Thread: The Mount Saint Helen Debate - Still looking for answers

I have seen many articles chastising Dr. Steven Austin for his 'incorrect methods' for dating material expelled from Mount Saint Helens in 1980, that the Argon dating method used was inappropriate for the task at hand. No where have I found any alternate proposals.

My question is: Has anyone else used radiometric dating [of any kind] that has accurately dated material expelled from Mount Saint Helen, such material now being 33-years old?

Originally Posted by DOH

I have seen many articles chastising Dr. Steven Austin for his 'incorrect methods' for dating material expelled from Mount Saint Helens in 1980, that the Argon dating method used was inappropriate for the task at hand.
My question is: Has anyone else used radiometric dating [of any kind] that has accurately dated Mount Saint Helen material to be, now 33-years old?

Considering the fact that Mount St. Helen existed before I was born*, even if someone did date it to 33 years, it would clearly be wrong.
It was named in the late 18th century - so 200 years is its minimum age.

* I am older than 33.

I don't know what the problem could possibly be with dating materials from the Mount St Helens eruption. In happened in modern times with lots of people observing and recording the events before and after the eruption.

(Or we could use the technical term, mountain-go-splodey.)

There was this bloke filming during the eruption. Not scared at all, I'm just gunna die any second now.

Dave Crockett’s Narrow Escape | Rosetta Stones, Scientific American Blog Network

And a geologist, Dana Hunter, has been doing a whole series on MSH. This is the most recent entry.
The Cataclysm: “All of the Trees Seemed to Come Down at Once” » En Tequila Es Verdad

What specifically do you find unconvincing about the responses re:Ar-Ar dating being a Very inaccurate and inappropriate radio-isotope method to use?

Originally Posted by DOH

My question is: Has anyone else used radiometric dating [of any kind] that has accurately dated material expelled from Mount Saint Helen, such material now being 33-years old?

Why would they?

Originally Posted by DOH

I have seen many articles chastising Dr. Steven Austin ...

For those missing the background on this loony (*), here is a summary: Young-Earth Creationist 'Dating' of a Mt. St. Helens Dacite: The Failure of Austin and Swenson to Recognize Obviously Ancient Minerals

(*) Apparently, one of the "if reality disagrees with my interpretation of a flawed translation of an old book, then reality must be wrong" crowd.

May 18th 1980, I was eight years old. I could see the plume from my front yard. I should ask my mom if she still has any Polaroids of it. Never heard anything about young earthers and St. Helens before. Sheesh, what a loser moron.

I understand that the eruption happened in modern times. I guess my [reworded] question is, "Are there any radiometric dating processes that can accurately date 'fresh material', or does material have to be of a certain age before it can be accurately dated by any radiometric dating process?"

I have no idea what the problem is that you (or anyone else) would be trying to solve here. Are you interested in the date of the eruption? Or are you interested in the possible/probable/likely ages of the various rocks/ materials ejected by the eruption?

Here's the wiki on the various methods possible. Radiometric dating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You'd need to investigate all these various methods before deciding which you wanted to use for what you wanted to find out. (As well as get someone skilled in preparing the samples to ensure the test is looking at the issue you're interested in to avoid all the problems highlighted in the paper that Strange cited.)

Carbon 14 will date the youngest materials with good accuracy, if it is younger then the last iceage there are usually many additional non-radiometric dating methods that can be used to support the dating of an object or event. Both dendrochronology and varvs can be used to support the dating of a tree felled and sunk into Spirit lake by the eruption for example.

apart from radiocarbon and tree rings, most other dating methods (apart from the very short-lived nuclides, which may not always be applicable) won't give you informative readings for anything younger than a few thousand years

i believe somewhere buried in the radio isotope dating question thread there was mention of Mount St.Helen's - can't remember what exactly though