Rating: 
Summary: Simple simon nuke propoganda.
Review: A one sided tome, missing two of the most basic facts about nuclear energy. A) The mineral, Uranium Oxide upon which today's nuclear power technology rests is depleting at the rate of between 1 and 2 percent a year. I.e. 50 - 100 year supply. (This includes all factors such as Russian missiles, etc.) B) Nuclear energy today only supplies about 8% of all world energy. Nuclear power would only last 5 to 10 years!
Once they get done explaining how safe and clean nuclear power is using today's technology, when confronted with the shortage of fuel, a quick side step is taken. Expense and dangers of bomb making technology, waste disposal at 10x the rate and magic are quickly mixed up and the lesson is over.
Rating: 
Summary: Very Interesting ...
Review: Dr. Morris' writing is somewhat choppy, but his points about the health dangers of fossil fuel use are well made. His main arguement that nuclear power is overall far safer than fossil fuel power is very strongly supported. Data can always be manipulated or distorted, but some facts that he points out such as that the EPA and the American Medical Association approve of nuclear power over fossil fuel power, just cannot be made up. With an energy shortage in full swing in California right now, this is a great book for the concerned citizen or the policy maker to read to learn about relative merits and drawbacks of different methods of electrical power generation.
Rating:
Summary: Concise, lucid, and critical energy information
Review: If you are only going to read one book about nuclear energy, fossil fuels and alternative energy sources, this is the one. If you are going to read more than one, this is the one to start with. It is easy to read, packed with solid scientifically based information, and easy to understand with little or no scientific background. It smashes many of the myths promoted by alarmist "environmentalists" who usually speak in generalities and have little or no scientific background. Dr. Morris tells you what the science says, and what the scientists believe in concise lucid detail.The book fills the critical need for a logical explanation of the advantages and disadvantages of various methods of meeting our energy needs: fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, coal), nuclear, hydroelectric, solar, windmills, oil shales, hydrogen. It also explains the alarming consequences of failing to meet these needs. It discusses the advantages, environmental effects, economics and practicality of all these sources of energy. It sounds like a huge undertaking, but Dr. Morris explains it easily and soundly. If you want real scientific information for the layman about nuclear and other forms of energy, this is the book to read.
Rating:
Summary: Concise, lucid, and critical energy information
Review: If you are only going to read one book about nuclear energy, fossil fuels and alternative energy sources, this is the one. If you are going to read more than one, this is the one to start with. It is easy to read, packed with solid scientifically based information, and easy to understand with little or no scientific background. It smashes many of the myths promoted by alarmist "environmentalists" who usually speak in generalities and have little or no scientific background. Dr. Morris tells you what the science says, and what the scientists believe in concise lucid detail. The book fills the critical need for a logical explanation of the advantages and disadvantages of various methods of meeting our energy needs: fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, coal), nuclear, hydroelectric, solar, windmills, oil shales, hydrogen. It also explains the alarming consequences of failing to meet these needs. It discusses the advantages, environmental effects, economics and practicality of all these sources of energy. It sounds like a huge undertaking, but Dr. Morris explains it easily and soundly. If you want real scientific information for the layman about nuclear and other forms of energy, this is the book to read.
Rating: 
Summary: Read It!
Review: If your interested in reading only one book which refutes many of the fallacies made by the anti-nuclear movement then this book is for you. It's particularly good for the layperson as it doesn't require a lot of technical knowledge on the part of the reader.
Rating:
Summary: Obviously Partial, Yet A Generally Good Effort
Review: In this book Robert Morris does a generally credible job explaining the benefits of nuclear power. His book is factually accurate and informative, and particularly useful to people who have listened to extensive anti-nuclear rhetoric without attempting to hear the pro-nuclear arguments.
While I agree with most of the points Morris makes, I do have a couple of quibbles with the book. The first is endless, mind-numbing repetition. I don't know how many times he says that 50,000 people a year die in the US from carbon-based air pollution, but you can bet it's a lot. The basic point here is that while that is likely true, repeating it every other page for 200 pages or so does not help make the case: this book needs editing. The second issue I have with the book is the presence of grossly inflated, yet trivial arguments. There is no question, for instance, that coal and oil use are air polluters; that is a valid point to make in this book. Where the logic gets stretched, however, is when he claims that because of all this air pollution (that would not be present with more nuclear power) that humans probably have more fatal traffic accidents because carbon monoxide makes driver reaction times longer, seems improvable at best, and ludicrous at worst. These are the two big criticisms I have of the book.
While I believe his data on nuclear safety statistics, I do think that he overestimates nuclear safety features, and perhaps underestimates dangers. Safety engineering professionals study not only the accidents in an industry, but also the incidents that did not lead to accidents, yet could have. On this matter Morris is totally silent, and I think that detracts significantly from the scientific validity of some of his arguments: in other words, accidents are actually very rare, incidents more common. Since Three Mile Island the nuclear industry has become much better about sharing trend data, but this book leads readers to the conclusion that nuclear power is a 100 percent safe, utopian energy source. I personally agree that it is a generally safe source of power, and that the US would be wise to follow Europe's lead (for once) and develop more of it. Having said that, I also believe that nuclear accidents could potentially be quite dangerous, despite Morris' reassurances.
Most of the low rating reviewers here are clearly in the anti-nuclear camp, and I think it's admirable that they read the book (if they actually did). I do question where most of them got their information; some of the armchair critics seem unclear on basic physics or other issues (like Uranium ore production, for instance.) One particularly offensive reviewer thought that this book proves that Morris was worse than Hitler and hated babies. My take on that: if you can't objectively criticize the book, you must not have anything important to say...frequently like the media establishment. It is clear that Morris' assertion that the media spreads a virulently anti-nuclear message is correct, probably in part because they are politically to the left in general, but more likely simply because it sells. For the same reason that you never see a headline reading "Jetliner Lands On Time After a Smooth Flight: Passengers Enjoyed A Light Snack" you will also never see a headline reading "Nuclear Plant Releases No Radiation; Nobody Injured; Electricity Produced At A Reasonable Price." This is a differentiation that I think needs to me made, and while he attempts to make that argument in the book it falls a bit flat.
While parts of this book are a bit overblown, and the book is clearly in the pro-nuclear camp, at least Morris makes his sympathies clear at the outset. I am glad that he wrote the book, and despite a few qualms about the presentation, I think it is worthy reading for anyone on either side of the nuclear debate, preferably in conjunction with the excellent and considerably more unbiased masterwork on contemporary nuclear safety organizations, "Hostages of Each Other" by Joseph Rees.
Rating:
Summary: Read It!
Review: Morris' writing is clear, interesting, and for the most part convincing. It's a good introduction covering the problems with fossil fuels, an introduction to nuclear energy, waste disposal issues, air pollution, comparitive environmental effects of nuclear versus fossil fuels, the risks of our current situation, the risks of nuclear power, and otehr alternatives. That is, a broad introduction covering a number of angles (medical, political, scientific, etc). There are two non-trivial problems with the book, however. First, Morris' logic in certain places is so apparently flawed that it seems to discredit him. On page 89, he states about potential meltdown or explosion in a nuclear facility, "The risk of either one of the ... accidents must be very low, because neither one has occurred to date." Now, I'm all for past behavior being a predictor of future behavior, but aging nuclear facilities and changing geopolitical climates make his statements unclear at best and possibly even misleading! His leaps of logic and inclusion of only certain information (for example a very positive take on the Three Mile Island incident and a sort of conspiratorial explanation of why the media cares about nuclear waste) lead to a second problem: he comes off sounding very biased. It's worth reading, but I'd include a second volume by another author in there somewhere if you're serious about the topic.
Rating: 
Summary: An interesting book with some significant flaws.
Review: Morris' writing is clear, interesting, and for the most part convincing. It's a good introduction covering the problems with fossil fuels, an introduction to nuclear energy, waste disposal issues, air pollution, comparitive environmental effects of nuclear versus fossil fuels, the risks of our current situation, the risks of nuclear power, and otehr alternatives. That is, a broad introduction covering a number of angles (medical, political, scientific, etc). There are two non-trivial problems with the book, however. First, Morris' logic in certain places is so apparently flawed that it seems to discredit him. On page 89, he states about potential meltdown or explosion in a nuclear facility, "The risk of either one of the ... accidents must be very low, because neither one has occurred to date." Now, I'm all for past behavior being a predictor of future behavior, but aging nuclear facilities and changing geopolitical climates make his statements unclear at best and possibly even misleading! His leaps of logic and inclusion of only certain information (for example a very positive take on the Three Mile Island incident and a sort of conspiratorial explanation of why the media cares about nuclear waste) lead to a second problem: he comes off sounding very biased. It's worth reading, but I'd include a second volume by another author in there somewhere if you're serious about the topic.
Rating:
Summary: Stimulates constructive debate about clean energy production
Review: Morris, a retired science teacher, weighs the risks between various sources of electrical energy production. He lost his wife to lung cancer and bemoans the dirty atmosphere which has resulted from the burning of fossil fuels. He also realizes that the production of clean energy is essential to the health of the nation. New and safer forms of nuclear energy exist than, for example, the types of reactors used in Three Mile Island or Chernobyl. This point seems to escape the ideological critics (some of whom have written their reviews of this book based on ideology rather than a concern for an effective energy policy). Although he calls such ideologues "luddites," he makes a strong case for a balanced approach to energy because of the dangers he finds in the types of energy the "luddites' seem to support. Nuclear power has a safer track record than coal and oil, despite being in its infancy. Other countries, such as France, Japan, Sweden--and even the Ukraine--are building newer and safer nuclear power plants. Why not the US? Anti-nuclear ideology has had such a strong influence in the US the last thirty years that it has been hard for a sane public or scientific discussion to take place. There are issues, such as nuclear waste disposal, which I don't think Morris treats adequately enough to silence the critics. However, there are also solutions to these issues. Those who are concerned about both energy shortages and environmental pollution, and want to transcend outdated sound-bites, should read this book.
Rating:
Summary: Patchy, but a worthwhile contribution
Review: Nuclear power has been a taboo topic for the past 20 years or so, largely due to the Three Mile Island accident and the Chernobyl disaster. It hardly seems to matter that the former accident resulted in no deaths or injuries to anyone, on-site or off, and the latter--an explosion in a criminally unsafe uncontained Soviet reactor that would be impossible in any Western plant--has so far killed around 50 people (according to the UN) which hardly justifies Chernobyl's image as as one of the worst industrial disasters we have experienced. The many bald falsehoods of the anti-nuclear movement have had a lot to do with the image of nuclear power as a great killer, but this is completely untrue; it would be difficult to find another large-scale technology that has a safety record as spotless as that of the western nuclear power industry. Robert Morris makes a valuable contribution to public understanding of nuclear power, but it is more useful to people who are new to the technology; those who already have some familiarity with the nuclear power debate will not find much new material here. For the nuclear novice, Morris presents his data in clear and easy-to-understand formats, and he is careful to provide references to his sources--a habit that is sadly in short supply on the anti-nuclear side of the debate. Unfortunately, the two negative reviews below continue this dishonourable tradition, resorting to incoherent ad hominem attacks on nuclear power and even Morris himself. Nuclear power must be considered among the options for our future energy supply; among the "zero-emissions" energy conversion technologies, it alone is capable of providing the industrial-scale energy that our economy needs. Solar, wind, and the other renewables must also be considered, but they are fatally limited by the inherently dilute and unreliable nature of their energy sources. Implementing them as a replacement for our current energy system will be an heavy industrial endeavour on a scale never before seen, with massively negative effects on the environment. Renewables have had over 20 years of subsidies, tax incentives, and helpful legislation, yet they still only occupy a small fraction of our energy supply. Nuclear has also been heavily subsidized at times, but it has repaid the investment many times over, and now provides 20% of US electricity needs at all-time low costs. Other books for those interested in learning more about the reality of nuclear power include "Bluebells and Nuclear Energy" by Albert B. Reynolds, "The Anti-Nuclear Game" by Gordon Sims, and Jeremy Whitlock's wonderful web page "The Canadian Nuclear FAQ" ...
|
