[Images description: a Twitter thread by Alisa Lynn Valdés, M.S., @ AlisaValdesRod1. It goes as follows:

“This quote, from the @ nytimes review of the Oppenheimer film: (quote) “He served as director of a clandestine weapons lab built in a near-desolate stretch of Los Alamos, in New Mexico” (end quote)... It was inhabited by Hispanos. They were given less than 24 hr to leave. Their farms bulldozed. 1.

Many of those families had been on the same land for centuries. The Oppenheimer’s crew literally shot all of their livestock through the head and bulldozed them. People fled on foot with nowhere to go. Land rich, money poor. Their land seized by the government. 2.

All of the Hispano NM men who were displaced by the labs later were hired to work with beryllium by Oppenheimer. The white men got protective gear. The Hispano men did not. 3.

The Hispano men all died of berylliosis. These were US citizens, folks. Their land taken, animals killed, farms bulldozed, forced to work for the people who took everything from them, and killed by those people. 4.

For 20 years I have been trying to sell a film based on the story of Loyda Martinez, a remarkable whistleblower whose family's land was seized for the labs. Her dad was one of the men who died from beryllium exposure at the labs. She later went to work there too. 5.

She is a computer whiz who rose to the top of her department at Los Alamos. Then she started digging for info on the Hispano men the labs killed, like her father. She filed a class action lawsuit, and won. 6.

The first Hispano governor of NM, Bill Richardson, appointed Loyda to run the state's human rights commission. She then filed a second class-action against Los Alamos, on behalf of women scientists not paid fairly. 7.

But, no. We want more films about the "complex and troubled" "heroic" white men, who conducted their GENIUS in a "virtually unpopulated" place. These are ALL lies. This is mythology in service to white supremacy and the military industrial complex, masquerading as "nuanced." 8.

Because of what the labs did to the local Hispano people in northern NM, our communities now have the highest rates of heroin overdose deaths in the nation. The generational trauma and forced poverty is outrageous. We need the real stories of Oppenheimer to be told. End.”

End description.]

image
image
image
image
image

Solidarity Summer is well and truly ramping up. AS IT FUCKING SHOULD.

image

And another one! 📢

Barnes and Noble booksellers are working on forming a union as well! 

https://www.reddit.com/r/union/comments/rwczci/barnes_noble_workers_want_union/

Their flagship store and New York has unionized along with 3-4 other stores! This is happening! People are tired of being seen as dollar signs and being made to work just to get to work more, to survive instead of thrive. Keep it UP. 

Atomophobia is a big oil plot tbh

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

bigwordsandsharpedges

Newer designs are even better. For example, a molten salt reactor can be designed so that it physically can’t go into core meltdown. Because the radioactive fuel is dissolved in a molten salt compound, an overheating reactor can simply melt through a barrier, pour into a shielded chamber, and solidify back into a solid form. 

The best example uses liquid fluoride salt and radioactive thorium, which is cheaper, more plentiful, and less suited to weapons than uranium. 

image
shykayjay2017

Have ANY of you played fallout?? No thanks

What an absolute galaxy brain take

“I know this is a nuclear power plant that can’t go into meltdown, but have you not played the game about nuclear weapons destroying the world?”

afhfdssfgds the plot of fallout is that a fossil fuel shortage LED to nuclear war so this is even more of a galaxy brain take.

xxlplakat

Has anyone of you heard about Nuclear wastes? They take centuries to degrade. Sure, USA and Russia don’t have to think about it, they can just dump them into siberia or the Nevada desert, but countries like France, UK, Germany, etc.. we have no space for nuclear waste to properly store it for the amount of centuries that it takes for it to become less harmful and who knows if the barrels that store them are not leaking?
Nuclear energy is a short term solution to coal.
Heck, central and east europe got hit by the nuclear disaster that was fucking chernobyl.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-level_radioactive_waste_management

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_decay

bigwordsandsharpedges

France already gets 80% of their electricity from nuclear power. I think they store the waste in a very deep mine, in rural Finland, far away from people.

Nuclear waste only takes a long time to degrade if it comes from uranium. It’s very inefficient, and 90% of a “spent” fuel rod is still enriched uranium.

Uranium was only used because the government wanted a “dual use” technology that could also be used for nuclear weapons. Thorium is very bad for building bombs, but it’s very efficient in reactors.

Almost all of the thorium is consumed, leaving a small amount of weakly radioactive waste which is easy to contain. It only lasts for 200-300 years.

Some thorium reactors are designed as “waste burners”, which can consume uranium waste and transmute it into weaker elements that last for centuries, not millennia.

when the Wachowskis had a whole plot in Cloud Atlas about a false flag conducted by big oil in which they made a massive nuclear plant only to destroy it, lots of things aligned for me tbh

Funnily enough, coal actually produces more radioactive waste than fission does, for a given amount of power. The further thing is that the coal plant pumps that radioactive waste directly into the atmosphere.

For literally any metric, fission power is superior to all other available approaches, purely by putting out such an absurd amount of power. Even if fission power were a thousand times worse, even if it did actually produce all these negative effects, it would still be better than alternatives by the numbers, because its efficiency is many thousands of times higher. Even compared to other fossil-alternative darlings, like solar and wind, fission power requires significantly less resource and mineral extraction - which might seem counter-intuitive, how can a large power plant that runs off fission fuel require less resources and minerals than a solar panel? But, it makes sense, when you realise that a single fission power station produces as much energy as many, many square kilometers of panels.

This is, also, ignoring developments in fusion power, which is inherently ‘clean-burning’, and generates so much more power than fission that, even if it weren’t, it would already be the best possible option. Nuclear power is the only realistic solution for moving away from fossil fuels - to transition from fossil fuels to non-nuclear green energy, like solar panels and wind turbines, would require a significant increase in mining and resource extraction, to build not just the panels and turbines, but the complicated electrical equipment required for them and for power storage. Nuclear power is, really, the only power source that doesn’t inherently involve the destruction of Earth’s biosphere - because the way that happens isn’t flashy accidents or nuclear wars, as the oil industry might want you to think, it’s a slow and gradual process of resource extraction.

As a conclusion, let’s take three modes of transport as a metaphor: a gas-guzzling SUV, a shiny Tesla, and a passenger train. Everyone knows the SUV is bad, so the debate is over the alternative - and that debate largely gets centred on the electric car, running off a lithium-ion battery, powered by some green solar panels. What is conspicuously absent from the discussion, dismissed out of hand, is the passenger train, which gets its power from overhead lines, which run directly to a fission power station. One of these solutions is realistic, and the other is functionally just a slightly-better continuation of the original problem. The other one is the one that the car companies would rather be arguing with.