Bibliography

B. G. Kuznetsov, Frédéric Joliot-Curie, Scientist and Fighter for Peace, Goskultprosvetizdat, 1952, 79 pp., print run 50,000.

Frédéric Joliot-Curie—chairman of the World Peace Council and of the World Federation of Scientific Workers—is an outstanding French scientist who combines fruitful scientific work with an active struggle for the use of the achievements of science for peaceful purposes, for peace throughout the world. As a scientist he made a significant contribution to the physics of the atomic nucleus and especially to the solution of one of the most important problems of modern science—the problem of obtaining atomic energy for practical purposes. Directing the movement of the partisans of peace, which has embraced every corner of the globe, he organizes with inexhaustible energy the broad masses of the people to struggle against American imperialism and its henchmen, who are striving to fan the flames of a new world war. The name of Joliot-Curie is honored by all the peoples of the world. The Soviet people marked Joliot-Curie’s enormous merits in the great struggle for peace by the award of the highest distinction—the International Stalin Prize “For Strengthening Peace Among Nations.” Soviet people show great interest in the life of Joliot-Curie, in his outstanding scientific achievements and political activity.

Goskultprosvetizdat has shown good initiative by publishing B. G. Kuznetsov’s book Frédéric Joliot-Curie, Scientist and Fighter for Peace. This book tells of the life of Joliot-Curie, of his teachers Paul Langevin and Marie Skłodowska-Curie, describes in popular form the main scientific works of Frédéric Joliot-Curie and his wife Irène Joliot-Curie, and recounts his enormous work in leading the movement of the partisans of peace. The composition of the book is successful, consistently revealing the development of Joliot-Curie’s scientific and public activity. In writing the book the author used extensive journal material, as well as Michel Rouzé’s book Frédéric Joliot-Curie, published in Paris in 1950.

The creation of such a book imposes great responsibility on the author and the publishing house. Such a book must be written in a vivid, figurative language understandable to broad masses of readers, and the material presented in it must be absolutely reliable. Unfortunately, B. G. Kuznetsov’s book contains a number of gross scientific errors.

Speaking about the fission of uranium nuclei, the author writes: “It was also established that fission of nuclei is caused only by neutrons moving comparatively slowly” (p. 37)*). The same assertion

*) Here and below the emphasis is ours. (V. L.)

is repeated on the next page as well: “It uses heavy water... to slow down the motion of neutrons: after all, only slow neutrons cause the fission of atomic nuclei.” In fact, it is known that uranium-238 nuclei fission only under fast neutrons, while uranium-235 nuclei fission under both fast and slow ones.

A curious discovery was made by the author in describing the operation of the Joliot-Curie heavy-water atomic pile. In the author’s opinion, the pile is cooled so that... when the heavy water boils, it will not lose its ability to slow down neutrons! On p. 44 he writes: “If the quantity of released energy exceeded a certain norm, the heavy water would not have time to be cooled, would boil up, and would not be able to slow down neutrons...”. And further: “As has already been said, cooling the heavy water is necessary so that it may perform its function—retarding neutrons” (p. 45). The slowing of neutrons occurs on deuterium nuclei, and raising the temperature of the pile not only to the boiling point of heavy water, but far above it, has no effect on this process. The cooling of the pile is carried out, as is known, for entirely different reasons.

Answering the question “What will happen if the moderator (in the pile.—V. L.) fails?” the author writes, with complete seriousness: “Of course, in that case the chain reaction will stop and the pile will cease to operate (!),” without remarking that the question itself is devoid of any scientific meaning.

There is also another gross error in the description of the pile. On p. 44 it is stated: “On the left we see an ionization chamber—a channel in the concrete and graphite walls of the pile. In the chamber there is an instrument measuring the intensity of neutron fluxes.” In reality, an ionization chamber is precisely an instrument measuring the intensity of neutron fluxes, and not a channel in the walls of a pile.

On p. 33 it is first stated: “...the emission of positrons from aluminum atoms continues even after its bombardment by alpha particles has ceased,” but a little lower (in the further discussion of this case of artificial radioactivity) it is correctly said that the positrons are emitted by the radioactive isotope of phosphorus, not aluminum.

In relating on p. 36 the experiment carried out in 1937 by Irène Joliot-Curie and Savić, which showed that when uranium is bombarded by neutrons lanthanum is produced, B. G. Kuznetsov, contrary to historical truth, writes: “As soon as the assumption was made that the substance found by Irène Curie and Savić was lanthanum, Frédéric Joliot-Curie performed the classic experiments confirming that uranium nuclei really do split into two parts close to one another in magnitude.” In fact, this work was done by Frédéric Joliot-Curie almost two years later, after Hahn and Strassmann had discovered the appearance of barium when uranium was irradiated with neutrons, and Meitner and Frisch had proposed the hypothesis of fission of uranium nuclei. Since on p. 37 the author indicates that the fission of uranium nuclei “was finally established in the course of 1939,” and attributes Frédéric Joliot-Curie’s experiment proving this fission to 1937, the reader may begin to doubt the persuasiveness of the Joliot-Curie experiment cited, although in reality this experiment served as reliable proof of the existence of fission.

Speaking of the special nature of nuclear forces, the author says not a word about the work of I. E. Tamm and D. D. Ivanenko, who laid the foundations of modern views on the nature of nuclear forces.

The author incorrectly defines the concept of an “isotope.” He writes: “The presence of neutrons explains, in particular, the existence of isotopes—elements which do not differ from one another in nuclear charge, in the number of

and the arrangement of the electrons revolving around it, but have different atomic weights” (p. 29). Isotopes, as is known, are not a variety of elements, but a variety of atoms of one and the same element.

The book also contains a considerable number of unfortunate phrases, containing stylistic errors that distort the meaning of what is being said. For example, on p. 24 the author writes: “In the radiations of radium and other radioactive elements, various kinds of rays are observed.” Radium and other radioactive elements emit rays, but are not themselves “emitted.” “...particles, flying out of the disintegrating nucleus of radium or from another source, enter the atoms of the substance being irradiated and sometimes destroy these nuclei (?)” (p. 27). “If the photograph contains visible chambers Wilson, then thin streaks of fog will be visible in the photograph...” (p. 32). “Scientific medicine (?) made use of labeled atoms...” (p. 34). “...a radioactive isotope of carbon, which could be produced in large quantities in uranium boilers” (p. 55). Radioactive carbon can be obtained with the help of uranium boilers, but it does not arise in the boilers themselves, as is known. On p. 23 it is said: “...from the increase or decrease of the atomic number, or, as has become clear in our time, of the number of elementary particles of which the atoms of nuclei consist.” Of course, here it should have been written not “the atoms of nuclei,” but atomic nuclei.

The book is overloaded with quotations, and although many of them are very important, still that part of what the author quotes, especially from Michel Rouzé’s book, could usefully have been conveyed in the author’s own words.

The publishing house supplied the book with a preface written by the book’s editor, I. Ermashev. In this short preface there are unfortunate phrases and imprecise formulations. For example, on p. 5 it is said: “The democratic form of government is turning into a mockery.” But it is clear to everyone that the so-called “democratic form of government,” praised in every possible way by imperialist propaganda, has long since become a mockery of the broad popular masses. On p. 10 we read: “Modern France is the arena of the fierce struggle of aggressive and reactionary forces.” It follows that in France today aggressive forces are fighting against reactionary ones.

The shortcomings indicated reduce the quality of the book.

Great blame for the publication of a book on Frédéric Joliot-Curie with such errors lies also with Goskultprosvetizdat. The publishing house, evidently trusting the author completely, failed to arrange for proper qualified scientific editing of the book, probably assuming that this book is above all a work of publicism and that the scientific material in it is of secondary importance.

V. A. Leskovtsev