Paul, Sadly, I could not include the URL in your reply, but the article you cited was interesting nonetheless. Olsson (Ed.), Radiocarbon Variations and Absolute Chronology, Proc.
However, the "plateau" certainly does not equate to the Flood, for that would put the Flood in the middle of Egyptian history, the archaeological evidence of which is sitting on top of kilometers of Flood-deposited sediments.
If that chronology is wrong, as many think, the calibration is wrong. But don't forget to compare to what is already available on creation.com: A variable rate would only make the case worse for secular archaeology.Second, while we have discovered in recent years that certain radiometric decay rates do vary, the measured effect is slight, so far.If you read articles like [note: link deleted as per our fedback rules], it is clear that the Egyptian dates don't always follow the dig.Note the clear references to a "plateau in the calibration curve" from 2500 to 2900BC, which would be due to the flood.