Scan barcode
aligrint's review against another edition
4.0
It's a solid book, but it's trying to be different things at different points. He starts with lots of biographical detail - too much, for my taste, since I don't particularly care whether Oppenheimer had a nice childhood. And then it transitions into a methodical explanation of the atomic experimentation and industry, and then finally into a decently robust argument for nuclear power. The first 80% is completely non-rhetorical, but you really feel it speed up and energize in the last 20%, and I was left wishing he had chosen one or the other.
yates9's review against another edition
5.0
Exciting and fluid historical perspective on the nuclear military and civilian sector from the perspective of someone in the business.
Soft on the contemporary technological developments in the field and the ethical balancing act that is at the core of this powerful tool.
Soft on the contemporary technological developments in the field and the ethical balancing act that is at the core of this powerful tool.
lilreaderbug's review against another edition
3.0
Some interesting tidbits, lots of technical explanations. Probably more interesting for someone who has studied physics in depth, but as someone interested in nuclear energy and nonproliferation, I still found it pretty readable.
vallevia's review against another edition
challenging
informative
inspiring
slow-paced
4.0
The book's age starts showing quite a bit near the end. There's something eerie about reading about the world's worst nuclear disasters from a 2009 perspective. Today, we know about Fukushima, but that disaster was just a theoretical scenario back when this book was written. The book talks about the possibility of terrorist attacks on nuclear power plants, and here we are in 2023 with war waging over one of the world's biggest NPPs. It's a bit scary to think that something way worse could happen in the future, and I'll look back on this review and think how weird it was to not know about such an important event in nuclear history.
Publication date aside, this book was fascinating. It's a good starting point for diving into the immense nuclear science world. It does a good job addressing concerns about nuclear energy without dismissing them. Whether nuclear power should be developed more despite the risks is a valid discussion to have. I don't think this book's main focus is to convince us of anything. But it does a good job at providing convincing arguments for both sides.
Publication date aside, this book was fascinating. It's a good starting point for diving into the immense nuclear science world. It does a good job addressing concerns about nuclear energy without dismissing them. Whether nuclear power should be developed more despite the risks is a valid discussion to have. I don't think this book's main focus is to convince us of anything. But it does a good job at providing convincing arguments for both sides.
bachya's review against another edition
3.0
I really enjoyed this book until I didn’t.
The first 70-80% is a fascinating look at the development of nuclear energy, told through the lens of countless mathematicians, physicists, and brilliant thinkers. The last 20% feels like a hastily slapped together op-ed in which the author laments that nuclear energy has gotten a raw deal (an example: nothing that the 55 confirmed deaths at Chernobyl pale in comparison to the number of deaths prompted by other man-made disasters).
Don’t get me wrong: I generally agree that nuclear energy *has* gotten a raw deal and will be vital in our fight against climate change. But if this is meant to be the perfect bridge from retrospective history to a guidebook for the future, it falls flat – it is too brief to give proper historical context to the many events of nuclear energy and it is too rushed to be a guidebook.
The first 70-80% is a fascinating look at the development of nuclear energy, told through the lens of countless mathematicians, physicists, and brilliant thinkers. The last 20% feels like a hastily slapped together op-ed in which the author laments that nuclear energy has gotten a raw deal (an example: nothing that the 55 confirmed deaths at Chernobyl pale in comparison to the number of deaths prompted by other man-made disasters).
Don’t get me wrong: I generally agree that nuclear energy *has* gotten a raw deal and will be vital in our fight against climate change. But if this is meant to be the perfect bridge from retrospective history to a guidebook for the future, it falls flat – it is too brief to give proper historical context to the many events of nuclear energy and it is too rushed to be a guidebook.
auspea's review against another edition
2.0
Mahaffey has written a intesting history of Nuclear Power. I was hoping for a little more on the "Future" of Nuclear Power than just a couple paragraths in the last chapter though.