Scan barcode
mabeaver84's review against another edition
5.0
An examination of a series of nuclear accidents since the 1950s, including Three Mile Island (1979), Chernobyl (1986) and Fukushima (2011). The author uncovers common themes among these disasters such as the risk of human error, hubris, political secrecy and underestimation of the dangers of nuclear radiation on human health and the environment.
ericblair's review against another edition
5.0
Very interesting as always by Plokhy. I love the basis of the book - people asked him what about the nuclear power industry in the west, how did it compare to ussr and specifically Chernobyl. I like the structure of the book and how he sandwiches the book with an evaluation of the accidents with the current climate to turn to nuclear power to combat climate change. Would read again and recommend.
bclark8781's review against another edition
2.0
Well, I didn't really think much of this book, it reads more like a term paper than any kind of compelling narrative. I don't think it's particularly well written. The (mostly) well-known examples of these disasters all pretty much follow a similar path:
1. Pressure from governments or business competitiveness lead to shortcuts in design, safety features, training etc;
2. A problem occurs that either should have been anticipated or was anticipated but due to poor training, design, shoddy materials, or human error, is not appropriately dealt with;
3. Businesses and (especially) governments are desperate to conceal the causes and (especially) severity of the crises;
Stir, mix, and repeat.
I think this might have been a better book had the author not treated each accident in its own chapter and instead done a more macro look at the problems with nuclear power and delved into the particulars of each incident together, comparing, for example, design flaws or construction short cuts together.
I also think the fact that many of these disasters have had their own books (in the cases of Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima, many different books) written leaves one with the feeling that "Atoms and Ashes" is almost a Cliff's Notes version, and it leaves the reader unmoved. It is mostly too dry. For example, not that long ago I read "Midnight in Chernobyl" which was an unbelievable work or research and an edge-of-your-seat thriller as well as an absolutely gripping polemic. THAT book was terrifying. This book, despite the author's best intentions, was yawn-inducing.
1. Pressure from governments or business competitiveness lead to shortcuts in design, safety features, training etc;
2. A problem occurs that either should have been anticipated or was anticipated but due to poor training, design, shoddy materials, or human error, is not appropriately dealt with;
3. Businesses and (especially) governments are desperate to conceal the causes and (especially) severity of the crises;
Stir, mix, and repeat.
I think this might have been a better book had the author not treated each accident in its own chapter and instead done a more macro look at the problems with nuclear power and delved into the particulars of each incident together, comparing, for example, design flaws or construction short cuts together.
I also think the fact that many of these disasters have had their own books (in the cases of Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima, many different books) written leaves one with the feeling that "Atoms and Ashes" is almost a Cliff's Notes version, and it leaves the reader unmoved. It is mostly too dry. For example, not that long ago I read "Midnight in Chernobyl" which was an unbelievable work or research and an edge-of-your-seat thriller as well as an absolutely gripping polemic. THAT book was terrifying. This book, despite the author's best intentions, was yawn-inducing.
schopflin's review against another edition
medium-paced
5.0
Absolutely excellent follow-up to the same author's Chernobyl. I am actually breathtaken to realise the risks taken in the post-war era, mostly for the sake of technological peacocking. Plokhiy tells the stories of the better-known disasters with the same fingertip-tension that he brought to his Chernobyl. His afterword is interesting. He is even-handed on the need for nuclear to take us away from fossil fuels and reduce carbon emissions. But I think he makes clear that the world is too politically unstable for something as dangerous as nuclear tractors to exist at all. But that's my take.