I remember reading about it as a kid, in 1990s creationist books that were attempting to argue that carbon dating couldn't be trusted and the world was actually only 6,000 years old.
Yes. Most of the research on C14 dating since its inception has concentrated on quantifying this for different environments, sample types, and dates, or quantifying other effects that give results other than a smooth exponential decay. I'm not clear why this was published. Any C14 lab is aware of this sort of issue. There are also non-C14 techniques available for human remains, e.g. ESR (electron spin resonance) dating.
I thought this was a well known effect - it's certainly filtered down to some paperback popsci archaeology books I've read in the past few years.
This appears to be a comment, highlighting a case study that demonstrates the effect in detail.
It is not purporting to show it as 'new'.
I remember reading about it as a kid, in 1990s creationist books that were attempting to argue that carbon dating couldn't be trusted and the world was actually only 6,000 years old.
Yes. Most of the research on C14 dating since its inception has concentrated on quantifying this for different environments, sample types, and dates, or quantifying other effects that give results other than a smooth exponential decay. I'm not clear why this was published. Any C14 lab is aware of this sort of issue. There are also non-C14 techniques available for human remains, e.g. ESR (electron spin resonance) dating.
Yep. I suspected that that arctic shark couldn't be so old.
I think the age is calculated counting the "rings" in ... [looking at google] ... the vertebrae.
Defiling the dead bodies of monks...
"He is a grave-robber; you are a treasure hunter; I am an archaeologist."