Obscure forensic science with art forgery
Mick
I'm trying to find out about some purported facts which were in
tonight's plot on Law and Order: Criminal Intent (this is in
Australia, BTW - I don't know what lag we have on episodes). I'm
asking in various possibly-helpful groups and hope someone here might
be familiar with obscure forensic science. Any help will be
appreciated.
The plot involved art forgery and the detection of it, as part of a
murder investigation. Supposedly, various artists making their own
paints use linseed oil as the base; if you wanted to forge such an
artist's work you'd have to do the same. In CI tonight it was stated
that even where this is done there is still a way to detect forgeries
of paintings pre-1945. The idea is that the radiation from Hiroshima
and other sources since then has left a noticeable trace in all
organic matter so linseed oil manufactured recently is quite easily
distinguished from linseed oil manufactured in the 1800s, for
instance. If your Monet turns out to have been painted with paint
partly composed of linseed oil manufactured post-1945, your Monet
ain't a Monet.
Okay, I'm trying to find out if this is accurate or not. Does it make
sense that linseed oil would be noticeably different if we accept the
hypothesised radiation change? (Yes, I've been trying to find info
through Google's websearch but with little success. Maybe I'll have to
try one of them old fashioned library thingies.)
Mick.
K Barrett
'biologic magnification' to your searchs would help? I know that after
Chernobyl a bunch of plants were used in the cleanup. (I'm pretty sure
it was sunflowers... but don't quote me on that) The idea being that a
fast growing plant will suck up a lot of soil products (in this case
radiation, in other cases things like mercury, etc) and store them in
their bodies. Then you harvest the crop, dry them out, and properly
dispose of the remaining contaminated plant. Fast, low tech, cost
effective.
That such a magnification would happen where linseed oil is concerned
(your question) is interesting. I suppose a geo-science group would
know. I recall (from my undergraduate days) that global background
radiation didn't really change "that much" after 1945. Which begs the
question what is "that much"? Plus I'm finding out that I went to school
long enough ago that everything they taught me is being overturned.
K Barrett
K Barrett
Mick wrote:
> [snip]
> Okay, I'm trying to find out if this is accurate or not. Does it make
> sense that linseed oil would be noticeably different if we accept the
> hypothesised radiation change? (Yes, I've been trying to find info
> through Google's websearch but with little success. Maybe I'll have to
> try one of them old fashioned library thingies.)
>
> Mick.
IMHO, Yes, given that we accept the hypothesized change in global
background radiation it is possible through biologic magnification that
the linseed oil would be different pre 1945 and post 1945. You could say
the same thing about PCBs or just about anything. I'm just not sure the
hypothsized change is true.
K Barrett
Hemlock Soames
>Hi,
>
>
>Okay, I'm trying to find out if this is accurate or not. Does it make
>sense that linseed oil would be noticeably different if we accept the
>hypothesised radiation change? (Yes, I've been trying to find info
>through Google's websearch but with little success. Maybe I'll have to
>try one of them old fashioned library thingies.)
>
>Mick.
The atomic tests 'threw up' radioactive isotopes (molecules) that
aren't found in nature or are very rare in nature, and some of these
were no doubt absorbed by growing plants and if the specific isotopes
have a long enough half life they could still be directly detected, or
if they have unique decay products these could be identified.
Identification of some these might be 'giveaways' if they were
detected at all, others by relative abundance.
The method in principle makes perfect sense, but I have not found
any information on the web or via Google.
Soames
"Never mind world peace, visualize using your turn signal"
FeAudrey
mic...@hotmail.com says...
>
>
>... In CI tonight it was stated... The idea is that the radiation from
>and other sources since then has left a noticeable trace in all
>organic matter so linseed oil manufactured recently is quite easily
>distinguished from linseed oil manufactured in the 1800s, for
>instance.
Linseed oil is made from stuff (flax) that's grown all over the world.
The background radiation levels (among many other characteristics) would
vary so much that I doubt that any supposed overlay from the Hiroshima
(and presumably Nagasaki) devices would make an identifying difference.
A Soviet satellite with a radioactive power source fell out of its
decayed orbit maybe 10-15 years ago, and crashed in in a
uranium-mining area of Western Canada. Background radiation was so high
they couldn't find the (bleeping) little thing,
--
Visit my Iron Age Pages for technical and fun stuff (holiday specials,
too)!
http://pages.prodigy.net/feaudrey
Mark Alan Miller
"Mick" <mic...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dae1aa52.02112...@posting.google.com...
>
> The plot involved art forgery and the detection of it, as part of a
> murder investigation. Supposedly, various artists making their own
> paints use linseed oil as the base; if you wanted to forge such an
> artist's work you'd have to do the same.
Even commercial artist's oil paints use linseed oil as their base. Before
the sale of commercial paint in lead tubes, around the middle of the 19th
century, all artists mixed their own paint, often to their own, distinctive
recipes.
> that even where this is done there is still a way to detect forgeries
> of paintings pre-1945. The idea is that the radiation from Hiroshima
> and other sources since then has left a noticeable trace in all
> organic matter so linseed oil manufactured recently is quite easily
> distinguished from linseed oil manufactured in the 1800s, for
> instance.
I suppose in theory this might work, but they would have to be looking for
some specific, exotic isotopes released by nuclear processes. Just looking
at the overall levels of common radioactive isotopes wouldn't tell you much,
as they would vary depending on where the flax (from which linseed oil
comes) was grown.
Mark Alan Miller
Mick
I'm not positive about the increase yet but a chap on bionet supports
it (due not only to Hiroshima but also the testing through the 40s and
50s) and says that the relevant measure is of a carbon isotope which
comes about from bombs and testing.
Mick.
Mick
> On 20 Nov 2002 08:13:13 -0800, mic...@hotmail.com (Mick) wrote:
>
> >Hi,
> >
>
> >
> >Okay, I'm trying to find out if this is accurate or not. Does it make
> >sense that linseed oil would be noticeably different if we accept the
> >hypothesised radiation change? (Yes, I've been trying to find info
> >through Google's websearch but with little success. Maybe I'll have to
> >try one of them old fashioned library thingies.)
> >
> >Mick.
>
> The atomic tests 'threw up' radioactive isotopes (molecules) that
> aren't found in nature or are very rare in nature, and some of these
> were no doubt absorbed by growing plants and if the specific isotopes
> have a long enough half life they could still be directly detected, or
> if they have unique decay products these could be identified.
Thank you. According to a chap who answered on bionet it's the carbon
14 isotope which has increased in atmospheric concentration (since the
bombs and also the testing of the 40s and 50s) and which would be
noticeable in organic materials which derive their carbon from the CO2
of the atmosphere.
> Identification of some these might be 'giveaways' if they were
> detected at all, others by relative abundance.
>
> The method in principle makes perfect sense, but I have not found
> any information on the web or via Google.
>
> Soames
But... 'makes perfect sense'? Weren't you even a teensy bit tempted to
say it's "elementary"... or perhaps "isotopical"?
Mick.
Mick
> In article <dae1aa52.02112...@posting.google.com>,
> mic...@hotmail.com says...
> >
> >
> >... In CI tonight it was stated... The idea is that the radiation from
> Hiroshima
> >and other sources since then has left a noticeable trace in all
> >organic matter so linseed oil manufactured recently is quite easily
> >distinguished from linseed oil manufactured in the 1800s, for
> >instance.
>
>
> Linseed oil is made from stuff (flax) that's grown all over the world.
> The background radiation levels (among many other characteristics) would
> vary so much that I doubt that any supposed overlay from the Hiroshima
> (and presumably Nagasaki) devices would make an identifying difference.
Another reply proposed that it's also the testing in the 40s and 50s
which provides such a significant difference, but I take your point.
> A Soviet satellite with a radioactive power source fell out of its
> decayed orbit maybe 10-15 years ago, and crashed in in a
> uranium-mining area of Western Canada. Background radiation was so high
> they couldn't find the (bleeping) little thing,
Wow. Okay, I'll need to check further on how significant the
difference is, or would be expected to be.
Thank you.
Mick.
Mick
> "Mick" <mic...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:dae1aa52.02112...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > The plot involved art forgery and the detection of it, as part of a
> > murder investigation. Supposedly, various artists making their own
> > paints use linseed oil as the base; if you wanted to forge such an
> > artist's work you'd have to do the same.
>
> Even commercial artist's oil paints use linseed oil as their base. Before
> the sale of commercial paint in lead tubes, around the middle of the 19th
> century, all artists mixed their own paint, often to their own, distinctive
> recipes.
Thank you for the extra information on that.
> > that even where this is done there is still a way to detect forgeries
> > of paintings pre-1945. The idea is that the radiation from Hiroshima
> > and other sources since then has left a noticeable trace in all
> > organic matter so linseed oil manufactured recently is quite easily
> > distinguished from linseed oil manufactured in the 1800s, for
> > instance.
>
> I suppose in theory this might work, but they would have to be looking for
> some specific, exotic isotopes released by nuclear processes. Just looking
> at the overall levels of common radioactive isotopes wouldn't tell you much,
> as they would vary depending on where the flax (from which linseed oil
> comes) was grown.
Yes, it seems that carbon 14 might be the relevant isotope -
apparently this is thrown out from bombs and testing in abundance,
supposedly enough that post-WW2 levels in the atmosphere are
measurably different to pre-WW2.
> Mark Alan Miller
Mick.
Hemlock Soames
Only on a very good day.
I've always enjoyed reading of the application of science in
'detective work' of all sorts. I read years ago of voices preserved
in clay from antiquity (Hellenic Greece?) by way of pottery media.
The theory was that an ancient potter would decorate his work by
spinning it on his wheel and applying a stick to create the
decoration. The stick would vibrate from conversation in the area and
would etch a recording into the clay, which would be preserved when
the object was fired.
I don't remember where I read this, and recent web searches have
been fruitless, so I suspect the whole story is bogus. Just another
crackpot theory, I suppose, although of course it would be difficult
or impossible to recover data from cracked pots.
Mark Alan Miller
> >
> > IMHO, Yes, given that we accept the hypothesized change in global
> > background radiation it is possible through biologic magnification that
> > the linseed oil would be different pre 1945 and post 1945. You could say
> > the same thing about PCBs or just about anything. I'm just not sure the
> > hypothsized change is true.
> >
> > K Barrett
>
> I'm not positive about the increase yet but a chap on bionet supports
> it (due not only to Hiroshima but also the testing through the 40s and
> 50s) and says that the relevant measure is of a carbon isotope which
> comes about from bombs and testing.
Yes, a quick web search shows that this makes sense. Atmospheric Carbon-14
levels increased dramatically in the 1950s and early 1960s, mainly due to
aerial testing of bombs by the Soviet Union. These levels have been falling
subsequently as the atmospheric carbon is incorporated into ocean water and
living creatures. The increase was large enough to be easily detectable by
any facility that does radiocarbon dating. Prior to these bomb tests,
Carbon-14 levels had been falling slightly due to the combustion of fossil
fuels. The carbon in petroleum and coal has almost no Carbon-14, so the CO2
created during combustion has proportionally little.
Mark Alan Miller
ctbishop
<bits...@chasm.com> wrote:
> I've always enjoyed reading of the application of science in
>'detective work' of all sorts. I read years ago of voices preserved
>in clay from antiquity (Hellenic Greece?) by way of pottery media.
>The theory was that an ancient potter would decorate his work by
>spinning it on his wheel and applying a stick to create the
>decoration. The stick would vibrate from conversation in the area and
>would etch a recording into the clay, which would be preserved when
>the object was fired.
>
> I don't remember where I read this, and recent web searches have
>been fruitless, so I suspect the whole story is bogus. Just another
>crackpot theory, I suppose, although of course it would be difficult
>or impossible to recover data from cracked pots.
Analog Magazine perhaps? It is what comes to mind, but if so, could have
been one of Campbell's crackpot ideas.
Charles
kat >^.^<
ctbishop <ctbi...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ctbishop-211...@pool0086.cvx22-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net..
.
Probably in the April 1st issue.
kat >^.^<
in Wisconsin.
Hemlock Soames
No, it would have been in something fairly 'mainstream' - that was
all I read in those pre-web days. Of course if it appears on the
cover of Popular Science any theory is doomed.
K Barrett
Sounds like the theory that you can still see the imprint of the last thing
a dead person sees on his retina (his murderer?), or that crystals capture
light so pictures from the past (dinosaurs?) can be seen when illuminated
properly. I can't remember which book(s) talked about the retina image
thing, but an old 'Science Fiction Theater' from the '50s based an episode
on the crystal one. Pretty cool stuff to a kid.
K Barrett