The young David in this book is an outcast. He has few friends at school. Despite his obvious genius, he gets poor grades and is ignored by his teachers. A broken home and impotent parents make for a childhood of reckless adventures with experiments in chemistry. Explosions and fires are common in David's household.
Eventually, this young scientist develops an interest in nuclear physics. By age seventeen he decides to build a breeder reactor in his mom's backyard. Armed with nothing more than outdated physics text books, garbage collected from the local junk yard, and a keen sense of science, David exposes the 40,000 residents of this Detroit suburb to radioactive annihilation. Before the story ends, the government is called in to sweep the whole thing under the rug. Guys in "moon suits" spend three days tearing apart David's garden shed and putting all its parts in canisters to be transported to a radioactive landfill in Utah.
All of this arises because a young person's potential is neglected. Rather than guided by teachers, family, and friends, David's talents run wild. Even more frightening is the ease at which David manages to build his reactor. If a teenager can do it, certainly a terrorist organization can do it. What if a Bin Laden type were to get a hold if a misguided teen like David? "Oops there goes the state of Texas. I guess we should have paid closer attention to that kooky kid!"
We live in a civilization of winners and losers. David is an example of a winner who falls through the cracks. Maybe this happens because of his socioeconomic background, it also happens because of the color of ones skin, or their sex. My life is littered with old friends that seem to have profound disadvantages thrust upon them. Not everyone has a mommy and daddy to put them through school. Some of them have entirely repairable emotional trauma taxed upon their lives. Sometimes it's just a matter of direction-somebody actually caring. A lot of them are black or Latino. I don't consider any of them losers. I wonder if, in fact, a nuclear society can afford to have losers.
How about that old "Three Musketeer's" dictum: "All for one, one for all!" If everyone wins and no one loses, who would be around to shoot those classmates or blow up that city? It's a good thing none of these home grown freaky kids have figured out a nitro-bomb or microbe vial can do a lot more damage than guns.
I think most people should understand that terrorism and its philosophy won't survive the next twenty years regardless of what happens in the short term. It's a lose - lose situation and sooner or later everyone rejects such a thing. Two things will happen that will end the mess.
First, an openness in communication will present to potential martyrs options that reflect a society that hopefully ascribes to our "Three Musketeers" dictum.
Second, some terrorist group is going to succeed at killing off a large number of people. The event will be so horrific; there will be zero tolerance or sympathy by everyone left on this world for a martyr's philosophy.
As for "The Radioactive Boy Scout," the book left me with a real sense as to what is wrong with the world today. The ending provides no remedy or solution. There's no elation or catharsis. For those intelligent enough to read through the lines, there's only utter fear and apprehension. Even with this, it made for a good read. Despite the fearful premise there's an almost humorous aspect to the entire book. The truth is I was rolling with laughter on a few occasions.
I would recommend this book to any social-minded thinker.
