Woudl a 12% increase in Carbon 14 for a brief period be another reason that Carbon 14 is questionable?

Okay, boys and girls.

Carbon 14 is not like Uranium, which there is a fixed amount that the planet got at its birth. Carbon 14 is formed daily, by high energy particles striking good old Carbon in the atmosphere. That is why the study at the link was interesting, because the amount expected was higher than 12%. That means, some 1300 years ago, an event occurred that increased the Carbon 14, which fell locally in that region, and was not part of the standard ratio that was happening else where.

As to the comment on ratio of decay, that half-life BEGINS at the formation of the Carbon 14. And the clock starts ticking when the plant absorbs the C-14 with the other Carbon compounds. That is why C-14 is unreliable, since there are variable rates of production of it. If the event in the study could throw off the measurable decay rate, what other events that have happened that might increase the production of C-14 in the past? Maybe extreme Solar output, which has been documented. Or extra

solar events, like super novas, that dumped cosmic rays in our direction.

I am NOT saying that the earth is 6000 years old. I am calling into question the "faith" (since this is R&S) that some have in C-14 as a dating tool for current event (and by current, I mean the last 50,000 years).

Dates may be expressed as either uncalibrated or calibrated years (the latter abbreviated as cal or cal.). A raw BP date cannot be used directly as a calendar date, because the level of atmospheric 14C has not been strictly constant during the span of time that can be radiocarbon dated. The level is affected by variations in the cosmic ray intensity which is in turn affected by variations in the Earth's magnetosphere.[18] In addition, there are substantial reservoirs of carbon in organic matter, the ocean, ocean sediments (see methane hydrate), and sedimentary rocks. Changes in the Earth's climate can affect the carbon flows between these reservoirs and the atmosphere, leading to changes in the atmosphere's 14C fraction. As the graph to the right shows, there is an overstatement of the age of the sample of nearly 1000 years in an uncalibrated dating of 7000 BP.

The above is explaining why there are various levels of C-14, and the "need" to establish an understand

since I don't see any that I can say is the best answer, this will go into voting.

Opps! Someone came with a reasoned statement, and not a dogmatic "You crazy person!, Don't you trust scientists???!!!"