Radiometric Dating question...
 

Heya everyone.

In a geology class I am currently enrolled in, our prof provided us with the following question:

Since the question involves Carbon-14 and Nitrogen-14 I assumed the question related to Radiometric Dating, but I could be wrong.

Any help with this would be greatly appreciated, and if you are so inclined, an explanation of how you came about getting the answer would also be appreciated.

Right now, I am more concerned with the answer.. But down the road I am likely going to need to learn how to solve problems similiar to the one above.

Thanks much.

Here's an idea: Why don't you try going to class once in a while instead of goofing around playing Half-life all day.

Actually, the professor hands out these extra credit slips to those that do attend class as a means for us to get something for showing up to a lecture that has 50-70 students.

Needless to say, I have a slip and was seeking help with it. It's unfortunate to see that people are so quick to assume and flame people on the Internet, seeing as they know nothing at all about one's personal life.

I came here to seek help with a question I didn't understand; not to get ripped by someone that has never, and will likely never meet me.

I do appreciate the reply though, as it has bumped the post. It's just unfortunate the reply had to be so hateful and worthless in regards to the original question.

The half-life of Carbon-14's decay to Nitrogen-14 is 5730 years.

I would say that the bone is approximately 17,190 years old.

Thanks very much!

I appreciate it, as I can use every point possible in that class. :)

MrSelfDestruct, there are 9 total parts, not 8, so the bone is a little older than what you wrote.

I don't think you should be using us to solve your homework. Its ok to ask how to do something, but simply requesting an answer is not the way to go. If you can't answer a question and don't really care about learning how to get the answer, perhaps you don't deserve those points. :rolleyes:

Perhaps you should read my reply again.