What do you think?
Rate this book
Radiation: What It Is, What You Need to Know
The essential guide to radiation: the good, the bad, and the utterly fascinating, explained with unprecedented clarity.
Earth, born in a nuclear explosion, is a radioactive planet; without radiation, life would not exist. And while radiation can be dangerous, it is also deeply misunderstood and often mistakenly feared. Now Robert Peter Gale, M.D,—the doctor to whom concerned governments turned in the wake of the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters—in collaboration with medical writer Eric Lax draws on an exceptional depth of knowledge to correct myths and establish facts.
Exploring what have become trigger words for anxiety—nuclear energy and nuclear weapons, uranium, plutonium, iodine-131, mammogram, X-ray, CT scan, threats to the food chain—the authors demystify the science and dangers of radiation, and examine its myriad benefits, from safely sterilizing our food to the relatively low-risk fuel alternative of nuclear energy. This is the book for all readers who have asked themselves questions such as: What kinds of radiation, and what degree of exposure, cause cancer? What aftereffects have nuclear accidents and bombs had? Does radiation increase the likelihood of birth defects? And how does radiation work ?
Hugely illuminating, Radiation is the definitive road map to our post-Chernobyl, post-Fukushima world.
Earth, born in a nuclear explosion, is a radioactive planet; without radiation, life would not exist. And while radiation can be dangerous, it is also deeply misunderstood and often mistakenly feared. Now Robert Peter Gale, M.D,—the doctor to whom concerned governments turned in the wake of the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters—in collaboration with medical writer Eric Lax draws on an exceptional depth of knowledge to correct myths and establish facts.
Exploring what have become trigger words for anxiety—nuclear energy and nuclear weapons, uranium, plutonium, iodine-131, mammogram, X-ray, CT scan, threats to the food chain—the authors demystify the science and dangers of radiation, and examine its myriad benefits, from safely sterilizing our food to the relatively low-risk fuel alternative of nuclear energy. This is the book for all readers who have asked themselves questions such as: What kinds of radiation, and what degree of exposure, cause cancer? What aftereffects have nuclear accidents and bombs had? Does radiation increase the likelihood of birth defects? And how does radiation work ?
Hugely illuminating, Radiation is the definitive road map to our post-Chernobyl, post-Fukushima world.
288 pages, Hardcover
First published January 29, 2013
56 people are currently reading
212 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 39 reviews
August 1, 2013
One almost needs a science background to understand this book. And even if you tough it out and hang in there until the end, there are few take aways. Many times, the authors simply say "well, it's a complicated issue and there are pros and cons." Well, gee thanks - I already knew that. So, allow me to save you some time. Basically, the authors conclude that food irradiation is harmless, and you also don't need to be concerned about the radiation from microwaves, tv screens or computers, cell phones, or the x-ray machines in airports (although I wasn't entirely convinced about these conclusions). If you're concerned about tanning booths, mammograms, or dental/medical x-rays, the authors simply punt on these issues and say "well, you have to weight the pros and cons" without really providing any other advice or guidelines. The most they suggest is to ask your physician whether an x-ray or procedure is really necessary. Thank goodness this was a library book and i didn't waste my money purchasing it.
April 8, 2013
Radiation: What It Is, What You Need to Know by Robert Peter Gale, M.D., and Eric Lax
“Radiation” is an even-handed, educational and accessible book on radiation. The book covers many forms of radiation like microwaves and radio waves which have insufficient energy to alter cells to the more energetic forms known as ionizing radiations that can alter the structure of atoms. Scientist, physician, and author of twenty-two medical books, Robert Peter Gale, has teamed up with accomplished author Eric Lax to produce a readable and interesting book on an often misunderstood topic, radiation. This enlightening 288-page book is composed by the following nine chapters: 1. Assessing the Risks, 2. Radiation from Discovery to Today, 3. The Nature of Radiation, 4. Radiation and Cancer, 5. Genetic Diseases, Birth Defects, and Irradiated Food, 6. Radiation and Medicine, 7. Bombs, 8. Nuclear Power and Radioactive Waste, and Summing Up.
Positives:
1. A well-researched, well-written and even-handed book. Accessible for the masses.
2. An excellent educational tool that addresses a much misunderstood topic, radiation. “The specter of radiation is so frightening to many people that it eclipses reality.”
3. Understanding the main differences between the two main type of radiation: ionizing (which can cause cancer) and nonionizing (generally little harm with the exception of ultraviolet radiations).
4. The main focus of the book is to reduce the gap between what we fear and what is real about radiation. Mission accomplished.
5. The book is full of interesting facts, “Radon-222 and related radionuclides are estimated to be the most common cause of lung cancer deaths in nonsmokers.”
6. The book examines some of the cancers that ionizing radiations can cause: lung, breast, thyroid, and leukemia to name a few. “Cells in the bone marrow are especially sensitive to cancer-causing mutations from ionizing radiation.”
7. There are many examples provided throughout the book. The two main examples are the Chernobyl reactor building and the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power facility. “The Chernobyl reactor building was destroyed by a steam explosion, and part of the Fukushima reactor building was destroyed by an explosion of highly flammable hydrogen gas.
8. How radioactivity interacts with humans (dose). “Scientists agree that above a certain dose (usually about 50 or 100 mSv) there is a linear relationship between radiation dose and cancer risk: the higher the dose, the greater the risk.”
9. The authors seamlessly provide historical scientific context into the narrative. “In 1914 Rutherford would prove that gamma rays were a form of light similar to X-rays but with a far shorter wavelength and thus penetrated deeper than the other rays or particles.”
10. The difference between fission and fusion. “The difference between fission and fusion is that fusion requires a great deal more energy to start the chain reaction, but fusion also yields vastly more energy—a hydrogen (fusion) bomb is roughly one thousand times more powerful than an atomic (fission) bomb.”
11. Thought-provoking issues, “people concerned about global warming are often firmly opposed to nuclear energy, yet it is the only immediately available energy source able to substantially reduce carbon dioxide emissions, albeit with some inherent but potentially solvable problems.”
12. Chemistry plays a pivotal role, “All elements with a higher number in the periodic table than thallium (atomic number 81) have radioactive isotopes, and all isotopes of elements from polonium (number 84) and higher are radioactive”.
13. The authors did a good job of establishing what we know to a high degree of certainty in some areas and where lack convincing data. “Finally, we lack convincing data that early detection of thyroid cancer results in a health benefit.”
14. Putting the number of deaths that can be attributed to radioactive releases in perspective. “radiation-induced genetic abnormalities are not passed from the affected persons to their children, as studies of exposed Japanese mothers and their children make clear.”
15. Some of the well known causes of cancer, “But smoking a cigarette is, in some regards, like intentionally inhaling a small nuclear weapon into your lungs. Cigarette manufacturers have known about the presence of polonium-210 in tobacco since the 1960s.” And some factors that don’t cause cancer, “Nonionizing radiations, like those associated with microwaves and cell phones, are not convincingly associated with an increased cancer risk.”
16. The difference between genetic disorders and birth defects. “Changes in the number of chromosomes are also important. For example, children with Down syndrome have an extra chromosome 21, whereas girls with Turner syndrome are missing one X-chromosome.”
17. And what’s not to love about evolution, “We may wonder why whales and dolphins living in water have their bone marrow stem cells in bone cavities. This is because they derive from terrestrial ancestors.”
18. Interesting topic of food irradiation. “Food irradiation has the potential to save millions more lives than it harms, especially since it very probably does no harm.”
19. Medical applications of radiation, “The conclusion that people at high risk for lung cancer should have screening radiological studies remains controversial but presently favors screening.”
20. A look at nuclear weapons. “About 50 percent of the energy released by the A-bombs was blast energy, about 35 percent was thermal energy, and only about 15 percent was radiation, most of it neutrinos that did not contaminate the area.”
21. An excellent summary chapter, an engaging Questions and Answers section.
22. Bibliography provided.
Negatives:
1. The book warranted more charts and diagrams within the narrative of the book.
2. Intended for the masses the book lacks depth.
3. The book needed more citations.
4. Free radicals is a fairly hot topic and warranted at the very least a citation.
In summary, I enjoyed reading this book. It’s well-written, well-researched and it takes a complex topic such as radiation and makes it not only accessible but quite enjoyable to read. The authors treated the topic even handedly and really did a good job of educating the public of what to fear and what is real about radiation. The book lacks depth, warranted more citations and would have been better served with more diagrams as part of the main narrative of the book. That being said, this book achieved its main goal of closing the gap between fear and knowledge. I highly recommend it!
Further recommendations: “Nuclear Energy: What Everyone Needs to Know” by Charles D. Ferguson, “Energy for Future Presidents: The Science Behind the Headlines” by Richard A. Muller, “Clean Break” by Osha Gray Davidson, “The Crash Course” by Chris Martenson, “The Making of the Bomb” by Richard Rhodes, and “The Manhattan Project” by Cynthia C. Kelly.
“Radiation” is an even-handed, educational and accessible book on radiation. The book covers many forms of radiation like microwaves and radio waves which have insufficient energy to alter cells to the more energetic forms known as ionizing radiations that can alter the structure of atoms. Scientist, physician, and author of twenty-two medical books, Robert Peter Gale, has teamed up with accomplished author Eric Lax to produce a readable and interesting book on an often misunderstood topic, radiation. This enlightening 288-page book is composed by the following nine chapters: 1. Assessing the Risks, 2. Radiation from Discovery to Today, 3. The Nature of Radiation, 4. Radiation and Cancer, 5. Genetic Diseases, Birth Defects, and Irradiated Food, 6. Radiation and Medicine, 7. Bombs, 8. Nuclear Power and Radioactive Waste, and Summing Up.
Positives:
1. A well-researched, well-written and even-handed book. Accessible for the masses.
2. An excellent educational tool that addresses a much misunderstood topic, radiation. “The specter of radiation is so frightening to many people that it eclipses reality.”
3. Understanding the main differences between the two main type of radiation: ionizing (which can cause cancer) and nonionizing (generally little harm with the exception of ultraviolet radiations).
4. The main focus of the book is to reduce the gap between what we fear and what is real about radiation. Mission accomplished.
5. The book is full of interesting facts, “Radon-222 and related radionuclides are estimated to be the most common cause of lung cancer deaths in nonsmokers.”
6. The book examines some of the cancers that ionizing radiations can cause: lung, breast, thyroid, and leukemia to name a few. “Cells in the bone marrow are especially sensitive to cancer-causing mutations from ionizing radiation.”
7. There are many examples provided throughout the book. The two main examples are the Chernobyl reactor building and the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power facility. “The Chernobyl reactor building was destroyed by a steam explosion, and part of the Fukushima reactor building was destroyed by an explosion of highly flammable hydrogen gas.
8. How radioactivity interacts with humans (dose). “Scientists agree that above a certain dose (usually about 50 or 100 mSv) there is a linear relationship between radiation dose and cancer risk: the higher the dose, the greater the risk.”
9. The authors seamlessly provide historical scientific context into the narrative. “In 1914 Rutherford would prove that gamma rays were a form of light similar to X-rays but with a far shorter wavelength and thus penetrated deeper than the other rays or particles.”
10. The difference between fission and fusion. “The difference between fission and fusion is that fusion requires a great deal more energy to start the chain reaction, but fusion also yields vastly more energy—a hydrogen (fusion) bomb is roughly one thousand times more powerful than an atomic (fission) bomb.”
11. Thought-provoking issues, “people concerned about global warming are often firmly opposed to nuclear energy, yet it is the only immediately available energy source able to substantially reduce carbon dioxide emissions, albeit with some inherent but potentially solvable problems.”
12. Chemistry plays a pivotal role, “All elements with a higher number in the periodic table than thallium (atomic number 81) have radioactive isotopes, and all isotopes of elements from polonium (number 84) and higher are radioactive”.
13. The authors did a good job of establishing what we know to a high degree of certainty in some areas and where lack convincing data. “Finally, we lack convincing data that early detection of thyroid cancer results in a health benefit.”
14. Putting the number of deaths that can be attributed to radioactive releases in perspective. “radiation-induced genetic abnormalities are not passed from the affected persons to their children, as studies of exposed Japanese mothers and their children make clear.”
15. Some of the well known causes of cancer, “But smoking a cigarette is, in some regards, like intentionally inhaling a small nuclear weapon into your lungs. Cigarette manufacturers have known about the presence of polonium-210 in tobacco since the 1960s.” And some factors that don’t cause cancer, “Nonionizing radiations, like those associated with microwaves and cell phones, are not convincingly associated with an increased cancer risk.”
16. The difference between genetic disorders and birth defects. “Changes in the number of chromosomes are also important. For example, children with Down syndrome have an extra chromosome 21, whereas girls with Turner syndrome are missing one X-chromosome.”
17. And what’s not to love about evolution, “We may wonder why whales and dolphins living in water have their bone marrow stem cells in bone cavities. This is because they derive from terrestrial ancestors.”
18. Interesting topic of food irradiation. “Food irradiation has the potential to save millions more lives than it harms, especially since it very probably does no harm.”
19. Medical applications of radiation, “The conclusion that people at high risk for lung cancer should have screening radiological studies remains controversial but presently favors screening.”
20. A look at nuclear weapons. “About 50 percent of the energy released by the A-bombs was blast energy, about 35 percent was thermal energy, and only about 15 percent was radiation, most of it neutrinos that did not contaminate the area.”
21. An excellent summary chapter, an engaging Questions and Answers section.
22. Bibliography provided.
Negatives:
1. The book warranted more charts and diagrams within the narrative of the book.
2. Intended for the masses the book lacks depth.
3. The book needed more citations.
4. Free radicals is a fairly hot topic and warranted at the very least a citation.
In summary, I enjoyed reading this book. It’s well-written, well-researched and it takes a complex topic such as radiation and makes it not only accessible but quite enjoyable to read. The authors treated the topic even handedly and really did a good job of educating the public of what to fear and what is real about radiation. The book lacks depth, warranted more citations and would have been better served with more diagrams as part of the main narrative of the book. That being said, this book achieved its main goal of closing the gap between fear and knowledge. I highly recommend it!
Further recommendations: “Nuclear Energy: What Everyone Needs to Know” by Charles D. Ferguson, “Energy for Future Presidents: The Science Behind the Headlines” by Richard A. Muller, “Clean Break” by Osha Gray Davidson, “The Crash Course” by Chris Martenson, “The Making of the Bomb” by Richard Rhodes, and “The Manhattan Project” by Cynthia C. Kelly.
August 14, 2022
This was a terrific read that was filled with great information in an easy-to-read style. I thoroughly enjoyed deepening my understanding on this topic.
October 27, 2018
Since the nuclear meltdown at Fukushima radiotion has achieved an even worse reputation than it had previously. To what extent is this reputation deserved? Speaking more broadly, how great a risk does radition pose to us, and in what ways does it help us?
Robert Gale and Eric Lac, the authors of Radition, starts by stating a few facts that everyone should know but which many people probably do not know. First, radiation is present everywhere. It is in the ground, in the air, in the food that we eat, and in ourselves. There is no way you can avoid radiation (this holds true for non-ionizing as well as ionizing radiation). Second, raditation can kill you. Depending on the type of radiation and the dose received radiation may cause a cell to turn into a cancer cell if mutations occur to an “unlucky” set of genes. If a higher dose is received radiation can kill cells and induce radiation sickness. The powers of radioactive material can also be used to cause substantial explosions as with the atom and hydrogen bombs. What I suspect many people don’t know is that radiation can also save you. Radiation therapy have saved millions of people, and emergency exit signs which shine even when there is no electricity have save many more people still. CT scans allows us to detect cancers and other things inside the human body which helps doctors enourmously.
Radiation is generally categorized as either ionizing or non-ionizing. Ionizing radiation have enough energy to rip away charged particles or molecules. If that molecule happens to be in the DNA in one of our cells, that cell may become a cancer cell. Non-ionizing radiation, such as microwaves form cell phones, or the visual part of the spectrum that we can actually detect with our eyes, cannot cause this type of damage to cells. Ultraviolet is right on the border between these two, with some ultraviolet rays containing enough energy to rip apart molecules which is why you can get skin cancer from overexposure to the sun. This also means that there is no plausible scientific theory explaning how microwave radiation, which has less energy than ultraviolet rays, from cell phones cause cancer. Togehter with the fact that brain cancer has not increased since cell phones came into use is why I have no problem with letting my children use cell phones. The authors however, focus mostly on ionizing radiation
Gale and Lax starts with the basics, desrcibing what alpha, beta, and gamma radiaiton is and then going into depth about the amount of radation that an average person receives and the interesting discussion on whether exposure to small amount of radiaiton is bad, neutral or even good for you (hormesis). Regarding exposure the authors note that people are quite inconsistent in their fears. For instance, taking a CT scan which many people even demand will give you the same does of radiation as being 6km from ground zero in Hiroshima. Also people tend to be skeptical about being scanned with x-rays on airports, forgetting that they will receive much more radiation during the upcoming flight...
But what do the authors say about the hot topic of nuclear energy. In short they say, while there are of course safety issues, it is better than coal generated power in pretty much every aspect. Renewable sources (sun, wind, water) also have problems associated with them, mainly that they are expensive and that they cannot provide a steady stream of electricity without which our economy cannot function.
What about nuclear accidents though? Lets start with the most recent accident, Fukushima. It is certainly interesting to note that, though some people did receive a large dosis of radiation not a single person have died from radiation expsure till this day. According to wikipedia, the predicted number of Fukushima related cancers range from 0-100, many of which will be possible to treat. The tsunami on the other hand killed approximately 20.000 people. The media coverage often suggets that the Fukushima accident was the big news. This simply reaffirms that people (and the media) have substantial biases in their fears. It is of course more or less impossible to tell people to stop being afraid of shark attacks or flying or anything that has radiation in its name, but lets not base public policy on irrational fears...
Wait you say, what about the Thernobyl accident? Well partly because that reactor exploded (due to a clear design flaw), 10 times more radioactivity was released compared to Fukushima. However, this should also be copared with atmospheric atom bomb tests which releases 200 times more radioactivity than the Thernobyl accident did. These are now banned, however, prior nuclear tests have caused high levels of radioactivity in the environment on a global level.
Estimates of the number of casualties following Thernobyl vary widely and largely depends on whether one thinks that exposure to low doses of radiation increases cancer risks, which is a controversial topic. We are also dealing with a very high basal rate of cancers. Since 38% percent of all women and 45% of all men will be diagnosed with cancer sometime in their life, even say a 0.5 percent increase mean thousands, or millions of people... Bottom line, Thernobyl was a bad accident, and similar mistakes should of course be avoided in the future, however, should we abandon a cheap energy source that almost zero pollution because of one poorly designed reactor and one reactor which was only almost able to survive a major natural disaster?
No one who disputes that nuclear power is associated with some risks. However, what are the alternatives? It is striking how many people simply ignores this question. I often hear environmentalist say that they want the entire society to be based on renewable energy. I fully share that ambition, however it is currently not a feasible alternative which means that we have to chose between nuclear energy and burning of fossil fuels to get sufficient energy. If we don't use nuclear then we have to generate or buy fossil fuels. Yet no one talks about what type of pollutants are released from fossil fuel burning power plants. The authors convincingly show that pollutants from coal burning power plants induce much more harm than waste from nuclear power plants. In one year one coal burning power plant releases 720 tons of carbon monoxide, a toxic gas, 50kg of lead which is poisonous to us as well as to the fish in the lakes where a lot of smoke lands, 80kg of mercury, 10.000 tons of sulfur dioxide which results in acid rain, and 3.7 million tons of CO2. This waste is released directly out into the environment, not burried in a mountain like nuclear fuel. In addition, coal plant workers as well as coal miners develop lethal lung cancer much more often than other people.
To sum up the argument for building more nuclear power plants; Yes, there are risks associated with nuclear power but taking into account energy costs and the waste produced nuclear power is currently the best feasible alternative available.
The authors also discusses another controversial issue, namely whether or not we should radiate food to kill of pathogens. In a single year there are 2 billion cases of food poisoning in the world, mainly in the developing world. This number could be drastically reduced by radiating the food which would kill of the bacteria. Yes, some nutrients would be lost but food lose more nutrients when you cook it and that is not controversial. The bottom line is that radiating food can save many lives, particularly in the developing world and there seem top be no rational argument against doing this, if there is I hope that someone will enlighten me.
All in all, radiation is a great and accessible introduction to the field of radiation, a field associated with a substantial lack of knowledge and as a result many irrational fears among the public.
Robert Gale and Eric Lac, the authors of Radition, starts by stating a few facts that everyone should know but which many people probably do not know. First, radiation is present everywhere. It is in the ground, in the air, in the food that we eat, and in ourselves. There is no way you can avoid radiation (this holds true for non-ionizing as well as ionizing radiation). Second, raditation can kill you. Depending on the type of radiation and the dose received radiation may cause a cell to turn into a cancer cell if mutations occur to an “unlucky” set of genes. If a higher dose is received radiation can kill cells and induce radiation sickness. The powers of radioactive material can also be used to cause substantial explosions as with the atom and hydrogen bombs. What I suspect many people don’t know is that radiation can also save you. Radiation therapy have saved millions of people, and emergency exit signs which shine even when there is no electricity have save many more people still. CT scans allows us to detect cancers and other things inside the human body which helps doctors enourmously.
Radiation is generally categorized as either ionizing or non-ionizing. Ionizing radiation have enough energy to rip away charged particles or molecules. If that molecule happens to be in the DNA in one of our cells, that cell may become a cancer cell. Non-ionizing radiation, such as microwaves form cell phones, or the visual part of the spectrum that we can actually detect with our eyes, cannot cause this type of damage to cells. Ultraviolet is right on the border between these two, with some ultraviolet rays containing enough energy to rip apart molecules which is why you can get skin cancer from overexposure to the sun. This also means that there is no plausible scientific theory explaning how microwave radiation, which has less energy than ultraviolet rays, from cell phones cause cancer. Togehter with the fact that brain cancer has not increased since cell phones came into use is why I have no problem with letting my children use cell phones. The authors however, focus mostly on ionizing radiation
Gale and Lax starts with the basics, desrcibing what alpha, beta, and gamma radiaiton is and then going into depth about the amount of radation that an average person receives and the interesting discussion on whether exposure to small amount of radiaiton is bad, neutral or even good for you (hormesis). Regarding exposure the authors note that people are quite inconsistent in their fears. For instance, taking a CT scan which many people even demand will give you the same does of radiation as being 6km from ground zero in Hiroshima. Also people tend to be skeptical about being scanned with x-rays on airports, forgetting that they will receive much more radiation during the upcoming flight...
But what do the authors say about the hot topic of nuclear energy. In short they say, while there are of course safety issues, it is better than coal generated power in pretty much every aspect. Renewable sources (sun, wind, water) also have problems associated with them, mainly that they are expensive and that they cannot provide a steady stream of electricity without which our economy cannot function.
What about nuclear accidents though? Lets start with the most recent accident, Fukushima. It is certainly interesting to note that, though some people did receive a large dosis of radiation not a single person have died from radiation expsure till this day. According to wikipedia, the predicted number of Fukushima related cancers range from 0-100, many of which will be possible to treat. The tsunami on the other hand killed approximately 20.000 people. The media coverage often suggets that the Fukushima accident was the big news. This simply reaffirms that people (and the media) have substantial biases in their fears. It is of course more or less impossible to tell people to stop being afraid of shark attacks or flying or anything that has radiation in its name, but lets not base public policy on irrational fears...
Wait you say, what about the Thernobyl accident? Well partly because that reactor exploded (due to a clear design flaw), 10 times more radioactivity was released compared to Fukushima. However, this should also be copared with atmospheric atom bomb tests which releases 200 times more radioactivity than the Thernobyl accident did. These are now banned, however, prior nuclear tests have caused high levels of radioactivity in the environment on a global level.
Estimates of the number of casualties following Thernobyl vary widely and largely depends on whether one thinks that exposure to low doses of radiation increases cancer risks, which is a controversial topic. We are also dealing with a very high basal rate of cancers. Since 38% percent of all women and 45% of all men will be diagnosed with cancer sometime in their life, even say a 0.5 percent increase mean thousands, or millions of people... Bottom line, Thernobyl was a bad accident, and similar mistakes should of course be avoided in the future, however, should we abandon a cheap energy source that almost zero pollution because of one poorly designed reactor and one reactor which was only almost able to survive a major natural disaster?
No one who disputes that nuclear power is associated with some risks. However, what are the alternatives? It is striking how many people simply ignores this question. I often hear environmentalist say that they want the entire society to be based on renewable energy. I fully share that ambition, however it is currently not a feasible alternative which means that we have to chose between nuclear energy and burning of fossil fuels to get sufficient energy. If we don't use nuclear then we have to generate or buy fossil fuels. Yet no one talks about what type of pollutants are released from fossil fuel burning power plants. The authors convincingly show that pollutants from coal burning power plants induce much more harm than waste from nuclear power plants. In one year one coal burning power plant releases 720 tons of carbon monoxide, a toxic gas, 50kg of lead which is poisonous to us as well as to the fish in the lakes where a lot of smoke lands, 80kg of mercury, 10.000 tons of sulfur dioxide which results in acid rain, and 3.7 million tons of CO2. This waste is released directly out into the environment, not burried in a mountain like nuclear fuel. In addition, coal plant workers as well as coal miners develop lethal lung cancer much more often than other people.
To sum up the argument for building more nuclear power plants; Yes, there are risks associated with nuclear power but taking into account energy costs and the waste produced nuclear power is currently the best feasible alternative available.
The authors also discusses another controversial issue, namely whether or not we should radiate food to kill of pathogens. In a single year there are 2 billion cases of food poisoning in the world, mainly in the developing world. This number could be drastically reduced by radiating the food which would kill of the bacteria. Yes, some nutrients would be lost but food lose more nutrients when you cook it and that is not controversial. The bottom line is that radiating food can save many lives, particularly in the developing world and there seem top be no rational argument against doing this, if there is I hope that someone will enlighten me.
All in all, radiation is a great and accessible introduction to the field of radiation, a field associated with a substantial lack of knowledge and as a result many irrational fears among the public.
May 18, 2014
I appreciate the effort and the writing isn't bad, but the assumptions made by the author and the lack of understanding how to address their audience are stunning.
I'm a registered professional engineer who continues to study science, regularly. I've been reading about how the mind works since I graduated college.
Never mind that the author sweeps aside reasonable and scientifically rigorous arguments about the issues associated with radiation.
On page 208 or so the author explains away most peoples discomfort with a rather mechanical explanation of how the human brain works. The human brain, and most brains, are remarkable in how much the are capable of.
I think the author does a fair job of explaining why most exposures to radiation are PROBABLY not worth the anxiety most people experience.
You have innate intelligence, don't believe everything you read, but do read as much as you can.
I'm a registered professional engineer who continues to study science, regularly. I've been reading about how the mind works since I graduated college.
Never mind that the author sweeps aside reasonable and scientifically rigorous arguments about the issues associated with radiation.
On page 208 or so the author explains away most peoples discomfort with a rather mechanical explanation of how the human brain works. The human brain, and most brains, are remarkable in how much the are capable of.
I think the author does a fair job of explaining why most exposures to radiation are PROBABLY not worth the anxiety most people experience.
You have innate intelligence, don't believe everything you read, but do read as much as you can.
July 29, 2013
This book read more like a public pamphlet on radiation than a book. It is clear and well explained and is much more broadly focused. It does a good job of explaining cesium-137 and iodine-131 and how they affect us during a possible fallout scenario. The main gist is that we are surrounded by radiation be it through background (cosmic/terrestrial) or man-made ( medical screenings(x-rays,PET,CT)/airplane flights) and so radiation via nuclear power plants is not as dangerous as perceived. There is talk of coal and how the run-offs from coal power plants are more dangerous than nuclear sources. There is a comparison between Chernobyl and Fukushima and how their location and the type of reactor they were led to different results. (the proliferation of cesium-137 across the globe)
May 4, 2016
My general rule is that if a book's author feels the need to list their credentials (MD, PhD), the book is not worth reading, so I was pretty dubious about this book, co-authored by Such and Such, MD. However, I was pleasantly surprised by the balanced approach and decent coverage of the topic.
That said, while this was probably as as good a coverage of the topic as could be done, I didn't find it particularly necessary information for me. I'm not one of the worry-warts who freak out over the idea of "radiation" and it's not like the book is particularly in-depth.
That said, while this was probably as as good a coverage of the topic as could be done, I didn't find it particularly necessary information for me. I'm not one of the worry-warts who freak out over the idea of "radiation" and it's not like the book is particularly in-depth.
February 20, 2013
The title sounds kind of alarmist but the insides aren't so bad. It had a lot of food for thought and refreshed my memory about what we learned in school about nuclear energy and radiation in general. It's pretty up to date as well, talking about as recent events as the Fukushima Daikii accident.
July 19, 2017
Maybe it was the narrator, but it felt rather patronizing.
Also weren't you paying attention in your college science class?
Otherwise, information was decent, there were some parts that weren't in my science class, such as the different ways radiation is used to treat cancer.
Also weren't you paying attention in your college science class?
Otherwise, information was decent, there were some parts that weren't in my science class, such as the different ways radiation is used to treat cancer.
February 8, 2013
Informative and well presented, I just realized I don't have a book length fascination with radiation.
May 24, 2025
I learned that milli-sieverts are the standard units for measuring radiation absorption by the human body. Meanwhile, a Bequerel is the SI way to measure the absolute amount of ionizing radiation in terms of nuclear disintegrations per second. One Bq is one disintegration per second. The activity of the americium in a typical smoke detector is 37 kBq. This last factoid I have gleaned from Wikipedia, not the book.
The book I found to be a little bit talk-down-y: the authors talk about the above-mentioned units during something like two pages, and use about the same amount of ink apologizing for the presence of science. Visual image: earnest scientist in 1950s horn-rimmed glasses addressing a town hall full of 1950s-clad concerned mothers. “What is radiation, doctor? Can little Johnny catch it from his friends?”
At the end there are no simple answers. In fact, I would uncharitably say, there are no answers at all, judging from this book. Whether you get cancer from radiation, or not, is a function of luck, of your genes, of the specific pattern of exposure. Is it better to get a big exposure all at once, versus a little over a long time? Not sure. The last extant survivor of Hiroshima died of stomach cancer at the age of 95, so… his cancer was probably caused by the radiation he absorbed, but…
Having mammograms involves absorbing about 10% of the radiation you would get from background sources in a year. It’s a risk, balanced against the benefit of detecting early breast cancers. It wouldn’t make sense for men to have them (aside from the biomechanical difficulties) because the cancer risk is so low that the x-ray scan would actually increase the cancer risk. Same with lung cancer: for the general non-smoking population, the rate of cancer is so low as to make diagnostic X-ray screening worse than useless. “Ask your doctor.” Thanks for that. It is good to know the 10% thing, though.
The book I found to be a little bit talk-down-y: the authors talk about the above-mentioned units during something like two pages, and use about the same amount of ink apologizing for the presence of science. Visual image: earnest scientist in 1950s horn-rimmed glasses addressing a town hall full of 1950s-clad concerned mothers. “What is radiation, doctor? Can little Johnny catch it from his friends?”
At the end there are no simple answers. In fact, I would uncharitably say, there are no answers at all, judging from this book. Whether you get cancer from radiation, or not, is a function of luck, of your genes, of the specific pattern of exposure. Is it better to get a big exposure all at once, versus a little over a long time? Not sure. The last extant survivor of Hiroshima died of stomach cancer at the age of 95, so… his cancer was probably caused by the radiation he absorbed, but…
Having mammograms involves absorbing about 10% of the radiation you would get from background sources in a year. It’s a risk, balanced against the benefit of detecting early breast cancers. It wouldn’t make sense for men to have them (aside from the biomechanical difficulties) because the cancer risk is so low that the x-ray scan would actually increase the cancer risk. Same with lung cancer: for the general non-smoking population, the rate of cancer is so low as to make diagnostic X-ray screening worse than useless. “Ask your doctor.” Thanks for that. It is good to know the 10% thing, though.
… Huh? Credibility flag.
If humans all evolved a common African ancestor – and this is by no means certain
March 31, 2019
Everything is radioactive. People are concerned about accidents at Nuclear power plant facilities but also with taking X-Rays of teeth, chest, injured limbs, CT scans of chest and abdomen; sunlight and tanning booths; and also, radio waves from cell phones. And, also we humans are concerned about irradiated foods.
We should be aware that Radon-222 is found everywhere on earth, trapped in un-ventilated basements and is linked to lung cancer in non-smokers.
You can get a radon test kit for $10 to $15. This might not include the required lab fee.
Points I thought important:
1.) Why irradiate foods? It is important to sterilize to stop bacterial contamination of foods. E. coli in meat or salmonella in eggs can be detrimental.
There is a 1986 documentary by the National that showed how mangoes and baby chicks are irradiated with Cobalt 60 rods to reduce Salmonella and increase shelf life. That's 33 years ago .
The Environmental Protection Agency reports that:
a) Irradiating food kills bacteria and molds that can make people sick.
b) Irradiation does not remove toxins that are already in food. Irradiation breaks chemical bonds to stop bacteria and other pathogens from multiplying.
c) Irradiation does not make food radioactive.
Pasteurizing milk and pressure-cooking canned foods are other ways to kill bacteria in food.
2.)Nuclear terrorism is a worry
3.) Astronauts and cosmonauts are exposed to high doses of radiation in space.
I noted the importance of testing for Radon in your home:
The air pressure inside your home is usually lower than in the soil surrounding the foundation. This difference in pressure draws air and other gases, including radon, from the soil into your home.
Radon can enter a home any place it finds an opening where the house contacts the soil: cracks in foundation walls and in floor slabs, construction joints, gaps around service pipes, support posts, window casements, floor drains, sumps or cavities inside walls.
This is an interesting book covering valuable information. The list of resources are extensive and just for this compilation, the book is worth accessing. Take a look at The Encyclopedia of Earth.
The authors also recommend their website, www.radioactivebook.com
We should be aware that Radon-222 is found everywhere on earth, trapped in un-ventilated basements and is linked to lung cancer in non-smokers.
You can get a radon test kit for $10 to $15. This might not include the required lab fee.
Points I thought important:
1.) Why irradiate foods? It is important to sterilize to stop bacterial contamination of foods. E. coli in meat or salmonella in eggs can be detrimental.
There is a 1986 documentary by the National that showed how mangoes and baby chicks are irradiated with Cobalt 60 rods to reduce Salmonella and increase shelf life. That's 33 years ago .
The Environmental Protection Agency reports that:
a) Irradiating food kills bacteria and molds that can make people sick.
b) Irradiation does not remove toxins that are already in food. Irradiation breaks chemical bonds to stop bacteria and other pathogens from multiplying.
c) Irradiation does not make food radioactive.
Pasteurizing milk and pressure-cooking canned foods are other ways to kill bacteria in food.
2.)Nuclear terrorism is a worry
3.) Astronauts and cosmonauts are exposed to high doses of radiation in space.
I noted the importance of testing for Radon in your home:
The air pressure inside your home is usually lower than in the soil surrounding the foundation. This difference in pressure draws air and other gases, including radon, from the soil into your home.
Radon can enter a home any place it finds an opening where the house contacts the soil: cracks in foundation walls and in floor slabs, construction joints, gaps around service pipes, support posts, window casements, floor drains, sumps or cavities inside walls.
This is an interesting book covering valuable information. The list of resources are extensive and just for this compilation, the book is worth accessing. Take a look at The Encyclopedia of Earth.
The authors also recommend their website, www.radioactivebook.com
February 13, 2016
This book is reasonable at addressing commonplace radiophobia and addresses radiation from all sources, natural and man made, especially medical. A lesser amount of attention was given to accidental radiation releases from nuclear power, and given it was for primarily this reason I chose to read the book, I was slightly disappointed. In all though, I found it worthwhile.
I am one of those people who are of the opinion that if we wish to maintain and enhance our standard of living for the future, especially if we ultimately decide that fossil-fuel carbon dioxide inputs need to be eliminated as much as possible, then only nuclear power will be able to maintain us in the energy-available standard to which we've become accustomed. More energy makes life more productive and more enjoyable and more long-lasting for all. We should be efficient about our use, certainly, but energy abundance give us comfort and choice. We would not have this under a purely renewable-source energy economy. So, does it make sense to exclude nuclear power on safety grounds, from the outset? That's a question I was hoping the book would help me answer.
In the book, nuclear power disasters were discussed, just not in the clearest way, and the information given was fragmented across the chapters. I hoped for an answer to the question of whether it's actually necessary to cordon off large territorial exclusion zones in response to such catastrophes, in the interests of protecting human health. I was left to gather the fragments presented in the book, and make a judgement about this myself, which ended up like this:
In such disasters there three isotopes which convey just about all the radioactivity exposure risk to people in the general vicinity of the release: I-131, Cs-137, and Sr-90.
I-131 is risky, but mostly to children, and only for a short time (about three months overall), and only if foodstuffs produced within the affected area aren't temporarily replaced with outside supplies during the danger period. In Japan, food was handled expertly and most Japanese have iodine rich diets which tend to make them far less at-risk to start with.
Cs-137 is pretty ubiquitous, and has a very long half-life, making it especially concerning to the public. But this long half-life also means that the activity of the element is very low, reducing risk. Its biological half-life is also quite short, happily, further greatly reducing risks to human health. Any amount of it you do manage to ingest is likely to be excreted again before hardly any of it at all will have a chance to deposit radioactive energy in your tissue. So the great concern over this, perhaps second most prevalent element released in an accident, is probably misplaced.
Sr-90 has a half-life similar to Cs-137, but has a complex biological half-life. To our bodies, it resembles calcium, and so some proportion may end up migrating into bones and teeth, where it will probably stay long enough to release a good portion of its radioactive energy.
This is pretty much all the book has to say on those matters: two-to-one in favor of the idea that our reaction to the risks from a catastrophic nuclear accident is hysterical. The Sr-90 question deserves more attention. How much of this is present around an accident zone? What's the risk?
Since this is supposed to be a book review, I won't detail them here, but I've encountered various materials that offer me some pretty great hope for Cs-137 in particular, that this is just not enough of a risk to human health to warrant massive exclusion zones with their life-altering permanent evacuations and costly and elaborate washing and soil-stripping operations. According to this work, people could return to their homes and lives in the zone like that around Fukushima right now, if they wanted to, and not be at significant added risk for future radiogenic health problems.
For Sr-90, while a significant product of fission, it's non-volatile nature makes it much less likely than the others to escape to the environment in significant amounts during a disaster. This may be the best reason to allay concerns with it. Sr-90 was more of a risk during the era of atmospheric atomic weapons testing, and for the Japanese atomic bomb survivors, from the fallout nuclear weapons produce. This main source of Sr-90 exposure has long been now, happily, over.
I-131 seems to be the single biggest risk in a reactor disaster, and with its short half-life, within a few months of a point immediately following a meltdown with containment loss, it is simply no longer a factor, it has all decayed away. In the early phase, people should do their best to avoid exposure if they can, but for most it will be enough simply to eat clean food from outside the affected area, and follow limited evacuation for those most at risk (e.g. families with young children).
For people like the Japanese, who have ready access to clean replacement foodstuffs, and a diet rich in natural iodine, little special action is needed. Most are best served by eating outside food and waiting things out.
For others, like those near Chernobyl in 1986, short-term evacuation with supplemental iodine administration, particularly to the young, would've produced similarly low levels of risk. The impoverished condition of most of the population, and lack of a robust food system were main drivers increasing their risks.
However, in both cases once the I-131 has decayed off there's no longer much risk. People could move back into the zone and resume life as before. To allay fear, those who want them could obtain dosimeters to understand and place into perspective the actual radioactivity they are receiving. Most people would probably see amounts very close to the original background radiation anyway. A few may see more, and this can be either rationalized in terms of measuring it against statistics (an education requirement attaches to do this effectively). Or, anyone who feels uncomfortable by the amount they see, no matter how small, can be allowed to take charge of their lives as before and choose to move away. In this way, people are empowered to freely identify and manage their risks as they choose, just as in other parts of their lives.
The important takeaways here are (1) people are overly fearful of radiation, despite living lives continuously within its effects, and in some cases depending on it /for/ health, (2) understanding the real risks from radiation may allow us to overcome these fears and make more intelligent choices regarding how we obtain the energy we need to enjoy the lives we desire.
I am one of those people who are of the opinion that if we wish to maintain and enhance our standard of living for the future, especially if we ultimately decide that fossil-fuel carbon dioxide inputs need to be eliminated as much as possible, then only nuclear power will be able to maintain us in the energy-available standard to which we've become accustomed. More energy makes life more productive and more enjoyable and more long-lasting for all. We should be efficient about our use, certainly, but energy abundance give us comfort and choice. We would not have this under a purely renewable-source energy economy. So, does it make sense to exclude nuclear power on safety grounds, from the outset? That's a question I was hoping the book would help me answer.
In the book, nuclear power disasters were discussed, just not in the clearest way, and the information given was fragmented across the chapters. I hoped for an answer to the question of whether it's actually necessary to cordon off large territorial exclusion zones in response to such catastrophes, in the interests of protecting human health. I was left to gather the fragments presented in the book, and make a judgement about this myself, which ended up like this:
In such disasters there three isotopes which convey just about all the radioactivity exposure risk to people in the general vicinity of the release: I-131, Cs-137, and Sr-90.
I-131 is risky, but mostly to children, and only for a short time (about three months overall), and only if foodstuffs produced within the affected area aren't temporarily replaced with outside supplies during the danger period. In Japan, food was handled expertly and most Japanese have iodine rich diets which tend to make them far less at-risk to start with.
Cs-137 is pretty ubiquitous, and has a very long half-life, making it especially concerning to the public. But this long half-life also means that the activity of the element is very low, reducing risk. Its biological half-life is also quite short, happily, further greatly reducing risks to human health. Any amount of it you do manage to ingest is likely to be excreted again before hardly any of it at all will have a chance to deposit radioactive energy in your tissue. So the great concern over this, perhaps second most prevalent element released in an accident, is probably misplaced.
Sr-90 has a half-life similar to Cs-137, but has a complex biological half-life. To our bodies, it resembles calcium, and so some proportion may end up migrating into bones and teeth, where it will probably stay long enough to release a good portion of its radioactive energy.
This is pretty much all the book has to say on those matters: two-to-one in favor of the idea that our reaction to the risks from a catastrophic nuclear accident is hysterical. The Sr-90 question deserves more attention. How much of this is present around an accident zone? What's the risk?
Since this is supposed to be a book review, I won't detail them here, but I've encountered various materials that offer me some pretty great hope for Cs-137 in particular, that this is just not enough of a risk to human health to warrant massive exclusion zones with their life-altering permanent evacuations and costly and elaborate washing and soil-stripping operations. According to this work, people could return to their homes and lives in the zone like that around Fukushima right now, if they wanted to, and not be at significant added risk for future radiogenic health problems.
For Sr-90, while a significant product of fission, it's non-volatile nature makes it much less likely than the others to escape to the environment in significant amounts during a disaster. This may be the best reason to allay concerns with it. Sr-90 was more of a risk during the era of atmospheric atomic weapons testing, and for the Japanese atomic bomb survivors, from the fallout nuclear weapons produce. This main source of Sr-90 exposure has long been now, happily, over.
I-131 seems to be the single biggest risk in a reactor disaster, and with its short half-life, within a few months of a point immediately following a meltdown with containment loss, it is simply no longer a factor, it has all decayed away. In the early phase, people should do their best to avoid exposure if they can, but for most it will be enough simply to eat clean food from outside the affected area, and follow limited evacuation for those most at risk (e.g. families with young children).
For people like the Japanese, who have ready access to clean replacement foodstuffs, and a diet rich in natural iodine, little special action is needed. Most are best served by eating outside food and waiting things out.
For others, like those near Chernobyl in 1986, short-term evacuation with supplemental iodine administration, particularly to the young, would've produced similarly low levels of risk. The impoverished condition of most of the population, and lack of a robust food system were main drivers increasing their risks.
However, in both cases once the I-131 has decayed off there's no longer much risk. People could move back into the zone and resume life as before. To allay fear, those who want them could obtain dosimeters to understand and place into perspective the actual radioactivity they are receiving. Most people would probably see amounts very close to the original background radiation anyway. A few may see more, and this can be either rationalized in terms of measuring it against statistics (an education requirement attaches to do this effectively). Or, anyone who feels uncomfortable by the amount they see, no matter how small, can be allowed to take charge of their lives as before and choose to move away. In this way, people are empowered to freely identify and manage their risks as they choose, just as in other parts of their lives.
The important takeaways here are (1) people are overly fearful of radiation, despite living lives continuously within its effects, and in some cases depending on it /for/ health, (2) understanding the real risks from radiation may allow us to overcome these fears and make more intelligent choices regarding how we obtain the energy we need to enjoy the lives we desire.
May 15, 2017
A book that begins by presupposing what it is we need to know that we don't already is setting itself up as a disappointment for readers whose expectations differ. A more fitting title would be along the lines of "Radiation: How it works and what it does to the human body." Radiation is, well, science-y and complex, but I have a better grasp of its mechanisms under manipulation by man and its sources and behavior where it occurs naturally. Weapons, testings, and bomb blasts figure heavily. The least informative part is, perhaps, the part of widest interest: Guidelines for how much radiation we should sign ourselves up for in medicine. But I know more now than I did, until I forget most of it, and there is info in here that every current and former smoker needs to hear, which I'll carry with me till the day I die.
February 12, 2018
Dry, but interesting book that discusses the benefits and risks of radiation. The authors discuss natural radiation, nuclear medicine, food irradiation, and radiation sickness. The book comes across more as a series of lectures on how radiation affects you, the difference between radiation dosage and exposure, what typical annual radiation dosage is, and how some radiation exposures compare to the recent radiation disasters like Fuakashima and Chernobyl. Not everyone will appreciate this book as it can be dry in spots, but if you will stick with it you will find it informative.
May 13, 2021
The more I read this book the more I dislike it. The author's tone of voice is incredibly condescending. He provides statements throughout without providing any evidence all while using words like: likely, probably, barely, minimally. "Possible slight increase"
The author also likes to back up his arguments by providing examples of worse things. "Although there was, and continues to be, considerable debate and concern over the 80% of atmospheric releases from Fukushima Daiichi that were deposited in the ocean, most people are unaware that for 30 years many countries intentionally dumped radioactive wastes into the seas." 🙄 Because that makes it okay.
Update!
Okay I'm back with more nonsense because the book and the authors are absolutely bonkers. They literally argue for ocean dumping. Like hey! we did a whole ocean dumping crime back in the '50s, but oh.. you know... know one knew about, and it was never really tested, so it's fiiiiine.
Mostly DNF. I just read the chapters I needed to for the book report.
The author also likes to back up his arguments by providing examples of worse things. "Although there was, and continues to be, considerable debate and concern over the 80% of atmospheric releases from Fukushima Daiichi that were deposited in the ocean, most people are unaware that for 30 years many countries intentionally dumped radioactive wastes into the seas." 🙄 Because that makes it okay.
Update!
Okay I'm back with more nonsense because the book and the authors are absolutely bonkers. They literally argue for ocean dumping. Like hey! we did a whole ocean dumping crime back in the '50s, but oh.. you know... know one knew about, and it was never really tested, so it's fiiiiine.
Mostly DNF. I just read the chapters I needed to for the book report.
October 11, 2025
Just what I needed! Even though I majored in Biochemistry and work as a chemistry instructor and tutor, radiation has always been a bit of a mystery to me. This book was a breeze to read, and it even had some funny moments—I actually laughed out loud at one point! Plus, it wrapped up in such a flattering and kind way that I felt like I was doing someone a favor just by reading it.
Let's not kid ourselves, thank YOU @theauthors for writing this.
Let's not kid ourselves, thank YOU @theauthors for writing this.
August 20, 2019
This book generally gives us the overall knowledge of what radiation is and how it works and affects the environment as well as human health. Occasionally, there is excessive technical information which can confuse readers with no basic science background. This book might be a useful reference for anyone who wants to study medical imaging such as radiology or just wants to understand radiation.
May 27, 2020
Exactly what I was looking for. Many radiological topics are covered, and the content isn't too difficult to understand. The book claims it's neither an opponent or proponent of nuclear power, yet I find it leans in nuclear energy's favor. I do as well, while also acknowledging its dangers and risks. I feel much better informed and far less frightened after reading.
February 10, 2020
Not an easy read. Be prepared to read thoroughrly and look up a lot of definitions, if you are not already familiar with radiology.
However, the book was very insightful to both the risks and benefits of radiation. I finished the book with a broader and deeper understanding of the subject.
However, the book was very insightful to both the risks and benefits of radiation. I finished the book with a broader and deeper understanding of the subject.
January 18, 2023
I found this book fascinating and well written in a straight forward format that the average reader could understand. It did come across with a one sided view of nuclear risks but it was still informative and I would recommend this to anyone.
August 18, 2023
I thoroughly enjoyed this book. It provides a guided look into the complex interactions between life and radiation as well as explains the radiological dangers we face in day to day life.
Well written although it may be a bit dry if you are not interested in the topic.
Well written although it may be a bit dry if you are not interested in the topic.
October 12, 2020
An interesting read. Focused a lot on nuclear energy and weapons. Much preferred the stories and discussion of non-nuclear radiation.
May 27, 2023
It was, indeed, what I needed to know.
May 3, 2024
Despite a few errors, this is an overall good summary of the main concepts of radiation and its risks.
December 31, 2015
"Radiation" is not exactly a science book. It is an attempt to make a science-based issue understandable. It is written by a scientist so it gets lost in the weeds occasionally, but the book is interspersed with examples of the dangers of exposure to radiation.
For example... when a scanning machine that uses radioactive material became the object of an ownership dispute, the machine went unused for years (presumably as lawsuits dragged on). In the meantime, the machine was placed under guard in case it was stolen. (This was a reasonable fear given the area.) One day the guard called in sick. He was not replaced. Looters broke in and stole the radioactive material. They didn't know what it was but they liked the idea that it glowed. They sold pieces of it. Some people even ate it. Doctors were mystified at why people were suddenly falling ill.
While you might find this example ridiculous, there have also been instances where such a scanning machine was sold to a junk dealer who then had it melted down for its metals. The radioactive material got mixed in with building materials that where made into houses and condos. The people were exposed to low-levels of radioactivity over the long-term. This may be worse than a stronger exposure in the short-term. Many people became ill. (FYI, I don't think the junk dealer did this on purpose but at several points along the way the nuclear detectors that were supposed to catch this sort of problem missed it.)
So... the book answers a lot of questions. I already knew the answers to most of them. I was more interested in the examples of exposure. They seemed all too likely.
I used to work in earthwork construction and there are soil testers available that use radioactive material to test the density of the soil. This test has a number of advantages over the normal test, but occasionally the test machine might be crushed by a bulldozer or caught up in a car crash. (They are easily man-portable and they must be transported to a construction site.... usually in a small truck or in the trunk of a car.) This would create a nuclear hazard. The hazard would be small, but it would exist.
To find out about such testers (they are expensive) just search for "Nuclear Soil Moisture Density" tester or gauge. You will find reading material on the subject.
I'd read this book again, but only for reference.
For example... when a scanning machine that uses radioactive material became the object of an ownership dispute, the machine went unused for years (presumably as lawsuits dragged on). In the meantime, the machine was placed under guard in case it was stolen. (This was a reasonable fear given the area.) One day the guard called in sick. He was not replaced. Looters broke in and stole the radioactive material. They didn't know what it was but they liked the idea that it glowed. They sold pieces of it. Some people even ate it. Doctors were mystified at why people were suddenly falling ill.
While you might find this example ridiculous, there have also been instances where such a scanning machine was sold to a junk dealer who then had it melted down for its metals. The radioactive material got mixed in with building materials that where made into houses and condos. The people were exposed to low-levels of radioactivity over the long-term. This may be worse than a stronger exposure in the short-term. Many people became ill. (FYI, I don't think the junk dealer did this on purpose but at several points along the way the nuclear detectors that were supposed to catch this sort of problem missed it.)
So... the book answers a lot of questions. I already knew the answers to most of them. I was more interested in the examples of exposure. They seemed all too likely.
I used to work in earthwork construction and there are soil testers available that use radioactive material to test the density of the soil. This test has a number of advantages over the normal test, but occasionally the test machine might be crushed by a bulldozer or caught up in a car crash. (They are easily man-portable and they must be transported to a construction site.... usually in a small truck or in the trunk of a car.) This would create a nuclear hazard. The hazard would be small, but it would exist.
To find out about such testers (they are expensive) just search for "Nuclear Soil Moisture Density" tester or gauge. You will find reading material on the subject.
I'd read this book again, but only for reference.
November 23, 2014
This book if a gem, I'm fairly surprised it gets such a low rating here.
While it is definitely not an encyclopedic source of information on radiation, it does what the title conveys sufficiently well.
Unlike other reviewers, I don't think one needs a science background in order to understand the subject as presented by the authors; the tone is very conversational, and never patronizing. No formulas, very few charts and graphs. Easily digestible.
If I were to divide the book in two parts: "What is is" and "What you need to know", I would say more emphasis is given to the latter.
For instance, those wanting to approach their study of radiation from a particle/nuclear physics standpoint will find very little of it here. Little is presented in the way of what radiation actually is, and how it works. Which for me, was disappointing. However, I don't know how many people would have actually enjoyed that other than aspiring scientists ;)
Given the medical background of one the experts writing this book, much of the explanations regarding risks and effects are centered on its effects on the human body, with a much smaller part being devoted to the environment. All in all, I would say about three quarters of the book are devoted to the medical aspects of radiation, both harmful and beneficial. Sometimes this is presented as an explanation of what radiation is; "is what causes bone marrow failure!". Jeez, thanks. NOW I know what it is!
Despite its shortcomings, I believe the average American would greatly benefit from reading this book, given the all encompassing role of nuclear energy in our modern lives.
While it is definitely not an encyclopedic source of information on radiation, it does what the title conveys sufficiently well.
Unlike other reviewers, I don't think one needs a science background in order to understand the subject as presented by the authors; the tone is very conversational, and never patronizing. No formulas, very few charts and graphs. Easily digestible.
If I were to divide the book in two parts: "What is is" and "What you need to know", I would say more emphasis is given to the latter.
For instance, those wanting to approach their study of radiation from a particle/nuclear physics standpoint will find very little of it here. Little is presented in the way of what radiation actually is, and how it works. Which for me, was disappointing. However, I don't know how many people would have actually enjoyed that other than aspiring scientists ;)
Given the medical background of one the experts writing this book, much of the explanations regarding risks and effects are centered on its effects on the human body, with a much smaller part being devoted to the environment. All in all, I would say about three quarters of the book are devoted to the medical aspects of radiation, both harmful and beneficial. Sometimes this is presented as an explanation of what radiation is; "is what causes bone marrow failure!". Jeez, thanks. NOW I know what it is!
Despite its shortcomings, I believe the average American would greatly benefit from reading this book, given the all encompassing role of nuclear energy in our modern lives.
February 7, 2017
This is a very interesting review of what is really know today about the harm caused to humans by radiation from nuclear plants. It also provides a tutorial on what exactly is radiation for those who have not studied physics at a university level.
The big issue has been the assertion by some that any level of radiation, no matter how small, will cause some cancer. The author says this is not a settled issue, but it really is. First, workers at nuclear power plants, who receive more radiation than the public, have lower levels of cancer. Second, residents of Colorado and the mountain states that receive much high levels of radiation than the general public, have the same or lower levels of cancer than the general public.
There is an in-depth review of the Fukushima accident pointing out the almost unbelievably incompetent design and management. Although no one has died at Fukushima, it is costing Japan $100 billion to clean up the mess caused by the stupidity. Nuclear is not something that can be left to fools to design and run.
The big issue has been the assertion by some that any level of radiation, no matter how small, will cause some cancer. The author says this is not a settled issue, but it really is. First, workers at nuclear power plants, who receive more radiation than the public, have lower levels of cancer. Second, residents of Colorado and the mountain states that receive much high levels of radiation than the general public, have the same or lower levels of cancer than the general public.
There is an in-depth review of the Fukushima accident pointing out the almost unbelievably incompetent design and management. Although no one has died at Fukushima, it is costing Japan $100 billion to clean up the mess caused by the stupidity. Nuclear is not something that can be left to fools to design and run.
August 16, 2014
I meandered between studiously reading and skimming the information offered in this book, but I did enjoy it and thought it was fairly enlightening. I did assume there was going to be more on the science of radiation (yanno, as the title suggests: 'Radiation, What It Is') but there was definitely a lot of info on radiation's effect on the body's cells and the medical use of radiation, which were interesting topics in their own right, but I guess I wanted to know more about the formation of the different types of radiation. Still, it's not a bad book.
September 8, 2015
The Good:
Very informative book explaining almost anything a non-expert might want to know about radiation.
Written by one of the world's foremost experts on radiation.
The Bad:
The writing was often confusing or rambling. If you are writing a book about a complex, controversial, and often incorrectly represented topic (like this), it is critical that the writing, editing, examples, etc. be rock solid and crystal clear. Sadly, sometimes they weren't.
This isn't a page-turner; but it isn't a dry pedantic textbook either. It is readable, but you have to work at it.
Very informative book explaining almost anything a non-expert might want to know about radiation.
Written by one of the world's foremost experts on radiation.
The Bad:
The writing was often confusing or rambling. If you are writing a book about a complex, controversial, and often incorrectly represented topic (like this), it is critical that the writing, editing, examples, etc. be rock solid and crystal clear. Sadly, sometimes they weren't.
This isn't a page-turner; but it isn't a dry pedantic textbook either. It is readable, but you have to work at it.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 39 reviews