Talk:Fluorine absorption dating

Comment

since this is described as a technique, it seems appropriate to at least mention the uses to which it is put. i.e. is it a technique for archaeological/paleontological dating, or for materials of much more recent origin, as in forensic science/criminology?Toyokuni3 (talk) 19:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a practical use from history - - - According to the 'Natural History Museum at Tring' (UK) and the WP article on the Piltdown man, in 1912, a "discovery" was made near Piltdown, Sussex, England, of a 500,000 yo Human ancestor. An ambitious amateur, Charles Dawson, made the "find" in a gravel pit. Starting in 1913, papers began appearing correctly identifying the assemblage as a Human skull paired with an Ape jaw whose teeth had been filed to Human shape (also, there were fossilized Chimpanzee teeth in the mix) and the whole thing stained for an aged appearance. It was in 1949, the new fluorine absorption test proved the assemblage was far newer than claimed; the skull was no more than 50,000 yo and the jaw was a recent Ape death. Dawson has been named the fraudster as many of his other "finds" have likewise proved to be hoaxes.

Thank you for your time, Wordreader (talk) 17:09, 22 May 2024 (UTC)k[reply]

Effective range

Does anyone know what time ranges it is effective for? Ashmoo (talk) 15:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

how significant or important is this?

We have it as a full subheader within "Fluorine", but I am thinking to squash it down to a sentence. Seems less notable than C-14 or heavy isotope dating.TCO (reviews needed) 00:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]