I struggled with the first part of the book by Spencer R. Weart, my interest in the title kept me reading, and I’m glad I did. I suggest beginning with the personal note at the end of the book. The opening sentence explains the book’s focus on the psychology of fear and the “forces of imagery and their pressure upon policies.” The author also reveals his personal opinions, and I was frankly somewhat surprised that he believes we should develop nuclear energy. The book carefully presents the pros and cons, with more emphasis on the cons, that I hadn’t anticipated that position.

Overall I was less interested in the descriptions of how imagery contributes to the fear many or most people have of anything nuclear or the detailed explanations of the mental processes that create fear. However, the detailed history of nuclear science and technology more than made up for that.

The book is a who’s who of scientists and both proponents of nuclear weapons and energy and activists who disagree. The first scientists mentioned were Frederick Soddy and Ernest Rutherford. They discovered that radioactivity resulted from fundamental changes in matter which Soddy named “transmutation.” The subject began attracting opinions that transmutation could result in “…achieving a world of justice, peace, and plenty…” It also began to be understood that transmutation also involved death because “…matter must literally die before it could be refashioned…”  The argument about whether nuclear energy is a blessing or curse is a central theme of the book, and the author does a good job of presenting both sides.

The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki has had a great influence on the creation of nuclear fear and confirmed the predictions of some science fiction writers. H.G. Wells wrote The World Set Free in 1913 and coined the term “atomic bomb.” He described how entire cities had been erased while “…pillars of fire raged while ‘puffs’ of luminous radio-active vapor drifted downwind killing and scorching all they overtook.” The message of the book was that survivors created a world government and “…brilliant new society.” A French novel written in 1908 predicted terrorists would destroy cities with pocket-sized atomic explosives.

Popular fantasy stories often had villains who had been turned into monsters by exposure to radiation. Many movies portrayed mankind under assault from giant spiders, ants, and other creatures that had evolved from exposure to radiation. On the other hand there are the heroes such as Spiderman who gained his super powers from a bite from a radioactive spider. All the novels, movies, and comic books that told such stories developed widespread fear or at least distrust of anything to do with radioactivity. Oddly, this was despite the fact that man had evolved while being bathed in radiation from cosmic rays, radioactive elements in the earth, and even radioactive minerals that all animals including man carry in their bones.

The Manhattan Project is described in detail along with the scientists involved. Robert Stone was a physician working with Fermi at the University of Chicago reactor. His team set the exposure limit for the workers at one-tenth of a rem per day. When Stone was asked how much plutonium it would be permissible for a worker to inhale he said, “None.”

In 1945 American bombers were dropping incendiary bombs on Japanese cities. Fifteen square miles of Tokyo went up in a firestorm created by the bombs from 300 bombers and an countless men, women, and children died. Those bombings weren’t pushing the Japanese to surrender and the plans were made to drop Little Boy and Fat Man on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Several of the scientists who had worked diligently to develop the atomic bombs were having second thoughts. Szilard petitioned that the first bomb be dropped on a deserted island. The bombs were instead dropped on the two cities, tens of thousands died directly, more died later, and the survivors were stigmatized with the name “hibakusha.”

Atmospheric testing of weapons and the fallout created began to create new fears. Homes were built on the Nevada Test Site and populated with mannequins to display the destructive nature of the blasts. Pictures of charred and twisted mannequins lying amid broken glass and splintered lumber are still vivid in many memories. There were also a quarter million soldiers who were positioned in trenches in the vicinity of various detonations. (I recall reading of one young man who was told to put his hands over his eyes. He commented that he was surprised to be able to see the bones in his fingers when the detonation occurred.) “Duck and Cover” exercises in schools helped ingrain the fear among youngsters. More monster movies were made and the Japanese film industry introduced Godzilla. The monsters were described as symbolizing “man’s technological tampering with nature.”

The book enters one of the more interesting sections to describe the growing protest movements against the bomb. Some protestors began to declare “Better Red than Dead,” while others declared the opposite. The understandable fear of nuclear war caused thousands to leave cities when word of the Cuban Missile Crisis made the news. Movies continued to fan the fear. Dr. Strangelove depicted the dangers from weapons while The China Syndrome expanded protests against nuclear generated energy. Nuclear waste became a political issue. There were plans to bury it in Kansas salt mines, but that ended when it was found the salt deposits were “…riddled with boreholes. Yucca Mountain then fell to politics and the waste continued to be stored in over a hundred less safe locations than the engineered underground area that had cost billions to ready it for use.

The question for the wisest method for producing electricity continues to be a pressing question. Environmentalists want the answer to be wind, solar, and conservation. Unfortunately in a world demanding more and more energy the demand cannot be provided by those three. The only realistic answer is coal, although the plentiful amounts of natural gas being produced by fracking has made inroads on coal and has allowed the U.S. to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. The facts are in favor of nuclear energy to replace coal, but the stigmas attached to the nuclear risks as showcased by Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukashima continue to hold back efforts to continue to operate existing plants let alone plan and build new ones. Many have been inculcated that radiation is evil. Only France has made the most of nuclear energy by generating 80% of its energy from nuclear. The rest of the world overlooks the numbers of deaths from electrocution and the mining of coal. Those deaths oddly seem to be acceptable while the risks from nuclear energy are not.

The book is full of interesting history and facts that would make it a great selection for anyone interested in nuclear weaponry and energy regardless of their personal preferences. I refer back to the author’s personal notes at the end of the book. My favorite passage is the beginning of the third paragraph. “Much more electricity will be needed before the entire world reaches minimal prosperity. None of the ways to generate electricity is fully satisfactory. In terms of both my family’s health and the health of the environment, I would personally live near an existing nuclear reactor than near a plant fired by fossil fuels such as coal.” (Emphasis added.)