> On Mar 25, 2016, at 8:33, "Jones Beene" <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > > However ... it should be noted that there is one other possibility to > consider. Zinc-64 is the most common isotope of zinc, and it is slightly > radioactive !
I like this suggestion a lot. As 64Zn comprises nearly half of natural zinc, it strikes me as more likely there would have been zinc impurity than that there should be a surprisingly high relative fraction of 64Ni. If this is what happened, I'm further surprised that Parkhamov didn't catch something so obvious (with hindsight and/or skill). I'm going to further wager that there was a high degree of measurement uncertainty, obscuring a change that was minor or not at all in this case. Eric
