|
Nuclear Power Is Not the Answer | 
 enlarge | Author: Helen Caldicott
Publisher: New Press
Category: Book
List Price: $23.95
Buy New: $3.98
You Save: $19.97 (83%)
New (31) Used (30) Collectible (2) from $3.50
Rating:  22 reviews
Sales Rank: 457858
Media: Hardcover
Edition: 1
Pages: 128
Number Of Items: 1
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.9
Dimensions (in): 8.2 x 5.7 x 1
ISBN: 1595580670
Dewey Decimal Number: 333.79240973
EAN: 9781595580672
ASIN: 1595580670
Publication Date: August 15, 2006
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Shipping: International shipping available
Condition: New Shrinkwrapped. In stock - Immediate despatch from an efficient and professional leading British bookselling firm.
| |
| Also Available In:
|
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
BThe world-renowned antinuclear activist's myth-busting look at the real costs and consequences of nuclear energy./BBRBRI"Dr. Caldicott is one of the most articulate and passionate advocates of citizen action to remedy the nuclear and environmental crises."/I#151;from the citation for the 2003 Lannan Cultural Freedom PrizeBRBRIn a world torn apart by wars over oil, many politicians are increasingly looking for alternative sources of energy#151;and their leading choice is often nuclear. Among the myths that have been spread over the years about nuclear-powered electricity are that it does not cause global warming or pollution (i.e., that it is "clean and green"), that it is inexpensive, and that it is safe. But the facts belie the barrage of nuclear industry propaganda:BR#149; Nuclear power contributes to global warmingBR#149; The real costs of nuclear power are prohibitive (and taxpayers pick up most of them)BR#149; There's not enough uranium in the world to sustain long-term nuclear powerBR#149; Potential for a catastrophic accident or terrorist attack far outweighs any benefits.BRBRTrained as a physician, and#151;after four decades of antinuclear activism#151;thoroughly versed in the science of nuclear energy, the bestselling author of INuclear Madness/I and IMissile Envy/I here turns her attention from nuclear bombs to nuclear lightbulbs. As she makes meticulously clear in this damning book, the world cannot withstand either.
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 17 more reviews...
 A Misleading Diatribe by a Well-Intentioned Activist December 9, 2008
Robert C. Duncan (Austin, TX USA)
1 out of 1 found this review helpful
It is sad that Dr. Caldicott is still inflaming unfounded fears which have the effect of harming the very thing which she (and I) most want to preserve and defend. The entrenched public fear of nuclear energy is a great tragedy, since it has caused our planet to be ravaged by fossil-fuel burning (and mining), with no end in sight. br / br /For a partial discussion of the many mistakes, distortions and misunderstandings in this book, see br / br /[..] br / br / Helen Caldicott, M.D., through almost 30 years of energetic campaigning has unintentionally done great damage to the Earth and its inhabitants, by indoctrinating thousands of well-meaning but environmentally-destructive "environmentalists." Some day, Dr Caldicott may start to listen to what thousands of scientists and engineers have been trying to tell her. She might finally understand that people like me (a liberal, vegetarian environmentalist) are not evil; we truly want the same things she does. I hope that she will be able to recognize her mistakes and move on. br / br /Dr. Caldicott is undoubtedly a fine person of deep convictions, who has worked tirelessly to improve the world, to the best of her understanding. Her activism against nuclear arms and the Cold War arms race during the 1980's was, I think, a positive contribution to human well-being. But she has little understanding or perspective about industrial and energy issues, statistics, and the biological effects of radiation. Part of the problem seems to be her inability or unwillingness to open her mind to new information which has become clear during the last few decades. I am referring to the true dangers of global warming; and to the comparatively poor economics, intermittency and severe grid infrastructure demands which plague solar and wind power (due to dispersed sites of generation, often far from population centers); and also to the pragmatic recognition that the civilized world has become dependent upon plentiful, reliable electricity, and will keep burning coal until a carbon-free source is IN PLACE not dreamed-about. This is what makes Caldicott's life so tragic, and the plight of our world -- with its melting polar icecaps, massive extinctions, ravaged strip-mined and mountain-top leveled landscapes, impending sea-level rise, growing mountains of coal ash and coal scrubber sludge (leaching toxic and radioactive contaminants)-- so profoundly sad. br / br /For true environmentalists, who want to combat these real scourges, nuclear power IS the answer, or at least an important component of the answer for the immediate future. br / br / br / br /
 Valuable info the Nuclear industry don't want the public to know!! August 13, 2008
V. Price (Memphis, TN United States)
0 out of 9 found this review helpful
This is some very important facts that the profit driven industry of nuclear power absolutely don't want the public toknow. We need to stop being foolish and begin to do independent research if we expect to survive as human beings.
Follow the money... July 20, 2008
Sentient Meat
1 out of 10 found this review helpful
Nuclear power boils water to create steam that spin the turbines attached to electric generators - that's it. br / br /Along the way, a lot of people make a lot of money, and a great deal of that money comes from taxpayers and electricity customers. If nuclear power were so wonderful, plant owners would be willing to build them with their own money. br / br /Solar panels and windmills have a one time cost and then they just sit there and generate power. They don't have high paid workers monitoring the core to make sure it does not overheat and release lethal radiation to anyone unlucky enough to live within 30 miles, sicken everyone within 100 miles, and endanger everyone downwind of the stricken nuclear power plant. Windmills also do not require guards with M-16's (I have been to a Nuke plant) guarding against terrorist threats. br / br /...and by the way, why do we dam a WHOLE river instead of setting up turbines every few miles along a river that spin in a current and generate power more locally, but still let fish (and boats, gotta have boats) pass? br / br /If traditional bulbs were outlawed and LED fixtures were screwed into existing light sockets the same amount of light in every home would used just 2 percent of the amount of electricity needed to light homes now (lighting is usually the number one overall cost in one full year). If "leakage current" was outlawed so that every TV and electonic device drew 0 to 5 micro amps while turned off (depending on the device) we would conserve up to an additional 90% of "idle device" power usage per ratepaying customer. br / br /It's customers getting the same lifestyle without any sacrifice. Consider this, not a single business VOLUNTEERED to take lead out of gasoline, it was mandated. So was sulfur removal from diesel fuel. Laws help businesses compete by making the playing field level for everyone. br / br /Has that totally eliminated power plants owned by greedy people who control hundreds of thousands of shares of stocks in an industry getting more profitable with every deregulation passed? No. Power plants are still necessary for some time to come. But if these and other conservation measures take place, and if every business and home roof gets a solar panel, every farm and zoned suburban designate a windmill - why, think of all the money we would have saved by no longer giving oil companies giant tax breaks (Bush, 2002) to find more oil. br / br /There is SO much more, but I will leave you with this... Spring 2007, 60 Minutes did a story on energy, and do you know the California wind farm made famous in "Rain Man" and other films? I am not making this up, it seems that is a privately owned business, and the power company just cannot get around to hooking up ALL the windmills onto the grid to purchase all the power being generated there...
Caldicott's book is superstition July 11, 2008
Ron Bengtson (Boise, Idaho USA)
9 out of 11 found this review helpful
Dr. Caldicott (pediatrics) relies on McCarthyism scare tactics, employing exaggerated and unfounded statistics about nuclear energy. Caldicott's ignorance of nuclear radiation borders on superstition. Nuclear scientists and public health administrators have respectfully answered her accusations many times, with clear and well-known facts to show that she is wrong. If Caldicott practiced medicine the way she preaches anti-nuke propaganda, she would subject her patients to 18th century medical fallacies like "bloodletting." br /Her legitimate claim to fame comes from her work as a citizen speaking out against nuclear war. She was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize by Nobel Laureate Linus Pauling, who appreciated her efforts to educate the public about the dangers of nuclear war. Dr. Pauling himself won the Nobel Peace prize for advocating nuclear weapons disarmament. br /If you want to know the truth about radiation, read "Radiation And Modern Life: Fulfilling Marie Curie's Dream," by Alan E. Waltar. The book is about twice-honored Nobel Laureate Marie Curie who was recognized internationally for her work with radiation and the discovery of the elements radium and polonium. br /
 Good to know. May 12, 2008
Patrick Van Esch (Grenoble, France)
18 out of 20 found this review helpful
If one believes as dogmatic truths even half of the erroneous information in this book, the sometimes religious opposition by some to nuclear power is understandable. Caldicott does a great job in reassembling in one single book about all the untruths about nuclear technology which have been spread around for decades. I think it is the main merit of this work, hence 2 stars. br / br /The main theme is that all official information, be it from nuclear organisations, national agencies, international bodies like the United Nations, is propaganda which tries to minimize the dangers and averse effects of nuclear power, and tries to advocate erroneously positive images of this industry. br / br /I only point out a few of the many pertinent erroneous statements. br / br /CO2 production br / br /According to Caldicott, the current fuel cycle brings about 1/5 of the CO2 exhaust of equivalent oil consumption (1/3 for gas is about 1/5 for oil) (p 6). But there's a simple argument that shows the claim wrong. 1 kg of natural uranium costs about $130,- and delivers the energy equivalent of about 10 000 kg of oil. According to Caldicott's claim, extracting this 1 kg uses (today) already 1/5 of this oil equivalent , so 2000 kg. But that's 13 barrils of oil at each more than $100,- ! So an uranium mine uses for more than $1300,- of oil just to extract 1kg of uranium, which is then sold for 1/10 that price, namely $130,-... br / br /Enrichment br / br /On p 10 it is stated that uranium enrichment is a huge CO2 producing activity. In France, in Pierlatte, there is a COGEMA factory that produces enriched uranium for about 100 1GWe reactors, and uses the power of 3 reactors. So 1) it runs on nuclear power, not using fossil fuels doing so, and 2) it only uses 3% of the production capacity , hence only diminishing nuclear efficiency with 3%. br / br /Tritium and C-14 br / br /Caldicott claims that the effects of these two radioactive materials are not yet understood (p 13) br /However, tritium is a material with low radiotoxicity, and the limit on annual intake is given to be around 1 G Bq for ingestion, and around 10 T Bq for inhalation. br /For C-14, this is around 30 M Bq for ingestion, and 30 G Bq for inhalation. C-14 is also produced naturally in the atmosphere by cosmic radiation (that's why one can use C-14 dating of archeological objects!). br / br /Breeder reactors br / br /On p 17, it is stated that breeder reactors have yet to be realised, while there have been build about 20 of them world wide. The first one was the EBR-I, in 1954, and the French Phenix reactor which started out in 1973 is still in operation. br / br /Radiation and cancer br / br /On p 44 she states it is generally accepted that many cancers in the past and in the present are caused by background radiation . But under the linear no threshold model which she uses, background radiation can account only at most for 0.6% of death causes, while cancer in general is about 20% of death causes. So about 35 times more cancers are of non-radiative origin. br /p 45 Cancer is on the rise and Caldicott suggests that is because we pollute the environment with chemicals and radioactive materials , but nevertheless, the main dose increase we receive is from medical diagnosis, and is still 10 times smaller than the background (and nuclear power accounts for still 100 times less). br /p 62: The argument plutonium is so carcinogenic that the half ton of plutonium released from the Chernobyl meltdown is theoretically enough to kill every one on earth with lung cancer 1100 times over if it were uniformly distributed into the lung of every human being is as pertinent as the claim that the world ocean contains enough water to drown every human being 100 billion times over if the water were distributed uniformly into the lungs of every human being. The observable fact that this Chernobyl plutonium didn't kill many people after all. br / br /Three Miles Island br / br /p 70 a picocurie is equal to 0.037 Bq. It is stated that some milk was found to contain 21300 picocuries per liter, which amounts to 780 Bq. Now, I-131 has a limit of annual intake of 900 000 Bq to remain below the legal dose limit (1 mSv). This means that 1 liter of milk is less than 1/1000 of this annual limit, and hence corresponds to a dose of 1 microsievert, or 0.1 millirem. Caldicott puts this erroneously to 0.3 rem, 3000 more than the real dose. br / br /Global warming br / br /p 86 EdF got permission to raise the river water above the allowed temperature (simply because the inlet water temperature was already much higher than usual), this in order to be able to continue to operate the steam cycle, which produces waste heat. A coal fired plant, or a biofuel powered plant would have had exactly the same condition for functioning. But Caldicott presents it as if the reactor was overheating and one needed to dump hot secundary water in the river . br / br /Meltdown br / br /On p 96, when doses in mid-Manhattan are calculated to be of the order of 200 to 300 rem with peaks of 1500 rem. These are doses that are tens to hundreds of times higher than were the actual case in the actual Chernobyl accident in the nearby town. The highest doses received are estimated to be 70 rem, but far most people in the nearby town received doses of a few rem. br / br /Gen III and IV reactors br / br /On p 129, it is stated that gen IV reactors are so complex that no country can develop it by themselves and that they will at earliest be there in 2045, while this contradicts the already existing Superphenix build in France in the 80-ies (which is very close to one of the gen IV designs) and while France planned to have a new prototype up and running in 2020. br / br /
|
|
|
Powered by Associate-O-Matic
| |
