Talk:Decay correction

ANIKILL

Does the example have to be with poor little animals being killed? Couldn't it be plants? Jerry lavoie 20:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You do want to kill the plants that the poor little beasts are goint to it? Put radioactivity in the spinach that the platypus is going to eat? Vegetarians show their love for animals that eat only plants... Save the plants by exterminating vegetarian animals. Then, save the animals, get your food by implementing your own photosynthesis, be innovative!! Jclerman (talk) 21:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete it or rewrite it

Poorly written artcle to describe a simple equation. Jclerman (talk) 21:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

See more below. Jclerman (talk) 04:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

If an article is poorly written and/or contains factual errors then the solution is to fix it by editing, not to delete it. Also please note that a proposed deletion tag can't be reinstated once anyone has removed it. The procedure to follow for contested deletions is described at WP:AFD. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments.

• The article's title is unique to this article, not used in the literature. I explained this to an editor that sent me private email, to whom I explained also that I am not cognizant of the new system of tags. I had commited the sin of inserting AfD.
• It makes no sense to me to correct, ie edit, incomprehensible or blatantly incorrect statements, other than deleting them. I listed some of them in this dicussion page but nobody has corrected them. This fact shows that nobody else visits this article frequently or cares about its content.
• I tried to learn the tagging system. I got a comment that didn't make sense in view of my reply to my first tag comment. I tried to explain but got no answer. So, I had three tags removed. Shall I post all the private email about them?
• Since the very incorrect statements -that I can't edidt because I don't understand the author's intentions and meanings- have not been commented upon in this discusion page, I could just delete them from the article.
• But, as John Tukey expressed so well, why try to make OK something that is "wrong"? The expression "Decay correct" seems to have been extracted from a badly translated catalog, which is the only citation I found in cyberspace.
• BTW, whey I did edit other articles that were salvageable, I was told to first discuss all changes in the corresponding discussion pages. That is, never to delete or do substantial changes without consent of others.

Jclerman (talk) 10:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• As a positron emission tomography (PET) imaging researcher, I would very much like this page to be improved if possible... I am not yet an expert, but decay correction is used widely in PET imaging, and I am surprised to see such a crudely written wiki on it. 206.83.48.110 (talk) 18:55, 3 January 2017 (UTC) Eli

what do you mean ?

... the number of atoms of the isotope...

...the isotope decays and the isotope remaining is no longer the same as the amount of compound present...

Jclerman (talk) 21:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

decay fiction?

"...applying the decay correct we see that the concentration is 0.5*2.82 so it has actually increased by 40% in that period..."

Do you really mean that after radioactive decay takes place the isotope concentration increased? Jclerman (talk) 22:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite

I gave this a small rewrite today, possibly dumbed it down a bit, but also added a link to it and a reference. It's still far from great, but it's better... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joereddington (talk • contribs) 21:23, 15 April 2018 (UTC)