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

This corrected ratio claims the corrected age must be virtually zero since Pb 206 /Pb 207 = 21.5 for modern lead that is radiogenic. (117, p. 36) Although Cook’s (28) logic may, superficially, appear reasonable and simple, it is affected with a few severe flaws that are fundamental. First, 204 Pb is certainly not missing into the Katanga examples; it merely had not been measured! Inside the report, Nier (100) states: Really, in 20 regarding the 21 examples investigated the actual quantity of typical lead can be so small that certain do not need to just take account regarding the variants in its composition. In a wide range of examples where in fact the abundance of 204 Pb ended up being suprisingly low no effort ended up being designed to assess the number of it once the dedication will be of no specific value. (100, p. 156) Evidently, neither Cook (28), Morris (92), nor Slusher (117) bothered to read through Nier’s (100) complete report and mistakenly interpreted the dash for 204 Pb in Faul’s (46) tabulation as “zero, ” whenever, in reality, it indicates “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 ‡ ). […]