>"Quite a trick for some dude in a caravan 100 years ago to be able to simulate 85,000 years of radioactive decay." I don't think it is usually the constant de

>"Quite a trick for some dude in a caravan 100 years ago to be able to simulate 85,000 years of radioactive decay." I don't think it is usually the constant decay rate assumption that can go wrong. It is instead the assumption that the isotopes were being generated and deposited at the same rates way back then. This does depend on environmental factors.