Total U-238 activity

[Les Slaback <lester.slaback@nist.gov>]

As Ron K. pointed out, restricting ourselves to the theoretical question ....
1.  The entry in the last two versions of the RHH erroneously shows two
nuclides in the split following the Pa-234m decay.  Only the .13% Pa-234
should be there (shown as Pa235 IT, should be Pa-234).
2. Ignoring some fine details in decay equilibrium this branch then adds
.0013 Bq to the decay total.
3. Taking those details into account note that the daughter activities are
not exactly equal to the parent activity, but are constant in a fixed ratio
at equilibrium which for long lived parents is very close to 1.
4. As to 'PC correctness', given that the attribution of 'daughter' only
applies to the unstable progeny how can one discuss the point without
getting into hotter water?
Disclaimer:  the above are the personal musings of the author, and do not
represent any past, present, or future position of NIST, the U.S. government,
or anyone else who might think that they are in a position of authority. 
Lester Slaback, Jr.  [Lester.Slaback@NIST.GOV] 
NBSR Health Physics 
Center for Neutron Research 
NIST 
Gaithersburg, MD  20899 
301 975-5810