I have the book, but you can do a search right now and attempt to find the word NUCLEAR in this older release. Dr. James Lovelock was right (see his REVENGE OF GAIA). Well-meaning researchers have a built-in and historic bias against nuclear energy as a policy/techology option to quell carbon emissions. And that bias has to be exposed for what it is: ignorance and/or inadequate risk assessment.

Can one of the authors of this book please give Amazon book reviewers a reasonable explanation for this? Especially for a book published only a few years ago? Did Island Press refuse to have a nuclear policy analyst included in the mix?