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.
And how was it solved, in your version of the story? Everyone had the same problem, did they not? It didn't up & go away.
Thus,
the inclusion of the 1405-keV ?-ray of 92Y and the 1414 keV
?-ray of 91Sr interfered with the ?-ray of primary interest.
This is hardly the only problem.
Did you miss the discussions of tables 4 & 5? The measurements they obtained for this study weren't exactly consistent, and they had to find a way to deal with that as well.
A weighted average from the three values was determined
for each fuel pin. Nevertheless, as the discrepancies were
sometimes beyond their reported uncertainties, the associated
uncertainty is calculated from the standard deviation between
the three values, with a multiplication factor tp(?) = 1.32 [15]
that arose from the low degree of freedom of the sample.
The word uncertainly is used frequently. How many uncertainty issues did they have in all? Well, the link is there for anyone who'd like to count.
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.
You read the article too. I suppose the duplicity issue is yours, since you're the one reporting it.
And here's a clue about assumptions: every time they acknowledge uncertainty, they have to make a guess (an assumption) in order to resolve it. You might have another read, keeping that in mind.
Actually, they
dont always have to make a guess; they could factor the uncertainties into their cumulative result. Of course, doing that would balloon their "margin of error" up to gargantuan size.
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.
It is not. I'm certain you are aware of the standard(s) I'm talking about.
Any disagreement = "calling them all liars". More than one evolutionist has employed it. Have you?
Those scientists doing the new measurements never stated that the previous scientists were knowingly putting down false measurements.
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.
If the new measurement fell within the stated
margin of error of the old measurement, one could claim they were simply refining what was already known. They don't. The new measurements
are in conflict with the others. If you read the link, they make it pretty clear.
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.
Evononsense. You can't recreate the measurements. Are you so ill-informed as to believe decay is not a one-way process? The samples they measured are gone!
The article points to several potential sources of inaccuracy. This sentence in the conclusion is noteworthy.
This study
shows an overestimation of 4.5% of the half-life values to
be found in the main nuclear applications libraries (T1/2 =
2.71 ± 0.01 h), corresponding to 12? beyond the associated
uncertainty.
4.5%, if extrapolated exponentially, adds up pretty fast. And ± 0.01 h is dwarfed by 4.5%.
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.
Really? Did you notice how they got around the "problem" associated with some of the older estimates? They postponed taking measurements in order to allow time for the "shorter-lived" isotopes (which might interfere) to decay. They
omitted direct measurement of the early decay of 92Sr. This is not how one confirms the "decay curve". Furthermore, they assume it in their calculations at least once. (For those who don't reason in circles) this is not how confirmation is obtained.
To the logical mind, you can't have it both ways. Either the stated margins of error are bogus, or the rate changes from measurement to measurement. This is true even of the direct measurements they took for this very study.
