Truth is ever to be found in simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things. - Sir Isaac Newton
Friday, November 6, 2009
2009 Nuclear Dating - Group 3
10 comments:
692130
said...
The group doesn't discuss what a radioisotope is, or what it does. However, they both present a strong case for and against nuclear dating. It is not always accuarate, as who knows how much of a substance was there originally? We could use the fossil method instead. The defendant argues that it can easily determine the age of a rock sample, and is accurate nearly 100%of the time. Moreso, it is safe, with no negative or harmful side effects. The defense makes a more clear point to me, but both sides were very well prepared.
This group clearly addressed the unique nature of a radioisotope that allows nuclear dating to exist. They explained that, using radioactive elements, scientists can determine the age of certain things, such as rocks or bones. Scientists can use the known decay rate of radioactive elements to calculate the length of time to produce a "daughter element", which is formed after the decay of a parent or radioactive element. From this explanation, I could understand how radioactive dating came to be known as "the clock in the rocks". The arguments in defense of the technology were as follows. They claimed that radioactive dating was safe, and can tell us much more about our environment and the natural age of the past. They agreed that it does have a few flaws, as it is still in the early stages of use, and that it would be bad to halt its experimental growth and never find out the history of our earth. Radioactive dating allows us to see into the secrets of humanity that were previously unknown. The biggest flaw with radioactive dating, is that it is not always accurate. For example, there are three times in the past where this method of dating has failed. Using the Potassium-Argon method of dating, scientists claimed that rocks that were only 50 years old were actually 3.5 million years old. The substance that was 3.5 million years old ended up being a gas, but not part of the rocks that they were trying to date. This is another problem. Over time, other substances can be added to a sample, which makes the method further inaccurate. Also, no one truly knows how much of a given sample was initially present. It was also argued that the many different methods of dating do not agree with radioactive dating. Finally, radioactive dating in this particular case was funded by taxpayers, many of whom were not satisfied with the results, and who felt like it went against their religious beliefs (that God created the earth, so we know the date of everything from the Bible). With all of this information, especially the proven inaccuracy, it seems like the cons outweigh the pros when it comes to radioactive dating.
Although they explain how radioactive isotopes are used in their technology, they don't explain what radioactive isotopes are. The negative aspects that were brought up were that it isn't always accurate. The positives are that it is useful for dating artifacts, and is completely safe. It isn't always accurate, but it is the best we have. The defense seems much more convincing.
This group was able to clearly express the unique nature of the radioisotope that allowed nuclear dating to exist. Basically, Radioactive elements within a substance can be used to determine the age of that substance by recording how much of the radioactive element has decayed. In defense of nuclear dating, they mentioned that radioactive dating is safe, and also in its infant stage and must be further developed and researched. However, the negative aspects of nuclear dating was explained by how radioactive dating failed in three cases in the past and was not always accurate. This method also violated some of the claims of religious institutions and caused tensions within that field as well. All in all it makes more sense to me now some of the controversies behind radioactive dating but I feel that radioactive dating is still relatively new, as they mentioned in the video and must be further researched and studied.
This group explains nuclear dating very well, but doesn’t address the nature of a radioisotope that would allow it to be possible. The arguments in defense of nuclear dating are that it is safe, it tells us useful information, and has potential for improvement. The arguments against it are that nuclear dating is unreliable and can be inaccurate. They use specific evidence to back up each claim. The defense makes more sense to me since although the method is not perfect, it can potentially be improved.
This group clearly shows the use of a radio isotope when it comes to radioactive dating, explaining how it can determine the age of various items. The defense proposed that it is a useful and safe way to tell the past of the current environment. Even though it has a few flaws, it is still a growing process and wouldn't be a good idea to stop. Problem with radioactive dating is that it has failed a couple times in the past, and with the possibility of new substances being added on creates further inaccuracy. In the end, the pros seem to be better since it helps us understand more about the planet we live on.
This group didn't address exactly what a radioisotope was. They did however state pros and cons to radio isotopes. The prosector says that they need to funds that are more accurate and the defendant says that they are beneficial and they should keep on getting used because they can determine the age of rock samples and that radiodactive dating is safe. Radioactive dating does make more sense to me. I know more about what it is and what it is used for. I found out benefits and controversial topics about radioactive dating.
This group addressed what a radioisotope does and its unique properties only in passing and did not seem to clarify the specifics later in the video. I would, in this case, side with the prosecution. Here’s why: The Defense uses the fact that there are few known harmful side effects as a focal point of their argument. This is a weak strategy because the aftermath is only one piece of dating and has very little to do with the prosecution’s argument. The Prosecution itself argues that radioactive dating is inaccurate. The defense argues that it’s the best we have to deal with and that it’s safe. It seems like the prosecution’s argument itself is dodged rather than answered. I liked this video because it offered a different take on dating then the previous videos. I also think if the defense’s argument had been cleaned up just a bit I might feel differently about who was correct. Good job, guys!
Radioactive dating allows us to understand our environment better. The group has convincing arguments on both positive and negative reasons to trust radioactive dating. On the positive side it allows there to be a better understanding of the past and how it is almost completely accurate. However, on the negative side it is not always right and can lead to mistakes. Additionally, according to this group the people were being taxed to pay for the radioactive dating. The group did not discuss the function of radioisotopes but had a very persuasive defense argument.
I believe the group did not address the unique nature of a radioisotope that allows this particular technology to exist. I do believe they gave a great definition od carbon dating. I also believe the group did a great job summarizing the arguments used in both the defence and the prosection of this nuclear technology. The arguments used in the defense was that it isa safe process that tells us much about our environment. It also proves that science is not always accurate. The arguments used in the prosecution of the case where that i is not always accurate and people get upset if they pay for information that is not credible. Carbon datin determines the age of a mass. It can also determine the length of time to produce daughter elements. This subject, carbon dating makes more sense to me than it did begore. However, I believe that carbon dating should remain "lawful" because we have no other way of detemining the age of certain elements on earth. -628770
10 comments:
The group doesn't discuss what a radioisotope is, or what it does. However, they both present a strong case for and against nuclear dating. It is not always accuarate, as who knows how much of a substance was there originally? We could use the fossil method instead. The defendant argues that it can easily determine the age of a rock sample, and is accurate nearly 100%of the time. Moreso, it is safe, with no negative or harmful side effects. The defense makes a more clear point to me, but both sides were very well prepared.
This group clearly addressed the unique nature of a radioisotope that allows nuclear dating to exist. They explained that, using radioactive elements, scientists can determine the age of certain things, such as rocks or bones. Scientists can use the known decay rate of radioactive elements to calculate the length of time to produce a "daughter element", which is formed after the decay of a parent or radioactive element. From this explanation, I could understand how radioactive dating came to be known as "the clock in the rocks".
The arguments in defense of the technology were as follows. They claimed that radioactive dating was safe, and can tell us much more about our environment and the natural age of the past. They agreed that it does have a few flaws, as it is still in the early stages of use, and that it would be bad to halt its experimental growth and never find out the history of our earth. Radioactive dating allows us to see into the secrets of humanity that were previously unknown.
The biggest flaw with radioactive dating, is that it is not always accurate. For example, there are three times in the past where this method of dating has failed. Using the Potassium-Argon method of dating, scientists claimed that rocks that were only 50 years old were actually 3.5 million years old. The substance that was 3.5 million years old ended up being a gas, but not part of the rocks that they were trying to date. This is another problem. Over time, other substances can be added to a sample, which makes the method further inaccurate. Also, no one truly knows how much of a given sample was initially present. It was also argued that the many different methods of dating do not agree with radioactive dating. Finally, radioactive dating in this particular case was funded by taxpayers, many of whom were not satisfied with the results, and who felt like it went against their religious beliefs (that God created the earth, so we know the date of everything from the Bible).
With all of this information, especially the proven inaccuracy, it seems like the cons outweigh the pros when it comes to radioactive dating.
Although they explain how radioactive isotopes are used in their technology, they don't explain what radioactive isotopes are.
The negative aspects that were brought up were that it isn't always accurate.
The positives are that it is useful for dating artifacts, and is completely safe. It isn't always accurate, but it is the best we have.
The defense seems much more convincing.
This group was able to clearly express the unique nature of the radioisotope that allowed nuclear dating to exist. Basically, Radioactive elements within a substance can be used to determine the age of that substance by recording how much of the radioactive element has decayed.
In defense of nuclear dating, they mentioned that radioactive dating is safe, and also in its infant stage and must be further developed and researched.
However, the negative aspects of nuclear dating was explained by how radioactive dating failed in three cases in the past and was not always accurate. This method also violated some of the claims of religious institutions and caused tensions within that field as well.
All in all it makes more sense to me now some of the controversies behind radioactive dating but I feel that radioactive dating is still relatively new, as they mentioned in the video and must be further researched and studied.
This group explains nuclear dating very well, but doesn’t address the nature of a radioisotope that would allow it to be possible.
The arguments in defense of nuclear dating are that it is safe, it tells us useful information, and has potential for improvement. The arguments against it are that nuclear dating is unreliable and can be inaccurate. They use specific evidence to back up each claim.
The defense makes more sense to me since although the method is not perfect, it can potentially be improved.
407862
This group clearly shows the use of a radio isotope when it comes to radioactive dating, explaining how it can determine the age of various items.
The defense proposed that it is a useful and safe way to tell the past of the current environment. Even though it has a few flaws, it is still a growing process and wouldn't be a good idea to stop.
Problem with radioactive dating is that it has failed a couple times in the past, and with the possibility of new substances being added on creates further inaccuracy.
In the end, the pros seem to be better since it helps us understand more about the planet we live on.
This group didn't address exactly what a radioisotope was. They did however state pros and cons to radio isotopes. The prosector says that they need to funds that are more accurate and the defendant says that they are beneficial and they should keep on getting used because they can determine the age of rock samples and that radiodactive dating is safe. Radioactive dating does make more sense to me. I know more about what it is and what it is used for. I found out benefits and controversial topics about radioactive dating.
This group addressed what a radioisotope does and its unique properties only in passing and did not seem to clarify the specifics later in the video.
I would, in this case, side with the prosecution. Here’s why:
The Defense uses the fact that there are few known harmful side effects as a focal point of their argument. This is a weak strategy because the aftermath is only one piece of dating and has very little to do with the prosecution’s argument.
The Prosecution itself argues that radioactive dating is inaccurate. The defense argues that it’s the best we have to deal with and that it’s safe. It seems like the prosecution’s argument itself is dodged rather than answered.
I liked this video because it offered a different take on dating then the previous videos. I also think if the defense’s argument had been cleaned up just a bit I might feel differently about who was correct. Good job, guys!
Radioactive dating allows us to understand our environment better. The group has convincing arguments on both positive and negative reasons to trust radioactive dating. On the positive side it allows there to be a better understanding of the past and how it is almost completely accurate. However, on the negative side it is not always right and can lead to mistakes. Additionally, according to this group the people were being taxed to pay for the radioactive dating. The group did not discuss the function of radioisotopes but had a very persuasive defense argument.
509855
I believe the group did not address the unique nature of a radioisotope that allows this particular technology to exist. I do believe they gave a great definition od carbon dating. I also believe the group did a great job summarizing the arguments used in both the defence and the prosection of this nuclear technology.
The arguments used in the defense was that it isa safe process that tells us much about our environment. It also proves that science is not always accurate.
The arguments used in the prosecution of the case where that i is not always accurate and people get upset if they pay for information that is not credible. Carbon datin determines the age of a mass. It can also determine the length of time to produce daughter elements.
This subject, carbon dating makes more sense to me than it did begore. However, I believe that carbon dating should remain "lawful" because we have no other way of detemining the age of certain elements on earth.
-628770
Post a Comment