OK, firstly background radiation is unavoidable, the clue is in the word 'background'. There is nowhere that does not have a background level of radiation, some have more than others. This level is higher now than it was before 1944 or so due to the tests that have been done since. EVERYBODY has background radiation, nowhere has none. There is a profitable market recovering ship hulls that sank before WW2 because they have significantly less radiation than steel made after that date. If you are in an area with radon gas seepage you may well be in an area with background radiation levels high enough to worry about.
Secondly, you mean 'affecting' not 'effecting'.
As for the plant I had to replace, there was no bug or virus introduced. The guy I know is obsessive with cleanliness beyond reasonable levels and has a similar obsession with keeping the environment and nutrients correct. Had it been an infection he would have just said that anyway. From what I was told it simply had over 20,000 cuttings taken from it in less than 2 years and the cuttings success rate had gone down to less than 50%. I am sure you know there are more things that can affect a plant than a DNA change, epigenetic changes which happen when a plant undergoes stress for example, or enters flowering. This can permanently change the expression of the DNA without changing the DNA itself. That seems very likely to be the cause of this particular plant losing vigour.
I am saying that pollen is not digital. It is not something that either works 100% perfectly or does not work at all. I was responding to the people who said there were no possible changes. I am also not saying that refrigeration or freezing affects seed or pollen, not sure where you got that from. Seeds have combined DNA, which is not the same as the uncombined DNA of pollen. It is completely possible for there to be environmental factors that could affect pollen but not a seed. Seeds are packaged to protect the contents, pollen is not. I also never mentioned HPS.
There are possible changes. Time makes them more possible. Like I said, any pollination after this amount of time will be impressive. I personally think it is possible (note possible, not likely) that even if the 10 year old pollen germinates the flower and produces a seed that the plants might not be as good as the same cross done 10 years ago. If there were no possible changes, pollen would last forever, and always germinate flowers. This is not the case therefore pollen changes over time.
I will repeat that I look forward to a report on the vigour of any plants that come from this experiment to see if this is the case. That is the test, shall we wait to see the result?