Nuclear decay rates are not constant

Thank you Abeceda for the debate. In an attempt to be fair, I will only debate PROs R1 comments so that we can conclude the debate properly; without additional arguments in the concluding round. (In an attempt to be neutral I am referring to my gracious host as PRO in place of he or she - I don't know your gender). PRO will argue the affirmative that "Nuclear decay rates are not constant" and consequently has the BoP (Burden of Proof). CON will argue that they are constant. Pro also has the BoP because he is challenging the status quo. Since PRO has provided no definitions I will. Nuclear Decay: known academically as Radioactive decay is the emission of energy in the form of ionizing radiation. The ionizing radiation that is emitted can include alpha particles, beta particles and/or gamma rays. Radioactive decay occurs in unbalanced atoms called radionuclides [1]. According to Merriam Webster Constant: 1 : invariable, uniform Procedural note: PRO is welcome to cite the reference mentioned in this round. However, the proposed argument is "NUCLEAR DECAY RATES ARE NOT CONSTANT" and PRO must prove this proposition to be true. It should go without saying that one study does not constitute proof or even Science in the technical sense. My opponent states "I will provide evidence for my statement, in the form of a scientific report. I believe that this report clearly demonstrates that the idea of a constant decay rate is false." Again, this can and should be used as evidence for the Proposition, but it is not the focus of the debate as suggested by the debater. REBUTTAL: PROs source is not about nuclear decay rate constancy. This is not a study on the variability of radioactive decay. It is, as clearly stated, a study on "S-process nucleosynthesis. Nuclear Physics and the Classical Model", an introduction to s-process, nuclear physics and the classical model. It says "the slow neutron capture process (s-process) is distinguished by the fact that it involves mostly stable isotopes. With this rather reliable data basis " the status of this classical approach is reviewed with emphasis on the implications for various stellar models of the s-process and in the light of results obtained by stellar spectroscopy. A brief account of the potential s-process chronometers is also presented." In other words: this study reviews various star formation models and the associated s-process - addition of a neutron to a nucleus in low density/intermediate temperature stars to create a heavier nuclei [2] - based on spectroscopy. Furthermore, nucleosynthesis is dependent on constant decay rates. All current beta-decay timescales would fall apart mathematically with variable rates along with nuclear and particle physics as a whole [3]. Consider further that had these scientists discovered proof that decay rates are variable, there would have been an exodus from the status quo. The scientific community at large would have to re-write the entire Standard Model. No such exodus has occurred. A summary of the Lu/Hf decay process is beyond the scope of this debate (not to mention a dry read). However, there is debate on the blogosphere that has to do with Lu (typically criticized by young earth creationists) who misinterpret the process (as I believe PRO has done). The real problem with Lutetium is that there are inconsistent measurements of the decay rates based on internal isochron rocks younger than 2.7x109 years old [4]. This is an engineering problem, not a constancy one. The dating method is new enough that the science on its reliability is controversial because our measuring tools need improvement not because the half-life changes. The controversy then, is not whether decay rates change, it is over the accuracy of the measurements and the subsequent use of those measurements to determine age. Lets look at a simple example. Try to determine how much time it will take for an ice cube to melt in your living room. If you use a handheld glass thermometer, your sister uses an electric thermometer and I use an outside thermometer, we will likely come up with different temperatures and consequently different values in our math and in turn, different melting times. Until we all use a more precise thermometer we will not be able to generate similar melt times. *That* is the controversy* So. what have we seen so far? PRO uses a source as gospel that 1)is only ONE source out of thousands 2)DOES NOT study decay rate variance 3)DOES explain a process (s-process/nucleosynthesis) that ABSOLUTELY relies on decay rate constancy PRO needs to demonstrate incontrovertibly that decay rates change while committing the fallacy of False Attribution by using a source that demonstrates research for (A) while claiming it as evidence for (B). Without additional resources/evidence of decay rate variance, the affirmative cannot win. PRO must demonstrate indisputable proof of variance. I look forward to PROs additional arguments [1] https://www.epa.gov... [2] Carron, N.J. (2007). An Introduction to the Passage of Energetic Particles Through Matter. p. 308 [3] http://www.astro.sunysb.edu... [4] http://science.sciencemag.org...