[hairycrab]

I think the correspondent takes issue with the 4th paragraph in your post describing alpha and beta decay; specifically your calling U-234 "much more stable" than U-238. I don't know if "more stable"/"less radioactive" denotes a slower rate of decay, less energy released, or is based on some other metric, but the perceived error seems to hinge on the half-life of U-234 precluding it from being considered "more stable" than the much longer-lived U-238.

As I don't know if that's what a degree of stability in an isotope would refer to I don't take a position, but simply offer a hopefully less confused reading of the exchange y'all are having. I enjoyed reading your posts and found them very approachable.

[godelski]

Oofff, yeah, that was a mistake. Thank you for clarifying. I really wasn't getting what the other user was trying to communicate, but it does make sense now. I was having a hard time seeing it because I was like "yes, that's correct?" not seeing where the actual blunder on my part was lol.

Yes, U-238 is more stable than U-234. I incorrectly wrote the reverse before.

Degree of stability would refer to the rate of decay, which generally is going to strongly correspond to the half-life. (I think the error happened in an edit, where I was previously still talking about Pa. Either way, I messed up)