The story he tells must be told. Uncounted innocent citizens of the region are still suffering from the careless application of nuclear power, and even today the development and construction of new reactors continues. The world must be made aware of the cost of continuing to ignore the deteriorating situation in the former Soviet bloc.

On the down side, Josephson's style is rambling, with excessive detail which does not add to the overall message. Even with a reasonable knowledge of the geography of the former Soviet Union and some of the people involved, I found it quite hard to follow.

I would recommend this book to anyone who is specifically interested in Soviet history or the history of Nuclear power. Others may find it tough going.

6 of 7 found the following review helpful:


The Point is Lost in Detail  Aug 29, 2000 By Peter G. Vernig
While Dr. Jasephson's compilation of information on Soviet nuclear research and developement is encyclopedic, the book is not easy to follow. It repeatedly jumps back to various points, the Russian revolution, early post WW II era and follows another area of the soviet nuclear program. Early in the book an unfamiliar unit of exposure, the "ber" is used but not defined. It is not a unit used at all in this country. In later chapters a definite anti-nuclear bias gets in the way of providing information. While Dr. Josephson is entitled to his view point, it would be more effectively communicated if he had a better understanding of the field.

An example, in discussing the Chernobyl disaster he says, "For days after the explosion, people continued to drink and consume the local water, juice, sausages and cucumbers, all of which had been irradiated." Having something irradiated is not the same as having it contaminated with radioactive material [fallout]. Although some are concerned about food irradiation which may be done to prevent spoilage, extend shelf life, and prevent food poisoning it is not at all the same as having food contaminated by radioactive material. Because he gives so little details in such tidbits it is impossible to tell if he means contaminated or irradiated.

Dr. Josephson gives many such alarming tid bits, in the last two chapters and epilog, without explaining the nature or level of whatever problem he is discussing. In the example the level of contamination, if that is meant, microcuries per gram or kilogram and applicable, acceptable levels would have defined the problem or if irradiation was meant, the dose food stuffs received would have been helpful. But such details are almost always missing and in some cases as in the example, incorrectly given or there is confusion in what he presents.

It has been my impression that Soviet nuclear research and development had many problems but this book did not illuminate them as I expected.

A very disappointing book.

2 of 2 found the following review helpful:


Chewy but highly digestible reading  Jan 22, 2001 By Richard Talley
I found Mr. Josephson's book to be highly entertaining and an extremely good read. Lots and lots and lots of information - maybe, sometimes too much. However, I noticed a number of errors, which, although slight, did jump out at me.

Mr. Josephson seems to like inserting a slight dusting of Russian terms in his book which are tangential to the subject at hand and, in several instances, are mistranslated. Two instances that immediately come to mind are his translating of "bakon" as pork fat, when, in fact, it IS bacon. "Sala" is what Mr. Josephson was probably referring to. A second is his translation of the word "spetzodezhda" as a hermetically sealed suit used in the maintenance of a reactor. "Spetzodezhda" is merely work clothing - of any form.

I also found the author's use of both imperial and metric measurements to be somewhat confusing and that required me to switch gears too frequently - sometimes in the same paragraph.

Two other errors that I'm surprised were not spotted in the proofreading are the placing of words starting with "dn" after words starting with "do" in the index and his comment on page 288 that the Latvians at the Ignalina reactor were unhappy about the number of Russians working at the reactor. Ignalina is in Lithuania. Perhaps the Latvians working there were distressed about the high number of Russians at the plant- but I assume that the native Lithuanians were even more distressed.


The history of the Soviet's use of nuclear power  Oct 05, 2005 By Midwest Book Review
An extensive review of Soviet-era archives contributes many previously unconsidered facts to Red Atom: Russia's Nuclear Power Program From Stalin To Today. In the 1950s it was the Russian dream to produce efficient, cheap nuclear energy: thirty years later Chernobyl changed the world. The history of the Soviet's use of nuclear power, its projects, and its setback after Chernobyl make for an intriguing history of a scientific and social disaster in the making.