I see your point. Radiation poisoning nowadays has a specific medical meaning but this was in her day before there was even such a cause of death.
Well, I am not medical expert, but I believe that radiation poisoning can refer, even today, to any of the acute or chronic diseases, injuries, and maladies caused by acute or chronic radiation exposure. I suppose people usually use it today to refer to the acute effects since we know enough about bionuclear medicine to prevent chronic exposure from being a problem.
I must bow to your superior knowledge of Galilean orbital mechanics. May I ask what the parallax problem was all about?
Well, essentially there were two competing systems, neither of which made perfect predictions. One was Ptolemy's system of orbital mechanics, which was pretty good, but was occasionally having to have new epicycles added to it to make it more accurate in line with better observations. The Copernican model that Galileo embraced and helped perfect, while also imperfect had the virtue of being simpler. However, simply being simpler does not necessarily make it more correct, and during his trials, the inquisition essentially found that while Galileo's system of orbital mechanics was a better system in terms of predicting planetary motion, it had no better empirical evidence than Ptolemy's system and should not be taken literally.
In modern times, we have the virtue of knowing what the "right" answer was, but at the time of the trial, the evidence for Galileo's theory was only marginally better than the accepted theory, so let us look at the evidence.
- Both were roughly equal at predicting the motion of the planets. Both were imperfect. It was later scientists who helped provide the essential evidence modifying Galileo's mechanics to make it better able to predict the motions of the planets.
- Galileo's theory was simpler and had less ad hoc revisions, but still had to have had revisions to better refine it.
- Galileo's observation of the phases of Venus and the apparent circular motions of Jupiter's four Galilean moons seemed to support the notion that smaller objects moved in circles around larger objects. However, as the telescope's use in astronomy was fairly new, not many people had seen this evidence themselves.
- According to Galileo's theory, the earth would move once orbital radius away from its present position every six months. Between those time periods, if the stars were not equal distances away, stellar parallax should be observed (the foreground stars moving relative to the background stars [if you need a primer on this, look for a video or illustration of stellar parallax] Despite numerous attempts, Galileo failed to observe any stellar parallax. This was a huge failure of his theory. What few realized was just how far away the closest stars were. Even today, we cannot measure the parallax of distant stars. The first parallax as measured in the mid 1800s.
- Another problem with Galileo's theory was that, despite the work of Kepler, Galileo insisted that orbits were circular. If he had recomputed the orbits assuming they were elliptical, he probably could have made better predictions.