Rating: 
Summary: Nuclear hogwash
Review: Among the countless and careless errors throughout this book, as attested to by several other reviewers, the one that bothers me the most is the author's horrendous misunderstanding of the terms "contamination" and "radiation." Being an ex nuclear submariner and nuclear engineer, I have always been impressed by the accuracy of Tom Clancy's research, whether it was the details of nuclear submarine operations or his insights regarding interactions among members of the officers and crew. Tom Clancy was a meticulous researcher. Tom Clancy understood the difference between "contamination" and "radiation" and never would have written a book based on such a misapplication of science. Lee Tong, the "radiation man" who sets off the entire story, conceivably could have been irradiated by gamma rays from the nuclear cargo on his target ship but that exposure, no matter how intense, would in no way have made him radioactive. There would be no need for a lead shield as described in his hospital room. If on the other hand he became contaminated with radioactive material from the target boat as a result of the explosion, then the target ship and many of its crew members would also have been contaminated. But they weren't. You can walk away from a radiation source, but if you are contaminated with radioactive particles, it goes with you. For those of us who have been conditioned to read anything with Tom Clancy's name on it, and who do so because we have learned to trust the authenticity of his work, this book is extremely disappointing. We used to read Clancy because we trusted him and because of this trust we had confidence that the technology described in the story was accurate, not science fiction. Apparently, that is no longer so, a sad finding for thousands of Clancy fans. Much of the public fear about nuclear power comes from misunderstandings, such as Jeff Rovin's misunderstanding of contamination and radiation. Also, co-creator Steve Pieczenik, having a Ph.D. from MIT, would have easy access to the science that is at the heart of The Sea of Fire. He has no excuse to get it so wrong. For a ready reference, the difference is very clearly described on the Internet at: Definitions Related to Radiation or go to: http://www.orau.gov/reacts/definitions.htm If you are looking for fairly good science fiction read, and don't care about its technical accuracy, or how big Australia really is, this book might do it for you. Otherwise don't be misled, find another book. Thomas Banfield
tvbanfield@aol.com
Rating:
Summary: Nuclear hogwash
Review: Among the countless and careless errors throughout this book, as attested to by several other reviewers, the one that bothers me the most is the author's horrendous misunderstanding of the terms "contamination" and "radiation." Being an ex nuclear submariner and nuclear engineer, I have always been impressed by the accuracy of Tom Clancy's research, whether it was the details of nuclear submarine operations or his insights regarding interactions among members of the officers and crew. Tom Clancy was a meticulous researcher. Tom Clancy understood the difference between "contamination" and "radiation" and never would have written a book based on such a misapplication of science. Lee Tong, the "radiation man" who sets off the entire story, conceivably could have been irradiated by gamma rays from the nuclear cargo on his target ship but that exposure, no matter how intense, would in no way have made him radioactive. There would be no need for a lead shield as described in his hospital room. If on the other hand he became contaminated with radioactive material from the target boat as a result of the explosion, then the target ship and many of its crew members would also have been contaminated. But they weren't. You can walk away from a radiation source, but if you are contaminated with radioactive particles, it goes with you. For those of us who have been conditioned to read anything with Tom Clancy's name on it, and who do so because we have learned to trust the authenticity of his work, this book is extremely disappointing. We used to read Clancy because we trusted him and because of this trust we had confidence that the technology described in the story was accurate, not science fiction. Apparently, that is no longer so, a sad finding for thousands of Clancy fans. Much of the public fear about nuclear power comes from misunderstandings, such as Jeff Rovin's misunderstanding of contamination and radiation. Also, co-creator Steve Pieczenik, having a Ph.D. from MIT, would have easy access to the science that is at the heart of The Sea of Fire. He has no excuse to get it so wrong. For a ready reference, the difference is very clearly described on the Internet at: Definitions Related to Radiation or go to: http://www.orau.gov/reacts/definitions.htm If you are looking for fairly good science fiction read, and don't care about its technical accuracy, or how big Australia really is, this book might do it for you. Otherwise don't be misled, find another book. Thomas Banfield
tvbanfield@aol.com
Rating:
Summary: Risible research
Review: Before I reached page 50 I realised this author had confined his research on Australia (the setting for much of the action) to a Sydney Street Directory. Yes, you can see the Sydney Opera House from the Park Hyatt Hotel and that's the limit of his accuracy. The protagonist travelled from Sydney to Darwin in 116 minutes? Not in a P3 Orion he didn't (unless it is unique among propellor driven aircraft in that it can travel at Mach 2. Maybe it was a Concorde in disguise.) The distance is more than 2000 miles (about equivalent of LA to Miami or New York to Phoenix). The offending yacht travelled from the Celebes Sea to Cairns (well over 2000 miles) in 30 hours. Australia's P3s are owned by the Air Force, not the Navy. In the RAN, a Warrant Officer is not a senior officer. A wommera is not a means of throwing darts, it is a means Aborigines used for throwing spears (it applies extra leverage as an extension to the length of the arm). In itself, a wommera would be about as useful a weapon as any other thin stick and it is hard to imagine why anyone would carry one, especially as that character was supposed to be half Aboriginal.. A willing suspension of disbelief in the interests of a good yarn is one thing, lamentable research and gross (easily checkable) error is quite another. Don't waste money on this dog.
Rating: 
Summary: About what I expected
Review: Each of the Op-Center books has presented a crisis based on the current events and global political circumstances at the time of its writing. This one isn't different. The prospect of terrorists obtaining and using nuclear material is daunting, and the job of preventing such a disaster even more so. This book isn't quite as gripping as some of the earlier books in the series, but it did present a few surprises, and it wrapped up the story nicely. This book placed some of the Op-Center staff in new roles in the field, which was refreshing, and it introduced at least one new character that I suspect will return in future volumes. This was a fun, light read, perfect for any fan of espionage/political thrillers.
Rating:
Summary: Wizard of Oz
Review: Hmm. I normally like Tom Clancz - even in this spin-off series. However, this book is a dog of the first water. Why? Simple. It is written by someone who hasn't bothered to do even the most basic research on ... well, on *anything*. Basic things - like Australian politics, the Australian Military and its ranks and organization, and even, damnit, *geography*. In the book, for example, we have a Singaporean patrol boat in the sea off the Celebes (what it's doing in Indonesian waters is not obvious -but it's *way* to hell and gone off course and out of the area it has any business being in) and the action then, within the space of a few hours, moves it from there to the *east* Queensland Coast off the Great Barrier Reef. Bzzt. Sorry. No. Unless Singaporean Patrol Boats are capable of supersonic flight, this simply isn't gonna happen. Not to put too fine a point on it, it is simply impossible. To those readers who are (like the writer, one presumes) Americans, this may not be obvious ... though looking at something as basic as an atlas should have clued the author in... but it is bleeding obvious to an Aussie. The story is sort of OK, but, frankly, the background flaws are of such an order of magnitude I simply couldn't rate this as anything other than poorly written crap.
Rating: 
Summary: Tom Clancy Obviously did not write this one!
Review: I agree with the others who panned this. It is full of obvious errors, and they show the gross ignorance of the author. The one that got me and sticks is his description of the men in the Sampan using the oars to get close to the yacht. They 'oared' there. Oared is not a word. When men use oars to move a ship, boat, or any floating vessel, the term used to move it is ROW. You row a boat, you use 10 foot oars in a viking ship to ROW the ship. One paddles a canoe, but one does not OAR a boat. Obviously this book was thrown together in as short a time as possible, given minimal proof reading, and then published. Tom Clancy should be ashamed to have his name put on it.
Rating:
Summary: Tom Clancy Obviously did not write this one!
Review: I agree with the others who panned this. It is full of obvious errors, and they show the gross ignorance of the author. The one that got me and sticks is his description of the men in the Sampan using the oars to get close to the yacht. They 'oared' there. Oared is not a word. When men use oars to move a ship, boat, or any floating vessel, the term used to move it is ROW. You row a boat, you use 10 foot oars in a viking ship to ROW the ship. One paddles a canoe, but one does not OAR a boat. Obviously this book was thrown together in as short a time as possible, given minimal proof reading, and then published. Tom Clancy should be ashamed to have his name put on it.
Rating:
Summary: Bad Research
Review: I being an ex Military Officer and a military historian have always respected and appreciated the detail and accuracy in almost all of Mr Clancy's works. He is regarded so highly that certain titles like "Red Storm Rising" are on an officers must read which list supplied by Training Command. Thus it was with sadness I read the multiple inaccuracies in this latest feature. My frustration occurs because the information is readily attainable and in some cases just common sense. Some glaring errors are: 1. Tasmania is a Island state of Australia not a country...that would be saying Hawaii is a separate country to the U.S. 2. A Warrant Officer in the Australian force does NOT rate a salute. 3. There is only one minister of Defence in Australia, not numerous. These are but a few of the more obvious errors, I remember that in an earlier book of this specific series another Australian character was briefly introduced an he also was incorrectly researched. Apart from these errors the book was not as enjoyable as others of the series and I would NOT recommend it to any Clancy fans. Also if your going to write about Australia and the Australian Military please get someone who has been there to proof read.
Rating:
Summary: A truly lousy book.
Review: I snatched this book off the english book rack at the Munich airport thinking it was a Tom Clancy book. When I realized later, that it was written by someone else I was already suspicious. After reading the first couple of chapters I was astounded that Tom Clancy even let his name get close to this novel. The writing is so amateurish it's embarassing. Do yourself a favor and don't waste your time. Personally I'm not going to buy any of Clancy's stuff anymore either. You'd think he'd be beyond this type of cheap marketing rip-off. I know he doesn't need the money.
Rating:
Summary: WHAT IS THIS GARBAGE
Review: Look, I love Tom Clancy books and I have a high tolerance for poor writing when I read techno-thrillers. But "Sea of Fire" is just an awful book. It starts off really slowly and goes absolutely nowhere, finally ending up with a resounding anti-climactic thud. You're better off watching TV.
| 
