Are you going to discuss Lovelock's credible views, or not? The issue here is global climate change. Not a book full of misinformation written by someone who has let her rightful views agaisnt nuclear weapons cloud her judgment on a subject she has no expertise whatsoever in. You would think a physician such as herself would be concerned about the millions of cancer deaths causes by toxins released in to the atmosphere by coal and natural gas burning power plants every year, but I guess they don't teach about those things in medical school.
Wrong on all counts, March 4, 2007
Reviewer: Environmental Realist - See all my reviews
Trading upon the simple confusion between physician and physicist, Dr. Caldicott continues to find publishers for her ideologically driven nonsense about peaceful nuclear power. This unique and remarkable source of clean energy already supplies one-sixth of the world's electricity:
-- with virtually no pollutants or greenhouse emissions
-- without consequential accidents for the last two decades
-- despite the large capital investments required, with ever decreasing costs that have now rendered it the most competitive source of electricity in most major economies.
For these reasons, governments of nations representing most of the world's population are putting nuclear power at the center of their long-term energy and environmental strategies. The nuclear renaissance is on, and misinformation such as this serves only to confuse public discussion on a subject critical to future human welfare.
A Physician is Not the Same as a Physicist, February 4, 2007
Reviewer: Tomthump "Tom" (Seattle WA USA) - See all my reviews
Dr. Caldicott's abysmal comprehension of energy production is demonstrated on page xii in the Introduction where she states that "hydropower converts the MOMENTUM of falling water into electricity".
100% biased and junk science, January 14, 2007
Reviewer: Stephen M. Packard Jr. "DrBuzz0" (New York Area) - See all my reviews
While nuclear weapons may be destructive and designed to kill, that does not necessarily extend to nuclear energy. It has its issues, with waste management and non-proliferation, but these issues all have two sides and are not insurmountable. This book, however, is one sided to the point of ridiculousness. Many of the claims are just plain unsubstantiated and some border on the ridiculous.
If you don't believe nuclear energy is the best means of making electricity, then fair enough; that's a valid opinion. But it doesn't help anyone to base your thoughts on slanted and inaccurate information.
Not Even Wrong, December 8, 2006
Reviewer: Kain Junot (Berkeley, CA) - See all my reviews
Meeting the energy demands of the 21st century is going to require both unprecedented innovations, which will always have unfortunate growing pains, and a diversity of energy sources. The author is able to conveniently ignore both of these issues.
Barely a page into the book, Helen Caldicott's first strike against nuclear power is the Chernobyl accident; needless to say Helen continues her arguments with the subtlety and grace of an Ogre and the insights of a first grader. Every minor detraction is vacuously expressed without any meaningful comparison. For example, Helen points out that fossil fuels are needed to transport uranium, but fails to address the transportation costs of conventional energy sources. Other absurdities include the analogy of how a nuclear plant produces electricity, "... cutting a pound of butter with a chainsaw...", once again implying the existence of a preferred conventional alternative where none exists. Finally, Helen deems all subsidies and investments in nuclear power as fraudulent wastes while the same for green power goes unquestioned. Non-answers for green power that Helen ignores are the large production of greenhouse gases from hydroelectric power (4 times that of an equivalent coal plant, see the Nature Journal, December 2006), and very optimistic views on both power generation and lifetime costs of wind and solar energy methods. Nuclear power might not be the answer, but neither is this pejorative diatribe.
Nuclear Power Is the Answer, November 14, 2006
Reviewer: Kevin Cahill (Albuquerque, NM) - See all my reviews
Helen Caldicott was right, if somewhat extreme, about nuclear weapons, but she is wrong about nuclear power. We have two choices: coal and nuclear. Clean coal is impossible with current technology. We can slow and perhaps reverse global warming by replacing all our coal-fired electric power plants with nuclear, solar, and wind power plants, and by using electric cars.
http://www.amazon.com/Nuclear-Power-Answer-Helen-Caldicott/dp/1595580670/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-5557848-2760069?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1174288642&sr=8-1
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
