What factor reduces the accuracy of radiocarbon dating
The age that these groups claim to find is usually on the order of thousands or tens of thousands of years old.
mainstream accepted date for the age of these bones (several dozens of million years old).Contamination of this kind amounting to 1 percent of the carbon in a sample 25,000 years old would make it appear to be about 1,500 years younger than its actual age.Such contamination would, however, reduce the apparent age of a 60,000-year-old object by almost 50 percent.This, of course, raises some ethical questions, but let's brush these aside for now.We proceed with the examination of the research done by Miller and his fellow researchers from the CRSEF.It's accuracy has been verified by using C-14 to date artifacts whose age is known historically.
The fluctuation of the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere over time adds a small uncertainty, but contamination by "modern carbon" such as decayed organic matter from soils poses a greater possibility for error. Thomas Seiler, a physicist from Germany, gave the presentation in Singapore.
Dinosaurs are not dated with Carbon-14, yet some researchers have claimed that there is still Carbon-14 in the bones. Do these data indicate that a more accurate method needs to be derived?
What solutions are available for increasing accuracy of the tests? From the source linked above: Carbon-14 is considered to be a highly reliable dating technique.
At a horizon of 40,000 years the amount of carbon 14 in a bone or a piece of charcoal can be truly minute: such a specimen may contain only a few thousand 14C atoms.
Consequently equally small quantities of modern carbon can severely skew the measurements.
The claims are really quite spectacular, when taken at face value, and therefore should be examined thoroughly.