No doubt; I honestly don't know enough about the "mechanics" of the theory to form an opinion on way or the other. That's why I pinged you to the article. From the looks of things, this may be the reason Firestone and Topping split the sheets -- at least for a while.
Did you happen to read Topping's COUNTER-REBUTTAL to see how well he defended their or HIS conclusions re the carbon dating "anamolies"?
Thanks again:
http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/nucbtrev.html
[snip] As a factual matter there “is” a pattern to abnormally young dates in the Great Lakes region of North America. The sources for these dates were documented thoroughly, and clearly presented in the article. Among Paleo-Indian specialists (relatively few), this pattern is well-known. In addition, we discussed extinctions and mutations that are chronologically related, and based on evidence for prehistoric neutron flux most likely a direct result. “Depleted” Uranium 235 is caused by neutrons, and the excessive Plutonium 239 found in various Paleo-Indian artifacts also is attributable to “neutrons in prehistory” considering all available evidence. The genesis of 14C is neutrons (14N + n = 14C), and the fact that we have hard evidence for prehistoric neutrons necessarily means 14C had to have been produced both in situ, and in the atmosphere. [unsnip]