You would think this would be a good bedtime book. You would be wrong... this book has kept me from sleeping more nights than it has put me to sleep. I just cant seem to stop reading it. Understanding some of the real threats to society helps you understand how to react with facts rather than fear. Plus the sections on energy give you a better understanding of the why's and how's of energy policy. Get this book! Read it twice!

"Physics for Future Presidents" does an excellent job of clearly and summarizing the science and basic facts involved in key areas such as nuclear weapons, climate change, possible terrorist weapons, etc.

A high quality computer battery delivers only 1% of the energy of an equal weight of gasoline - thus, the appeal of gasoline-powered cars. Seven tons of gasoline, mixed with air and detonated from a parachute, releases the energy of 100 tons of TNT - thus, some idea of the power of the energy released in the 9/11 WTC crashes.

Muller is not worried about terrorists making nuclear weapons. The "Davy Crockett" small nuclear weapon weighed about 50 lbs and had about 250 tons of explosive power - not enough to span Central Park. Constructing it would require PhD-level engineers and expert machinists. A stolen ICBM-type bomb, however, is a much more serious threat.

Muller also is not concerned about dirty bombs - the potential damage is far more psychological than real, and limited by the damage caused to those involved.

Detecting rogue nations making uranium nukes look for special centrifuge components - special bearings and maraging (special-strength) steel. Plutonium explosions require very demanding-shaped charges with simultaneous detonation devices - thus, watch for chemical reprocessing plants, material diverted from nuclear reactors, and exotic timing devices.

Smallpox spreads like a chain reaction, and is far greater a threat than anthrax which is spread only via spores. Anthrax spores are hard to disperse and keep aloft. The bad news is that the Soviets created tons reportedly resistant to most antibiotics and buried it. Regardless, terrorists could make more.

Coal used in the U.S. is 20X cheaper than gasoline for the same energy. Our coal will last over 1,000 years at current usage rates.

The critical mass for U-235 is 440 lbs, but with a reflector it is only 33 lbs., about the volume of a quart of milk German scientists missed this and shut down their atomic bomb effort.) The critical mass for plutonium is 13 lbs, about the size of a soft-drink can. Teflon was the "secret" material used in uranium diffusion - the U.S. plant was about 1/2 a square mile. The typical centrifuge plant needs several thousand machines in an area about that of a movie theater; little power is needed.

Reprocessing plutonium is simple, but P-240 (a pollutant) tends to make it explode prematurely. The surrounding explosives must work uniformly and simultaneously - else a fizzle such as North Korea incurred. The secret of the H-bomb is that a plutonium fission bomb emits enough X-rays that they can be used, after bouncing off uranium walls, to compress and ignite the deuterium and tritium (or lithium). Surrounding the secondary material with depleted uranium fissions that material via the neutron fusion, and creates about half the total blast power.

Reagan in 1980 announced a unilateral reduction in the total yield of the U.S. arsenal - actually, he had created more smaller weapons that would create even more damage.

U.S. reactors use partially-enriched uranium (3%) to get around water's absorbing some neutrons. (Natural uranium works when moderated by carbon or heavy water.) Most of our uranium enrichment plants are manufacturing reactor-grade uranium.

Fast breeder reactors are the only type than can explode. Pebble-bed modular reactors are inherently save, operate at higher temperatures and efficiency (40-50%).

Refrigerators dropped from using 1,800 kwh/year in 1974 to less than 500, while increasing about 25% in size and decreasing over 50% in constant dollars.

Over half the power in sunlight is in the infrared spectrum - thus, can paint a roof dark and still reflect half the heat. Also use on sidewalks and streets to reduce the heat island effect.

Professor Muller's book is an excellent read. It is contemporaneous, discussing developments that have occurred in 2008 as well as earlier years. Professor Muller gets beyond the puerile politically-correct propaganda that passes for science these days. Money well spent.

This book is not for the casual reader, but it is a must-read for those who pride themselves on being well informed in any one of the five important issues discussed in this book: Terrorism, Energy, Nukes, Space, and Global Warming. The author has ordered the subject matter according to what he believes are the most pressing issues that will confront the new President. While passionate about the subject material, the author is refreshingly detached in reaching his conclusions, as a physicist should be.

When I recommend this book to my better-informed friends, the most frequent question I get back is, "What does he say about Global Warming?" Those who are looking for pithy sound bites will be disappointed. Those who fear a boring professorial-type lecture will be pleasantly surprised. Dr. Muller presents well thought-out rationales for each section, and his delivery has been refined in the classroom by teaching non-physics students at the University of California, Berkley.

I appreciate Dr. Muller's respect for his readers (and future Presidents.) He does not try to impose a hidden agenda upon us. Dr. Muller clearly states his premises and the physics of his findings flows nicely from them

Here is a sketch of my views, as a physicist, on what the reader can expect.

Terrorism: Dr. Muller discusses the high energy content in the jet fuel carried by each hijacked airplane that hit the towers of the World Trade Center on 9/11. He later describes the likely limitations of a terrorist's dirty bomb. He reminds us that Jose Padilla, an American with extensive al-Qaeda training, proposed to build a dirty bomb. Padilla was directed instead to blow up two apartment buildings using natural gas.

Energy: Dr. Muller hits us with a number of "surprises," such as, gasoline delivers 15 times the energy of an equal weight of TNT; coal is 20 times cheaper than gasoline for the same energy; a square mile of sunlight at midday receives a gigawatt of power. He points out that gasoline holds 100 times more energy, pound for pound, than the high quality expensive batteries in cell phones. (Hence, although he owns a hybrid car himself, he is skeptical about the future of all-electric cars until batteries or fuel cells can be greatly improved.)

Nukes: Here he includes both nuclear weapons and nuclear power. After explaining how to estimate the dangers of exposing many people to radioactivity, he discusses the difficulty of building nuclear weapons. He describes how to build safe nuclear reactors, such as Pebble Bed reactors.

Space: Dr. Muller's believes that science should be the central goal of government space programs. Consequently, he advocates robotics rather than manned space travel. He uses a number of examples to illustrate rocket propulsion, orbits, spy satellites, stealth bombers, meteorite impacts, etc.

Global Warming: This is the most balanced and competent treatment of climate change that I have found. After a chapter on climate history, Dr. Muller discusses the Greenhouse Effect. The evidence brings him to the conclusion that most of the buildup of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere is manmade. He then classifies the various kinds of distortions and exaggerations that have plagued this subject over the last decade. Next, he focuses on what he sees as the real task: reducing carbon dioxide. After a discussion of "Non-solutions," he addresses solutions. The centerpiece is a concept that he calls "Comfortable Conservation," by which he means better ways to accomplish a task that is less polluting and often cheaper. Florescent light bulbs are an example.

This book is not for the casual reader, but it is a must-read for those who pride themselves on being well informed in any one of the five important issues discussed in this book: Terrorism, Energy, Nukes, Space, and Global Warming. The author has ordered the subject matter according to what he believes are the most pressing issues that will confront the new President. While passionate about the subject material, the author is refreshingly detached in reaching his conclusions, as a physicist should be.

When I recommend this book to my better-informed friends, the most frequent question I get back is, "What does he say about Global Warming?" Those who are looking for pithy sound bites will be disappointed. Those who fear a boring professorial-type lecture will be pleasantly surprised. Dr. Muller presents well thought-out rationales for each section, and his delivery has been refined in the classroom by teaching non-physics students at the University of California, Berkley.

I appreciate Dr. Muller's respect for his readers (and future Presidents.) He does not try to impose a hidden agenda upon us. Dr. Muller clearly states his premises and the physics of his findings flows nicely from them

Here is a sketch of my views, as a physicist, on what the reader can expect.

Terrorism: Dr. Muller discusses the high energy content in the jet fuel carried by each hijacked airplane that hit the towers of the World Trade Center on 9/11. He later describes the likely limitations of a terrorist's dirty bomb. He reminds us that Jose Padilla, an American with extensive al-Qaeda training, proposed to build a dirty bomb. Padilla was directed instead to blow up two apartment buildings using natural gas.

Energy: Dr. Muller hits us with a number of "surprises," such as, gasoline delivers 15 times the energy of an equal weight of TNT; coal is 20 times cheaper than gasoline for the same energy; a square mile of sunlight at midday receives a gigawatt of power. He points out that gasoline holds 100 times more energy, pound for pound, than the high quality expensive batteries in cell phones. (Hence, although he owns a hybrid car himself, he is skeptical about the future of all-electric cars until batteries or fuel cells can be greatly improved.)

Nukes: Here he includes both nuclear weapons and nuclear power. After explaining how to estimate the dangers of exposing many people to radioactivity, he discusses the difficulty of building nuclear weapons. He describes how to build safe nuclear reactors, such as Pebble Bed reactors.

Space: Dr. Muller's believes that science should be the central goal of government space programs. Consequently, he advocates robotics rather than manned space travel. He uses a number of examples to illustrate rocket propulsion, orbits, spy satellites, stealth bombers, meteorite impacts, etc.

Global Warming: This is the most balanced and competent treatment of climate change that I have found. After a chapter on climate history, Dr. Muller discusses the Greenhouse Effect. The evidence brings him to the conclusion that most of the buildup of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere is manmade. He then classifies the various kinds of distortions and exaggerations that have plagued this subject over the last decade. Next, he focuses on what he sees as the real task: reducing carbon dioxide. After a discussion of "Non-solutions," he addresses solutions. The centerpiece is a concept that he calls "Comfortable Conservation," by which he means better ways to accomplish a task that is less polluting and often cheaper. Florescent light bulbs are an example.

Presidents learning about the latest terrorist threats often have to have a foundation of scientific knowledge and health savvy to assess the potential destructive capacities and dangers of various devices: PHYSICS FOR FUTURE PRESIDENTS teaches this foundation, providing a lively, non-technical primer of information for any who would select the right leader to handle such problems. It comes from a top educator and physics researcher and covers the physics of all types of terrorist weapons. Both general-interest and science libraries will find it a welcome addition.

Diane C. Donovan
California Bookwatch

This is the best general audience technical book I have read in a long time. Every chapter is interesting and highly informational. I would put some of the chapters in the category of required reading. We are taken in, many times, by to many myths. The author is very well balanced.

Against better judgement and without reading the book, I am judging it by its cover. It is my understanding that this author has written the book for those students needing a grasp of physics with no or little prior science background. To any potential buyers, PLEASE NOTE: some overpaid idiot that designed the cover for this book obviosly failed the physics course. See the Presidential Seal in the foreground? Good. Now see the reflection of it in the chrome looking center element of the symbolic atomic structure? If at this point, you have noticed that it is not a true reflection, then you are already heads and tails above the guy that made $500 a day editing the image with Photoshop. Chances are good enough that you don't need the book to survive and that the publishers have a hard time toasting bread.

After looking through the section on Energy I was optimistic about the book and bought it. I was a little nervous about the only testimonial (on the back cover) being from an active duty enlisted military person but I shrugged it off. After finishing the book I felt hoodwinked because the author, enticing us with some accessible physics, adds a significant payload of bad decision analysis and pro-nuclear, anti-gore, anti-progress, agenda. Here are some examples of each:

Bad decision analysis because he deals strictly in probabilities and gives almost no consideration to consequence if events occur. This is a classic error -- if an action increase probability by 0.01% that may sound small but if the outcome is bad enough then you should still avoid the action. Society as a whole, not a solitary physicist, should put a "cost" on that outcome -- if they decide a higher cost than the author it doesn't make them wrong.

Anti-gore elements appear with repeated references to Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth. For example, he refutes one graph of Al Gore's with one from the American Enterprise Institute that adjusts for "Inflation, Growth, Coast Living Patterns" -- something that is hard to do and not something that I would trust a pro-industry think tank to do for me. In general, one can get press by attacking Gore but it's a shameful way to do so.

His chapters on conservation are sound and valuable. His anti-progress views are not. Many economists believe that converting our economy to low-carbon would encourage the development and growth of major new industries for clean manufacturing technology. We could be the world leaders in that area and help export it the developing world. Understanding that "progressive" agenda is key to understanding and helping to unlock the potential of America today.

I'm giving the book three stars for some good physics and deducting two stars for overuse of simple minded economic and social arguments for the powerful corporate interests that have brought this country to the brink of ruin with the help of the current presidency informed all too well by captive scientists like Richard Mueller.

As a scientist and educator I find this book facinating. Rich Muller has a unique way of looking at the essential elements of the science and society topcs he chooses. He extracts essential physics principles and explains them in common sense ways.

Aiee! It's a future so bizarre and twisted that the very reflections of objects themselves have been inverted! All hands abandon earth!

Suggested additional reading: Physics for Idiot Graphic Designers

This book should be titled physics for future voters. I wish it was required reading to graduate high school. Extremly easy to read but not dumbed down. I will be watching for more books from Dr Muller.

This book should be titled physics for future voters. I wish it was required reading to graduate high school. Extremly easy to read but not dumbed down. I will be watching for more books from Dr Muller.

I checked some other reviews of this book and read that in one important area it is pushing some serious misinformation about global warming. Specifically the false notion that CO2 greenhouse gases follow heating (hence asking us to believe that global warming is not our fault) - when all the science - reputable science says that our forcible increasing of CO2 and other greenhouse gases has caused and will cause increased heating of the atmosphere and oceans. And increasing to a level that is anywhere from horribly disruptive to catastrophic.

It may be that this book does presentation well, but on this important fact, it is dangerous to mis-inform policy leaders on perhaps the most important issue of our time. I do hope future presidents will get their information from better sources. Zero stars.

I am a owner of an electric car (Toyota Rav4 EV). I have been driving it since April 2002 and I am very familiar with electrical vehicles. I found Professor Muller's writing on EV stuff is completely untrue.

What drew me to this book was not so much its title, although it is quite intriguing, but its author. I had read a couple of Professor Muller's books in the past and found them to be very engaging as well as models of clarity. This book is no exception. Using logical scientific reasoning, the author addresses various topics that a future president would likely need to deal with. The topics are: terrorism, energy, nuclear matters, outer space and global warming. Removing any mythology and misinformation that may be associated with these issues, the author carefully analyzes them from a physics perspective; this is to help any future presidents in making solid well-informed decisions. The contentious matter of global warming is dealt with particularly well; in fact, it is one of the fairest and most level-headed discussions of this matter that I have read thus far. A set of notes at the end of the book contain a few simple calculations that complement some of the statements in the main text. However, a reader who is math-phobic need to not worry since the notes are not essential to fully appreciate the book's content. The writing style is very clear, accessible, authoritative, friendly and quite engaging. This informative book can be enjoyed by anyone, especially those interested in the use of a logical scientific approach to address important world issues.

The first thing to know about this book is that it is not about Physics, or even more broadly about Science. The book is about what the author believes and wants the reader to believe about various public policy issues. I agree with many of his beliefs, and disagree with a few. He is entitled to his opinion, but he should present his opinion as Science.

The author leads you to believe that what he is telling you is Science, not opinion when he writes, "I'll bring in engineering aspects they are needed, but the focus here will be on the science. Laws of countries can be changed, but laws of physics are pretty much set." However, he fails to meet the goal he set. He also writes, "Physicicsts, by tradition, have a more stringent standard than the courts: if you get caught exaggerating, distorting, or cherry picking, your scientific reputation is damaged if not destroyed." But then he goes on to exaggerate, distort, and cherry pick himself.

Even in cases where the situation would present a great opportunity to introduce the reader to important ideas from Physics, the author fails to present the reader with the information that would argue against his opinion. For example, as a physicist, the author surely understands what thermodynamics says about limits on the conversion of heat to work, but he treats all energy forms as equivalent by quoting their heating value. Given the difference in work that can be obtained from gasoline (his favorite fuel) and electricity, this is a serious distortion.

As an example of cherry picking, the author dislikes electric cars. He claims his dislike is based in physics, but it is not. He cites the energy density of batteries compared to gasoline to show that electric cars are impractical. That is cherry picking, because there are other relevant facts he refuses to tell the reader.

This book also provides little basis for the reader to learn more on his or her own. The "facts" presented are not substantiated with references, or only with the claim that the author heard it from an acquaintance. However, some of his facts are incorrect.

I do not recommend this book.

This an important primer for non-science types (i.e. those of us who avoided the sciences, especially physics, in colleges and elsewhere like the plague, but still have lots of opinions about energy and international policy, etc.) - nicely organized, clearly delivered, thought provoking, good humored, and humbling. We need a lot more conversations in this country in a process where citizens and their elected officials actually listen and learn from those who have been studying the topics Richard Muller presents in this book - and this is a great way to begin. Thank you, Dr. Muller.

Muller's basic thesis is that we are sure we know certain things, but these things are actually false. He aims to give the basic science behind current issues like climate change, alternative energy sources, nuclear proliferation, and space.

I am not a scientist, but I often spent my time in high school study halls perusing physics texts rather than doing my homework. This book spares the reader all manner of arcane formulae and mathematics. It tries to present the bottom line on why and how things work they way they do. The net effect is to neutralize many fears common among the public. For example, a nuclear reactor cannot explode like an atomic bomb. It does not have the right kind of uranium and should something go wrong, the nuclear reaction naturally stops of its own.

Muller tries to distinguish between the science of something and its interpretation for what ought be done about an issue. When he violates his own rules for his book, he tries to tell the reader he is doing that.

Some basic factual information is repeated several times in the book. While that could be annoying, it serves to reinforce those concepts.

I found some parts of the book more interesting than others and expect that will be true for any other readers. But, those parts of greater interest to others may be the parts I found less interesting. This would be a good book for any voter to read. Our public discourse would be based more on facts and less on feeling. Still, as the author indicates, there are some areas where the science alone does not dictate how a decision should be made in some problem issue. Maybe the science is not even conclusive as science.

Issue: "The burning jet fuel that took down the twin towers ... ." (From review of Muller's book in S.F. Chronicle, 8-3-08, by Graeme Wood, editor at Atlantic).

The physics of burning jet fuel and the melting point of steel do not provide an explanation as to the twin towers collapse.

Wood writes in his review of Muller's book:
"Muller has lucid explanations of how the World Trade Center collapsed ... ."

"The burning jet fuel that took down the twin towers ... ." (from the review of Muller's book).

This is not possible due to the physics of the problem:

Steel has a melting point of about 1370 Degrees C, or about 2500 Degrees F.
(Source Funk & Wagnall's New Encyclopedia (1983 edition, Vol 14, page 243).

Jet fuel when mixed in precise proportions with air will burn briefly at about 1800 Degrees F. The "open air" burn temperature of jet fuel is much lower. In fact "turbine inlet temperatures cannot exceed about 1100 Degrees C, or about 2000 Degrees F, because of the thermal limitations of the materials" in the jet engine. (Ibid, Vol 15, page 42). This temperature is INSIDE the jet engine with highly compressed air burning with the jet fuel in the "combustion chamber," not the "open air" burning temperature of jet fuel which took place in the Twin Towers.

A google search under "burning jet fuel temperature" is instructive.

Muller has not proved "lucid explanations of how the World Trade Center collapsed ... ."

It is intriguing that Muller, a "polymath in Berkeley's physics department," (Wood) is presenting "physics" which do not agree with the physics of the problem he is discussing.

This is the important sampler of the work of Professor Muller (i.e. the top rated course at Berkley). He is non political, but shows that much of our current political discussion on energy usage, nuclear weapons, and climate change is based on incorrect "facts". This alone can lead to incorrect policy decisions. Anyone that is interested in the worlds future needs to understand the basics and basis presented here, Do not worry as there is not a lot of formula work or calculations required, however I found it better to take notes as I read. If you become more interested go to itunes and get his up to 50 hours of lectures. I am listening. I am now a fan, but am unrelated to the professor or to Berkley.

The idea of the title is good, teach someone as busy and often-sidetracked as a President some of the fundamentals of a Science. But if I may humbly say... the book tends to read more like it should have been titled "Because I have a soapbox and some fans I've let it go to my head and here are my non-science personal beliefs and feelings on what a President should do about policy"

Hit the store and just flip to that Humans In Space chapter. Just read that short one and I think you'll see what I mean. You thought you were holding a book on the Science of Physics, but really you're being told - with NO basis in the Science Of Physics that a President should not even consider sending Humans Beings beyond low Earth Orbit. Why? Because robots are better ... Why? Is it because the author is also a Master of Robotics and A.I. technologies or Space Medicine? Nope, humans should stay home and watch Space happen on TV simply because the author says so, that's why ;-)

Hmmm.. maybe "humans should not be allowed to do things that We Smarter And Elite People can program a machine to do" is what a grant-chaser really believes and maybe even what one or two Future Presidents would like to hear. But it's not Physics.

I brought my copy back. There were other books on Physics that a regular person could get real-world related Physics information from... ones that actually were about the Science.

But that's just me.

Although there are a few graphs and diagrams and a lot of numbers and units, I think this book is accessible to any reader with a citizen's interest in energy, terrorism, nuclear weapons and nuclear power (not the same!), and climate change. You don't have to consider yourself a future president to want and really need to understand this stuff - all elected officials and voters should have this level of familiarity with the science (and often engineering) behind these important issues. And it's really not that hard to follow - it's very readable.

There are no equations here (OK, a few in the notes if you're interested), and the "physics" comes mainly in the approach, breaking problems down into essentials to which basic concepts like energy conservation and efficiency can be applied. A lot can be accomplished simply by converting energy and other quantities in different situations into common units (Muller uses mainly common US units rather than metric units that physicists use in their real work).

It is true that Muller does not completely remove his own opinions in favor of "pure science" - but this is a book for general readers, not a text book (he also has a text book version for his course at UC Berkeley). And the issues are real-world issues, not abstract physics problems. But for the most part he is combining basic science with logic and common sense, and if you learn to do this yourself, and remember some of the conversions and rules of thumb he discusses, you will be better able judge for yourself whether some claim about energy or terrorism really makes sense, and have a better calibration of risks and opportunities in this complex world.

P.S. I was a physics major and have a masters in optics, but I also do educational outreach programs, so I'm really viewing this more from the perspective of an educator and citizen than as a science-educated person. And I personally learned a lot. Also note that one review from 2007 really applies to Dr. Muller's textbook, not this new general interest book.

We don't expect our presidents to be literal rocket scientists (though it would be nice if one of them every so often was at least a metaphorical one), but we ought to expect them to know enough about science to surround themselves with the very best advisors. The troubling truth of the matter is that presidents, like most Americans, know little about science, even though public policy is increasingly dependent on scientific expertise. So author Richard Muller, who teaches science to nonscience majors at UC-Berkeley, has written his Physics for Future Presidents not only for future presidents but also current citizens.

The book isn't an easy read, and there are enough graphs and equations to set aflutter the hearts of even the most intrepid of nonscientists. But Muller recognizes this possibility, and recommends that nonscientific readers go for the big picture, not allowing themselves to get bogged down with details that might be too complicated on a first run-through. And the big picture--or rather big pictures--he wants us to understand are the science behind bombs and biological weapons likely to be used by terrorists (chapters 1-4), the fossil fuel crisis (chapters 5-7), nuclear energy and nuclear weapons (chapters 8-14), space technology, including space weapons (chapters 15-19), and global warming (chapters 19-25). Especially helpful are the "Presidential Summaries" in which Muller offers convenient wrap-ups of each of the five topics he discusses and some quick public policy recommendations.

My guess is that many readers will find his section on global warming the most interesting and contentious. Muller concludes that global warming is a reality, but one which has been exaggerated in certain ways. Other conclusions that will doubtlessly be contested by some include his claim that disposal of nuclear waste from power plants isn't really a problem (pp. 173-77) and that there's no viable alternative to fossil fuels in sight (in this regard, by the way, Muller agrees with James Howard Kunstler's conclusion in the latter's brilliant The Long Emergency).

It's in the arena of public policy recommendations that Muller, I think, falls short. His answers are too often quick and easy. (Quick example: when it comes to public policy, we (meaning the US but presumably any other country too) "have no right" to insist that China (or presumably any other country) cut back on pollution creation. The implication of this is that the international community has no moral authority--a scary conclusion. And even though Muller claims to be letting science speak for itself in every chapter but one (p. 173), science, performed as it is by opinionated humans, rarely speaks in neutral terms, especially in a book like this. Perceptive readers will pick up on Muller's interpretation of what he considers to be basic data, especially when it comes to global warming trends.

Still, a very helpful, very good book. Even if presidential candidates don't actually read it, it's good that voters do.

We don't expect our presidents to be literal rocket scientists (though it would be nice if one of them every so often was at least a metaphorical one), but we ought to expect them to know enough about science to surround themselves with the very best advisors. The troubling truth of the matter is that presidents, like most Americans, know little about science, even though public policy is increasingly dependent on scientific expertise. So author Richard Muller, who teaches science to nonscience majors at UC-Berkeley, has written his Physics for Future Presidents not only for future presidents but also current citizens.

The book isn't an easy read, and there are enough graphs and equations to set aflutter the hearts of even the most intrepid of nonscientists. But Muller recognizes this possibility, and recommends that nonscientific readers go for the big picture, not allowing themselves to get bogged down with details that might be too complicated on a first run-through. And the big picture--or rather big pictures--he wants us to understand are the science behind bombs and biological weapons likely to be used by terrorists (chapters 1-4), the fossil fuel crisis (chapters 5-7), nuclear energy and nuclear weapons (chapters 8-14), space technology, including space weapons (chapters 15-19), and global warming (chapters 19-25). Especially helpful are the "Presidential Summaries" in which Muller offers convenient wrap-ups of each of the five topics he discusses and some quick public policy recommendations.

My guess is that many readers will find his section on global warming the most interesting and contentious. Muller concludes that global warming is a reality, but one which has been exaggerated in certain ways. Other debatable conclusions include his claim that disposal of nuclear waste from power plants isn't a problem (pp. 173-77) and that there's no viable alternative to fossil fuels in sight (in this regard, Muller agrees with James Howard Kunstler's conclusion in the brilliant The Long Emergency).

It's in the arena of public policy recommendations that Muller, I think, falls short. His answers are too often quick and easy. (Quick example: when it comes to public policy, we "have no right" to insist that China--or presumably all other countries--cut back on their pollution creation. The implication of this is that the international community has no moral authority--a scary conclusion.) And even though Muller claims to be letting science speak for itself in every chapter but one (p. 173), science, performed as it is by opinionated humans, rarely speaks in neutral terms, especially in a book like this. Perceptive readers will pick up on Muller's interpretation of what he considers to be uninterpretable facts, especially when it comes to global warming trends.

Still, a very helpful, very good book. Even if presidential candidates don't actually read it, it's good for voters to.

Buy this book! Read it, and understand it. Then buy one for your Senators and Congressman, and insist they read and understand it. Richard Muller, a physics professor at Cal Berkeley and researcher at Laurence Berkeley Labs, has written a highly accessible book that treats some of the most important, yet misunderstood, topics of our time. He treats, in understandable language, the physics and some of the economics of terrorism, energy, nukes, space, and global warming. You will get no politics. In fact, you probably will have no idea who he might vote for. But you will learn the key facts, questions, and alternatives on the vital issues. You will be amazed at what you didn't know, what you knew that actually isn't true, and what the real alternatives for solutions likely are. You will be outraged at the ignorance of our politicians, policymakers, television news anchors and commentators, as well as newspaper editors and columnists. But you will not be bored.

Professor Muller reveals the real story, the promise and the limitations of solutions to topics such as these: Nine-Eleven, terrorist nukes, the next terrorist attack, and biological terrorism; key energy surprises, solar power, and the end of oil; radioactivity; nuclear weapons, nuclear power, nuclear waste, and controlled fusion; space and satellites, humans in space, and spy satellites; history of climate change, the greenhouse effect, evidence and false evidence, non-solutions, real solutions, and new technologies.

My personal biases: I have a background in both physics and management, and practiced both during a 35-year career with NASA. I do not know Professor Muller, but have admired his work since I discovered his "Physics for Future Presidents" podcasts on iTunesU. I highly recommend this book.

I wish my high school or college had used this book instead of the boring math-based physics text we had. Addresses issues like global warming, energy conservation, etc. to make science interesting and relevant instead of BO-ring. Textbook for one of the most popular introductory classes at University of California at Berkeley.