Brotherhood of the Bomb

brotherhood of the bombThe subtitle of this book by Gregg Herken is “The Tangled Lives and Loyalties of Robert Oppenheimer, Ernest Lawrence, and Edward Teller.” Another book by the author, “The Winning Weapon” (a review was posted October 1) concluded that too much was made of Soviet espionage of the Manhattan Project. “Brotherhood of the Bomb” reaches an entirely different conclusion. A footnote on page 126 states “Near the end of the war, because of Fuchs and other spies at Los Alamos, the Russians had a precise description of the component parts of Fat Man, including such engineering details as the makeup and design of the explosive lenses use to compress the plutonium core and the exact dimensions of the bomb’s polonium initiator. The device that the Soviets exploded in their first nuclear test, in August 1949, was essentially a copy of Fat Man.” “The Winning Weapon” was published in 1980 and “Brotherhood of the Bomb” in 2002. Much was learned about the extent of Soviet spying after the first book was published in 1980. For example, the Venona Project that revealed the massive extent of Soviet spying was declassified in 1995. Both books have value to someone interested in the atomic bomb and its impact on the Cold War, and the first gives a good idea of how much of the media looked at the issue of Soviet spying in 1980.

“Brotherhood of the Bomb” gives detailed insight into the scientists who became famous as the result of discovering what could be accomplished, mostly in the form of weapons, with atomic energy. Lawrence had announced in 1932 that “…heavy particles not only disintegrated readily but in the process seemed to release more energy than it took to break them apart.” He proposed a vista of cheap, reliable, and virtually limitless energy…” His “disintegration hypothesis” was greeted with skepticism verging on ridicule. Rutherford made his now famous statement that “anyone who looked for a source of power in the transformation of atoms was talking moonshine.” Continue reading

Deaths Caused by Nuclear Power Generation

This posting was inspired by the review last week of “The Rise of Nuclear Fear” and a commentary about radiation exposure from the Three Mile Island Accident. Spencer R. Weart, the author of the “Nuclear Fear” book, has a conclusion I consider worth repeating. “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.” Continue reading

The Rise of Nuclear Fear

nuclear_fearI 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. Continue reading

Radiation Exposure from the Three Mile Island Accident

A friend told me he attended a conference where one of the papers presented concluded that the person receiving the highest radiation exposure from the accident at Three Mile Island was a journalist who flew from Singapore to cover the story. A Health Physics Society report by Robert J. Barish has  a good discussion about radiation exposure during air travel. It explains the exposure “…is caused not only by x rays (photons) but also by a variety of energetic particles such as neutrons, protons, electrons, muons ( a subatomic particle similar to an electron), and pions (another subatomic paricle described as the lightest meson). These “…come from a variety of cosmic sources in our galaxy, with a lesser contribution from our own sun” Continue reading

Radiation What It Is, What You Need to Know

radiation-what-it-isThis is an excellent book for both student and adult readers by Robert Peter Gale, M. D., PH. D. and Eric Lax.  Gale is a scientist and physicist who has been involved in treating victims from every major nuclear accident in the past twenty-five years.  Lax is an author of non-fiction books.  Together they have written a book that is factual and easy to read, and that does not push any political position.  My one complaint is the lack of an index.  The authors provide a fine discussion of topics including terminology, medical issues, irradiation of food, how people access risk, and discussions of several high-profile incidents (including Hiroshima, Chernobyl, and Fukushima).  They have written an excellent reference book, including a website with links to articles on their main topics, and an index would make it easier to use.

The authors say “we live in a sea of radiation… Because radiation touches every aspect of our lives – it is, in fact, responsible for our lives – it is essential to know what radiation is, how it works and what it can and cannot do.”  People “know very little about radiation… [and] most of us are unaccustomed to carefully weighing competing risks and benefits.”  They address topics we read about in the media:  nuclear power and power plant accidents, fallout from nuclear bomb tests, food irradiation, cancer, and birth defects.

The authors are concerned that people’s fears are disproportionate to the risks. People worry about the wrong things and can, therefore, ignore real risks.  For example, people should not worry about radiation from their TVs or cell phones, but should worry about radiation from medical procedures and, in some areas, radon gas in their homes. Continue reading

A Case for Nuclear-Generated Electricity

Scott W. Heaberlin adds to the message in the title with the subtitle “…or why I think nuclear power is cool and why it is important that you think so too.” The book works hard to overcome negative feelings about nuclear energy. I was convinced, but admit that I was convinced before I read the book. I doubt any avid nuclear energy foes will have their minds changed. The book takes on a complicated technical subject in a both educational and conversational manner. The author sometimes succeeds, and sometimes falls into the “curse of knowledge” trap that leads knowledgeable people to want to explain everything in details much beyond what is necessary, or at least what I thought was necessary. Continue reading