Letters Received to H.H. Barker, October 16, 1928

UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF CHEMISTRY October 16, 1928 Mr. H. H. Barker United States Radium Corporation 535 Pearl Street . New York City, New York will My dear Howard: I sent on yesterday the last installment of our paper, but I have gone over all of it this morning and wish to suggest one or two changes. In the first place, we ought to secure a photograph showing the set-up for gamma ray measurements. Secondly, I hope that you will add to the data on Table I. In Table II, you called attention to the exponents. The exponents there givan have the minus sign omitted from them to indicate that the values in the table have already been multiplied by 102 or 104 as the case may be. I think this is the usual way of doing. It seems to ma that the last sentence on page 4 of the last installment, now on page 19 when the pages ore numbered consecutively, should be modified. It now reads: "Our experiments then force us to the conclusion that the scintillation method dalls far short of the electroscopic method for detecting radium in expired air'from living persons." I propose as a substitute then for it: "These considerations make us rather skeptical about the reliability of the scintillation method of detecting radon in the expired air of subjects suspected of radium poisoning." On page 5 of the first installment, now page 7, the literature references should be given for the three types of electroscopes used. These references are as follows: 1. Hess, V. F., Phys. Z., 14, 1135, (1913) 2. Schmidt, H. W., Phys. Z., 6, 561, (1905) 3. Lind, S. C., Jour. Ind. Eng. Chemistry, 7. 406, (1915) 12, 469, (1920) If there are any other points that you would like to ha ve some changes made on, please do not hesitate to say so, and let us use all haste now to get this paper in print. Sincerely yours, Herman Schlendt Herman Schlundt. HS