Skip to main content

All you ever wanted to know about radium...

The Royal Society of Chemistry's journal Chemistry World is building up a unique collection of podcasts on the chemical elements. Each lasts three to five minutes and can be listened to direct, or downloaded either from the site or from iTunes.

I'm delighted to say that I've recently contributed the podcast on radium, which has just gone live. Of course it's not just the element itself - there's Marie Curie, American women dying from a mysterious cancer, and much more. Take a listen by clicking here (or using the player widget further down the page) or click here to subscribe (for free) in iTunes.









Powered by Podbean.com

Comments

  1. Hey, that's terrific! You've got a super voice for this stuff, too, Brian.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I enjoyed the broadcast. You touched on many of the details, such as the Radium Girls and various consumer products, that I discuss in my book Something Out of Nothing: Marie Curie and Radium (FSG, 2006).
    Carla Killough McClafferty
    www.carlamcclafferty.com

    ReplyDelete
  3. Amy - thank you so much!

    Carla - I haven't seen your book - the source of most of the information on Marie Curie and the applications of radium I used was The Curies by Dennis Brian, though I did also make use of a number of other sources.

    If your publisher is interested, I edit the popular science website www.popularscience.co.uk which reviews such books - they can contact the site on info@popularscience.co.uk

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope