|
Nuclear Power Is Not the Answer | 
 enlarge | Author: Helen Caldicott
Publisher: New Press
Category: Book
List Price: $15.95
Buy Used: $6.00
You Save: $9.95 (62%)
New (30) Used (11) from $6.00
Rating:  21 reviews
Sales Rank: 150038
Media: Paperback
Pages: 240
Number Of Items: 1
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.7
Dimensions (in): 8.1 x 5.3 x 0.9
ISBN: 1595582134
Dewey Decimal Number: 333.79240973
EAN: 9781595582133
ASIN: 1595582134
Publication Date: September 1, 2007
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Shipping: Expedited shipping available
Shipping: International shipping available
Condition: Publisher: New PressDate of Publication: 2007Binding: Soft CoverEdition: First TradeCondition: FineDescription: Octavo 1595582134 Fine softcover. Unmarked, unread, unopened.
| |
| Also Available In:
|
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
The world-renowned antinuclear activist's "expertly argued" (The Guardian) case against nuclear energy.
In a world torn apart by wars over oil, politicians have increasingly begun to look for alternative energy sources—and their leading choice is nuclear energy. Among the myths that have been spread over the years about nuclear-powered electricity are that it does not cause global warming or pollution, that it is inexpensive, and that it is safe.
Helen Caldicott's look at the actual costs and environmental consequences of nuclear energy belies the incessant barrage of nuclear industry propaganda. Caldicott "reveals truths," Martin Sheen has said, "that confirm we must take positive action now if we are to make a difference." In fact, nuclear power contributes to global warming; the true cost of nuclear power is prohibitive, with taxpayers picking up most of the tab; there's simply not enough uranium in the world to sustain nuclear power over the long term; and the potential for a catastrophic accident or a terrorist attack far outweighs any benefits. Concluding chapters detail alternative sustainable energy sources that are the key to a clean, green future.
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 16 more reviews...
 Valuable info the Nuclear industry don't want the public to know!! August 13, 2008
V. Price (Memphis, TN United States)
0 out of 6 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 8 found this review helpful
Nuclear power boils water to create steam that spin the turbines attached to electric generators - that's it.
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.
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.
...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?
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.
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.
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.
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)
7 out of 9 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."
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.
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.
 Good to know. May 12, 2008
Patrick Van Esch (Grenoble, France)
13 out of 14 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.
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.
Well worth the read February 17, 2008
L. Jakus (Chicago, IL USA)
1 out of 16 found this review helpful
I always thought that a nuclear power plant was something like a sketch from a Simpson's cartoon, with a rock (uranium) behind a piece of glass emitting radiation which somehow turned into electricity.
After reading this book my metaphor for a nuclear plant has changed -- rather it's a type of giant Rube Goldberg device with thousands and thousands of interconnected parts which are jumbled together, which leak radiation in innumerable ways, and which, as they continue to age, are deteriorating more and more. What comes to mind in this regard, is the space shuttle -- how many have blown up and how many do we have left anyway? (Who else but the government would send a thirty year old vehicle into space, when we scrap cars after fifteen year.) Who else but the government would support an industry where after forty years, we still haven't been able to figure out what to do with the highly toxic waste products, tons and tons of which are created each year.
This book provides a lot of information about nuclear power which seems worth knowing. I noticed that this book has received "Ones" by quite a few of the reviewers. It seems their criticisms are based on something other than the interesting insights into nuclear power provided by this book. Personally I am fairly optistic about alternative energy and believe that USA civlization can move forward without nuclear power or coal generated energy for that matter.
|
|
|
| |
