Customer Reviews

Nuclear Power Is Not the Answer

5 star:		(16)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(12)

 

 

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.

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.

I only point out a few of the many pertinent erroneous statements.

CO2 production

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,-...

Enrichment

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%.

Tritium and C-14

Caldicott claims that the effects of these two radioactive materials « are not yet understood » (p 13)
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.
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!).

Breeder reactors

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.

Radiation and cancer

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.
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).
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.

Three Miles Island

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.

Global warming

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 ».

Meltdown

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.

Gen III and IV reactors

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.

Readers looking for an objective look at nuclear power will not find it here. The author's hysterical and passionate fear of radiation pervades the discussion. Caldicott does get most of the major issues on the table, but she distorts the facts badly: she repeatedly condemns the cost of nuclear power and praises solar even though solar clearly costs more than nuclear (and she ignores the large roll that anti-nuclear activists have had in driving up the cost of nuclear power through law-suits and licensing delays); she does not like government assistance for new nuclear power, but tax credits for wind power are just fine; she complains of nuclear power plants' need for cooling water (which has caused some river-side plants in France to shutdown temporarily during a recent drought) but ignores the same need in geothermal plants; she criticizes the large amount of energy it takes to build a nuclear plant even though solar voltaic plants are similar; and she says we don't have enough affordable uranium to grow the industry (only a century worth at the current usage rate) even though government reports say that a small increase in price would enormously multiply the accessible reserves; and she totally ignores the very promising thorium-cycle breeder reactor types, which like all breeders turn nuclear power into an in-exhaustible resource via their miserly fuel use and have no nuclear bomb useable materials in the waste, but unlike some plutonium breeders (which she does discuss and dismiss) could potentially meet or beat today's prices, would avoid creation of long-lived radioactive waste, and would have much lower risk of a severe accident.

But worst of all, she totally conceals the enormous environmental damage and loss of human life caused by the coal industry, and the enormous difficulty and expense we'll face if we try to phase out coal without using nuclear power. How could any evaluation of the risks of nuclear power fail to compare this risk to that associated with coal which produces more that half the USA's electrical power? Caldicott offers a wildly optimistic world view, powered by wind, solar power, and other renewables. She apparently has chosen not to listen to the often repeated statement by experts that these sources can supply at most about 20% of our power because they are intermittent (with the exception of geothermal, but most of the affordable geothermal is already in use). Even reaching the 20% level requires either energy storage using big hydro (which most parts of the U.S.A. do not have) or plentiful natural gas (which is quickly becoming a depleted resource in the USA) for use in cost-effecting "peaking" plants and with compresses air energy storage systems (which boost the efficiency of natural gas fired generation). Hydrogen-based storage is possible of course, but with an optimistic round trip efficiency of about 50%, it will likely be two to four times more expensive than electricity from coal, so it will be a tough sell in the USA. Renewable energy is a wonderful thing, but it cannot compete economically with coal, so ultimately a "no" to nuclear power is a "yes" to coal.

With all of that said, she did have some useful points: our nuclear plants are aging and need to be replaced one way or another; new plants should be more robust against terrorists; the nuclear industry (like any big business) can sometimes get too cozy with the government. There's room for improvement, but nuclear power is still a good answer.

Looking over the reviews of this book, it appears the nuclear-power industry must really feel threatened by this book. The propagandists are out in force.

This book presents many logical reasons why nuclear power is NOT the answer to our problems. Japan is just another example of nuclear power gone wrong. How many more Chernobyls/Fukushimas do you want before we finally abandon this insane nuclear power?

Dr. Helen Caldicott is a very sane and balanced voice on the subject of nuclear power.

If you are one of the people who stands to lose millions or billions of dollars due to nuclear reactors being shut down, then you have all the reason in the world to discredit her.

Or maybe if we are just a bit too spoiled and do not want the discomfort of what it will take to harness this very real danger to our own and future generations, that may be another reason to discredit her.

Dr. Caldicott, you are my HEROINE...!!!! Thank you SO MUCH for all you have done and STILL do...!!!!

Make no mistake. The people behind the nuclear industry are ruthless. And their lies are the most dangerous of all. PLEASE educate yourself on this very REAL danger. This book is a great beginning -- or check out her website designed to help educate a generation that has not been taught about the real and present dangers of nuclear energy at [...]

Fukushima shows- the risks far outweigh the benefits of nuclear power. I am not a scientist but as an outside observer on the west coast, the catastrophic effects of a major nuclear accident as we are witnessing today in Japan make this unacceptable as an energy source. Can we really make these plants 100% secure from just environmental catastrophes and anomalies outside the averages? And we aren't even talking about design flaws or human error.

Trading upon the simple confusion between physician and physicist, Dr. Caldicott continues to find publishers for her ideologically driven nonsense about peaceful nuclear power. This unique and remarkable source of clean energy already supplies one-sixth of the world's electricity:
-- with virtually no pollutants or greenhouse emissions
-- without consequential accidents for the last two decades
-- despite the large capital investments required, with ever decreasing costs that have now rendered it the most competitive source of electricity in most major economies.
For these reasons, governments of nations representing most of the world's population are putting nuclear power at the center of their long-term energy and environmental strategies. The nuclear renaissance is on, and misinformation such as this serves only to confuse public discussion on a subject critical to future human welfare.

I think that this book is an obvious winner. I say this as the diverse ratings that are given, but I would also encourage the potential buyer to read and make a decision based on what folks say here. There are a lot of great ideas on both sides of the anti/pro fence.

From my understanding Nuclear Power is not the way forward. From the unaccounted expenses extracting, missing, and transporting Uranium along with the limited supplies know make this a very non-renewable resource with potential dangers we are unable to anticipate. I have been reading about the storage areas being planned now for example and the discussions go along the lines, in reference to "how long" such facilities should be planned for and the time frames given range from 10 000 to 1 000 000 years.

Even considering a 10 000 year storage facility, would there not be extreme costs in this. And if some are proposing 1 000 000 years (something I cannot fathom) is just 10 000 sufficient? What about when things do go wrong?

I guess if I was assuming the human species will be extinct within 10 000 years it wouldn't really matter providing we don't care for nature in general.

I think Caldicott makes some great points, and so do other readers. I also acknowledge that the decision at present is about split, and again, ask the potential buyer to exercise judgment to feel secure in buying this. I would actually snap this book up if interested in the topic and judge for yourself, especially if money is not the concern.

It is very healthy to be having dialog here as stimulated from this book. I am personally not for Nuclear Energy, but I am reading and looking at the posts here with great interest. Add to collection.

I had been reading Tucker's Terrestrial Energy book, which is pro-nuclear and in fact has some good points about the possibilities of nuclear power. After reading chapters in this book, I was pretty convinced nuclear might have a place in our future energy portfolio, although I was kinda irked by the author's continued, somewhat Orwellian ploy to "rebrand" nuclear energy as "terrestrial energy".

The only problem of course with my premature conclusion, obviously, was that I was reading only one side of the story. So I started hunting around the library for a book that would give some information on the problems of using nuclear energy.

The only book I found in the library that went over the problems of nuclear in a concise and very clear manner was this book. Some of the others were vague and shrill, some were too verbose and boring. After an hour of so reading through passages in the book, she had planted some big doubts in my mind.

I'll leave the obvious problems regarding radiation health risks, terrorist attacks, and accidents, since these are what people immediately think of when discussing nuclear power. Instead, I'll note some things she said that were NOT so obvious.

First of all, unlike solar energy and other renewable energy, the mining of uranium as fuel, its transport, the disposal of radioactive wastes, and the decommissioning of highly-radioactive plants generates significant CO2 and uses up very significant amounts fossil fuels. This is something that is never factored into the equation when pro-nuclear sources calculate the energetics of nuclear power plants.

Secondly, unlike nuclear or wind, nuclear power plants depend on a NON-renewable source, one that is scarce and is mainly imported from foreign countries (I think she mentioned 80% of uranium is imported, which means using nuclear does NOT make the country more energy independent).

In fact, she noted that someone had calculated that if we all switched to nuclear, the finite amount of uranium on earth would be completely depleted in 9 or 10 years! Contrast this with solar, which obviously is a relatively infinite resource (at least within the human species lifespan of perhaps another million years or so)

So, there you have it. I think if one wants clear information about why we should not use nuclear power, then this book should be their first stop.

Halfway into this book I realized the breadth of issues at stake. Helen delineates and demonstrates the many faces of the issues posed by a deadly toxic to generate electricity. As you got into the book, I also found much of work carefully referenced.

What prompted me to write this review is what I found to be the horrid science used by the negative reviewers, who offer no references while arguing Caldicott's work. Also, while dicing her excellent work, none of negative reviews I read take up most significant fact that Helen points out. Nuclear waste is not just toxic for 50,000 year, but Caldicott's respected sources say that it is a dangerous poison for hundreds of thousands of years.

While I have a MS degree, which trained me to understand the scientific process, I also stake my opinions on my experiences. Before I trained in cyber security I had been a trained mechanic and then a carpenter and builder. My analytical skills were first honed through trouble shooting system and structural problems. This book is consistent and systematically outlines the issues at stake.

Helen Caldicott's book also raises significant questions that seem common sense to me. How do you keep a deadly toxic material safe for hundreds of thousand of years? What has history, archeology, and the science o f corrosion resistance and structural building materials, as well as the shifting plates of the earth's crust tell us? Caldicott's book has led me to think of such things. It also addresses what it is that you need to keep stored nuclear waste safe from. Further more it covers "how are we doing right now"? How safe is our current stock pile of nuclear waste? What are the current threats to our stock? How have our short term waste facilities been designed and what are the ramification considering it current state?

Helen Caldicott's book suggests that any long term solution needs be a reasonable consensus of the recognized experts in the fields in question. Experts need to be in fields of where we put the stuff, i.e. the earth's crust. Who can say where is a guaranteed, beyond a reasonable doubt, stable - for hundreds of thousands of years - place is? Other experts needed are in the fields of how we build the containers. What kind of engineering is qualified to make a 100,000s of years determination?

After reading the negative reviews of Helen's work, it becomes apparent that the toxicity of nuclear waste is the elephant in the room. It seemed to me that Helen's research indicates that proponents of nuclear power simply do not demonstrate a conscience regarding the threat. Please, look into this; it is not just the human race, right?

While the book looks at the issues through scientific and socialistic prisms, the content can easily apply to a meaningful consider of the religious point of view. If mankind was given the dominion (responsibility for) over all the rest (animals and plants, say), are we doing a conscientious job? Also one could consider the spiritual; are we acting with responsibility unto 10 generations forward? Does that responsibility need a "beyond-a-reasonable-doubt" set of actions?
A good argument can be made that because of fear of changing the status quo it more than 30 years for the established science community to accept that the evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the level of pollution we are generating - creating status quo electricity - is not sustainable (accolades to Al Gore) i.e. we may kill ourselves and the planet doing it. It is evident that some of the educated community feels so threatened by these facts that they are blind to science when it comes to where they have committed their hopes in maintaining the status quo.

I have even heard public proponents of nuclear dismiss the reasonable fear of toxicity, saying it is just 300 years! And how does that happen? Most of us know that you don't need to be scientist or a priest to answer that. Most lobbyists find there livelihood in promoting their agenda. With a few exceptions, Helen does a thorough job of providing references for the information her book provides. The detractors have much to say of what is wrong and what they think is right information. Unlike most of Helens work, they offer no references that we can follow through on. This kind of work is never accepted in science journals. So how is it that people claiming to be well versed in science and knock Helen's research, do not follow with the scientific method, as she does, for their detractions?

Please read the book, check the science for yourself. We need an informed democracy. Check the sources that Helen uses. Are they respected scientists in their fields? This is an important issue, so if you doubt the science, check out that resource before taking a stand.

Cheers

In this book Helen Caldicott covers a wide range of issues involved in the nuclear debate, the many core people involved, both pro and against, and the scientific studies available. She explains the history of and the technology involved in nuclear power in detail and discusses 'green' technology alternatives.

Her language and explanations are very clear and I found I quickly read this book from cover to cover being unable to put it down.

I do have some minor criticisms and I do mean minor:

-the very early part of the book where she is giving an overview she makes a lot of statements without backing them up with explanations or references to sources. This is only a small section but I was a little worried at first the book would be just these wild statements--it definitely isn't and if you keep reading the explanations and references are there.

-sometimes she quotes previous books she has written when it is obvious they are not the primary source of the information. I feel I need to read her previous books to locate where the original information comes from. But most of her footnotes are from original sources so a minor irritation

-she quotes a few people extensively before she explains who they are. She does explain later but it would be more timely if the key players were introduced at the time they are first quoted

I mention these problems here only to encourage people to persevere with the book as the explanations and sources are there if you stick with it and the book quickly gets better and better as you get further along.

I buy green energy which means the money I pay for my electricity bill is used to purchase windpower for the electricity grid here in Australia. Green technology and the opportunity for the individual to use it is already here. It costs me a little extra but is worth it to avoid both the drawbacks of coal and nuclear technology.