RE: 1 million cords . . .

[Adios Pantalones]

It said underwater since 1589- not that it started growing then. Dendrochronology is quite accurate in a limited geographical area. If the probably carbon rich water doesn't pollute the sample, then C14 could be used.

Note also the use of the word "estimated". If other methods were used (such as degree of mineralization) then I am positive that an estimate of the error would also be available, though the meaning of such statistics would get lost in a general interest article like this.

 

[bluedogz]

A University of Maine professor estimated that the log had been under water since 1589, according to Shafer.

Really? Under water since 1589? How the heck did they arrive at that? Note: they did not say "late 16th century" or "over 400 years ago"

Seems like there is either a huge line of BS here, or a much cooler story than is being shared. Why not June 21st, 1589?

Maybe they looked at the pattern of the growth rings and decided it never grew in the 1590 season?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendrochronology

Interesting. Need to reread that, but guess it seems they can get pretty accurate readings...

Well, perhaps we already know that there was a big forest fire in 1588- not really inconceivable there. Then, the recently un-submerged log has a layer of fresh bark over an obvious burn ring. Bango- tree down there since 1589.

Don't need to watch more than one or two episodes of CSI to figure that one out.

 

[Hass]

10 years from now... residents complaining about how the lake water level has lowered after a million cords of wood have been removed.

 

[Gary_602z]

Somehow I can't visualize a million cord of wood! Even losing 20 thousand cord of wood is beyond my grasp. "Gee, I know that I had a few more stacks over here someplace! Just when I thought I was 3 years ahead! :lol:

Gary

 

[Wood Duck]

carbon dating would presumably give the age quite well.....I assume the c14 and c12 ratio wouldn't be affected by some kind of water process....and I don't know how accurate these are. Probably quite good these days....

Pretty good, but not precise enough to distinguish a 422 year old log from a 423 year old log.