Re: Marie Curie -Reply

[FRAMEP@ORAU.GOV]

Bruce Busby wrote in part:

>at that time was a little above the average life expectancy (1934).
>I have no doubt that she died of the effects of radiation, but at
>what dose is hard to say. Perrie was run over by a milk truck, and
>in the book (Bio by Eva), a discription of his head being smashed
>open tends to indicate that radiation had little to do with his
death. Mme. had cateracts operated on a few years prior to her death.

Bruce, glad to note your interest in history. Nice to see in a young
guy like you. If your visit materializes, we should have some fun. 

Pierre was run over by a horse drawn wagon, not a truck. The book was
by Eve Curie not Eva. I never said that radiation did him in, only
that his chronic terrible health (while he lived) could well be
attributed to his exposures. He was even proud to display a radiation
burn on his skin from carrying around a source. Speaking of his
crushed skull, Eve's book skipped the episode weeks after his death
when Maries sister Bronya caught Marie embracing Pierre's gore (i.e.
brain) covered clothes. She was so disgusted, she tore them from
Maries hands and threw them in the fire.

>The book by Eva was written in 1937, but the English version was
>translated a little later, in 1938 and published by Double-day in
>1939.

Sorry, I personally have Doubleday English translations printed in
1937 (signed by Eve) and 1938.

>I have the English version. Flowery but not too bad. 

Try the books by Reid or Pflaum.

>As for reports of her using her infirmity at meetings, while it is
>possible, I would also suspect professional jealousy, sexism,
>nationalism and a few other "isms" might
>be flavoring history here, depending on who was reporting it. 

As I recollect: Bertram Boltwood, Ernest Rutherford and Stefan Meyer.
Heavyweights all.  Curie was difficult to work with and not
particularly well liked. She probably did use her health as a tactic.
But there were, as you say,  other factors behind the complaints.
Every issue has more than one side.
 
Rich, regarding your comment that I was interesting but anecdotal.
I'm pleased you found my remarks interesting and found no factual
errors worth noting. Still, what else can one be except anecdotal? We
are talking about the causation of a stochastic effect and dose
reconstruction is beyond the possible. Besides, I was responding in
kind to anecdotal "evidence"

Ain't it great arguing history. Not only that, it is Friday.

Paul Frame
Professional Training Programs
ORISE
framep@orau.gov