What do you think?
Rate this book
Nuclear Power Is Not the Answer
The world-renowned antinuclear activist's "expertly argued" ( The Guardian ) case against nuclear energy.
In a world torn apart by wars over oil, politicians have increasingly begun to look for alternative energy sources—and their leading choice is nuclear energy. Among the myths that have been spread over the years about nuclear-powered electricity are that it does not cause global warming or pollution, that it is inexpensive, and that it is safe.
Helen Caldicott's look at the actual costs and environmental consequences of nuclear energy belies the incessant barrage of nuclear industry propaganda. Caldicott "reveals truths," Martin Sheen has said, "that confirm we must take positive action now if we are to make a difference." In fact, nuclear power contributes to global warming; the true cost of nuclear power is prohibitive, with taxpayers picking up most of the tab; there's simply not enough uranium in the world to sustain nuclear power over the long term; and the potential for a catastrophic accident or a terrorist attack far outweighs any benefits. Concluding chapters detail alternative sustainable energy sources that are the key to a clean, green future.
In a world torn apart by wars over oil, politicians have increasingly begun to look for alternative energy sources—and their leading choice is nuclear energy. Among the myths that have been spread over the years about nuclear-powered electricity are that it does not cause global warming or pollution, that it is inexpensive, and that it is safe.
Helen Caldicott's look at the actual costs and environmental consequences of nuclear energy belies the incessant barrage of nuclear industry propaganda. Caldicott "reveals truths," Martin Sheen has said, "that confirm we must take positive action now if we are to make a difference." In fact, nuclear power contributes to global warming; the true cost of nuclear power is prohibitive, with taxpayers picking up most of the tab; there's simply not enough uranium in the world to sustain nuclear power over the long term; and the potential for a catastrophic accident or a terrorist attack far outweighs any benefits. Concluding chapters detail alternative sustainable energy sources that are the key to a clean, green future.
240 pages, Paperback
First published September 20, 2006
4 people are currently reading
175 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 - 18 of 18 reviews
January 31, 2020
This was such an interesting read, especially as I am an Electrical Engineer - it is clear from the writing that Dr. Caldicott does not write like my peers would have written this book, and I constantly wished for more tables and graphs and more data and references in general. The author relies a lot on telling her own conclusion, whereas I'd have liked to see more of the data she mentions. I think graphs would have also made a clearer point about some topics, such as when she discusses the by-products of nuclear energy (total emissions of CO2 comparison of various energy sources, incl. nuclear plants; graphs that show the increase of diseases etc in areas where nuclear accidents have happened etc). I understand some of this data is merely speculative, not yet researched or it's simply too early to tell the full story, but it would have been nice! This book feels like an introduction to a topic rather than a full scientific look into it. I suppose I just expected something different.
I resent a little language such as calling treaties "diabolical", as it is excessively judgmental (and makes me give a little bit less credit to the author), and another example or telling the reader how to interpret the data as opposed to letting us see how terrible the treaties are by ourselves. I appreciate the passion, just don't entirely approve of the language. I also had a small piece of paper inside my copy saying that there was an error on the introduction, which made me cringe a little - I do sincerely hope there are no more factual errors in the book, at least when it comes to data.
Which reminds me - I would also have liked to see more people being mentioned as against nuclear energy, it seemed to me that the same 3 names were being hammered into the text all the time. Surely there are more people speaking out, doing research etc? It's possible of course that at the time of the publication of the book, there wasn't enough discussion about the topic, especially when the government and media show such unwavering support.
The author makes good points about the political background of nuclear energy and surely made me think about it and change some of my own preconceptions. But in the end, I was disappointed a little by it. I wonder what it reads like for someone with less of a tech-y background, perhaps for that public the book will be not only enlightening but also fascinating! I would like to think so. My harsh review may be a result of job defect.
Otherwise, I appreciate the author writing about such a divisive topic, and bringing to the foreground several topics which are not discussed enough by the public, such as nuclear waste. It is also clear that lots of thought and research were put into the book, which I also appreciate.
I resent a little language such as calling treaties "diabolical", as it is excessively judgmental (and makes me give a little bit less credit to the author), and another example or telling the reader how to interpret the data as opposed to letting us see how terrible the treaties are by ourselves. I appreciate the passion, just don't entirely approve of the language. I also had a small piece of paper inside my copy saying that there was an error on the introduction, which made me cringe a little - I do sincerely hope there are no more factual errors in the book, at least when it comes to data.
Which reminds me - I would also have liked to see more people being mentioned as against nuclear energy, it seemed to me that the same 3 names were being hammered into the text all the time. Surely there are more people speaking out, doing research etc? It's possible of course that at the time of the publication of the book, there wasn't enough discussion about the topic, especially when the government and media show such unwavering support.
The author makes good points about the political background of nuclear energy and surely made me think about it and change some of my own preconceptions. But in the end, I was disappointed a little by it. I wonder what it reads like for someone with less of a tech-y background, perhaps for that public the book will be not only enlightening but also fascinating! I would like to think so. My harsh review may be a result of job defect.
Otherwise, I appreciate the author writing about such a divisive topic, and bringing to the foreground several topics which are not discussed enough by the public, such as nuclear waste. It is also clear that lots of thought and research were put into the book, which I also appreciate.
April 30, 2013
i have a good friend who is real left wing and very concerned about the environment. he is so concerned about rising co2 concentrations in the atmosphere and our need to reduce them immediately that he has said we should use nuclear power generation to get off fossil fuels. i never agreed with that logic but i was usually stumped as to how to make a clear, concise and compelling argument against it. this book has given me the tools i need to do just that. nuclear power is in no way clean. the massive amounts of energy that go into mining, refinement and construction of nuclear products and facilities alone almost eats up any of the 'clean-ness' of the power then generated. then there is the deadly nature of unleashing nuclear material into the atmosphere through normal operations right up to terrorists attacks. none of this is worth it. we need never see nuclear power as a bridge off of fossil fuels towards a sustainable energy future. nuclear is deadly and we should never cede ground to anyone claiming otherwise.
May 2, 2023
A very well-written book that discusses the wide-ranging pros and cons of nuclear energy. The author clearly explains how nuclear energy, whilst appearing to be the wonderful energy source that could solve the clean energy crisis, is truly not the best solution in our arsenal.
I appreciated that Caldicott did not hold back on her use of physics and chemistry, although at times it did mean that I had to really concentrate to follow the narrative. It is by providing the details that we can more-easily take a holistic view and ultimately reach our own conclusions on the topic of nuclear power.
I appreciated that Caldicott did not hold back on her use of physics and chemistry, although at times it did mean that I had to really concentrate to follow the narrative. It is by providing the details that we can more-easily take a holistic view and ultimately reach our own conclusions on the topic of nuclear power.
January 13, 2020
The best books for your personal and intellectual growth are those that challenge your views, putting forward the arguments with which you don't initially agree in a convincing way. Either they win you over, or tbey sharpen your powers of argumentation for your original view, and likely they help you to a more nuanced understanding of the matter at hand. Sadly, Nuclear Power Is Not the Answer is not one of these books. As I have been committed to the cause of de-nuclearization of energy generation many years, the book did not challenge my views, and I did not gain much in arguing for my conviction as Caldicott makes an incoherent case for it.
Let's begin with The Good: The subject of nuclear power is worthy of examination, and it is also commendable to write a concise introduction which contains all major arguments against its use. Caldicott is also qualified on the issues, stemming from her background as a decade-long anti-nuclear activism and her professional training as a physician (not coincidentally, her expertise shines most when writing about the medical hazards of radioactivity). As the issue of civilian and military nuclear energy use and its dangers is still politically unresolved, the book is also relevant to many current headlines - from Iran's and North Korea's nuclear programs to the Fukushima reactor catastrophe (Caldicott once spends a sub-chapter specifically pointing out the dangers tsunamis could pose to oceanside nuclear plants like those in Japan).
Sadly, this is outweighed by The Bad: The book is badly written, in a way that the author is much more used to speaking than writing. That includes repeating specific information in the sentence right after the one where it was given, and the very liberal use of affirmative ("We know for a fact" instead of "We know" etc.) and sometimes outright manipulative (describing chemical elements as "diabolical") language. The argument put forward is incoherent - the individual parts make sense, but they are not properly synthesized. Sometimes, there are inherent contradictions, for example when Caldicott argues in one chapter that reducing America's dependence on oil will not do much for its electricity generation (correct, as oil does not contribute much to that), and in another that instead of spending billions on wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to control the oil (notwithstanding that Afghanistan neither has oil resources nor adjacency to pipelines), America should rather invest the money in renewable energy generation. More often, data is taken from a lot of different sources, but every individual data point is just thrown at the reader instead of being put into context. Caldicott barely explains what "normal" amounts of radiation are, nor does she differentiate (or explain) the difference between radioactivity and radiation doses. Sometimes, the data from different sources is also contradictory. In one especially egregious instance of confusing treatment of units, she switches units from one page to another from gigajoules to petajoules, just to give a number of 0.000555 petajoules (which would have been more elegantly rendered as 555 gigajoules).
Finally, The Ugly: There are some (as far as I can tell) rather inconsequential factual mistakes. For example, Caldicott names Manmohan Singh as the president of India (he was, in fact, prime minister). More importantly, the confusing and sometimes incoherent data is never put into any graphs or tables to visualize or compare.
Nuclear power is not the answer. Neither is this book.
Let's begin with The Good: The subject of nuclear power is worthy of examination, and it is also commendable to write a concise introduction which contains all major arguments against its use. Caldicott is also qualified on the issues, stemming from her background as a decade-long anti-nuclear activism and her professional training as a physician (not coincidentally, her expertise shines most when writing about the medical hazards of radioactivity). As the issue of civilian and military nuclear energy use and its dangers is still politically unresolved, the book is also relevant to many current headlines - from Iran's and North Korea's nuclear programs to the Fukushima reactor catastrophe (Caldicott once spends a sub-chapter specifically pointing out the dangers tsunamis could pose to oceanside nuclear plants like those in Japan).
Sadly, this is outweighed by The Bad: The book is badly written, in a way that the author is much more used to speaking than writing. That includes repeating specific information in the sentence right after the one where it was given, and the very liberal use of affirmative ("We know for a fact" instead of "We know" etc.) and sometimes outright manipulative (describing chemical elements as "diabolical") language. The argument put forward is incoherent - the individual parts make sense, but they are not properly synthesized. Sometimes, there are inherent contradictions, for example when Caldicott argues in one chapter that reducing America's dependence on oil will not do much for its electricity generation (correct, as oil does not contribute much to that), and in another that instead of spending billions on wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to control the oil (notwithstanding that Afghanistan neither has oil resources nor adjacency to pipelines), America should rather invest the money in renewable energy generation. More often, data is taken from a lot of different sources, but every individual data point is just thrown at the reader instead of being put into context. Caldicott barely explains what "normal" amounts of radiation are, nor does she differentiate (or explain) the difference between radioactivity and radiation doses. Sometimes, the data from different sources is also contradictory. In one especially egregious instance of confusing treatment of units, she switches units from one page to another from gigajoules to petajoules, just to give a number of 0.000555 petajoules (which would have been more elegantly rendered as 555 gigajoules).
Finally, The Ugly: There are some (as far as I can tell) rather inconsequential factual mistakes. For example, Caldicott names Manmohan Singh as the president of India (he was, in fact, prime minister). More importantly, the confusing and sometimes incoherent data is never put into any graphs or tables to visualize or compare.
Nuclear power is not the answer. Neither is this book.
July 9, 2009
The true cost includes Uranium mining deaths, mining CO2 emisssions, reprocessing chloroflorocarbon emmisions. Effects of Thermal as well as chemical and nuclear pollution are examined as well. If you are a "Geek" by nature, you will love the progression of cold hard facts to a scientific conclusion.
September 10, 2020
Zero stars and that is probably too high
This was the worst $10 i ever wasted on a book. All her facts are inaccuracies and made to to be the worst. Basic simple calculations refute All her claims and she regularly contradicts herself. First lie she calls everyone but herself a liar and makes the nuclear industry out as the most irresponsible and selfish industry possible. Lastly as a medical docter I would expect someone ethical, not the case, someone knowledgable on nuclear dose and medicine would be expected to write the latest in science yet she distorts it. As an example she gives the explanation that any radiation will kill but lets ask this, 10,000 years ago the earth was far more radioactive yet we survived, take radiation away your immune system collapses. We like ve on earth where radiation is good in moderation, not excess and not zero... get your facts straight lady
This was the worst $10 i ever wasted on a book. All her facts are inaccuracies and made to to be the worst. Basic simple calculations refute All her claims and she regularly contradicts herself. First lie she calls everyone but herself a liar and makes the nuclear industry out as the most irresponsible and selfish industry possible. Lastly as a medical docter I would expect someone ethical, not the case, someone knowledgable on nuclear dose and medicine would be expected to write the latest in science yet she distorts it. As an example she gives the explanation that any radiation will kill but lets ask this, 10,000 years ago the earth was far more radioactive yet we survived, take radiation away your immune system collapses. We like ve on earth where radiation is good in moderation, not excess and not zero... get your facts straight lady
January 24, 2021
I was pro nuclear coming into this book and now I am coming out with some reservations. I do still feel like nuclear energy can work but maybe moreso in the fantasy land work. Government are not good at writing policies and I feel like there needs to be a lot more security at our current nuclear power plants. Terrorism will always be an issue, and in a world where we will never all come together, it can result in some scary weapons. E-waste/recycling is a huge problem that needs to be figured out, and while solar panels are great, we need to figure out a solution for end of life panels and how to properly dispose them? Can we create upgradable panels? There's a lot of work to do on both sides of the coin. I just hope the world gets together.
October 31, 2019
If you’ve ever thought nuclear power was a good idea, just read this book and you’ll be dissuaded. It is horrifying, killing people right now in the most horrific ways, and will be killing people for generations to come—some of the birth defects won’t start to manifest until another 40 or 50 generations.
While we protest against coal, oil and gas, we also need to protest against nuclear energy.
While we protest against coal, oil and gas, we also need to protest against nuclear energy.
October 26, 2017
Smattering of misinformation, misleading statements about nuclear power assembled by a lunatic conspiracy theorist and some deluded people
October 5, 2011
Since I work in the healthcare field, I really couldn’t understand the technical side of this book when it delved into kilowatts and petajules production by nuclear power plants. However, I did work my way through this type of language and got the jest of this book: we need to use more clean renewable energy sources rather than continue down the road of building more nuclear power plants and using the energy produced by them. The author does tend to sound slightly paranoid when she repeatedly discusses throughout the book the possibility of terrorist attacks, but on the other hand maybe she is just trying to drive home the importance of riding ourselves on the dependence of nuclear power. If you just cannot seem to get past the author’s style of writing, then at least read chapter 8: “Nuclear Power and Rogue Nations.” It offers a great insight into how nations like Israel, Pakistan, India, North Korea, and Iran started out as nuclear powered nations and the conflict of interest that some of these nations have with the U.S. After chapter 8, the book gives great advice on how the nation could reduce it’s CO2 emissions and how each individual can help.
July 14, 2009
Of course I appreciate everything Helen has written and all the incredible work she has done to expose the lies of the nuclear power industry, but even though I find this book very enlightening, I also naturally find it quite depressing. But as a Bodhisattva, I'm called upon to go to where the suffering and injustice is, to bring light to it and change it. So I have to keep reading her works.
May 30, 2011
I highly recommend this. we definitely need better answers to our energy crisis....Ms Caldicott is very well-versed in nuclear power. She rebuffs the critics with her facts and plain-english use describing the nuclear industry, its dis and misinformation, as well the past history and what we have to look forward to..
November 28, 2007
You could either take the time to go read this very interesting and well-researched book or just take my word for it when I say, on behalf of Helen Caldicott: the promise of nuclear power is a compromised, sordid lie that you would do best to spit upon.
Read
May 18, 2012Great overview of the main issues involved in the use of nuclear power. I hadn't realized the scope of the dangers, especially the continued risks to miners and their communities, and the limited reserves of uranium that can be easily processed.
Want to read
January 28, 2008Read all of Helen Caldicott Books
September 3, 2022
The lack of data and visuals certainly complemented the textual substance.
October 28, 2007
The Role of Atom in human life
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews