Buy New

Sign in to turn on 1-Click ordering.
Buy Used
Used - Very Good See details
Price: £1.71

More Buying Choices
Have one to sell? Sell yours here
Sorry, this item is not available in
Image not available for
Image not available

Tell the Publisher!
I’d like to read this book on Kindle

Don't have a Kindle? Get your Kindle here, or download a FREE Kindle Reading App.

A Field Guide to Radiation [Paperback]

Wayne Biddle

RRP: £9.85
Price: £8.10 & FREE Delivery in the UK on orders over £10. Details
You Save: £1.75 (18%)
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
Only 1 left in stock (more on the way).
Dispatched from and sold by Amazon. Gift-wrap available.
Want it Sunday, 2 Nov.? Choose Express delivery at checkout. Details

Product details

More About the Author

Wayne Biddle was born in Baltimore, Maryland, and educated at Cornell University, where he studied electrical engineering as an undergraduate and was a graduate student in the English department's master of fine arts program. He has been a contributing editor at Harper's magazine, a reporter for The New York Times (where he won a Pulitzer prize for writing about the "Star Wars" anti-missile system), and a visiting professor at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore and the Technical University in Berlin. He has received fellowships and awards from the National Endowment for the Arts, the Smithsonian Institution, the Alicia Patterson Foundation, the American Medical Writers Association, the National Press Club, and the Newspaper Guild of New York.

Visit his website at

Product Description

A Field Guide to Radiation Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Biddle offers a first-of-its-kind guide to understanding radiation and nuclear energy. From fallout to radiation poisoning, alpha particles to cosmic rays, Biddle illuminates the history, meaning, and health implications in an essential handbook. Full description

Inside This Book (Learn More)
Browse Sample Pages
Front Cover | Copyright | Table of Contents | Excerpt | Index
Search inside this book:

Customer Reviews

There are no customer reviews yet on
5 star
4 star
3 star
2 star
1 star
Most Helpful Customer Reviews on (beta) 3.9 out of 5 stars  7 reviews
14 of 16 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars A lot of excellent knowledge, a bit less wisdom 7 Aug 2012
By Graham H. Seibert - Published on
Format:Paperback|Verified Purchase
The tone of the Field Guide to Radiation is more negative than I had expected. Certainly there is a lot to be afraid of concerning radioactivity. It is equally true that the threat from radiation is inherently harder for mere humans to judge than danger from almost any other source. We are easily spooked. To my mind Biddle plays a bit too much to our fears. Radiation is dangerous, but we live in a world of dangerous alternatives. He would do a greater service by putting it into perspective.

Let's talk about what is good about the book. It describes the various kinds of radiation, which include alpha, beta, and gamma rays, neutrons, and X-rays. Some of them are particles; some of them are pure energy.

Destructive radiation is what they call ionizing radiation. The book could do a somewhat better job of explaining how it damages living organisms. My lay view is that it essentially amounts to this. Some particle or beam of energy enters living tissue, striking it with enough energy to break the atomic bonds holding together a molecule. When there is enough such damage, the cells cannot keep up with replacing the molecules. They cease to function and they die. Germ cells may suffer genetic damage, causing mutations. The most severe radiation poisoning kills things like the lining of the stomach so that a person can no longer digest food, and death quickly ensues.

Lower doses of radiation can cause problems over the years, especially cancers. One of the points that the author makes is that there is no bottom, no lower bound or safe limit for radiation. He calls this linear no threshold, or LNC. Any radiation at all can be bad. This includes the background radiation in our lives, cosmic rays, radon and the other things to which we are exposed simply by living.

Biddle does an excellent job of describing the many different measures of radiation and how well they convey the threats actually posed. The factors include:
1. How much raw radioactive power is present? The measure is Becquerel or curies. However, this measure does not take into consideration how suddenly it impacts an organism, and the relative destructiveness of the types of radiation given off.
2. Distance from the source,
3. Duration of the exposure
4. How much radiation, and what type, actually enters an object (Roentgens). The predicted effect of that radiation on living tissues (Sieverts). Getting finer, the effect on given organs within the body (skin, a little - gonads, a lot).
There are more than these, and Biddle does a masterful job of explaining them. Don't trust this review - buy the book and use him as your expert.

The field guide format of the book is most appropriate to his discussion of radioactive isotopes. For each element with isotopes widely enough known that you might have heard about them, he tells you how the isotopes are created, what the half-lives of the various isotopes of the element are, what they are good for, how common and how much of a danger they are.

Everything that is radioactive is therefore somewhat dangerous to human health, in that it can cause cancers. It can cause some long-term damage. The question is how much. Here the author lets us down. He does not put things in comparison.

For instance, he says that there were a number of cancers of thyroid cancers caused by iodine 131 resulting from the Chernobyl incident in 1986. I'm willing to believe this. The Chernobyl accident caused a bit more than 50 deaths at the time of the incident. The United Nations has estimated the total number of excess deaths that may have been caused by the incident, primarily from cancer, at 5000. That's a high-end. So granted that some thyroid cancers may have been caused, the question is how many, compared to other causes of death?

Wikipedia tells us that no people have been killed by nuclear accidents since Chernobyl, 26 years ago. Zero. There are no good figures for worldwide excess lifetime cancer mortality risk, but such figures as there are would lead you to believe the figure is not high, perhaps in the tens of thousands annually, worldwide.

We do not see as a matter of perspective. If Biddle were writing frightening stories about water he would tell us that 388,000 people drown every year, certainly a good number, and that doesn't include the people who die of starvation because of flooding, and the people who die of waterborne diseases like typhoid. He could make us believe that water is indeed a very dangerous substance. He would be right. Motor vehicle fatalities? 1,200,000 per year, and yet we drive. And those people are gone for good, right now, instead of simply having a few years shaved off the end of their lives. We know that water and driving are essential to modern life, and that deaths caused by them are a natural part of our existence. Deaths caused by radiation are likewise a part of our existence. For primitive man, deaths caused by lions and tigers were also a part of life. They took it in stride.

The question is not whether or not radiation kills - that point is conceded. The question is the rate at which it kills. How dangerous is radiation compared with everything else? In particular, inasmuch as nuclear energy is being used to generate a great deal of the world's electricity, we need to know how dangerous it is in comparison with other sources of energy, especially fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas. The author does not tell us this. Wikipedia tells us that 20,000 coal miners die annually in China alone. Let's compare apples with apples.

Some questions are left hanging. Nuclear wastes are one. He says there are about 250,000 tons of it accumulated around the world. How much is that? By my arithmetic, enough to fill perhaps five or six Olympic-sized swimming pools. Seen that way, the problem appears manageable.

He says that some radioactive waste generates so much heat through ongoing radioactive decay that it must be continually cooled. Hence the cooling ponds next to nuclear plants. This poses an engineering problem for any permanent waste disposal site, but it does not seem insuperable. The primary reasons that Yucca Mountain was rejected as a nuclear waste disposal site are political. He talks about the island of Nova Zemlye, north of Siberia, in the context of USSR nuclear testing. I would bet they could find a lot of empty space there, and a way to keep things cool, if the world could handle seeing the Russians manage its nuclear waste. Again, a political problem. And what about Canada, Alaska and Antarctica? Prompted by reading Biddle, I bought the 2009 "Managing Spent Nuclear Waste," by the RAND corporation. Admittedly they are somewhat a captive of government, but I found their analysis to be thoroughly rational. Dealing with nuclear waste is a matter of money and political will.

Biddle says there are two sources for the earth's endowment of radiation: primordial, here from the beginning, and that resulting from cosmic radiation. I believe that the heavy elements are just about all primordial. Also, radioactive decay is pretty much a one-way street. Big atoms decay into smaller ones, releasing energy as they go. The earth's endowment of heavy elements must be slowly shrinking over time. Therefore, I extrapolate, the earth's total endowment of potential radioactive energy is continuing to decrease. Somebody tell me if I'm wrong.

Mankind accelerates radioactive decay by bringing fissionable materials into critical mass. There is less U235 on the planet because we put it into bombs and atomic piles where it could deplete itself, giving us energy. The most radioactive products of decay have short half-lives. Pretty soon the products of decay transmute themselves into long lived or inert isotopes. All that said, I would have to assume that on a planet-wide basis there is somewhat less radiation being emitted today than before mankind started messing with it. For the most part, we have just rearranged the distribution of radioactive emissions. To me that begs the naïve question of why we can't just rearrange it back in some way that poses no more danger than the pitchblende did before it was mined. Radioactive waste does not seem like it should be an insuperable problem. Somebody post a comment and enlighten me.

Biddle is shocked that the US government would lie to its citizens about the dangers of atomic fallout, and would administer radioactive substances to unsuspecting citizens to see what happened. Hasn't he read a history of the CIA? About Tuskegee? About forced sterilizations? About the Army's tests with LSD? C'mon. It is the nature of government. Though the subjects of the lies have changed, government's willingness to deceive the people has, if anything, increased. Read "Legacy of Ashes" or "The Assassin's Gate."

I bought the book precisely because I am not an expert. I learned a lot from it. Biddle writes well and explains many things better than any other source I have read. I pose my questions about comparisons with other energy sources and about radioactive waste because I really want to know. Look forward to other readers' comments.
18 of 23 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars reader beware 13 Aug 2012
By B. Bates - Published on
Format:Paperback|Verified Purchase
I can only recommend this book if when you receive it you tear out the introduction and never read it. It is full of the author's personal biases. The author also appears to be unfamiliar with some basic concepts. For example, in the introduction he says that radiation is a "...kind of duress for which we did not evolve." Really? The earth was exposed to radiation since the beginning of time, and therefore we DID evolve in that duress, as he calls it. We are exposed daily to naturally occurring radiation. It IS a fact of life. Field guides should stick to facts and provide information of an educational nature. The author of this "guide" strayed into his liberal bias throughout. The author calls respected scientists "charlatans" for their arguments against the linear no threshold (LNT) hypothesis. How petty is that? To frame your argument by calling names, instead of presenting the facts and allowing the reader to make up their own mind. Another falicay by the author, was his recommendation that we avoid radiation completely as a way to deal with it. That is so illogical as to be comical. We are surrounded by naturally occurring "background" radiation in the air, in the sea and in the ground. Yes, even in outer space. I will stop with the examples, you can see that the book is laced with non-scientific, unprofessional, biased comments. I gave my review one star because the guide is good if you have no knowledge of the subject of radiation. Just beware that it is filled with personal views and they may be hard to discern if you are not familiar with the field. I cannot recommend this book to anyone with any science background.
3 of 3 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars Fills a Void ... Except for One Thing 1 Feb 2013
By G. Poirier - Published on
A book like this one can be very useful in that it can inform members of the general public about the nature, sources, uses and hazards of ionizing radiation along with the terminology used in that field. In order to appeal to a broad readership, such a book should be friendly, chatty and as lively as possible while also being factual and objective in the information that it contains. In my opinion, this book hits the mark on the former objectives but, unfortunately, falls short regarding some of the latter ones.

On the positive side, the author provides much information in a very engaging and readable prose; many useful concepts and details have been presented, e.g., half-lives, dose rates, dosimetric quantities, etc. Unfortunately, I did find some errors, e.g., page 37: "... it takes ... more than three feet of concrete to stop beta particles". Wrong! Also, some sections are misleading, e.g., linear no-threshold (LNT) is currently only a hypothesis and not a universal law as the author seems to insinuate; there have never been any scientific proofs of LNT but it is still adopted by regulatory agencies for conservative purposes. But much worse, the author makes several statements throughout the book that clearly show his negative bias towards the nuclear field. Having spent over three decades working in that field as a physicist specializing in dosimetry, I found these statements in bad taste and, in some cases, quite infuriating. A prior reviewer on this site (B. Bates) has expressed his discontent on this matter quite clearly. Although the review is a bit harsh, it certainly does reflect my feelings on occasion as I read through this book.

Despite these shortcomings, the book does contain much information and I do believe that it addresses a need for the general public. That is why I gave it the above rating. In my opinion, this book may be read by those with a science background since they should be able to weed out the unnecessary negative bias, and also by interested general readers so long as they ignore any of the author's statements that stray from objectivity.
5.0 out of 5 stars Excellent Book for Atomic era Buffs 9 July 2013
By morituri - Published on
Format:Kindle Edition|Verified Purchase
Well written compendium of anecdotes, explanations and politics surrounding the discovery and utilization of natural occuring
radioactive elements and the unstable isotopes discovered from the 19th century to present. Extremely interesting.
4.0 out of 5 stars A decent read if you're into learning about such things. 20 Jun 2013
By Amazon Customer - Published on
The book is intended as a field guide and not necessarily to be read start to finish. It's divided into different isotopes/terms and has a few pages worth of material on each. Overall I enjoyed the book and found it very informative on an issue that has a lot of mystery, ignorance and hysteria associated with it.
Were these reviews helpful?   Let us know

Customer Discussions

This product's forum
Discussion Replies Latest Post
No discussions yet

Ask questions, Share opinions, Gain insight
Start a new discussion
First post:
Prompts for sign-in

Search Customer Discussions
Search all Amazon discussions

Look for similar items by category