Re: NY Times Editorial on Marie Curie

[Akira Ito <AIto@jfcr.or.jp>]

Dear Mr. Davis,

Thank you for the introduction of NY Times editorial on the centennial of
discovery of radioactivity by Curies and solicitation for the comments;
As a secretary general of the Japanese committee for Ra 100
I should comment following two points ;

> (1) About the uncertainty in the cause of Mme Curie's death,

  Mme Curie's internal dose due to radium has recently found to be much
less than the maximum accepted concentration to the public. In 1995, Mme
Curie's coffin was moved to Pantheon to be given France's highest honour.
At that time, French Office of Ionization Radiation Control (ORPI) had
measured radon concentration in her coffin. It was 360 Bq/m3 while the
maximum accepted public concentration is 7000 Bq/m3. See further details
in the article entitled "X-rays, not radium, may have killed Curie", 
Nature, Vol. 377, 14 September 1995

> (2) an implication that "scientific exploration of radiation" resulted
>  in atomic bomb casualties

  This is the repeated issue. I believe that science itself is knowledge
about nature. It could be used for both peace and war. It is the 
responsibility of the politics and society to properly use the scientific
knowledge. Thus, I think the editorial ignored this very important 
distinction between science itself and decision made by society.

Now, should I write those points to the editor of the NY Times ?

At 12:31 98/11/23 -0600, you wrote:
> Radsafers -
> Today's NY Times has a short editorial  entitled Marie Curie and A Century of
> Radiation.  It starts out saying nice things about Madame Curie and then
> refers to a current exhibit at the NY Academy of Science on the history of
> radioactivity.  Then it goes on to say:  " [the exhibit] suggests that the
> history of radioactivity during the past century divides into two parts,
> before 1934, when natural radioactivity was the focus of scientific study, and
> after 1934, when the first man-made radioactive elements were created.  Most
> laypeople are likely to feel that the century divides a little more neatly
> than that:  before 1945, when the first atomic bombs were detonated, and after
> 1945.
>   Marie Curie died as a result of exposure to radioactivity, some of it
> incurred while preparing radium for medical use.  A century has passed since
> she first discovered that radioactivity was a property of atoms, and we are
> still adding up the balance sheet, still trying to weigh the lives saved or
> improved by the scientific exploration of radioactivity against the lives lost
> or unalterably worsened."
> 
> Based on what I read on Radsafe recently about the uncertainty in the cause of
> Mme Curie's death,  and what seems to be an  implication that "scientific
> exploration of radiation" resulted in atomic bomb casualties, I  think a
> clarifying letter to the editor might be in order.  I think someone who is
> familiar with the Curie medical history should write it.  Or, as a thin-
> skinned HP am I reading the editorial too negatively ?
> 
> Joyce Davis
> 
> JPDavisCHP@aol.com
> hometown.aol.com/jpdavischp    
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
> 
---------------------------------------
Akira Ito, Ph.D. E-mail aito@jfcr.or.jp
Physics Division,  The Cancer Institute
Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research
Toshima-Ku,  Tokyo  Zip:170-8455  JAPAN
Tel 81-3-5394-3817   Fax 81-3-3918-0167

************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html