Radiation and Reason - Scientists for the Public Understanding of Radiation

Radiation and Reason - Scientists for the Public Understanding of Radiation

This page was a fore-runner of the website of the larger group Scientists for Accurate Radiation Information (SARI) now at www.radiationeffects.org
Nevertheless the survey reported here may remain of interest.

Scientists for the Public Understanding of Radiation (SPUR) use simple commonsense arguments to dispel some of the myths and fears surrounding radiation and to suggest a sea change in international attitudes.

Wade Allison, Physics, University of Oxford, UK w.allison@physics.ox.ac.uk
Mohan Doss, Diagnostic Imaging, Fox Chase Cancer Center, USA mohan.doss@fccc.edu
Ludwik Dobrzynski, Physics, National Centre for Nuclear Research, Poland Ludwik.Dobrzynski@ncbj.gov.pl
Ludwig Feinendegen, Nuclear Medicine, Heinrich-Heine University D�sseldorf, Germany feinendegen@gmx.net

SPUR-1.pdf (624 Kb) ... Nuclear Radiation � friend or enemy? Its safety and its benefits at low levels justify its wider acceptance for improved public health and economic prosperity

---

THE RESULTS OF THE RELATED OPINION SURVEY (now closed)

Views = 83; YES = 73; NO = 10; Approval rating based on this sample = 88%

(Replies have not been edited. The table of NO replies follows that of the YES replies)

YES, do agree
2	David Evans	Medical physicist	New Zealand/ Grenada	The image used causes apprehension which is not what is wanted. The public will not be able to see the wood from the trees. The article needs to be recast in a more public-friendly form. Would you like me to do this for you ?
3	Maciej Pylak	PhD student	Poland
4	anon	Scientist	UK
5	John Brenner	Retired	UK	Congratulations! This is very clear statement of the issues and the way ahead - the best yet.
6	Leyland	Power engineer	New Zealand	Nuclear power is by far, the safest from of power generation in the world. I am an expert in hydropower. One dam failure in China in the 1970s killed ~25,000 people
7	Michael PR Waligorski	Prof of Physics and Medical Physics	Poland	Full support : examples (such as physical excercise) are well chosen and expose the dynamics, i.e. the dose-rate factor of radiation effects (such as fractination in radiotherapy). The cell is not a Rossi counter, nor is it an isolated system where damage cannot be completely repaired. High time we abandon Rossi's and Kellerer's microdosimetry - which is where the LNT concept was born.
8	James Coleman	Accountant	UK
9	William Barley	Health physicist	USA
10	anon	Physicist	Wales
11	Ron Mitchel	Scientist	Canada
12	Charles Pennington	Engineer, R&D, author	USA	Very similar concept to what I submitted in February for publication in an Oxford journal. This approach is not just necessary, it's vital for our collective future
13	Sudhindar Thakur	Scientist	India	In general, nuclear power is not as dangerous as it has made out to be, the perception must change, nuclear power is not capable of causing disasters needing disaster management interventions.
14	anon	Retired	UK
15	Lynn Ensley	Entrepreneur	USA	What about the J curve and the positive effect of radiation on the body
16	Chris Baxter	Computer consultant	UK	With modern communicatins technology, the entire world operates on panics. Most environmental warnings are rubbish, most medical scares have no foundation in reality, knee-jerk reactions against gun s, alcohol, violent video games and child sex scandals
17	Albert Stienstra	Retired engibeer/professor	Netherlands	Very good document. I do not like fig.2. The electromagnetic spectrum is defined by frequency, not wavelength. Wavelength depends on the medium
18	Jeff Quantrill	IT project manager	UK	About time this appalling misrepresentation of such an incredibly useful technology was tackled
19	Tim Churchill	Retired	UK	An eminently sensible approach
21	Jan Pirrong	Businessman	USA
22	William Mullins	Nuclear nanagement consultant	USA
23	Mike Post	Retired airline pilot DSc Hons Emg	UK	Well done
24	anon	Retired	USA	It is hard to think of a situation in which ignorance is to be preferred to understanding
25	Gareth Watkins	Retired anesthesiologist	UK	Support your essay, but who is it aimed at? Most of it is common knowledge to the scientifically literate but a significant proportion of readers will be confused by the 'units' of radiation, Grays, Becquerels, Sieverts which you do not explain in the text. The analogy between exercise and sunbathing is somewhat simplistic. I'm fully on your side, good effort but it needs to be more accessible to the Eng. Lit. graduates! re you 'reaching out' ( a horrible phrase of the post science literati) to those that you need to influence. The units of radiation, Grays, Becquerels, Sieverts are not explained in the text. The average Joe will switch off. The analogy comparing exercise with sunbathing is simplistic. Overall, a good initial effort but someone with a degree in Eng. Lit. should read the next one to see whether they can follow the argument. I'm firmly on your side. rt
26	Andrew Boothman	Geological technician	Canada
27	anon	Retired nuclear physicist	Cumbria	I fully support the aims of this document. With respect to decommissioning, however it is very important to deal with the 'Legacy Ponds and Silos' at Sellafield.
28	Jan Wilenius	Engineer	Finland
29	Dr Phillip Bratby	Retired nuclear engineer	UK	The article could do with better punctuation. The references to 'low carbon' and the dangers fo fossil fuels should be deleted as non-scintific nonsense. In the UK the term ALARA was replaced with ALARP (as low as reasonably practicable) because one could always achieve a lower risk, but there comes a point where it is neither practicable nor cost-effective to lower the risk.
30	John Assheton	Business owner	UK	Far too many people still believe that radiation is only a bad thing and don't understand "dose" - excellent!
31	Lars Nyqvist	Retired	Finland
32	Ian Hore-Lacy	Consultant	Australia	a valuable statement, especially comparison of UV and ionising radiation tissue effects.
33	Dr Helmut Urbahn	Scientist retired	Germany
34	Paolo	Professional physicist	Italy
35	anon	Retired	UK	Excellent and thought provoking
36	Chris Long	Software developer	UK
37	anon	Nuclear industry employee	UK
38	anon	Retired	UK	Not very impressed. First analogy is wrongly interpreted. Report uses a mixture of radiation units. Comments about evacuations around Fukushima are disingenuous since the final report makes it abundantly cleat that there was a serious risk of a major release.
40	David Bishop	Retired	Bahrain	A useful reminder of Mencken's observation: �The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led."
41	Frank Crawford	Health physicist	USA	Document is too technical for general public, and needs to be expanded upon. Worth doing!
43	Elizabeth Alderson	Engineer	Canada	A lovely balanced piece of reasoning
44	Marc Vandorpe	Engineer	Belgium
45	Andrzej Andrzejcuk	Scientist	Poland
46	Paul Anderson	Tech hazards specialist	USA	>Public statements need common experience references for credibility. Education is the key.
47	Richard Diebold	Retired	Canada	Education will go a long way to aiding the survival of Planet Earth
48	Michael Stephens	retired nuclear scientist	Canada	A very nice succinct summary of the question
49	Robert Winslow	Engineer	USA
50	Dean Cardno	Business man	Canada
51	Susan Ewens	Retired	UK
52	Paul Hughes	retired dentist	UK	There was an excellent "Horizon" programme on BBC a few years ago saying exactly what your SPUR statement does. It deserves to be shown again
53	anon	almost retired statistician	Germany	It would all be better without refering to climate. Sense, only at topic will do
54	Robert Hearn	Scientist	USA	Nice explanation
55	Christopher Perry	Retired airline pilot	UK
56	Fred Klaas	VP Operations, Photogenics Div, Mission Support...	USA
57	Harold	Nurse	Netherlands
58	anon	Engineer	USA
59	M Premanik	Engineer	India
60	Douglas Wise	Retired research scientist	UK
61	Claus Grupen	Professor of Physics	Germany	I generally agree with most of the statements, but one should take care of a proper treatment of radioactive waste and to avoid dumping of large quantities of liquid radioactice waste into the ocean.
63	anon	Senior academic administrator	UK
67	Donuglas Hunter	Engineer	UK
68	anon	Retired software developer	Canada	up with LFTRs
69	Robert Turner	Retired engineer	UK	I worked in the Nuclear Engineering field for most of my working life. Firstly as a Nuclear Submariner, and then for the nuclear power plant design and build authority. My Mothers life was extended by radiation treatment, like wise so have 2 friends lives been extended by the same treatment. Nuclear Power is the safest large electrical power production system on the planet. Anybody who hasn't worked in the Nuclear Industry, and who doesn't understand the safety culture and the rigorous engineering standards imposed by the design specifications, would do well to undertake some research before making critical comments about, nuclear waste, accidents, radiation levels, and other related nuclear matters. They do mankind no favours with their ill founded comments. We should not be burning such a useful and limited resource which oil and gas provide. They are to valuable for other uses, not burning! Especially when a safe and clean alternative for power generation has been available for in excess of 40 years. The concept of ALARA is fundamentally wrong. It is more practical to operate within certain laid down levels for dose rates using the principles of ALARP.
70	Robert Hargraves	Retired, author	USA	Well written prose, with good data in the bullet points. I think we also need some PowerPoint presentations where each page contains real data, displaying harm, or ionizations, or benefits. We need to persuade people with graphs, table, charts, etc that show real, observed data.
71	John MR Watson	Retired	UK	Good luck
72	Ingmar Lindman	Retired	Finland
73	Michael Hart	Scientist	England	Opponents will point out that Marie Curie suffered illness and possibly death as a result of her work with radioactive substances. The risks and hazards need to be sensibly managed.
75	anon	Retired scientist	New Zealand	This article was forwarded by ********* who is editing a book I shall shortly publish on climate change. A good and truthful article.
77	anon	Director of companies	UK	Great work, well done. The only way to combat ignorance is with good science
78	Diana Broadbent	Retired	New Zealand	Sub editing book airmed at layperson understanding of nuclear energy, climate change and overpopulation
79	Theo Richel	Science journalist	Netherlands	Wonderful text, only I could do without referring to the climate 'debate'. In fact both radiation fear (LNT) as fear for future heating are based on extrapolations based on assumption. The facts do not show any health dangers below 100 msv related to radiation, nor a catastrophic heating related to CO2. Both are theoretical constructs used for political purposes.
80	Mark Miller	Certified health physicist	USA
81	Rousseau Dasgupta	Management Consultant	UK
83	Martin Livermore	Consultant - scientifically qualified	UK

---

---

NO, do not agree
1	Greg Packer	Innovator/designer /of Technology	Australia	I dont know where you aquire your biased information from! This is typical coming from people working in the nuclear industry. There is other technology out there that will eliminate the use of Uranium to generate power, if you want to know contact me.For x-ray /medical purposes it is essential but totally unnecessary for energy production.I have just designed a small supersonic engine that uses water as fuel and our technology. But does not leave mountains of spent radioactive fuel rods.Does anyone have a rediculous answer for the necessity to continue this stupidity.
20	Pete Wilkinson	Environmental consultant	UK	The assertions made in the article are simplistic and naive. There are too many for me to comment on individually. I despair that you are not dedicating this level of energy to bringing both sides of the debate together to reduce the significant uncertainties around the impacts of low levels of exposure, particularly through inhalation and ingestion.
39	Anon	Stakeholder Group	England	Numerous global epidemiological studies demonstrate that there is no safe level of exposure to poisonous radionucleides continuously discharged from nuclear sites. They are available from the Green Audit website and the Stop Hinkley website. Somerset coastal residents exposed to gaseous and liquid discharges from Hinkley Point have suffered premature deaths and chronic ill health among men, women and children since 1965 when the first Hinkley A Magnox reactors became operational. The two Hinkley AGR reactors are at risk of becoming the next Fukushima due to age related misaligned graphite bricks, failed boiler tube welds and faulty fuel pins. The regulators have just granted the site licensee permission to extend the AGR lifetime, not on their own independent assessment but relying on the operators' risk assessment. The problem with Wade Allison and other nuclear physicists is they have no understanding of the effects of man made radiation on the human body. If they would just spend the time to read all the scientific evidence of this, they would have to accept that nuclear power is now, always has been and always will be a danger to human life, not only existing populations but their children ad infinitum through heritable genetic mutations.
62	Richard Bramhall	Company Secretary	UK	I see that your pages cite two favourable Amazon reviews of Radiation and Reason but ignore the critical one I posted on Amazon nearly 2 years ago. Mine is still the only critical review and I have refuted the attacks on it. Your refusal to address my criticism goes to the heart of what's wrong with your thesis; i.e. that you ignore microdosimetry. The same issue destroys the utility of the ICRP risk model though taking the argument in the opposite direction to the one you want.
64	Marianne Birkby	Cumbrian artist and anti-nuclear activist	England	radiation is good for me? oh aye it can kill cancerous cell tissue faster than healthy cell tissue but good for me? maybe in a cartoon world your thesis could be believed but the thesis is not backed up by evidence only PR spin. Marianne Birkby | 04.09.2009 14:24 | Analysis | Climate Chaos | Health | World Bodysnatching, radioactive poisoning and infanticide, the nuclear industry has it all in spades. Is this alarmist, you might ask? No, not really. From Bardsea beach looking towards Heysham Let's look at "bodysnatching": remember the Redfern Inquiry into the taking of body parts from radioactively-contaminated workers in Cumbria? Radiation Free Lakeland has been contacted by many people anxious to know when the findings of this Inquiry will be revealed so that justice and closure can take place. That thousands of dead nuclear workers' organs were taken without consent for secret research into radiation poisoning was and is morally unacceptable. The government has put the Redfern Inquiry "on hold" indefinitely. What other industry can get away with such a suspension of justice and carry on with business as usual? Radioactive poisoning? Sellafield recently admitted to exposing two workers to dangerous levels of radiation in 2007 and were supposed to be sentenced in Carlisle's Crown Court on 21st August this year. This also has been held back and at the time of writing no new date has been set. Again, what other industry has such power and influence? Infanticide? In Germany, a major Government-sponsored scientific study recently uncovered very strong links between living near nuclear power plants and childhood leukaemia: these findings were accepted by its government. Many peer-reviewed scientific articles in respected journals have described these disturbing findings in detail. In essence, increased numbers of pregnant women near German nuclear reactors are having babies which later die of leukaemia. Let's call this by its proper name: infanticide. It appears we might be killing our babies for the sake of nuclear electricity. Should we be doing this? Should we be proposing to build yet more nuclear reactors? Where has our moral compass gone? Independent scientists have stated that whatever the explanation for these increased leukaemia deaths in babies, they raise difficult questions including whether vulnerable people - in particular, pregnant women and women of child-bearing age - should be advised to move away from nuclear facilities. What other industry would be allowed to get away with this nonsense? Can you imagine a chemical firm getting away with it? Some people appear to accept nuclear (often half-heartedly or with embarrassment) as they misguidedly think nuclear is a solution to global warming. But it isn't. The nuclear industry overall causes large carbon releases (think of uranium mining, milling and processing) and its potential for reducing UK CO2 emissions is a pitiful 4% according to the Government's Sustainable Development Commission in 2006. There are many options for reducing our CO2 emissions, but it turns out nuclear is the least cost effective. Just ask yourself - if nuclear power led to reduced reliance on oil then why is nuclear France's per capita consumption of oil higher than non-nuclear Italy, nuclear phase-out Germany or the EU average? But even if nuclear were everything the government and industry falsely claim regarding climate change - that would still not justify new build. Nuclear also results in our passing on dangerous nuclear wastes, for which there is no solution on the horizon, to our children and grandchildren and to future generations for many millennia: this is ethically and morally scandalous. So why are we being steam-rollered into a nuclear future? Let's stand up together and say, loudly, NO TO NUCLEAR. Medicine, Conflict and Survival Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713673482 Childhood cancers near German nuclear power stations: hypothesis to explain the cancer increases, Ian Fairlie Online Publication Date: 01 July 2009 https://webmail.plus.net/src/webmail.php
65	Janet Thompson	Organic fruit and veg trader	UK	Over whelming evidence of the dangers and illness caused by radioactive contamination esp. Low level which is more dangerous than thought. After Fukushima cancer rates have risen dramatically. Many cancers in villages around Sellafield , Cumbria, UK which are sometimes not recorded as such or the rates are manipulated. Madness to say radiation is beneficial.
74	anon	Retired	England	It is difficult to take part in this exercise, as it is a strange premise which smacks of a blatant lack of basic research or, perhaps, blind acceptance of nuclear industry propaganda. Sad that such a respected academic institution should allow its name to be sullied in this way. Who is funding it? Also a premise which is disrespectful to the thousands of dead, dying and damage people globally afflicted by this dirty industry's leaks. Would recommend some light reading of factual matter and a look at the real effects of radiation exposure are - even on people unconnected with the industry.
76	Bob Appelbaum	Agnotologist, Retired certified health physicist	USA	Are these "scientists" also Creationists? Creationists deny that DNA mutations under the forces of natural selection, genetic drift, and gene flow lead to the evolution of species. They deny evolution, which is the central theory of modern biology. These "scientists" deny the theory of LNT (calling it a "hypothesis" like Creationists refer to evolution). But LNT is analogous to evolutionary biology. In LNT, DNA mutations under the force of natural selection in the body's microenvironment cause certain cells to evolve into new "species" we call tumors. The secret of DNA's success is that it is mutable. If DNA repair were perfect, you would not be reading this.
82	anon	retired	USA	nuclear radiation is NOT safe. Lets move on to cheaper safe renewable energy like solar and wind.
84	Mary Wyburn	Scientist and human being	UK	Nuclear radiation is not safe. Yes we need power but nuclear is not the only choice. Economically the up front costs are huge and the clean up costs inconceivably high although actually unknown. Ditch nuclear and use our intelligence to generate power by other means.

웨이드 엘리슨 Namgok Lee 공포가 과학을

Facebook

Namgok Lee
YoesuateertndanSfcyip onunsatoSrednmum 21rmsm:09 ·



최영대 선생이 선물한 책을 읽고 있다.
원전을 둘러싼 찬반의견이 쌍방의 확증편향 간의 대립과 정치적 쟁점으로 되는 것을 넘어서는 것이 지금 우리가 겪고 있는 나라의 어려움과 지구환경의 위기를 넘어서는데 중요하다고 생각한다.
탈원전 쟁점이 정권의 유지와 교체의 뜨거운 잇슈로 되는 것을 넘어 

정치전환 문명전환의 마중물이 될 수 있는 건설적인 장으로 되기를 바란다.
원전 반대하는 사람들이 이런 책을 평정한 마음으로 읽을 수 있기를 바라고, 탈원전 반대하는 사람들이 원전에 반대하는 근거를 제시하는 책들을 차분하게 볼 수 있기를 바란다.
대립의 평행선을 인간의 축적된 지성으로 넘어서는 것이야말로 '전환'의 진정한 동력이라고 생각한다.
확증편향과 관성적 생각 비합리적 낙관이나 비관에서 벗어나 실사구시와 인간의
사랑의 능력을 결합하자.
이 책의 저자, 웨이드 엘리슨의 말을 소개한다.

"시급하고도 진정한 재앙인 기후온난화와 싸우는 가장 현실적인 방법은 방사선 허용 한도를 현재 (연간1밀리시버트)보다 1888배로 올려 핵발전소 건설비용을 대폭 낮추고, 무탄소 전원인 핵발전소를 빨리 증설하는 것이다"

내가 이 책을 소개하는 것은 과학과 지성의 힘으로 쌍방의 확증편향에서 벗어나 무엇이 지금의 기후위기 등 지구적 재앙에서 벗어나 인류 생존과 진보를 향한 길인지 함께 찾아보자는 취지이다.
가장 뜨거운 잇슈들이 대결의 장이 아니라, 연찬의 장이 되는 것이 가장 강력한 '전환'의 가능성을 여는 길이라고 생각하기 때문이다.
책 한권이나 논문이나 영화 한편으로 생각이나 입장이 결정되거나 바뀌는 것이 아니라, 우리 시대의 위기를 극복하고 정치와 문명을 '누가 옳은가를 각각의 확증편향에서서 마주보고 대결'하는 것이 아니라, '전환하는 길이 무엇인지'를 같은 방향에서서 찾아보자는 취지로 소개한다.



33You, 崔明淑, 박정미 and 30 others

Radiation and Reason - Radiation and Reason, the impact of science on a culture of fear

Radiation and Reason - Radiation and Reason, the impact of science on a culture of fear










BOOK
SPUR(SARI)
REVIEWS
CONTENTS
BIOGRAPHY
ARTICLES
QUESTIONS
Recent postings
Apr 2021 The lessons that Covid-19 teaches https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351099976_Energy_and_Life_with_NetZero_Lessons_from_Covid-19
Mar 2021 Global threats: virus and climate https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350620182_The_global_coronavirus_experience_and_climate_change
Mar 2021 Letter published in Financial Times https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350090712_Letter_to_FT_163_Nuclear_Power_as_the_answer_to_the_Climate_Crisis
Feb 2021 Article on the neglected danger of batteries and their limits https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349216778_Big_batteries_-an_explosive_issue
Dec 2020 A discussion document on nuclear energy https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346914921_A_submission_Why_and_how_nuclear_energy_is_central_to_reaching_net_zero
Nov 2020 An article explaining why offshore wind is a bad investment https://www.researchgate.net/publication/345683154_Green_Power_at_Sea_Not_the_way_the_wind_blows_Off-shore_wind_will_not_keep_the_lights_on_in_the_UK
Aug 2020 An article questioning the accepted view of Hiroshima and Nagasaki https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343450598_Hiroshima_reconsidered
May 2020 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341277606_Rising_to_the_challenge_Florence_Nightingale_1820-1910
Mar 2020 A scientific examination of available energy sources with stark conclusions https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339629356_Nature_Energy_and_Society_A_scientific_study_of_the_options_facing_civilisation_today
Oct 2019 A poster presented at the IAEA Conference in Vienna https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336275666_UNDERSTANDING_THE_PLACE_OF_NUCLEAR_IN_THE_SCIENCE_OF_ENERGY
Oct 2019 A Powerpoint lecture https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336967602_The_Next_Industrial_Revolution_A_lecture_given_to_St_Dominics_Sixth_Form_College_Harrow-on-the-Hill_London
Sep 2019 A lecture given at a meeting at the Sheffield School of Management https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336145386_Nuclear_Energy_The_Third_Energy_Revolution
Apr 2019 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332766939_Now_for_the_Third_Energy_Revolution_-it%27s_Nuclear
Apr 2019 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332383736_Wade_Allison%27s_Review_of_the_book_Manual_for_Survival_by_Kate_Brown
Jan 2019 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330757080_Nuclear_energy_sufficient_for_modern_life_in_the_era_of_climate_change
Nov 2018 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328996079_When_Fear_Kills_The_Case_of_Nuclear_Energy_pdf_version
Jun 2018 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325904633_Nuclear_and_radiation_phobia_neglected_by_public_health_for_70_years
Jan 2018 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322665782_To_know_or_not_to_know_the_nuclear_question
Nov 2017 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321020610_Marie_Curie_and_Nuclear_Power

27 July 2017 Lessons on public safety from Grenfell and Fukushima (134 Kb)
22 May 2017 Radiation is not the tiger (109 Kb)
8 May 2017 Protected by Nature (140 Kb)
1 Nov 2016 Nuclear Energy and Society, Radiation and Life - the Evidence (508 Kb) Oxford Energy Colloquium

Two books (download PDF free or order paperback from distributor)

Dec 2015 Nuclear is for Life: A Cultural Revolution (10.6 Mb) , buy softback or read free online
23 Oct 2009 Radiation and Reason (updated 2012) (8.7 Mb) or buy soft/kindle/epub edition

Links to other sites and parliamentary submissions24 May 2016 UK Parliamentary S&T Committee Submission to Science in Emergencies Inquiry
4 March 2016 UK Parliamentary Welsh Affairs Committee Submission to Nuclear Power Inquiry
7 Dec 2011 UK Parliamentary S&T Committee Submission to Risk Perception and Energy Infrastructure Inquiry
26 Mar 2011 BBC World Service Viewpoint: We should stop running away from radiation
International Scientists for Accurate Radiation Information (SARI)
To contact: email wade.allison@physics.ox.ac.uk
VideosDec 2014 Tokyo Press Conf. Time for the scientific environmental and economic truth about nuclear power with handout at Foreign Correspondents Club of Japan (1.5 Mb)
3 Oct 2014 Lecture for 16/17 years Radiation and Reason: A Fresh Look at the Effect of Radiation On Life
18 Aug 2014 Face-to-face tutorial with slides Why radiation is safe & all nations should embrace nuclear technology . Also available with subtitles and slides in Japanese
4 June 2014 Interview with ICHEME Why we should not fear radiation!
3 Oct 2013 Colloquium at CERN Radiation and Reason; Why radiation at modest dose rates is quite harmless and current radiation safety regulations are flawed with Q&A
20 Mar 2013 Interview with Nuclear Literacy Project
15 Oct 2012 Podcast with slides at Oxford Energy Society Lecture (6.4 Mb)

29 June 2012 Interview in Chicago at American Nuclear Society Meeting video
4 Oct 2011 Interview in Tokyo with Professor Ikeda video with Japanese subtitles
3 May 2011 Cardiff Science Cafe video lecture

Editions of the book Radiation and Reason

23 Oct 2009 English edition Book Information (94 Kb). Sample chapters can be found on the CONTENTS tab
Download Conclusions and Fukushima Epilogue (96 Kb) and post Fukushima Preface (79 Kb)
29 July 2011 Japanese edition can be found on Amazon
February 2013 Chinese edition likewise

Nuclear is for Life: Wade Allison

Nuclear is for Life: Wade Allison: 9780956275646: Amazon.com: Books

See this image

Follow the Author

Wade Allison

+ Follow

Nuclear is for Life Paperback – January 1, 2015

by Wade Allison  (Author)

5.0 out of 5 stars    10 ratings

See all formats and editions

Paperback

AUD 34.76 

5 Used from AUD 27.80

11 New from AUD 29.19

Is nuclear the answer to carbon-free energy? There is every reason to welcome it and none to reject it. Life has evolved protection against radiation, and high doses are used to cure cancer. Nuclear radiation is rarely life-threatening: for example, at Fukushima there was no radiation casualty at all. The evidence from such accidents, from medicine, from the physical and biological sciences - these all tell us that the increased use of nuclear should be safe and beneficial to life on an over-crowded planet. Current radiation regulations are not based on science: they come from 70 years of social reaction to a phobia. How did this happen, historically? This book provides explanations and answers to many questions. With an open informed culture, it concludes, nuclear energy could supply carbon-free electricity at low cost. Nuclear power should be freed from science-blind restrictions and so help save the planet as we know it.

This item: Nuclear is for Life

by Wade Allison

Paperback

AUD 34.76

Radiation and Reason: The Impact of Science on a Culture of Fear

by Wade Allison

Paperback

AUD 32.01

Customers who viewed this item also viewed

Radiation and Reason: The Impact of Science on a Culture of Fear

Radiation and Reason: The Impact of Science on a Culture of Fear

Wade Allison

4.4 out of 5 stars 43

Paperback

AUD32.01

Get it as soon as Thursday, Jul 29

FREE Shipping on orders over AUD 34.79 shipped by Amazon

Only 5 left in stock (more on the way).

Customers who bought this item also bought

Radiation and Reason: The Impact of Science on a Culture of Fear

Radiation and Reason: The Impact of Science on a Culture of Fear

Wade Allison

4.4 out of 5 stars 43

Paperback

AUD32.01

Get it as soon as Thursday, Jul 29

FREE Shipping on orders over AUD 34.79 shipped by Amazon

Only 5 left in stock (more on the way).

Product details

Publisher ‏ : ‎ Wade Allison Publishing (January 1, 2015)

Language ‏ : ‎ English

ISBN-10 ‏ : ‎ 0956275648

ISBN-13 ‏ : ‎ 978-0956275646

Item Weight ‏ : ‎ 1.25 pounds

Dimensions ‏ : ‎ 9.13 x 0.94 x 6.22 inches

Best Sellers Rank: #2,419,235 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

Customer Reviews: 5.0 out of 5 stars    10 ratings

Videos

Help others learn more about this product by uploading a video!

Upload video

More about the author

› Visit Amazon's Wade Allison Page

Wade Allison

 Follow

Biography

Wade Allison is a Fellow of Keble College and a Professor of Physics at the University of Oxford where he has studied and taught for over 40 years. His earlier research work was in high energy physics, in particular the radiation field of relativistic particles, but his interests and expertise have spread much wider. Now he is concerned with medical physics and the choices facing mankind. First he published Fundamental Physics for Probing and Imaging, an advanced textbook for his course at Oxford on physics in medicine and the wider environment. Then he published Radiation and Reason, a carefully argued popular science book aimed at the pervasive (and unjustified) fear of radiation (and all things nuclear). He recently "retired" and lectures widely, for schools, academics and the wider public, in Oxford, around the UK and abroad. Then came Fukushima - no surprises for Wade, but panic for those who had not yet read Radiation and Reason! His third book, Nuclear is for Life, gives the evidence and tells the story in a wider historical and philosophical context. The science is easy, but the reaction of human society has been science-blind. Now Wade is working on his fourth book. It is about real science, he says. It is the one he wanted to write in the first place!

 Show Less

How would you rate your experience shopping for books on Amazon today

Very poor Neutral Great

Customer reviews

5.0 out of 5 stars

5 out of 5

10 global ratings

5 star

 100%

4 star 0% (0%)

 0%

3 star 0% (0%)

 0%

2 star 0% (0%)

 0%

1 star 0% (0%)

 0%

How are ratings calculated?

Review this product

Share your thoughts with other customers

Write a customer review

Top reviews

Top reviews

Top reviews from the United States

Martin H. Goodman

5.0 out of 5 stars BEST book written informing of the biological effects of radiation on humans

Reviewed in the United States on April 13, 2021

Verified Purchase

First off... who am I to review this book? I am a physician and scientist. A mountaineer, backpacker, long distance cyclist, river rafter, I have all my life been an environmentalist. My political view of the world is that of a leftist who has long fought for social justice. I have decades of experience distinguishing between junk science and credible science, quack medicine and likely accurate and valid medicine in scientific and public papers.

This book, despite it's rather poorly chosen title (it's a revision of Wade's very wisely and well titled earlier work, "Radiation and Reason") is nothing short of brilliant. Outstanding. It is the best single source I've seen (and I've read many many dozens of such) for detailed information on the biological effects of radiation, with extensive presentation of many of the key studies that are the basis of all our knowledge of such.

Wade is a retired particle physicist, who spent years educating himself in medicine in general and epidemiology i in particular, in order to present to the educated public the facts concerning the biological effects of radiation. It is truly extraordinary. This book will likely challenge fixed beliefs of many who read it... but the challenge is in the form of the preponderance of intellectually honestly and well collected evidence.

This is one of the finest detailed presentations of complex science and medicine I have ever read.

ANYONE who wishes to be informed about how we should address climate change... about what energy policy makes sense for dealing with greenhouse gas accumulation and global warming... or who wishes to know what dangers radiation might poses, should read this book, cover to cover. It will dispel the myths and outright deliberate lies that are so often presented in the media concerning radiation. And replace ignorance and fear with a deep and thorough understanding of the facts. What more can one ask from a book intended to present facts of science and medicine to the public??

As Marie Curie famously said:

Nothing in life is to be feared, it is only to be understood. Now is the time to understand more, so that we may fear less.

Read less

Helpful

Report abuse

TaxiDrivin' Daddy

5.0 out of 5 stars Who's afraid of the tiny, energetic gamma? Why??

Reviewed in the United States on July 9, 2018

Verified Purchase

Easy enough for a bright 14 year old, Prof Allison writes how he firmly believes that popular concerns about radiation not only exaggerate fears but are nearly baseless! With minimal scientific terminology, he shares stories of exposure & results of studies which shows that dangerous radiation is very hard to encounter in our daily lives - in fact very few individuals ever will.

Prof Allison has previously published a textbook on this subject based on several years of teaching a class filled with a mix of medical & physics students. He knows this subject quite well, and we all can benefit from his expertise by merely reading.

Helpful

Report abuse

Jerry Cuttler

5.0 out of 5 stars Excellent book. I strong dose of reality

Reviewed in the United States on December 8, 2016

Verified Purchase

Excellent book. I strong dose of reality.

3 people found this helpful

Helpful

Report abuse

U. Hoegg

5.0 out of 5 stars This book is a "must read"

Reviewed in the United States on December 28, 2015

This book should have been an important input for the decision making processes at the World Climate Conference in Paris 2015, the Cop 21. But Nuclear Energy was not even mentioned there.

Wade Allison challenges the worldwide cultural attitude to nuclear science spread by media, political and other voices for the past 70 years.

However the US Chamber of Commerce on Nov. 15, 2015 submitted a high level petition to the US Nuclear Regulation Commitee to review these obsolescent historic standards. The petition could have been written by Wade himself.

The implications for future supplies of energy, fresh water and food are far-reaching for our polluted and crowded planet.

This book is an enlightening and thrilling must read.

4 people found this helpful

Helpful

Report abuse

R C Crane

5.0 out of 5 stars Whow! The 20th century slipped by so fast. ...

Reviewed in the United States on January 17, 2016

Whow! The 20th century slipped by so fast. We forgot to ask ourselves why we were anti-nuclear. We were mesmerised by Hiroshima and the Cold War. This book looks at the science. Someone who's worked in medical science. Someone who knows what radiation does to living tissue - or more correctly doesn't do: we have evolved over three billion years to handle low-level radiation. Wade Allison explains DNA repair processes, single strand breaks and double strand breaks, and apoptosis. Fukushima in a new light. This is literature for the 21st century.

4 people found this helpful

Helpful

Report abuse

See all reviews

Top reviews from other countries

Translate all reviews to English

J Assheton

5.0 out of 5 stars Brilliant info - no nonsense (or non-science!)

Reviewed in the United Kingdom on March 28, 2016

Verified Purchase

I'm still reading this but it should put to bed the spurious rubbish that cause such fears over nuclear power and general safety about radiation. Governments have pandered to vocal people and groups about the "dangers of nuclear" when they (government and international bodies ) have made little or no efforts to really check the facts.

Saying radiation, that is ionizing radiation - i.e. anything with a shorter wavelength than uv sunlight, is bad for humans regardless of how little we receive, (called LNT - Linear Non Threshold), is clearly WRONG. Humans have evolved with radiation at 1000s of times the "legal limit" set, for the whole of past time. Go to Brazil or Northern Iran and people live quite happily with background radiation much higher than these limits.

Professor Allison should be applauded from the rooftops for this work.

One person found this helpful

Report abuse

mr m sell

5.0 out of 5 stars The only way to save the planet.

Reviewed in the United Kingdom on April 3, 2019

Verified Purchase

If it's not already too late (climate change) we must start building nuclear reactors as quickly as possible and STOP burning fossil fuels.

One person found this helpful

Report abuse

R. J. Macdonald

5.0 out of 5 stars Five Stars

Reviewed in the United Kingdom on January 7, 2016

Verified Purchase

A book everybody should read

One person found this helpful

Report abuse

Vielleser

5.0 out of 5 stars Nuclear power is even better than I thought.

Reviewed in Germany on November 4, 2018

Verified Purchase

As an advocate of nuclear energy I still was surprised to learn that my view on the dangers of radiation were too pessimistic. The one big problem we have is perception.

Report abuse

U. Hoegg

5.0 out of 5 stars Ein wichtiger Beitrag zum Klimaschutz

Reviewed in Germany on December 2, 2015

Verified Purchase

Rechtzeitig zum Klimagipfel in Paris berichtet Wade Allison (Oxford) über frappierende Erkenntnisse aus siebzig Jahren Strahlenforschung:

1. Gestaffelte Bestrahlungen sind wesentlich verträglicher als Einmaldosen.

2. Daraus folgt, dass die "Linear Non Threshhold (LNT)" Theorie, die von der lebenslangen Akkumulation aller Bestrahlungen ausgeht, nicht

haltbar ist.

3. Die daraus abgeleiteten internationalen Schutzempfehlungen sind dementsprechend viel zu niedrig.

4. In Fukushima hätte kein Mensch je evakuiert zu werden brauchen!

5. In deutschen Kernkraftwerken ist nie jemand durch Strahlung zu Schaden gekommen und, außer in Tschernobyl, auch global nicht.

6. Auf den Betrieb bestehender Atomkraftwerke sollten wir allein aus Klimagründen nicht vorzeitig verzichten.

Hunderte wissenschaftlicher Studien haben sich seit Hiroshima und Nagasaki mit den Kurz- und Langzeitfolgen von Strahlen in allen Bereichen des Lebens beschäftigt. Diese Studien und seine eigenen strahlenmedizinischen Beobachtungen dienten Wade Allison als Grundlage für obige Feststellungen. Er gelangt in diesem Rahmen zu der überraschenden Erkenntnis, dass relativ hohe Strahlendosen bis 100 Milli-Sievert pro Monat nicht gesundheitsschädlich sondern eher gesundheitsförderlich sind.

Das Spannende an Allisons Buch ist seine fachkundige Zusammenführung der physikalischen, biologischen und epidemiologischen Fakten mit den gesellschaftlichen und politischen Entwicklungen. Er macht die gegenwärtig bestehende allseitige Strahlenphobie verständlich und greifbar.

Dieses Buch ist eine geistige Herausforderung. Es ruft dazu auf, allen Vorbehalten und Emotionen unserer Zeit zum Trotz, logisch zu denken und sich bei dem heiklen Thema Kernstrahlung eine eigene persönliche Meinung zu bilden: "Is Nuclear really for Life?"

Read less

3 people found this helpful

Report abuse

Translate review to English

Radiation and Reason: The Impact of Science on a Culture of Fear: Wade Allison: 9780956275615: Amazon.com: Books

Radiation and Reason: The Impact of Science on a Culture of Fear: Wade Allison: 9780956275615: Amazon.com: Books

Radiation and Reason: The Impact of Science on a Culture of Fear Paperback – October 23, 2009

by Wade Allison  (Author)

4.4 out of 5 stars    43 ratings

See all formats and editions

Paperback

AUD 37.72 

Publisher ‏ : ‎ Wade Allison Publishing (October 23, 2009)

Language ‏ : ‎ English

Paperback ‏ : ‎ 216 pages

Customer Reviews: 4.4 out of 5 stars    43 ratings

Videos

Help others learn more about this product by uploading a video!

Upload video

More about the author

› Visit Amazon's Wade Allison Page

Wade Allison

 Follow

Biography

Wade Allison is a Fellow of Keble College and a Professor of Physics at the University of Oxford where he has studied and taught for over 40 years. His earlier research work was in high energy physics, in particular the radiation field of relativistic particles, but his interests and expertise have spread much wider. Now he is concerned with medical physics and the choices facing mankind. First he published Fundamental Physics for Probing and Imaging, an advanced textbook for his course at Oxford on physics in medicine and the wider environment. Then he published Radiation and Reason, a carefully argued popular science book aimed at the pervasive (and unjustified) fear of radiation (and all things nuclear). He recently "retired" and lectures widely, for schools, academics and the wider public, in Oxford, around the UK and abroad. Then came Fukushima - no surprises for Wade, but panic for those who had not yet read Radiation and Reason! His third book, Nuclear is for Life, gives the evidence and tells the story in a wider historical and philosophical context. The science is easy, but the reaction of human society has been science-blind. Now Wade is working on his fourth book. It is about real science, he says. It is the one he wanted to write in the first place!

 Show Less

How would you rate your experience shopping for books on Amazon today

Very poor Neutral Great

Customer reviews

4.4 out of 5 stars

4.4 out of 5

43 global ratings

5 star

 69%

4 star

 16%

3 star

 6%

2 star

 5%

1 star

 4%

How are ratings calculated?

Review this product

Share your thoughts with other customers

Write a customer review

Sponsored 

Read reviews that mention

nuclear power radiological protection wade allison nuclear industry power plants nuclear energy radiation and reason scientific effects fukushima died evidence exposure japanese workers risks based fear science current

Top reviews

Top reviews

Top reviews from the United States

S. Duval

5.0 out of 5 stars Seminal work on radiation and safety

Reviewed in the United States on November 22, 2014

Verified Purchase

Professor Wade has written the seminal work on radiation and safety. Prof. Wade taught and researched particle physics at Oxford for 40 years. He was not an English major or a sociology professor. In 2005 he developed a course and textbook on the use of radiation in medicine for imaging and cancer radiotherapy.

The book describes how the current fear of radiation developed. The safety standards set up in 1950 were based upon very little scientific knowledge or experience. They were designed to be very conservative and based upon the Linear No Threshold (LNT) theory. By 1990 these standards were tightened by a factor of 150. Prof Wade recommends that the safety standards be reduced by a factor of 6 from 1950 or 1000 from 1990.

Prof Wade relies upon empirical evidence to support his conclusion: medical history of survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, medical history of workers exposed to radiation, radiobiology, cancer radiotherapy, medical experiments on laboratory animals, and background radiation levels.

The nuclear bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki exposed hundreds of thousands of people to very high levels of single dose full body radiation. 280,000 survivors were tracked from 1950 to 1990 relative to a control group of 25,000 not exposed to radiation. 7.9% of the survivors died of cancer, 7.5% of natural causes and .4% from radiation induced cancer. Statistically significant radiation effects are seen for cancers but not for other causes of death or effects upon pregnancy. The level of cancer risk below 100 milli sieverts is so low that it can not be detected in a 50 year study involving 100,000 people. This contradicts the no threshold assumption of the LNT theory.

The average additional cancer rate per 1000 people over 50 years was 5 which corresponds to a 10 week reduction in life expectancy. But this number varied from 8 per thousand at 100-200 millisieverts to 90 per thousand above 2000 millisieverts.

The UK Ministry of Defense did a study of 170,000 workers exposed to an average of 25 millisievert of radiation above background radiation levels over their careers. These workers were tracked to age 85 or 2002 whichever came first. These workers suffered about 20% less cancers than the general population. This result is consistent with a threshold level at which radiation poses no danger and is suggestive of a positive effect resulting from low radiation doses.

Denver, at a high altitude, has radiation levels that are three times the safety standard set by the International Commission for Radiological Protection but a lower cancer rate than the US on average. This result is consistent with a threshold level at which radiation poses no danger and is suggestive of a positive effect resulting from low radiation doses.

Anti nuclear Greens will say that setting the radiation safety standards 1000 times lower than required is just erring on the side of safety. The problem is the effect that this standard has upon the lives of people living near a nuclear accident. No one died from radiation in Fukushima, 1600 people have died from the effects of the evacuation of Fukushima (suicides and people hospitalized at the time of the evacuation). Hundreds of thousands of people's lives have been turned completely upside down because the government will not allow them to return to their homes, their community, their businesses, and their jobs.

Green activists who whipped up the irrational fear of radiation during the Fukushima crisis have blood on their hands.

Read less

5 people found this helpful

Helpful

Report abuse

TaxiDrivin' Daddy

4.0 out of 5 stars Very basic so as not to skip any details.

Reviewed in the United States on June 6, 2016

Verified Purchase

A bit basic for many who did well in high school science, there are still many excellent insights peppered throughout which are not often articulated partly because they are taken for granted by those who already know. Radiation is certainly something to be wary of in much the same way as being out in the sun for more than an hour. Wait - that's the same thing....

One person found this helpful

Helpful

Report abuse

Duke of Waiheke

5.0 out of 5 stars Great book for the lay person

Reviewed in the United States on March 12, 2014

Verified Purchase

This book is very useful for the lay person. Whilst some of the matter is technical it still can be grasped. It provides the information with which a person can make informed judgements about nuclear power and to put its associated risks in perspective. It is of use to people who would like to be informed about the world around them.I believe this book will not be useful to those who have already made up their minds as to the unacceptability of nuclear power. If you are one of these people then do not read this book. It will challenge your beliefs.

5 people found this helpful

Helpful

Report abuse

Charles F. Hawkins

5.0 out of 5 stars Pubic fear of nuclear is killing us

Reviewed in the United States on April 30, 2015

Verified Purchase

The book is clearly written getting to the heart nuclear reactors. It gets high marks for that. The one disappointment was thorium. There was a short summary of its magic properties, no follow up. Th deserves the detailed description of the other technologies. I kept waiting for one as I read on. Otherwise an excellent book..

4 people found this helpful

Helpful

Report abuse

gjellerup

5.0 out of 5 stars Puts Radiation Exposure in Perspective

Reviewed in the United States on September 21, 2012

Verified Purchase

Dr. Wade Allison has written an impressive book explaining what radiation is, how it works, and what it can and cannot do. All life developed in a sea of natural radiation and we are still continuously exposed to it today. Some studies indicate that life cannot survive without it. Other studies indicate that low-dose radiation stimulates the DNA repair system. Fear-mongering about radiation doses tinier than the ones you receive flying in a jet or visiting the American Southwest have led people to panic about nuclear power while ignoring the enormous annual death toll from fossil fuel emissions. An important book on an important topic.

9 people found this helpful

Helpful

Report abuse

Amazon Customer

5.0 out of 5 stars The world needed this book 20 years ago

Reviewed in the United States on June 14, 2013

Verified Purchase

France has been producing electricity with nuclear power for less than 80 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour for over

20 years. Meanwhile German electricity generates 6 times as much CO2 per kilowatt hour and Australia's generates

over 10 times more. Just imagine if the anti-nuclear movement hadn't stopped the nuclear

roll out in the 80s and 90s in the US and elsewhere. We'd all have much cleaner electricity and climate change would

be far less critical. Ignorance about radiation drove the fear mongering and we have lost, as a consequence

20 years on the battle against climate change.

The suffering at Fukushima could also have been avoided. The public could have and should have been back rebuilding

their lives. But instead they are homeless and traumatised, a savage testimony to the power of ignorance to terrify.

8 people found this helpful

Helpful

Report abuse

Matt Robinson

5.0 out of 5 stars Recommended for everyone.

Reviewed in the United States on October 13, 2014

Verified Purchase

A clear and concise call to everyone to re-evaluate their position on the real dangers of radiation and consequently their feelings about nuclear power. A must- read.

3 people found this helpful

Helpful

Report abuse

See all reviews

Top reviews from other countries

Cssor

4.0 out of 5 stars Nuclear energy and global warming

Reviewed in the United Kingdom on September 26, 2019

Verified Purchase

I found this book useful regarding nuclear energy from my standpoint, as I'm no physic's expert, the technical detail is to some extent quite involved, however as a layman it was not to bad. However, it implies the safety regime applied to Nuclear energy appears in some areas way over the top. Given that nuclear generators do not contribute to global warming, and the waste they produced is minimal compared to carbon fuelled generators. Also it suggest's this energy source, could supply our future carbon free energy needs. Any one interested in this subject, I feel the book is worth a read.

One person found this helpful

Report abuse

Skote123

5.0 out of 5 stars Should be required reading for policymakers and politicians

Reviewed in the United Kingdom on February 22, 2015

Verified Purchase

Everyone who spouts opinion in the pub, workplace or worst of all in the media about nuclear matters, Chernobyl, Fukushima and so on should read this book and educate themselves on such an emotive subject. You don't need to be a scientist to read and understand this book and be prepared, it will change (unless you're completely close-minded) the way you think about radioactivity. Wade Allison is in his own informative way (as does the documentary "Pandora's Promise") challenging the prevailing and incorrect scaremongering cliches that surround radiation. Three eyed fish? Glowing green rods? Mass cancers? Duck and cover? Mushroom clouds above power stations? No. Read this and think again. If only our leaders who grew up in the Cold War and cut their political teeth in the CND era rad this book, there might be more reasoned debate about energy matters, public safety and climate change going on.

One person found this helpful

Report abuse

William Rees

5.0 out of 5 stars Rational and Worthwhile

Reviewed in the United Kingdom on March 23, 2014

Verified Purchase

Wade Allison may well be a high flying academic but "Radiation and Reason" is far from being a dry academic tome. It deliberately sets out to challenge your preconceptions about radiation and nuclear power. Particularly it challenges the many bizarre old wives tales that surround nuclear radiation.

I suspect the people who are in most need of enlightenment from this book are so locked in their medieval dogma they would regard it as a heresy. Consequently they are not likely to read it. Which is a shame.

Even so, for the rest of us, it is a worthwhile and rational exploration of the issues surrounding nuclear radiation.

One person found this helpful

Report abuse

Amazon Customer

5.0 out of 5 stars Should be compulsory reading

Reviewed in the United Kingdom on November 30, 2016

Verified Purchase

This is a truly eye-opening book that successfully challenges the lies and deceit surrounding radiation and nuclear power. Wade Allison builds a convincing case, aptly using historical examples to highlight the disconnect between perceptions and reality. It is refreshing to see that someone decides to challenge a status quo that has been taken for granted for too long, as it has done so much damage to the nuclear cause. Until we change the way we talk and teach about radiation, everyone should read this book!

One person found this helpful

Report abuse

Urs Bolt

5.0 out of 5 stars Fundamental reading to understand radiation

Reviewed in the United Kingdom on August 23, 2014

Verified Purchase

This book helped me to lose the irrational fear of radiation which is common in the public. But to help others the book also explains in understandable scientific terms what the facts backed by credible references, experiences and studies are.

Important reading for those with radiophobia or in general still shuddering when the word nuclear radiation is mentioned. It will certainly help you to rethink your opinion.

One person found this helpful

===

COMMUNITY REVIEWS

Showing 1-46

 Average rating4.11  ·  Rating details ·  28 ratings  ·  4 reviews

Search review text

All Languages

More filters | Sort order

Sejin,

Sejin, start your review of Radiation And Reason: The Impact Of Science On A Culture Of Fear

Write a review

charles f hawkins

Mar 23, 2015charles f hawkins rated it did not like it  ·  review of another edition

Pubic fear of nuclear is killing us

The book is clearly written getting to the heart nuclear reactors. It gets high marks for that. The one disappointment was thorium. There was a short summary of its magic properties, no follow up. Th deserves the detailed description of the other technologies. I kept waiting for one as I read on. Otherwise an excellent book..

flag1 like · Like  · 1 comment · see review

Marie

May 10, 2015Marie rated it it was amazing  ·  review of another edition

Everything Professor Wade Allison says makes a lot of sense.

I never thought I would say this, but this book has given me much hope for the potential of nuclear power.

flag2 likes · Like  · comment · see review

Tracey Timko

Sep 06, 2019Tracey Timko rated it it was amazing

Side notes from an Oxford professor, yes, please. Anything that gives the educational side of radiation and playing down fear is a plus for me. This book adds clarity to the propaganda of radiation throughout the last century and makes me less concerned about the tiny dose we get for medical, dental, etc. reminding us that sun is also toxic in certain amounts along with many other elements that we live with everyday. A shame that one man stating that ANY dose is too much is the scale we still use to this day. He isn't alone in what level we need to raise the bar to as far as threshold and I had no idea this is utilized currently by some hospitals after doing my own research, ie. Michigan. He highlights the evolved immunity of human beings and how we are designed to deal with certain amounts of radiation perfectly fine and even healthier because of it. Without the fear and political nightmares...if there was more respect for science vs politics, we could someday live in a world that runs on nuclear and power the entire planet, make it cleaner again and feed billions of people...also, travel to other planets. I'm totally there with what this book explains. (less)

flagLike  · comment · see review

Christopher

Jul 15, 2017Christopher rated it really liked it

A bit basic for many who did well in high school science, there are still many excellent insights peppered throughout which are not often articulated partly because they are taken for granted by those who already know. Radiation is certainly something to be wary of in much the same way as being out in the sun for more than an hour. Wait - that's the same thing.... (less)

Report abuse

알라딘: 공포가 과학을 집어삼켰다 웨이드 앨리슨

알라딘: 공포가 과학을 집어삼켰다

공포가 과학을 집어삼켰다   

웨이드 앨리슨 (지은이), 강건욱, 강유현 (옮긴이), 조규성 (감수)   

글마당   2021-03-11

원제 Radiation and Reason: The Impact of Science on a Culture of Fear

304쪽152*223mm (A5신)426g

책소개

세계적인 석학인 영국 옥스퍼드대 물리학과 웨이드 앨리슨 명예교수가 쓴『Radiation and Reason- The Impact of Science on a Culture of Fear』의 번역본으로, 일본과 중국에서도 번역되어 큰 반향을 불러일으켰다. 특별히 후쿠시마 사고 10주년을 맞아 “과연 방사선은 얼마나 두려운 것인가?” 한국의 독자들에게 그 궁금증을 풀어주는, 방사선(원자력 포함)에 관한 A~Z까지 설명한 알기 쉬운 가이드북이다.

그리고 부록편에는 [강건욱 교수의 방사선 교실]을 수록하여, ‘방사선이란 무엇인가?, 방사선량이란?, 방사능과 방사선량 관계는?, 미량의 방사능도 몸속에 계속 축적되니 위험하지 않은가?, 인공방사선은 자연방사선보다 더 유해하지 않은가? 등의 10가지 주제들에 대한 국내 방사선분야의 최고 권위자의 명쾌한 대답을 들려주고 있다.접기

------------------

목차

추천사 / 조규성(KAIST 양자학및원자력공학과 교수)

저자의 서문/ 한국어판 서문, 재판 서문, 초판 서문

제1장 인식

실수 - 개인이 체감하는 위험 - 개인 및 집단 의견 -자신감과 결정 - 과학과 안전

제2장 대기환경

대기의 크기와 구성 - 대기 변화 - 에너지와 농업

제3장 원자핵

무섭고 강력하고 그렇지만 유익한 - 크기와 척도 - 원자와 전자 – 원자핵 - 정지핵 – 태양에너지

제4장 전리방사선

방사선의 스펙트럼 – 방사선에 의한 피해 – 원자핵의 안정성 – 방사선의 측정 – 자연 환경

제5장 안전과 손상

효과는 비례하는가 – 리스크의 균형 – 인간의 방어 기능 – 손상과 스트레스와의 관계 – 복구에 걸리는 시간 – 집단 선량 – 안전 마진 – 복합적인 원인 – 이로운 효과와 적응 효과 – 체르노빌에서 날아온 놀라운 소식

제6장 방사선에 의한 급성 피폭

분자에 미치는 영향 – 세포에 미치는 영향 – 고선량 피폭 증거 – 생체 복구 메커니즘 – 저선량 및 중간 선량 – 히로시마와 나가사키의생존자 - 방사선으로 야기되는 암 – 의료 진단검사 – 핵의학 - 체르노빌 피폭자들 – 어린이 갑상선암 – 체르노빌에서의 기타 암

제7장 방사선에 의한 만성 피폭

분산된 선량 - 암 치료에 사용되는 방사선 –분할치료 – 자연환경으로부터의 피폭 – 라돈과 폐암 – 방사선 작업 종사자와 시계공장 근로자 – 생물 방어 기능의 상세

제8장 원자력

원자력에너지의 방출 – 폭발 장치 – 핵분열을 이용한 원자력 발전 - 무기가 아닌 에너지 – 폐기물

제9장 방사선과 사회

방사선의 측정 - 대중이 우려하는 것 – 핵실험과 낙진 – 억지력과방사선의 측정 - 대중이 우려하는 것 – 핵실험과 낙진 –억지력과 안심 – 방사선 안전에 대한 판단

제10장 생존을 위한 행동

규제 완화 – 신규 핵발전소 – 핵연료와 정치 – 폐기물에 대한 전략 – 원전 해체 – 핵 확산과 테러리즘 – 핵융합 발전 – 비용과 경제성 – 담수와 식량 – 교육과 이해

제11장 총괄과 결론

에필로그 / 역자서문 1, 2 / 부록 강건욱 교수의 방사선 교실 / 참고문헌

접기

추천글

중앙SUNDAY: 중앙SUNDAY 2021년 3월 27일자 '책꽂이'

저자 소개

지은이: 웨이드 앨리슨 저자파일  신간알리미 신청

최근작 : <공포가 과학을 집어삼켰다> … 총 5종 (모두보기)

현재 옥스퍼드 대학교 명예교수이자 케블 칼리지의 팰로우이며, 40년 이상을 물리학 특히, 방사선 분야를 연구하고 가르쳤다.

저서는

『Radiation and Reason: The Impact of Science on a Culture of Fear』,

『Nuclear is for Life: A Cultural Revolution』, 

최근 옥스퍼드 대학교 의료물리 강좌의 심화 교과서인

『Fundamental Physics for Probing and Imaging』에서 “핵에너지가 없다면 인류의 미래는 불투명하다”라고 원자력의 중요성을 강조하고 있다.접기

옮긴이: 강건욱 저자파일  신간알리미 신청

최근작 : <포스트 코로나 대한민국>,<포스트 코로나 대한민국 (양장)> … 총 3종 (모두보기)

서울의대를 졸업하고 같은 대학에서 의학박사를 받고 서울의대, 서울대병원 핵의학과 교수로서 방사성동위원소를 이용한 암환자 진단, 치료와 연구에 전념하고 있다. 2013년부터 국제방사선방호위원회(ICRP) 의료분과 위원으로 국제 방사선안전기준 및 가이드라인 제정에 참여하고 있으며, 교재『고창순 핵의학』,『방사능 무섭니?』,『방사선과 건강』등 여러 저술에도 참여하였다

옮긴이: 강유현 저자파일  신간알리미 신청

최근작 : … 총 1종 (모두보기)

영국 세븐옥스고등학교를 졸업하고, 현재 유럽 최고의 이공계 대학인 영국 임페리얼 칼리지 런던 물리학과 재학중이다. 강건욱 교수의 딸이며 공동 번역에 참여하였다.

감수: 조규성 저자파일  신간알리미 신청

최근작 : … 총 2종 (모두보기)

서울대 학사, 석사를 거쳐 미국 UC Berkeley대학원에서 원자력공학 박사를 받고 현재 KAIST 원자력및양자공학과 교수이다. 한국방사선산업학회 회장과 KAIST IT융합연구소 소장을 역임하였다. 저서로는 『WHY 원자력이 필요한가』(번역),『탈핵비판』(공동집필)이 있다.

출판사 제공 책소개

옥스퍼드대 석학이 말하는 기후변화와 핵발전 이야기!!

’후쿠시마 10주년을 맞아 펴낸 방사선 바로알기 책‘

시급하고도 진정한 재앙인 기후 온난화와 싸우는

가장 현실적인 방법은 방사선 허용한도를 현재 (연간 1밀리시버트 )

보다 1000배로 올려 핵발전소 건설비용을 대폭 낮추고,

무탄소 전원인 핵발전소를 빨리 증설하는 것이다.

- 저자 웨이드 앨리슨 교수

방사선 공포는 캐캐묵은 냉전의 유산이다.

신형 원자로 APR1400 4기면 2000만 가구에 무상전기 공급이 가능하다.

- 번역자 강건욱 교수

이 책의 원본은 세계적인 석학인 영국 옥스퍼드대 물리학과 웨이드 앨리슨 명예교수가 쓴『Radiation and Reason- The Impact of Science on a Culture of Fear』으로, 일본과 중국에서도 번역되어 큰 반향을 불러일으켰다.

특별히 후쿠시마 사고 10주년을 맞아 “과연 방사선은 얼마나 두려운 것인가?” 한국의 독자들에게 그 궁금증을 풀어주는, 방사선(원자력 포함)에 관한 A~Z까지 설명한 알기 쉬운 가이드북이다.

그리고 부록편에는 [강건욱 교수의 방사선 교실]을 수록하여,

‘방사선이란 무엇인가? / 방사선량이란? / 방사능과 방사선량 관계는? / 미량의 방사능도 몸속에 계속 축적되니 위험하지 않은가? / 인공방사선은 자연방사선보다 더 유해하지 않은가? / 원전에서 발생하는 삼중수소는 얼마나 위험한가? / 라돈이란 무엇이며 얼마나 위험한가? / 체르노빌이나 후쿠시마 지역에서 기형 동식물이 많이 발견된다는데… / 후쿠시마 원전에서 생성된 방사능 오염처리수를 바다로 방류한다는데… / 임신인줄 모르고 CT 촬영했는데 어째야 하나?“ 10가지 주제들에 대한 국내 방사선분야의 최고 권위자의 명쾌한 대답을 들려주고 있다.

□ 본문의 주요 구절들

Radiation And Reason 이 책이 2009년 처음 출간된 후 세계는 과학과 신뢰에 대한 세 가지 연관된 도전을 직면하였다. 2011년 일본후쿠시마에서 공포의 악마는 날뛰었고, 원자력 기술에 대한 두려움이 여러 나라를 사로잡았으며 이런 생각이 당연하다고 여겨졌다. 그 결과 탄소 배출을 더 피할 수 있게 되었다. 2019년 코로나바이러스는 모든 나라의 상황이 비슷하며, 공포가 아닌 세계적인 과학 협력만이 필요한 보호와 자신감을 제공할 수 있다는 것을 다시 한번 입증했다.

2015년 이후 끊임없는 기후 변화는 현대 문명에 가장 큰 위협으로 인식되었다. 에너지 과학은 핵 이외의 어떤 원천도 탄소연료를 대체할 수 있을 만큼 신뢰할 수 있고, 안전하며, 환경적이며, 탄력적인에너지를 제공할 가능성을 가지고 있지 않다는 것을 보여준다. 특히 이른바 재생 가능한 솔루션은 모든 테스트에서 실패하고 있다.

비록 많은 나라가 그들의 전통적인 반핵 기조를 재고하기를 여전히 두려워하고 있지만, 이 결론은 대중적인 논쟁이 아닌 오랜 과학적 원리에기초하고 있다.

이 책은 후쿠시마 사고를 에필로그에 추가했지만 대부분은 초판에서 크게 벗어나지 않았다. 후쿠시마 초기 사고로 일부 원자로는 파괴되었지만, 사람들한테 노출된 방사선은 너무 과장·왜곡되었고 중대한 영향을 끼쳤다. 후쿠시마 사고에서도 보았듯이 원자력 기술에 대한 초기대응은 나라마다 다르게 나타났다. 원자력 기술은 모든 나라에서 우리의 삶에 많은 것을 제공하였고 이는 과학에 근거해야 한다. 정치적, 지리적 불안은 국민의 삶에 많은 영향을 미치고, 원자력에 대한 문제도 예외가 아니다

방사선에 대한 안전규제의 실패로 죽은 사람은 없는 반면 쓰나미에 대한 일반적 규제의 실패는 1만 명 이상의 인명을 앗아갔다. 그런데도 쓰나미에 대한 비판은 너무 적다. 비난의 전쟁이 마치 게임처럼 전개되는 것은 무슨 일이 일어났는지를 곰곰이 따져보고, 방사선 사고와 쓰나미의 비참함을 비교하기보다 누군가의 책임을 지적하는 게 더 편하기 때문이다.

일본보다 지각이 안정된 지역에서는 자연재해가 원전에 위험을 미칠 수 없다. 그러나 비합리적인 공포, 인간에 대한 불신, 책임져야 할 조직에 대한 불신이 존재하는 사회는 지질적 불안정성 못지않은 사회적 불안정성을 갖고 있다.

- 저자의 한국어판 서문 중에서

“나는 서울대학교 원자핵공학과에서 학사와 석사를 마치고 미국버클리대학교 원자력공학과에서 원자력공학 박사학위를 받고, 현재 한국과학기술원(KAIST)에서 27년째 방사선측정 및 방사선 이용 기술에 관한 강의와 연구를 하면서 후학들을 가르치고 있다

그리고 20년째 국제 원자력및방사선 안전교육 프로그램 등을 운영해 40개국에서 온 150여 명의 외국인 석사를 배출해왔다. 이러한 나의 이력을 고려하면 누가 보더라도 원자력 및 방사선 전문가라고 해도 크게 틀리지 않을 것이다. 하지만 이 책을 통해 방사선과 우리 인류의 운명에 대해 새로운 각도에서 생각해 볼 기회를 갖게 되었고, 앨리슨 교수의 생각은 나에게 커다란 지적 충격을 안겨 주었다.

지구촌을 휩쓸고 있는 방사선과 원자력에 대한 대중의 오해와 그로 인한 공포심이 우리 세대는 물론 우리 아이들의 미래와 지구환경을 망치는 일을 더 이상 방관해서는 안 되겠다는 확신을 갖게 되었다. 소위 지식인의 사회적 책임, ‘대중과의 소통’의 중요성을 절감하게 된 것이다. 밤하늘의 아름다운 별들을 포함하여 지구에 존재하는 모든 생명과 종교의 근원인 태양은 다름 아닌 방사선 그 자체가 아닌가."

- 감수자 조규성교수의 추천글 중에서

“이 책은 2009년에 출간된 이후 앨리슨 교수가 후쿠시마 원전사고 현장을 두 차례나 방문하고 느낀 소회가 추가되었고, 본문에서 보여주는 각종 통계자료는 최근 데이터로 업그레이드되었다.

저자의 비유처럼 겉으로는 무서워 보이나 강력한 힘을 가진 노트르담의 꼽추 콰지모도가 집시 소녀 에스메랄다를 구하고 난 뒤에야 시민들은 그를 인정하였다. 현장을 경험하지 않은 환경운동가들의 ‘카더라’ 강의가 유튜브에서 각광을 받고 그들이 믿는 증거는 사고 현장에서 공포를 경험한 사람들의 인터뷰이지 실제 위험사례를 종합한 데이터가 아니다. 방사선 측정 장비도 쉽게 구할 수 있으니 보이지 않는 방사선을 경험하라. 무엇보다도 체르노빌, 후쿠시마 사고 현장을 경험하라. 생물학적 위험으로 인해서가 아니라 공포로 인해 피폐해진 것을.

방사선에 대한 지나친 공포는 이를 피하고자 더 큰 위험을 택하게 하여 개인에게는 더 많은 죽음을 불러왔고, 사회적으로는 환경 파괴를 가속화하였다. 체르노빌의 공포로 인한 서유럽 임산부의 20만여 명의 낙태와 후쿠시마 사고 직후 노약자 강제 대피로 인한 사망은 죽더라도 방사선 리스크를 제로로 해야 한다는 환상에서 나온 미필적 고의에 의한 살해 행위이다.

독일은 태양광, 풍력발전을 급격히 늘렸으나 자국에서 생산되는 갈탄을 이용한 반환경적인 석탄발전을 효과적으로 줄이지 못하고 재생에너지가 모자라면 프랑스 원전에서 생산한 전기를 수입하고 있다.

저자인 앨리슨 교수는 이러한 것이 지속되는 배경에는 이런 공포로 먹고 사는 직업과 정치인들이 있기 때문이라고 피력한다. 역자의 직업인 핵의학 역시 다른 의사들이 대신할 수 없는 면허와 공포로 보호받고 있다. 1960년부터 60년 이상 갑상선암 환자를 대량의 방사선을 인체에 투여하여 치료한 의료 현장경험이 있고, 갑상선암 생존율은 100% 이상으로 일반인보다 생존율이 높다. 원자력종사자의 암 발생 역시 일반인보다 25% 낮다.

저자가 강조한 것처럼 환경적으로도 가장 적은 쓰레기를 생산하는 에너지가 안전한 에너지다. 비과학적이고 비현실적인 공포만 극복하면. 기후변화를 막으려면 여유를 부리지 않고 가능한 모든 방법을 동원해야 한다. 모쪼록 이 책을 통해 우리 국민이 잘못된 지식으로 죽음의 길로 몰고 가는 구호와 선전에서 비롯된 집단 광기에서 빠져나와 공포에서 벗어나 현실을 바라보고 생명의 길로 가기를 바란다.

- 공동번역자인 강건욱(서울대 의대 핵의학과 교수) 역자 서문 중에서

“예상하지 못한 코로나 펜데믹사태로 영국에 들어가지 못하고 서울에 머물면서 우연한 기회에 글마당의 제안으로 핵의학을 전공으로 하는 아버지와 물리학 전공인 딸이 만나 서로의 전문성을 살려서 번역에 참여하게 되었습니다. 아버지와 서로의 전문이 아닌 주제에 대해소통을 통해 알아가고, 학문적으로 좋은 결과를 얻을 수 있었던 것은 또 하나의 큰 소득이었습니다. ”

- 공동번역자 강유현(영국 페리얼 칼리지 런던 물리학과 3학년 재학중) 역자 서문 중에서접기

2

등록

구매자 (1)전체 (2)

공감순

 세시아  2021-05-12

원서가 2009년 발행인데, 책 처음에 보면 ˝2021년 현재˝ 라고 시작합니다. 번역자들이 맘대로 손 댄 듯..거기에, 추천사에 보면 ˝우리 국민에게 큰 분노와 허탈감을 안겨 준 어느 부녀˝ 라던가, ˝현 정부의 야만적인 탈원전정책˝ 이라는 구절도 있구요. 너무 정치색이 뚜렷하여 읽는 것 포기했네요.  

공감 (0)  댓글 (0)   

 위세이프  2021-03-26

가까운 지인께서 책을 구입해서 선물로 주신다네요. 꼭 읽어보고 독후감 남기겠습니다.^^  

공감 (0)  댓글 (0)