From the Nobel Prize website:

This discovery was absolutely revolutionary.

I claimed history was rewritten in the period 1906, 1911. To refute that claim, you need early sources, pre 1906 sources, not today's sources.

Perhaps you should instead look at 1900 sources, stuff published shortly after Pierre Curie discovered radium, rather than post hoc rationalizations published after Marie Curie had already been made a mascot.

The original basis for making her a mascot was the discovery of radium - in which her role was minor and peripheral.

First they made her a mascot, then they discovered her contributions were absolutely revolutionary.

What was revolutionary was the discovery of radioactive decay, that radioactivity arose from the transmutation of the elements, which discovery came from Rutherford and the circle of people around him, not from Pierre Curie and the circle of people around him, and came from the discovery of radon, not the discovery of radium.

Pierre Curie's big contribution was to invent and build a device for quantitatively measuring radioactivity, and then set his wife to work measuring the radioactivity of various samples that he and his other assistants prepared.

So even if the discovery that radioactivity was independent of the chemical form of the element was "absolutely revolutionary", it can even less be attributed to Marie Curie than can the discovery of radium.

Is it not at least equally likely that the present is crazy, and the past was wise?

No, it is not. Knowledge is generally cumulative, although there are occasional setbacks

There are frequent major setbacks

If it is not "at least equally likely", it is still quite likely - particularly in matters influenced by politics, where knowledge, for obvious reasons, does not accumulate.

To defend the present, one has to argue truth, not cite today's authorities. One has to compare today's authorities with the evidence on which their claims are supposedly based. That the official truth about the past is a lie reveals social decay, just as that the official truth about the Soviet harvest was a lie revealed that communes do not work.

The way the wind is blowing, future generations living in hovels may well be as amazed by the moon landing as we are amazed by the Antikythera mechanism, as political lies spill over into bureaucratic lies, producing irreproducible results in science.

But as far as I can tell, Marie Curie was the first scientist to realize that radiation is attributable to internal properties of atoms

Untrue - and for evidence of it being true, you would need to quote a paper by her issued before she was made into a mascot, not a paper about her after she was made into a mascot.

For her to be the first scientist to realize that, she would have to issue a paper in which she asserted that, which she did not do.

What she in fact did was measure various samples prepared for her by her husband and another of his assistants, using a radiation measuring device invented and built by her husband, and as a result of these measurements, she did in fact assert that:

"All the uranium compounds studied are active, and are, in general, more active to the extent that they contain more uranium.[25]

From which other people, Rutherford and people around him, concluded that the radiation arose from the internal structure of the atom.

Marie Curie was not able to draw the conclusion you and the twenty first century Nobel committee attribute to her, because the radioactivity she measured was not in fact exactly proportional to the amount of uranium, due to the build up of radon after purification. To make the discovery you attribute to her, would have needed to first discover radioactive decay, or at least first discover radon.

She strongly suspected the conclusion you attribute to her, and did experiments intended to show it, but her results were confounded by radon.

Since the measured radioactivity was not exactly proportional to the amount of the element, the evidence that she thought she saw seemingly showed that radioactive decay was influenced, at least to some extent, by the chemical form.

Which is why the discovery of radon by Rutherford and his people was far more important than the discovery of radium by Pierre Curie and his people: because it enabled Rutherford to draw the conclusion that you falsely attribute to Marie Curie.

The reason Pierre Curie's group gets bigger publicity than Rutherford's group is that one of the people in Pierre Curie's group was a woman.

The discovery of radon made it possible to do measurements that substituted "exactly", for "generally", to measure that radioactivity was exactly proportional to the amount of the element, rather than "in general, more active to the extent that they contain more uranium", from which one could then conclude that radioactivity was internal to the structure of the atom - a conclusion Marie Curie's evidence seemingly contradicted.