John Knight wrote:
<snip>
> All of which, of course, ignores that all of the key research was completed
> by Henri Becquerel, Pierre Curie, Wilhelm C. Röntgen in 1895, Henri
> Poincaré, Edmond Becquerel, G. Schmidt, Jacques Curie, Ernest Rutherford in
> January 1899, P. Villard in 1900, André Debierne in 1899, and William
> Crookes in 1900.
No it doesn't, it was one of the Becquerel's who discovered that Uranium gave off similiar radiation
as X-Rays, although it was Marie Curie who furthered that research, coined the phrase
"radioactivity" (based on the Latin for ray) to describe the constant stream of
particles/waves/emenations from the elements Uranium and Thorium
>> And, that Marie got a quarter of a Nobel Prize because ONE of these men, the
> husband of Marie, asked:
>> Would a joint award be "more satisfying from the artistic point of view"?
Actually, to qoute from http://www.aip.org/history/curie/recdis2.htm:
"MARIE WAS NOT REALLY NOMINATED for her first Nobel Prize. From the inception of the award in 1901,
the Nobel Prizes have been made after a lengthy evaluation of the merits of nominees. In 1903 the
French Academy of Sciences nominated Henri Becquerel and Pierre -- but not Marie -- Curie as
candidates for the physics prize. If not for the intervention of a member of the nominating
committee, Swedish mathematician Magnus Goesta Mittag-Leffler, Marie might have been denied
recognition for her work. But Mittag-Leffler, an advocate of women scientists, wrote Pierre advising
him of the situation. In his reply Pierre made clear that a Nobel Prize for research in
radioactivity that failed to acknowledge Marie's pivotal role would be a travesty. Some strings were
pulled, and a nomination of Marie Curie in 1902 was validated for 1903."
>> iow, your assertion is about like claiming that Sue is the strongest person
> in the world because her sister's son met a guy on a bus who read Superman
> Comic Books.
Not at all.
>> Marie was so far removed from the process that it's really hard to imagine
> how this LIE has held up so well for almost a century.
What bullshit. You actually didn't read the site, not that I'm surprised. You have selective
literacy. Marie was PIVOTAL to the process. If it wasn't for her pioneering work, we might not be
where we are at today.
>> John Knight
>>
