On this site alone there have been statements disputing the constancy of radioactive decay.
Examples: For all of these, and more, reasons, calibration is needed in C-14 dating.
Thus, reports generally specify the ‘raw’ numbers and the ‘fudged’ numbers.
However, I will stand by my statement with this defense: First, we do not need changing decay rates to explain 14C dating.
There are enough uncertainties in the physical history of earth to throw great uncertainty on the early dates.
See: The walls of Jericho, The story of Jericho, and Q and A pages on the Ice Age and radiometric dating.
See also this useful offsite resource: Jericho chronology dispute. Robert Carter Yes, I read the article, but I still find it strange that there are multiple observations which point to billions of years of time, yet the Bible is the only thing which points to a few thousand years of time.
This does not mean that recalibration is bad, indeed it is necessary, but it should make one more soberly assess any reported dates as being tentative.
The problem is that most people reporting on these issues fail to report the initial number along with the calibrated date. The Jericho controversy is soundly rooted in C-14 calibration.
In the end, though, it seems to me there is little debate about the rate of decay in the historical era.