Comments on Skrable et al. (2022)

Abstract

Broadening the scope of a journal to help its readers understand related topics is a laudable goal, and radiocarbon studies of the carbon cycle should certainly interest readers of this journal. But Health Physics editors dropped the ball here. They should have included a qualified reviewer from the radiocarbon or atmospheric science community. They clearly did not because any reviewer with previous knowledge of atmospheric 14 C would have found the fatal errors cited below. An extensive peer-reviewed literature exists on studying the carbon cycle with 14 C, but next to none of it is cited by the authors. The average Health Physics reader will therefore not have the tools to critically evaluate the conclusions of the paper. We will let readers of this letter decide if Skrable et al.'s conclusions should be described as "controversial" or just plain wrong. Unfortunately, unless withdrawn this paper now becomes part of the peer-reviewed literature. That is not something Health Physics should be proud of.One would expect an article promising new insights into a critical current issue would at least start with the best data available. But this paper builds its case on inaccurate data, some of which it simply invents. Skrable et al.'s "educated guess" of 16.33 dpm (gC) −1 for the specific activity of 14 C in the 1750 atmosphere is not bad for a guess, but it is 20% too high. It corresponds to a Δ 14 C of 200 ‰ (parts per thousand, see below). Except during the era of atmospheric nuclear testing, such a value has not been seen for over 10,000 years (Cheng et al. 2018). A 20% specific activity error in 14 C converts to a dating error of over 1,800 years. Carbon-14 ( 14 C) dating is much better than that because the atmosphere's specific activity during historical times is accurately known. It is meticulously calibrated from materials of known age such as tree rings. There was no need to guess its starting point in 1750 or its trajectory since. There was no needThe authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Interoperability: Towards a Data-Driven Public Sector

“…Only 71 out of 198 countries assessed have a government service bus or interoperability platform in place, of which only four have made its use mandatory. Not surprisingly, the majority (61) have very high (Group A) or high (Group B) overall GovTech level. Only two out of 43 A-level countries, Israel and Japan, do not have such initiatives in place or plan on developing these, suggesting that having an interoperability platform or service bus in place is an important characteristic of advanced countries.…”

“…Nevertheless, the existence of a public sector organization responsible for leading the digital government or GovTech policy is clearly an institutional asset for coherent and sustainable policy implementation. 53 The promotion of a cross-cutting interoperability policy in the public sector is favored by this organizational leadership.…”

“…In Australia (Group A, GTMI 2020), the Digital Transformation and Public Sector Modernization Committee is composed of ministerial representatives from each state and territory responsible for the digital and data policy. 60 In Spain (Group A, GTMI 2020), the Central Administration Coordination Commission for ICT Strategy brings together representatives of all ministries, being responsible for the design and development of the digital government policy. Additionally, Ministerial Committees for Digital Government are responsible for promoting the digital government and implementing the action plan for digital transformation in their own Ministry.…”

“…Additionally, Ministerial Committees for Digital Government are responsible for promoting the digital government and implementing the action plan for digital transformation in their own Ministry. 61 Having in mind the cross-cutting nature of interoperability policies in the public sector, solid coordination mechanisms are a requisite for coherent and sustainable policy implementation.…”

“…65 In Finland (Group A, GTMI 2020), the Public Administration Act empowers the Ministry of Finance to coordinate the interoperability of public sector datasets, indicating also that public sector organizations should reuse datasets within the administration whenever possible. 66 In Ireland (Group B, GTMI 2020), the Data Sharing and Governance Act approved in 2019 provides legal basis for the sharing of personal data across certain circumstances across public sector organizations, provided that their privacy is secured. The goal of the act is to substantially reduce the burden to citizens associated with the provision of their personal data to numerous public bodies.…”