Claudette
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2010
- Messages
- 1,630
- Reaction score
- 237
New test can more closely pinpoint birth date and death date
I wasn't sure where to post this but it makes the most sense in the UID section.
Just came across this article from sciencedaily.com in which a new test has been developed to help identify UIDs. One thing we all struggle with here is the age of the deceased - how many times have we found out that estimated age was way wrong?
It uses radiocarbon analysis. Someone with a better understanding of "science stuff", or better comprehension at least than I have right now lol, will have to give a better summary than me, but here's a brief explanation:
"In 1968, a child's cranium was recovered from the banks of a northern Canadian river. Initial analysis conducted by investigators, using technology at the time, concluded that the cranium came from the body of a 7-9-year-old child and no identity could be determined. The case went cold and was reopened later.
The cranium underwent reanalysis at the Centre for Forensic Research, Simon Fraser University in Canada, where skull measurements, skeletal ossification, and dental formation indicated an age-at-death of approximately 4 1/2; years old. At Lawrence Livermore, researchers conducted radiocarbon analysis of enamel from two teeth indicated a more precise birth date. Forensic DNA analysis, conducted at Simon Fraser University, indicated the child was a male, and the obtained mitochondrial profile matched a living maternal relative to the presumed missing child."
Also
"Age determination of unknown human bodies is important in the setting of a crime investigation or a mass disaster, because the age at death, birth date and year of death, as well as gender, can guide investigators to the correct identity among a large number of possible matches."
Birth or death would have to have happened in the 50s and 60s, because of some stuff going on in the world (can't type out the word, at work). I THINK. Someone will have to read it and verify. Interesting and helpful information, nonetheless.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121010141458.htm
I wasn't sure where to post this but it makes the most sense in the UID section.
Just came across this article from sciencedaily.com in which a new test has been developed to help identify UIDs. One thing we all struggle with here is the age of the deceased - how many times have we found out that estimated age was way wrong?
It uses radiocarbon analysis. Someone with a better understanding of "science stuff", or better comprehension at least than I have right now lol, will have to give a better summary than me, but here's a brief explanation:
"In 1968, a child's cranium was recovered from the banks of a northern Canadian river. Initial analysis conducted by investigators, using technology at the time, concluded that the cranium came from the body of a 7-9-year-old child and no identity could be determined. The case went cold and was reopened later.
The cranium underwent reanalysis at the Centre for Forensic Research, Simon Fraser University in Canada, where skull measurements, skeletal ossification, and dental formation indicated an age-at-death of approximately 4 1/2; years old. At Lawrence Livermore, researchers conducted radiocarbon analysis of enamel from two teeth indicated a more precise birth date. Forensic DNA analysis, conducted at Simon Fraser University, indicated the child was a male, and the obtained mitochondrial profile matched a living maternal relative to the presumed missing child."
Also
"Age determination of unknown human bodies is important in the setting of a crime investigation or a mass disaster, because the age at death, birth date and year of death, as well as gender, can guide investigators to the correct identity among a large number of possible matches."
Birth or death would have to have happened in the 50s and 60s, because of some stuff going on in the world (can't type out the word, at work). I THINK. Someone will have to read it and verify. Interesting and helpful information, nonetheless.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121010141458.htm