2 comments about The Firecracker Boys: H-bombs, Inupiat Eskimos, and the Roots of the Environmental Movement.

1. I feel honored to give the first review for the newly released paperback version of this book. I may be biased as an Alaskan from Bering Strait with lots of plutonium and strontium 90 circulating in my blood and bones from eating reindeer that grazed on tundra lichen in the '60s (enough to set the geiger counters ticking, but not as much as my Inupiaq classmates!) and not just because I have many relatives through marriage from Point Hope region or because I am environmentalist keen on Native Alaskan rights and human rights, and love true stories about courageous whistle blowers and scientists who have a heart, but... I think "Firecracker Boys" should be required reading in high school and university classes on US history, the Cold War, nuclear physics, epidemiology, the philosophy of science, ethics, the environmental movement, indigenous rights, human subjects review...The list goes on.
   
   Dan O'Neill deserves all of his awards, some awarded belatedly because people were too chicken and found his writing "controversial" even though it is all based on cold, very cold hard facts. It is shocking stuff and you can't blame people for thinking it can't be true. Read this book and shudder. I am not going to give the "plot" away, because it reads like a great mystery or thriller. The truth is far grimmer than fiction (and seems more ludicrous, evil and fantastical than conspiracy theories in what the USA had planned for the the Point Hope area and its human and animal denizens. A dark, secret history buried in govn't docs and uncovered nearly by accident by a scholar (O'Neill) at the University of Alaska in the 80s.
   I fervently hope after the writers strike is over that the Hollywood studio with the options will proceed quickly with the movie (with Leonardo diCaprio as the brave caribou scientist whistleblower). I want to be in this movie~!
   ~ by Lesley Thomas, author of Bering Strait novel Flight of the Goose



2. I read this book a few summers ago, and I couldn't put it down. O'Neill's exhaustive research--including many personal interviews--helps solidify this book's place in the pantheon of great historical non-fiction of the 20th century. "The Firecracker Boys" picks up after World War II when the United States government, eager to find peaceful uses for nuclear power, proposed building a harbor near the remote Alaskan village of Point Hope using megaton nuclear explosions in a plan called "Project Chariot." The ambitious plan, which supporters felt could redeem nuclear weapons before the very eyes of a generation who saw its horrific power demonstrated on Japan, met fierce resistance among biologists, anthropologists, and most importantly local Alaska Native villagers of the region. These opponents feared radiation, debris fallout, and that the government continued to deny or downplay dangers of Project Chariot. O'Neill charts, in beautiful detail, the high-minded idealism of Project Chariot supporters against the burgeoning grassroots resistance which demanded fair recognition of Project Chariot's irreversible damage.
   
   While Project Chariot first arrived, and met its doom, in a remote quarter of the globe, this story is firmly fixed on the world stage. This is not the anecdotal story of a failed gimmick; rather, this is the genesis of the movement towards limiting nuclear power, recognizing environmental impact, and treating Alaska Natives as more than haphazard bystanders to industrial progress. People, personalities, subplots, and larger impacts for the whole of humanity enliven this story and give Project Chariot a rich context. I whole-heartedly recommend this book.

3 comments about Power Plant Engineering.

1. This book cover all subjects concerning power plant, from economics to operation of the plant. Some data you can not find from somewhere else.



2. This book presents the latest data on power plants and provides much needed formulas and rules of thumb for sizing equipment based on plant size and arrangement. The book has many examples of equipment and has a good section although somewhat out of date on permitting of power plants. I would recommend it for any power plant engineer especially those just entering the power generation industry.



3. Good information, well worth the price, after receiving the first one I bought three more, for other people.

No comments about Nuclear Safeguards, Security and Nonproliferation: Achieving Security with Technology and Policy.

5 comments about The Environmental Case for Nuclear Power: Economic, Medical, and Political Considerations.

1. A one sided tome, missing two of the most basic facts about nuclear energy. A) The mineral, Uranium Oxide upon which today's nuclear power technology rests is depleting at the rate of between 1 and 2 percent a year. I.e. 50 - 100 year supply. (This includes all factors such as Russian missiles, etc.) B) Nuclear energy today only supplies about 8% of all world energy. Nuclear power would only last 5 to 10 years!
   Once they get done explaining how safe and clean nuclear power is using today's technology, when confronted with the shortage of fuel, a quick side step is taken. Expense and dangers of bomb making technology, waste disposal at 10x the rate and magic are quickly mixed up and the lesson is over.



2. In this book Robert Morris does a generally credible job explaining the benefits of nuclear power. His book is factually accurate and informative, and particularly useful to people who have listened to extensive anti-nuclear rhetoric without attempting to hear the pro-nuclear arguments.
   
   While I agree with most of the points Morris makes, I do have a couple of quibbles with the book. The first is endless, mind-numbing repetition. I don't know how many times he says that 50,000 people a year die in the US from carbon-based air pollution, but you can bet it's a lot. The basic point here is that while that is likely true, repeating it every other page for 200 pages or so does not help make the case: this book needs editing. The second issue I have with the book is the presence of grossly inflated, yet trivial arguments. There is no question, for instance, that coal and oil use are air polluters; that is a valid point to make in this book. Where the logic gets stretched, however, is when he claims that because of all this air pollution (that would not be present with more nuclear power) that humans probably have more fatal traffic accidents because carbon monoxide makes driver reaction times longer, seems improvable at best, and ludicrous at worst. These are the two big criticisms I have of the book.
   
   While I believe his data on nuclear safety statistics, I do think that he overestimates nuclear safety features, and perhaps underestimates dangers. Safety engineering professionals study not only the accidents in an industry, but also the incidents that did not lead to accidents, yet could have. On this matter Morris is totally silent, and I think that detracts significantly from the scientific validity of some of his arguments: in other words, accidents are actually very rare, incidents more common. Since Three Mile Island the nuclear industry has become much better about sharing trend data, but this book leads readers to the conclusion that nuclear power is a 100 percent safe, utopian energy source. I personally agree that it is a generally safe source of power, and that the US would be wise to follow Europe's lead (for once) and develop more of it. Having said that, I also believe that nuclear accidents could potentially be quite dangerous, despite Morris' reassurances.
   
   Most of the low rating reviewers here are clearly in the anti-nuclear camp, and I think it's admirable that they read the book (if they actually did). I do question where most of them got their information; some of the armchair critics seem unclear on basic physics or other issues (like Uranium ore production, for instance.) One particularly offensive reviewer thought that this book proves that Morris was worse than Hitler and hated babies. My take on that: if you can't objectively criticize the book, you must not have anything important to say...frequently like the media establishment. It is clear that Morris' assertion that the media spreads a virulently anti-nuclear message is correct, probably in part because they are politically to the left in general, but more likely simply because it sells. For the same reason that you never see a headline reading "Jetliner Lands On Time After a Smooth Flight: Passengers Enjoyed A Light Snack" you will also never see a headline reading "Nuclear Plant Releases No Radiation; Nobody Injured; Electricity Produced At A Reasonable Price." This is a differentiation that I think needs to me made, and while he attempts to make that argument in the book it falls a bit flat.
   
   While parts of this book are a bit overblown, and the book is clearly in the pro-nuclear camp, at least Morris makes his sympathies clear at the outset. I am glad that he wrote the book, and despite a few qualms about the presentation, I think it is worthy reading for anyone on either side of the nuclear debate, preferably in conjunction with the excellent and considerably more unbiased masterwork on contemporary nuclear safety organizations, "Hostages of Each Other" by Joseph Rees.



3. Contains perspectives on environmental risks of nuclear power compared to other energy sources.
   The book is circa 1999, and some parts are out of date:
   - In presenting the risks of air pollution from autos, the author points to the higher death toll from (producing electricity from coal-fired power plants) electric cars vs. relatively reduced levels of sulphor dioxide from gas-powered cars. Then, he seems way off base in saying "Los Angeles plans to completely ban gas-powered automobiles in just a few more years." Huh?
   - Likewise, the book is not current in the plans to dispose of spent nuclear fuel from nuclear power plants at Yucca Mountain, NV. He says the spent fuel will be encased in vitrified glass logs that will not corrode or release radioactive materials. The current plan is to use corrosion-resistant metal containers. He is right to say that disposal of nuclear waste is not "unsolvable" from a technical standpoint, although it remains to be seen whether it is solvable politically.



4. When assessing nuclear power, the public should know about the baby tooth study which documents the nuclear emission strontium-90 in baby teeth, at birth, passing from mother to infant during pregnancy. This is linked to cancers. Look at radiation.org Have you noticed the ever increasing cancer rate seen in our younger generations? The NRC states that 50% of the US population live within 50 miles of a nuclear plant. The government's breast cancer mortality map lines up with the governments's nuclear map, all across the country!
   
   I discovered some of this data, after having non-genetic breast cancer, 11 months after my mother died of breast cancer. She lived on Long Island, downwind of 3 nuclear plants. Be careful if you live near a nuclear plant.
   
   I hope this author is aware of this data.



5. This fact filled, convincing, and well researched book eloquently explains why we must start using Nuclear Power more extensively at the same time as it dispels many of the misunderstandings and myths surrounding Nuclear Power. Robert Morris is clearly not a fan of antinuclear activists, however, he understands the immense damage they have caused our Nation and to our children and grand children.
   
   Nuclear Power is without any doubt the most powerful, the safest, and environmentally the cleanest viable energy source in existence. However, antinuclear activists have scared the wits out of the public for decades by disseminating deceitful propaganda, superstition and outright lies. According to Ralph Nader and other antinuclear activists nuclear plant accidents would kill many hundreds of thousands of people; they spread radiation and mutations, and leave forever deadly nuclear waste behind. All this is, of course, not just totally false but intentional lying! Unfortunately the sensation hungry media chose to believe the antinuclear activists instead of the Scientists. Until 1982, nuclear power was our cheapest source of electricity. Then the cost overruns caused by frivolous lawsuits filed by antinuclear groups made them as much as ten times more expensive. No orders has been placed for the construction of a nuclear power plant in America since 1979
   
   Fossil fuels killed five million Americans in the twentieth century, and are estimated to kill about 50,000 Americans every year. 300,000 American former coal mine workers has died from black lung disease and 90,000 U.S. Coal miners have died in coal mining accidents since 1907. Fossil fuels are also causing global warming and acid rain, something R. Morris is discussing extensively. However, Nuclear Power has not killed a single American, not even a rabbit. Nuclear waste is a relatively small problem and most experts agree that the safe disposal of nuclear waste is a rather simple and easily solved problem. However, antinuclear activists have made this into a dangerous political issue.
   
   Dr. Helen Caldicott, a well known antinuclear activist, predicted that if a meltdown would have occurred at the Three Mile Island reactor 3,000 people (Nader said 100,000) would have died immediately and 500,000 people would have died within 15 to 50 years. When a real meltdown plus explosions occurred in a reactor without containment barriers; 31 people died within days and 4,000 or 20,000 (depending on whom you believe) will die in 50 year period. For Three Mile Island it might have been none because of the containment barriers.
   
   It should be noted that the Chernobyl reactor would never have been allowed to be built in the West for a number of reasons; it had a positive feedback loop (not allowed in the West), and lacked containment barriers. It was also used to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons in addition to producing electricity, and it was operated in a manner that would be extremely unlikely in the west. The Chernobyl accident was made possible because the Soviet Union was a totalitarian state.
   
   Uranium is everywhere in the earth crust, it is a very common mineral, and yes you have plenty of it in your yard. It is not very radioactive. Radon on the other hand is about 300 billion times more radioactive than Uranium. When something is extremely radioactive it disappears quickly and so does Radon. That is because there is an inverse relationship between half life and radioactive heat. However, Radon is continuously supplied from the enormous Uranium deposits in the earth crust and ends up in our basements, which is why Radon unlike Nuclear Power is a real problem. 14,000 people are estimated to die each year from the radioactivity from Radon, but no one dies from Nuclear Power.
   
   The author also discusses alternative energy sources and explains that they have immense wastes disposal problems (solar power), efficiency/economic problems, and environmental problems. He discusses terrorism, which is a larger problem for many other energy sources; nuclear Weapons, which cannot be created from the commercial Nuclear Power plants used in the West, and he also argues that the use of commercial Nuclear Power plants does not affect this issue much.
   
   Many of the European countries are using Nuclear Power a lot more extensively then the U.S. (U.S. about 20%, France about 80%). My home country Sweden is using a combination of Nuclear Power and Hydro electric Power to become fossil fuel independent by 2020. The U.S. cannot rely on Hydro electric Power but could use Nuclear Power a lot more. The fact that it has not done that has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans, maybe millions, and adding to this malaise we have global warming. Not using Nuclear Power more is clearly the largest mistake the U.S. has ever made.
   
   I also would like to state a few facts from the book. These facts clearly support using Nuclear Power for electricity generation.
   
   (1) No excess genetic mutations have ever been produced in any of the children born to the Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors after the war.
   
   (2) The fuels antinuclear activists have forced us to use instead of Nuclear Power are releasing 40 million tons of known chemical mutagens into the air each year.
   
   (3) We are exposed to many radiation sources, the worst ones being cosmic rays, earth, X-rays, but virtually none from Nuclear Power plants. (See table page 85)
   
   (4) After the treated wastes from a nuclear plant have been in storage for 100 years, their toxicity diminishes, and is then equal to that of arsenic trioxide, which we often spread around the food crops in our gardens to kill various pests.
   
   (5) Nuclear power plants produce only miniscule quantities of waste--equal to about one aspirin tablet in volume yearly for each person for whom they generate electricity.
   
   (6) Roughly 20,000 tons of Uranium is released into the air every year when Coal is burned.
   
   (7) Coal ashes are 180 times more radioactive than the level of radioactivity permissible for Nuclear Power Plants.
   
   (8) On October 9 and 10 1973 Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and other OPEC members seized all foreign holdings of oil reserves (and equipment). The largest theft in history amounted to 254 trillion dollars, or 25 times the U.S. GDP.
   
   (9) Nuclear Power has not killed a single American, not even a rabbit, excluding a few hundred uranium miners (only indirectly linked).
   
   (10) If we can effectively extract Uranium from the Ocean we will have enough Uranium to last us infinitely.
   
   
   Finally I would like to mention that I switched from using Coal generated electricity to using wind power in an effort to become carbon neutral, however, if I had the choice of using Nuclear poer instead I would have.

2 comments about Fallout.

1. Although Fallout is in a comic book format it is serious history. The portraits are accurate. The events leading up to the bomb are covered in depth.

   The account of the government's digraceful treatment of Oppenheimer is chilling, reminding us of how the people at the top here were much like the leaders in the USSR.




2. This graphic novel, subtitled "J. Robert Oppenheimer, Leo Szilard, and the Political Science of the Atomic Bomb", is a good quick read. It's hard for my generation, raised with the fall of the Soviet Union, to appreciate how stupendous the atomic bomb really was. But this book does a great job of making the history of that period accessible. The book is not that short-around 200 pages-but, due to its graphic nature, is very easy to read.
   
   Fallout is really divided into two major sections. The first is concerned with the idea and creation of the atomic bomb, starting from Szilard's ideas in the 1930s and ending with the Trinity test in 1945. The second is concerned with the inquiry into Oppenheimer's advisory position to the Atomic Energy Commission, which occured in the political climate of the 1950s. Both these are worth reading, but the second one, which has much more text-portions of letters are printed along with the graphics-is a chilling reminder of the craziness of that time.
   
   With 6 different authors listed on the cover (and more in the back pages), the illustrations change often enough that you do have to pay attention to know who is speaking. Additional difficulties arise because there are so many characters. I think the book would be stronger if one author had been responsible for all of the graphic content because the characters would be easier to keep track of.
   
   One very nice aspect of this book is the end notes. At the back of the book, extensive text outlines what parts are true and what parts are surmise. As the front of the book saysm "many of the quotes and incidents that you'll think most likely to be made up are the best documented facts." For example, Teller, one of the scientists, denies his similarity to Dr Strangelove, and another, Szilard, devises his own cancer treatment using radiation.
   
   All in all, if you're in for a light introduction to the history of one of the heaviest subjects, Fallout is a good choice.

5 comments about Idaho Falls: The Untold Story of America's First Nuclear Accident.

1. McKeown does a good job of pulling together the many strands of this story, giving just enough technical detail to know what went wrong, and enough (relevant) human interest to keep the story interesting. Yes, it's true that Idaho Falls isn't exactly a brand-new 'revelation', but few outside the nuclear industry have heard about it, or know its significance. McKeown shows that the ultimate cause was a failure by the designers of the reactor to take into account Murphy's Law - if something can go wrong, it will. This is a common thread running thru nuclear incidents ranging from Windscale to Chernobyl. With some energy experts now calling for us to embrace nuclear power again in order to meet energy demand without triggering excessive global warming, McKeown's book is a very timely reminder of why and how things went wrong 50 years ago, and what we need to look out for the second time around (if nuclear power is granted one)



2. In the interest of full disclosure I will say up front that I am not in any way connected to The Site (locals' name for the facility out on the desert now called the INEEL) I have friends who work there and friends who would love to see it shut down.

   That said I think McKeown does an excellent job in telling what's known about the SL-1 accident (if that's what it was) and the rumors that surrounded it. I found it an first-rate read (I read it in two days) and very informative.

   McKeown goes to great lengths to delineate between what can be and is known and what is rumor and supposition. He also repeatedly explains (which keeps me from giving the book a 5th star) how different attitudes were then, particulary among the personel working at and responsible for the facility. This is the excuse given and accepted by the author for the lack of disclosure at the time. There's nothing here about what changed, or more importantly, what didn't change, as a result of SL-1.

   Its unfortunate that the story of this incident is completely unkown by the general public. Both the heroism of those there immediately after the incident and the behavior of those in charge should be common knowledge. Reading this book goes a long way in correcting that.




3. I read half of this while waiting for the train! The author's style is very clear and he's a good storyteller. While some of the chapters were a bit sensationalized, this book is well worth your time and money. "Idaho Falls" is more interesting than 99% of contemporary fiction out there :)



4. Was there at test site when this happened. Mostly accurate and alerts the reader to the dificulty in managing a nuclear accident. Accidents are rare but the nuclear waste problem is real challenge of all operational reactors. Probably mostly enjoyed by someone familiar with or working in nuclear field.



5. The book was well researched and written. It showed another side to the "official" investigation and cleared up a lot of the mystery surrounding the explosion and deaths of the men involved. For those who have not heard of this mishap, it can definitely open the eyes as to what it took to propel us forward into the nuclear age and the limitations of human emotion. Three Mile Island was not our first mishap...obviously, this was, but more tightly controlled media and national security. It happened when I was young (though I lived nearby) and my neighbor had to respond to the site when it occurred. A very interesting and informative book.

1 comments about Nuclear Energy: Principles, Practices, and Prospects.

1. I am amazed that nobody wrote yet a review of this book.
   
   I liked this book a lot. David Bodansky's style is logical, concise and fun to read. What I liked most is that the author succeeds to attack with equal clarity a wide range of diverse subjects about nuclear energy:
   - Economic considerations on nuclear energy.
   - The physics principles behind nuclear reactions, and their relevance in reactor design, etc.
   - Engineering considerations around nuclear reactor design and operations
   - Administrative considerations around waste disposal.
   
   To conclude: if you have some background in physics, math and/or economy, and you need a no-nonsense introduction in the field of nuclear energy, then this book is for you. However, if you just like to read prose, (and you don't enjoy technical details being sprinkled during the exposition) then the book migth be too high-level.

3 comments about Radiation Protection and Dosimetry: An Introduction to Health Physics.

1. This book is the coolest. Buy this book so my family can have more money, but it is a very well written, insightful book, with jokes tosses in at the right times.
   
   Check out his beard!



2. This is an excellent book for students of radiation protection and dosimetry. It provides a great overview of health physics from radioisotope decay to non-ionizing radiation. The technical content is balanced with good practical examples. I would like to recommend this book for anyone studying health physics or preparing for the certification by the American Board of Health Physics.



3. This is a much needed book. I good modern overview of what you would encounter in the field of radiation protection and dosimetry. The coverage of standards and their development is often missed in other works. Since you will spend a great deal of time referring to these standards knowing the actors and history is important. As someone in the field I would have liked to have seen a little more on international standards development. It was very refreshing to see a text where equations were defined clearly. So many physics books seem to revel in making you figure out that particulars authors flavor of equation definition.
   I have found the book to be a great general reference and starting point for those new to the field. It is actually an enjoyable read. And having a joke thrown in once and a while was great.

4 comments about Nuclear Reactor Analysis.

1. A good, solid, book for a undergraduate student in nuclear engineering or anyone with a physical sciences background who is interested in learning more about nuclear power operations and analysis. Very clear text with plenty of information on topics (i.e., reactor design) that often confuse students. -Mike Walker Thorsvedtt



2. This book is one of the two "Bibles" of Nuclear Engineering. LaMarsh's "Introduction to Nuclear Engineering" is the other IMHO. For those interested in a broad overview of Nuclear Engineering, it is my opinion that you should start with the LaMarsh book. Duderstadt's book contains a lot more math and can be difficult to follow without some solid math background and a few Nuc Eng courses under your belt. There are a few cases in the book where a series of equations leading to a conclusion skip a few steps. It's not as bad as the old "A=B and from this we see that e = mc2!" joke, but some work is required.

   That said, this books drawbacks are also its strengths. It has stood the test of time [my copy is over 20 years old] and will probably remain relevant for another 20 years. It is to my knowledge well prepared and error free, and a must-have for anyone interested in nuclear reactor engineering.




3. This is a great introductory textbook for Nuclear Reactor Analysis/ One-Speed diffusion model/Multigroup Diffusion method and core design. It was published a while ago - in 1976, but remains to be one of the best textbook on the topic.



4. Everything went right and smooth with my order. I got the book on Amazon way cheaper than in a library... Good value!

3 comments about Energy Studies, Second Edition.

1. Energy Studies (W. Shepherd and D.W. Shepherd) is a
   >>Comprehensive and very readable<< review of the state of WORLD ENERGY RESOURCES,
   both old (Oil, Natural Gas, Coal)
   and new (Solar, Nuclear, etc).

   Did you know:
   - Britain could supply 15% of all energy needs with Windfarms?
   - The USA will run out of oil in 8 yrs if it stops importing?
   - Australia holds the world's greatest Uranium deposits?
   - They've been trying for 50 years to build a Fusion reactor?
   -

   Get up to speed with probably THE most important issue of the 21st Century, the decreasing supply and increasing demand for Energy Resources.




2. Comprehensive but very readable review of World Energy Resources both old (Oil, Gas, Coal) and new (Wind, Solar, Nuclear).

   Gets you up to speed on one of the most important issues of the 21st century - the dwindling resources and increasing demand for Fuel and Energy.




3. I can not recommend this book as a stand-alone, useful resource to learn about energy. It may be useful as a "starting point", provided the reader or instructor has the will and ability to correct its faults.
   
   1. It is too far out of date. A new edition is badly needed. First, statistical data only goes up through 2000, which renders the data almost irrelevant UNLESS you update data from current sources. This is actually easy to do, and to the book's credit it provides source references which are still available today on-line. Due to its age, it is silent on the huge impact of China's growth on energy trends since 2000, there are only a couple of paragraphs on ethanol, and it dismisses Canada's oil sands reserves as "not commercially viable". With the climb in oil prices during the last few years, much of its economic discussions are no longer relevant.
   Second, it relies upon references from around 1980 when discussing several technologies. I don't believe that 20+ year-old references belong in a book published about current technology in 2002. As a result, the book ends up discussing some technologies that simply are not relevant today, or discussing them as they were envisioned in 1980.
   
   2. There are an unacceptable number of administrative errors. MANY table and figure references in the text are wrong (e.g., "Table 3-2 shows that..." when in fact it's Table 3-5). Questions at the end of the chapter refer to the incorrect tables. ANSWERS in the back of the book are WRONG at times. I even found one table reference when I could not find the appropriate table anywhere in the book. This goes beyond being out-of-date....it's just down-right sloppy.
   
   3. It's factually wrong far too many times on issues that are not related to being out-of-date. It makes me worry about what other factual errors I'm missing. A few examples: 1) A simple calculation in Chapter 2 is off by an order of magnitude. 2) Chapter 13 defines ethanol fermentation as an aerobic process, rather than anaerobic. 3) The answer key suggests mandatory catalytic converters as a means of reducing carbon dioxide from automobiles, when in fact catalytic converters do nothing to reduce carbon dioxide. 4) It states that "the Three Mile Island plant is no longer in use" when in fact its undamaged reactor is still in use.
   
   I have a feeling that there are no further editions planned for this book....the 2nd edition just seems to update a few charts from the US EIA and the BP statistical review of energy, and there's a lazy feel about it. Some historical material is ok - that won't change. But a new edition needs a serious going-over and updating. I do think that there needs to be a good, concise, organized survey book of energy technologies. Other books I've reviewed are excellent, but they are not as "tight" as I was hoping this one would be. Without an updated edition soon, this book will be utterly useless.
   
   P.S.: How does Dr. Jackson above get 2 votes? I feel as if I should write 2 or 3 identical reviews now so that the overall average rating gets pulled down where it belongs......