Nuclear Roulette: The Truth about the Most Dangerous Energy Source on Earth 1st Edition

The list of nuclear reactor disasters is informative and apparently not exaggerated, but Smith gives the impression that all reactors are subject to them. Literature on LFTRs (liquid flouride thorium reactors) indicates otherwise. Nor does Smith give equal attention to equal or worse disasters from other energy sources. "Most Dangerous Energy Source" is a comparative term. Where are the comparisons? Facts about lung and heart disease, oil spills, coal mine disasters, and so on? Should fossil fuels put carbon and methane past the tipping point, we haven't see anything yet. All told, a useful book taken in a context it doesn't itself supply.

I like how this book was full of facts and history of these different nuclear plants. It does not try to hide what nuclear power really is, BAD! I own many geiger counters and have been doing self studies on radiation and everything nuclear for over two years now. Big surprise Fukushima was my eye opener and this book only helps to support the information I already knew and more. If you have an open mind and want to know more about this topic, this is a GREAT book!

If you want a book that presents a thorough, up to the Fukushima minute argument against nuclear proliferation Gar Smith's is an excellent book. If you're new to the encyclopedic subject of all things nuclear this is an excellent introduction, unashamedly one-sided but not unfairly so for we are living the other side--as the critics are quick to remind us, "And see, we are still alive!" And it's sort of true, Smith's book won't be in support of a proven case until we're all dead. Some of his arguments, as noted in other reviews, are not good, some are so weird I'm not sure what he was trying to do. A better editor and/or fact checker would have helped; every writer needs them in any serious work. These flaws are minute within a soundly overwhelming fact slide in support of the case that nuclear problems far outweigh nuclear benefits, that gambling against the extremely low probabilities for nuclear accidents doesn't prevent the improbable. When the improbable occurs it is into an accumulation of past improbables that don't much go away. Accumulate enough and the once improbable demise of the biosphere starts looking pretty probable.If you're new to this subject Smith's book is good, too, because Gar Smith is resolutely friendly as befits, I guess, an Earth Island Institute person. He's not out to offend, on the contrary, feels his case can be convincingly presented with very little offense given or taken. That's nice but generates problems because he's making the case that our behavior in matters of energy are brazenly stupid. This can give the impression everyone is to blame, we're all stupid, especially in the huge but shrinking consumer pool in the world's grossest per capita energy glutton. This, as per usual, leads to the hopeless pining for a voluntary, determined, humbled, worldwide shift in human consciousness away from compliance with and allegiance to wealth and power hoarding and into lives that cherish, and share lovingly, Earth and its miraculous engendering of the sources of life. When Bertrand Russell, Einstein, Arendt, Jaspers, Mills, etc put forth similar arguments it was with a sense of urgency, of last minute necessity. That minute came and went. We're in deep s*** and one small reason for it might be this friendly approach that spreads the who-dun-it across the endangered biosphere.Thus, if you are new to this subject and want something nearer, much nearer, to a full account of the anti-nuclear arguments this book will not suffice; I don't know of one that will and it'd probably be too intimidating a monster anyway. So, I would like to suggest a companion volume, also a very good book, not even 200 pages, on an equally difficult subject. And, rare in this branch of study, you might be very glad you did, especially if Smith leaves you feeling you've further imperiled the world cause ya left the damned light on or drove to the store instead of walked.I recommend Barry Sander's The Green Zone, the environmental costs of militarism. As seen in the other reviews posted here and as is almost always the case, arguments promoting or justifying nuclear energy uses rarely make mention of the military, and neither does Gar Smith. In fact, when and if ever the entire military input into nuclear problems is allowed into the anti-nuclear rhetoric, the pronuclear rhetoric enters regions psychotic, mutated and already burning like the end of the world, like Hanford. The Pentagon is not the elephant in the room; it is the human monster with a parasitic grasp on the planet's biosphere. If things nuclear are to be fairly understood or truly addressed, there's no better and perhaps no other place to start than the Pentagon. This was understood by many not too long ago: the nuclear nonproliferation treaty, several pacifist anti-nuke groups like SANE, etc. The patriotic militarism of the cold war stifled genuine anti-nuke actions then, and now I suppose it's the comply-or-else terrorist war that makes perfectly obvious statements borderline or flat out illegal because they describe the US military. Still, if you want to know the present status of things nuclear, you have to look the big ugly in the face; it's not enough to be nice and if you have any offspring, I'm not sure why you'd want to be.

Very happy.

if you wish to read only one book on nuclear, this would be a good pick.

I had hoped that this would be a balanced treatment of the pros and cons of nuclear power plants but was disappointed to find it to be a very biased and one-sided attack of the problems with nuclear energy. Instead of focusing on real problems needing solutions (such as what to do about the spent fuel from reactors), the author spends an inordinate amount of space trying to convice us that the existing nucelar plants are likely to explode and kill millions of people in the near future due to the ineptitude of the NRC and the greed of the large power corporations. He would have all nuclear plants shut down ASAP and force a massive shift to local green energy such as solar and wind. In the last few chapters, he advocates dismantling the power grid, drastically reducing our energy use and relying on small green energy sources for our modest needs during the day when the sun is shining or when the wind is blowing. I, for one, am not buying it.

discovered little known characteristics about nuclear energy: from day one in the fifties it needed heavy financial support from the government or would collapse. Clearly shows the absence of future for fission energy.

Everyone should read this and realize what the huge costs and risks of nuclear power are and the unsolved problem of what to do with the waste products generated which are toxic virtually forever. We are endangering our future generations for our energy needs, although we too may end up paying a horrible price.