Wood’s paper was not well received by everyone. Since their apparent discovery, over 20 scientists had published dozens of papers on the properties of N-rays. Jean Becquerel, son of radioactivity discoverer Antoine Henri Becquerel, was one of them. Jean had reported that he could stop N-ray emissions by “anesthetizing” them with chloroform! A lot of scientists now had their reputations on the line. They would look like fools if N-rays proved to be a mere fantasy.
Things quickly started getting ugly, with accusations flying back and forth, some of them racist. Certain N-ray critics sarcastically suggested that only the Latin races seemed to have sensory and intellectual capacities to detect N-rays. The Latins retorted that Anglo-Saxon scientists had their senses dulled by overexposure to fog and beer. Roentgen and the Curies wisely decided to remain quiet on the subject of N-rays and just let things run their course. Blondlot finally pleaded for peace between the warring factions: “Let each one form his personal opinion about N-rays, either from his own experiments or from those of others in whom he has confidence.” But Wood had mortally wounded N-rays and they were destined to suffer a slow, but inevitable, death.
Surprisingly, some support for N-rays persisted as late as the 1940s, which was well into the nuclear age. But then, N-rays completely disappeared from the scientific literature and from physics textbooks, without any formal pronouncement of their demise. It was just as James Clerk Maxwell, the mathematician who produced the equations that foretold the existence of radio waves long before they were discovered, had once said regarding the old corpuscle (particle) theory of light: “There are two theories of the nature of light, the corpuscle theory and the wave theory; now we believe the wave theory because all those who believed in the corpuscle theory have died.”5
This is why no one today ever gets an N-ray scan and we don’t make cancer risk estimates for N-ray doses. But the reason for retelling the N-ray story here is not to posthumously embarrass the unfortunate Professor Blondlot, or those other scientists who bought into his N-ray tall tale. Rather, this story is told to underscore the point that all of us, including scientists, are human. We have biases and we make mistakes. And we don’t always see things as they really are. Our impressions of reality are often colored by the events of the day, and we easily forget the lessons of our past. The moral of the N-ray story is that we need to remain open to new ideas, yet not deceive ourselves with wishful thinking or blindly accept trendy notions. We should be simultaneously inquisitive and yet suspicious, just as Roentgen, Morgan, and Wood were. We must be skeptical of all new claims, not to be obstructive to progress, but rather because the offspring of skepticism is rigor. It is rigorous inquiry that purges us of our biases and makes it harder for others to deceive us, and for us to deceive ourselves. Going forward into our future with radiation, let us embrace skepticism and insist on rigor.
By the way, in answer to Blondlot’s original question, x-rays are indeed polarized. The discovery was quietly made in 1904, one year after the N-ray incident, by Charles Glover Barkla (1877–1944), a 27-year-old British physicist who was trained at the Cavendish Laboratory by J. J. Thomson. Barkla ignored Blondlot’s sparks and used a completely different experimental method.
Barkla studied x-ray polarization using an approach that was similar to the way polarized sunglasses filter out glare (a population of light waves with mixed orientations). Polarized lenses have microscopic parallel slits that can only admit light waves that have the same orientation as the slits (horizontal), thereby filtering out any light waves not oriented with the slits (vertical). If one polarized sunglass lens is laid over another, and then the two are rotated with respect to each other, an orientation can be found in which no light at all will pass through the stacked pair. In effect, you’ve oriented the parallel slits of the two lenses perpendicular to each other (e.g., horizontal slits are overlaid with vertical slits), such that light passing through the first lens results in a population of waves with the wrong orientation to pass through the slits of the second lens. Thus, everything gets blocked. This, in essence, is the approach that Barkla took to show that x-rays were polarized. He pointed an x-ray beam through a series of apertures and showed that the x-rays passed through the apertures as though they were polarized.
Barkla also used small gas ionization chambers to actually measure the x-rays transmitted through the apertures, so he didn’t need to rely on changes in brightness or any other visual clues. His experiments were quickly duplicated and accepted by other scientists. Shortly thereafter, the conclusion that x-rays are polarized soon became a commonly accepted fact (at least among physicists), thanks to Barkla. Then Barkla went on to make more valuable discoveries about the properties of x-rays that eventually earned him the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1917. This was just two years after Willie Bragg had received his Nobel for definitively showing that x-rays can bounce off of crystals, and 16 years after Roentgen had won his prize for convincingly showing, to his own satisfaction and that of everyone else, that x-rays—those invisible electromagnetic waves of energy that can pass through solid matter as though it were air—are real. Just as real as the light from the sun, even though no one can see them.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
First and foremost, I want to thank all of my friends and colleagues who generously gave of their time to read and critique various chapters from this book. Merging story with science is a delicate and intricate dance. The lay readers made sure that the science never suppressed the narrative, and the scientific readers helped ensure that the science was never compromised for the sake of the story. I am indebted to all of them, many of whom caught errors that saved me from publishing inaccurate information. Nevertheless, if any errors remain, I accept full responsibility.
These wise and critical readers are listed here in alphabetical order, along with others individuals who made contributions to this book: Mary Katherine Atkins, Tyler Barnum, Gerald Beachy, Michael Braun, Richard Brown, Ken Buesseler, Marissa Bulger, John Campbell, Thomas Carty, Harry Cullings, Daniel Dean, Mary Ellen Estes, Matthew Estes, Alexander Faje, Gregory Gilak, Andrew Herr, John Jenkin, David Jonas, Anna Jorgensen, Helen Jorgensen, Matthew Jorgensen, Christopher Kelly, Manu Kohli, Allan L’Etoile, Ann Maria Laurenza, Paul Laurenza, Collin Leibold, Paul Locke, Ryan Maidenberg, Nell McCarty, Matthew McCormick, David McLoughlin, Jeanne Mendelblatt, Kenneth Mossman, Fred Palace, Jessica Pellien, Gary Phillips, Virginia Rowthorn, Cathleen Shannon, Karen Teber, Mark Watkins, Jonathan Weisgall, and Timothy Wisniewski.
I want to single out Paul Laurenza—a renaissance man whose wide knowledge base spans both the humanities and the sciences—for special thanks. His legal training gave him keen and critical eyes. He dissected every sentence of this book and purged the prose of all pesky ambiguities, forcing me to say exactly what I meant and mean exactly what I said. Sadly, due to his extreme literalness, he sometimes deprives himself of the joys of the double-entendre and fails to appreciate the humor inherent in irony. Nonetheless, he does fully recognize the dangers posed by poor syntax and whimsically placed commas. (I will never look at a comma the same way again!) I appreciate all that he did to elevate the quality of this book, and I greatly value his enduring friendship. Thanks, Paul!
I’d like to acknowledge that my personal understanding of radiation risks has benefited greatly though my associations, over the years, with some truly outstanding scientists and teachers, each of whom influenced my thinking in profound ways. I hope that I have done justice to their wise counsel, and that I have met the same high scientific standards that they themselves always maintained. I sincerely thank all of them for sharing their wisdom with me, and feel blessed for having had the privilege to know such remarkable professionals and count them among my friends. For those who have already passed, I hope that this book pays tribute to their enduring memory. These sages include: Michael Fry, Thomas G. Mitchell (1927–1998), Marko Moscovitch (1953–2013), Kenneth Mossman (1946–2014), Jonathan Samet, and Margo Schwab.
I especially
want to thank Jessica Papin, my literary agent at Dystel & Goderich Literary Management. She pulled my book proposal from the “slush pile” and skillfully guided this rookie author all the way to the publishing finish line. I am likewise indebted to Ingrid Gnerlich, my editor at Princeton University Press, who came through on all of her promises and added a tremendous amount of literary value to the book. She was a true pleasure to work with. I also thank all of the editorial staff at Princeton University Press who worked so hard to put this book together and promote its sale, including: Eoghan Barry, Colleen Boyle, Eric Henney, Alexandra Leonard, Katie Lewis, Jessica Massabrook, Brigitte Pelner, Caroline Priday, Jenny Redhead, and Kimberley Williams.
I further want to thank Carole Sargent, Director of Scholarly Publications at Georgetown University, for providing wise advice during every step of the publishing process, and the members of my Georgetown writers’ group, Jeremy Haft and Anne Ridder, for their support.
What little skill I have in writing in narrative style I owe to Raymond Schroth S.J., my journalism professor at Fordham University. He has very high writing standards that I always struggled to attain. I hope this book meets with his approval and does credit to his fine teaching. Thank you, Fr. Schroth.
On the home front, I want to thank my wife, Helen, and my children, Matthew and Anna. They graciously endured my daily dinnertime banter about the ups and downs of writing a book, and provided the encouragement I needed to get the job done. I value their unwavering support and want them to know that I love them very much.
Lastly, I want to thank Mark Twain for sharing his simple and ageless wisdom with the rest of us. We need more Mark Twains in the world.
NOTES AND CITATIONS
Some of the citations in the endnotes, as well as some references listed in the bibliography, include web pages with URLs that may expire after this book has been published. Such web pages may be recoverable using the Internet Archive Wayback Machine (http://www.archive.org/web/web.php).
PREFACE
1. Gottschall J. The Storytelling Animal.
2. Paulos J. A. Innumeracy.
CHAPTER 1: NUCLEAR JAGUARS
1. Slovik P. The Perception of Risk.
2. NCRP Report. Ionizing Radiation Exposure of the Population of the United States.
CHAPTER 2: NOW YOU SEE IT
1. In about 100 AD, glassblowers in Alexandria, Egypt, discovered that by adding manganese dioxide to their glass formulations, the glass became clear.
2. Newton is more famous for his contributions toward understanding gravity than for his work in optics. A popular, though false, story has him formulating his theory of gravity after an apple fell on his head.
3. Gleick J. Isaac Newton, 60–98.
4. Jonnes J. Empires of Light, 35.
5. Jonnes J. Empires of Light, 71.
6. Stross R. The Wizard of Menlo Park, 172–173.
7. Stross R. The Wizard of Menlo Park, 172.
8. Stross R. The Wizard of Menlo Park, 180.
9. With direct current, electrons flow continuously in the same directions within the transmission wires. With alternating current, electrons flow in one direction for a short time and then in the opposite direction for a short time, in a continuous cycle.
10. Carlson W. B. Tesla, chapter 5.
11. Edison had once asked the SPCA to supply him with stray dogs for his electrocutions. The organization declined to comply (Stross R. The Wizard of Menlo Park, 176).
12. “Coney Elephant Killed,” New York Times, January 5, 1903.
13. Stross R. The Wizard of Menlo Park, 178.
14. Stross R. The Wizard of Menlo Park, 18.
15. McNichol T. AC/DC, 143–154.
16. http://wn.com/category:1903_animal_deaths
17. Around this time, the board of directors of the electric company that Edison founded decided that his name wasn’t as valuable to the masthead as they had once supposed, and they changed the name from Edison Electric to General Electric. (Stross R. The Wizard of Menlo Park, 184–186; Jonnes J. Empires of Light, 185–213; Essig M. Edison & the Electric Chair.) For the complete story of Edison’s role in developing the electric chair, see Essig, M. Edison & the Electric Chair.
18. The song was recorded by the Brooklyn, New York, band Piñataland in 2001.
19. Stross R. The Wizard of Menlo Park, 124.
20. Wavelength is one of the parameters that characterizes an electromagnetic wave. We will define and discuss wavelengths more fully later. Just know for now that the wavelength of a form of radiation determines exactly what that radiation is able to do.
21. Larson E. Thunderstruck, 22.
22. This first transmitted message was uninformative. It was simply the letter “s” in Morse code (i.e., dot dot dot) repeated over and over again.
23. Larson E. Thunderstruck, 69.
24. Edwin H. Armstrong (1890–1954) and Lee DeForest (1873–1961) were notable contributors to the development of voice radio.
25. Watts are a unit of power (i.e., energy per unit time), named in honor of James Watt (1736–1839), a Scottish mechanical engineer who made major contributions toward the development of the steam engine. Electrical power is typically expressed in some multiple of watts (1 watt = 1 joule per second). For example, a milliwatt (one thousandth of a watt) is the power output of a laser pointer, while a lightning strike typically deposits at least a megawatt (one million watts) of power.
26. For a power comparison, a modern cell phone only uses three watts of power to communicate across the Atlantic. (Of course, the cell phone’s power is only required to transmit the signal to the nearest cell tower, which in turn relays the message to satellites or land lines. The cell phone itself does not send its signal across the entire distance of the call.)
27. The shorter electromagnetic wavelengths (<200 meters) are better at skip propagation, a phenomenon in which the radio waves are reflected back to Earth from the ionosphere, thus allowing further transmission along the curvature of Earth. Shortwave radio is now mostly used by amateur radio enthusiasts for two-way international communication between low-power transmitter/receivers that are able to broadcast signals over thousands of miles.
28. Larson E. Thunderstruck, 383.
29. Larson E. Thunderstruck, 125.
30. Larson E. Thunderstruck, 103.
31. Larson E. Thunderstruck, 98.
32. Larson E. Thunderstruck, 385.
33. Spelled Röntgen in German.
34. Berger H. The Mystery of a New Kind of Rays, 13.
35. Berger H. The Mystery of a New Kind of Rays, 13.
36. Electrons are charged particles and, like all charged particles, are pushed and pulled by magnetic fields.
37. Nikola Tesla nearly made the same discovery one year earlier. Tesla was using the fluorescent glow from Crookes tubes in photographic experiments. He even attempted to photograph his good friend Mark Twain solely using the eerie illumination from a Crookes tube. But the faint light required long exposure times, and his photographic plates were always mysteriously spoiled when developed. He got frustrated and moved on to other things. After hearing of Roentgen’s discovery of x-rays, he went back and looked at the developed plates. Tesla then realized that shadows of the camera body’s screws and the lens cap were visible in the photographic images, evidently the result of x-rays penetrating the camera’s body and exposing the plate. He is said to have cursed himself: “Damned fool! I never saw it.” The photographic evidence for this anecdote is lacking, however, because he allegedly smashed the plates in anger (Carlson W. B. Tesla, 221–222).
38. Roentgen W. C. “On a new kind of rays.”
39. Berger H. The Mystery of a New Kind of Rays, 16.
40. Berger H. The Mystery of a New Kind of Rays, 17.
41. Berger H. The Mystery of a New Kind of Rays, 17.
42. Badash L. Radioactivity in America, 9.
43. Berger H. The Mystery of a New Kind of Rays, 29.
44. Berger H. The Mystery of a New Kind
of Rays, 30.
45. Even more remarkable, although no one knew it at the time, by February 7, 1896, Chicago physician Emil H. Grubbe had already been using the newly discovered x-rays for over a week to treat breast cancer in a patient named Rose Lee (see chapter 6). Another milestone for x-rays was that the Montreal gunshot victim used the x-ray of his leg as evidence at his shooter’s trial, making it the first use of x-ray evidence in the courtroom.
46. Perhaps Roentgen should have been less altruistic. World War I created tremendous financial difficulties for him, and he faced the end of his long and prestigious life in poverty. In fact, his entire estate was depleted and his university never received any of his Nobel Prize winnings.
47. Thompson was primarily known for his work in electrical engineering and his authorship of a popular series of science books on calculus, electricity, and magnetism. He also wrote biographies of the scientists Lord Kelvin and Michael Faraday. He can be regarded as the Carl Sagan of his day. Thompson repeated Roentgen’s x-ray experiments the day after hearing about them, and he found the results as astounding as Roentgen had asserted. The blessing from Thompson no doubt gave credence to the fantastic x-ray claims of the more obscure Roentgen, and helped popularize the story of his discovery. In contrast, Thompson thought little of Marconi. He described Marconi as “a mere adventurer [who] claims to be an original inventor” (Larson E. Thunderstruck, 222).
48. Berger H. The Mystery of a New Kind of Rays, 45.
49. Kean S. The Disappearing Spoon, 270–271.
50. To be perfectly accurate, the specific subtype of x-rays described here is called Brehmstrahlung (braking) radiation. Roentgen’s x-rays were of the Brehmstrahlung type, but another type of x-rays, known as characteristic x-rays, also exists. See Lapp L. E., and H. L. Andrews. Nuclear Radiation Physics, 150–156.
Strange Glow Page 43
