Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Idle

Nuclear Fallout Exposes Fake 'Antique' Whisky (livescience.com) 76

Lasrick quotes the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists: Scientists with only the pursuit of truth in mind have proven — through meticulous radio-carbon dating and no tasting at all — that half the bottles of expensive aged Scotch whisky they tested weren't as old and valuable as purported.

Researchers from the Radiocarbon Lab at the Scottish Universities Environmental Research Centre in Glasgow, Scotland used the amounts of radioactive carbon-14 in various Scotches that they absolutely did not sample to determine whether the whiskies were made before or after large-scale above-ground testing of nuclear devices began in the 1950s and 1960s.

LiveScience explains: 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.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Nuclear Fallout Exposes Fake 'Antique' Whisky

Comments Filter:
  • Could end up ruining the value of some collector's wine cellars.
    • Presumably. I remember seeing this very thing on a TV show once, I think it was "White Collar."

  • Even by /. standards this is old news. I remember reading about it on here probably a decade ago. I don't know if that makes it a dupe, or a corpse.
    • ...It's a ZOMBI news (that's the problem with radiation... according to *serious* comics)... ... ... you know ;-)

    • certainly the need to adjust carbon dating results because of nuclear testing is known, but I don't recall an article on dating booze before

    • From the abstract: "We have created a 14C calibration curve derived from known-age, single malt whiskies for the period 1950–2015 ..."

      Also, the publication date:
              Volume 62, Issue 1
              February 2020 , pp. 51-62

      It isn't science if only one person does the test, ever. The thousands time isn't news, but the second time might be bigger news than the first.

      • Offtopic but related :
        There is a market for prior to WW2 steel.
        Somehow in my past, I had a need for thick plate steel. and I was quoted 2 prices, new or before atomic's. I asked them why I got 2 prices and they said "it's for the medical field and they have a requirement for specific rooms "

        it's interesting to note that all modern day steel has a different signature that the same type from the past.

    • If you'd read the fucking paper (which is linked to in the fucking summary), you'd have read a preamble describing that people have been looking at ways to address the problem of fake antique whiskies for decades (I remember it being a topic when I was at uni in the 80s), and that this is a new technique in that field.

      Why do people think that it is sensible to spout bullshit without actually checking the easily-checkable. It's not as if you're going to get away without being fact-checked. Who do you think

      • and that this is a new technique in that field.

        Yes, using carbon 14 dating is so new that There was a write up about Oxford doing it almost 10 years ago in Scientific American [scientificamerican.com] And a story here on /. ten years ago [slashdot.org]

        Why do people think that it is sensible to spout bullshit without actually checking the easily-checkable.

        Dunno. Why don't you ask yourself?

        It's not as if you're going to get away without being fact-checked.

        Right back at you

        Who do you think you are? Donald J Tangerine Shitgibbon?

        Are you sure you're not related to him? You certainly behave the same. Run your mouth, make accusations, call people names. Are you a second cousin perhaps?

        • Sigh - this isn't C14 dating. at least not in the 1-over-lambda sense of Libby et al.

          In any case, everyone and their dog has known how to fake old C14 dates since the 1950s. Nobody has been seen to do it because the costs are non-trivial and the benefits in cash terms insufficient. Faking whiskeys would be one of the potentially more profitable lines to do it on. When the wreck of the SS Politician was re-located and dived in the late 80s, some of us were debating how you could spoof a genuine 1940 whiskey

  • Fake whiskey (Score:4, Insightful)

    by fermion ( 181285 ) on Sunday February 02, 2020 @03:18PM (#59682206) Homepage Journal
    In the US we have had new whiskey startup all of the sudden begin to sell 10 year old whiskey. All of these firms buy from a few huge factory distilleries and rebrand and sell as their own old whiskey.

    This is old news as anytime you have a product that is hard to value, be it real estate or alcohol, whose value is largely based on pest up desire, you will get people who will meet that desire.

    • As you point out, it's not, strictly speaking, fake; it's just that it's some combination of stuff that comes out of that megafactory in Indiana (?).

      A good sign is a place that starts selling only vodka and gin - no aging required - and then moves on after a few years to offering whiskey or rum (once they've aged it enough themselves to count).
    • I remember the Mexican tequila distillers said that the very best stuff they make comes in at about $40 a bottle. But - the market demanded super-expensive tequila. So they shrugged and started making $100 a bottle tequila. Sales exploded.
  • Nuclear bombs? (Score:5, Informative)

    by alexo ( 9335 ) on Sunday February 02, 2020 @03:52PM (#59682310) Journal

    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.

    This is not how radiocarbon dating [wikipedia.org] works.

    Granted, the nuclear tests in the 50s and 60s significantly raised the atmospheric ratio of C-14 to C-12, which should be accounted for, but C-14 is created naturally in the atmosphere, which is what allows the dating of samples tens of thousands of years old.

    • Re:Nuclear bombs? (Score:5, Informative)

      by 93 Escort Wagon ( 326346 ) on Sunday February 02, 2020 @05:12PM (#59682518)

      Yeah, they're not "carbon dating" the whiskey at all.

      Thanks to the measurement of 14C from tree rings, we have a pretty good record of the relative amount of 14C in the atmosphere for each year, going back more than 10K years. It varies somewhat naturally, but there were some significant injections of bomb-generated 14C during the period of above-ground atomic testing. Anyway, 14C labs usually make use of this record to fine-tune their results when carbon-dating samples where they already have some general idea of the age of a artifact (or whatever).

      Grains are going to be annuals or biennials, so any 14C it contains will reflect the amount of 14C which was in the atmosphere during their short period of growth - adjusted for fractionation, since the plant will preferentially take up 12C over 14C. Whiskies which were produced prior to the era of atomic testing should reflect the lower level of atmospheric 14C from that time. If the whiskey shows a relatively high amount of 14C, it was obviously produced after the start of atmospheric nuclear testing.

      Additionally, since the 14C results can be somewhat ambiguous due to the "spikey" nature of the atmospheric levels (since above-ground testing ended in the 1960s), it sounds like they're fine-tuning their results using the stable isotope 13C. There are good long-term measurements of atmospheric 13C which were often taken from the same wood as the 14C results. Also - and this is probably more applicable to Scotland - there are long annualized records of atmospheric 13C which were taken by sampling undisturbed peat bog layers.

      • Grains are going to be annuals or biennials, so any 14C it contains will reflect the amount of 14C which was in the atmosphere during their short period of growth

        There is also (up to) several years of storage of the grain between harvest and malting and mashing.

        This is not conventional radiocarbon dating, but using one of the well-known complicating factors in conventional RC to answer a specific, recent dating problem. There's not a lot of benefit to be gained from putting 60 year old whisky into bottles

    • Whisky is agend in barrels. THe wood of that barrel will carbon exchange with the whiskey's own carbon. So you are going to blend many different things together with different isotope ratios.

      However what would work instead is to look at the plutonium content of the whiskey. Old whiskey will not have any if it was kept in the barrels it was made from

      • Only some of the chemical components of the whiskey will exchange with the other drinks absorbed in the wood of the barrel.

        Old whiskey will not have any if it was kept in the barrels it was made from

        I don't know how the manufacture of spirit drinks goes in your country, but in Scotland whiskies get several changes of barrel between the distillation plant and the bottling plant.

    • >This is not how radiocarbon dating [wikipedia.org] works.

      Umm, yes it is. You look at the ratio of C-14 to C-12 is in the sample now, guess at the ratio when the organism it came from died and environmental carbon exchange stopped, and then calculate how many years had to pass for the original ratio amount of C-14 to decay to what you see now.

      Normally, a quick-and-dirty naive approximation of the original C-14 value is that atmospheric C-14 production is the only source and remains constant at all times

  • But who cares -- the big question is:

    How much alcohol is in it?
    • And how well is the alcohol hidden.

      I found a good orange juice can *completely* hide up to 50% of the best-filtered/-distilled vodka. (Which, let's be honest, is de-facto low-grade pure medicinal alcohol and rain water, and hence has no flavor other than "alcohol".)

      Although the best way to not taste alcohol, is of course, if you already drank alcohol. ;)

      • Why are you concerned with "hiding" the alcohol? If there's enough, you'll know it's there by it's effects. Which is the point.

        Or are you trying to spike people's drinks? In which case, there are much more effective "date rape" drugs on the market than alcohol. Ask your dealer for some GHB or Rohypnol [wikipedia.org]. You're already looking at decades on the sex offender's wing, so there is no point in trying to minimise what you're doing.

  • The worst part is that they will *always* say you just haven't tasted a good one yet. You could the Highlander himself, with half a dozen centuries of experience, and being personal friends with half of the whisky makers of Scotland.

    I'm sorry, but it still tastes like wood and lighter fluid [youtu.be]. And as far as I can tell, people who "like" it, are either straight-up lying, their inferiority complex compensation truly talked them into it, or they literally killed their taste buds. Just like with black coffee, bee

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by zetetikos ( 150524 )

        Yes. People can't seem to get that things taste different to different people. I hate peas. I've had so many people tell me, how can you not like peas, "you can't even taste them," I think they are being honest, but to me, peas have one of the strongest tastes of any food. It totally obliterates any other taste they are with. Accidentally getting a pea in a pot pie just yields an explosion of awfulness when it "pops". The awfulness is mostly from how strong the flavor is. Same kind of thing w

        • Yeah, people who like lobster don't really like lobster. What they like is the melted butter. Lobster is just a way to eat butter. If they like lobster so much, tell them to eat it straight. "But it has no flavor!" Yeah, exactly.
          • I’ll eat lobster without butter, I think it tastes great if it’s cooked properly. Overcooked makes it too hard and rubbery, though cuttlefish and octopus is much worse if overcooked.
        • I think I have a similar taste issue to your peas. Certain batches of Dungeness crab and Cambozola cheese have an extreme chemical smell and a taste so strong it would make me vomit to even eat a pea sized amount. I love crab, and also pretty much all cheese in general. If I had to describe it I’d say it is like an acrid and bitter gasoline taste (yes, I have tasted gasoline, I do not recommend it). Other people seem to be completely oblivious to it, as if it didn’t exist at all, or they are
        • by jwdb ( 526327 )

          Same kind of thing with lobster. Taste just like seawater to me. I've literally compared it, the flavor of a cup of seawater and lobster is pretty indistinguishable to me. My kids love lobster. So clearly they taste different to me than to others. From what I get from talking to people that like lobster, it seems to me it mainly tastes to them like whatever they dip it in.

          In addition to that, some people just enjoy different tastes. I'd agree with you that lobster tastes like sea water, among other flavors,

    • Good. It's not just me. I went to this whiskey tasting event in SF a few years ago. Room filled with snobs. A whole presentation on the history and making of and how each of the 6 drinks in front of us was different and how I]best consumed and blah blah blah. I tried a small sip of each. I have never downed boiling acid but I think it must be similar.
      • I have drunk hot acid (mouth-pipetting accident - I started using a suction bulb after that), and I have drunk dozens of different malts. (Here, a very average bar stocks 30-odd malts behind the bar, along with a selection of other spirits.) Some malts are dire (I can't stand Islay malts) and some are sublime.

        Different folks, different strokes.

        I don't recommend the hot acid.

    • Huh? Wow, where'd the bizarre personal attacks come from?

      Believe it or not, there are people out there who enjoy the bitter end of the taste spectrum. We have those receptors on our tongues, and why not use them?

      Moreover whiskey is a very strong taste, and you will find all over the world that each culture's favorite foods are the ones that taste the strongest. In the West it's caviar, in Greenland it's seal meat that's been "cured" i.e. left to rot for a bit, in Korea it's kimchi, etc. etc.

      And I can

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • It's unclear to me why you've happened to run into such whisky snobs... Contrary to wine specialist (I've lived in France) who will tell you you have much to learn, whisky specialists I've run into have typically just asked what kinds of flavour I'd perhaps like more after tasting a whisky I didn't like much. And none have ever insisted that everyone just has to like whisky and just needs to find a good one.
    • Well, if you don't like Whisky - please stop drinking it and leave it for me.

      I had two double shots of 12 year old Highland Park a double of really nice Rum and a double of Red Breast (Irish Whisky).
      My favorites are Edradour Caledonia, Ardbeg, Laphroaig, Lagavulin, Highland Park (see above),Tobermory and a mix of the Glen's. I can taste the difference sorry that your genetics will not allow you to enjoy. Your loss.

      Yes, I am somewhat of a scotch bigot, not a snob really. I do not care for blends - although I

      • Hmmm, with the exception of the Highland Park, I'll do my own whisky shopping I think.

        I've not encountered the "Red Breast". I'll keep my eyes peeled for that one.

  • Somewhat related, as another side-effect of atomic bomb testing: Low-background steel [wikipedia.org].
  • I may be an odd duck, but I don't like whisky. Scotch, Irish, Bourbon, Rye, or whatever. It tastes like furniture polish mixed with rubbing alcohol. People who are willing to pay north of $100 per bottle of aged whisky are a mystery to me. I simply can not fathom how they claim to like the stuff. If I should feel the need for a little alcohol induced relaxation, I go for Vodka. I read an article once that claimed that Vodka produces fewer hangovers because it has less contaminants known as "congeners" - fr

Those who can, do; those who can't, write. Those who can't write work for the Bell Labs Record.

Working...