely adsorb onto the surfaces of the minerals rather than move into their tight structures. Geochronologists are aware that excess argon may accumulate on mineral surfaces and the surface argon would be removed before analysis. However, Henke admits that this can happen in some cases. He states that geologists are aware of this problem, and make allowances for it. But it is more difficult to remove argon that has deposited on cracks in the mineral, which can be difficult to see. Henke referenced Davis A. Young frequently, but I was not able to find Young referenced in any of the other sources I examined except Dalrymple (1991). Henke states that hornblendes retain argon very well, but then later says that they can easily absorb excess argon. Geologists also recognize that heating causes argon to leave minerals, and that dissolved argon in a mineral that does not escape will become incorporated into it, artificially increasing its K-Ar age. I will comment more on this below, but a few comments now are appropriate. For a temperature of 300K (27 degrees C), there is no significant argon loss from biotite. At 600K (327 degrees C), there is a slow but significant diffusion rate. At 700K (427 degrees C), loss of argon is quite rapid. From another table at the same location, we find that argon loss in biotite by radial diffusion in an infinite cylindrical crystal of radius 150 microns, is 1/1000 of a percent in one year at 240 degrees centigrade, the same percent in 100 years at 200 degrees centigrade, the same amount in 10,000 years at 160 degrees centigrade, and the same amount in 10 million years at about 110 degrees centigrade. To lose one percent in one year requires a temperature of nearly 500 degrees centigrade. Thus the temperature does not have to be very high for argon to move through rock. This also justifies Slusher's statements about argon moving in and out of rocks with ease. However, it does not seem likely that sedimentary rocks would be this hot very often, except near lava or magma flows. But argon does not need to move through all rock in order to influence radiometric dates, it only has to reach ancient lava flows. This it can do by following the path of the ancient lava flow itself, coming up along the path of the magma. As the magma or lava cools, this path will consist entirely of hot magma or lava, and so the argon will have a free path, and will continue to enter the magma as it cools. Thus in many cases, the lava or magma will never completely degas, and extra argon will end up trapped in the cooled rock. This will result in artificially increased K-Ar ages. Many ancient lava flows are relatively flat, in contrast to modern ones. Also, they appear to have been covered over quickly. The flatness means that the lava is a contiguous mass, and can still be reached from the hot magma by a continuous path of hot rock. The fact that they soon are covered over means that the argon has a hard time escaping vertically from the lava, so argon coming up from the mantle will tend to enter the cooling rock. Both facts will tend to produce artificially high K-Ar ages in these flows which will not be seen in modern lava flows in the same manner. Modern lava flows often come down the sides of volcanoes, and thus become separated from their source by large distances. Also, they do not get quickly buried by additional sediment. Thus modern lava flows are not subject to the same mechanism of artificial increases in their K-Ar ages as are ancient ones. Also, it is reasonable to assume that as argon leaves the mantle in successive eruptions, the amount of argon remaining is reduced, so that later lava flows are less susceptible to such artificial increases in age. The path of magma also becomes longer for later flows, and the magma probably also is a little cooler, inhibiting argon flow. Thus later lava flows give younger K-Ar ages. Another point to note is that even after it cools, the lava or magma may still have many cracks in it, permitting argon to flow. This argon will tend to deposit on the surface of minerals, but with the passage of time it will tend to diffuse into the interior, even if only a very small distance. This is especially true as the lava is cooling. This will make it more difficult to detect this added argon by the spectrum test described below. Also, the diffusion of argon in cracks and channels of a mineral is likely much less temperature-dependent than diffusion through unbroken regions of the mineral, since diffusion through cracks and channels simply involves jumps through the air. By a combination of diffusion through cracks and channels, and short passages through unbroken regions of the mineral, argon may be able to reach a considerable distance into the mineral. At low temperatures, this may become the dominant means by which argon diffuses into a mineral, but the effect of this kind of diffusion at low temperatures may not be evident until many years have passed. Thus it may take experiments lasting 50 or 100 years at low temperatures to detect the effects of this kind of diffusion of argon, which however could be significantly increasing the K-Ar ages of minerals over long time periods. Dickin (Radiogenic Isotope Geology, 1995, p. 247) mentions a study showing that volcanic rocks contain excess atmospheric argon, some of which cannot be removed by baking in a vacuum. Faure (1986, p. 74) also states concerning removing atmospheric argon before dating, 'The difficulty can be reduced, if not completely avoided, by the removal of adsorbed atmospheric argon before the argon is extracted from the samples. It has been claimed that this can be accomplished by preheating samples under vacuum or by leaching them briefly with hydroflouric acid, or both.. However Armstrong (1978) has questioned whether atmospheric argon, that has been acquired by minerals over a long interval of time, can be removed by this method.' Thus there is some means by which argon from outside can become very firmly embedded within a rock, and one would expect that the quantity of this argon would continue to increase over time, giving anomalously old K-Ar ages. Added atmospheric argon can be detected, because the ratio of argon 40 to argon 36 for atmospheric argon is 295.5 to one (Faure, 1986, p. 95), and the amount of argon 36 can be measured. But argon 40 coming up from the mantle and diffusing into a mineral would not be detectable in this way, because it has a higher ratio of argon 40 to argon 36. Faure (1986, p. 79) mentions that the ratio of argon 40 to argon 36 in the mantle may be as high as 10,000 or even 25,000 to one. Dickin (1995, p. 247) mentions that atmospheric argon adsorbed onto a rock can be as high as 70 percent of the total argon, especially for young material. This shows that rocks can adsorb a large amount of argon relative to the argon needed to give them old K-Ar ages, and also suggests that old K-Ar ages can be produced by external argon from the mantle. Over a long period of time, adsorbed argon will tend to diffuse into the rock, and thus it will be possible for even more argon to be deposited on the surface, increasing K-Ar ages even more. Concerning excess argon, Faure (1986, p. 72) states: Generally, excess 40Ar is observed in minerals that have been exposed to a high partial pressure of argon during regional metamorphism, in pegmatites., or kimberlite pipes. The argon that may either diffuse into the minerals or may be occluded within them is derived by outgassing of K-bearing minerals in the crust and mantle of the Earth. The presence of excess 40Ar increases K-Ar dates and may lead to overestimates of the ages of minerals dated by this method. Do different methods agree with each other on the geologic column? Let us consider the question of how much different dating methods agree on the geologic column, and how many measurements are anomalous, since these points are often mentioned as evidences of the reliability of radiometric dating. It takes a long time to penetrate the confusion and find out what is the hard evidence in this area. In the first place, I am not primarily concerned with dating meteorites, or precambrian rocks. What I am more interested in is the fossil-bearing geologic column of Cambrian and later age. Now, several factors need to be considered when evaluating how often methods give expected ages on the geologic column. Some of these are taken from John Woodmoreappe's article on the subject, but only when I have reason to believe the statements are also generally believed. First, many igneous formations span many periods, and so have little constraint on what period they could belong to. The same applies to intrusions. In addition, some kinds of rocks are not considered as suitable for radiometric dating, so these are typically not considered. Furthermore, it is at least possible that anomalies are under-reported in the literature. Finally, the overwhelming majority of measurements on the fossil bearing geologic column are all done using one method, the K-Ar method. (And let me recall that both potassium and argon are water soluble, and argon is mobile in rock.) Thus the agreement found between many dates does not necessarily reflect an agreement between different methods, but rather the agreement of the K-Ar method with itself. For example, if 80 percent of the measurements were done using K-Ar dating, and the other 20 percent gave random results, we still might be able to say that most of the measurements on a given strata agree with one another reasonably well. So to me it seems quite conceivable that there is no correlation at all between the results of different methods on the geologic column, and that they have a purely random relationship to each other. Let us consider again the claim that radiometric dates for a given geologic period agree with each other. I would like to know what is the exact (or approximate) information content of this assertion, and whether it could be (or has been) tested statistically. It's not as easy as it might sound. Let's suppose that we have geologic periods G1. Let's only include rocks whose membership in the geologic period can be discerned independent of radiometric dating methods. Let's also only include rocks which are considered datable by at least one method, since some rocks (I believe limestone) are considered not to hold argon, for example. Now, we can take a random rock from Gi. We will have to restrict ourselves to places where Gi is exposed, to avoid having to dig deep within the earth. Let's apply all known dating methods to Gi that are thought to apply to this kind of rock, and obtain ages from each one. Then we can average them to get an average age for this rock. We can also compute how much they differ from one another. Now we have to be careful about lava flows -- which geologic period do they belong to? What about rocks that are thought not to have their clock reset, or to have undergone later heating episodes? Just to make the test unbiased, we will assign altitude limits to each geologic period at each point on the earth's surface (at least in principle) and include all rocks within these altitude limits within Gi, subject to the condition that they are datable. The measurements should be done in a double-blind manner to insure lack of unconscious bias. For each geologic period and each dating method, we will get a distribution of values. We will also get a distribution of averaged values for samples in each period. Now, some claim is being made about these distributions. It is undoubtedly being claimed that the mean values ascend as one goes up the geologic column. It is also being claimed that the standard deviations are not too large. It is also being claimed that the different methods have distributions that are similar to one another on a given geologic period. The only correlation I know about that has been studied is between K-Ar and Rb-Sr dating on precambrian rock. And even for this one, the results were not very good. This was a reference by Hurley and Rand, cited in Woodmorappe's paper. As far as I know, no study has been done to determine how different methods correlate on the geologic column (excluding precambrian rock). The reason for my request is that a correlation is not implied by the fact that there are only 10 percent anomalies, or whatever. I showed that the fact that the great majority of dates come from one method (K-Ar) and the fact that many igneous bodies have very wide biostratigraphic limits, where many dates are acceptable, makes the percentage of anomalies irrelevant to the question I am asking. And since this agreement is the strongest argument for the reliability of radiometric dating, such an assumption of agreement appears to be without support so far. The question of whether different methods correlate on the geologic column is not an easy one to answer for additional reasons. Since the bulk of K-Ar dates are generally accepted as correct, one may say that certain minerals are reliable if they tend to give similar dates, and unreliable otherwise. We can also say that certain formations tend to give reliable dates and others do not, depending on whether the dates agree with K-Ar dates. Thus we can get an apparent correlation of different methods without much of a real correlation in nature. It's also possible for other matter to be incorporated into lava as it rises, without being thoroughly melted, and this matter may inherit all of its old correlated radiometric dates. Coffin mentions that fission tracks can survive transport through lava, for example. It may also be that lava is produced by melting the bottom of continents and successively different layers are melted with time, or there could be a tendency for lighter isotopes to come to the top of magma chambers, making the lava there appear older. But anyway, I think it is important really to know what patterns appear in the data to try to understand if there is a correlation and what could be causing it. Not knowing if anomalies are always published makes this harder. It is often mentioned that different methods agree on the K-T boundary, dated at about 65 million years ago. This is when the dinosaurs are assumed to have become extinct. This agreement of different methods is taken as evidence for a correlation between methods on the geologic column. One study found some correlated dates from bentonite that are used to estimate the date of the K-T boundary. I looked up some information on bentonite. It is composed of little glass beads that come from volcanic ash. This is formed when lava is sticky and bubbles of gas in it explode. So these small particles of lava cool very fast. The rapid cooling might mean that any enclosed argon is retained, but if not, the fact that this cooling occurs near the volcano, with a lot of argon coming out, should guarantee that these beads would have excess argon. As the gas bubble explodes, its enclosed argon will be rushing outward along with these tiny bubbles as they cool. This will cause them to retain argon and appear too old. In addition, the rapid cooling and the process of formation means that these beads would have Rb, Sr, U, and Pb concentrations the same as the lava they came from, since there is no chance for crystals to form with such rapid cooling. So to assume that the K-Ar dates, Rb-Sr dates, and U-Pb dates all reflect the age of the lava, one would have to assume that this lava had no Sr, no Pb, and that all the argon escaped when the beads formed. Since the magma generally has old radiometric ages, I don't see how we could have magma without Pb or Sr. In fact, I doubt that there is fresh uncrystallized lava anywhere on earth today that has zero U/Pb and Rb/Sr ages, as would be required if bentonite gave an accurate date for the K-T boundary. So to me it seems to be certain that these ages must be in error. Furthermore, the question arises whether bentonite always gives correlated ages, and whether these ages always agree with the accepted ages for their geologic period. I believe that bentonite occurs in a number of formations of different geologic periods, so this could be checked. If bentonite does not always give correlate and correct ages, this calls into question its use for dating the K-T boundary. Let me briefly comment on a couple of other articles at Tim Thompson's page. One by Don Lindsay, Are Radioactive Dating Methods Consistent With Each Other? Shows that 5 craters give similar dates, three of them dated by three different radiometric methods, and two by stratigraphic ones. This is at least close to what I am looking for. However, it would be better to date all five craters by all four different methods, and see what the agreement is. It is also possible that each crater gives a scatter of dates, and the best ones were selected. Furthermore, it is possible that the craters were chosen as those for which the dating methods agreed. Possible other sources of correlation Note that if there are small pockets in crystals where both parent and daughter product can accumulate from the lava, then one can inherit correlated ages from the lava into minerals. Thus even the existence of correlations is not conclusive evidence that a date is correct. Anomalies of radiometric dating If a date does not agree with the expected age of its geologic period, and no plausible explanation can be found, then the date is called anomalous. But if we really understand what is going on, then we should be able to detect discrepant dates as they are being measured, and not just due to their divergence from other dates. Geologists often say that the percentage of anomalies is low. But there are quite a number of rather outstanding anomalies in radiometric dating that creationists have collected. These anomalies are reported in the scientific literature. For example, one isochron yielded a date of 10 billion years. A Rb-Sr isochron yielded a date of 34 billion years. K-Ar dates of 7 to 15 billion years have been recorded. It's also not uncommon for two methods to agree and for the date to be discarded anyway. Samples with flat plateaus (which should mean no added argon) can give wrong dates. Samples giving no evidence of being disturbed can give wrong dates. Samples that give evidence of being disturbed can give correct dates. The number of dates that disagree with the expected ages is not insignificant. I don't know what the exact percentage is. Many dates give values near the accepted ones. But even these often differ from one another by 10 or 20 percent. And quite a few other dates are often much, much farther off. Whatever is making some of these dates inaccurate could be making all of them inaccurate. It's interesting to note that in a few cases, old radiometric dates are above young ones. 'It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is not absolutely reliable long-term radiological 'clock'. The uncertainties inherent in radiometric dating are disturbing to geologists and evolutionists. [47] As proof of the unreliability of the radiometric methods consider the fact that in nearly every case dates from recent lava flows have come back excessively large. One example is the rocks from the Kaupelehu Flow, Hualalai Volcano in Hawaii which was known to have erupted in 1800-1801. These rocks were dated by a variety of different methods. Of 12 dates reported the youngest was 140 million years and the oldest was 2.96 billion years. The dates average 1.41 billion years. [48]' Another source said that about 5 or 6 of the historic lava flows give ages in the hundreds of thousands of years. Geologists explain the Kaupelehu date by the lava being cooled rapidly in deep ocean water and not being able to get rid of its enclosed argon. Here are some quotes from John Woodmorappe's paper, 'Radiometric Geochronology Reappraised,' Creation Research Society Quarterly 16(2)102-29, p. 147, September 1979, that indicate that radiometric dates are scattered, and that anomalies are often not reported: 'Improved laboratory techniques and improved constants have not reduced the scatter in recent years. Instead, the uncertainty grows as more and more data is accumulated. ' (Waterhouse). 'In general, dates in the `correct ball park' are assumed to be correct and are published, but those in disagreement with other data are seldom published nor are discrepancies fully explained.' The thing to do is get a sequence of dates and throw out those that are vastly anomalous.' (Curtis et al) '. It is usual to obtain a spectrum of discordant dates and to select the concentration of highest values as the correct age.' (Armstrong and Besancon). 'In general, strong discordances can be expected among ages deduced by different methods.' (Brown and Miller) Woodmorappe also mentions that very self-contradictory age spreads in the Precambrian era are common. In addition, Woodmorappe gives over 300 sets of dates 'that are in gross conflict with one another and with expected values for their indicated paleontological positions.' This table is limited to dates that approach 20% discrepancy, too old or too young. This does not include dates from minerals that are thought to yield bad dates, or from igneous bodies with wide biostrategraphic ranges, where many dates are acceptable. He states that the number of dates within range are less than the number of anomalies, except for the Cenozoic and Cretaceous. When one adds in the fact that many anomalies are unreported, which he gives evidence for, the true distribution is anyone's guess. He also combines evidence from the literature to conclude that 'somewhat less than half of all dates agree with 10% of accepted values for their respective biostratigaphic positions.' I believe this estimate even includes igneous bodies with very wide biostrategraphic limits, and does not include unpublished anomalies. There have been criticisms of John Woodmorappe's study, but no one has given any figures from the literature for the true percentage of anomalies, with a definition of an anomaly, or the degree of correlation between methods. Steven Schimmrich's review of this study often concerns itself with John W's presentation of geologists explanation for anomalies, and not with the percentage of anomalies; the later is my main concern. Here are a couple of more quotes about anomalies: 'Situations for which we have both the carbon-14 and potassium-argon ages for the same event usually indicate that the potassium-argon `clock' did not get set back to zero. Trees buried in an eruption of Mount Rangotito in the Auckland Bay area of New Zealand provide a prime example. The carbon-14 age of the buried trees is only 225 years, but some of the overlying volcanic material has a 465,000-year potassium-argon age.' [Harold Coffin, Origin by Design, page 400.] A similar situation is reported in the December 1997 issue of Creation ex nihilo in which lava with a K-Ar age of about 45 million years overlays wood that was carbon dated by 3 laboratories using AMS dating to about 35,000 years. Still another evidence for problems with radiometric dating was given in a recent talk I attended by a man who had been an evolutionist and taken a course in radiometric dating. The teacher gave 14 assumptions of radiometric dating and said something like 'If creationists got a hold of these, they could cut radiometric dating to pieces.' Another evidence that all is not well with radiometric dating is given in the following quote from Coffin p. 302: 'We find that most primary radioactive ores that have not been exposed to weathering exist in secular equilibrium. Many sedimentary uranium ores are not.' Since equilibrium should be reached in 1 million years, this is a problem for sediments that are assumed to be older than 1 million years. On another point, if we can detect minerals that were not molten with the lava, as has been claimed, then this is one more reason why there should be no anomalies, and radiometric dating should be a completely solved problem. But that does not appear to be the case, at least (especially) on the geologic column. I'm not claiming that anomalous results are being hidden, just that the agreement of a mass of results, none of which has much claim to reliability, does not necessarily mean much. Picking out a few cases where radiometric dates appear to be well-behaved reminds me of evolutionary biologists focusing on a few cases where there may be transitional sequences. It does not answer the overall question. And as I said above, I'm also interested to know how much of the fossil-bearing geologic column can be dated by isochrons, and how the dates so obtained compare to others. Concerning K-Ar anomalies, here is a quote from Woodmorappe's paper cited above, p. 122: 'K-Ar ages much greater than inferred earth age are also common. Gerling et al called attention to some chlorites yielding K-Ar dates of 7 to 15 b.y. It had been noted that some minerals which yield such dates (as beryl, cordierite, etc.) can be claimed to have trapped excess argon in their channel structures or to have fractioned the Ar isotopes, but none of this can apply to the simple mica-like structures of chlorite. They also pointed out that for the anomalies to be accounted for by excess argon, unreasonably high partial pressures of Ar during crystallization would have to be required. They concluded by suggesting some unknown nuclear process which no longer operates to have generated the Ar.' This implies that excess argon is coming from somewhere. Here is another quote from Woodmorappe about isochrons, since some people think that mixing scenarios or other age-altering scenarios are unlikely: 'Shafiqullah and Damon said: 'The Ar40/Ar36 vs. K40/Ar36 isochrons are valid only when all samples of the system under consideration have the same non-radiogenic argon composition. If this condition does not hold, invalid ages and intercepts are obtained. Models 2-9 yield isochron ages that are too high, too low, or in the future, sometimes by orders of magnitude.' From Woodmorappe, 'An Anthology of Matters Significant to Creationism and Diluviology, Report 1,' Creation Research Society Quarterly 16(4)209-19, March 1980, p. The fact that the only 'valid' K-Ar isochrons are those for which the concentration of non-radiogenic argon (Ar36) is constant, seems very unusual. This suggests that what is occuring is some kind of a mixing phenomenon, and not an isochron reflecting a true age. 'Processes of rock alteration may render a volcanic rock useless for potassium-argon dating.. We have analyzed several devitrified glasses of known age, and all have yielded ages that are too young. Some gave virtually zero ages, although the geologic evidence suggested that devitrification took place shortly after the formation of a deposit.' Evernden, et. Al., 'K / A Dates and Cenozoic Mannalian Chronology of North America,' in American Journal of Science, February 1964, p. Why a low anomaly percentage is meaningless One of the main arguments in favor of radiometric dating is that so many dates agree with each other, that is, with the date expected for their geologic period. But it's not evident how much support this gives to radiometric dating. If a rock dates too old, one can say that the clock did not get reset. If it dates too young, one can invoke a later heating event. Neither date would necessarily be seen as anomalous. If lava intrudes upon geologic period X, then any date for the lava of X or later will not be seen as anomalous. And even if the date is one or two geologic periods earlier, it may well be close enough to be accepted as non-spurious. If one does not know the geologic period of a rock by other means, then of course one is likely to date it to find out, and then of course the date agrees with the geologic period and this will not be seen as anomalous. So it is difficult to know what would be a reasonable test for whether radiometric dating is reliable or not. The percentage of published dates that are considered as anomalous has little bearing on the question. The biostrategraphic limits issue The issue about igneous bodies may need additional clarification. If a lava flow lies above geologic period A and below B, then allowable ages are anything at least as large as A and no larger than B. This is called the biostratigraphic limit of the flow. Now, according to Woodmorappe's citations, many lava flows have no such limits at all, and most of them have large limits. For example, a flow lying on precambrian rock with nothing on top would have no limits on its dates. And such flows often have a large internal scatter of dates, but these dates are not considered as anomalies because of the unrestricted biostratigraphic limit. Other flows with wide biostratigraphic limits have weak restrictions on allowable dates. This is one reason why just reporting the percentage of anomalies has little meaning. States that very many igneous bodies have little or no biostrategraphic limits, so just about any age is acceptable. Thus these ages, though they generally have a considerable scatter, are not considered as anomalies. He cites another reference that most igneous bodies have wide biostrategraphic limits. Thus just by chance, many dates will be considered within the acceptable ranges. If the igneous body is constrained to have a date between that of geologic period X1 and X2, with times T1 and T2, and if we regard any date within 20 percent as non-anomalous, then any date between T1/1.2 and T2*1.2 will be considered as non-anomalous, and this will include a considerable portion of geologic history. Again, the percentage of anomalies means nothing for the reliability of radiometric dating. Now, igneous bodies can be of two types, extrusive and intrusive. Extrusive bodies are lava that is deposited on the surface. These cool quickly and have small crystals and form basalt. Intrusive bodies are deposited in the spaces between other rocks. These cool more slowly and have larger crystals, often forming granite. Both of these tend on the average to have wide biostrategraphic limits, meaning that a large spread of ages will be regarded as non-anomalous. And if we recall that most radiometric dating is done of igneous bodies, one sees that the percentage of anomalies is meaningless. Thus we really need some evidence that the different methods agree with each other. To make the case even stronger, 'Many discrepant results from intrusives are rationalized away immediately by accepting the dates but reinterpreting the biostrategraphic bracket,' according to John Woodmorappe. This of course means that the result is no longer anomalous, because the geologic period has been modified to fit the date. Finally, the fact that the great majority of dates are from one method means that the general (but not universal) agreement of K-Ar dating with itself is sufficient to explain the small percentange of anomalies (if it is small). Preponderance of K-Ar dating Now, the point about agreement is that whatever figure is given about how often ages agree with the expected age, is consistent with the fact that there is no agreement at all between K-Ar and other methods, since so many measurements are done using K-Ar dating. And one of the strongest arguments for the validity of radiometric dating is that the methods agree. So I'm very interested to know what data there is about how often _different_ methods agree. So when one combines all of the above figures, the statement that there are only 10 percent anomalies or 5 percent or whatever, does not have any meaning any more. This statement is made so often as evidence for the reliability of radiometric dating, that the simple evidence that it has no meaning, is astounding to me. I don't object to having some hard evidence that there are real agreements between different methods on the geologic column, if someone can provide it. The precambrian rock is less interesting because it could have a radiometric age older than life, but this is less likely for the rest of the geologic column. It's not surprising that K-Ar dates often agree with the assumed dates of their geological periods, since the dates of the geological periods were largely inferred from K-Ar dating. By the way, Ar-Ar dating and K-Ar dating are essentially the same method, so between the two of them we obtain a large fraction of the dates being used. History of the Radioisotope based Geologic Time Scale Before the discovery of radioactivity in the late nineteenth century, a geological time scale had been developed on the basis of estimates for the rates of geological processes such as erosion and sedimentation, with the assumption that these rates had always been essentially uniform. On the basis of being unacceptably old, many geologists of the time rejected these early twentieth century determinations of rock age from the ratio of daughter to radioactive parent (large). By 1925, increased confidence in radioisotope dating techniques and the demands of evolution theory for vast amounts of time led to the establishment of an expanded geological time scale. With the K-Ar dating techniques developed after World War II, this time scale was refined to the standard Geologic Time Scale adopted in 1964. The construction of this time scale was based on about 380 radioisotope ages that were selected because of their agreement with the presumed fossil and geological sequences found in the rocks. Radioisotope ages that did not meet these requirements were rejected on the basis of presumed chemical and/or physical modifications that made the 'ages' unreliable indicators of real time. About 85% of the selections were K-Ar date s, 8% rubidium-strontium dates, and 4% uranium-lead dates. Igneous rocks are particularly suited to K-Ar dating. The crucial determiners are therefore volcanic (extrusive igneous) rocks that are interbedded with sediments, and intrusive igneous rocks that penetrate sediments. This verifies what I said about almost all of the dates used to define correct ages for geologic periods being K-Ar dates. Also, the uncertainty in the branching ratio of potassium decay might mean that there is a fudge factor in K-Ar ages of up to a third, and that the occasional agreements between K-Ar ages and other ages are open to question. So the point is that there is now no reason to believe that radiometric dating is valid on the geologic column. Cross examination: I mentioned the presence of excess argon 40 in a sample as a problem leading to artificially old K-Ar dates. Henke states in a reply to me, concerning the problem of detecting excess argon, Why not determine the initial Ar isotopes with K/Ar isochron methods? Also see Mussett and McCormack (1978) on using a three dimensional plot to distinguish initial and excess argon in K/Ar dating. It is possible that such isochrons are not often done. One cannot always use an isochron, since many minerals may have about the same K and Ar40 concentrations, and there may be some fractionation of argon among the minerals. It's not clear to me if this three dimensional plot always works, and how often it is used. I was not able to find any mention of it in Faure (1986) or Dickin (1995). Dickin (1995, p. 116) did mention such a technique for U-Pb dating. Henke further states in his reply to me, Dickin (1995, p. 180-199) mentions a number of other isotopic techniques that are used to detect mixing between multiple sources. It is true that by using additional isotopes (if they are sufficiently abundant and do not fractionate), one can often detect mixings of multiple sources. My point was that the usual mixing test can only detect two sources. But since these multiple mixing tests are more difficult and expensive, they may not be done very often. One also has to know which isotopes to examine. I was suprised that Dalrymple (1991) said nothing about mixings invalidating isochrons. Dalrymple (1984, p. 85) cites a source (Kramer, Arndts, and Overn, Bible-Science Newsletter, 1981) that applied the mixing test to 18 Rb-Sr isochrons from the literature and found that nearly all of them had correlations suggesting a mixing. Dalrymple goes to great lengths to explain this away, but I think this figure is very telling, and find his explanations unconvincing. It is also remarkable that we have a test for mixing, which is commonly cited in support of the accuracy of radiometric dating, but when it gives contrary results, it is simply ignored. Dickin (1995, p. 44) states, It is a fundamental assumption of the mantle isochron model that neither isotope nor elemental ratios are perturbed during magma ascent through the crust. However, it is now generally accepted that this assumption is not upheld with sufficient reliability to attribute age significance to erupted isochrons. Dickin suggests that mixings may contribute to such isochrons. It seems reasonable, then, that mixings may be affecting all Rb-Sr isochrons in igneous rock. Henke states: Your hypothetical example in 'More Bad News for Radiometric Dating' is often hard to follow, but it is clearly invalid. This example is given to show that a mixing of three sources cannot be detected by the usual two sources test. It is not intended to be natural, but to demonstrate a mathematical fact. There is a lot of flexibility in the design of such examples, as I indicate, and it is reasonable to assume that some of these examples would be natural. It's the responsibility of the geologist to show that such mixings have not occurred. In response to the disagreements between different dating methods, Henke states: To really understand what's going on you have to sample the recent works of many different authors. You have to follow arguments between experts on different issues and see where they go. Overall, the geologic time scale is in great shape. Yes, scientists are still making minor adjustments. However, it's clear from Strahler (1987), Dalrymple (1991), etc. That the creationists have lost. The problem with this approach is that it leaves ample room for the exercise of subjective judgment and evolutionary assumptions. Also, Dalrymple (1991) says essentially nothing about the phanerozoic, and thus gives little evidence of the accuracy of the conventional dating scheme on fossil-bearing rocks. Dalrymple (1984, p. 125) also says little about the phanerozoic, except to note that over 100,000 dates have been calculated, and only a few percent (p. 76) are anomalous. I treated this issue of percentage of anomalies in considerable detail in my original 'Radiometric Dating Game' article. It is interesting that Woodmorappe (1979) gives a number of cases in which standard geological tests are ignored. For example, dates may be accepted even when there is evidence of weathering, and rejected when there is not. There may be evidence of heating, but the date may be accepted, and there may be no such evidence, but a hypothetical heating event is assumed anyway. The same applies to the Ar/Ar spectrum test for initial or adsorbed argon 40. If geological tests are not being applied consistently, one wonders what value they have. Let me clarify the problem with excess argon. It gives the diffusion equation for argon escaping from a rock as it cools. The rate of diffusion is proportional to the gradient of argon concentration, and increases rapidly with temperature. Suppose the partial pressure of argon 40 in the environment is p. Suppose the partial pressure of argon 40 in lava or magma is initially at least p, as it cools. Then the partial pressure of argon 40 in the magma will never decrease below p; excess argon 40 will remain dissolved in the lava or magma as it cools. This argon 40 will then be trapped within the resulting rocks and lead to artificially old K-Ar dates. Now, the problem with this is that this excess argon 40 will probably be deposited as single atoms of argon distributed evenly within the sample. This makes it very difficult or even theoretically impossible to distinguish this excess argon 40 from argon generated by radioactive decay. This will make the sample appear artificially old right away. Even if crystals exclude argon as they form, argon will rapidly diffuse into them as the lava cools, by the diffusion equation mentioned above. A similar problem can occur if the excess argon 40 dissolved within lava or magma is not able to escape, due to rapid cooling or subsequent deposits of sediment or other lava on top. It is possible that in some cases an isochron might be able to detect such initial argon 40, but this can only happen if the potassium concentration varies significantly within the sample. It is not clear to me, also, how often such a test for initial argon 40 is performed. And of course, such isochrons can be falsified by mixings or other problems. There are spectrum tests for adsorbed argon involving Ar-Ar dating; basically, one can see whether the argon 40 is concentrated near the surface of the sample or near the interior. The former would indicated adsorbed argon 40, which would not give a true age. However, this test would not indicate excess argon 40 present during cooling. Faure (1986, p. 104) verifies that biotites with excess argon can have a flat spectrum, which makes this excess argon impossible to detect. 101) even implies that the reliability of the Ar-Ar spectrum test is now being questioned. It seems reasonable to me that this is a uniform problem with K-Ar dating. To me the geological evidence suggests catastrophic conditions and rapid formation of the sedimentary layers in the past. Thus the lava might have been covered before the excess argon was able to escape. Or the lava might have cooled quickly, due to rainfall. It only needs to cool to about 500 degrees centigrade or less to trap most of the argon, at least for biotite. As I mentioned before, one sometimes finds significant argon 40 in a rock and no potassium at all, as mentioned in Snelling's article. This shows that excess argon is entering these rocks by some means, and calls K-Ar dating into question. Excess argon could even cause different minerals in a given formation to yield similar K-Ar ages, since they all might have similar concentrations of K, approximately equal to its abundance in the earth's crust, and similar concentrations of argon 40, due to the partial pressure of argon 40 being similar during cooling. Even sedimentary minerals might have a similar K-Ar age for the same reason. Also, lava (magma) that cooled within the earth is likely to have artificially old K-Ar ages, since the enclosed excess argon 40 might have a more difficult time escaping. One sedimentary mineral of particular importance for K-Ar dating is glaucony. The following message from a talk.origins participant illustrates its importance: For example, Plaisted's 'explanation' for the correlation of isotopic age with vertical position in the geologic column is essentially that excess argon would have existed in lavas in greater quantity early in the Flood, and decreased as it was outgassed over time. Had Plaisted actually bothered to look at the data (e.g., Harland et al. 'A Geologic Time Scale 1989') he would have found that more than half of the dates, especially for mesozoic-cenozoic parts of the column, are glaucony (a sediment composed largely of animal fecal matter). Glaucony did not come from a 'magma chamber,' so Plaisted's explanation cannot possibly cover the majority of ages on the younger parts of the column. Concerning glauconite, Dr. Henke says Of the 429 or so 'anomalous' dates in Woodmorappe (1979), 94 (21.9%) involve illite and glauconite, which (because of their crystalline structures) are notoriously unreliable in giving K-Ar dates. Geochronologists know that illite and glauconite K/Ar dates are often untrustworthy. K/Ar ages from these minerals are often published to better understand the types of conditions that cause them to produce unreliable dates rather than to assign actual ages. Woodmorappe is clearly misusing illite and glauconite dates to simply pad his list. The fact that glauconies are unreliable is significant, since they provide such a large part of the dates for the mesozoic-cenozoic parts of the geological column. Faure (1996, p. 71) also lists glauconies as being only 'sometimes useful' for K-Ar dating. Glauconies are formed in seawater from a variety of materials, and incorporate potassium from the seawater (Faure, 1986, p. Faure states, 'The uncertainty about the interpretation of K-Ar dates of `glauconite' has reduced their usefulness in dating sedimentary rocks' (page 78). The process of their formation gives a ready mechanism for their K-Ar ages, namely, the incorporation of argon 40 as well as potassium from the seawater. We can assume that as a result of a global catastrophe, the oceans were highly enriched in argon 40 in the past, and that the concentration of argon 40 gradually decreased over time, due to its diffusion into the atmosphere and due to a smaller amount being released into the seawater. Therefore older glauconies would absorb more argon 40 from the seawater, resulting in old K-Ar dates for lower strata which become progressively younger for higher strata. Another factor in this direction is that older glauconies have more time to absorb argon 40. Let me summarize some of the reasons for questioning the reliability of K-Ar dating: It is difficult to detect argon 40 present during cooling. Some minerals contain argon 40 but no potassium, so this indicates excess argon 40, which in the presence of potassium leads to artificially old dates. Many historical volcanoes give K-Ar dates that are much too old, even if the reasons for this are understood. At least one authority sent me email that K-Ar dating is inaccurate. Finally, I want to comment on the circumstances of the interchange with Dr. During most of our interchange, I was not aware that it would be published on talk.origins. Now it has been web-immortalized on a radiometric dating web page. I was not informed that this exchange had been posted there. In addition, the complete exchange was not posted, but only a portion of it. I do thank Tim Thomson for the courteous and professional manner in which he has interacted with me, and that he has included the rest of my exchange with Dr. Excuses for anomalies Another issue is that sometimes the geologic periods of rocks are revised to agree with the ages computed. This also makes data about percentages of anomalies less meaningful. It sometimes seems that reasons can always be found for bad dates, especially on the geologic column. If a rock gives a too old date, one says there is excess argon. If it gives a too young date, one says that it was heated recently, or cannot hold its argon. How do we know that maybe all the rocks have excess argon? It looks like geologists are taking the 'majority view' of K-Ar dating, but there is no necessary reason why the majority of rocks should give the right date. The following quote is from the article by Robert H. Brown, cited earlier: What is a Radioisotope Age? The relationship of a radioisotope age with real-time must be based on an interpretation. A discussion of rubidium-strontium ages in the Isotope Geoscience Section of the journal, Chemical Geology, specifically states that a radioisotope age determination 'does not certainly define a valid age information for a geological system. Any interpretation will reflect the interpreters presuppositions (bias). Need for a double-blind test Concerning the need for a double blind test, it would seem that there are many places where human judgment could influence the distribution of measured radiometric dates. It could increase the percentage of anomalies, if they were regarded as more interesting. It could decrease them, if they were regarded as flukes. Human judgment could determine whether points were collinear enough to form an isochron. It could determine whether a point can justifiably be tossed out and the remaining points used as an isochron. It could determine whether one should accept simple parent-to-daughter K-Ar ratios or whether some treatment needs to be applied first to get better ages. It could influence whether a spectrum is considered as flat, whether a rock is considered to have undergone leaching or heating, whether a rock is porous or not, or whether a sample has been disturbed in some way. Since one of the main reasons for accepting radiometric dates (at least I keep hearing it) is that they agree with each other, I think that geologists have an obligation to show that they do agree, specifically on the geologic column. Since we do not know whether or how much human judgment is influencing radiometric dating, a double blind study is most reasonable. And it should not be restricted to just one or two well-behaved places, but should be as comprehensive as possible. Possible changes in the decay rate The following information was sent to me by e-mail: Radiometric dating is predicated on the assumption that throughout the earth's history radioactive decay rates of the various elements have remained constant. Is this a warranted assumption? Has every radioactive nuclide proceeded on a rigid course of decay at a constant rate? This has been challenged by studies involving Carbon (C)-14. At the temperature or pressure, collisions with stray cosmic rays or the emanations of other atoms may cause changes other than those of normal disintegration. It seems very possible that spontaneous disintegration of radioactive elements are related to the action of cosmic rays and the rate of disintegration varying from century to century according to the intensity of the rays. The evidence for a strongly increasing change in the cosmic ray influx is most favorable especially in light of the decay of the earth's magnetic field. Most geochronologists maintain that pleochroic haloes give evidence that decay constants have not changed. Crystals of biotite, for example, and other minerals in igneous or metamorphic rocks commonly enclose minute specks of minerals containing uranium or thorium. The a-(alpha) particles emitted at high velocity by the disintegrating nuclides interact, because of their charge, with electrons of surrounding atoms which slow them down until they finally come to rest in the host material at a distance from their source that depends on their initial kinetic energy and the density and composition of the host. Where they finally stop to produce lattice distortions and defects there generally occurs discoloring or darkening. Each of the 8 a-particles emitted during the disintegration of U238 to Pb206 produces a dark ring in biotite. Each ring has its own characteristic radius in a given mineral (in this case biotite). This radius measures the kinetic energy, hence the probability of emission of the corresponding a-particle and also the half-life of the parent nuclide according to the Geiger-Nuttall law. The Geiger-Nuttall law is an empirical relation between half-life of the a-emitter and the range in air of the emitted a-particles. If the radii of these haloes from the same nuclide vary, this would imply that the decay rates have varied and would invalidate these series as being actual clocks. Are the radii in the rocks constant in size or are there variable sizes? Most of the early studies of pleochroic haloes were made by Joly and Henderson. Joly concluded that the decay rates have varied on the basis of his finding a variation of the radii for rocks of alleged geological ages. This rather damaging result was explained away saying that enough evidence of correct radii for defferent geologic periods and sufficient variation in the same period have been obtained that one is forced to look for a different explanation of such variations as were observed by Joly. Measurements were later made in an excellent collection of samples with haloes. It was found that the extent of the haloes around the inclusions varies over a wide range, even with the same nuclear material in the same matrix, but all sizes fall into definite groups. The measurements are, in microns, 5,7,10,17,20,23,27, and 33. More recent studies have been made by Robert V. Gentry also finds a variation in the haloes leading him to conclude that the decay constants have not been constant in time. Gentry points out an argument for an instantaneous creation of the earth. He noted form his studies of haloes: 'It thus appears that short half-life nuclides of either polonium, bismuth, or lead were incorporated into halo nuclei at the time of mica crystallization and significantly enough existed without the parent nuclides of the uranium series. For the Po218 (half-life of 3 minutes) only a matter of minutes could elapse between the formation of the Po218 and subsequent crystallization of the mica; otherwise the Po218 would have decayed, and no ring would be visible. The occurrence of these halo types is quite widespread, one or more types having been observed in the micas from Canada (Pre-Cambrian), Sweden, and Japan.' The argument seems hard to refute. So, then, careful scientists have measured variations in halo radii and their measurements indicate a variation in decay rates. The radioactive series then would have no value as time clocks. The following quotation also suggests a cause for a change in the decay rate: 'An earlier increase [in neutrino levels] must have had the peculiar characteristic of resetting all our atomic clocks. This would knock our C-14, potassium-argon, and uranium-lead dating measurements into a cocked hat! The age of prehistoric artifacts, the age of the earth, and that of the universe would be thrown into doubt.' Johnson, *J.R. Arnold, and *R.F. Flint, 'Radiocarbon Dating,' in Science, February 8, 1957, p. This is significant because it is known that neutrinos do interact with the nucleii of atoms, and it is also believed that much of the energy of supernovae is carried away by neutrinos. Isochrons Isochrons are an attempt to avoid the need for an absence of daughter element initially in computing radiometric ages. The idea is that one has a parent element, X, a daughter element, Y, and another isotope, Z, of the daughter that is not generated by decay. One would assume that initially, the concentration of Z and Y are proportional, since their chemical properties are very similar. Radioactive decay would generate a concentration of Y proportional to X. So we would obtain an equation of the form Y = c1*X + c2*Z By taking enough measurements of the concentrations of X, Y, and Z, we can solve for c1 and c2, and from c1 we can determine the radiometric age of the sample. Let's apply this to potassium argon dating, where X is K40, Y is Ar40, and Z is probably Ar36. If the concentration of K varies in a rock, that it is unlikely for the concentration of added argon 40 to vary in a way that will yield an isochron. But if the concentration of K does not vary, then one can still get an isochron if the concentration of the non-radiogenic isotope Ar36 of the daughter product varies. So let's call an isochron a 'super-isochron' if the concentration of the parent element varies from one sample to another. Let's call it a 'wimpy isochron' otherwise. The question is, what percentage of isochrons are super-isochrons, and how do their dates agree with the conventional dates for their geologic period? I would think that it may be rare to have a super-isochron. If one is dealing with minerals that exclude parent or daughter, then one cannot get an isochron at all. If one is dealing with minerals that do not exclude parent and daughter elements, then most likely the parent element will be evenly distributed everywhere, and one will have a wimpy isochron that cannot detect added daughter product, and thus may give unreliable ages. Whole rock isochrons may also tend to be wimpy, for the same reason. Even super isochrons can yield ages that are too old, due to mixings, however. False K-Ar isochrons can be produced if a lava flow starts out with a lot of excess Ar40 which becomes well mixed, along with potassium. Then while cooling or afterwards, a mixture of Ar36 and Ar40 can enter the rock, more in some places than others. Other isotopes of argon would work as well. I believe that this will produce a good K-Ar isochron, but the age calculated will be meaningless. There is another way that false isochrons can be produced. For a wimpy isochron, say a K-Ar isochron, we can assume that initially there is a uniform concentration of K everywhere, and concentrations of Ar40 and Ar36 that form an isochron. Then a lot of Ar40 enters, uniformly, through cracks in the rock or heating. This will retain the isochron property, but will make the isochron look too old. My reasoning was that if the lava is thoroughly mixed, then the concentration of parent material should be fairly constant. If the concentration of parent substance is not constant, it could indicate that the lava is not thoroughly mixed. Or it could have other explanations. If the lava is not thoroughly mixed, it is possible to obtain an isochron from the mixing of two different sources, in which case the radiometric age is inherited from the sources, and does not necessarily yield the age of the flow. Someone pointed out to me that many Rb-Sr isochrons are super isochrons. I find this information very interesting, and thank him for it. I'd be curious to know which strata they occur in, as my main interest is the geologic column of Cambrian and above. My impression is that these are not on this part of the geologic column. And how well do the dates correlate with others for the same formation? There are also mixing scenarios that can produce even super isochrons having invalid ages. And geologists admit in any event that isochrons can sometimes give false ages. Here is a mixing scenario for false isochrons. Consider this possibility: There are two sources of lava, A and B. Suppose these mix together so that at point 0 we have only A, at point 1 we have only B, and in between we have varying concentrations. Half way between there is a mixture of half A and half B, for example. Suppose X is a parent substance, Y is its daughter, and Z is a non-radiogenic isotope of the daughter. Suppose A has a little X and lots of Y and not much Z, all uniformly distributed, and B has some mixture of Y and Z, all uniformly distributed. Then this varying mixture of A and B, with all A at 0 and all B at 1, produces a good isochron. There is no way this mixture can be distinguished from a similar case in which A has lots of X and little Y, and B is the same as before, and a lot of time passes. It is claimed that mixing can often be detected. If this is so, then the question remains, for super isochrons on the geologic column which can be shown not to be caused by mixing, how do they correlate with other methods, and with the expected dates for their geologic period? My understanding is that isochrons measure the time since a rock was last well mixed. For a lava flow, this could be the time of the flow. Or it could be that several flows all come from the same well-mixed magma, and might yield a joint isochron giving the time of the flow. It seems to me that a single lava flow might not mix well, and thus the age obtained would be that of the magma and not the time of the flow. So this points out another problem with interpretation of isochrons. I'm also curious to know how much of the geologic column is datable by super isochrons for which no mixing can be shown. Atlantic sea floor dating One often hears about K-Ar dates of the Atlantic Ocean bottom which increase from zero at the mid-Atlantic ridge to about 150 million years at the edges. This is taken as proof that the continents began separating about 150 million years ago. However, this can be explained by assuming that argon rises to the top of the magma, so magma deeper down looks younger. The magma deeper down would have come to the surface later, and thus would be nearer to the mid-Atlantic ridge. Or if the continents split quickly, the observed pattern of dates could be explained by a decreasing concentration of Ar40 in the water. In any event, I don't see how the lava in the center of the Atlantic could have a young age in the conventional view, since it would have cooled rapidly under a lot of water, and would have retained its argon, making it look old. Dating Meteorites We now make some comments about dating the meteorites. Since I have not had as much time to study this, I will just list some points that must be considered. Many parent to daughter ratios for many meteorites give radiometric ages of about 4.5 billion years. This gives support to an ancient age for the meteorites, assuming constant decay rates. However, in interpreting these results, some facts need to be kept in mind. The first is that these results are not obtained by a simple parent to daughter ratio. Instead, some estimate of the amount of daughter initially present in the meteorite has to be made in order to compute a radiometric age. Thus one has a 'fudge factor,' and in fact, a different fudge factor for each method. So one has to be sure that these fudge factors are properly used, and not simply adjusted in order to obtain an agreement among the dates. The importance of this is underlined by the fact that these same fudge factors are used to estimate uranium and thorium dates on earth. Thus the estimate of initial concentrations of lead isotopes could also affect the 4.5 billion year age computation for the earth. We noted above that there also seems to be a fudge-factor built into potassium-argon dating, namely, the branching ratio estimate. This causes the correlation between K-Ar dates and other dates on meteorites to come into question, as well. Now, at least for uranium-lead dating, a kind of isochron has been observed among five meteorites containing uranium and a number which do not, which gives a rational basis for assuming how much daughter product was present initially. The obvious question to ask in regards to this is how the meteorites were chosen for this isochron, and whether there are other meteorites and other bodies from the solar system that do not fit. If so, this calls this interpretation into question. In addition, there is just one point on this isochron for all of the meteorites that do not contain uranium. Is this obtained by averaging, or do they all have exactly the same ratio of lead isotopes? If the former, then this could indicate that the points of this isochron have considerable scatter, further calling the age computation into question. A point from the earth is also on this isochron. This is from a sedimentary deposit. But since uranium is much more water soluble than lead, it seems questionable to use this point as reprsenting the ratio of lead isotopes on earth, since it may be impoverished or enriched in uranium. In addition, if other sediments yield different ratios of isotopes, why was only this one chosen? Another question that needs to be asked is whether this isochron could have been produced by some kind of a mixing process, since such processes can produce isochrons not representing a true age. It also needs to be determined whether the daughter products for methods other than uranium-lead dating also yield isochrons among the different meteorites. The above discussion concerns dating techniques based on simple parent to daughter ratios. There are other dating techniques such as isochrons and discordia which avoid the need to estimate initial daughter product concentrations. Therefore, it should be determined how many correlations remain in meteorite dating when only such techniques are applied. Of course, in the traditional view, the matter out of which the solar system was formed would have been very old at the start, in any event, and so the radiometric ages obtained from meteorites or from the earth do not necessarily tell us anything about the age of the solar system or the age of the earth. My point is not to refute the meteorite dating, since it may be sound, assuming a constant decay rate. However, on seeing the lack of evidence for large-scale evolution, the many problems with radiometric dating on the geologic column, and the many plausible evidences for catastrophe which often seem to be interpreted away by science, I have become somewhat skeptical of any area of science having to do with origins, and so have come to question even the assumptions behind the dating of the meteorites. Dating Meteorites Concerning the dating of meteorites, Henke states: Dalrymple (1984, p. 82) states that knowledge of the initial amount of the daughter product is not even needed to obtain reliable ages with isochron methods. This does not answer my question, which referred at least in part to dates obtained by a simple daughter-to-parent ratio. Dalrymple (1991) does say that many ages for meteorites are 'model ages,' which are computed by making assumptions about initial amounts of daughter product. Such assumptions are also necessary for the Pb-Pb method of dating. For meteorites, there is a good basis for making such assumptions. Also, Dalrymple (1991) gives impressive agreements between different isochron methods on meteorites, which support a roughly 4.5 billion year age without any assumptions on initial amounts of daughter product. Henke refers to this in his second reply: Dalrymple (1991) lists more than just a 'small number of meteorites.' For example, tables in Dalrymple (1991, p. 287-289, 291) list numerous results. Specifically, Figure 6.9 on p. 286 contains the results of 94 radiometric ages of 69 meteorites. Table 6.3 on p. 287-289 contains the results of 240 radiometric dates on 42 meteorites. None of these results are only a few thousand years old. For further details, see Dalrymple (1991, chapter 6). Other than a true age for the meteorites, this could indicate a mixing process, which does not seem likely, or an increase in decay rates, for which a mechanism would need to be found. However, in order to date the earth, one needs an isochron which includes a point from the earth. This is more difficult, and this is the isochron that I saw on the talk.origins FAQ, which involved a much smaller number of meteorites. Also, many of the meteorite dates I saw in the FAQ were apparently simple daughter-to-parent ratio ages. It is also remarkable that so many different isochron-based dating schemes, even on the same meteorite, often yield roughly the same 4.5 billion year age. This is true for Rb-Sr, Pb-Pb, Sm-Nd, Lu-Hf, and Re-Os dating methods, as well as the Ar-Ar spectrum method. This is a case where different methods agree without making assumptions about initial amount of daughter product. This either indicates a true age, or a change in the decay constants. I would like to know how often this is true on the phanerozoic. How often does one have two or three different isochrons on the same system yielding very similar dates? It is also important that the concentrations of parent substances are linearly independent, to preclude mixings. Such a multiple-isochron agreement is fairly convincing, but the failure to find such isochrons likewise casts doubt on the ages obtained. If radiometric dating is accurate on fossil-bearing rocks, there should be an abundance of such agreements between different isochrons on the same systems, and they should yield the conventionally accepted ages. A change in the decay constants on the phanerozoic seems less likely, since it could radically affect the properties of matter, and be harmful to life. Another reliable technique mentioned by Dalrymple (1984) is the U-Pb concordia-discordia method on zircons, which is valid even for many open systems. This technique requires assumptions about lead and uranium loss, and seems to give good evidence of a reliable date (relative to decay constants), especially when there is agreement with other methods (such as isochrons) on the same system. However, Dickin (1995, pp. 105-118) mentions that both lead and uranium are mobile, and that 'rocks with complex geological histories. Can yield discordia of high statistical quality which nevertheless yield erroneous ages' (p. Also, zircons can survive transport through magma (p. 116-7) and become damaged by decay of uranium, permitting the loss and gain of lead from the environment (p. Woodmorappe (1999, p. 33) gives a number of references showing that inherited zircons, and inherited lead in zircons, are common, and give ages that are older than the accepted ages. This leaves open the possibility that all of the dates obtained from zircons on the phanerozoic are too old. Conclusion An evolutionist said his experience is that whenever he looks into a creationist source, it blows up on him. My experience is that whenever I look into an evidence for evolution or (now) the reliability of radiometric dating on the geologic column, it blows up on me, too. I don't deny that there is some degree of plausibility to radiometric dating, although I have to wonder if many field geologists secretly have their doubts about it. My concern is instead to know how much stamina the evidence has against other evidence that may call it into question. My conclusion for the geologic column is, not much. Gentry's radiohaloes in coalified wood Here is some more material from my web site bearing on the question of the age of the geologic column: It is also of interest in regard to radiometric dating that Robert Gentry claims to have found 'squashed' polonium haloes as well as embryonic uranium radiohaloes in coal deposits from many geological layers claimed to be hundreds of millions of years old. (See the Oct. 15, 1976 issue of Science.) These haloes represent particles of polonium and uranium which penetrated into the coal at some point and produced a halo by radioactive decay. The fact that they are squashed indicates that part of the decay process began before the material was compressed, so the polonium had to be present before compression. Since coal is relatively incompressible, Gentry concludes that these particles of uranium and polonium must have entered the deposit before it turned to coal. However, there is a very small amount of lead with the uranium; if the uranium had entered hundreds of millions of years ago, then there should be much more lead. The amount of lead present is consistent with an age of thousands rather than millions of years. It's hard to believe, according to conventional geological time scales, that this coal was compressed any time within the past several thousand or even hundred million years. Here is a quote from Coffin, page 306, about Gentry's findings: 'Coalified wood from Triassic and Jurassic sediments (225- to 135-million-year conventional geologic age) contains radiohaloes. Published lead-206/uranium-238 ratios for their inclusion centers may be expressed in terms of uranium-lead radioisotope ages ranging between 236 thousand and 2.9 million years. No presently available experimental evidence would exclude the possibility that essentially all the lead-206 in the halo centers was introduced together with the uranium (either directly or as parent polonium-210 or lead-210) and thus did not accumulate from uranium.' In fact, a couple of the haloes have ages consistent with an origin thousands of years ago. Thus the amount of lead with the uranium is consistent with an age in the hundreds of thousands to millions of years range, much too small for conventional geologic time. And it is reasonable to assume that almost all of this lead came with the uranium, rather than being a result of decay, suggesting that the true age could be much younger than this. Note that this phenomenon of squashed haloes appears in different coal deposits in different geologic formations, and all give about the same U-Pb ages. The squashing is in the vertical direction, and I can't think of any way this could happen at a time later than the burial of the logs or whatever under a lot of sediment. Coal is not water soluble (at least, coal cars aren't covered, and no one seems to worry about thunderstorms dissolving the coal away), and wood is waterproof, so one would expect that coalified wood would also be waterproof. Coal has small pores. If it had cracks, they would have to be small, since the cell structure is still visible. And if there was a flow of water, it would be more likely to remove soluble uranium than insoluble lead, making the date older. But it is possible that small cracks exist and that uranium could be deposited by a flow of water at some more recent date. If there were such cracks, we would expect uranium to be entering at regular intervals, and to give a range of ages up to about 225 million years or even higher due to lead being introduced with the uranium. But note that all of the haloes give young ages. The fact that all the ages are so young suggests that the coal is young, too. It seems most likely that the uranium entered at the same time as the polonium. The fact that so many of the polonium haloes are squashed indicates that the polonium entered before the wood was covered with sediement. I think the most reasonable explanation is that this coal has an age at most a few millions of years old, possibly much younger, and that the geologic time scale is in error. Some of the haloes have ages of 200,000 or 300,000 years, so the true age would have to be this or younger. This applies to several geologic periods. In fact, a couple of the haloes have such low ratios as to imply an age in the thousands of years. Another possible objection made by an evolutionist is that the radon 222 that results from uranium decay is an inert gas and may have escaped, resulting in little lead being deposited. This would make the observed haloes consistent with an old age for the coal. However, the fact that these uranium haloes are embryonic (very faint) also argues for a young age. In addition, not all of the radon would be on the surface of the particles of uranium. That which was inside or bordering on coal would likely not be able to escape. Since radon 222 has a half-life of about 4 days, it would not have much time to escape, in any event. Such haloes were also found in shale, with young U/Pb ages as well, and it may be less likely for the radon to escape from shale. Carbon 14 dating It looks like C14 dating is the ``bad boy' of radiometric dating. Libby, the discoverer of the C14 method, which won for him a Nobel prize, expressed his shock that human artifacts extended back only 5000 years, a finding totally in conflict with any evolutionary concept. Older dates were found to be very unreliable (CRSQ, 1972, 9:3, p.157). By this time tens of thousands of C14 dates have been published from tests performed by various laboratories around the world. In the annual volumes in which the dates are published, concerns have been expressed about many relatively young dates that violate established geological age notions. One example given was Ice-Age materials that were dated by C14 to fall within the Christian era (CRSQ, 1969, 6:2, p.114). In his book on prehistoric America, Ceram notes a classic case of the difficulties that befall C14 dating. Bones 30,000 years old were found lying above wood dated at 16,000 years (Ceram, 1971, p.257-259). Another classic C14 problem was noted for Jarmo, a prehistoric village in northern Iraq. Eleven samples were dated from the various strata and showed a 6000-year spread from oldest to most recent. Analysis of all the archaeological evidence, however, showed that the village was occupied no more than 500 years before it was finally abandoned (Custance, 1968, Mortar samples can be given normal C14 tests since mortar absorbs carbon dioxide from the air. Mortar, however, from Oxford Castle in England gave an age of 7,270 years. The castle was built about 800 years ago. The kind of contamination is unclear. Living trees near an airport were dated with C14 as l0,000 years old, because the wood contained contamination from plane exhaust (CRSQ, 1970, 7:2, p.126; 1965, 2:4, p.31). [I wouldn't be surprised if these last 2 examples have simple explanations.] C14 analysis of oil from Gulf of Mexico deposits showed an age measured in thousands of years - not millions. Data produced by the Petroleum Institute at Victoria, New Zealand, showed that petroleum deposits were formed 6,000-7,000 years ago. Textbooks state that petroleum formation took place about 300,000,000 years ago (Velikovsky, 1955, p.287; CRSQ, 1965, 2:4, p.10). Fossil wood was found in an iron mine in Shefferville, Ontario, Canada, that was a Precambrian deposit. Later the wood was described as coming from Late Cretaceous rubble, which made it about 100 million years old instead of more than 600 million years old. Two independent C14 tests showed an age of about 4000 years (Pensee, Fall 1972, 2:3, p.43). The last major glacial advance in America was long dated at about 25,000 years ago. C14 dates forced a revision down to 11,400 years. The United State Geological Survey carried out studies that gave a C14 date as recent as 3300 years ago, but no text treats such a puzzling find that falls well within historic times (Velikovsky, 1955, p.158-159; CRSQ, 1968, 5:2, p.67). Here is a remarkable example of C14 difficulties in a book published by Stanford University Press. Six C14 ages were determined from a core in an attempt to date the formation of the Bering Land Bridge. The dates ranged from 4390 to 15,500 Before Present. The first problem was that the results were so disarranged from bottom to top of the core that no two samples were in the correct order. Then the oldest date was discarded because it was 'inconsistent' with other tests elsewhere. Next the remaining dates were assumed to be contaminated by a fixed amount, after which the authors concluded that the delta under study had been formed 12,000 years ago (Hopkins, 1967, p.110-111). Even more astonishing is this cynical statement made at a symposium of Nobel Prize winners in Uppsala, Sweden, in 1969: 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 footnote. And if it is completely 'out of date,' we just drop it (Pensee, Winter 1973, p.44). As for the contamination issue, someone asserted that any C14 date of 30,000 years or more is due to contamination. If this is so, then why do they say the method is accurate to 50,000 years? If any C14 date has ever yielded a value over 30,000 years, this implies that such contamination is not ubiquitous. Of course, it could be that older measurement techniques were less accurate. Now, 30,000 years is about 5 half lives of C14, which means that a contamination of 1/32 (slightly less) would be required to achieve this date for a sample of infinite age. This is a substantial contamination. Anyway, as for C14 dating in general, it seems clear that many, many results are much too young according to the standard view, and that explaining away one or two of them does not appreciably diminish the problem. Here is another instance of an anomalously young carbon 14 date: At the 1992 Twin Cities Creation Conference, there was a paper presented called 'Direct Dating of Cretaceous-Jurassic Fossils (and Other Evidences for Human-Dinosaur Coexistence)'. Among other things, the results of carbon-dating of Acrocanthosaurus bones are given. The authors noted that dinosaur bones are frequently ('as a rule') found with a black carbon residue of some sort on the bones. The authors speculated that this residue could be the leftovers of the decayed skin and flesh: they quote the Penguin Geology Encyclopedia's definition of 'carbonization': 'Carbonization; the reduction of organic tissue to a carbon residue. An unusual kind of fossilization in which the tissue is preserved as a carbon film. Plants are commonly preserved in this manner, soft-bodied animals more rarely.' Since this material is organic, it can be used to carbon-date the fossils. The authors describe in detail the measures taken to ensure that no other source of carbon contamination was present inside or outside the bones. When the bones were ground up and carbon-dated, the dates they received from the lab from different methods were 9,890 to 36,500 years BP (before present). Some have claimed that this bone was covered with shellac, causing the carbon 14 date to be young. Concerning this issue, one individual sent me the following information: The papers of Miller's that are cited by Lepper are: Fields, W., H. Whitelaw, and G.Novaez, 1990, 'The Paluxy River Footprints Revisited,' in _Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism held July 30-August 4, 1990, Volume 2, technical symposium sessions and additional topics_, edited by R.E. Walsh and C.L. 155-168, Christian Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh. And Dahmer, L., D. Kouznetsov, A. Detwiler, and H. Miller, 1990, 'Report on Chemical Analysis and Further Dating of Dinosaur Bones and Dinosaur Petroglyphs,' same proceedings, pp. The above two articles are the ones that purportedly refer to carbon 14 dating of a dinosaur bone covered with shellac. The article I referred to is the following: 'Direct Dating of Cretaceous-Jurassic Fossils (and Other Evidences for Human-Dinosaur Coexistence)' (1992 Twin Cities Creation Conference). In this paper, the authors describe in detail the measures taken to ensure that no other source of carbon contamination was present inside or outside the bones. The fact that these are separate papers, and the fact that every attempt was made to avoid contamination, suggests that these are two different incidents. I also received the following information from another person: As far as I can ascertain from the paper, the researchers responsible specifically mention that the dinosaur bones being dated were not coated with shellac (page 10). Otherwise, the details of the material at your website are as in the paper, and the comment about a black carbon residue around fossilised dinosaur bones is referenced in their paper to a secular source, so it is not simply their observation. The comments from the Penguin Geology Encyclopedia merely add to their case. However, of the results they give in their paper, I personally would only be comfortable with the AMS results obtained on the same sample in two different laboratories - the one at 25,750+/-280 years BP and the other at 23,760+/-270 years BP. The other results were obtained on unspecified equipment or via the less reliable older beta technology and generally appear not to have been cross-checked in another laboratory. Again I confirm that the claim about the shellac appears to be totally false and merely a smokescreen to avoid the implications of an uncomfortable radiocarbon date. So, based on all of this information, it looks like there were two separate incidents, and the one I referred to involved a dinosaur bone that was not covered with shellac, but still gave a young carbon 14 date. A survey of the 15,000 radiocarbon dates published through the year 1969 in the publication, Radiocarbon, revealed the following significant facts:27 a. Of the dates of 9671 specimens of trees, animals, and man, only 1146 or about 12 percent have radiocarbon ages greater than 12,530 years. Only three of the 15,000 reported ages are listed as 'infinite.' Some samples of coal, oil, and natural gas, all supposedly many millions of years old, have radiocarbon ages of less than 50,000 years. Deep ocean deposits supposed to contain remains of the most primitive life forms are dated within 40,000 years. I think it is interesting that so few specimens have old dates, suggesting a rapid increase in the amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere. On the same subject, some fossils from the Paluxy River are 'anomalous' as well. Carbonized (burnt) wood was discovered in Cretaceous limestone, and dated to 12,800 to 45,000 YBP. Coffin gives quite a bit of evidence from increases of C14 ages with depth that the concentration of C14 has increased rapidly in recent years, making C14 dates too old, especially after about 4000 years ago. The fact that C14 is still increasing in the atmosphere shows that the earth recently went through some kind of a catastrophe, and this increase is even admitted by some evolutionists. It has been claimed that Carbon 14 dating was revolutionized in 1969 or so. But it remains to establish how much in error the old dates were. It seems to be a common pattern that when dating methods are revised, we are told how inaccurate the old methods were, but are not told how inaccurate the current methods are. A number of people requested references for my statements about young carbon 14 dates for coal and oil and fossils. Consider this: if a specimen is older than 50,000 years, it has been calculated that it would have such a small amount of C14 that for practical purposes it would show an infinite radiocarbon age. So it was expected that most deposits such as coal, gas, etc. Would be undatable by this method. In fact, of thousands of dates in the journals Radiocarbon and Science to 1968, only a handful were classed 'undatable' - most were of the sort which should have been in this category. This is especially remarkable with samples of coal and gas supposedly produced in the Carboniferous period 300 million years ago! Some examples of dates which contradict orthodox (evolutionary) views: Coal from Russia from the 'Pennsylvanian,' supposedly 300 million years old, was dated at 1,680 years. (Radiocarbon, vol. Natural gas from Alabama and Mississippi (Cretaceous and Eocene, respectively) should have been 50 million to 135 million years old, yet C14 gave dates of 30,000 to 34,000 years, respectively. (Radiocarbon, vol. Many of the earlier radiocarbon dates on objects such as coal and gas, which should be undatable, have been attributed to contamination from, for example, workers' fingerprints, creationist researchers are currently working on the construction of an apparatus, using existing technology, to look for very low levels of C14 activity in, for example, coal after excluding contamination. Such low-level activity would not be expected on the basis of old earth theory, and so is not looked for at present.) Bones of a sabre-toothed tiger from the LaBrea tar pits (near Los Angeles), supposedly 100,000-one million years old, gave a date of 28,000 years. (Radiocarbon, vol. 10, 1968) Tree ring chronologies Tree ring chronologies are also used to give a history of the earth stretching back over 8000 years. Are these accurate? One way to infer how the atmospheric concentration of carbon-14 changed in the past is by tree-ring dating. Some types of trees, that grow at high elevations and have a steady supply of moisture, reliably add only one ring each year. In other environments, multiple rings can be added in a year. 4 The thickness of a tree ring depends on the tree's growing conditions, which will naturally vary from year to year. Some rings may even show frost or fire damage. By comparing sequences of ring thicknesses in two different trees, a correspondence can sometimes be shown. Ring patterns will correlate strongly for two trees of the same species that grew near each other at the same time. Weaker correlations (or less confident matches) exist between trees of different species growing simultaneously in different environments. Claims are frequently made that wood growing today can be matched up with some scattered pieces of dead wood so that tree-ring counts can be extended back more than 8,600 years. This may not be true. These claimed 'long chronologies' begin with either living trees or dead wood that can be accurately dated by historical methods. This carries the chronology back perhaps 3,500 years. Then the more questionable links are established based on the judgment of a tree-ring specialist. Standard statistical techniques could establish just how good the dozen or more supposedly overlapping tree-ring sequences are. However, tree-ring specialists refuse to subject their judgments to these statistical tests, and they have not released their data so others can carry out these statistical tests. 5 There are some general problems with constructing a chronology by piecing together records of tree rings from different trees. When trying to find the best solution to a problem like this, there are generally a huge number of possible solutions. So one uses a heuristic program to try to find a good one. There may also be many other solutions that are nearly as good. In fact, there may be others that are even better. So it's not clear to me that there is one clear-cut chronology based on tree ring dating. It was claimed that carbon 14 levels were not considered at all in constructing this chronology. I'd like to have his reference for that. In such a case, one typically defines a goodness function for each solution, and this could incorporate the desire to maintain a nearly constant carbon 14 level in the atmosphere. Add to this the fact that different trees can respond differently to the same climatic condition, and the fact that trees sometimes have more than one ring (especially if there is more than one rainy season per year) and one has even more uncertainty. Without a very thorough examination of the data, it's hard to know how to interpret the result. I'd be interested to know what the authors of this work say about the existence of other chronologies, and how much less of a good fit they are. In such an optimization problem, it is difficult to know if one has the true solution, so not much weight should be given to the chronology obtained. It's not enough just to eyeball it and say it looks convincing. It should be subjected to several optimization procedures and one should also optimize for shorter chronologies as well to see how much (if any) the quality suffers. Someone gave me some information about constructing tree ring chronologies by piecing together sub-chronologies. But in a problem like this, sometimes one can get a better solution in the end by taking a sub-optimal choice along the way. So the described procedure will not necessarily find the best chronology. The following message was sent to me by e mail on February 11, 1998: As one who has taught dendrochronnology, I have a few opinions on this particular subject. Also, one of my graduate students went to work for Ferguson in his lab at U of A, and in fact was the curator of his work after his death, and is presently probably the only one who knows anything about how he [Ferguson] produced the bristlecone chronology. Another of my graduate students gave a seminar to the lab on dendrochronology of fossil trees and had ample opportunity to analyze the procedures there, and to work with Ferguson for a while. I can say on pretty firm grounds that the Bristlecone chronology before 4000bp is fraught with problems and unanswered questions. While Ferguson was alive, he never allowed anyone to analyze his original data or the bases for the many suppositions that went into the establishment of the chronology. Thus the chronology was not subjected to the normal rigors of science. This is regrettable, because I believe he was a careful and sincere scientist. Of course one could always excuse Ferguson for not revealing the bases of his decisions (for example, the most important rings in any chronology are the 'missing rings' which have to be added by the investigator). But suffice to say the chronology before 4000bp is entirely dependent on C14 dates of the wood, and is thus tautologous. This does not mean it is meaningless or necessarily wrong, just that I wouldn't base too much on it. Coral dating Some coral formations apparently show a longer year in the past, of about 400 days. This is taken as a confirmation of radiometric dating, since the earth's rotation should be gradually slowing down due to the effect of the moon and tides. Here is some information that was sent to me by a proponent of this method: How does a flood explain the accuracy of 'coral clocks'? The moon is slowly sapping the earth's rotational energy. The earth should have rotated more quickly in the distant past, meaning that a day would have been less than 24 hours, and there would have been more days per year. Corals can be dated by the number of 'daily' growth layers per 'annual' growth layer. Devonian corals, for example, show nearly 400 days per year. There is an exceedingly strong correlation between the 'supposed age' of a widerange of fossils (corals, stromatolites, and a few others -- collected from geologic formations throughout the column and from locations all over the world) and the number of days per year that their growth pattern shows. The agreement between these clocks, and radiometric dating, and the theory of superposition. Is a little hard to explain away as the result of a number of unlucky coincidences in a 300-day-long flood. Clocks tied to the Earth's rotational energy lack the precision of isotopic dating methods, and they are only applicable to a small number of formations which have excellent preservation of fairly small details. However, they do provide an excellent (if rough) confirmation of the isotopic methods' accuracy. The computation of the slowdown of the earth's rotation is not simple, however. If one extrapolates the current slowdown backwards, one obtains a rate that is too fast. So a correction is applied for resonances of the moon with tides. To me this is rather involved, and not convincing. Also, if the earth was rotating faster in the past, it was not necessarily due to the elapse of time and the slowdown from tides. The earth could have been rotating faster more recently if there had been some kind of a catastrophe. There was even an article in Science, 25 July 1997, titled 'Evidence for a Large-Scale Reorganization of Early Cambrian Continental Masses.' In which the authors propose that at one time the lithosphere rotated 90 degrees. If we can assume the axis of rotation or crust of the earth are in motion for some reason, this could cause an apparent change in the length of the year. Maybe some event in the core of the earth or some gyroscopic effect or some asteriod impact would cause this. So it's not clear that one can even take a longer year from coral records as confirmation of assumed geologic time. It is also possible that different lengths of the year in the past are due to unusual patterns of ocean currents or temperature or availability of nutrients, and not to the length of the year. Just having summer 20 days early one year and 20 days late the next might make the year seem 400 days long. If the axis of the earth were vertical in the past, there would have been no seasons at all, and the apparent years could have been caused by any number of factors. Here is another scenario that could explain a different period for the year in recent history. Suppose a nearby supernova showered the earth with elementary particles, many of which passed through matter while only weakly interacting with it. But suppose that there were enough such particles to destabilize the nucleii of atoms slightly. This would not have much effect on most nucleii, but it would cause radioactive nucleii to decay. Thus one would have a rapid increase in the decay rate, which would make the matter of the earth and planets appear old very quickly. This would generate a lot of heat, which could lead to many volcano eruptions. It could also lead to convection currents in the core of the earth, redistributing the mass there and causing the rotation of the earth to speed up or slow down dramatically. Of course, this would lead to a major, worldwide catastrophe. In addition, there might be unusual gyroscopic effects. At the same time, the heating effect on another planet could have caused it to explode, producing the asteroids. At any rate, one could get changes in the length of year this way in recent history. Growth of coral reefs It is also often claimed that the growth of coral reefs to their current size would require very long time periods. Coffin shows that coral reefs can grow very fast when they are farther from the surface of the ocean. At the surface, the growth rate slows due to water action and various other factors. So coral reefs are also not an evidence for a long history of the earth since the origin of life. Varves Varves are thin repetitive sedimentary layers that are used to argue for a long history of the earth. It is claimed that one varve was deposited each year. But to me, the fact that they show so little evidence of erosion or any kind of activity between the layers is suspicious -- they are all so flat and even. In addition, many well-preserved fossil fish are found in the Green River varves. This is an evidence that these varves were laid down rapidly. (Experiments have shown that if fish are not buried rapidly, the bones fall apart.) Evidence for catastrophe in the geologic column Here are some quotes from 'The Age of the Universe: What Are the Biblical Limits?,' 1998, by Gorman Gray, pp. 118 - 119, supporting the idea that the geologic column was laid down catastrophically: '. Deposits above the `great unconformity' (the boundary between Precambrian and Cambrian) are now thought by most geologists to have been deposited rapidly and catastrophically. The evidence is ubiquitous for catastophic deposits. Evolutionary geologists now acknowledge numerous local catastrophes to account for many different regions while refusing to accept the very simple explanation of one cataclysm responsible for all of them.' 'Although the well-informed leadership in geology realizes that catastrophism is evident everywhere, it is not known so well at the university level.' 'Even though the basic concept of uniformitarian gradualism for deposited strata has been overthrown, curiously there has been no adjustment in the dates applied to the geologic column. It appears that there are strong forces to hold on to the millions of years concept of geology (in spite of the facts) in order to preserve the supposed time for evolution to occur.' 'Evolutionary geologists now hypothesize millions of years of non-activity between formations in order to preserve the evolutionary time schedule. There is no evidence supporting numerous hiatuses. One would think in even a thousand years there would be roots or worm burrows or stream erosion or clam tracks. Instead, most of the interfaces are sharply defined. Evolutionists are saying essentially that no evidence means evidence for long periods of time between formations.' 'After these discoveries, geologists began looking at the well-known formations throughout the world and discovered that most of them showed the characteristics of turbidite formation. Over half the depositions on North America have now been identified as turbidities and each year of study yields more which are falling to this concept.' 'The latter [sedimentary layers of Cambrian or later age] are worldwide phenomena and many of the formations cover areas of hundreds or thousands of square miles. Gradual deposition is precluded in the nature of turbidite formations.' I note that turbidities are formed rapidly by flows under water, but have a layered structure. The point of these quotes is that much of the geologic column is now recognized to have been laid down in this manner, now over half of the formations in North America. At present, there is hardly anywhere where this kind of turbidity activity is depositing a significant amount of sediment that will remain for any length of time. River deltas are about as close as one can come, and they are generally not flat like the great sedimentary deposits, and do not cover such a large area. So the evidence is that conditions in the past when these deposits were being laid down were much different than at present. Also, the fact that there is no worldwide unconformity above the Great Unconformity suggests that there was no break in this continuous pattern of deposition, and that the geologic column (up to some point, maybe somewhere in the Mesozoic) was laid down all at once. There are many evidences of catastrophic conditions in the geologic column, such as polystrate fossils, and fossils giving evidence of rapid burial. For example, a fossil of an 80 to 90 foot baleen whale was found by miners in diatomaceous earth near Lompoc, California. Here is the quote, from Coffin, page 37, about the Baleen whale: 'A recent discovery has caused scientists to begin rethinking the origin of the deposit. Miners found an 80 to 90 foot baleen whale in the white earth. If a long time was required to cover the huge mammal, the bones would not have remained attached together.' He mentions experiments that show that fish bones rapidly separate when the fish die and fall to the bottom, even if predators are kept away. So this really does seem to be an evidence of rapid burial. And this implies also that all of the well-preserved fossils that are found, were buried rapidly. This casts doubt on the idea that this deposit was laid down gradually. Fish fossils are sometimes found in the midst of eating other fish, or giving birth. I realize that geologists say the polystrate fossils (trees extending through many layers) fell into place later on, but these fossils are very common, and a logical corollary of catastrophic deposition. I think it is interesting that many igneous bodies have wide biostrategraphic limits. This implies that several geological periods are missing, with only a lava flow to show for it. This seems unlikely if these periods were really millions of years long, since there should be some evidence of their passing, but becomes more plausible if these periods were much shorter. Coffin (and creationists in general) have given many, many evidences of catastrophic conditions in the geologic column. As for Specimen Ridge, which has many layers of upright fossil trees on top of one another, Coffin gives a detailed analysis of this, showing that the assumption of many forests growing on top of one another is not realistic, and gives evidences for the mechanism of rapid transport of trees from somewhere else. He does this as well for the forests of Joggins Petrified Trees of Nova Scotia. I wish I had time to type in his quotes about the huge volcano eruptions of the past. These are not like anything we know today. Instead, great cracks opened up in the surface of the earth and great quantities of lava just gushed out. No need for a volcano at all! There have been similar eruptions recently, but much more minor. Such an event would of course have the possibility of enriching the atmosphere or water in Ar40 and making the lava appear old just because less Ar40 would escape. He also mentions that if the Americas and Europe-Africa separated at the assumed slow rate, there would have been enough runoff from erosion to keep the Atlantic Ocean full, so there would not be any Atlantic Ocean at all today. Now, I want to discuss evidences of erosion between geologic layers. The relative lack of erosion is evidence of rapid deposition and catastrophic conditions in the past. Coffin writes, 'Some geologists estimate that up to 40 percent of the sediments laid down in the past came from turbidity currents.' 93) And according to a later reference, the number has increased since then. Turbidities are associated with rapid deposition. As for the issue of uniformity, here is a quote from Coffin, page 104: 'Uniformity, however, has become through the years an inflexible and controlling element in geological research, not an hypothesis that one can discard if the facts don't fit. If the results of research don't support uniformity, the research is at fault. The scientist then initiates new research or reinterprets the facts even though he may have to bend or rearrange them unrealistically.' 'It is my firm opinion that the concept of uniformity has greatly delayed the advance of geological science. It has stagnated in some areas for years with little progress compared to other sciences. Some geologists have noted the condition but have not recognized the reason why.' (page 107) Coffin notes an increasing tendency to accept catastrophism in geology, however. He mentions Derek Ager's book, 'The Nature of the Stratigraphic Record,' which supports catastrophism. As for the degree of erosion between strata and evidence of catastrophism, Coffin writes of the grand canyon region (page 111): 'The strata extend for scores and even hundreds of miles with relatively little change in composition, texture, and thickness. We look in vain to find comparable beds forming today.' 'But such erosion and depositional features [gulleys and gorges, deltas etc.] are unknown for some of the beds, and the deposits are massive, quite homogeneous, and not typical of stream and river action.' He mentions giant mud cracks fifteen or more feet high in the geological record. 'However, when we look at the geological record and see thin, flat-lying beds extending sometimes for hundreds of miles, we are at a loss to find their modern counterparts.' (page 87) 'The deposits of the past often show essentially no evidence of erosion on their surfaces.' (page 88) 'In some places in the world we can trace very thin beds, only an inch or two thick, over hundreds of miles.' (page 89) 'Although we do find some erosion between certain beds, usually the amount is small compared to the nature of the earth's surface today.' (page 90) Coffin also gives evidence that the great coal beds were laid down rapidly. Anyway, I'd encourage readers to consult the book for details: Origin by Design, by Harold Coffin, 1983, Review and Herald Publishing Association. As for fossils, it has been proposed that water with certain unusual chemical compositions or certain kinds of bacteria can cause fossils to be preserved, even if rates of sedimentation are slow. This must be an unusual occurrence, since I don't ever recall seeing the bottom of a lake with zillions of well-preserved dead fish covered with preservative bacteria. In fact, I don't think that there is anywhere in the world today that fossils like those in the fossil record are forming, except possibly as a result of floods and rapid accumulations of sediment. So if the present is the key to the past, we should assume that such rapid accumulations of sediment occurred in the past, too, when all of these fossils formed. Otherwise, we are giving up on uniformitarianism to some extent. And what evidence is there that all of these well-preserved fossils were formed by such unusual conditions, anyway? Note that since well-preserved fossils imply rapid burial, and many fossils occur together, many creatures must have died at about the same time. Otherwise, their fossils would be widely separated in the rapidly falling sediment. Having many creatures die at once suggests catastrophic conditions. Someone claimed that Harold Coffin is clueless for promoting a catastrophist view of geology. Those who think that must think that Ager is clueless, too, for promoting a similar view in his book, 'The Nature of the Stratigraphic Record.' But remember that Ager is not a creationist, and people are generally not so free in their criticism of non-creationists. We have several evidences for catastrophism in the geologic column: 1.) Turbidities, which some geologists believe are very common. 2) Massive fossil deposits. 3) Geological layers whose boundaries are marked by little erosion or signs of plant or animal life. 4) Massive volcanic eruptions, unmatched by anything known today. All in all, I think the picture is convincing, even though there may be many other features that are not as easy to understand in this framework. Concerning the catastrophic nature of the geological record, here are some non-creationist references. 'Potentially more important to geological thinking are those unconformities that signal large chunks of geological history are missing, even though the strata on either side of the unconformity are perfectly parallel and show no evidence of erosion. Did millions of years fly by with no discernible effect? A possible though controversial inference is that our geological clocks and stratigraphic concepts need working on.' Corliss, Unknown Earth (Glen Arm, Maryland: The Sourcebook Project, 1980), p. RECORD IS CATASTROPHIC, DAVID M. RAUP, Chicago Field Museum, Univ. Of Chicago, 'A great deal has changed, however, and contemporary geologists and paleontologists now generally accept catastrophe as a 'way of life' although they may avoid the word catastrophe. The periods of relative quiet contribute only a small part of the record. The days are almost gone when a geologist looks at such a sequence, measures its thickness, estimates the total amount of elapsed time, and then divides one by the other to compute the rate of deposition in centimeters per thousand years. The nineteenth century idea of uniformitarianism and gradualism still exist in popular treatments of geology, in some museum exhibits, and in lower level textbooks.one can hardly blame the creationists for having the idea that the conventional wisdom in geology is still a noncatastrophic one.' Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin (Vol.54, March 1983), p.2 1 Cataclysmic burial, John R. Horner, '.there were 30 million fossil fragments in that area. At a conservative estimate, we had discovered the tomb of 10,000 dinosaurs [ Editorial note: Horner believes they were killed by volcanoes, then later buried by a flood].there was a flood. This was no ordinary spring flood from one of the streams in the area but a catastrophic inundation.That's our best explanation. It seems to make the most sense, and on the basis of it we believe that this was a living, breathing group of dinosaurs destroyed in one catastrophic moment.' DIGGING DINOSAURS, 1988, p.131 FOSSIL PROGRESSION?, DAVID M. RAUP, Chicago Field Museum, Prof. Of Geology, Univ. Of Chicago, 'A large number of well trained scientists outside of evolutionary biology and paleontology have unfortunately gotten the idea that the fossil record is far more Darwinian than it is. This probably comes from the oversimplification inevitable in secondary sources: lowlevel textbooks, semipopular articles, and so on. Also, there is probably some wishful thinking involved. In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, these have not been found yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks.One of the ironies of the creation-evolution debate is that the creationists have accepted the mistaken notion that the fossil record shows a detailed and orderly progression and they have gone to great lengths to accommodate this 'fact' in their Flood Geology.' New Scientist, Vol. 90, p.832, 1981 Rates of erosion As for the separation of the continents, I found some references about rates of erosion: (This is not a creationist source.) The span since the Precambrian is long enough, at present rates of erosion, for rivers to have shifted the equivalent of 25 to 30 times the bulk of the existing continental masses, but the rate of erosion and sedimentation is estimated to have increased with time. Such transitory streams, rivers, or creeks are noted for their gullying effects, especially for their rapid rates of erosion, transportation, and deposition. There have been reports of up to 8 feet (2 m) of deposition in 60 years and like amounts of erosion during a single flood event. Roughly contemporaneous with the time of the Aztec Empire, this period was characterized by what O'Hara described as 'staggeringly high' environmental impacts and erosion rates of 208 metric tons of soil per hectare (85 tons per acre) per year. All above quotes are from the online Encyclopedia Britannica, and the first one is from the article 'The River System through Time.' Anyway, rates of erosion can vary, but one would have to justify that they have been much smaller in the past. In addition, the fact that there are so many evidences of rapid erosion in the geologic column casts doubt on the statement that rates of erosion were slower then. I wanted to make an additional comment on the separation of the continents. The Americas are thought to have split off about 150 million years ago. Since the precambrian, erosion would have moved about 25 to 30 times the continental masses. Since 150 million years ago, it would be about 10 continental masses. Assuming half goes into the Atlantic and half into the Pacific, it would be about 5 continental masses each way. Now, the average depth of the oceans is less than 5 times the average elevation of the land, so this would be enough erosion to cover an ocean area equal to the combined area of the Americas, Europe, and Africa, which would easily fill the Atlantic Ocean. Of course, as sediment enters the water, the sea level would rise to some extent. Now, it is possible that this sediment would cause the crust of the earth beneath the Atlantic Ocean to sink to some extent. But since there is a fixed amount of mass beneath the crust, this would mean that the crust would have to rise somewhere else. Where would that be? Since the whole Atlantic would be covered with sediment, it is not likely that any place in the Atlantic would rise. The continents are massive, much more under sea level than above, so it is not likely that they would rise much, either. The oceans near the continents would be receiving erosion just like the Atlantic, so they would not rise much, either. The only place left would be somewhere near the middle of the Pacific Ocean. So, in order for this to rise, the downward force on the Atlantic would have to be transmitted through the 1800 miles of solid rock under the crust, to somewhere in the Pacific Ocean. This seems highly improbable. In fact, the amount of sediment entering the Atlantic would be even higher than I estimated above, since the mountain chains in the Americas are much closer to the Pacific than the Atlantic. Also, the Ural Mountains are on the eastern border of Europe, and the mountains of Africa are far to the east, having a similar effect. Of course, so much sediment entering the ocean would cause the sea level to rise, to some extent. This would further lower the level of the continents relative to the ocean, and tend to cause the earth to become flooded. Coffin mentions that at current rates of erosion, the Gulf of Mexico would fill up in 6 million years, for example. Objections have been raised to this estimate, which I now consider. It is possible that the crust of the earth would sink to some extent as matter infilled the Gulf of Mexico. But remember that the crust of the earth is about 4 miles thick under the oceans, and about 20 miles thick under the continents. So the thickness under the Gulf of Mexico would probably be in between these limits. In addition, there is 1800 miles of solid rock underneath the crust. The crust moves in plates, implying that it has considerable rigidity and would not bend easily. And note that infilling of sediment would replace water with sediment, so only the difference in density would add to the pressure on the crust. By the time the crust got around to bending, the Gulf would probably be almost full. Sediments do compact, meaning that more sediment would be required to fill the Gulf. But I believe that the measurement Coffin was referring to already took this fact into account. In addition, shells and bones continually fall to the bottom, and corals grow. Only an inch of accumulation in 100 years would lead to about a mile of sediment in 6 million years, even without erosion. The Gulf of Mexico is about 2 miles deep at its deepest part, except for one place near Mexico, so its average depth may be about a mile. All in all, the filling in of the Gulf of Mexico in 6 million years is not unreasonable. Coffin also notes that the current delta must have formed in at most a few thousand years, assuming the northern border of the Gulf of Mexico was initially straight. Thus one would have to assume that the Mississippi River had a different course, emptying into the Great lakes, as early as 5000 years ago to sustain the current chronology. Reliability of creationist sources The reliability of creationist sources is often questioned because those who write them are not always experts in the areas they write about. But I believe that their message is true, namely, God created the universe, the earth, and all that is in it, God created life on earth recently, and the earth since then has experienced a major catastrophe. If in a few instances creationist discussion of anomalies in radiometric dating is based on a misunderstanding of the literature, there are plenty of other acknowledged anomalies that they could have used just as well. All in all, I would much prefer creationist sources to the talk.origins FAQ and standard textbook treatments, which gloss over problems that specialists in the fields do not hesitate to admit, and present uniformitarianism, evolution, and radiometric dating as if these were beyond reproach. But I am thankful for the many voices being raised against this triumvirate of confusion, and believe that in the minds of many it is losing credibility, despite the resistance of establishment science. Most people only have time to become familiar with one of these three aspects, and so their doubts are calmed by belief in the evidence from the other two. But all three of them are in confusion. Once the were scratched, there is no way to repair even polishing. If it's not serious and has no influence to your vision, you can still wear it. However, if the damage is severe and affect its looking, you'd better change a new one immediately. The polishing will change the lenses' dioptric, do harm to your eyes. Baking Soda Paste to Remove Scratches. Wax Based Scratch Fillers to Temporarily Fill Scratches. Glass Etching Products for Removing Scratched Coatings. Preventing Your Sunglass or Eyeglass Lenses from Becoming Scratched. Glass lenses are much more scratch resistant than plastic (polycarbonate) ones. Glasses that are scratched. How can I take scratches out of eyeglasses. Visionworks and Eyemart Express offer one-hour service for basic prescription eyeglasses. Patients sometimes come into my office with scratched or scuffed lenses on their prescription eyeglasses or sunglasses. In many cases, the lenses are coated with a. How to Repair Scratched Eyeglass Lenses: This guide will guide you through the steps to repair a scratched lens in your eyeglasses. You must take care of your glasses, facial tissue rubbing and cloth wiping will not be the best choice to clean the glasses. You can softy absorb the water drops on the glasses and place it in the shade to dry after washing to prevent it from scratching. Impact Resistance Never worry about taking a face plant again. All our lenses provide crucial impact protection, meeting ANSI Z80.3 impact standards, the most severe basic impact requirement of any nation. And just in case you need extra protection, we’ve got that covered too. STANDARD IMPACT Keeps your eyes protected from the expected hazards of life outdoors, like small falling rocks while belaying or debris kicked up by the wind. HIGH IMPACT The gold standard of safety, our ANSI Z87.1 certified lenses are 10x stronger than glass so your eyes will survive crash landings, tipped foul balls, or frags on the shooting range. Advanced Features Not all lenses are created equal. Get that something extra to put your performance over the top. MIRRORSHIELD® Our MirrorShield® lenses not only hide your eyes, but allow you to customize your look with a variety of bold colors that reflect light as vibrantly as you do. They also come in handy if you ever find yourself in a poker tournament. PERFORMANCE COATINGS Our collection of premium coatings deny nearly anything that can cloud your vision. We’ve created a force field for your eyes, so you can venture into the most hostile conditions without losing your sight. 6 Ways to Remove Scratches from Sunglasses & Why They're All Bad Ideas By Kirsti Smouse May 19, 2015 Except For One Unless you live in a world made strictly of marshmallows, pillows, and eiderdown, you’ve probably encountered a scratched lens or two in your lifetime. Going out on a limb here, but it’s probably why you’re reading this article. You’ve got scratches, and you don’t want them. We don’t blame you. So, you’ve hit the internet in search of a fool-proof tutorial on how to remove scratches from sunglasses, and you’ve come across all manners of cure-alls in the form of ordinary household items. You know that adage, “If it seems too good to be true, it probably is?” This is pretty much always true — and it’s definitely true about scratch removal. What all those tutorials fail to mention is that you’re essentially ruining your lenses in the process of removing those scratches, if you can even get the scratch out at all. Instead of a list on how to remove scratches, we’re going to tell you why you shouldn’t waste your time, energy, and money on a fool’s errand. But it’s not all bad news — we don’t think you should live in a world with marred vision either. Which is why we’re going to tell you how to get rid of those scratches and still keep your favorite pair of sunglasses. But first, all the things you shouldn’t do: 1. Toothpaste & Baking Powder These methods take a long, long time, and they still might not prove effective. In theory, the micro-abrasives within the substances, when combined with force, can gently buff out the scratch. This theory isn’t wrong — eventually, the constant pressure and grit could wear the lens down to the point where the surface is even with the scratch’s depth. But it’s not going to happen in one application, or two, or probably even 25. You’re dealing with micro-abrasives that are safe and gentle enough to put in your mouth. If you think they’ll wear down that scratch in one go, you’ll be sorely disappointed. Unless you’re a fan of pruney fingers, have hours upon hours to devote to the task, and aren’t the type to be disappointed by lackluster results, you may just want to leave the toothpaste for your teeth and the baking soda for your kitchen cabinet. Sunscreen This method is applicable for lenses with mirror coating, and it does work. At least, it works if the scratch only affects the mirrored layer of the lens. If it cuts into the plastic or glass, you’ve still got problems. You can’t use a spot treatment with this method. If you’re going to use sunscreen to remove a scratch, you’ve got to remove the entire layer of mirror coating — dramatically altering the appearance of your lenses, the view tint, and the light transmission of the lens. If you have lenses that are not inherently UV protective (such as glass), then you’re also potentially stripping the UV coating from your lens, and subjecting your eyes to greater risk than if you were to simply go without sunglasses. Here's the science behind that: If you’re out in bright sunlight without anything shielding your eyes, your pupils shrink to limit the amount of light getting in. But if you stick a dark lens over your eye, the pupils dilate to capture as much light as possible. The problem is, if your lenses don’t have a UV filter, your expanded pupils are now taking in more dangerous UV rays, increasing the risk of cataracts and macular degeneration. Nothing about that situation sounds fun. Glass Etching Ironically, this shouldn’t actually be used on your glass lenses. You’d think from the name, but no. This method is only recommended for plastic lenses with a coating, because that’s what you’ll be stripping off to remove the scratch. The active ingredient in glass etching products is hydrofluoric acid, which is highly corrosive. It eats the top coating off of the plastic lens. This brings us back to the same quandary as the sunscreen. You can’t selectively decide which coatings will stay and which will go. If you strip one, you strip them all. Furniture & Car Wax Despite its place on nearly every list regarding scratch removal, wax, of any kind, should not be used on lenses. Cars or furniture, sure. The use of wax to hide a scratch in the leg of your armchair doesn’t hinder or mar the effectiveness of the chair. But one of the inherent properties of an effective lens is the ability to look through it. If you stick wax in your view, you’re simply exacerbating the problem. Sandpaper Yes, you read that correctly. One of the less-often touted methods is to use sandpaper to grind the lens down to the depth of the scratch, and then use a buffing wheel and wax to polish the lens back to a shine. It looks really good. Emphasis on the word look. It may also take up a substantial chunk of your evening. If the only thing you care about is getting rid of the scratch, and you don't particularly care about the effectiveness of your lens, then you’re good to go with this method. But if you think that altering the clarity, refraction, and possibly the prescription of your lens, while also stripping all those beneficial coatings such as hydrophobic, anti-glare, and UV protection is not the best plan, then it may be best to steer clear of this one. If you really need an excuse to use a power tool, go hang some shelves in your garage. The world could always use more shelves. And now, the moment you’ve been waiting for — the best solution to getting rid of scratches and back to using your sunglasses... New Replacement Lenses Did you even know this was an option? Most people don't. They assume a scratched lens means the end to their entire pair of sunglasses. $100+ down the drain. Another pair of sunglasses thrown into the junk drawer. Not any more. This option is typically far less expensive than purchasing brand new sunglasses. You can keep using the sunglasses you already own and you won't need to mess around with DIY methods that probably won't end up working anyway. Replacement lenses are a guaranteed fix for getting rid of scratches. Here's why you should check them out: • Revant replacement lenses start at $24 • The installation process is quick and easy — there are videos for how to remove and install lenses for every frame • There are SO many ways you can customize your look — including polarized, mirrored, photochromic, and clear lenses • FREE shipping (both ways) in the US • No-hassle 60-day satisfaction guarantee and a 1-year warranty. If you order before noon on a weekday, they'll ship the same day. If you don't see your sunglasses on the list, we can cut lenses specifically for your frames right here in the US.. Save yourself the time, money, and disappointment of 'how to remove scratches from sunglasses' tutorials. You’ll be better off for it. You might also like... Disclaimer Revant and the Revant logo are trademarks of Revant LLC. Revant LLC is not associated with 100%, 5.11 Tactical, Adidas, Arnette, Bolle, Costa, Dragon, DVX Eyewear, Electric, Fox Racing, Harley Davidson, Hoven, Julbo, Kaenon, Maui Jim, Native, Nike, Oakley, Ray-Ban, Revo, Rudy Project, Smith, Spy Optic, Suncloud, Tifosi, Under Armour, VonZipper, Wiley X or Transitions, Vantage, XTRActive, and these companies do not endorse, sponsor, support or associate with Revant LLC products. Any usage of their trademarks is only to describe the products bearing those marks. ABSTRACT Depression in children and adolescents The article gives an overview of the current knowledge of depression among youth with a special emphasis on biological models. The first section focuses on prevalence and course of depression, and on biological and psychosocial vulnerabilities and their interactions. Lastly, assessment, treatment and prevention are discussed. Treatments and prevention strategies are generally multimodal and should aim to include biological and psychological components, while also addressing and reducing risk factors in the youths’ environment. Residual symptoms of depression greatly increase the chances of relapse. In conclusion, depression in youth is an under diagnosed and undertreated disorder with important implications for health authorities and the society. An important agenda should be to target early detection and treatment of depression in children and adolescents and focus on preventive measures and provide appropriate interventions. Depression in children and adolescents The article gives an overview of the current knowledge of depression among youth with a special emphasis on biological models. The first section focuses on prevalence and course of depression, and on biological and psychosocial vulnerabilities and their interactions. Lastly, assessment, treatment and prevention are discussed. Treatments and prevention strategies are generally multimodal and should aim to include biological and psychological components, while also addressing and reducing risk factors in the youths’ environment. Residual symptoms of depression greatly increase the chances of relapse. In conclusion, depression in youth is an under diagnosed and undertreated disorder with important implications for health authorities and the society. An important agenda should be to target early detection and treatment of depression in children and adolescents and focus on preventive measures and provide appropriate interventions. 14,8 millioner amerikanere lider av depresjon. Leger ofte avhengige av. Utbruddet av selvmordstanker eller handlinger. Dette er mest vanlig hos unge voksne. Depresjon hos barn og unge kjennetegnes av tristhet og/eller at barnet eller ungdommen er irritable det meste av dagen, nesten hver dag i minst 14 dager sammenhengende. Nasjonale retningslinjer for diagnostisering og behandling av voksne med depresjon i. Biologiske modeller, utredning, behandling og forebygging av depresjon hos unge. Proteus mirabilis er en bakterier som vanligvis finnes i den menneskelige tarmkanalen. Den Proteus organisme er en del av den normale sammensetningen av den. Tillegg 87 vanskelig 87 bra 86 forteller 86 hvert 86 leder 86 eksempel 85 stortinget 85 frem 84 hver 84 klart 84 millioner 84 svalbard 84 hos 83 legger 83 lenge. Akkurat 52 barna 52 mann 52 medlemmer 52 selvsagt 52 sikre 52 byen 51 dager 51 eget 51 enda 51 imidlertid 51 justin 51 snakker 51 trondheim 51 unge 51. Be it a guy, a gal, or even a unicorn – none have ever escaped the charm of a Virgo woman! Attractive, brainy, and perfect (of course), dating this maiden is like living with a member of the Censor board! She exposes your flaws left and right, but oh! She means well! Interested in dating a Virgo woman? Want to know what it takes to win her heart and captivate her mind? The Virgo female is charming, but will always take control. Find out what it is like to date a Virgo woman. Free monthly horoscope for Virgo. The full moon on September 6 th will fall on your partnership house. My best friend and I are both Virgos, and though we are very different, we share in some core values that our Virgo-to-Virgo connection only highlights. We look for the best in people, we're loyal to a fault, we overthink everything, we're perfection. Cameron Diaz may have been a “Bad Teacher” but Virgo women, generally, make amazing instructors because they always know best! (Well, that logic would make them good mothers too, and Mother Gothel would agree with me!) A stonewall on one hand and a hopeless romantic on the other, the conflicting personas of a Virgo woman in love is going to keep you guessing the entire time. But what is love if not a little challenging?! “Is the Virgin a chaste little saint?” you ask me. Oopsy, I am going to burst your bubble! A Virgo woman in love needs to be worshiped; love is a verb, a doing word! She wants you to take action, not just sit there blowing your own horn! Suggested read: P.S. When in a relationship with a Virgo lassie, I suggest you get yourself registered at several libraries! If you are not up to date on the world, she won’t even think twice before cutting you lose! Virgo Woman In Love. When Virgo woman falls in love, she will probably get scared at first. If this happens outside of a relationship, she will probably be so shy that it will become impossible for her to start a relationship at all. She likes to be swept of her feet by a partner who makes the first move. This allows her to feel. Sexual Compatibility between Virgo and Aries - read how the stars influence your sex life and love astrology. In spite of my warnings, if you still want to proceed, do so with caution. We, here are going to advise you about the 8 things you MUST know about loving a Virgo woman! Inspector Morse! Alexis Bledel Image source: Google, copyright-free image under Creative Commons License Loving a Virgo woman is more like working on your financial accounts with an IRS auditor! She is the analyzer: what you say, how you do what you do, why you eat with a fork, and even why you chew odd number of times; every single detail is inspected! She is will judge you every moment, but you, comrade, dare not make any comments about what you think of her! Else, it’s game over! Not because she disagrees with you, but how dare you tell her about what’s wrong? That’s her job, remember?! If you want to know the extent of this evaluating worm, make a suggestion of adopting a pet. Her reply is sure to be, “Let’s have a look at the situation we have here. I am up by 6. I will have to feed and take it for a stroll! Then I need to go to buy 3 packets of cereal which will cost $30.” Period! A dope to probe. Beyonce Image source: Google, copyright-free image under Creative Commons License She is Mother Teresa when it comes to healing and waving a hand of love to do away with any chaos in your life. The Mother was a Virgo! Moving forward, a Virgo woman in love will help her man solve any and every problem he might go through (not just because she loves him, it’s because cracking problems give her a high!). The universe is in order because of the Virgos (ATLEAST THAT IS WHAT SHE THINKS!). Her clarity of thought will help her break your problem into a number of compartments and then deal with them part by part, with surgical precision. Just imagine what will happen if you ever become her ‘problem’?! Juicer, take it slow! Blake Lively Image source: Flickr A Virgo woman is wrongly accused of being cold in a relationship. Just because she has a calm demeanor doesn’t in any way mean she is a pumpkin! She is an onion (bingo!): one has to peel her one layer at a time! Beneath the cool surface is the real Virgo! Virgo women in love are zealous and passionate. She will try not to puke out all her secrets to you because she doesn’t want to become vulnerable (an unbearable thought to this Polar she-bear!). Patience is your answer! Court her and work your brains out to impress her. And then, Voila! She will be fully devoted to you (after so much trouble, who wouldn’t?) Slow but never late. If you ever keep her waiting at a dinner date, this trick is the only savior: Walk in furiously. If you are lucky enough she will ask you what’s wrong! Tell her that the line at the ‘library’ (golden word!) delayed you due to a lack of efficiency. She’ll forget about her angst and tell you all about her recent read on guidelines and protocols! Bless your soul, Linda Goodman! “Heel” the world. Cameron Diaz Image source: Pinterest Miranda Priestly from ‘The Devil Wears Prada,’ probably was a Virgo because one, she wore Prada, and two, she was a pain! Fussy is the Virgo woman’s alias! When dating a Virgo woman, your conversations on fashion will have reflections of: Miranda: “You have no sense of fashion!” Andrea: “I think that depends on” Miranda: “No, no, that wasn’t a question.” A Virgo woman in love will expect her partner to wear an Armani three piece suit while going to bed, because while going out she wants you to don the Stuart Hughes Diamond Edition! A fussy fashionista to the core! Suggested read: 5. Melissa McCarthy Image source: Flickr A Virgo woman in love is in no way going to let you cast your (untidy) shadow on her independence. “Cut the apron strings,” is her favorite saying, right after, “Baby, let’s do the dishes”! While loving a Virgo woman, make sure not to offer a helping hand when she is in trouble (washing dishes is not trouble!). That’s offensive, can’t you see?! She is intelligent enough to handle her own problems. However, the only drag here is that complications occur because she won’t accept any kind of help, even intellectual! But if you master the art of giving her space and pass on the suggestions from across the fence, you will have nothing to worry about your bond with the Virgo! Me, myself, and intuition. Salma Hayek Image source: Google, copyright-free image under Creative Commons License Virgos absolutely love talking about their daily grind! (P.S.: The phrase ‘back to the grind’ doesn’t work with them because they never left the grind!) While this should dominate 90% of your conversations with your lady, the rest should involve bizarre pets. I have Salma Hayek to my rescue when she says, “ Every unwanted animal ends up on my farm: alpacas and horses and dogs and cats and chickens and ducks and parrots and fish and guinea pigs!” You might even talk to her about her collection of butterflies or stamps (or worries!), but only when you know you are allowed to! While in conversation, never end it on a vague note. That ticks her off. She is a sucker for closures. The talk should end either on a disagreement (more likely so), or an agreement but not a “maybe”: the Virgo woman’s worst nightmare! Also, brush up on etiquette and your grammar, of course. She may be soft, but one abusive word and you know where you are getting kicked! You will, under no circumstances, pass scrutiny with shabbiness. A #NoShaveNovember is a complete NO! Set fire to the rain. Shania Twain Image source: Google, copyright-free image under Creative Commons License Unless you are intimate, you ain’t getting any, brah! If you are planning to drive it “fast and furious,” a crash is confirmed! Unlike her male counterpart, a Virgo woman in love appreciates roses, sunsets, and perfumed love letters! Role playing is her favorite part, but no kinkiness, please! Did you ever imagine how this cold fish could get wild? Well, tell me about it! I will confess that the sizzling, sexual aspect of love is somewhat cowed in the classic Virgo woman, but there’s an enigmatic, soft, waiting eminence in her. ‘Passion of the chi’ is a most pleasing standby to gentlemen who choose the suaveness of a classy romance. Suggested read: A Virgo woman in Alice’s wonderland would, without a shadow of a doubt, be a Mock Turtle. She means what she says! She is the female Ozymandias, “whose frown, and wrinkled lip and sneer cold command, tell that its sculptor well those passions read!” A Virgo woman in love likes being told by her partner how beautiful she is. Does that in any way remind you of Snow White’s stepmom? Featured image source: Pinterest. Virgo is the sixth sign of the Zodiac and includes all those born from 23rd of August to 23rd of September. A desire for perfection marks the Virgo personality as well as the dynamics of their personal relationships. Read on to know the best way to date a Virgo woman and match up to her standards. TIP: Know your Virgo girl - ask her the right questions. Try ', the best-selling book available from Amazon.com. Virgos are nothing if not perfectionists. If given a job, they will drown themselves in it and emerge only when it is done. But done, according to the highest standards in their personal rulebook. This is because they believe that if a thing is worth doing, it is worth doing well. So if you are planning to ask your Virgo girlfriend out this Friday evening, make sure that you have planned the date down to the last detail - like the color of the ribbon on the bouquet of flowers. Virgos do not like shoddy work and if she finds you careless about dates, she may see this as a hint that you tend to take personal relationships with equal nonchalance. Another trait which closely goes with their perfectionism is the Virgo’s meticulous nature. They go into the heart of every issue or task and examine it with minute detail. So you can expect the same close attention focused on your relationship. Your Virgo girlfriend may go into the implications of every word and gesture from you, especially in the early stages of your relationship when she still doesn’t know you very well. On the other hand, you may be flattered by the effort she will take to make you happy or the hard work that she will willingly put into the relationship. On your birthday, she may just decide to surprise with a home-cooked dinner, complete with sparkling dinnerware, your favorite music and the champagne cooled to the exact degree of perfection. One of the most pleasing aspects of a Virgo girlfriend is her willingness to help. Like others of her Zodiac she is not one to shy away from hard work and commitment, especially if it will help others in some way. Perhaps this is because she is ruled by the planet Mercury who in classical Roman mythology was the extremely busy messenger of gods, racing against time to deliver missives from one divine being to another. While this trait of selfless service can be one of the top draws in a woman, if overdone it is likely to scare many a guy away. A Virgo woman can easily become insistent and overbearing in her desire to do something for someone but especially to do it in the right way. Eve though, Virgos bear the symbol of the Virgin, it does not automatically stand to imply that they are prudish or sexually repressed. While wild passion does not rank among their top priorities in a romantic relationship, they do not shy away from coming close to their partners – albeit in a more private and inhibited manner. The zodiac symbol of the Virgin rather implies the modest and humane nature of Virgos. According to an interesting account, the Virgin actually symbolizes the goddess of the harvest. Depicted with a sheaf of corn in her hand, she stands for the fruit of labor or the harvest that one reaps after putting in the right amount of hard work. This too is an apt symbol for Virgos who are known for their industrious nature. The downside of the Virgo’s meticulous and industrious personality is they are apt to become the warning signs of the “All work and no play” syndrome. It is not uncommon to find workaholics among the ranks of Virgos and your girlfriend too may be one of them. So if you find your date appearing almost an hour late on account of being held up at work or even putting in some overtime on a Friday evening, more likely than not she is a Virgo. While this overlapping of the professional life into personal time may be disconcerting for her partner, it is well to remember that a Virgo woman will bring the same amount of dedication and investment into a relationship when the latter gets her full attention. The flipside of a Virgo’s drive for perfectionism is an exacting even critical nature. She may judge her partner by the same impossibly-high standards that she holds in her own life and demand that he too maintain them in their personal relationship. This may be asking for too much from a guy who is content to laze away the better part of a Sunday in the company of beer cans or who does not think too much of the fact that he did not celebrate the second anniversary of the first time he had kissed his girlfriend. But if that girlfriend is a Virgo, she is likely not only to remember the day but even notice that her partner has forgotten all about it. The element associated with Virgos is the Earth and this is in keeping with their grounded natures. A Virgo woman will thus be practical and concerned with activities which have a tangible outcome. Blessed with a sensible mind and a discriminating eye, she will be attracted only to those ventures, professional as well as personal, which can be taken to a logical conclusion. The airy brilliance of Geminis or the flowing imagination of the Pisceans is not for her. Rather she will give more attention to details of your credit rating, the kind of relationship you share with your parents and whether your tie matches the jacket. One of the interesting aspects of the meticulous nature of Virgos is the attention they pay to matters of health and diet. So while dating your Virgo girlfriend, you may be given a lowdown on the merits of organic food and the best way to avoid cardio-vascular problems in future. While all this may appear sententious to some guys, the truth is few things in life are as important as sound health. And what better way to follow a balanced lifestyle than have the love of your life inspire you towards it! • to post comments •. Sygic Travel: Trip Planner Travel Map for your next Holiday Sygic Travel is the best way to discover places to go. Sygic Travel aggregates things to do from around the World and shows them on a map, prioritized by their popularity among travelers. The Park Avenue Armory Conservancy is a not-for-profit organization dedicated to restoring the Park Avenue Armory and bringing it back to life as a dynamic center for the visual and performing arts, following a model of adaptive reuse for artistic uses found in several European and American cities, but not in New York. Results 1 - 48 of 712358. Shop from the world's largest selection and best deals for Men's Athletic Shoes. Shop with confidence on eBay! Incontri lecce e provincia Software voor Windows 49 Dots voor Windows 8 gebruikt een bekend spelconcept: je moet zoveel mogelijk puntjes van dezelfde kleur in een raster met elkaar. With a rubber target grip, the European American Armory (EAA) Windicator Pistol gives you comfort and control at the time of fire. Guida-incontri.it at KeyOptimize. Confronto gratuito: siti di incontri ed annunci personali, annunci erotici, agenzie matrimoniali, chat per incontri. Artsy is the online resource for art collecting and education. Discover, learn about, and buy art you'll love, featuring fine art, design, and photography from leading galleries, museums, art fairs, and auctions. Incontri per adulti pordenone Buy resume for writer veterans sito incontri giovani Rated annunci sexy torino 3 stars, based on cerco uomo per matrimonio 82 customer reviews incontri donne bologna. Of omaha has signed an agreement to resume construction of a new veterans affairs contact the writer: 402-444 buy & sell. Save places that you like to your favorites to create your own travel bucket list. Build your Travel Itinerary with Sygic Travel: Trip Planner Use the integrated online itinerary maker to create a day-by-day itinerary for your trip. Anything you find on Sygic Travel can be added to your trip, including your hotel or add custom places of your own. Sygic Travel automatically calculates the travel distance and time estimate for each day of your trip. Your trip can span multiple weeks and multiple destinations. Sygic Travel Mobile App - A Smart Travel Guide in your Pocket Download the free Sygic Travel mobile app to have your personal travel guide always with you. Any changes you make to your trip are always synced to all your devices. With Sygic Travel Premium, Sygic Travel mobile app also allows you to pre-download maps and destination data and use the app offline. Available for,. Don't have a smartphone? You can also get your itinerary in a PDF file and print it out.|||| In order to use Sygic Travel, enable JavaScript and reload this page. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
February 2018
Categories |