Originally Posted by CTD
I may have found one. I say "may" because the obvious interpretation of the data is that it is just that: a variation in the rate of decay. Now they do have an alternative interpretation: "It is a more accurate measurement".
It is about getting a more accurate measurement since the problem was about instrument inaccuracy due to effects from very short-lived isotope decay interfering with the instrument readings.
Originally Posted by First page just below Table 1
Thus,
the inclusion of the 1405-keV ?-ray of 92Y and the 1414 keV
?-ray of 91Sr interfered with the ?-ray of primary interest.


Quote
This PDF link

http://nd2007.edpsciences.org/index...rticles/ndata/pdf/2007/01/ndata07440.pdf

says
Quote
... For these reasons, the half-life of 92Sr has been measured to solve a recently observed inconsistency with the quoted value in the nuclear data libraries: T1/2 = 2.71 ± 0.01 h. In this work, a new value is proposed: T1/2 = 2.594 ± 0.005 h. A better accuracy is achieved compared to previous evaluations. It also shows a good agreement with the most recent studies: T1/2 = 2.627 ± 0.009 h.

We have three rates. Calling the newest one a "more accurate" measurement is assuming... well it's assuming a few things.
You read the article...what were they assuming? Please, expose their duplicity by being detailed in your criticism.

Quote
The new measurement is outside the stated margins of error of the other two. By the standards of some who have posted on this forum, they are calling the other scientists liars.
No. Just wrong. Those scientists doing the new measurements never stated that the previous scientists were knowingly putting down false measurements.

Quote
By any standard, they're saying that not only were the old measurements inaccurate - the scientists who made them miscalculated (or misreported) the margins of error.
If the instruments or techniques get more accurate then the previous measurements can be thrown out as inaccurate. Surely, you don't believe that the ability to accurately measure things has always been as precise as it is today.

Quote
It's also assuming that which some seek to prove: that the rate hasn't actually changed. If the rate did change, how would anyone ever find out? Not by means of this reasoning!
Aside from the fact that the article points to the source of the inaccuracy and other experimenters can use the details of the research to recreate the two measurements.

Quote
So, what's the most reasonable interpretation?
That other short-lived isotopes caused problems with the original readings.

Additionally, the radioactive decay was still shown to be on an exponential curve.

A faith that connot survive collision with the truth is not worth many regrets. -- Arthur C. Clarke