When I first saw the book Physics for Future Presidents (2008) by Cal-Berkeley professor Richard A. Muller on the shelves of a local bookstore, I knew I had to read it. Any book attempting to provide an educated layperson audience (including members of that audience who may aspire to the U.S. presidency) with explanations of physics concepts and their applications to major public policy issues was something I had to read!
I have now finished reading Physics for Future Presidents and I would definitely recommend it to readers of this blog. It is well-written, educational, and a fairly quick read. Although the book is most directly informed by a physics perspective on the actions of molecules, atoms, and nuclei, Muller also incorporates related disciplines such as chemistry and engineering.
The title's reference to future presidents is not just a rhetorical touch. On topic after topic, Muller revisits the issue of how a president (or any head of state) will often have to make difficult policy decisions, and that such decisions will probably be of a higher quality if the president knows something about the underlying science of the matter (no pun intended) at hand.
The issues covered in the book fall into a few major categories: national security (including terrorism and nuclear weapons), energy, and space-based applications.
For whateaver reason, what I found to be the most fascinating topic in the book is radiation poisoning, discussed in conjunction with nuclear power and nuclear weapons. Muller starts with a straightforward definition of radiation:
Radiation is the name for the fragments that fly out when the nucleus explodes. Just as with a hand grenade, it's the fragments that do the damage... They spew out with enormous velocity, sometimes approaching or equaling the velocity of light. When these chunks rip into your body, they tear your molecules apart. If enough cells are killed, you will die quickly. Lesser levels of damage can still induce cancer (pp. 95-96).
Muller presents the relationship between exposure to radiation (in units called rem) and likelihood of developing cancer in mathematical/ probabilistic terms. He notes that "the dose of radiation needed to cause cancer has been measured to be approximately 2500 rem" (pp. 98-99). However, at doses smaller than that -- even much smaller -- there is some non-zero probability of developing cancer:
But even at [a] low dose, there is some probability that one of the regulatory genes that controls unlimited cell growth will be damaged by radiation and not be repaired. As a consequence, 1% of a cancer dose will have a 1% chance of triggering an eventual cancer. For larger doses, it is proportional. Four percent of a cancer dose has a 4% chance of triggering a cancer (p. 99).
It is also possible, however, that the relationship may not be perfectly linear. As Muller notes, there could be a small zone (say from 0-6 rem) at which there is no cancer risk. Only above that zone (i.e., 6-rem threshold), might a linear relationship kick in between radiation exposure (in percent of the known cancer-causing dose) and probability of cancer.
Muller's aim in providing scientific background on issues potentially threatening humanity and the entire planet is to help inform the choices presidents, other policymakers, and the larger citizenry will make. There are certainly places throughout the book where one can anticipate Muller's policy recommendations based on his tone. However, he saves for the final page of the book a clear statement of his personal recommendations.
Muller seems determined to convey an image of himself as a politically neutral analyst, committed only to scientific facts and their balanced presentation. However, criticism has arisen over Muller's treatment of
climate science and electric cars. In addition, some have also contended that Muller seems to have it in for Al Gore.
A friend of mine at Texas Tech University named Lindsay Reed, founder of the Tech Renewable Energy Society, has recommended another, related book to me. It is a free online book, Sustainable Energy -- Without the Hot Air, by British professor David MacKay. Lindsay suggests that MacKay too tries to present information in a politically neutral manner; whether he succeeds better than Muller is for the reader to decide.