Uranium Lead Data
Sample Type Latitude Latitude Longitude Age Analytical Uncertainty (1σ) Analytical Uncertainty (1σ) Systematic Uncertainties (2%) Total Uncertainty (1σ) N MSWDc MSWDe X2c X2e Na
19SOLO01 Bedrock 61.763 -141.832 -141.832 99.66 1.12 1.99 1.99 2.29 6 0.18 3.50 0.68 0.00 20
19SOLO02 Bedrock 61.762 -141.834 -141.834 - - - - - - - - - - -
19SOLO03A Clast 61.783 -141.829 -141.829 9.43 0.18 0.19 0.19 0.26 6 0.93 3.70 0.33 0.00 20
19SOLO03B Clast 61.783 -141.829 -141.829 - - - - - - - - - - -
19SOLO03C Clast 61.783 -141.829 -141.829 9.12 0.15 0.18 0.18 0.24 15 0.03 0.39 0.87 0.10 20
19SOLO06 Bedrock 61.831 -142.032 -142.032 27.42 0.25 0.55 0.55 0.60 16 0.13 0.66 0.72 0.92 20
19SOLO07 Bedrock 61.820 -141.996 -141.996 - - - - - - - - - - -
19SOLO10 Bedrock 61.784 -141.899 -141.899 25.25 0.14 0.51 0.51 0.52 47 0.52 1.70 0.94 0.00 50
19SOLO11 Bedrock 61.766 -141.862 -141.862 27.49 0.21 0.55 0.55 0.59 19 0.15 1.10 0.70 0.38 20
19SOLO12A Clast 61.778 -141.830 -141.830 8.87 0.12 0.18 0.18 0.21 19 0.15 1.10 0.70 0.38 20
19SOLO12B Clast 61.778 -141.830 -141.830 9.71 0.11 0.19 0.19 0.22 16 0.38 1.10 0.54 0.35 20
19SOLO18A Clast 61.763 -141.834 -141.834 26.7 0.24 0.53 0.53 0.59 17 0.05 0.99 0.82 0.48 20
19SOLO18B Clast 61.763 -141.834 -141.834 27.4 0.45 0.55 0.55 0.71 12 0.03 0.39 0.85 0.99 20
19SOLO18C Clast 61.763 -141.834 -141.834 28.2 0.29 0.56 0.56 0.63 16 0.13 1.30 0.20 0.14 20
WGS 84
a – analytical uncertainty from the concordia age Ludwig (1998); b – systematic uncertainty of 2% (see text for discussion) (Spencer et al., 2016); c – combined analytical and systematic uncertainty ([analytical uncertainty squared + systematic uncertainty squared]1/2) (Spencer et al., 2016); d – mean square of the weighted deviates for concordance; e – the mean square of the weighted deviates for equivalence; f – chi squared p- value for concordance; g – chi squared p- value for equivalence; h – number of attempted analyses a – analytical uncertainty from the concordia age Ludwig (1998); b – systematic uncertainty of 2% (see text for discussion) (Spencer et al., 2016); c – combined analytical and systematic uncertainty ([analytical uncertainty squared + systematic uncertainty squared]1/2) (Spencer et al., 2016); d – mean square of the weighted deviates for concordance; e – the mean square of the weighted deviates for equivalence; f – chi squared p- value for concordance; g – chi squared p- value for equivalence; h – number of attempted analyses a – analytical uncertainty from the concordia age Ludwig (1998); b – systematic uncertainty of 2% (see text for discussion) (Spencer et al., 2016); c – combined analytical and systematic uncertainty ([analytical uncertainty squared + systematic uncertainty squared]1/2) (Spencer et al., 2016); d – mean square of the weighted deviates for concordance; e – the mean square of the weighted deviates for equivalence; f – chi squared p- value for concordance; g – chi squared p- value for equivalence; h – number of attempted analyses a – analytical uncertainty from the concordia age Ludwig (1998); b – systematic uncertainty of 2% (see text for discussion) (Spencer et al., 2016); c – combined analytical and systematic uncertainty ([analytical uncertainty squared + systematic uncertainty squared]1/2) (Spencer et al., 2016); d – mean square of the weighted deviates for concordance; e – the mean square of the weighted deviates for equivalence; f – chi squared p- value for concordance; g – chi squared p- value for equivalence; h – number of attempted analyses a – analytical uncertainty from the concordia age Ludwig (1998); b – systematic uncertainty of 2% (see text for discussion) (Spencer et al., 2016); c – combined analytical and systematic uncertainty ([analytical uncertainty squared + systematic uncertainty squared]1/2) (Spencer et al., 2016); d – mean square of the weighted deviates for concordance; e – the mean square of the weighted deviates for equivalence; f – chi squared p- value for concordance; g – chi squared p- value for equivalence; h – number of attempted analyses a – analytical uncertainty from the concordia age Ludwig (1998); b – systematic uncertainty of 2% (see text for discussion) (Spencer et al., 2016); c – combined analytical and systematic uncertainty ([analytical uncertainty squared + systematic uncertainty squared]1/2) (Spencer et al., 2016); d – mean square of the weighted deviates for concordance; e – the mean square of the weighted deviates for equivalence; f – chi squared p- value for concordance; g – chi squared p- value for equivalence; h – number of attempted analyses a – analytical uncertainty from the concordia age Ludwig (1998); b – systematic uncertainty of 2% (see text for discussion) (Spencer et al., 2016); c – combined analytical and systematic uncertainty ([analytical uncertainty squared + systematic uncertainty squared]1/2) (Spencer et al., 2016); d – mean square of the weighted deviates for concordance; e – the mean square of the weighted deviates for equivalence; f – chi squared p- value for concordance; g – chi squared p- value for equivalence; h – number of attempted analyses a – analytical uncertainty from the concordia age Ludwig (1998); b – systematic uncertainty of 2% (see text for discussion) (Spencer et al., 2016); c – combined analytical and systematic uncertainty ([analytical uncertainty squared + systematic uncertainty squared]1/2) (Spencer et al., 2016); d – mean square of the weighted deviates for concordance; e – the mean square of the weighted deviates for equivalence; f – chi squared p- value for concordance; g – chi squared p- value for equivalence; h – number of attempted analyses a – analytical uncertainty from the concordia age Ludwig (1998); b – systematic uncertainty of 2% (see text for discussion) (Spencer et al., 2016); c – combined analytical and systematic uncertainty ([analytical uncertainty squared + systematic uncertainty squared]1/2) (Spencer et al., 2016); d – mean square of the weighted deviates for concordance; e – the mean square of the weighted deviates for equivalence; f – chi squared p- value for concordance; g – chi squared p- value for equivalence; h – number of attempted analyses a – analytical uncertainty from the concordia age Ludwig (1998); b – systematic uncertainty of 2% (see text for discussion) (Spencer et al., 2016); c – combined analytical and systematic uncertainty ([analytical uncertainty squared + systematic uncertainty squared]1/2) (Spencer et al., 2016); d – mean square of the weighted deviates for concordance; e – the mean square of the weighted deviates for equivalence; f – chi squared p- value for concordance; g – chi squared p- value for equivalence; h – number of attempted analyses a – analytical uncertainty from the concordia age Ludwig (1998); b – systematic uncertainty of 2% (see text for discussion) (Spencer et al., 2016); c – combined analytical and systematic uncertainty ([analytical uncertainty squared + systematic uncertainty squared]1/2) (Spencer et al., 2016); d – mean square of the weighted deviates for concordance; e – the mean square of the weighted deviates for equivalence; f – chi squared p- value for concordance; g – chi squared p- value for equivalence; h – number of attempted analyses a – analytical uncertainty from the concordia age Ludwig (1998); b – systematic uncertainty of 2% (see text for discussion) (Spencer et al., 2016); c – combined analytical and systematic uncertainty ([analytical uncertainty squared + systematic uncertainty squared]1/2) (Spencer et al., 2016); d – mean square of the weighted deviates for concordance; e – the mean square of the weighted deviates for equivalence; f – chi squared p- value for concordance; g – chi squared p- value for equivalence; h – number of attempted analyses a – analytical uncertainty from the concordia age Ludwig (1998); b – systematic uncertainty of 2% (see text for discussion) (Spencer et al., 2016); c – combined analytical and systematic uncertainty ([analytical uncertainty squared + systematic uncertainty squared]1/2) (Spencer et al., 2016); d – mean square of the weighted deviates for concordance; e – the mean square of the weighted deviates for equivalence; f – chi squared p- value for concordance; g – chi squared p- value for equivalence; h – number of attempted analyses a – analytical uncertainty from the concordia age Ludwig (1998); b – systematic uncertainty of 2% (see text for discussion) (Spencer et al., 2016); c – combined analytical and systematic uncertainty ([analytical uncertainty squared + systematic uncertainty squared]1/2) (Spencer et al., 2016); d – mean square of the weighted deviates for concordance; e – the mean square of the weighted deviates for equivalence; f – chi squared p- value for concordance; g – chi squared p- value for equivalence; h – number of attempted analyses a – analytical uncertainty from the concordia age Ludwig (1998); b – systematic uncertainty of 2% (see text for discussion) (Spencer et al., 2016); c – combined analytical and systematic uncertainty ([analytical uncertainty squared + systematic uncertainty squared]1/2) (Spencer et al., 2016); d – mean square of the weighted deviates for concordance; e – the mean square of the weighted deviates for equivalence; f – chi squared p- value for concordance; g – chi squared p- value for equivalence; h – number of attempted analyses a – analytical uncertainty from the concordia age Ludwig (1998); b – systematic uncertainty of 2% (see text for discussion) (Spencer et al., 2016); c – combined analytical and systematic uncertainty ([analytical uncertainty squared + systematic uncertainty squared]1/2) (Spencer et al., 2016); d – mean square of the weighted deviates for concordance; e – the mean square of the weighted deviates for equivalence; f – chi squared p- value for concordance; g – chi squared p- value for equivalence; h – number of attempted analyses