Take a photo of a barcode or cover
mburnamfink 's review for:
The Rise of Nuclear Fear
by Spencer R. Weart
This is the definitive history of the psychology of the atom, from the discovery of radium to Fukushima. Weart shows how nuclear science has since its inception blended together various hopes and fears, taking on various aspects of a universal narrative that could be summarized as "the scientist/alchemist unlocks immense secrets to build utopia, but due to his human flaws winds up corrupting nature and destroying himself instead." The concrete realities of the atomic bomb and the nuclear power industry provided an anchor for these fears, and other more primal fears.
This book is at its best discussing the psychology of the scientific aspirations of the 1920s and 30s, and the ways that public opinion swirling around changing nuclear developments from 1945-1980. For example, 'duck and cover' is commonly regarded as a grim joke, but it would have offered reasonable protection against the early 10-25 kilotonne atomic bombs. Only with megatonne+ fusion city busters did the 'winnable' nuclear war become truly insane.
Conversely, Weart is weak on the facts. Not necessarily wrong, I'm moderately well-read on Cold War nuclear strategy, and nuclear accidents like Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima, and there wasn't anything that seemed out of place, but these complex topics are covered in only the most cursory ways. There's nothing to let you decide if, for example, there were in fact proper safeguards against an accidental nuclear exchange (we came too close several times), or if the American Nuclear Regulatory Commission is a better oversight agency than Japan's TEPCO.
One thing that may rub some people the wrong way is Weart's general pro-nuclear stance. He is of the opinion that nuclear power is the safest form of electricity generation, and certainly far safer than coal, and that most of the fears over the health risks of radiation are overblown compared to both natural background radiation and other toxins in the environment. I agree with him, but a committed anti-nuclear activist is probably going to throw the book aside. Weart attempts to build a bridge between the pro-nuclear technocratic community, and various anti-nuclear factions of environmentalists, libertarians, and pacifists, but he is definitely standing on one side.
This book is at its best discussing the psychology of the scientific aspirations of the 1920s and 30s, and the ways that public opinion swirling around changing nuclear developments from 1945-1980. For example, 'duck and cover' is commonly regarded as a grim joke, but it would have offered reasonable protection against the early 10-25 kilotonne atomic bombs. Only with megatonne+ fusion city busters did the 'winnable' nuclear war become truly insane.
Conversely, Weart is weak on the facts. Not necessarily wrong, I'm moderately well-read on Cold War nuclear strategy, and nuclear accidents like Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima, and there wasn't anything that seemed out of place, but these complex topics are covered in only the most cursory ways. There's nothing to let you decide if, for example, there were in fact proper safeguards against an accidental nuclear exchange (we came too close several times), or if the American Nuclear Regulatory Commission is a better oversight agency than Japan's TEPCO.
One thing that may rub some people the wrong way is Weart's general pro-nuclear stance. He is of the opinion that nuclear power is the safest form of electricity generation, and certainly far safer than coal, and that most of the fears over the health risks of radiation are overblown compared to both natural background radiation and other toxins in the environment. I agree with him, but a committed anti-nuclear activist is probably going to throw the book aside. Weart attempts to build a bridge between the pro-nuclear technocratic community, and various anti-nuclear factions of environmentalists, libertarians, and pacifists, but he is definitely standing on one side.