5 comments about The Man Who Predicts Earthquakes: Jim Berkland, Maverick Geologist--How His Quake Warnings Can Save Lives.

1. I really enjoyed this book. It belongs in the category of intuitive knowledge, things which we know from a sense that the science establishment refuses to acknowledge despite overwhelming evidence and a successful track record. The reading is light, with just enough technical detail to lay a good foundation for the ideas which, though they cannot be considered theory, have enough clout to convince the reader that there is more to predicting earthquakes than meters and measurements, or at least an alternative method for the open minded.



2. But really, what is sadder? That he has convinced himself, or that he has convinced others? How ironic that we have more access to more real non-biased data than any people anywhere at any other time in history, and that scientists are discovering more about nature at an unprecedented pace, and yet superstitions continue to be thriving despite it all. It's no surprise that we revere entertainers over scientists in this world, but it is sad.
   
   Folks: NO HUMAN HAS EVER predicted earthquakes with a pattern of accuracy (hits without false alarms) in a way that exceeds random chance. (I should note I use random chance to refer to the known historical frequencies/magnitudes of earthquakes in the "prediction" regions from publicly available records.)
   
   Many engage in the practice of fooling themselves with an unconciously selective review of data to make themselves believe, but none of their claims have ever stood up to rigorous statistical analysis. Should they have a statistically significant record of predicting these events beyond random chance, every seismologist in the world would be studying their techniques and perceptions.
   
   And that goes for the other reviewer of this book who simultaneously offers a 5-star review and claims to be the only Parkfield "predictor". Wow.
   
   -Greg



3. This book causes you to think about the possiblity of an earth quake
   and how to handle it. Lots of good advise and information.



4. Man who predicts Earthquakes - Jim Berkland, Maverick Geologist -biography
   by Cal Orey, Sentient Pub '06 Review - micheal sunanda Oness press
   
   This book is charming & dramatic in language, vast in scope, very personal & accurate in reporting. Jim keeps Equake records of his `Syzygy' coorelations being Sun, full & new moon cycles of Equake clusters happening after many cats & dogs run away from homes. That natural data been observed in China for decades, but not reported to US much. Cal explains the politics around Jim & controversy still rejected by most geology now. Jim is open, careful & lucid telling of Equakes recent & historical. Even wild animals act weird or run away before Equakes, as many folks in northern California know. But government people are too worried & afraid about money & reputation to allow such a radical rebel to work for them predicting Equakes, makes'em look dumb, even if it saves damage & lives to know ahead & prepare.
   I been hearing Jim on Coast to Coast am radio interview for 5 years now, So here I get to learn the details of his radical lifework around earthquake predictions. He has more honest integrity of any geologist I've ever heard or read. His observing & reporting natures cycles really inspired me to study earth science more about all earth changes causes & effects. Even him getting fired by his agency for publishing earthquake predictions is typical as it is absurd. But he continued his career research in patterns around earthquake wherever they happen & especially the precursors, not causes, but the signs of it coming soon. His Syzygy is 80-85% accurate predicting earthquakes. Jim's been tracking solunar cycles, ocean tides & animal behaviors & more coorelations to earthquake precursors
   We read of other Equake predictors, sensitives to pre-quake rumbles, prophetic dreams & ESP. I've talked with 2 Equake sensitives who feel pre-quake vibrations as aches, pains & stress in their bodies, they've mapped according to body parts & earth regions. Cal probes the depths of the field. I like her referring to Rupert Sheldrake's work on morphic resonance & ESP of animals sensing invisible & farway things. If you want a deeper read on earth-quake dimensions this is it. Reading her is fun & profound at once, to realized how we're all connected with Mother earth. But animals seem more & sensitive & instinctual than most humans are. So we can learn about patterns with them, Like `where'd they go? Why running away? Is quake coming? When? Some causes of Equakes are still a mystery.



5. I wrote the introduction to *The Man Who Predicts Earthquakes* because I believe that James Berkland's work on earthquake prediction deserves serious attention. Cal Orey's book provides a valuable contribution to our understanding of mysterious earthquake precursors and it offers a fascinating overview of James Berkland's colorful career as a maverick geologist. Berkland's adventures and explorations on the frontiers of scientific discovery will haunt conventional seismologists and intrigue open-minded students of unexplained phenomena.

5 comments about What Would Walt Do?: An Insider's Story about the Design and Construction of Walt Disney World.

1. for had I paid money for this book, I would be quite upset. The book is written as if the reader has an IQ of 50. There are many typos and poor sentence construction. These typos are even evident on the back cover of the book. I am surprised an editor would have let this book go to publication in the way it stands. Even worse, the author uses a supposed history book about WDW to rant about his own political views. I don't care what one's political thoughts are when I am supposed to be reading a book about the design and construction of WDW. Several pages are devoted to the author's views about unions and past presidents. He states that Walt was anti-union, and then takes this opportunity to write a few pages on why HE is anti-union. Who cares? Then there is a favorite quote of mine on page 22, "Lyndon Johnson was sworn in as President, and he seemed to me to be a real jerk." Again, what does this have to do with the topic on hand? There are many other great books about the creation of the theme parks and Disney's vision. Do not waste your time on this one.



2. Being a Disney fanatic, I always seek out books about Disney and Disneyland/World. This book was very interesting in the fact that it was more about the author's life during the construction phase of WDW. It did contain some interesting nuggets of information regarding the park but it was mostly a personal story about the author, his family, friends and coworkers during the construction of WDW. Not exactly what I was hoping for but it was an interesting read.



3. What Would Walt Do? is a first hand look through the eyes of a young civil engineer into the contruction of Walt Disney World from Walt's Seventh Premliminary Plan to Opening Day, 23 October 1971. It's a good read for engineering students, "wannabee" engineers and lovers of all things Disney. Readers will smile at the story of Levi, the arm wrestling champion of champions; the author's night on the town with an "Acadian Queen" and amused when engineers and technicians are dumped into a very cold Reedy Creek from a supposedly all terrain (including water) 4 wheel drive vehicle called a "Coot." The Coot was hoot!
   
   Although the author had never met Walt Disney who died in 1966, he learned through the leadership of Walt's brother Roy and others with long standing at Disney to apply to difficult construction decisions, union conflicts, contractor disputes, quality control issues the question: "What Would Walt Do?" In their considering that question, the ideal always sought was to apply Walt's standards of quality and safety to accomplish even the smallest details in the spirit of Walt's Dream. The ultimate compliment came on opening day from Walt's widow Lily who said, "I think Walt would have approved."
   
   Other accounts of this remarkable engineering/construction feat may be more technical or more historically accurate. However, WWWD gives insight not only into the day to day operation, construction ups and downs, but also into the personal lives of the men and women who helped to bring Walt's dream into a reality. They were a very special team who soon realized that after the gates had opened, the Boston Pops had played and Mickey had paraded....they had left a part of themselves in the dirt, steel and cement that covered hundreds of acres of Central Florida called Walt Disney World.



4. A very short book. No pictures. Lots of fluff. Information about the author that has nothing to do with Walt Disney takes up pages in the book. Stories about mean foremen and inspectors. Boring.

   What would Walt do? He'd do it right no matter what the expense. There. Save your money and buy a good book on Disney.




5. The book was an easy read BUT was really an autobiography of the author and his life. It's about his working days, especially while working on the constrction of WDW. Besides the very infrequent mention of the title "What Would Walt Do" there was next to nothing in the book about Walt's philosophies, work ethic and thought processes. Not what I exptected or what the title infers.

3 comments about Richter's Scale: Measure of an Earthquake, Measure of a Man.

1. I had such high hopes for this book. The author states that she had unprecedented access to Richter's private and professional papers and that this would give the reader an in-depth view of Richter's life. Sadly, nine chapters in the author told me we were finally going to address his professional life after chapter upon chapter of vignettes of women in his life and their relationship and impact on the development of seismology. I guess I missed the subtitle that stated this was an attempt to place women in a scientific context with respect to the development of earthquake science.
   But far more disturbing was the author's use of supposition. She presents a whole chapter on her case for Asperger's syndrome as an explaination of Richter's quirks. However, carefully examination of her evidence shows a number of areas where she contradicts herself. Moreover, she spends an enormous amount of time discussing what may or may not have been Richter's ample sex life, including repeated references to an insestous relationship with his sister, which may or may not have occurred.
   Ratheer than coming away from this book with a better understanding of the meshing of the personal and professional life of one of seismology's best known names, we are left with the National Enquirer report on Richter's life.
   The only area in which this book shines is it's final chapter. In it, the author clearly expresses her love and passion for seismology. As an earthquke scientist and educator she has a long and illustrious future ahead of her, that much is clear. However, as a scientist she should have realized how much supposition, in place of fact, might rankle other scientists consuming her product.



2. In "Richter's Scale" seismologist and author Susan Hough presents the first comprehensive biography of Charles Richter, famous for developing the earthquake scale that bears his name. Hough's scholarship is thorough and well-documented, and it seems she has carefully waded through every scrap of paper Richter ever wrote (and he was a compulsive diarist). Richter was a pivotal figure at a pivotal time in the science of seismology, and no historian of 20th century science can afford to ignore this book.
   
   For the general reader, however, "Richter's Scale" may prove tough going. Like Richter himself, the book suffers from a split personality. In part it's a straightforward biography of Richter, and in part a history of the development of major ideas in seismology (at least those that touched on Richter's career). Hough presents extensive evidence to suggest that Richter suffered from some sort of neurological disorder, possibly Asperger's Syndrome (a mild form of autism), and that his interests swung back and forth from science to poetry with manic instensity. If you're primarily interested in the science, be warned that there is an awful lot of poetry in this book!
   
   On the flip side, the book comes up short on some technical background information. Although the book includes numerous photographs, there are no illustrations of seismograms (the squiggles that record earth movements following an earthquake). Chapter nine in particular attempts to describe the importance of the development of a consistent system for measuring earthquakes without maps, seismograms or even data tables. Unless you already have a basic understanding of earthquake science, this chapter might stop you dead in your tracks.
   
   Most of the science in the book is centered around the seismology lab at Cal Tech where Richter spent his entire scientific career. Hough considers at length (although somewhat circumspectly) the jealousy surrounding Richter and his extensive public name recognition. Although Hough provides personal background information about several of Richter's colleagues (particularly Beno Gutenberg), more general descriptions of their scientific contributions could have provided better context. Beno Gutenberg may not be a household name like Charles Richter, but the core-mantle boundary is called the Gutenberg Discontinuity by seismologists. Hugo Benioff is immortalized by Wadati-Benioff Zones, the descending seismic belts that mark subduction zones, and even make their way into freshman textbooks! These guys were hardly obscure.
   
   Books on the history of science that make a great read are either driven by a central idea (Dava Sobel's "Longitude," or David Lindley's "Uncertainty") or by a strong and colorful personality ("Degrees Kelvin", also by David Lindley). In terms of style, Hough has fallen between these two stools. It's as if Richter's intense and divided personality imposed itself on the book.
   
   You won't regret having "Richter's Scale" on your bookshelf, but you may not read the whole thing.



3. Charles Richter is virtually the only seismologist that most of us have heard of, but almost all of us know the name. What, however, was it he did, exactly? And even if it was important, why should we care about his personal life?
   
   Well, his personal life was strange, so the idly curious might be titillated by it. The first question, though, is more directly relevant: Until somebody devised a method of quantifying earthquakes, there was no way to approach any estimate of danger.
   
   Buildings (including not just houses and schools but bridges, highways, dams and power plants) could have been designed to be earthquake-safe without Richter. But the cost can be high, so it would be wasteful to overbuild where the hazard is slight. Underbuilding can be catastrophic. The Tangshan earthquake, as recent as 1976, may have killed 750,000 people. The Chinese government has suppressed the real cost. The 2004 Sumatran quake, on the other hand, which killed close to 200,000, was not so much a matter of building design as of monitoring and evacuation warnings.
   
   So Richter's Scale is a fundamental tool by which to manage our lives. He announced it in 1935. Amazingly, according to geologist turned biographer Susan Elizabeth Hough, many people think it is a machine, like a butcher's scale. It is not a thing but a concept to organize a database.
   
   It took an unusual sort of mind to work out the scale, one capable of holding vast amounts of (at the time) diffuse data, while also having the insight to pick out the relevant relationships among the facts and the application to grind out the numbers. The last was no easy task before the digital computer.
   
   Hough speculates, at great length, that the kind of mind needed is the sort of oddly-wired mechanism found in persons born with Asperger's syndrome. This is speculative, but Richter left all his personal papers to his alma mater, California Institute of Technology, so a great more about Richter's personal demons is known than for most famous people.
   
   Much of it is in the form of poetry -- real poems, with rhymes, regular meter and punctuation. Hough finds his poems somewhat lacking in artistry. That's a matter of taste. I would rate his poetry above almost any winner of the Pulitzer Prize for poetry in the past generation.
   
   If Richter had Asperger's, and if it helped him to do significant science, it also caused him lifelong misery in his personal relationships. Although he wrote much, what he meant was not transparent. Hough has to make many speculative judgments, which she does with skill. Still, it is kind of creepy to probe that deeply into anybody else's mind -- if that, in fact, is what we're doing.
   
   Hough speculates that Richter wanted it done, otherwise he would not have left such intimate data in a public archive. Along with a collection of science fiction magazines going back to earliest days of "Amazing Stories."
   
   "Richter's Scale" is definitely what we stupidly call an "adult" book, but Richter himself, despite an "adult" lifestyle, was in some ways a Peter Pan of seismology.

5 comments about Coroner's Journal: Forensics and the Art of Stalking Death.

1. I love reading about how mds and police officials try to determine time of death, manner of death, etc. This book was hard to put down, and i looked forward to come home from work to get back into it.



2. This book is, for the most part, as deep as a conversation - like what you'd hear over dinner or having a beer - more than it is a real examination of the coroner's role and duties.
   
   Don't get me wrong, this is a really nice first effort, but I come away feeling like I have not learned much about Dr. Cataldie or his office.
   
   We learn that he takes his work seriously, it's a tough job and you can't let it get to you.
   
   Don't get me wrong, I personally know people with similar positions, and it is a tough, demanding job that takes a toll most people will never realize. I wish everyone could understand the sacrifices Dr. Cataldie and others like him make each and ever day.
   
   However, I do a little professional writing myself, and the most important lesson: Show, don't tell. Take us with you, don't just describe the trip. You got real close, particularly in the Conclusion chapter when he talks about some of the regular people who have needed his professional services. I'd like to hear more about them.
   
   So for that Katrina book I hope you're working on, dig deep, buddy. I know you can do it.



3. This was an excellent forensic case book. Not only do you get excellent cases but you also get the author's down to earth personality, concern for life and true emotions. If you enjoy forensic novels and case books - This is a definite must read!!



4. I was totally involved with reading this book. I couldn't put it down until I had finished it.
   Very in depth, very well written, really does show the steps a coroner goes thru in a death and crime situation.
   I felt as if I were on the investigating team. It really is a very good book, including much about the devastation of Hurricane Katrina in the New Orleans area.



5. This is book that is hard to put down. Cataldie takes you with him to crime scenes. He is a very detailed writer. I would love to find more books like this.

5 comments about Uncentering the Earth: Copernicus and The Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres (Great Discoveries).

1. 
   
   I completely understand the negative reviews this book has received. But I would like to defend this book, which I believe is worth the time and effort.
   
   This is a disappointing book if you are reading it for the wrong reason. The wrong reason is if you are reading this book as an astronomy buff who wants to learn more about Copernicus. Again, that is a very understandable mistake to make. By all appearances, it looks to be a serious academic discussion of the work of Copernicus and its role in the scientific paradigm shift.
   
   The right reason to read this book is not as an astronomy buff but as a William T. Vollman buff. I can't get enough of Vollman's writing. And he can't seem to stop writing so it's a good match (this is a writer, for example, who has completed an over 3,000 page essay on the nature of violence). Vollman has the gift of being able to encompass the full depth of the human experience in every sentence he writes. When he writes of ecstatic happiness, he manages to imbed it with hints of cruelty and suffering. When he writes about tragedy and death, there are twisted traces of sweetness and cathartic joy.
   
   I'm a fan of the history of science and good science writing too. And while this book might not be the most straightforward way to learn about Copernicus, there is factual information here about Copernicus' "On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres." We are also given Vollman's meditations on the nature of scientific revolutions and the way science as a process will always be hampered by human imperfection, by our individual investments in our beliefs, and by the stubborn drag of institutional momentum. "'Revolutions' was profoundly dangerous in its epoch, and hence profoundly necessary."
   
   Why would Vollman take on this task? He tells us this book is the result of an "exercise in explicating a subject slightly beyond my intellectual competence." But, when he marvels at the effort, "the immensity of the force required" and the "solitary years" behind Copernicus' work, we get a sense of the parallel process driving Vollman's own desires to nudge the universe.



2. I bought this book with high hopes of finding an interesting and illuminating look at how Copernicus revolutionized astronomy. I was so disappointed that I did something I virtually never do: after about 90 pages, I put the book away with no intention of finishing it. Vollmann is a writer of note, but in this case his writing is so mannered and his exposition seemingly so convoluted that the reader quickly grows fatigued. At least, this reader did.



3. This is the most uninteresting book on science or a scientific personality that I have read in recent times. I was looking forward to reading about the middle ages, the environment in which Copernicus grew up, the scientific world view at the time, the social mileu, what Copernicus himself was like, what his religious beliefs were, how he arrived at his conclusions, and what his book meant in terms of courage and conviction in that time. And, of course, a lot of actual science.
   
   Instead we get such hard to read, boring, insipid prose dissecting the text of his work that it's a real effort to turn each page. I felt like giving up at every turn till I was half-way through but only sheer will and expectation that it would get better kept me going. But I gave up at the half-way mark.
   
   I had learned very little that stayed with me and I had hardly enjoyed it. For those interested, Bill Bryson's "A short history of nearly everything" is one that succeeds quite well at this attempt to dispense science to the laymen.



4. If you are interested in what Copernicus did, save your money and time and don't buy this book. Instead, get ahold of Thomas Kuhn's masterful account "The Copernican Revolution".
   
   This book is one of a series in which non-scientists present popular accounts of mostly great episodes in science. I say mostly great because there seems to be a certain amount of political correctness in the choice of scientists to write about in the series. But I digress.
   
   Some of the books in this series are successful, for example the one by Madison Smartt Bell on Priestley, Lavoisier, and the chemical revolution. But when you have fiction writers expounding technical subjects, there is potential for trouble, and that is what we get with Vollmann's book on Copernicus.
   
   Vollmann's explanations of the technical aspects of Copernicus' work are superficial and hard to grasp. Kuhn is much better. Vollmann also has a complusion to say snotty things about everyone involved, about their thoughts, motives, habits of mind. One would think that the ancients who constructed early science and astronomy were a bunch of idiots who had to wait for Copernicus to come along, who of course was a dolt because he was "obedient" to Aristotle for the most part, and was incapable of writing clearly to boot. Kuhn is incomparably better at explaining the philsophical, religious, scientific, and historical contexts in which the ancients, Copernicus, and the other early moderns worked. For example, you get a real sense of why the ancient earth-centered system was the reasonable system, that the ancient heliocentric precursors of Copernicus didn't have much in the way of evidence or reason on their side. You get a sense from Kuhn of just what it was that made the heliocentric theory attractive to Copernicus -- the changing context of observational astronomy, and above all the clarity which the heliocentric view gave to the matter of the oddities of the motion of certain of the planets.
   
   If you really want a sense of the greatness of ancient scientific thought, of ancient astronomy, of the magnificence of the accomplishment of Copernicus and his followers in the modern scientific revolution, get ahold of Kuhn's book.



5. It's interesting that so many of the defining moments in history involved Uncentering something from something else. For instance, Thomas Willis realized that the seat of reason and intelligence was neither the heart nor the soul, but a lump of jelly in the skull. Darwin first figured out that the homo sapiens is just one twig in the tree of life. And before Willis and Darwin there was Copernicus, who is credited with discovering that the Earth, far from being the center of the universe, revolves around the sun along with all the other planets.
   
   There's something about human psychology that resists Uncentering, and back then the gecocentrists had mountains of religious and philosophical text to back them up. Needless to say heliocentrism was an unpopular idea, and in 16th century Europe people with unpopular ideas were burned along with their books. Copernicus was spared this fate, partly because of an apologetic (and unauthorized) preface, and partly by the fact that he died of natural causes shortly after the publication of his book in 1543. Copernicus's successors, Bruno and Galileo, ended up taking a lot of the flak.
   
   William T. Vollmann is an excellent writer, and he does a fabulous job of summarizing Revolutions. Using limited astro-jargon and a few figures, Vollmann explains how Copernicus calculated the positions and trajectories of the planets, often arriving quite close to modern estimates without the benefit of a telescope or even binoculars. He also describes how Copernicus had to grapple with the prevalent Ptolemaic system and its philosophical roots. Remarkably, Copernicus, despite his revolutionary worldview, could never bring himself to abandon the philosophical tradition that valued circles for their asthetic appeal. His heliocentric system thus featured circular orbits, and was consequently almost as complicated as Ptolemy's geocentric model. It would be another 50 years before Kepler cleaned up the mess by introducing elliptical orbits to the heliocentric model.
   
   In the end Copernicus was successful in uncentering the Earth. This was a real breakthrough, and not just because he was right about heliocentrism. The Uncentered viewpoint is just the idea that things in the universe can be studied objectively and empirically, without recourse to mysticism. Today we just call it science.

5 comments about The Jasons: The Secret History of Science's Postwar Elite.

1. Everybody loves to learn about secrets, dark projects and the exciting things that went on during the age of nuclear tests and strange and promising science experiments. We get quite a bit of that in The Jasons, but Finkbeiner somehow manages to write about this subject so dryly that the fun of reading it is soon leached out. She focuses on things she finds to be of interest with great detail and serious attempts of storytelling like with the Trinity Test and subsequent development of the thermonuclear device, the Argus Shot, the ultra low frequency antennae for communications with submarines and attacks on the Jasons by rabid activists during the Vietnam War. But when the topic comes to something she obviously finds less exciting, the book begins to drag on and takes the form of a college essay on a topic the author really couldn't care less about but has to have finished by the end of the week.
   
   The result of these abbreviated and dry patches is the loss of detail or useful information about the projects the Jasons were undertaking. For example, there is a lot that remains to be said about Wither Jason. Why was Jason undertaking climate studies? Why were there requestors in need of knowing if the climate was changing and how? Who were these requestors? Were there any military application to climate studies? The military has attempted to seed clouds to control hurricanes and tropical storms. Yet Finkbeiner makes no mention of these experiments or try to find out if Jason had anything to do with this whether it was encouraging the experiments or doing lemon detection studies that they're so famous for.
   
   There are a lot of quotes interwoven throughout the narrative, so much so that in some places the book begins to take on the feeling of a 250 page article rather than... well... a book. It becomes hard to know who's telling the story, her or the quoted Jason and it's easy to loose track who is talking about what. Overall this is an interesting work, but be ready to sift through a lot of dry reading to get to the interesting parts and be aware that some things which may seem like fertile grounds for more exploration are never really discussed in any depth.



2. This is a pretty impressive history of the Jasons, an advisory group to the US government on largely defense matters composed of elite scientists that has operated since 1960. Considering the highly classified nature of their work, the exclusiveness of this club, and tight-lipped attitude of many of their members, it's quite an accomplishment simply to write a readable, cohesive history of the Jasons. Many Jasons themselves told Finkbeiner they doubted anyone would want to read her book.
   
   Thankfully, these incredibly brilliant minds were wrong on that count. The early chapters of this book are quite fascinating. Finkbeiner has a skill for clearly describing the various scientific projects, and more importantly, explaining why the Jasons would be consulted on them. It was fascinating to read that the Jasons actually considered using nuclear weapons in the Vietnam war, and concluded that it was unpracticle for the United States to use tactical nuclear weapons with any effect without basically incinerating all of Northern Vietnam. More importantly from the US point of view, the US forces were quite vulnerable to nuclear retaliation, so using tactical nuclear weapons could very easily backfire in a terrible defeat for the US. The Jason authors of this report also had a hidden agenda, to discourage the use of nuclear weapons in the Vietnam War, and while held themselves to rigorous scientific analysis and let the facts speak for themselves, hoped their report would discourage the use of nuclear weapons that some military leaders were contemplating at the time.
   
   And this leads to the second triumph of the book, in that many of the Jasons are not the Dr. Strangeloves one might expect, but a very diverse and complicated group of people that cannot be easily type-casted. We learn how the various members became Jasons, the unwritten rules within the group, and what they think about their work. Finkbeiner has done a good job of earning the trust of many of the Jason members to speak rather candidly about their work and their motivations for being Jasons.
   
   The latter chapters delve more into issues of scientific policy and the role of scientific advisory groups, and therefore, are of less general interest. Not to say they aren't interesting to read, but just don't hold the appeal of the earlier chapters.



3. Although this book sticks fairly steadily to the Jasons and their work, it offers the best characterization I have ever seen of the choices and dilemmas faced by those who work with the Defense Department on topics everyone would rather not think about. As the book indicates, these days a profusion of outside experts advise the government on all sorts of technical matters, and the Defense Department is notable for the extent to which it seeks outside advice. I have never been a Jason, although I do know a few of the folks mentioned or quoted in this book, but I was involved off and on for more than 40 years working with and for the Defense Department as a techie and scientist. It isn't easy, and that is perhaps the most important message conveyed by this book. The objectivity required to give good technical advice is often at odds with one's personal feelings as a citizen. And it can be discouraging to be one of a group that's asked to advise on something, and puts a lot of effort into coming up with a clear, well-reasoned answer, to see it completely ignored, which does happen. So why do it? And here I would make two points that the book doesn't make clear.
   
   First, occasionally one can make a big difference. Not often, but occasionally. I've had that happen. But for it to happen, one must "pay one's dues"; one has to have earned the respect of the policy-makers by putting in lots of effort over the years to help them make decisions. One person who has that respect can make more difference in certain cases than any number of noisy demonstrators, and this is as true of Congress as it is of Administration officials. That makes the disappointments worth while.
   
   Second, the book fails to note that a large fraction of senior US military officers are themselves brilliant and technically well-educated, with advanced degrees in engineering or science, so they are good people to work with, as interesting to work with as one's colleagues in the civilian community. For example, Gen. Alfred Dodd Starbird, mentioned in this book, was among the most impressive people I have ever met, hard-driving, utterly tireless, and with a strong enough technical background so that I never had to tell him anything more than once, or go into elaborate detail; he soaked up technical information like a sponge.
   
   This book isn't exciting, but I consider it mandatory reading for anyone with a technical or scientific background who is asked to advise the Defense Department on anything. Before saying yes or no, one should use this book as a collection of "case studies", and ask, "Am I willing to go through that". If you are, you can make a big difference.



4. I do not regret buying or reading this book, but I am greatly disappointed by both the lack of detail and the lack of visualization that I was hoping for.
   
   The JASONS (according to the author, this stands for the months from July through November when individual stars did most of their consulting) were a spin-off from the Manhattan Project. There were two branches: the JASONS were hired by government sparked by the Sputnik scare and funded by the Advanced Projects Research Agency of DoD (the same one that funded the Internet); and those that feared nuclear power founded the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) which exists to this day to expose unnecessary secrecy.
   
   The original group met in 1958, 22 scientists meeting for 2 weeks at the National Defense University. On page 33, early on, the author denotes the importance of this group with the phrase "distinterested advice comes best from independent scientists."
   
   There was a major financial incentive: the summer consulting could double their 9-month academic salaries.
   
   JASON became official on 1 January 1960, at first housed under the Institute of Defense Analysis (IDA), then under the Stanford Research Institute (SRI), and finally under MITRE, all in theory Federally Funded Research & Development Centers, but in the case of MITRE, often in real competition with legitimate businesses.
   
   Missile defense is not new to the Bush-Cheney regime. It has been a mainstay of ARPA and the JASONS going back to Sputnik days, and generally consumed 50% of ARPA's budget (elsewhere we have speculated on the gains for mankind of having an ARPA for peace).
   
   Early on the JASONS are described as "slightly flakey and almost bizarre," but supremely intelligent with the arrogance to match it. Their task was partly to shoot down stupid ideas with high-ranking supporters, and partly to think out of the box on really touch problems, almost always, but not always, at a classified level.
   
   DARPA fired the JASONS in 2000 when they refused to take on some of the lame scientists that DARPA recommended, but the happy result was their promotion to work directly for DARPA's boss, the Director of Defense Research & Development.
   
   The author discusses throughout the book the conflict between the scientific imperative to discuss hypotheses and findings opening, and the demands for secrecy imposed on these brilliant minds.
   
   Among the projects credited to the JASONS, with all too little detail, are missile defense, directed energy weapons, extremely low frequency (ELF) communications to reach submerged submarines, nuclear event detection, sensors and night vision for Viet-Nam.
   
   The JASONS could not handle the sociology of insurgency. I find this fascinating. Technocrats simply cannot "compute" real world anger.
   
   The Pentagon Papers outed the JASONS. Over time they added the Navy, Department of Energy, and the Intelligence Community as clients, but the also changed in fundamental ways, moving from an elite of physicists to a melange of all disciplines, including many members without clearances.
   
   The JASONS did well with adaptive optics and STAR WARS.
   
   Putting down the book I thought to myself:
   
   1) The Defense Science Board (DSB) is probably the public adaptation of the JASON concept, and does very very good work that is also capable of being shared with the public on most occasions (see for instance, their superb reports on "Strategic Communication" and on "Transition to and from Hostilities").
   
   2) Is this all there is? I give the author good marks for investigation and diplomacy and elicitation, but very candidly, I could have done better with simple citation analysis from the Science Citation Index, and some dramatic visualizations of how the JASONs did or did not stand out from the crowd. It is possible today to detect secret programs as they black out, and overall I felt that what this book provided was one person's good efforts, without ANY of the modern tools of Open Source Intelligence (OSINT).



5. It took about a week for me to read The Jasons. Maybe less. I enjoyed the book, especially the details about the individual scientists and their quirky personalities. In fact, the author seemed a bit overly attentive to this stereotype: an ivory tower academic out of place in the "real world" but too arrogant to notice. That got kind of old after a while, especially when there seemed to be notable exceptions (MacDonald and Drell spring to mind).
   
   I think another reviewer at amazon mentioned the overly familiar writing style. I agree with that statement. I was hoping for something a bit more...objective sounding. Perhaps this could just be the authors chosen style. And it wasn't bad. It was light and quick paced. Just not very objective sounding, which, of course, should always be heavy and slow.
   
   Overall, I would recommend this book to those with an interest in the relationship between scientists and the government (particularly DOD), as well as those looking for an easy read.

2 comments about Life on Air: Memoirs of a Broadcaster.

1. I love this book. As a kid I used to sit glued to the TV watching Attenborough's programmes, such as the series 'Life on Earth' and countless others, bringing exotic places and the wonders of natural world into our living rooms. This book is an autobiography focused on David Attenborough's long and unparalleled BBC career starting from the birth of the TV medium in the 40's and 50's up untill today. What shines through in this book is vintage Attenborough: A true passion for his vocation, and an indefatigable desire to bring the most fascinating aspects of natural history to our TV screens. In a time when a lot of TV is hopelessly pre-digested and bland, Attenborough stands out more than ever, and so does this book. Read it an enjoy.



2. I have watched David Attenboroughs TV documentaries for years and have consistently found them to be unrivalled in their ability to bring the subject matter to life in a way no other presenter can. This book maintains that tradition. As you read the book you travel with the author and what a trip it is. He is an immensely likable person who has led a fascinating life. The book is also well constructed, highly readable and offers a host of insights into both the author and the natural world. I would strongly recommend it to you.

5 comments about The Radioactive Boy Scout: The True Story of a Boy and His Backyard Nuclear Reactor.

1. I was David's scoutmaster when he was preparing for his Eagle Scout Board of Review. I was to contact five registered adult Scout leaders, who would comprise the Board. One prospective adult told me he could not, because "something happened".
   
   I learned that David and some friends were stopped by the cavaliering Clinton Township (Michigan) Police, who were randomly stopping teens and searching their cars for stolen tires.
   
   David was not allowed to keep his experiments in his stepmother's home, so he kept everything in his car trunk. The cops found no tires, but saw his stuff and overreacted.
   
   Days later, David's father phoned and said that David would no longer pursue the Eagle Scout rank.
   
   A month or so later, a man claiming to be a reporter phoned my home, wanting to do a telephone interview about David. After a few moments, I refused. There was something negative about the line of questioning.
   
   As a Scout, David was always clean-cut, polite, and well-liked by the other boys. My take is that David had the scientific curiosity of a Tesla or Edison; not of an evil prankster.
   
   David's father, like so many divorced and re-married men, walked a tightrope between caring for his son and appeasing a new bride.
   
   For Mr. Silverstein should keep his story factual, and keep his opinions about Scouting to the editorial pages.



2. Did the author have this read by a nuclear engineer or physicist for accuracy? Obviously not!!!!! First thing, on page 39, the author states that electromagnetic separation is the same as a centrifuge. If he would have researched the separation techniques for more than 5 minutes would have seen that we used calutrons (electromagnetic separation) in WWII but that is not the same as centrifuges which is the primary form of separation today. Second, his discussion on radioactivity on page 54 shows that he doesn't understand the topic. Furthermore, he makes blanket statements that do not attempt to frame the situation or put things in context. If nuclear power didn't produce an ounce of energy like the author says then why are countries actively pursuing this power source (such as France as an earlier comment stated)? Lastly, this book could've been one page but he continues saying the same thing over and over again. It was the first book I debated quitting reading or at least going directly to the end. I want my money back, this was one of the worst books I've ever read.



3. The story of David Hahn is interesting enough that it would be difficult to write a bad book about it. Fortunately, Silverstein's prose is breezy and well-written, and the book is quite the page-turner. Hahn is a near-perfect antihero - you know that he's clearly endangering himself and others, but at the same time, you can't help but cheer him on.
   
   The story was initially an article in Harper's, which Silverstein then expanded on. This is pretty obvious, as lots of the book has little to do with David, but more to do with atomic energy and its history in the US. However, it's all pretty interesting stuff, and even though I already knew about most of it, I think that it would be quite educational for people who don't know as much about the US's history with the atom.
   
   Now for the bad parts- Silverstein does a lot of moralizing, and it gets on my nerves.
   
   He correctly judges David's parents as being neglectful - indeed, they do seem to treat David more as a burden then anything else. I also agree that his school should have done more to channel his energy in a positive direction. But what the hell - schools in America suck at this sort of thing, and everybody knows that. This is a problem that should be addressed, but you could hardly blame the school system for David's building a nuclear reactor.
   
   Silverstein portrays David in a mostly sympathetic light, but he does judge him a bit harshly at times. I think this is unjustified - David carried out his experiments when he was still an adolescent. At that age, you really don't know right from wrong, which is why there's a different set of laws for people under 18.
   
   Silverstein blames various adults for "not catching on" to what David was doing, and I think that's absurd. You can't expect that a teenager is going to build a nuclear reactor.
   
   Finally, Silverstein seems to have a serious hate-on for nuclear science, and that really got on my nerves. Yes, the US does have sort of a dark history with nuclear science. However, is this the fault of the atom, or the fault of the US government? Last I checked, France gets 76% of their power from atomic energy, and they seem to be doing pretty well with it. Point being, you can discuss our past mistakes in atom-splitting without dismissing an entire branch of science.
   
   Anyway, good book, you'll probably enjoy it, but you'll have to filter out some of Silverstein's gratuitous editorializing.



4. The Radioactive Boy Scout
   By: Ken Silverstein
   
   Non-fiction
   The book is about a boy who finds a golden book with science experiments in it and he becomes obsessed with it and basically he becomes a science expert. He then decided to have a lab in his potting shed. In the book it tells about how to perform experiments. Whenever he had the chance he would look over his nuclear research, in the library, in his potting shed, and at school. The kids at school think that he is a geek so he brings some of the rare elements on the periodic table of elements to school to show off. He got the elements from clocks, smoke detectors, and borrowing some of the things he needed. Then David made a great discovery and made a gun for it. His dad wants him to join boy scouts so he did but that didn't take science off his mind. He even won merit badge in atomic energy. His dream was to collect a sample of every element on the periodic table of elements. But later he gets in a lot of trouble using the things on the periodic table of elements. I like how the author describes the elements so well and where they are on the periodic table of elements. I also like how the author describes how the elements work in liquids and other things. I didn't enjoy reading the book because he took to long to describe things like the elements or what they did. I also dislike how the book only described how the elements work and where they are on the periodic table of elements. The author didn't talk about other things happening in his life like his girl friend. She only appears once in a while in the book. The author also didn't tell what happened to the boy at the end of the prolog.



5. The Radioactive Boy Scout
   By: Ken Silverstein
   
   Non-fiction
   The book is about a boy who finds a golden book with science experiments in it and he becomes obsessed with it and basically he becomes a science expert. He then desited to have a lab in his potting shed. In the book it tells about how to perform experiments. Whenever he had the chance he would look over his nuclear research, in the library, in his potting shed, and at school. The kids at school think that he is a geek so he brings some of the rare elements on the periodic table of elements to school to show off. He got the elements from clocks, smoke detectors, and borrowing some of the things he needed. Then David made a great discovery and made a gun for it. His dad wants him to join boy scouts so he did but that didn't take science off his mind. He even won merit badge in atomic energy. His dream was to collect a sample of every element on the periodic table of elements. But later he gets in a lot of trouble using the things on the periodic table of elements. I like how the author describes the elements so well and where they are on the periodic table of elements. I also like how the author describes how the elements work in liquids and other things. I didn't enjoy reading the book because he took to long to describe things like the elements or what they did. I also dislike how the book only described how the elements work and where they are on the periodic table of elements. The author didn't talk about other things happening in his life like his girl friend. She only appears once in a while in the book. The author also didn't tell what happened to the boy at the end of the prolog.

5 comments about Unlocking the Sky: Glenn Hammond Curtiss and the Race to Invent the Airplane.

1. History is fascinating and unfortunately, history's short form as provided us in school, does no justice to the real stories. The Notes and bibliography are important AND significant, and Mr. Shulman has done a Wonderful job in providing this window into the real history of early aviation.
   
   You see, all of this is reinforced by the wonderful airplanes that Europe was developing and building (SPAD, Nieuport, Sopwith, Fokker, etc),seemingly without the strictures and lawsuits that Curtiss and others encountered the Wrights in America.
   
   The book is a great read and the real story is quite simply amazing.



2. This book is well researched and lets any objective reader know who really "unlocked the sky" for future generations, and it was not the Wright brothers. They may have flown first (with the help of a major crane machine to get them airborne) but they would rather have put a lock on the sky than share their knowledge. This despite the fact that they asked for and were freely given much knowledge and data by others that enable their success. Glenn Hammond Curtiss kept going, conquering the hurdles the Wright brothers threw his way for years, and in the end was unstoppable. Most veriable firsts are his. And he shared it all. Much of today's aviation success can be traced directly to him. This book was excellent and anyone interested in aviation history should read it. Besides, it is fun to read!



3. Seth Shulman is a writer who specializes in science, technology, and the environment. Orville and Wilbur Wright launched their flying machine in December 1903 and are honored as the inventors of the airplane. There were plenty of rivals at home and abroad. This book provides the reasons to place Glenn Hammond Curtiss of Hammondsport NY as an important inventor in spite of the court decisions that gave rights to the Wright brothers. The 'Prologue' tells of Samuel Pierpont Langley's attempt to launch a flying machine on Dec. 08, 1903. It failed, and the Wright brothers succeeded. Shulman implicitly criticizes Langley's expensive effort.
   
   Chapter 2 explains the reason for a broad patent on airplanes: powerful financiers backed the Wright brothers (p.44). The Wrights had solved the difficult problem of stabilizing the flight of an aircraft ("wing warping"). The Wrights did everything to keep their success secret in order to retain control of their invention (pp.50-51). Sir George Cayley, a British nobleman, was the first to envision a practical airplane design with fixed wings, a tail, and a propulsion system in the early 19th century (pp.95-96). Octave Chanute's 1894 book recorded the state of aviation (p.98). Glenn Curtiss made the first publicly witnessed flight on July 4, 1908 (Chapter 6). Curtiss won the test at Rheims, France (Chapter 7). Politically appointed Judge John Hazel ruled that the Wrights' patent should be "broadly construed" (p.182); this favored the Wall Street investors who owned the Wrights' patent. Curtiss flew from Albany to Manhattan to win a prize (Chapter 9).
   
   Chapter 10 tells of the legal fights between the Wrights' corporation and other pioneers besides Curtiss. Judge Hazel seems to have been in the pocket of the Wrights. Curtiss produced many inventions (p.207). The Curtiss JN was one of the most popular and successful airplanes of that era (p.208). Curtis is credited with 500 aeronautical inventions (p.209), like the aileron (p.210). The 'Epilogue' said Curtiss built the best airplanes of that day (p.224). Curtiss' seaplane 'America' was bought by Britain to patrol the Channel and attack U-boats (p.225).
   
   America could not provide a fighter or pursuit airplane for WW I. The Curtiss company built the P-40 for the Army and the SB2C for the Navy in WW II. The Wrights were first to fly. Langley's mismanagement caused his failure (a defective structure). Langley squandered money on a houseboat for show instead of using flat land (like the Wrights or Curtiss). Curtiss was right to concentrate on a better product (like Henry Ford) rather than legal battles over patents (but patents are important). This book provides an argument against overly broad patent rights. Squashing competition was the aim of the trusts of that day (the Selden patents). This book is well-written and fast paced, but could be better organized. I think this book would be better if it told about the other developers in the early 20th century and did not overemphasize the squabbles over patent rights. It does not cover the decades after WW I.



4. Mr. Shulman's revisionist history presents Glenn Hammond Curtiss, early aviation pioneer and inventor, as a series of opposites. He alternately describes the man as shy, sheepish, and unassuming, and then as a master public relations man, always taking time to entertain the press reporters to keep them hanging around his "shop." He regularly describes him as the beloved son of Hammondsport, NY, while telling how frightened and angered the townsfolk were with his exploits of racing motorcycles around town at breakneck speed or testing noisy contraptions. He describes him as an honest and upstanding citizen who started a commercial company selling airplanes in violation of patent laws for the "greater good" of mankind (ignoring that Curtiss got his information from Augustus Herring, who betrayed the Wrights and first tried unsuccessfully to sell the knowledge to the more ethical Langley). He describes him as an inventor of nearly everything important to modern aviation while explaining that until 1904 he considered anyone attempting flight as a "crank." Yes, the man is a conundrum, a paradox, a riddle.
   
   Unfortunately, he remains so after forcing myself to keep reading this book. If you're looking for an interesting and informative biography, this isn't it. If you're looking for criticism that seldom lets up on attacking the Wright brothers (constantly referring to them as "bicycle mechanics"), or that embarrassingly idolizes Glenn Curtiss, this is the book for you! Other reviews here have documented many of the inaccuracies in this book undermining the author's credibility (I took the time to verify only some of them). Shulman downplays the 64 modifications required to get the Langley machine to fly, describing them as "minor" and "inconsequential," in an obvious and shameful attempt to discredit the Wrights (for which the Smithsonian later apologized). He also ignores that the Curtiss engine used on Baldwin's dirigible at the St. Louis World Fair was far inferior to the one constructed by the Wrights, instead trumpeting it as an enormous accomplishment and victory over the Wrights. And the constant name-dropping of Curtiss' list of associates and acquaintances (no matter how remote) is ridiculous. Also, the lack of any logical timeline is annoying, starting out with Langley's failed 1903 attempt, then bouncing to 1914, then 1906, then 1904, then 1907...
   
   There's no doubt that the Wright Brothers were publicly stiff and perhaps even odd, and that their legal attempts to protect their rights were counter-productive to developing an aviation industry in the US. There's also little doubt that Curtiss was a colorful and interesting personality, even if his personal ethics were a bit wanting. But that's the Curtiss that would have been fun to learn about. Instead of trying to present an objective history or biography and his many contributions to aviation, Shulman's addition is little more than a shrill and error-filled condemnation of the Wrights, seemingly taking it as a personal affront that they tried to profit from their labors. There's little to learn from this book, if you can force yourself through it.



5. This version of the 'history' of the battle between the Wright Brothers and Glenn Curtiss can be summarized as follows:
   The Wright Brothers... (boo, hiss...) were mean and spiteful, but OUR HERO Glenn Curtiss was intelligent and kind... (yay, hurray!)
   
   Yes, the tone and writing style are nearly that simplistic and one-sided.
   
   The author shows a surprising lack of understanding of patent law, and makes a mess of the whole affair. He attacks the Wrights for doing what any patent holder normally does -- defend the patent. He implies that the patent would have somehow been invalid since Curtiss and others would soon have discovered the same knowledge anyway. And he argues that if the matter were decided by public opinion, then Curtiss would have won. All of which are irrelevant. The Wrights were first; they demonstrated a powered flying machine that a man could fly; they documented their discovery, built a machine that worked and described the methods for its use; and, they filed a patent with broad enough claims to protect their ideas from copycats like Curtiss.
   
   The author praises Curtiss for patenting over 500 inventions but never prosecuting anyone over patent infringement. Which begs the question, why even bother filing a patent? It would have been cheaper and more 'altruistic' to publish his ideas in magazines and place them in the public domain.
   
   The author states that none of the Wrights' ideas are still in use. The author should have known that the common air-screw propeller, the wind tunnel, the yaw-pitch-roll control method of flying and the basic plan-form of the airplane were all Wright ideas and inventions and remain as key elements of aeronautics a century after the Wrights first flew.

5 comments about Galileo: A Life.

1. This book gives a prime example of why our forefathers wanted to keep the Church and the Governemnt separate. What the church, the Catholic Church specifically, did to Galileo simply because he dared to embrace the belief that the earth revolved around the sun was tragic. Once again the author takes historical, truthful data and tells an emotional story of a tragic, historical event. This book is a must for everyone.



2. This is a fine biography that brings to life one of the greatest men to advance our civilization.I read this book because I have always found the relationship of Galileo's ideas and the Roman Catholic Church to be one of the most intriguing chapters in church history. The book goes back to his childhood and highlights his major intellectual accomplishments and his relationships with family members and friends. His illegitimate children and how they were percieved by society was an eye opener. As a result he sent his daughters to the convent because no one would want to marry them. I wonder how many other women ended up nuns as a result? His days while attending school were very interesting, his university teaching jobs more interesting, his relationships with other intellectuals and politicians of his age even more interesting but his relationship after presenting his scientific theories on movement of the heavenly bodies the most fascinating. It makes you wonder about the church and some of the science that it is at odds with today won't be looked at years down the line as backwards and wrong as well. The time period of Galileo's life is brought to life to reveal all of its majesty and warts.I found myself wanting to read more about Galileo after reading this book and have since read another entitled "Galileo's Daughter." What a brilliant mind and tragic figure Galileo was. If you like history or biographies this will be a good book for you.



3. If you already know something about Galileo, this book will be a wonderful addition to your knowledge base. If you are a newcomer, this book is a good introduction, but it will leave you wishing you knew more about his experimental method, his scientific writing, and his inventions. This book places Galileo in the context of his time and place -- and showing how he influenced his era (and eras after) -- and it also leaves you wanting a more traditional biography that tells you more about what Galileo did.



4. If you are looking for a biography that discusses Galileo's scientific work, you will be disappointed. Reston must, of course, mention this great thinker's discoveries, but that is as far as it goes. There is little about the influence of his discoveries on the scientific community or how it shaped the world afterwards. I would have expected this to be one of the central themes considering the subject of this biography. The book deals almost exclusively with Galileo's struggles with the church. It is obvious that Reston has no scientific background. He should have picked someone else to write about.



5. 
   Italian astronomer and physicist Galileo Galilei (1564-1642), sometimes called the founder of modern experimental science, butted heads with church authorities, his colleagues, and a number of his patrons.
   
   As recently as little more than a decade ago, the voice of this indefatigable genius was heard again when, some 350 years after being accused, tried and condemned by the Roman Catholic Church for espousing the idea that the Earth moves around the Sun, the Vatican admitted that it was wrong about Galileo.
   
   Galileo's father taught his son music and encouraged him to become a doctor. But, while studying medicine and the philosophy of Aristotle at the University of Pisa, Galileo made his first important discovery - the law of the pendulum. From then on he turned his attention to mathematics.
   
   The time of Galileo is brilliantly evoked by James Reston in this splendidly researched story of an idealistic and egotistical genius. By chronicling Galileo's life in the first person and utilizing his journals, the story becomes an enthralling one for readers as the conflict between science and religion escalates.
   
   Reston's work is a fine addition to the biographical history of one of the most important figures in Western culture.
   
   - Gail Cooke