252 



DISCOVERY 



His criticism is priceless, and his ari^ument. that 

 " Radium is Radium," exposes his logic. (I presume 

 he means it does not matter how it is applied — strong or 

 weak— quick or slow— as long as "Radium is Radium.") 



.As lo his accusation that my book, "containing several 

 very inaccurate descriptions of simple scientific facts" — I 

 must at once say that he cannot prove one single state- 

 ment in my book as being inaccurate. 



I can only conclude that your critic does not under- 

 stand the book, its purposes, and its value. He is of the 

 opinion therefore that it should never have been written. 

 (Sic.) 



Will vou permit me to inform him that among the 

 numerous letters of satisfaction and congratulation I have 

 received are manv from eminent medical and scientific 

 men, also that the theory I advocated has since been 

 put to severe tests by medical men, who are pleased with 

 the good results obtained. Reports will appear in due 

 course in the Medical Press. 



If, therefore, mv suggested Treatment is right and 

 iipparent, men of your critic's calibre must evidently only 

 possess a smattering knowledge of Radio-activity for 

 Therapeutic purposes, and are, therefore, afraid to give 

 their reasons for their " mud throwing." 



.\ copy of this letter, together with a copy of the 

 criticism in your May number (in case this letter is 

 refused the hospitality of your Journal) will be sent by 

 me to all those who have expressed themselves as pleased 

 with mv book, and also to all future readers. 



I think it is time that such unscrupulous and incom- 

 petent criticism should be stopped or exposed. 



Yours, etc., 



J. B. Kf;amek. 

 \\'iieatsiii;af Holsi;, 

 \Vheatsiii£.\f Road, 

 Edgbaston. 



5;/) Jidy, 1922. 



REPLY BY OLR RE\1E\VER. 



-SlK, 



Let me take Mr. Kramer's points in turn. 



(i.) The complaint about the title is neither justified 

 nor important. There are three variants of it, one on 

 the cover, which is the one I took and reproduced 

 accurately, a second on the back of the book, a third on 

 the title page. The one given in Mr. Kramer's letter 

 above makes a fourth. It is a mis-quotation of that on 

 the title page, which was not used, as it was too long. 



(2.) I do not "throw mud without qualification. ' 

 Part of mv review was praise, part criticism. In some 

 ways I thought the book a bad one and said so. The 

 criticism was honest. I have a large experience in read- 

 ing scientific books, and I may claim in all modesty that 

 I know as much about Mr. Kramer's subject as he does. 



(3.) .\nonvmitv is not a crimt. .Short reviews in 

 Discoi'ery and many elsewhere are anonymous. To 

 describe a custom as cowardice is absurd. 



(4.) .Mr. Kramer asks me to prove a single statement 

 in his book as inaccurate. Easily done. On page 6 

 there are ten sentences, seven of which contain mis- 

 statements. He savs there, for instance, that zirconium 

 is a radio-element. L'ntrue. He says that the process 

 of disintegration of the thorium atom lasts 6,000 years. 

 .\ctuallv, the period of average life of thorium atoms is 

 about 18,000,000,000 years! And so on. On page 5 he 

 savs: "If one could add or subtract a certain number of 

 millions of electrons per atom, one element would be 

 converted into another without more ado." No one who 

 understands the subject talks about electrons in millions. 

 From one to approximately a hundred is roughly the 

 number. .\nd the statement itself is not true. The chief 

 point about converting one element into another is that 

 the nucleus and not the attendant electrons must be 

 altered. -Again, although he describes it correctly else- 

 where in the book, he says of radio-activity on page 5: 

 "It means nothing else than the issue of the electrons 

 from the womb of the atom." But it does. The most 

 characteristic radiation from a radio-element is a particle 

 which is not an electron, but a helium atom minus its 

 electrons. In different parts of the book there are errors 

 not trivial and excusable, but such that they reveal the 

 author's ignorance of the subject ho professes to write a 

 book about. 



(5.) I am not concerned with the complimentary 

 reviews and letters Mr. Kramer has received. I should 

 indeed be surprised if journals like Nature or Sciciuc 

 Progress praise the book, but obviously a reviewer's job 

 is to give his own opinion and not those of other people. 

 The book appeared to me to be badly written and in- 

 accurate from the scientific point of view, a rather weak 

 and erroneous account of well-known facts. .And I 

 thought so, and still so think. 



Yours, etc., 



.A. S. Russell. 



THE P.XriFIC B.ASIN .\ND .\MERIC.AN 

 CONTINENT. 



To tlic Editor oi Discovery. 

 Sir, 



With reference to the article by Prof. AAegener in the 

 .Mav number of Discovery, there is no mention of the 

 theorv of the breaking off of the Moon from what is now 

 the Pacific Basin. This, if proved, would explain why 

 there should be so little (comparatively) of the earth's 

 outermost skin ; and also the quicker movement of the 

 .Americas as compared to the rest, since, being nearest 

 in the line of motion to the vacant space, the westernmost 

 part of the continental mass would be most strongly 

 attracted to fill it. 



Yours, etc., 



P. T. English. 



MONTSEKRAT, 



B.W.I. 



2^lli June, iq22. 



