Nuclear reactors are spending millions to protect you from radiation levels lower than eating a banana.
This isn't safety theater—it's the 70-year regulatory nightmare that killed American nuclear power.
But recent executive orders could change everything. 🧵
The absurdity is staggering.
America has been treating nuclear power like it's made of pure plutonium when most of it is safer than your morning coffee.
The culprit? The "Linear No Threshold" (LNT) - the assumption that ANY radiation exposure, no matter how tiny, is dangerous.
The economics are insane.
Companies are forced to engineer solutions for radiation levels so low they're essentially meaningless.
It's like requiring every car to be built to survive a nuclear blast because technically, any car accident could be deadly. The costs pile up until nuclear becomes "uneconomical."
Meanwhile, China and Russia are eating America's lunch.
They're building nuclear plants across Africa, South America, and Asia while the US has been paralyzed by its own regulatory hysteria.
America invented nuclear power, then regulated it itself out of the game.
Trump's executive orders don't just challenge LNT.
They completely reverse how America approaches nuclear:
— Department of Energy becomes a testbed for innovation again, not a regulatory obstacle;
— Small reactors under safety thresholds get fast-tracked
— Military bases will get nuclear power to create demand and prove viability;
— Companies can build, test, and iterate rapidly.
The goal? 400 gigawatts of nuclear power by 2050, quadrupling America's current capacity.
This is important because countries with abundant, cheap energy will dominate the next century's race for AI compute and advanced manufacturing. The EOs gave America a shot at winning that race by unleashing the market instead of strangling it with fear-based regulations.
This approach is closer to how markets should work.
The old system was backwards. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) was literally trying to regulate advanced nuclear technology before any significant number of reactors had been built. It's like trying to write traffic laws for flying cars before anyone figured out how to make them fly.
Will these orders face bureaucratic resistance and legal challenges? Absolutely. The nuclear establishment will fight to preserve their regulatory empire.
The orders require NRC decisions to go through additional White House review to ensure real reform happens, but this could ironically slow down the 18-month approval deadlines.
But as @heritage senior fellow Jack Spencer noted: "Anything that creates pressure toward reform is good."
Ready to learn how to spot when government "solutions" are actually the problem?
Check out our free 5-day course: How to Not Be an NPC—Think Like Thomas Sowell
The FDA is literally preventing Americans from protecting themselves from cancer.
While people in the US burn with decades-old sunscreen formulas, Europeans and Australians enjoy superior protection that the American government won't let its citizens buy.
The bureaucracy is so broken that one company has spent 20 years and $18 million trying to get FDA approval for a single sunscreen ingredient. 🧵
The FDA hasn't approved a new sunscreen ingredient since 1999.
Let that sink in. Your smartphone has been updated thousands of times since then, but your cancer protection is stuck in the Clinton administration.
Meanwhile, dermatologists routinely recommend sunscreens from Australia, Europe, and Asia that Americans can't legally access.
International sunscreens contain newer UVA filters like bemotrizinol that offer stronger, broader protection.
US sunscreens focus mainly on preventing sunburn but provide weaker coverage against the deeper skin damage that causes cancer and aging. Europeans got bemotrizinol in 2000. Australians in 2004. Even Canadians got it in 2023.
The libertarian kid in your economics class just interrupted the professor for the third time this week, lecturing about Austrian economics while everyone stares at their phones.
After class: "Libertarians are such... you know."
How does someone fighting for freedom become the person everyone actively avoids? 🧵
Leonard Read saw this coming decades ago.
He warned that liberty would suffer if its advocates tried to 'reform' others like central planners: through lectures, pressure campaigns, and force.
The problem isn't the ideas. It's the method.
Read argued for a completely different approach: self-improvement.
Don't try to change people. Live your values so well that others come to you.
You don't win converts by out-talking them; you attract them by becoming someone worth listening to.
After watching thousands of students over two decades, we can say he was 100% right.
It's always funny seeing socialists say they "follow the science."
Because when Stalin decided DNA was right-wing propaganda, they shot every scientist who disagreed. The story of how ideology murdered genetics—and millions of people. 🧵
Picture this: You're a brilliant geneticist in 1930s Soviet Union.
You've spent years studying how traits pass from parents to offspring.
Your research could help feed millions. But there's a problem. Your science contradicts the party line.
Stalin's solution? Kill the science by killing the scientists.
Meet Trofim Lysenko—a peasant turned "scientist" who claimed genetics was bourgeois propaganda.
His "revolutionary" theory? Plants of the same class would never compete with each other because they understood socialist cooperation.
So he planted seeds so close together they choked each other to death.
Your professor talks about inflation, housing costs, and wage stagnation like they're mysterious natural forces.
But there's one date they never mention—the day everything changed: August 15, 1971.
That's when Nixon broke the money system. 🧵
Your wallet has been paying for Nixon's decision ever since.
Fifty years of "temporary" monetary policy have systematically transferred wealth from savers to asset owners, from workers to Wall Street, from your generation to the political class.
This isn't economics—it's organized theft.
Before 1971, the U.S. promised the world: "Every $35 we print can be exchanged for exactly 1 ounce of gold."
Foreign governments could literally ship their dollars to Fort Knox and get gold bars back. When France's Charles de Gaulle got suspicious of American spending, he sent warships to New York and exchanged $150 million for gold.
This system kept America honest. Print too many dollars? Countries would drain your gold reserves.
Your professor loves this story. Politicians too. But there's one problem: Sweden got rich BEFORE it tried socialism.
And when they actually tried it, everything fell apart. 🧵
Every campus economics debate ends the same way.
Someone drops the Sweden card: "High taxes, big welfare—and they're rich and happy!"
This myth has become the ultimate trump card against free market arguments. But what if the entire foundation of this story is backwards?
150 years ago, Sweden was dirt poor—poorer than Congo at the time.
Life expectancy was half the average of developing countries. Families mixed tree bark into bread to survive famine.
In Stockholm, 1,400 people crammed into buildings with only 200 one-room flats.
As Swedish author Vilhelm Moberg wrote: "Of all the wondrous adventures of the Swedish people, none is more remarkable than this: that it survived all of them."