For approximately every 70 C class flares that precede an x-class flare, you should have a muon spike. It can happen, its rare, and that's the case with the Purdue data. No further data has proved any definite pattern of a 40 hour spike before every X-class flare so everything is consistent with a rare event. I am sure you agree with me that this spike in decay is rare, as is a C-class flare producing high speed protons.
Lots of things 'could' happen. 'Could' doesn't mean 'should be taken seriously'. If you look at the Fishbach paper you'll see that the decay counts actually increased (look at the slope) after the more powerful X-class flares. You'd need to think that a weaker flare produced a lot of muons while a much stronger flare produced fewer/none. That's a bit problematic since you've already argued that the X-class flare produced a increase in muons at ground level.
Just the low pressure system over Indiana was enough to cause a muon spike that day.Which makes our whole c-class flare discussion irrelevant, conditions were perfect for a muon spike when they recorded that decay slowdown.
Muons are normally created 5 km in the air, a rocket travelling at 250 km per hour would pass through the muon region in just over one minute, this 1 minute period would not even show on a graph that depicts an entire two year period. I would like to see data from that first one minute. The decay should decrease rapidly for that one minute, followed by a sharp rise, undecayed muons peaking close to the 5km mark.
With a change in decay rate after 1 day of only 10%: The amount of Pu lost in the previous 1 day would be 9.1*10^20 atoms. The thermal output of the leftover at the new accelerated decay rate would be 14500 W. That's a 10% increase from the launch value. There was no spike in power above the launch value so we can rule out any large change in decay rates from your idea.
The earth is overwhelmingly made up of non-radioactive isotopes. Just considering available targets a incoming particle is more likely to strike a non-radioactive atom than a radioactive one. As an example, the most common isotope (90%) of the most common element on earth (32%) is Iron-56. If a muon was able to strike Fe-56 and convert a proton into a neutron (remember charge needs to be conserved so a negatively charged muon can't create a neutron unless it cancels out a positive charge) it would result in MN-56 which is unstable. The number of radioactive decays would increase not decrease because a non-radioactive element was converted into a radioactive element.
i thought we were referring to a laboratory containing already radioactive elements. I am still trying to work out how the gamma radiation dropped there.
Also if you want to use muons as a source for adding neutrons to individual atoms, you should look up the relative abundance of incoming muons vs the number of atoms in a mole. The average influx of muons at sea level is around 1 per minute per cm^2. You linked to a paper showing a 100% increase in muons during a flare, but getting 2 muons instead of 1 per minute isn't going to do much. If you had 10 muons per cm^2 per minute and each one struck a different atom in a 1cm cube of Mn-54, it would take 15,000,000,000,000,000 years to strike all of them. It would require 15 trillion years just to affect .1% of the atoms.
I am more referring to the dispersion of many neutrons during that muon bombardment, than the muons themselves having an effect. The full effects of muon spallation on the production of neutrons is not known:
Neutron production due to cosmic muon spallation is a constant source of background for long-dwell measurements of ﬁssionable material. As such, it is important to understand the diﬀerent underlying physical processes that contribute to neutron production via muon spallation, and their accompanying systematics. Due to the complicated interactions that lead to secondary neutrons, however, a well established theory describing this phenomena is not known.