Abstract
I am concerned that readers may come away from Robert Rogland's recent article1 with mistaken impressions about radiocarbon and nuclear decay rates. Rogland suggests that an increase in nuclear decay rates over time could account for "residual radiocarbon" in "radioactively dead" samples, though he puts "little stock in the hypothesis." I concur with Rogland's skepticism; there is no scientific support (either theoretical or experimental) for the notion that the decay rate of radiocarbon has changed with time.