Abstract
I CANNOT let Prof. Rutherford's letter in NATURE of June 6 pass without directing attention to one striking consequence, in which I personally am interested. During 1904 and 1905 I published (NATURE, May 12, 1904, January 26, 1905, and Phil. Mag., June, 1905, p. 768) the result of an experiment which went to show that a kilogram of uranyl nitrate, purified initially from radium by precipitating barium as sulphate in its solution, and kept 550 days, generated a quantity of radium which, although only one-thousandth part of what is theoretically to be expected on the view that a direct change of uranium X into radium takes place, was still one hundred times the amount initially present. Boltwood (Am. Journ. Sci., September, 1905, xx., 239), working with one hundred grams of uranyl nitrate purified from radium initially by repeated crystallisations from water, was unable to observe any detectable increase after a period of 390 days, and concluded that “the results obtained by Mr. Soddy are without significance,” and averred that my results were due to the introduction of radium salts during the tests.
Similar content being viewed by others
Article PDF
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
SODDY, F. The Origin of Radium. Nature 76, 150 (1907). https://doi.org/10.1038/076150a0
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/076150a0
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.