If greater likelihood is sought, we could look at the interval 30 \pm 80$ years, encompassing two standard deviations, and the likelihood that the half-life of a given sample of Carbon $ will fall in this range is a little over $ percent.
This task addresses a very important issue about precision in reporting and understanding statements in a realistic scientific context.
by Dr Carl Wieland An attempt to explain this very important method of dating and the way in which, when fully understood, it supports a ‘short’ timescale.
In fact, the whole method is a giant ‘clock’ which seems to put a very young upper limit on the age of the atmosphere.
This element is locked in tiny zircons within the granite. While it stays within the zircon for a period of time, being a very small atom, helium escapes the zircon within a few thousand years.
When creation scientists studied granite samples, they made interesting discoveries.
Worse still, sometimes they want to know how evolutionists use Carbon-14 to date dinosaur fossils!
They want to know if it is accurate or if it works at all.There are more than 80 such technologies that are claimed to work.Prior to looking at the many flaws in the Carbon-14 Dating Technique, it should be noted that no radiometric technique is reliable.This explains why the Wikipedia article on Carbon $ lists the half-life of Carbon 14 as 30 \pm 40$ years.Other resources report this half-life as the absolute amounts of 30$ years, or sometimes simply 00$ years.