Scan barcode
eljaspero's review against another edition
3.0
About halfway through I found myself wishing this book had much more "social history of the world's worst mineral" and much less "look at how brave I am travelogue." The writing is fine, even lively, but Zoellner all-too-quickly shifts the focus from the history and temptation of uranium to his own adventures in the post-Soviet third world.
Also, at least the ebook edition I read had strikingly bad copyediting - random capitalization, occasional fragments or entire words, misspellings, things like that. I understand that this can happen in format translations, but sheesh - isn't it somebody's job to check it after it's reformatted?
Also, at least the ebook edition I read had strikingly bad copyediting - random capitalization, occasional fragments or entire words, misspellings, things like that. I understand that this can happen in format translations, but sheesh - isn't it somebody's job to check it after it's reformatted?
stevenyenzer's review against another edition
3.0
A very satisfying history of a strange mineral. The explanations of how a uranium bomb works were some of the most readable I've encountered, and Zoellner spent plenty of time digging into the science of how uranium is used (and arguably misused). He focused a little too much on mining for my taste -- and maybe that's my fault for having certain expectations, since uranium must of course be mined.
It's fascinating how humans can have access to a resource for thousands of years but treat it as trash or a nuisance until technology develops sufficiently to use it. In the 19th century miners valued uranium only because it contained trace amounts of radon. They tossed the uranium.
I also liked reading about the way the United States and other countries have attempted to control the resources and the knowledge necessary to building atomic bombs. It is, of course, absurd that the U.S. expects every other country in the world to disarm before it, although it's hard to imagine a different approach. And since these efforts have been only partially successful, it is quite amazing that no terrorist has yet used an atomic weapon. It seems like only a matter of time before it happens.
It's fascinating how humans can have access to a resource for thousands of years but treat it as trash or a nuisance until technology develops sufficiently to use it. In the 19th century miners valued uranium only because it contained trace amounts of radon. They tossed the uranium.
I also liked reading about the way the United States and other countries have attempted to control the resources and the knowledge necessary to building atomic bombs. It is, of course, absurd that the U.S. expects every other country in the world to disarm before it, although it's hard to imagine a different approach. And since these efforts have been only partially successful, it is quite amazing that no terrorist has yet used an atomic weapon. It seems like only a matter of time before it happens.
radbear76's review against another edition
4.0
Pretty good read. Learned a lot I didn't know about uranium and how it's mined, processed, and traded. Since it was written, a lot of the predicted advances in the nuclear industry didn't come to pass because of the Fukushima accident. My only complaint is the way the author discusses Three Mile Island and Chernobyl it would be easy for the layperson to confuse the details of the two accidents.
roboshake's review against another edition
3.0
I was hoping for a scientific history of the element and its development into energy and weaponry. Some of this was included in the first chapters. Most of the rest of URANIUM was focused on overview of the social and political history of the rock in the 20th century. I found it interesting nonetheless. Especially eye-opening were the descriptions of conditions in Russian owned mines in the post WW2 arms race and the story of the Pakistani engineer who stole plans from the dutch plant he was employed at to develop Pakistan's first bomb.
rick2's review against another edition
4.0
A very interesting book that is a bit disorganized. Chapters start in one spot and end up in a totally different place. Some of that I think it’s due to the problem that Uranium is in such a large swath of culture and history. From Yemen to Arizona, from the “uranium café“ in Moab to the cold war. I didn’t think the bridges and transitions between the information and the structure around it was very clear.
But the core information is very interesting and provides a great supplement 20th century history.
But the core information is very interesting and provides a great supplement 20th century history.
tjr's review against another edition
4.0
I enjoyed this book. A lot of the back story on uranium was covered and so I now have a better understanding of the here and now in terms of all things nuclear. I also enjoyed the figurative and metaphorical language that Tom Zoellner, the author, employs to make the narrative come alive. It’s apocalyptic, but also scientific: the language is refreshing and it works, bringing this radioactive rock to life in a way that has not been attempted before.
sashathewild's review against another edition
I was drawn to this because The Heartless Stone is one of the best books I've ever read. I couldn't get into it, but I'll try it again later.
lisagoe's review against another edition
5.0
So, this book was a slow build to amazing. First, I was amazed that I'd read the first 100 pages in a couple of days: the author has a clear, story focused style that makes the subject comprehensible and engaging. There are moments of wry humour and sly observation that pop out. About 2/3 of the way through, I realized how comprehensive Zoellner's research was and began making mental comparisons to McMafia, because the way the book is structured, you move geographically and historically getting a sense of the politics behind Uranium's development as a resource. So you get wide swath of perspectives on the topic, from looking at the colonial situation in the Congo to understanding the nuclear fetishism that exists in present day Iran. And there are many flavours of political analysis presented, from a snapshot of the tension between cowboy opportunism and Aboriginal perspectives in the Australian outback to an understanding of the nitty gritty of transport, refinement and waste storage issues that nuclear energy presents. So the global scale of the issue begins to emerge from from all this and it's FASCINATING.
I was especially interested in the section on Love Canal and nuclear storage around Lewiston, NY, since I spent a lot of time in that area as a child, even swimming in a section of Lake Ontario that Zoellner says locals speculate has been long contaminated by poorly stored waste. Heh.
Even if you don't have the personal interest in the topic I turned out to have, this is an enjoyable read that left me feeling much more informed than I'd thought possible. And, hey, Jon Stewart liked it too.
I was especially interested in the section on Love Canal and nuclear storage around Lewiston, NY, since I spent a lot of time in that area as a child, even swimming in a section of Lake Ontario that Zoellner says locals speculate has been long contaminated by poorly stored waste. Heh.
Even if you don't have the personal interest in the topic I turned out to have, this is an enjoyable read that left me feeling much more informed than I'd thought possible. And, hey, Jon Stewart liked it too.
epersonae's review against another edition
4.0
Excellent wide-ranging history of uranium. Less about the science -- and C notes that some of the science is over-simplified -- than about its meaning historically, particularly over the last 100 years.
Sort of chronologically organized, but often jumps from the historical moment in question (Manhattan Project, 70s, etc.) to the present day, or loops back to earlier sections. I didn't get lost very often, though, so I'd consider the technique successful.
Lots of weird anecdotes, which is exactly the sort of thing I like: the word "dollar" originated with the name of the town where uranium was first discovered (discovered probably not being quite the right word, but a useful simplification); 2/3 of the uranium for the first bomb came from a single mine in the Congo; when it was built, the Oak Ridge facility was the largest building on earth; a uranium enrichment facility was almost built in a town called Homer, etc., etc. Plus a rich cast of characters, particularly the nutty miners of the postwar period.
Ends on something of an up note for uranium-based power production, which is surprising to American ears, or at least mine...although after reading [b:Science of Fear|3242100|The Science of Fear Why We Fear the Things We Shouldn't--and Put Ourselves in Greater Danger|Daniel Gardner|http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41O9MaRhZsL._SL75_.jpg|3276807] I'm maybe a bit less surprised. The science of assessing the hazards of nuclear power is probably a lot more complex than most people think.
Sort of chronologically organized, but often jumps from the historical moment in question (Manhattan Project, 70s, etc.) to the present day, or loops back to earlier sections. I didn't get lost very often, though, so I'd consider the technique successful.
Lots of weird anecdotes, which is exactly the sort of thing I like: the word "dollar" originated with the name of the town where uranium was first discovered (discovered probably not being quite the right word, but a useful simplification); 2/3 of the uranium for the first bomb came from a single mine in the Congo; when it was built, the Oak Ridge facility was the largest building on earth; a uranium enrichment facility was almost built in a town called Homer, etc., etc. Plus a rich cast of characters, particularly the nutty miners of the postwar period.
Ends on something of an up note for uranium-based power production, which is surprising to American ears, or at least mine...although after reading [b:Science of Fear|3242100|The Science of Fear Why We Fear the Things We Shouldn't--and Put Ourselves in Greater Danger|Daniel Gardner|http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41O9MaRhZsL._SL75_.jpg|3276807] I'm maybe a bit less surprised. The science of assessing the hazards of nuclear power is probably a lot more complex than most people think.