This corrected ratio claims the corrected age should always be virtually zero since Pb 206 /Pb 207 = 21.5 for contemporary lead that is radiogenic. (117, p. 36)

Although Cook’s (28) logic may, superficially, appear reasonable and simple, it is suffering from a few severe flaws that are fundamental. First, 204 Pb isn’t missing when you look at the Katanga samples; it just had not been calculated! Inside the report, Nier (100) states:

Really, in 20 associated with the 21 examples investigated the total amount of typical lead is really so small that certain need not just take account of this variants with its structure. In many examples where in actuality the abundance of 204 Pb ended up being suprisingly low no effort had been built to assess the level of it because the dedication will be of no value that is particular. (100, p. 156)

Evidently, neither Cook (28), Morris (92), nor Slusher (117) bothered to see Nier’s (100) complete report and mistakenly interpreted the dash for 204 Pb in Faul’s (46) tabulation as “zero, ” whenever, in reality, this means “not calculated. ”

2nd, the neutron-capture cross sections for 206 Pb and 207 Pb aren’t equal, as Cook (28) assumes,

But vary by one factor of 24 (0.03 barns for 206 Pb, 0.72 barns for 207 Pb ‡ ). This discrepancy features a significant impact on the outcome of Cook’s (28) calculation. Dining Table 5 compares the outcomes of this three ways of age calculation — the method that is correct Cook ’s (28) technique, and Cook’s technique because of the proper nuclear cross sections — utilizing the presently accepted most useful values for the uranium decay price and abundance constants. Read More Here…