Customer Reviews

Three Mile Island: A Nuclear Crisis in Historical Perspective

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

 

 

It is hard to believe but it has been some 25 years since America's worst nuclear accident took place. In "Three Mile Island: A Nuclear Crisis in Historical Persepctive" author J. Samuel Walker takes a look back at the tragic events that upset us all so much back in March of 1979. Eminently qualified to undertake this project, Walker succeeds in presenting all sides of this extremely complicated and highly controversial subject matter. Was equipment failure the chief culprit here or was human error more to blame? Aside from attempting to explain exactly what happened on that fateful day, Walker spends a considerable amount of time evaulating why the various players in this saga reacted they way they did. This book is meticulously researched and fairly well written but I must admit that at times I got lost with all of the scientific jargon that was necessarily included. In the long run I feel that "Three Mile Island: A Nuclear Crisis in Historical Persepctive" will prove to be a terrific research volume. Having said that If you are like me and are not particularly well versed in the sciences it can be a somewhat difficult read.

I really enjoyed this book. It creates context for the industry and its regulators as the TMI accident occurs, and then it reports the fascinating details that pushed the accident to the brink of affecting public health and safety and then pulled it back again. I think this book should be required reading for all public officials, federal, state, and local, who are in positions of responsibility to respond to a nuclear emergency. This book would help them stay humble and focused. Discussion on public health got close to sounding too sure that everything was and is fine in the TMI area -- not sure we know enough yet to say for sure.

"Three Mile Island" by J. Samuel Walker is a fine treatise on the Three Mile Island (TMI) accident in historical perspective. Walker deals less with the technical and physical aspects of the accident to take a more overarching view of the operations of TMI (and other nuclear plants) from a political, organizational, and managerial standpoint.

Walker is the official historian of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and as such has spent the bulk of his professional life researching and documenting nuclear issues. He is a lucid and interesting writer for anyone interested in the material at hand. I recommend this book unequivocally. I further recommend that this book be read in tandem with "Hostages of Each Other" by Joseph Rees, which is actually my favorite general account of regulatory interactions vis-a-vis TMI.

This is an excellent book to assist in grasping the complex regulatory, political, and corporate organizational influences in nuclear power, particularly relative to the TMI accident.

This book had interest for me since I was only a few minutes away from Three Mile Island when all of this was happening. I was 19 and there was a lot of talk of a core melt down, centuries of devestation in central Pennsylvania, and tremendous loss of life. The movie The China Syndrom had just been released, talk about life imitating art!

The author begins by stating that he was employed by the Nuclear Reform Committee and says that he tried not to let that bias or influence his reporting of the events. I think it is a very balanced account of what happened.

The book begins by tracing the government regulatory bodies of atomic power, the industry and public response (started off favorable, then protests began to arise). This is where the book is the driest, but even so, the author it is interesting - Walker does a good job showing the failings of all three groups - both those for and against nuclear power.

The story of the accident is somewhat technical, but I thought pretty accessible. Part of the problems dealt with the inability to get quick information from the nuclear power plant to the decision makers. Telephones were overwhelmed. The instant communications we enjoy today did not exist back then. Both pro and anti nuclear proponents used this event to support their versions of what was best for the US.

I gave it four stars - it is compelling if you were there or have an interest in this topic, but it can be dry. I would have liked to have seen photos of the damaged core. And after doing a great job in the first two sections of the book giving the history and events of TMI, it just kind of stops. I would have liked to learn more about the clean up.

TMI was a scary event - yet no one died. It put an end to any future nuclear plants in the US. Huge mistakes were made, the cost of clean up is unbelievable. I think Walker gives a very balanced review of all of the key players, good and bad. I'd recommend this book for anyone who wants to discover more about nuclear technology, the risks, the influence of the government and the industry and what almost was a horrific tragedy.

A brilliant piece that is both a historical and technical account of the real excitement and near disaster that was Three Mile Island. While it is stands as a sad moment in history, it could have been so much worse. Instead of engaging in fingerpointing, the author has taken the high road and portrayed how human error is possible when time is short and events are unfolding quickly. It's hard to believe that so much passed in a mere four days. You get the sense that the author could have easily doubled the size of the book and it still would have been interesting and exciting.

I really like that he did not go easy on the science. Instead, he explains exactly what the technical failures were. He takes great care to do so in a manner that a layman can understand.

A great account of an important event in American History. If you're looking for something that educational, historical, and exciting, this is a definite thumbs up.

Read this for graduate American history course. The book in review, Three Mile Island: A Nuclear Crisis in Historical Perspective, written by Samuel Walker is a subtle but powerful warning regarding the issue of nuclear power. The style of the book is almost of a passive observer who meticulously gathers facts and then attempts to make an educated decision on the matter. And I believe Walker's purpose in writing the book is to do just that. It seems as if Walker does not want the reader to make any emotional appeals either for or against the use of nuclear power. Rather, he strictly wants the reader to make a reasonable decision based purely on facts.

Walker first dissects the debate and the history regarding nuclear power. In 1954, Congress passed the Atomic energy act which allocated nuclear capabilities for civilian use, specifically, its ability to provide an abundance of electricity. During the late fifties and early sixties, the demand for nuclear energy grew, and plant construction increased. Yet, by the late sixties into the mid-seventies, economic recession, massive inflation, and a fuel crisis gripped America, and these factors contributed to decreased construction of new plants. Walker examines this debate at its state in the mid-seventies.

Yet, I believe that Walker's analysis of the arguments go much deeper than a simple retelling of the facts. Rather, at one point in the text, he cited a case of opposition to nuclear power by a religious group on moral, rather than tactical grounds. I believe that this issue confronts the reader through Walker's arguments, but in an unemotional, unobtrusive way. In assessing the opposition to nuclear power, Walker's arguments force the reader to ask whether the use of nuclear power should be halted because of the potential dangers they pose to the public, or if, on a deeper level, the responsibility of this awesome power is beyond the reach of man. In accessing the arguments for nuclear power, I think Walker posits the question of whether nuclear power is a practical solution to the pressing energy needs of the United States, or once again on a deeper level, if man is almost obligated to use nuclear power because to deny it would be to deny his own greatness and responsibility for providing for his fellows.

Attached to the opposition of nuclear power is the potential of public reaction. Walker explores this issue throughout the text. He specifically focuses on the tendency of rumors and misinformation to exacerbate public fears. While hysteria or widespread panic never occurred during the Three Mile Island Crisis, Walker nonetheless examines instances where periods of tension gripped an already stressed public, such as when the engineers decided to "burp" the plant and release small amounts of radioactive clouds of gas into the atmosphere. Also, on a few occasions during the crisis, the prospect of evacuation always threatened and at times, he cites the publics growing agitation due to erroneous news and radio reports which announced events without having all the facts.

The bulk of the text dealt with the specific details of the Three Mile Island disaster which began at 4:00 am, March 28th, 1979. Walker gives an explicit account of how and why the reactor failed, as well as a description of how it functioned. He cites the major malfunction to a backup valve which was left open, allowing precious coolant to escape, thus causing to the core to heat, and eventually "meltdown."

Yet, once again, in an unemotional way, Walker presents the various factors leading to the malfunction, both mechanical and human. However, in this case, I think he is obviously biased toward human error, He explains in depth the various defense mechanisms that the reactors in at Three Mile Island were equipped with. He also illustrates how many scientists, NRC (Nuclear Reformatory Committee) and government officials almost boasted of the extreme unlikelihood of a nuclear malfunction due to their belief in "depths of defense," which was simply the fact that their were multiple defense mechanisms. Yet, toward the end of the text, Walker bluntly states that it was not the defense mechanisms that malfunctioned at Three Mile Island. He states that they would have worked properly if it were not for human error. It was mistakes committed by the engineers at the Three Mile Plant that lead to the accident.

Lastly, Walker concludes the book with a perspective of the accident, indeed, the "historical perspective" of the title. He vindicates both sides of the controversy, both the nuclear opposition and pro-nuclear advocates. He states that the catastrophe at Three Mile Island, while serious, left no one dead and no property damage, except to the site. No massive or harmful amounts of radioactive materials contaminated the environment; there was no increase in cancer, infant mortality or livestock mortality. And despite the many blunderings of the NRC, Met Ed and GPU, the situation was handled in a calm and efficient matter. A potentially costly evacuation was not called for, and life for many citizens, although obviously stressed, was not disturbed. And so, the accident at Three Mile Island was a "success," in the fact that loss of life and property damage had been avoided. He believes that the anti-nuclear opposition grossly overestimated the threat of nuclear meltdown and population deaths.

Yet, despite the "success" of the Three Mile incident, it would have negative consequences on the nuclear industry in the United States. It visibly shook the confidence of Americans. According to survey polls taken after the accident, many who previously did not oppose nuclear power now did, consequently, a nuclear plant in the United States has not been built since. Three Mile Island became an ominous warning of what could have been. The accident exposed the inept, bureaucratic and widely inefficient licensing techniques of the NRC, and the boastful, overconfident and ultimately lax attitude toward nuclear education and training held by many in the nuclear industry. Walker points out that many pro-nuclear advocates had underestimated the power-and threat-of nuclear power.

All in all, I think Walker's contribution to historical scholarship is what his title aims at, it is a historical perspective. Despite his overly cautious and seemingly unbiased tone, I believe that Walker is wary of nuclear power. He never discounts it, or calls for a halt to it. (White coats quote) Rather, I believe his work is a subtle warning. It is a warning of what could happen, of what could have been. The core at Three Mile Island did melt.

Without directly stating it, his book raises the issue of the right of nuclear power. In essence, after reading Walker's book, I asked myself whether humanity has or should have the right to use nuclear power. I asked myself whether the risks are too great. Essentially, his book forces the reader to ask whether humanity it truly prepared to handle this awesome and destructive responsibility. I believe that Walker would answer a reluctant "no" to this question, simply because, if man makes a mistake when dealing with nuclear power, he may not be able to learn from it.

The book in review, Three Mile Island: A Nuclear Crisis in Historical Perspective, written by Samuel Walker is a subtle but powerful warning regarding the issue of nuclear power. The style of the book is almost of a passive observer who meticulously gathers facts and then attempts to make an educated decision on the matter. And I believe Walker's purpose in writing the book is to do just that. It seems as if Walker does not want the reader to make any emotional appeals either for or against the use of nuclear power. Rather, he strictly wants the reader to make a reasonable decision based purely on facts.

Walker first dissects the debate and the history regarding nuclear power. In 1954, Congress passed the Atomic energy act which allocated nuclear capabilities for civilian use, specifically, its ability to provide an abundance of electricity. During the late fifties and early sixties, the demand for nuclear energy grew, and plant construction increased. Yet, by the late sixties into the mid-seventies, economic recession, massive inflation, and a fuel crisis gripped America, and these factors contributed to decreased construction of new plants. Walker examines this debate at its state in the mid-seventies.

Yet, I believe that Walker's analysis of the arguments go much deeper than a simple retelling of the facts. Rather, at one point in the text, he cited a case of opposition to nuclear power by a religious group on moral, rather than tactical grounds. I believe that this issue confronts the reader through Walker's arguments, but in an unemotional, unobtrusive way. In assessing the opposition to nuclear power, Walker's arguments force the reader to ask whether the use of nuclear power should be halted because of the potential dangers they pose to the public, or if, on a deeper level, the responsibility of this awesome power is beyond the reach of man. In accessing the arguments for nuclear power, I think Walker posits the question of whether nuclear power is a practical solution to the pressing energy needs of the United States, or once again on a deeper level, if man is almost obligated to use nuclear power because to deny it would be to deny his own greatness and responsibility for providing for his fellows.

Attached to the opposition of nuclear power is the potential of public reaction. Walker explores this issue throughout the text. He specifically focuses on the tendency of rumors and misinformation to exacerbate public fears. While hysteria or widespread panic never occurred during the Three Mile Island Crisis, Walker nonetheless examines instances where periods of tension gripped an already stressed public, such as when the engineers decided to "burp" the plant and release small amounts of radioactive clouds of gas into the atmosphere. Also, on a few occasions during the crisis, the prospect of evacuation always threatened and at times, he cites the publics growing agitation due to erroneous news and radio reports which announced events without having all the facts. The bulk of the text dealt with the specific details of the Three Mile Island disaster which began at 4:00 am, March 28th, 1979. Walker gives an explicit account of how and why the reactor failed, as well as a description of how it functioned. He cites the major malfunction to a backup valve which was left open, allowing precious coolant to escape, thus causing to the core to heat, and eventually "meltdown."

As a graduate student in philosophy and history, I recommended this book for anyone interested in American history.

This book was highly unsatisfactory. One cannot deal with specific deficiencies and keep to length limits: this will be general.

Walker implies he has no pro-nuclear bias. That is difficult to believe considering his employer, word choice and his criticizing nuclear opponents and excusing those in the nuclear industry.

What this book is actually about? It seems to be about bureaucratic gyrations in reaction to the accident, NOT attempts to assess what was happening or actions to deal with the reactor itself or the actual condition of the reactor. Illustration of priorities: chapters 4-8 bear the title of days of the accident, but (p. 158) we learn what the company had done the previous day to ameliorate the hydrogen bubble to clarify the announcements made the day that chapter deals with. Walker mentions that the hydrogen bubble resulted from damage to the fuel rods, but does not specify that it was the zirconium fuel rod cladding dissolving that released the hydrogen.

Walker's omissions frustrate. Despite long discussion of the preparation of the NRC's first accident press release, the press release text is omitted! The book would be more comprehensible if it included a map of the area, relevant organizational charts of the NRC, state and federal governments and a schematic of the TMI reactor corresponding to the parts Walker named. There is no mention of the Rasmussen Report (WASH-1400), frequently used by nuclear proponents before and after the accident to assure people of nuclear safety.

While omitting relevant information, Walker includes irrelevancies: D. R. Neely did not go with two other NRC people to meet with the governor's executive assistant. That is the only mention of this man, so the mention is perplexing.

If you are looking for a comprehensive, unbiased account of what happened at TMI, look elsewhere.