Atomic Awakening: A New Look At The History And Future Of Nuclear Power

by James Mahaffey

“Persuasive and based on deep research. Atomic Awakening taught me a great deal."― Nature The American public's introduction to nuclear technology was manifested in destruction and death. With Hiroshima and the Cold War still ringing in our ears, our perception of all things nuclear is seen through the lens of weapons development. Nuclear power is full of mind-bending theories, deep secrets, and the misdirection of public consciousness, some deliberate, some accidental. The result of this fixation on bombs and fallout is that the development of a non-polluting, renewable energy source stands frozen in time.

Outlining nuclear energy's discovery and applications throughout history, Mahaffey's brilliant and accessible book is essential to understanding the astounding phenomenon of nuclear power in an age where renewable energy and climate change have become the defining concerns of the twenty-first century.

Genres: Science, History, Nonfiction, Audiobook, Physics, Politics, Technology

368 pages, Paperback

First published June 23, 2009

About the author

Dr. James Mahaffey was senior research scientist at the Georgia Tech Research Institute and has worked at the Defense Nuclear Agency, the National Ground Intelligence Center, and the Air Force Air Logistics Center, focusing on nuclear power, nano-technology, and cold fusion.
(Bio from publisher)

Some of the author's works are published under the James A. Mahaffey or Jim Mahaffey names.

Reviews

[Always Pouting · Rating 3 out of 5]

The author starts the book off by assuring us that he is not trying to convince us that nuclear power is the best power source and then a few pages later goes on to say that he doesn't have to convince you of this because once you read the book you'll realize how inevitable our use of nuclear energy in the future is. That already put me off but I always finish books because I can't bear not to so I kept on reading and it really didn't get any better from that point on. First off I don't understand why the author had to talk about himself because it added nothing to strengthen his argument. If anything it weakens it because why would I believe a nuclear engineer when he says nuclear power is inevitable, you clearly have a vested interest, not that the author tried to present an unbiased argument in favor of nuclear power. Second he sums up the history of physics, in specific our discovery of the atom and nuclear energy but then fails to talk about what in fact makes it inevitable. I think I would have been much more convinced if he had taken the time out to talk about nuclear energy in comparison to the alternatives rather. Instead I got a cliff note version of physics history plus his experiences and some details about the history of nuclear energy which also did not really talk about it's advantages more so things like the Manhattan project. Third of all the ending he talks about nuclear isotope ingesting bacteria which had nothing to do with anything? The whole book is like that, disjointed with no clear arguments made. Fourth he assumed that we all come in thinking natural gasses and gasoline are not good sources of fuel but how can you make a good argument for nuclear being the best option without showing the downsides of other options. Also if people reading this book don't know Marie Curie helped discover radiation how will you just assume they hate fossil fuels though...

It's a good book for someone who doesn't know much about nuclear and it's history and it's written in a very clear and accessible fashion which is always a plus with science nonfiction books. I just personally wasn't impressed.

Also this window closed when I was almost done typing up my review and I had to retype it so I'm sad and I'm going to go crawl into a garbage can now or something

[Shoti · Rating 3 out of 5]

The book’s title is quite misleading. The words ‘awakening’ and ‘future’ suggest that by reading the book one could learn a great deal about the present and future challenges and opportunities faced by the nuclear industry. Instead, the book rather focuses on the history of nuclear power with marginal outlook for the future.

Mahaffey offers a brilliant summary of scientific developments starting as early as the 17th century until nuclear bombs could be built during WW2. He explains the contribution of scientific breakthroughs which sometimes did not have much to do with nuclear power directly. Experimentalists and theorists, pushing forward each other along this road, gradually paved the way to an advanced understanding of the atom, its construct, fission and nuclear energy production. Mahaffey writes well and when the topics got more complicated and I started to lose his train of thought about how a neutron joins or leaves the nucleus by turning material XYZ into isotope ABC, he always had one or two refreshing anecdotes to share. His stories about post-WW2 experiments with nuclear energy when American and Soviet scientists blew up with nuclear bombs pretty much everything what they thought to be a good idea was also interesting.

The author kicks off the introduction by stating that “the purpose of this book is not to sell nuclear power.” At the same time, as a nuclear scientist and enthusiast throughout his life, he often fails to remain objective. In Mahaffey’s ideal world the Earth should be like France where 87.5% of electricity is generated by the nuclear power industry. Humankind would enjoy unimaginably fresh air and global warming would only exist as a ridiculous idea of some third-tier science fiction writers. The author clearly feels pissed off with the US energy mix where electrical power delivered by nuclear reactions has been stagnating at 20% since the 1970’s. He calls nuclear power the walking dead of global energy production, neither progressing, nor falling away. He struggles to grasp why general public are so afraid of nuclear power when it can generate energy without the smoke from coal plants, without forest destroying acid rain, without causing cancer, and without global warming. When it comes to nuclear accidents he also has ready explanations. In October 1957, during the Windscale reactor incident, it was only sheer luck and a badly delayed design modification that had kept 20 tons of burned reactor fuel, heavy with fission product, from blanketing all Northern England. The author tells us, no worries, that was a poor reactor design back in 1957, by now the improved technology, the allowed radiation dose standards and the industrial safety regulation have made the nuclear technology so safe that it has been reduced to crashing boredom. According to Mahaffey, the Chernobyl disaster of 1986 was again due to bad reactor design coupled with an incompetent and undertrained staff. He mentions that there were only 55 recorded deaths from direct radiation exposure in Chernobyl (my comment: by Soviet standards), while 171,000 people died in China in 1975 when the Banqiao Dam failed, and 18,000 people died in Bhopal, India, in 1984 during the infamous pesticides plant incident. The Fukushima accident of 2011 is out of scope for the book which was published in 2009. However, the Fukushima accident undercuts, to say the least, Mahaffey's arguments about the safety of nuclear energy production.

My main concern is that Mahaffey misses to give sound explanation of some key points. People understand and reluctantly accept that accidents are part of life. Based on the law of high numbers they are inevitable due to engineering deficiencies, human negligence, force majeure, and that’s why airplanes crash, bridges collapse, factories blow up sometimes. We do our best to avoid them but in our hearts we know that is not possible. However, when a nuclear reactor melts down, the aftermath is not gone quickly, it does stay with us for thousands of years in the form of invisible radioactivity which is a fearful thought. As the author mentions, when there is an occasional forest fire near Chernobyl, then radioactive dust is stirred up and doses Europe again. I would have appreciated some more thoughts around why this long-term radioactive decay is not such a big concern. Especially after having read in the book about the jolliest time of all nuclear scientists, the 1950s, when they experimented with nuclear explosions so extensively that they managed to contaminate the Earth’s atmosphere to an extent when it was no longer possible to make steel, requiring a great deal of air to be blown through the process, which was not radioactive. Another pain point of nuclear energy is the question of processing and storing the used reactor fuel. The author talks down to anti-nuclear forces which, on the hand, do not understand how safe nuclear energy production is, and, on the other hand, are very clever at getting what they want and that’s why they target the question of long-term disposal of radioactive byproducts. He hints at that proper processing technologies already exist and we can safely put the used reactor fuel into salt mines and the like without significant risks. That may be very well true but for one I would have certainly appreciated more details and a more sophisticated and elaborate analysis of this controversial point. To sum it up, I like a lot Mahaffey’s vision about a world without global warming but I came away from his book with the feeling that some important points to substantiate his vision and claims were not sufficiently explained.

P.S.: the author closes the book by writing about microbes that live a mile below the Earth’s surface eating radioactivity. They never see sunlight and their only sustenance is the radioactivity. He continues to envision, almost lyrically, that in billions of years when the Sun has burned out and the Earth is a cold rock floating around in the darkness these microbes will still be around, happily eating the radioactive isotopes in the darkness. As far as I know, there is an alternative as to how things may pan out. Before the Sun burns out, it will turn into a red giant, swell up and engulf the inner planets including perhaps our beloved Earth too. So, if the microbes thriving on radioactivity are still around in 5 billion years, they may be in for a nasty surprise. And yes, I know this has nothing to do with nuclear power, I just could not help myself…

[G. Branden · Rating 5 out of 5]

I simply loved it. James Mahaffey is an excellent writer with an acid wit, a salty attitude, a Ph.D., and a gig as a research scientist at Georgia Tech.

As others have noted, the book is weighted heavily toward the "history" side of its title. Mahaffey does offer some thoughts on the future, but he's not here to hector people or sell anything.

In fact, I find him all the more credible as an advocate of further development of nuclear power technologies because he has a face-the-fuckups, no-bullshit attitude.

There's one anecdote in the book that I suspect would have certain types of people browning their pants. It's about the Ph.D. pastime known as "reactor racing" at a low-power educational fission reactor.

Some people probably think of such recreations as deeply irresponsible. They probably think the same thing about pilots who take spin and unusual attitude recovery training.

I know who I'd prefer flying the plane I'm in.

[Noah Goats · Rating 4 out of 5]

In Atomic Awakening, James Mahaffey gives us an interesting and sometimes even amusing history of nuclear power from Democritus through the 1960s (with a quick overview of more recent decades). Atomic energy was introduced to most of the world on August 9th, 1945 when a bomb of unprecedented power was dropped on Hiroshima, destroying it in one terrible flash. Although the bomb brought WWII to an abrupt halt, it was also a PR disaster for nuclear energy as people wondered if they really want to power their cities with this energy source that could destroy them all instantly.

After WWII nuclear energy entered a period of wild experimentation. Reactors were successfully added to submarines and began to power cities even as scientist cooked up seemingly insane plans for the new technology. These nutty plans included the idea of building nuclear powered bombers that would fly around in circles near Russia's borders until a war broke out, at which point they would be perfectly positioned to utterly destroy the Soviets (with nuclear energy these planes would never need to land, they could fly for months, just waiting for the chance to do their one terrible job). There was also a plan to build a spaceship that could achieve 1/10 lightspeed by popping nukes behind it one by one and riding the blasts. There were even plans to dig a new Panama Canal using atomic bombs to blow the dirt away.

While all this was going on people became increasingly disenchanted with nuclear energy in the United States. Anti-war groups lumped energy in with bombs and turned against both, storing nuclear waste became a political problem, and the Three Mile Island accident was the final nail in the coffin.

I think that Mahaffey is right that we can't successfully address the problems of climate change without employing nuclear energy. At the same time, Chernobyl and Fukushima show that although the technology has come a long way, it's still very dangerous and can wreak terrible havoc (Fukushima apparently happened after this book was published because Mahaffey doesn't mention it).

This is a very readable account of the history of nuclear energy.

[Mack Clair · Rating 3 out of 5]

A wonderfully entertaining book, at times, but one that does little to examine the future of nuclear power, as its title avidly claims.

I appreciated Dr. Mahaffey's writing style and wit throughout. I imagine being in one of his lectures would be an extremely entertaining experience. He rambles, goes off on tangents at the drop of a hat, breezes over years of history and human effort with a quick, sardonic remark, makes a few comments about "The Elders" one must contend with in pursuit of a Ph.D., and all throughout, knows more than he lets on.

I thought the idea of examining all of scientific history through the lens of culminating with the first uninhibited chain reaction was very promising, in theory. In practice, however, it made for a very grueling introduction to the book. Especially for someone with some background in nuclear power or modern scientific history already, this is a tough lead-in to what I think is the meat of the book: his examination of the public perception of nuclear power in the Atomic Age.

I enjoyed Mahaffey's promised "new look", but felt that it was somewhat diluted due to a lack of focus. I plan to read his other books, even just to get another taste of his writing style.

[Nick Black · Rating 3 out of 5]

A decent introduction to the history of controlled fission, although not nearly as in-depth as The Making of the Atomic Bomb, from which it takes a lot of its material. Focuses much more on the "history" element than the "future", which disappointed me. Unlike the author's more recent (but equally alliterative) Atomic Accidents, anyone who's deeply interested in this subject will have already found most of the information. Nonetheless, it's well-written, competently edited, and short enough to appeal to those for whom Rhodes was rather much of a slog.

full disclosure: Dr. Mahaffey and I both studied nuclear engineering at Georgia Tech, and worked at the Georgia Tech Research Institute, though not at the same time. I do not personally know Dr. Mahaffey.

[Olivier Novel · Rating 3 out of 5]

Nuclear energy is so important and such an incredible source of energy for the development of the world it seems a miracle, but the way it has been demonized by well-intentioned but ill-informed people is baffling. We are in the midst of letting this source of almost unending power slip away, the gods will, at last, take back the fire stolen by Prometheus for the sake of man.

This short history of nuclear energy, written by someone who's been there and done that, lets us know it is dangerous, yes it is, but handled with care, as it is done today, it is very safe and the risks are minimal, a recommended reading for anyone who wants to make for themselves an educated decision on this subject.

[cellomerl · Rating 4 out of 5]

James Mahaffey’s books are wonderfully written, entertaining and informative. He does a great job of explaining why nuclear power is a grand gift of nature.
Nuclear power has suffered for decades of being sadly misunderstood, wildly underrated and unfortunately twinned with bomb development. Time, maturity and necessity have finally started to catch up with it.
Audiobook.

[Milhouse Van Houten · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good one!

[Cole Bauman · Rating 3 out of 5]

A good introduction to the world of nuclear physics. This book details a surface level history of the nuclear industry from the discovery of the electron to the atom bomb, all the way up to today. There were times where I wish the book went into more scientific detail about nuclear energy but this book functioned more as a historical account than scientific. I recommend this book as a jumping off point for those interested in nuclear science and rather than a comprehensive outlook.

[Tamar Moss · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book outlines the history of nuclear weapons and energy all the way back to discovering the atom and radiation. The dichotomy of either reckless science leading to wild radiation exposure or over caution with power production was striking. It was interesting for me to learn more about the history of Oak Ridge. Feels sad that the country mobilized so strongly to advance science build weapons, but doesn't have the same drive for science to address other issues.

[Samantha · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was a fascinating walk through nuclear history. Mahaffey writes in such an easy and clear style, and his humor in the footnotes doesn't go unnoticed. I am always completely immersed in his books and the information therein. I learn so many interesting facts that I then turn around and share with others. #nerdlife
This was such an awesome read. I hope there will be more books in this style.

[Joe Boudrow · Rating 5 out of 5]

Tremendous book!!!! A thorough description of the history of nuclear energy. From the initial research on atoms, to X-rays, to bombs, to planes, to rockets, to electrical power generators and everything in between. I highly recommend.

[Rae · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5 stars
Heavy on the history, light on the future. Some strange humour throughout but all around interesting.

[Thomas · Rating 2 out of 5]

If you’re familiar with the history of 20th century physics there’s nothing new here.

[Paul Gilfoy · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good primer on nuclear energy

[Andrew Canfield · Rating 4 out of 5]

Atomic Awakening: A New Look at the History and Future of Nuclear Power provides an approachable look at its subject matter.

Author James A. Mahaffey is a scientist and an expert on nuclear engineering, and he could have written a book that was inaccessible and intimidating for readers (such as this reviewer) who are not well-versed in the inside baseball of nuclear physics. But he instead writes with a prose largely free from nonessential jargon, going back several centuries to explain the development of theories regarding atoms and neutrons before working his way forward to nuclear weapons development and the usage of fission to create emissions-free electricity.

Mahaffey introduces a huge cast of characters; these scientists range from the familiar to the (outside of the scientific community) more obscure.

He makes clear from the get-go that he did not write Atomic Awakening to be a pro-or-anti-nuclear energy work, but instead composed it to allow those who are not experts on the subject to have an accessible look at how the process of splitting the atom was worked up to and pulled off successfully.

So, who are some of these scientists?

Cavendish Laboratory head J.J. Thomson was the discover of the electron in 1897 and was a British physicist who played a big part in unveiling mysteries about the structure of atoms. Denmark's Niels Bohr, The Father of Atomic Physics, birthed Bohr's Atomic Model and won the 1922 Nobel Prize in Physics. He was a trailblazer on this topic.

Albert Einstein also appears in the book as a huge contributor to the theoretical, in particular his general theory of relativity. His ability to make a lot of complicated scientific subjects accessible to the mainstream masses was a contribution that did not go unnoted by Mahaffey.

A Nobel Prize in Chemistry winner, New Zealander Ernest Rutherford made a series of discoveries when it came to atomic structure around the turn of the nineteenth century (he was born in 1871). Max Planck was active during the same timeframe, and this German theoretical physicist was also a Nobel Prize winner for originating quantum theory.

The advancements made by Rutherford and Planck were held up to be crucial building blocks toward what the Manhattan Project would successfully build on in the 1940s.

There is ample discussion about the Manhattan Project, with Robert Oppenheimer and, when it came to pushing the hydrogen bomb, Edward Teller playing big parts later on in the book.

Teller would not be the only Hungarian émigré to the United States who would leave an imprint in the field of atomic research. Leo Szilard, who put forward the nuclear chain reaction theory in 1933, also figured prominently during the era of rapid developments in the field.

Enrico Fermi, an Italian-American physicist who worked on the Manhattan Project, developed the first ever working nuclear reactor.

This influx of scientists from locales ranging from Hungary and Italy to Germany underscored the degree to which America was open to émigré scientists from continental Europe in the 1930s and 1940s (Jewish ones included). As the book points out, this meant it would become a powerhouse when it came to developing uranium for both martial and peaceful uses.

Mahaffey viewed it as unfortunate that the public's first introduction to the nuclear topic was with regard to a bomb; this association, in his estimate, damaged the widespread adoption of clean nuclear power in the decades after the Second World War.

Even a discussion of Admiral Hyman G. Rickover's pushing of nuclear-powered submarines in the years after World War Two takes place in the pages of Atomic Awakening.

The buildout of nuclear power stations in during the 1950s and 1960s is then examined, alongside their slowdown and loss of enthusiasm for this energy as the 1970s (even though France currently generates 85% of its electricity from uranium) wore on.

The Three Mile Island and Chernobyl disaster get looked at, but this is done within the context of how events like these were more the exception, than the rule, when it came to just how safe nuclear-generated energy actually is. (The author notes that there were more fatalities in the experimental stages of the Ferris Wheel than with peaceful atomic power).

Exorbitant costs are what caused a near halt in the building of new nuclear power plants over the last several decades of the twentieth century. This, more than protests, high profile accidents, or concern over spent uranium storage was, according to Atomic Awakening, the reason for nuclear power's fall from grace in much of the world.

Readers do not to be aware, however, that this book is nearly two decades old. The recent revival of interest in nuclear power, even among the environmentally-minded once opposed to it, has occurred too recently to have been included in the timeframe of Mahaffey's excellent book. The acceleration of global warming and ensuing natural disasters from a destabilized climate have, in the years since the book was published, made clear how urgent non-carbon generating sources of electricity really are for humanity.

This book is really fantastic. Even if a reader cracks it open knowing very little about how uranium is used to make electricity and who the key people were in figuring out how to harness it for these purposes, they will come away from it having grown their base of knowledge.

Atomic Awakening was skillfully written, with important scientists weaved into the narrative alongside non-intimidatingly written descriptions of their theories and experiments. It never becomes too lost in the scientific weeds, while at the same time it does not insult the intelligence of even its lay readers.

The topic of nuclear power was done tremendous justice in this intelligent and important work of accessible scientific writing.

-Andrew Canfield Denver, Colorado

[Chris · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a very good book about the history of nuclear energy. The author discusses the development of physics as it relates to nuclear processes, the development of nuclear weapons, and the rise and fall (and perhaps reemergence) of safe nuclear electricity production. He compares the safety record of the entire history of nuclear reactors to that of coal and it isn't even close. Nuclear energy is much safer and is an inevitable direction to go if we have a goal of decreasing CO2 emissions. I recommend the book for anyone, but especially science educators and policy makers.

[Michael Wallace · Rating 4 out of 5]

More history than future, but full of interesting anecdotes and frustrating might-have-beens. What if we'd used safer thorium reactors instead? What if nuclear power had been developed before the nuclear bomb? Recommended for anyone interested in energy issues.

[Kyle Weil · Rating 3 out of 5]

Atomic Awakening: A New Look at the History and Future of Nuclear Power is two parts historical review, one part nuclear science lesson. The book explores nuclearity from its infacy when first discovered in the 1900s to its use in bombs to its eventual applications in the energy sector.

The first half of the book is heavily focused on the science behind nuclear applications. Mahaffey traces the discovery of nuclear energy back to the initial detection of X-ray, caused by photons shot out of atoms undergoing changes in electric charge. The book then zooms in on the scientific study of the atom. I got a bit lost in the quantum physics explanations here but not muched seemed to happen until after Einstein's E=mc^2 revelation. This started a mad dash where people realized nuclear fission could unleash huge amounts of energy.

Scientists started experimenting, finding discovery after discovery. Radioactive compounds found many uses, especially in the medical industry where it was found to have large effects in fighting different types of cancers. Eventually as war began to break out, scientific efforts bent towards the war effort. Rather than searching for peaceful applications of nuclear energy, all research was directed towards weaponry, specifically bombs.

This section of the book contained lots of interesting war stories and descriptions of the fast-paced discoveries. My favorites/the most memorable had to do with the use of 'little neutron gun' to bombard the uranium atoms at either extremely high speeds or extremely low speeds. Once the atom asbored a neutron, it would become highly unstable and eventually split in half. The two new products would have a lower mass than the uranium atom with the missing mass expelled as energy. To give some perspective, a kilogram of fissioned plutonium would lose a gram of weight whereas a kilogram of propane would lose only 0.000000056 grams of weight. That is a huge energy differential and one of the reasons uranium and plutonium are significantly more efficient as fuel sources.

The book also went in detail on the main roadblocks nuclear energy faces. Mahaffey points to fear of radioactive exposure and the high cost of energy production as the two largest obstacles. With the government's wanton use of nuclear as a weapon and tool of destruction throughout the Cold War, much of the public was raised to fear nuclear fallout. Public perception has never recovered, especially after two high profile nuclear plant failures at Three Mile and Chernobyl. While nuclear does have its risks, safety regulations have meant that even the worst disasters only lead to 55 deaths. Compared to the 55,000 who died from exposure to the black smog in England created by coal plants or the thousands in India who have died from chemical exposure, nuclear is a relatively safe power option.

As for the costs, these mostly stem from the large capital requirements in building a plant. Until engineers find ways to create cheaper and simpler plants, costs will stay high. More financing and experimentation will be needed. An additional option would be to price in the effect of carbon on the environment. In this case, nuclear would be a significantly more attractive option.

Overall, I would recommend this book if you want to learn more about nuclear energy/weapons. I'm trying to learn as much as possible about electric generation and found this to be an informative read. The sections on nuclear storage in Yucca Mountain were eye opening in how public fears can be overblown at times and used to create effective opposition. I honestly don't know what I'm writing anymore. I'm tired and going to bed. Just read the book.

[R.A. Flannagan · Rating 4 out of 5]

I’m interested and a big proponent of nuclear power, so when this book showed up in a sale, I snapped it up. Now having listened to it, I’m glad I did.

However, be warned that the first third of the book is difficult to the point where you might want to give it up. The author spends too much time delving into the physics of nuclear science and goes a bit too deep into the history of splitting the atom. Math is hard and following along isn’t easy. Luckily, I’m one of these guys who forces myself to stick with it – if I paid for it, damn it, I’m going to listen to it.

The last two-thirds of the book is more consumable and therefore more enjoyable. The author walks through about four decades of well-researched and well-told events that took place in the nuclear industry (civilian and military). By way of one example, did you know the Americans almost built a nuclear-powered bomber. As in an airplane with a nuclear reactor on it. True fact. Things were crazy back in the fifties and sixties. The risks that were taken are unbelievable by today’s standards. These historical anecdotes are both informative and entertaining and they save the book.

Aside from the first third of the book, the other part that I was disappointed with was the near absence of what lies down the road regarding nuclear technology. The gentleman who wrote the book is a nuclear scientist himself and is clearly very knowledgeable on the subject. He provides a mere dusting of what could lie in store for the planet were we to give nuclear power a real go. Perhaps those details are in his next book? A chapter or two dedicated to future technologies would have strengthened this text.

If you’re into nuclear energy, the bombing of Japan, Three Mile Island or Chernobyl and events like this, you’ll enjoy this historical tale.

[Greg · Rating 5 out of 5]

Having grown up in Richland WA, near Hanford, which was part of the Manhattan project referenced in the book, and having served on one of Admiral Rickover's nuclear submarines, I thought this book would be interesting to "fill in the blanks" for me to provide historical references of the physics and physicists who developed our nuclear industry while inventing quantum mechanics along the way. Boy did it! I really appreciated both the history lesson of nuclear physics and the engineering references. Quite a few early physicists made great contributions that I never heard of until now. Don't worry -- he kept most of the technical details pretty light overall. I also appreciated his dry sense of humor throughout the book. He didn't wash over the nuclear debacles that occurred--he directly spoke to them. I wished he had spent a little more time on the Chernobyl accident, and that he referenced the financial debacle of the Washington State Public Power Supply System (WPPSS, aka Whoops) in the early 1980's. But his overall focus stayed true to the physicists and their unbelievable insights and ingenious work. And he's right to say that nuclear power may see a renaissance now in this day and age, due to its usefulness as a carbon free energy source and because so many safety issues have been worked out. I hope that's true, since I've seen first-hand that nuclear power can deliver ongoing safe results (as on a submarine). I think we just need to lock in a good commercial design (as France has done) and replicate that so everyone is working with the same basic reactor.

[Josh Berry · Rating 5 out of 5]

First, anyone I know that lives in or near Atlanta should pick this up, if only to read the epilogue. I regret that I don't live near there, anymore, so can't head just north with some geiger counters. :) If anyone I know does this, please post about it!

On that note, I think having gone to school and worked at the places mentioned in this book makes it very personal. The writing style really helps, as well. I really got a sense of the wonder and pure experimentation that was going on during some of this time.

At a personal level, it is still somewhat mind boggling to me that all of this predates computers. We were building machines capable of instantly boiling hundreds of gallons of water as their safety shutoff mechanism years before transistors were common components of machinery. Even just writing that, I have to pause and let it sink in.

The experiments on using nuclear reactors to power jets and spacecraft seems natural, and yet it is interesting to realize that doesn't seem to get mentioned anymore.

If anyone has any followup suggestions after reading this, I'm definitely interested. I have already listened to Atomic Accidents. So I will do another plug for that story here. There is some overlap, but I am glad to have read both of them.

[Val the Virgo · Rating 4 out of 5]

The book's age starts showing quite a bit near the end. There's something eerie about reading about the world's worst nuclear disasters from a 2009 perspective. Today, we know about Fukushima, but that disaster was just a theoretical scenario back when this book was written. The book talks about the possibility of terrorist attacks on nuclear power plants, and here we are in 2023 with war waging over one of the world's biggest NPPs. It's a bit scary to think that something way worse could happen in the future, and I'll look back on this review and think how weird it was to not know about such an important event in nuclear history.

Publication date aside, this book was fascinating. It's a good starting point for diving into the immense nuclear science world. It does a good job addressing concerns about nuclear energy without dismissing them. Whether nuclear power should be developed more despite the risks is a valid discussion to have. I don't think this book's main focus is to convince us of anything. But it does a good job at providing convincing arguments for both sides.

[Zeke · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ever since I was aware of nuclear energy, I have always been interested in its history. The first few chapters of this book were a little dry and a bit technical for me, but as I got towards the middle it became a page turner. It is always amazing how new things are being unveiled about the Manhattan Project as the documents become declassified 6 to 7 decades later. Some of the chapters of this book turn into a biography of the author, which I think adds some credibility and zest to his overall goal in describing how nuclear energy has evolved. There is nothing like first hand experience. The final chapters will give you some food for thought on nuclear power plants and there are some interesting comparisons to non-nuclear disasters in other parts of the world. If you are a fan of atomic testing, power plants, or science then I would recommend this book.

[Aaron · Rating 3 out of 5]

I really enjoyed this book until I didn’t.

The first 70-80% is a fascinating look at the development of nuclear energy, told through the lens of countless mathematicians, physicists, and brilliant thinkers. The last 20% feels like a hastily slapped together op-ed in which the author laments that nuclear energy has gotten a raw deal (an example: nothing that the 55 confirmed deaths at Chernobyl pale in comparison to the number of deaths prompted by other man-made disasters).

Don’t get me wrong: I generally agree that nuclear energy *has* gotten a raw deal and will be vital in our fight against climate change. But if this is meant to be the perfect bridge from retrospective history to a guidebook for the future, it falls flat – it is too brief to give proper historical context to the many events of nuclear energy and it is too rushed to be a guidebook.

[Alex Shrugged · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'm glad I read the author's other book first, "Atomic Adventures: Secret Islands, Forgotten N-Rays, and Isotopic Murder". It was helpful to have more background and easier to understand and enjoy this book having read the other.

This is mostly a science history book focusing on nuclear power, its uses in war and nuclear power today. The author suggests, and I think he is right, that use of nuclear power is inevitable. However, I do not share his optimism that it is going to happen soon. Nevertheless, it will happen.

I might read this book again just for brushing up on my knowledge of nuclear power.

[Chris · Rating 3 out of 5]

The Skinny: Worthwhile, well-researched read but it is 98% about the history of nuclear power and not the future of it.

The Good: This is a chronological explanation of the discovery of radioactivity and the growth of the field over the decades starting in the 1800s. There is a lot of great detail and it is well researched. The focus on random military experiments and weapons testing is particularly cool.

The Bad: I was disappointed that essentially only the last 10 pages were about the future of nuclear power. The title made it seem it would be a much more even split but that is not the case. Topics seem to be random at times and the footnotes are way too long and annoying, just add those footnotes to the actual text!

[John · Rating 3 out of 5]

Mahaffey's style is fun and smart. I read two of his more recent volumes and liked them better, but this is a good and valuable read.

[My only criticism is that in historical matters distant from his experience he occasionally passes common misconceptions off as fact--notably that Meitner rather than Hahn first suggested that his barium was the product uranium nuclei splitting and that Szilard's 1934 patent involved fission or even a chain reaction of simple neutrons (it relied on non-existent secondary super-heavy tetra-neutrons), but these distortions are as common in published works as the accurate accounts.]

[Lucjan · Rating 5 out of 5]

What a fascinating read. Especially for someone who is not that familiar with physics, this was understandable enough for me to connect facts. I appreciate the time put to explain individuals, who could easily be omitted in other works.
I'd like to point out, that Marie Skłodowska-Curie used her full name and her polish side should not be forgotten.
Another thing that brought my attention is the evacuation of Pripyat. Mr. Mahaffey concludes it happened day after the explosion, which I believe is not true - people had to wait much longer. Please correct me on this if I'm wrong.
Overall I'm very satisfied, it was a pleasure.