Skip to main content

Atomic Fingerprints - Graham Lappin ***(*)

Isotopes - variants of chemical elements with differing numbers of neutrons in the atomic nucleus - play a major role in our understanding of matter and radioactive decay, as well as being powerful tools for science and medicine. As often seems the case with anything that has some degree of a chemistry focus, it's a topic that isn't heavily covered in the popular science literature, except in passing reference when dealing with the periodic table or radioactivity.

Graham Lappin sets out to give us a comprehensive introduction to isotopes, followed by an exploration of how we make use of them. We start with age of the planet Earth, and various estimates of it before radioactive decay became an effective dating mechanism, bringing in along the way both what isotopes are and a touch of statistics to be able to handle the concept of half lives. We then move on to medicine and biology; plants, animals, life and death; and the beginning of the universe coupled with nuclear bombs.

Because it's covered less elsewhere, I particularly liked the middle sections. It helps that there's a bit more of a personal feel in places, for example where Lappin says 'Allow me to tell you the story of how I found this out' when launching into the idea that different parts of you have different ages. There are great little excursions, for example into getting radioactive tracers into DNA, or in drugs such as paracetamol to trace its path through the human system. Obviously we can't avoid more covered areas, such as the impact of radioactivity on humans and the use of radioactive isotopes in imaging and medicine, but then we get into more novel topics, from radioactive discharges into the oceans to the role of isotopes in environmental issues and crime detection. Really interesting stuff.

In terms of content, then, this is a solid four star book, and it's for this that I thoroughly recommend it. I can only give it three stars for writing, though. Lappin does suffer more than a little from fact statementitis -  'this does this; that is that' and so on and on. Strings of facts don't make for good writing: the book is particularly short of the kind of writing flow that gives readability.

A lesser point is that there's too much unnecessary pedantry, which sometimes misfires. For example, we are told that a luminous watch should be called phosphorescent, as luminous only applies to something that spontaneously and consistently emits light. Even if this were true it is certainly pedantic, but the OED, which I generally consider definitive on what words mean, does not specify this restriction. Similarly, Lappin complains about the term 'precision bombing' saying 'A single bomb hitting a target can be accurate, but it isn't precise', requiring there to be multiple hits to be able to statistically determine precision - yet the dictionary definitions of 'precision' include 'The fact, condition, or quality of being precise; exactness, accuracy' - nothing there about multiple instances being required.

Overall, Atomic Fingerprints is a useful and informative book, but it's a shame that it does not have more of the writing flair that would make it a better popular science read.
Paperback:   
Kindle 
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
Review by Brian Clegg - See all Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly email free hereShort

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

David Spiegelhalter Five Way interview

Professor Sir David Spiegelhalter FRS OBE is Emeritus Professor of Statistics in the Centre for Mathematical Sciences at the University of Cambridge. He was previously Chair of the Winton Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication and has presented the BBC4 documentaries Tails you Win: the Science of Chance, the award-winning Climate Change by Numbers. His bestselling book, The Art of Statistics , was published in March 2019. He was knighted in 2014 for services to medical statistics, was President of the Royal Statistical Society (2017-2018), and became a Non-Executive Director of the UK Statistics Authority in 2020. His latest book is The Art of Uncertainty . Why probability? because I have been fascinated by the idea of probability, and what it might be, for over 50 years. Why is the ‘P’ word missing from the title? That's a good question.  Partly so as not to make it sound like a technical book, but also because I did not want to give the impression that it was yet another book

The Genetic Book of the Dead: Richard Dawkins ****

When someone came up with the title for this book they were probably thinking deep cultural echoes - I suspect I'm not the only Robert Rankin fan in whom it raised a smile instead, thinking of The Suburban Book of the Dead . That aside, this is a glossy and engaging book showing how physical makeup (phenotype), behaviour and more tell us about the past, with the messenger being (inevitably, this being Richard Dawkins) the genes. Worthy of comment straight away are the illustrations - this is one of the best illustrated science books I've ever come across. Generally illustrations are either an afterthought, or the book is heavily illustrated and the text is really just an accompaniment to the pictures. Here the full colour images tie in directly to the text. They are not asides, but are 'read' with the text by placing them strategically so the picture is directly with the text that refers to it. Many are photographs, though some are effective paintings by Jana Lenzová. T

Everything is Predictable - Tom Chivers *****

There's a stereotype of computer users: Mac users are creative and cool, while PC users are businesslike and unimaginative. Less well-known is that the world of statistics has an equivalent division. Bayesians are the Mac users of the stats world, where frequentists are the PC people. This book sets out to show why Bayesians are not just cool, but also mostly right. Tom Chivers does an excellent job of giving us some historical background, then dives into two key aspects of the use of statistics. These are in science, where the standard approach is frequentist and Bayes only creeps into a few specific applications, such as the accuracy of medical tests, and in decision theory where Bayes is dominant. If this all sounds very dry and unexciting, it's quite the reverse. I admit, I love probability and statistics, and I am something of a closet Bayesian*), but Chivers' light and entertaining style means that what could have been the mathematical equivalent of debating angels on