Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

NNadir

(38,967 posts)
Fri Jul 10, 2026, 12:11 PM Friday

Atoms For Justice: Dying of Thirst: Dispatches From the Energy Poor in Africa by Princy Mthonbeni.

Princy Mthonbeni is a pronuclear activist in Africa; I have followed her for a number of years; she is an impressive woman exuding intelligence and decency.



She has recently written a rather long eloquent, thoughtful, piece on poverty in Africa, energy poverty, and injustice and why small intermittent energy systems (which I read as so called "renewable energy) sometimes funded in a miserly self-congratulatory approach by the West represents a form of contempt for Africa.

The full article is here:

The Dying of Thirst

Subtitle:

Dispatches from the Energy Poor to the Already-Electrified, Part I (South Africa)


It's worth a full read, but these excerpts struck me, as it is consistent with some long held views on parochialism in the horrible treatment by the rest of the world of Africans and Africa itself:

...That is why I become uneasy when climate conversations speak about Africa as though our highest duty is to use as little energy as possible.

The children I saw waiting for water in eNanda do not need a philosophy of less. They need working systems. They need pipes, pumps, treatment plants, electricity, roads, clinics, schools, industry, and governments capable of maintaining all of it. They need abundance disciplined by responsibility, not scarcity decorated with moral language.

What troubles me is that many of the people most confident in this philosophy of less grew up inside abundance they did not have to notice. They grew up with lights that came on, schools that functioned, hospitals that had power, taps that ran, refrigerators that kept food safe, roads that could carry ambulances, and states wealthy enough to make infrastructure feel invisible.

Some of them come from countries whose clean electricity systems were built not by smallness, but by scale: by hydroelectric dams, nuclear power stations, strong grids, public institutions, engineering capacity, and generations of investment.11 They inherited the benefits of energy abundance and then learned to speak about restraint as though restraint were the highest moral achievement.

But restraint means something different when you begin from abundance than when you begin from deprivation. A wealthy society can romanticise using less because it already has more than enough. A poor community cannot romanticise less when less means darkness, unsafe water, smoke in the lungs, food without refrigeration, clinics without reliable electricity, and children walking before sunrise...

...The same pattern appears in development finance. For many years, the international institutions that shaped energy investment in poorer countries made renewable projects much easier to support than nuclear projects. Small solar, mini-grid, and distributed renewable programmes could be praised as climate solutions for Africa, while nuclear power was treated as too difficult, too expensive, too risky, or simply left outside the conversation.12


But for a country like South Africa, that exclusion makes no sense. We already operate Koeberg, the only nuclear power station on the African continent.13 We already have nuclear skills, nuclear institutions, nuclear regulators, nuclear workers, and coastal sites where future nuclear plants could produce electricity and support desalination.14 If international institutions are serious about climate, water, and development, they should not decide in advance that Africa’s clean energy future must be small, intermittent, and dependent. They should ask what scale of energy is required for Africans to live with dignity.

It is easier to romanticise low-energy living when you have never carried water before sunrise, cooked with imbawula or paraffin, studied by candlelight, or watched women spend hours each day securing the most basic necessities for survival.

For many Africans, the debate is not about choosing between development and dignity.

Development is dignity...


The bold, italics and underlining are all mine.

In recent times, I have been commenting in this space on a book I've been reading slowly, along with a number of others, this one:

The Elements of Power

Subtitle:

A Story of War, Technology, and the Dirtiest Supply Chain on Earth


By Nicolas Niarchos

This is a book about the tragedy of energy related mining in Africa, and the suffering it involves. I have been hearing from the more smug battery worshipping types here, consistent with their contemptuous myopia, that the batteries that their hero, the asshole Elon Musk, makes no longer use lithium NMC chemistry, and so the cobalt slaves who worked in Africa for the rise of Tesla for pittances or nothing at all, often digging ores with no tools other than their bare hands, can now be freed, Elon's junk now having been switched to lithium iron phosphate. I note, with some disgust, that the copper mining slaves in Katanga haven't "lost" their "jobs." The unsustainable material (not to mention land) demands to generate, link, and store so called "renewable energy" still depends heavily on the exploitation of Africa, a major source of minerals. It's not like, either, that the lithium NMC battery chemistry has disappeared either just because Elon wants to market his cars using marginally worse performing batteries.

I could ask to be spared the bullshit, but my request will not be honored; I've been here long enough to know that.

We owe Africa decency. I certainly thank Princy Mthonbeni for her efforts on behalf of the environment, and in a more subtle way, humanity. In asking for decency for Africans she is asking us to rise out our obliviousness to our own lack of decency in the first world; she calls for us to climb out of the moral pit of the mindless pit consumption in which we in the wealthy world blithely live, to seek, to rise to, for our own moral betterment, as in the Lincolnian locution, "the better angels of our nature."

I invite you to be uplifted by awareness, and read this thoughtful piece.
11 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Atoms For Justice: Dying of Thirst: Dispatches From the Energy Poor in Africa by Princy Mthonbeni. (Original Post) NNadir Friday OP
No question that Africa has been neglected and badly damaged by colonialism DemocracyForever Friday #1
Renewable energy is increasing the cost of electricity in California... hunter Friday #2
That's completely false DemocracyForever Saturday #3
Allow me to suggest that "the answer" is more nuanced OKIsItJustMe Saturday #4
Still spreading misinformation DemocracyForever 14 hrs ago #7
Nope, no kool-aid here OKIsItJustMe 9 hrs ago #9
Electric rates are not any kind of state secret. hunter 18 hrs ago #5
You're spreading misinformation DemocracyForever 14 hrs ago #6
You live in your world, I'll live in mine. hunter 12 hrs ago #8
Renewable energy offers hope in Africa and everywhere thought crime 6 hrs ago #10
I think it's quite clear how Ms. Mthonbeni regards bourgeois rhetoric claiming that we should rip the shit... NNadir 39 min ago #11

DemocracyForever

(436 posts)
1. No question that Africa has been neglected and badly damaged by colonialism
Fri Jul 10, 2026, 01:18 PM
Friday

but nuclear power is not Africa's savior. Nuclear power is much too expensive and toxic nuclear waste presents too great of a risk. There are far less costly and less toxic forms of renewable energy that are the far better option. This is what needs to be fully funded to help Africa transition away from the poisonous fossil fuels.

hunter

(41,005 posts)
2. Renewable energy is increasing the cost of electricity in California...
Fri Jul 10, 2026, 08:13 PM
Friday

... but it's not significantly reducing our environmental footprints.

Why shouldn't people in Africa have what we had? My great grandparent's ranch got electric service thanks to FDR's New Deal. The ranch is still remote, about as far away as you can get from a WalMart in the 48 states. This electricity enabled them to have electric lighting, a radio, and later indoor plumbing with hot water coming out of the tap. That was followed by refrigerators, clothes washers and dryers, and so on. (My great grandma didn't believe in indoor plumbing but her grandkids certainly did.)

Conventional electric power system are simple, reliable, and made from abundant materials -- concrete, steel, and aluminium. Far less copper and other rare materials are used than any "renewable" energy scheme of equivalent capacity.

If the people of the U.S.A. were not so credulous we'd be building nuclear power plants at an increasing rate, eventually shutting down all remaining fossil fuel power plants. And we'd be encouraging other nations that followed a similar path.

Humanity has actually run out of options. If we don't quit fossil fuels the natural environment that supports us will collapse. The only energy resource that can displace fossil fuels entirely and support 8 billion people is nuclear power. That's the reality we find ourselves in. It's not a political issue -- left or right, Democratic or Republican, socialist or capitalist.

Anti-nuclear activism is just an alternative brand of climate change denial.

DemocracyForever

(436 posts)
3. That's completely false
Sat Jul 11, 2026, 01:31 PM
Saturday

Renewable energy is actually reducing energy costs. Trump's budget cutting that's slashing the development of renewable energy favor of the more expensive and poisonous fossil fuels is what's causing energy costs to go up. California's focus on renewable sources of energy has grown it's economy from being the world's 9th largest economy to now being the world's 4th largest economy. You also need to know that renewable sources of energy are putting coal companies out of business on a regular basis now because renewable sources of energy are now cheaper than coal and they don't poison the planet the way coal does. In May 2026, renewable energy generated more electricity that coal and it's continuing to grow, It's important to remember that too much electricity is still being generated by burning the planet killing fossil fuels. FYI, my engineer father always taught me that nuclear power is not green because no one has figured out what to do with the toxic nuclear waste .In addition, he also taught me that nuclear power is much too expensive. Nuclear power is way more expensive than renewable sources of energy. I want the people of Africa to have the best of everything. Nuclear power is not the solution.

OKIsItJustMe

(22,485 posts)
4. Allow me to suggest that "the answer" is more nuanced
Sat Jul 11, 2026, 03:36 PM
Saturday
https://nrgcleanpower.com/learning-center/why-are-my-electric-bills-so-brutal-california-prices-are-about-to-get-worse-heres-what-you-can-do/
Why Are My Electric Bills So Brutal? California Prices Are About To Get Worse — Here’s What You Can Do
November 10, 2025



California’s Electricity Crisis: Why Rates Keep Going Up
California has some of the highest electricity prices in the country, and they’re rising faster than ever. The three biggest utilities, PG&E, SCE, and SDG&E, have all announced new rate increases for 2025 and 2026.

Here’s what’s driving the surge:
  • Wildfire recovery and prevention costs. Utilities are spending billions to bury power lines, replace transformers, and reduce fire risks.
  • Aging infrastructure. Much of California’s grid is decades old, requiring massive modernization.
  • Climate goals and renewable integration. The shift to clean energy is critical but expensive in the short term.
  • Administrative and transmission fees. These are quietly added onto every bill, often making up 30 to 40 percent of the total.

So, producing electricity from wind and solar is relatively inexpensive, but, in the short term, there are capital investments which must be made. That raises bills.

Wind and solar, as any “skeptic” will tell you are variable sources, unlike a coal plant or a nuclear plant which (generally) provide constant “base load” power. (Nuclear power plants must be taken off-line for periodic maintenance, like replacing fuel, and like other “thermal” power plants, which work by boiling massive amounts of water, they may also be shut down due to droughts, or heat waves.)
https://www.technologyreview.com/2026/06/24/1139676/europe-heat-power-plants/
Europe’s extreme heat is shutting down power plants
Rising temperatures can affect our power supply, including nuclear and natural-gas power plants.
By Casey Crownhart June 24, 2026

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Europe is in the middle of a record-breaking heat wave, and the grid is being pushed to its limits as people turn to fans and air-conditioning to try to stay cool. Some power plants won’t be online to help handle the load.

On June 23, France saw its hottest day since record-keeping began in 1947. Temperatures climbed to over 44 °C (111 °F), and overnight temperatures remained unusually high. This prolonged hot weather warmed up the water in some rivers across the country, a problem for the many nuclear plants that rely on those bodies of water for cooling. One reactor has already shut down, and others are being ramped down or will see limitations later in the week.

Unit two at the Golfech nuclear power plant in southern France shut down at about 11:45 p.m. on June 22 when the river used to cool the plant got too hot. The move was a precautionary measure, according to Brid Nelligan, a spokesperson for EDF, the plant’s owner and operator.

The power plant takes in water from the Garonne River and then returns most of it to the river at slightly higher temperatures after using it to cool equipment. French regulations limit the temperature of that return stream, so the warm water (it was expected to reach 28 °C, or around 82 °F) forced the operator to shut down the plant.



Disposing of high-level waste is not really a mystery which needs to be solved, most countries (including the US, 4 decades ago) have decided that the solution is to bury it. A great deal of research has gone into how best to do this. However, only one country, Finland, has actually started doing it.
Sweden is working on a similar facility, but construction has only just begun. Operations are expected to begin in the 2030’s.

Some Nuclear advocates promote recycling “spent” fuel to power new reactors. (They argue that it’s not really “spent” per se.) However once again, this “answer” is more nuanced. We cannot, for example, simply burn “recycled” fuel in currently operating reactors.

https://e360.yale.edu/features/nuclear-waste-recycling
Recycling Nuclear Waste: A Win-Win or a Dangerous Gamble?
As interest in nuclear power rises, startups are pursuing plans to recycle spent fuel and reuse its untapped energy to power reactors. Advocates tout new recycling methods as a breakthrough, but many experts warn it will extract plutonium that could be used for nuclear weapons.

BY REBECCA TUHUS-DUBROW • APRIL 2, 2025

Nuclear power plants keep their waste close by. Every nuclear plant in the United States includes an area onsite where spent fuel is being stored. This material — ceramic pellets stacked into rods and bundled together — consists mostly of uranium. But the spent fuel also includes elements that were created during the process: fast-decaying radionuclides such as cesium and strontium, as well as longer-lived, heavier elements, notably plutonium. Emanating intense heat and radiation, the spent fuel rods are placed first in cooling pools and then in “dry cask storage” — steel canisters that block these radioactive isotopes from escaping.

Most would see this legacy of radioactive waste as a burden and a danger. But some are now seeing it differently: as an asset and an opportunity. Although no longer capable of efficiently fissioning, spent fuel still contains significant amounts of untapped energy that can be harnessed and used again. In other words, it can be recycled — particularly in certain types of advanced reactors currently in development. Recycling would not only shrink the volume of radioactive material that would eventually need to be buried underground, advocates say, but it could also reduce the need to mine new uranium, another controversial aspect of the nuclear fuel cycle.

Recycling nuclear waste is probably the single biggest point of contention among people who otherwise support nuclear power.


It sounds like a win-win, as sensible as putting our aluminum cans in the bins with chasing arrows. And as interest in nuclear energy has grown in recent years — driven by climate concerns and, more recently, demand from energy-intensive data centers — so has enthusiasm in some quarters for recycling this waste stream. Late last year, the Department of Energy announced $10 million in funding for research on recycling technologies and at least two relevant bipartisan bills were introduced in Congress: one would “require the Secretary of Energy to study new technologies and opportunities for recycling spent nuclear fuel”; another would streamline licensing requirements for recycling facilities.

Several advanced nuclear startups, including Oklo and Curio, say they intend to run their reactors exclusively on spent fuel. Oklo, backed by OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and based in Santa Clara, California, is working toward building its first commercial unit at the Department of Energy’s Idaho National Laboratory. Jake DeWitte, Oklo’s CEO, told me, “Frankly, there’s enough energy content in the waste of today’s reactors to power the whole country for 150 years.”

DemocracyForever

(436 posts)
7. Still spreading misinformation
Sun Jul 12, 2026, 05:09 PM
14 hrs ago

You still haven't answered my question as to why so many coal companies are now going out of business? The simple reason is that renewable sources of energy are cheaper than coal and they don't poison the planet the way coal does. Again, you also don't seem to be aware that Trump has significantly reduced spending on renewable sources of energy which is forcing power companies to go back to more expensive and more toxic fossil fuels.
You also appear to have drunk the nuclear power industry's Kool-Aid concerning toxic nuclear waste. You're badly mistaken if you don't think nuclear waste is toxic. Once again the nuclear industry is downplaying the toxic nuclear waste issue. There have been countless examples of underground storage containers leaking over the decades. This has certainly been true with gasoline storage.
Again, I'm curious to know what your credentials are for making your claims? My father actually was an engineer so he well understood these issues.

OKIsItJustMe

(22,485 posts)
9. Nope, no kool-aid here
Sun Jul 12, 2026, 09:52 PM
9 hrs ago

Coal companies are going out of business, which is great. Sadly, in New York, coal fired generation has largely been replaced by natural gas fired generation. Check and see (in real time) where our electricity comes from, here:
https://www.nyiso.com/real-time-dashboard

You may want to check it during the middle of the day to see our many solar farms at their peak (they’re lumped in with “other.”) As much as I support variable renewables, I’m sorry to say, they are not major sources of electricity in New York State.

hunter

(41,005 posts)
5. Electric rates are not any kind of state secret.
Sun Jul 12, 2026, 01:20 PM
18 hrs ago

Places with aggressive renewable energy programs tend to have the most expensive electricity in the developed world. Solar and wind energy themselves may be free, but capturing this energy and integrating it into a reliable electric grid is not.

Places with market-driven renewable energy programs tend to have the least expensive electricity but the the carbon intensity and other adverse environmental impacts of this electricity are high.

Nuclear power has the smallest environmental footprint of all the major energy resources, costs less than solar and wind power, costs more than dirty energy, and is essentially unlimited.

You can do that research yourself. Here in the renewable energy utopia of California, outside of the municipal power districts which have first dibs on inexpensive but environmentally destructive hydroelectric power, off-peak electricity costs around 43 cents a kilowatt hour. In the late afternoon and early evening it costs more than that.

In Lansing Michigan people pay about 15 cents a kilowatt hour most of the time, and 17.4 cents during peak hours.

High electric rates in California have probably reached the point where they are having a negative impact on economic growth. In Germany, where they shut down their nuclear power plants in favor of Russian natural gas imports and renewable energy, high electric rates are causing an economic crisis.

These sorts of economic crisis may or may not be a good thing depending upon your economic and environmental perspectives. If you are affluent, consider yourself "green," but don't give a shit about people currently living in poverty, then you might not care about the cost of electricity. Similar to, as in previous dark ages, the ruling classes did not concern themselves with the price of bread.

"Let them eat cake."

Now the saying is "Let them have solar."

Sorry, you people living in poverty, you can't have what are own great grandparents had -- three simple wires coming into your homes providing reliable and affordable electricity 24 hours a day, seven days a week, nothing else to worry about, winter ,spring, summer, and fall.

Generally speaking, affluent and wealthy people have huge environmental footprints compared to people who are not affluent or wealthy. It's almost impossible for an affluent or wealthy person to reduce their environmental footprint. If they are not spending their money on one environmentally destructive thing they are spending it or investing it in another.

The people who have the smallest environmental footprints tend to live in cities, don't own cars, have a mostly vegetarian diet, and have little or no "disposable income." Nuclear power could raise the living standards of people living on the edge with the smaller environmental impacts than any other energy resource.

This isn't about someone living in California with a Tesla in their driveway, a Powerwall in their garage, and solar panels on the roof of their large suburban home.

DemocracyForever

(436 posts)
6. You're spreading misinformation
Sun Jul 12, 2026, 05:00 PM
14 hrs ago

Renewable sources of energy are in fact cheaper. Why do you think coal companies are now going out of business on a regular basis? The reason is because renewable sources of energy are providing energy at a lower price than what the coal companies can provide energy for. You also don't seem to be aware that Trump's significant budget cuts to renewable sources of energy are what's causing energy prices to go up because more expensive fossil fuel is replacing cheaper renewable sources of energy. These are well established facts.
You also continue to ignore the serious issue of toxic nuclear waste. My engineer father always taught me that nuclear power is not green because no one has figured out what to do with the leftover toxic nuclear waste. You also ignore the danger of nuclear powerplant accidents. Are you not aware of 3 mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima? If you don't know them, Google them. Poisoning Africa with nuclear power and its toxic waste is not a solution.
I'm curious to know what your credentials are? My engineer father had bachelors and masters degrees in engineering, more than 40 years of aviation and automotive engineering work experience and long time membership in the Society of Automotive Engineers. My engineer father well understood that the continued burning of fossil fuels was poisoning our planet and threatening the survival of humanity.

thought crime

(1,841 posts)
10. Renewable energy offers hope in Africa and everywhere
Mon Jul 13, 2026, 12:29 AM
6 hrs ago

There is no argument with African countries’ need for electrification, including grid development, but it’s pretty obvious those countries cannot achieve such improvement without an aggressive embrace of renewable energy. The development of green hydrogen markets as pushed by China could result in several African countries becoming Solar/Energy/Hydrogen Super Powers with thriving economies that support modern grids and perhaps eventually even a few nuclear power plants.

If we owe Africa decency, then we shouldn’t impose the fairy tale of nuclear bliss at the expense of actually achievable energy improvements via cheaper and more flexible renewable solutions being pursued everywhere else. China is investing many billions into Africa through partnerships like the South-South Cooperation Renewables Center and the China-Africa Renewable Energy Partnership.

As for Elon Musk being the hero of “smug battery worshipping types”, that sounds a little smug itself, don’t you think? In fact, the whole nuclear bro faction reeks of the very smugness Musk exudes. And if you want to assign “battery types’ ” hero status to Elon Musk then it is more than fair, and probably much closer to truth, to say Edward Teller and Dr. Strangelove are heroes for the smug nuclear bros. No coincidence that those nuclear heroes (fictional or not) were spawned by nuclear weapons development. Elon Musk, on the other hand, is mostly just a marketing guy.


NNadir

(38,967 posts)
11. I think it's quite clear how Ms. Mthonbeni regards bourgeois rhetoric claiming that we should rip the shit...
Mon Jul 13, 2026, 06:40 AM
39 min ago

...out of Africa for metals and land because of the contempt for science and engineering held by clueless westerners.

Hydrogen and battery bullshit - which ignores the laws of thermodynamics and the land, material and temporal limits of so called "renewable energy", the latter at great moral and health costs placed on the shoulders of Africans - doesn't work in the first world, the second world or the third world.

African know all about so called "renewable energy;" they've lived with it all their lives. They cook afterall with wood. It's killing them. They want clean energy.

Hydrogen and battery bullshit has not even scratched the surface of the reliance of so called fossil fuels for long term back up on fossil fuels, and again, there are zero antinukes who care at all about fossil fuels.

She is a brilliant woman, I think, and she can tell that the world is burning, that people are dying in the streets in Europe without even coming close to cutting off the nonsense issuing out of the antinuke cults.

Her view is worldly, not provincial.

Like I said in the OP, "I could ask to be spared the bullshit, but my request will not be honored; I've been here long enough to know that."

I admire and respect Ms Mthonbeni, her eloquence and I am unsurprised that there are those here whose myopia and dogma prevent them from having a shred of respect for what she says. The problem lies not with her - she's intelligent and informed - but with people are insufficiently knowledgeable and insufficiently educated to understand the basics of a dire reality.

One dire reality is the planet is burning. People are being killed by extreme heat.

Antinukes can chant their slogans all they want; their chanting has done nothing to arrest this tragedy, despite its enormous cost. The cure for the bubonic plague was not chanting and prayer, it involved science, as some people at the time of the plague recognized, Guy de Chauliac being the most famous example.

The finest minds in the 20th century invented and developed nuclear energy, only to have their work vilified by superstitions of weak minds, reactionaries who wanted to return to primitive times when life depended on the vicissitudes of the weather while ignoring fossil fuels, the cause of the catastrophe, just as people in the time of the plague.

Reportedly in Germany, where the antinukes burn coal and gas while carrying on about uselessly about being "green," using wind and solar garbage, sometimes coupled with hydrogen bullshit, 5000 people are said to have died in late June 2026 from extreme heat. The death tolls are also present in other countries, including largely innocent France.

I see no evidence, none, that any of the chanting cults give a rat's ass about these deaths. They simply chant like medieval priests in response to a plague.

Ms. Mthonbeni is not interested in chants. She's educated and bright, and has come up out of a world about which our bourgeois wind and solar cultists couldn't care less.

Being bright, educated, eloquent, and on the front line of energy; she is traveling the world in hopes of saving it. She is disinterested, as she states quite clearly, in unreliable energy. She wants her people to always have access to a working light switch, refrigeration, and clean water, all the time 24/7, 52 weeks a year.

It doesn't surprise me at all that there are people here incapable of reading with a shred of comprehension of what she is saying.

I know the depths of deadly antinuke rhetoric, its vapidity, its laziness, its contempt for science and humanity.

I will quote another excerpt from her eloquent work.

...I wonder how many of the people shaping those conversations have ever carried water before school.

Not discussed water.

Not studied water.

Carried it.

Because there is a difference between understanding thirst intellectually and understanding thirst physically...


Question: If it's cloudy and windless for two weeks in winter, are our chanting antinukes prepared to live without running water?

The reference to a comedy in response to Ms. Mthonbeni by the way, the Strangelove reference, I take as a measure of contempt for the seriousness of Ms Mthombeni's work, contempt for the climate crisis, giggling over African poverty and suffering, and a general contempt for the seriousness of all the issues she raises.

It's not comedy; it's tragedy. It takes - here's that word again - decency to know the difference.

Nevertheless it is unsurprising. Most antinukes in my experience have shallow ethics to go with shallow intellects. They feel quite free to open their mouths to prove how little they know, how little they care, and how little they are able to question themselves.

Have a pleasant week.
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Atoms For Justice: Dyin...