Nuclear Fallout Exposes Fake 'Antique' Whisky

The older something is, the more rare it is, and therefore the more people will pay for it. Very old whiskey, particularly Scotch whisky, can fetch thousands of dollars a bottle from collectors and connoisseurs. But when there is money to be had, someone will try to cheat the system. Some of those very old bottles are not as old as they say they are, as science reveals.  

Nuclear bombs that were detonated decades ago spewed the radioactive isotope carbon-14 into the atmosphere; from there, the isotope was absorbed by plants and other living organisms, and began to decay after the organisms died. Traces of this excess carbon-14 can therefore be found in barley that was harvested and distilled to make whisky.

Carbon-14 decays at a known rate; by calculating the amount of the isotope in a given whisky batch, scientists can then determine if a bottle's contents were produced after the start of the nuclear age — and if that age matches the date written on the bottle's label.

Scientists tested bottles of whiskey dated from 1847 to 1978, and found about half of them were counterfeit. Read how they did that at LiveScience. -via Metafilter

(Image credit: ctj71081)


Newest 3
Newest 3 Comments

Colin, There's no shame in being sceptical and in wanting to learn how stuff works. Perhaps one flaw in radio-carbon dating is the assumption that the current rate of decay (which has only been known about and measured for a very short period of history) has always been that rate. Was the decay rate faster or slower in the past? Or was it always the same as it is now? Also, we know that modern nuclear weapons have changed the amount of carbon-14. Was there ever another nuclear event in the past that also changed the amount? A big radioactive meteorite, for instance?
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
I'm no scientist, but my entire life i've been skeptical of carbon-dating being a perfect science that nobody could question. Take a fossil for example. How do scientists know beyond a shadow of a doubt that nothing happened to the fossil that would cause the fossil to lose carbon at a higher/lower rate? Like if a fossil was a million years old, and in the 10,000th year something affected the fossil to make the carbon different. I duno, I just think its odd for people to dig something out of the ground, do a carbon test and be like "ya its exactly 4.6 million years old and nobody can question that cuz muh carbon dating". I'm not a science denier (i always go to the doctor when I get sick or have injuries). I think you get what I mean.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Login to comment.
Email This Post to a Friend
"Nuclear Fallout Exposes Fake 'Antique' Whisky"

Separate multiple emails with a comma. Limit 5.

 

Success! Your email has been sent!

close window
X

This website uses cookies.

This website uses cookies to improve user experience. By using this website you consent to all cookies in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

I agree
 
Learn More