What do you think?
Rate this book
The Nuclear Energy Option: An Alternative for the 90s
Cohen (physics and radiation health, U. of Pittsburgh) is an articulate and authoritative defender of nuclear power as both safe, environmentally sound and economically preferable. Referring to radon gas he notes that the radiation risk of nuclear power is equal to staying in an unvented house an extra eight hours per year. Annotation copyright Book News, Inc. Portland, Or.
348 pages, Paperback
First published September 1, 1990
14 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 - 2 of 2 reviews
November 25, 2020
This is an excellent source of scientific information about nuclear power. The book can be read online, though it is missing 3 figures in Chapter 6 (appendix).
Pedro Enguita's review is a serious mischaracterization. The book never claims "LNT is junk pseudosience" (it never even mentions LNT nor pseudoscience); all it does summarize the quantitative conclusions of scientific committees about radiation dose-response. For example, the book says "Both UNSCEAR and NCRP estimate that risks at low dose and low dose rate are lower than those obtained from the straight line relationship by a factor of 2 to 10. For example, if 1 million mrem gives a cancer risk of 0.78, the risk from 1 mrem is not 0.78 chances in a million as stated previously, but only 1/2 to 1/10 of that (0.39 to 0.078 chances in a million). The 1980 BEIR Committee accepted the concept of reduced risk at low dose and used it in its estimates. The 1990 BEIR Committee acknowledges the effect but states that there is not enough information available to quantify it and, therefore, presents results ignoring it but with a footnote stating that these results should be reduced."
The book never suggests radiation is harmless. While putting radioactive waste in the ocean is mentioned as one possible disposal option, this would only be done after encasing waste in glass, virtually guaranteeing it won't harm any humans.
The book does maintain that there is a scientific consensus on the hazards of radiation, which goes unreported by the media: "If TV producers took their role of educating the public seriously, they would have considered it their function to transmit scientific information from the scientific community to the public. But this they didn't do. They wanted to decide what to transmit, which means that they made judgments on scientific issues. When I brought this to their attention, they always said that the scientific community was split on the issue of dangers from radiation. By 'split' they seemed to mean that there was at least one scientist disagreeing with the others. They didn't seem to recognize that a unanimous conclusion of a National Academy of Sciences Committee should be given more weight than the opinion of one individual scientist who is far outside the mainstream. Their position was that, since the scientific community was split, they had no way to find out what the scientific consensus was. To this I always proposed a simple solution: pick a few major universities of their choice, call and ask the operator for the department chairman or a professor in the field, and ask the question; after five such calls the consensus would be clear on almost any question, usually 5 to 0. The TV people never were willing to do this. My strong impression was that they weren't really interested in what scientists had concluded. They were only after a story that would arouse viewer interest. Clearly, a scare story about the dangers of radiation serves this purpose best." Cohen demonstrates his point by sending out a survey to 310 people from "membership lists from Health Physics Society and Radiation Research Society". 95% of survey respondents agree that "television coverage of the dangers of radiation ... exaggerate the danger".
Other notable parts of the book: Chapter 7 explains why an event like Chernobyl could not happen in the United States; Chapter 9 points out that nuclear reactors were affordable and popular in the 1970s and explains why this changed, causing utilities to build coal plants instead; Chapter 13 explains how, despite being a lifelong liberal Democrat who is "passionately devoted to the welfare of the common people", Cohen found himself in a feud with Ralph Nader.
Pedro Enguita's review is a serious mischaracterization. The book never claims "LNT is junk pseudosience" (it never even mentions LNT nor pseudoscience); all it does summarize the quantitative conclusions of scientific committees about radiation dose-response. For example, the book says "Both UNSCEAR and NCRP estimate that risks at low dose and low dose rate are lower than those obtained from the straight line relationship by a factor of 2 to 10. For example, if 1 million mrem gives a cancer risk of 0.78, the risk from 1 mrem is not 0.78 chances in a million as stated previously, but only 1/2 to 1/10 of that (0.39 to 0.078 chances in a million). The 1980 BEIR Committee accepted the concept of reduced risk at low dose and used it in its estimates. The 1990 BEIR Committee acknowledges the effect but states that there is not enough information available to quantify it and, therefore, presents results ignoring it but with a footnote stating that these results should be reduced."
The book never suggests radiation is harmless. While putting radioactive waste in the ocean is mentioned as one possible disposal option, this would only be done after encasing waste in glass, virtually guaranteeing it won't harm any humans.
The book does maintain that there is a scientific consensus on the hazards of radiation, which goes unreported by the media: "If TV producers took their role of educating the public seriously, they would have considered it their function to transmit scientific information from the scientific community to the public. But this they didn't do. They wanted to decide what to transmit, which means that they made judgments on scientific issues. When I brought this to their attention, they always said that the scientific community was split on the issue of dangers from radiation. By 'split' they seemed to mean that there was at least one scientist disagreeing with the others. They didn't seem to recognize that a unanimous conclusion of a National Academy of Sciences Committee should be given more weight than the opinion of one individual scientist who is far outside the mainstream. Their position was that, since the scientific community was split, they had no way to find out what the scientific consensus was. To this I always proposed a simple solution: pick a few major universities of their choice, call and ask the operator for the department chairman or a professor in the field, and ask the question; after five such calls the consensus would be clear on almost any question, usually 5 to 0. The TV people never were willing to do this. My strong impression was that they weren't really interested in what scientists had concluded. They were only after a story that would arouse viewer interest. Clearly, a scare story about the dangers of radiation serves this purpose best." Cohen demonstrates his point by sending out a survey to 310 people from "membership lists from Health Physics Society and Radiation Research Society". 95% of survey respondents agree that "television coverage of the dangers of radiation ... exaggerate the danger".
Other notable parts of the book: Chapter 7 explains why an event like Chernobyl could not happen in the United States; Chapter 9 points out that nuclear reactors were affordable and popular in the 1970s and explains why this changed, causing utilities to build coal plants instead; Chapter 13 explains how, despite being a lifelong liberal Democrat who is "passionately devoted to the welfare of the common people", Cohen found himself in a feud with Ralph Nader.
August 31, 2021
The nuclear energy option is a quite old book about nuclear energy, written just after the Chernobyl accident.
The author is a stubborn supporter of nuclear energy. He makes some dubious claims about it, like the LNT is incorrect and that it should be perfectly OK to dump the radioactive waste into the sea. Even so, he makes quite a good points about the subject and every single statement is supported by rigurous quotes. The pronuclear crowd will surely like it (take it with precaution) and the antinuclears will learn some surprising facts that the NGOs haven't told them.
P.S.: Changed "LNT is junk pseudoscience" to "LNT is incorrect". Emphasis added.
The author is a stubborn supporter of nuclear energy. He makes some dubious claims about it, like the LNT is incorrect and that it should be perfectly OK to dump the radioactive waste into the sea. Even so, he makes quite a good points about the subject and every single statement is supported by rigurous quotes. The pronuclear crowd will surely like it (take it with precaution) and the antinuclears will learn some surprising facts that the NGOs haven't told them.
P.S.: Changed "LNT is junk pseudoscience" to "LNT is incorrect". Emphasis added.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews