Are you sure
you can read? Your initial link ("The strange case of solar flares and radioactive elements") documents research done by "Jenkins, Fischbach and their colleagues." In other words, "Jenkins et al." "Et al." is short for "et alii" which means "and others." Yes, this is exactly the Purdue University research you link to in your first two cites, ("Evidence for Solar Influence in Nuclear Decay Rates") which was written about in your first link.
Except
there is no evidence for solar influence in nuclear decay rates. This was the point of the Berkeley paper I linked to, which specifically referenced and refuted the claims of "Jenkins et al.":
Recently, Jenkins et al. proposed that these
decay rate variations were correlated with the distance between
the Earth and the Sun. Jenkins et al. went on to suggest that the underlying mechanism responsible for this correlation might be some previously unobserved field emitted by the Sun or perhaps was the result of the (±3%) annual variation in the flux of solar neutrinos reaching the Earth. If the Jenkins et al. proposal were correct, it would have profound consequences for many areas of science and engineering. Thus, it is important to test this proposal in a variety of experiments. Therefore, we have reanalyzed a large body of decay data that we collected over the past 15 years to search for the type of periodic variations observed in the abovementioned experiments.
The conclusion of the paper is what I cited above, which was the definitive refutation of the "Jenkins et al." hypothesis, viz. that the sun has some kind of effect on nuclear decay rates. It does not.
And Ray Tomes is an insane crackpot. Check out his WikiPedia user page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RayTomesThere have been problems with cycles related material in wikipedia. Several people have taken it upon themselves to try and butcher, merge or delete all articles relating to cycles. This is very sad for people that want to learn about cycles. These things have often been done in violation of wikipedia policy. I have continued to do battle and will keep using every channel to try and get a good result.
Do you know why his self-promoted insane crackpot theories about Cycles Harmonics (or whatever) get deleted from WikiPedia? For the same reason that all the other self-promotion of insane crackpot theories by insane crackpots get deleted from WikiPedia: 1) it violates the content guidelines, and (I cannot stress this enough) 2) it is insane crackpottery!!!!