This almost sounds medieval to my ears. It’s kinda freighting how far we’ve gotten in merely 100 years.
https://www.ined.fr/en/everything_about_population/demograph...
https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/field/infant-mortalit...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_an...
Blood letting (and its foundation the four humors) was still a thing when the Curies discovered radium.
We have come a long way indeed.
I can totally imagine one of my gout-ridden relatives incidentally discovering that after losing a good chunk of blood (maybe a hunting accident, or a fuckup in a pottery workshop) that their foot stopped stabbing in pain. And then going "what else can I cure this way?".
And there's some new things that bloodletting is the only known treatment for. Like PFAS accumulation.
> PFAS accumulation
Highly overblown. People drink alcohol at quantities know to be carginogenic and we don’t have the histeria that we do about something in the ppb range.
That's the difference. Bloodletting seems barbarous because it definitely didn't cure most things it was used for.
Medieval? The 19th century was not a good place.
> [A patent radioactive medicine]’s most loyal customer was Eben Byers, well known in Pittsburgh society as a wealthy manufacturer, sportsman, and playboy, approaching fifty years of age. Byers continued to take Radithor more desperately each year as his health failed, until in 1931 he entered a hospital, feeble and emaciated, his very breath radioactive. He did not have time to develop cancer but died of direct radiation injury within a few months.
> This was the first proven case of death from a patent radioactive medicine ... The public was not easily convinced that radioactivity could be dangerous at all [...] Doctors of sound reputation continued to use heavy doses of radiation to treat not only serious ailments but also cosmetic problems like warts or excess facial hair. Some even offered men temporary birth control through X-ray sterilization. As late as 1940 many hospital and laboratory workers were casually exposing themselves to radiation at levels far above the official guidelines.
[...]
> During the 1950s X-rays were often used to kill unwanted body hair, thousands of fluoroscopes in shoe Stores across the United States and Europe showed people the bones in their children’s feet; some hospitals routinely X-rayed infants simply to please parents with an inside view of their offspring.
From "Nuclear Fear; a history of images"
Kids can’t reliably tell you the fit of their shoes, and some footwear doesn’t yield to the “thumb-at-toe” test.
(1) https://spectrum.ieee.org/amp/when-xrays-were-all-the-rage-a...
Solves the fit problem quickly and avoids any X-Ray exposure.
I do think it's in general a good idea to use such tools for better fits, shoes tend to focused more on narrow feet which is possibly a side effect of the shoes themselves. I have to stick to certain brands that cater towards wide feet. Perhaps in the future 3D printed shoes will be good enough that I can swap out my regular shoes for hyper-customized ones.
It's only when you start refining and enriching natural things that they become really risky. Unfortunately thats what Curie did.
It’s a big factor, but not only. You don’t need to refine or enrich anything to have radon poisoning, for example.
Tunnels and caves could still be problematic though there’s a lot of gasses that can cause problems in such environments.
All her written texts i can find after she moved to France she referred to herself as "Marie"
In her biography of Pierre Curie, she herself wrote of herself before she married "Mon nom est Marie Sklodowska"
here's a letter she wrote to the president and signed simply "Marie Curie" https://www.docsteach.org/documents/document/letter-from-mar...
AFAIK, in 19th century France, a woman's legal name did not change after she married. She adopted her husband's name as a matter of usage, however. FWIW, I, too, have heard that Marie Skłodowska-Curie wished to make prominent her maiden name, perhaps in the double barrelled form (which is the way I've seen it many times in other languages).
Are you sure you are not a victim of Polish nationalism here?
"Contrary to the practice of some other countries, French women do not legally change names when they marry; however, it is customary that they adopt their husband's name as a "usage name" for daily life." [0]
She is far more widely known as Marie Curie in the English speaking world. Using any other name would be confusing for most readers.
And after a while it won't be confusing at all.
Naive question but is Czechia a new name? The UN lists "Czech Republic" as official name and "Czechia" as the short name.
> Republic of Ireland for Ireland
To be fair, I don't think this is partisan, but rather just a way to differentiate the state from the island.
It's a complicated subject, and nobody begrudges them the clarity.
Not once have I heard anyone even broach this as a topic. Nobody cares. If someone asks you where you are from, and you tell them Ireland, and they inquire the north or the republic - what are you going to do? Just repeat "Ireland" at them like some kind of contrarian idiot? Tell them you are "not from northern Ireland" so as to rule out all of the places you are not from?
ROI is a perfectly serviceable term for helping people understand what you mean, if the context isn't clear enough already.
I have a feeling you just don't pay attention or, from previous experience with you, are incapable of determining how other people feel about this topic.
> ROI is a perfectly serviceable term for helping people understand what you mean, if the context isn't clear enough already.
It's a specifically politically charged term used by people who either don't know better or have a bone to pick. It's not commonly used in Ireland and it's not used to differentiate innocently between Northern Ireland and Ireland.
Are you confusing me with someone else? I don't think we've spoken before.
> I have a feeling you just don't pay attention
To what exactly? Where does this topic come up regularly for you?
> It's a specifically politically charged term used by people who either don't know better or have a bone to pick.
You are the only one picking a bone. I'm merely relating that I don't care and have never heard anyone care before.
> It's not commonly used in Ireland
Did you even read my responses? I said as much myself. You're arguing with the ghost of someone else or something.
And you, quite clearly, appear to be the one who has a bone to pick! Everybody else is (thankfully!) now moving on with their lives.
Or you're just blind to the issues. Your comments here and lack of familiarity with Irish politics and culture suggests you may be a non-Irish person making assumptions about the country? Or maybe you are Irish and oblivious.
Not a new name, but Czechia has made a concerted effort since 2016 to have it used in place of the Czech Republic. Almost all international body and most media style guides have since acceded. The BBC lags.
> To be fair, I don't think this is partisan, but rather just a way to differentiate the state from the island.
No, like the British Isles, this is very much a controversial name and one to which the Irish Government formally objects. This is even the source of a diplomatic disagreement between the Irish Government and Wikipedia due to their style guide.
Czech Republic is sill the formal name, right? Last time I checked it was overly formal, but not wrong to use it.
> Republic of Ireland for Ireland
Brits do this because of Northern Ireland (mostly for bad reasons, but still).
Countries are called differently depending on language and context. It’s fine.
This isn't specific to the British! ROI and NI refer to different countries on the island of Ireland.
I'm curious why you state "mostly for bad reasons"? (I assume you are American!)
But it is. Republic of Ireland when used to refer to the country is used almost exclusively in Britain and specifically to marginalise the country of Ireland.
No, the exact opposite is true. The Irish Government even instruct all bodies of the State to never use either term.
> it's not offensive at all to my irish self and is on every international letter address.
It may not offend you, but is not on any international address. Don't know where you get that idea.
> southern ireland is mildly offensive because it implies ignorance of my government but not very much so.
Southern Ireland and Republic of Ireland are both used in different contexts primarily by British institutions to marginalise Ireland and to appease Unionists, who complain any time Ireland is used to refer to the country.
> if it was offensive we wouldn't use the term northern ireland so often. the official name for that is so long i don't remember it off hand.
The official name of Northern Ireland is "Northern Ireland".
Honestly, I can't tell if you're trolling or actually this ignorant of your own country?
Still, people need to respect the fact that each language can create their own variants. English speakers are under no obligation to call Wales "Cymru" or Finland "Suomi". It's fine.
why single it out? even the countries that use (mostly) latin alphabet don't necessary have the same name in english - Poland is Polska, Lithuania is Lietuva, Estonia is Eesti, Finland is Suomi, etc. And latinizations/romanizations are often wildly inaccurate - Ukraine is actually Ukraina, Russia is actually Rossia, and the english pronunciations are completely wrong. Japan is Nihon. etc etc.
>Republic of Ireland for Ireland
there are two irelands, fyi
>Türkiye
no one can type that u on a keyboard without googling and copypasting it. you might as well insist on using hieroglyphs for CJK things
> why single it out?
Because the country of Czechia has asked the English-speaking world to refer to it that way.
> there are two irelands, fyi
There is Ireland, the island of Ireland, and Northern Ireland. Republic of Ireland refers to the soccer team and nothing else, FYI.
The country of Ireland has also requested that the English speaking world use its name, Ireland and specifically not the Republic of Ireland.
> no one can type that u on a keyboard without googling and copypasting it. you might as well insist on using hieroglyphs for CJK things
Ah, so we'll just decide to rename countries with inconvenient letters. How very colonial of you.
'The Republic of Ireland' is the official descriptive term for the country named 'Ireland' in English, per the Republic of Ireland Act 1948. I have certainly heard 'Republic of Ireland' used in Ireland, or just 'the Republic', but almost always in cases where the descriptive distinction is important. I'd agree that outside of those cases, using 'Republic of Ireland' by default can be a problem.
>Because the country of Czechia has asked the English-speaking world to refer to it that way.
Unlike the political complexities around 'Republic of Ireland', 'The Czech Republic' actually is the official long name of the country in English, with 'Czechia' the official short name; the country's government promotes 'Czechia', but I don't think there is a suggestion that 'Czech Republic' is no longer acceptable. I have also never actually heard anyone in the country refer to it as Czechia in English.
The context is important. The Act revoked dominion status and role of the British Crown in the Irish executive branch, thus making Ireland a republic, and so deserving of a new description (the previous having been the Irish Free State).
Czechia is the only way I've heard the country referred to (in the news as it rarely comes up in person).
I don't think anybody plays "soccer" in Ireland! (Not in NI or the Republic!)
If the former, you're wrong: soccer is the most played sport in Ireland.
If the latter, you're wrong: football is Gaelic football almost universally outside Dublin and soccer is soccer. In Dublin, it's 50/50 depending on area, but no-one will blink if you say soccer.
This is just how language works.
In English, we say: Sri Lanka, not Ceylon, Burkina Faso, not the Republic of Upper Volta, Botswana, not the Bechuanaland Protectorate, Bangladesh, not East Pakistan, The Netherlands, not Holland, Thailamd, not Siam, Etc
Colonialism perfectly sums up the arrogant attitude that you can decide for them what another country will be called.
Do you know how ridiculous you sound?
Do you? Has Vienna or Swansea asked you to change how you refer to them? If they did, would you? If not, why not?
Curiously, they don't seem to notice it in the workings of the very hermeneutic itself.
The Finns call Germany "Saksa", those Finno-imperialists!
The Poles call it "Niemcy".
This has already happened quite recently as the Netherlands requested that countries moved to translations of Netherlands when referring to their country (as opposed to Holland and translations thereof) and all the EU nations did. This was in 2019.
So if Germany so desired, they could make those requests and they would be honoured. In a few decades, the old names would be as antiquated as Rhodesia, Burma, or Zaire are now.
If so, what does the Netherlands think of that?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ü#Letter_Ü
> The letter Ü is present in the Hungarian, Turkish, Uyghur Latin, Estonian, Azeri, Turkmen, Crimean Tatar, Kazakh Latin and Tatar Latin alphabets
I see and generally agree with your point, however that "no one" is approx. 120 million people. Just saying.
Probably 90% of people globally can input the diacritic without difficulty, but even if not, the fallback should be Turkiye, not Turkey.
The best way I can think of to make a "radiation camera" is similar to how you can make a "wifi camera", by hooking up a radiation detector to a pan-tilt mechanism, and moving it around very slowly and sampling the amount of radiation detected at each point. Essentially a single pixel "camera" that you have to move around to take a full picture. However, you'd also have to shield the detector from any radioactivity coming from directions that it's not pointed in, which is especially hard if you're trying to capture gamma rays, since they like to penetrate through everything. Its like if light could leak into the side of a normal camera, you'd get rubbish photos
Sure, we probably can't make Geiger counters in a form factor that allows an array of a million of them in a handheld device, but maybe 20x16 or something?
https://www.cosmos.esa.int/web/xmm-newton/technical-details-...
For instance we routinely take plenty of x-ray images, though there is fortunately not a lot of stuff just lying around that are bright enough x-ray sources to properly expose standard x-ray detectors.
Detecting electrons or protons (beta and alpha radiation) in such a way that you can work out their arrival direction is also doable, but the equipment is fairly bulky and you tend to have to wait a long time to accumulate enough detections to see anything.
However that might not work well because the material around the pin-point aperture might not absorb sufficiently the rays coming from different directions and it cannot be made thick.
So what may work better is to make the detector array in the form of a compound arthropod eye, where each detector is at the bottom of a long tube whose walls absorb the rays coming from any other direction except its axis.
In practice, besides trying to absorb the rays coming from different directions, preventing them to reach the detector, for high-energy rays there is the alternative to use 2 or more collinear detectors for each direction (corresponding to an image pixel). A high-energy particle or photon will pass through all collinear detectors, causing simultaneous pulses at their outputs. Whenever such pulses are not simultaneous, they are discarded, because they correspond to rays coming from another direction than intended for that pixel. The accumulated count of filtered pulses per some time interval will give the luminosity of the corresponding image pixel.