Mandy [Donne-Lee], Tas Walker incorrectly describes the thermoluminescence process. The Australian quartz was not "found"; it was uncovered, an apparently pedantic point but a critical component of the dating analysis.
Australian archaeologists meticulously scraped the surface of sites in a multitude of locations across Australia and, in this slow method, dug down into the earth in shafts.
The materials, including quartz, revealed to them were uncovered at various levels below the ground's surface, the last being around 2m below. All samples were sent to laboratories for experts to analyse.
The results showed the quartz buried under 2m of earth had lain for around 60,000 years, during which it was bombarded by radioactivity from the surrounding sediment. Electrons from this radioactivity were trapped inside the quartz, steadily building up a charge at a constant rate, which was released when the quartz was heated. The intensity of the luminescence tells scientists when the quartz was last exposed to sunlight.
The results from all tests across all locations tell of Australia's first people arriving 60,000 to 65,000 years ago. Bishop Ussher's time of creation as midday, October 23, 4004 BC is a bit too precise.
Their scientific triangulation methodology utilised radiocarbon and thermoluminescence dating as well as cultural artefacts. The results from all tests across all locations tell of Australia's first people arriving 60,000 to 65,000 years ago.
Bishop Ussher's time of creation as midday, October 23, 4004 BC is a bit too precise. The scientific community is a challenging environment in which to work. Peers constantly review findings to seek flaws, before and after publication. Scientists, therefore, must assume nothing and go from there.
Tas Walker presumes the Earth is 6000 years old. I refer you to Gary Hurd's A Response to Dubious Diluvium, and if you can clearly enunciate where Gary Hurd is incorrect, please tell me. I'd be more than interested. If you cannot, I would politely suggest you do not know enough on the subject to claim the science supporting geologists and archaeologists is wrong. You might believe it is wrong, but that is not factually based.
MAX WARBURTON
Whanganui
Population burden
John Archer's letter on population fails to recognise that in the world we have two different population problems.
In the developing world, the problem is a population growing too rapidly. Nigeria, for example, is about four times the size of New Zealand with a population of 191 million, growing at 3.2 per cent per annum. This means, unless there is a change, the population will double in 23 years.
It is not helpful to throw such figures around, as I don't see any volunteers to reduce the world's population coming forward.
The developed world, on the other hand, has the problem of declining and ageing population. Japan has a slightly declining population with at present 33 per cent of the population over 60. Fertility rates are 1.44 children per woman, so the population is not being replaced and the percentage over 60 will rise to 40 per cent by 2060.
John also makes the statement that the world has a sustainable population limit of 2 billion only. At least that is better than James Lovelock's estimate of 500 million in his book, Revenge of Gaia.
It is not helpful to throw such figures around, as I don't see any volunteers to reduce the world's population coming forward.
I am not sure if John, in his letter, is proposing euthanasia on a massive scale and abortion, as the answer to his perception of the problem — a solution I would strongly disagree with. John proposes that Christians should stop commenting on abortion and euthanasia and become green advocates.
While Christians recognise the need to care for the creation, it sounds like he wants us to replace the worship of the creator with worship of the creation itself.
STEPHEN ROSTRON
Springvale
•Send your letters to: Letters, Whanganui Chronicle, 100 Guyton St, PO Box 433, Whanganui 4500 or email letters@wanganuichronicle.co.nz
