Ford Mustang Mach E Leak: Mustang goes Electric

THRESHIN

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 29, 2002
Messages
3,357
They've been molesting the Mustang for years now. Remeber, they made a 4 cylinder automatic and called it a Mustang....I think at some point they need to stop trying to sell the name. Let's finally admit that this isn't a Mustang and call it something new. If they did, nobody would care.
 
Joined
Sep 9, 2021
Messages
13
It looks like ass. Okay, it looks unremarkable, like most vehicles these days. Just keep a couple of old styling cues and call it a Mustang.
 
Joined
Apr 20, 2017
Messages
628
It looks like ass. Okay, it looks unremarkable, like most vehicles these days. Just keep a couple of old styling cues and call it a Mustang.
Pretty much. Cars don't have character anymore. They're all designed in a wind tunnel to eek out every bit of mpg that their over-burdened 1.5L engines can get back.
 

GiGaBiTe

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 26, 2013
Messages
1,935
I can't speak to your medical device things. I've never once heard about these incidents. So I'll educate myself. You should do the same on the topics I mentioned.

Not going to bother. Since you know nothing about nuclear accidents, can't differentiate between a test and an accident, don't care about people affected by them and dismiss people that don't agree with you a hippie or a politician; There's really no point on wasting further time on narcissistic behavior.

You clearly need to read up on modern reactor design and learn the difference between modern nuclear reactors, spent fuel processing and storage, and 1950s era thermonuclear bomb tests. If you can’t differentiate between an RBMK, a CANDU, and the Castle Bravo nuclear test, there really is no point in discussing this with you.

When you can't differentiate between a mining disaster and a nuclear test, there's no point in discussing anything with you. Your straw man fallacies aren't helping you. If you also can't acknowledge that radiation from nuclear accidents and even past testing is still harming people today, you have zero credibility and have no business discussing anything nuclear. Even more so if you can't understand how uranium gets from the earth to a reactor. You don't seem to be able to comprehend that the manufacturing process is actually far more dangerous and has resulted in more disasters than any nuclear reactor melting down has.

Also, who cares about modern reactor designs? The only countries building them in any capacity is China and India. The vast majority of nuclear reactor designs in operation around the world are decades and decades old. The RBMK reactor design, the same one that blew up in Chernobyl ARE STILL IN SERVICE TODAY. Over 40 years later. More nuclear reactors are being decommissioned world wide than being built. Many of the still operating reactors are far beyond their original service life and have had their operating licenses extended numerous times. Why? Because reactors are insanely expensive. Not a single reactor in the world has been built entirely with private capital, Every step from mining to construction to operation and waste disposal is all heavily subsidized by the government and our tax dollars. This makes it by far one of the most expensive sources of energy production.

Sorry man, you don't have a leg to stand on. Alternatives to baseline power generation are coal/gas.

Sorry man, but you don't have a leg to stand on with your straw man fallacy. I never said coal and gas aren't dangerous, you created that entire argument on your own. Your conclusions about deaths are also disingenuous. You're comparing apples and oranges and ending up with bananas. People die from pollution related pulmonary issues, yes. But people also get weird cancers, diseases and birth defects related to radiation sickness and don't die from nuclear accidents like Church Rock from 1,100 tons of uranium tailings contaminating hundreds of miles. Or all of the Pacific Islanders still not being able to eat locally grown food or fishing. Their lifeline is literally the US Government for survival, or natives that have moved to the mainland to work and send back money. People that died got off easy.

There are methods of generating energy that don't belch out fly ash or nuclear farts, but they are unfortunately not as efficient and don't work everywhere. Hydroelectric power is good, but care must be taken on ecological impact. Those sun towers in the desert to boil water and make steam for generators are also really interesting, but have their limitations too. Wind is another option, but has obvious hazards to birds. Underwater currents with turbines is pretty safe as well as long as the impellers are protected.
 

Armenius

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
28,158
They've been molesting the Mustang for years now. Remeber, they made a 4 cylinder automatic and called it a Mustang....I think at some point they need to stop trying to sell the name. Let's finally admit that this isn't a Mustang and call it something new. If they did, nobody would care.
The original Mustang came with an inline-6 mated to a 3-speed automatic. The concept car used a V4. It was rightly derided as a "secretary's car" when it first came out.
 

HockeyJon

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 14, 2014
Messages
1,496
you have zero credibility and have no business discussing anything nuclear.

I worked for Babcock and Wilcox as a project engineer on site at two different nuclear plants on nuclear power projects. I’m pretty sure I have a better understanding of nuclear energy than you do. Just out of curiosity, what’s your technical background for comparison’s sake? Twitter user? YouTube documentary watcher?
 

THRESHIN

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 29, 2002
Messages
3,357
I worked for Babcock and Wilcox as a project engineer on site at two different nuclear plants on nuclear power projects. I’m pretty sure I have a better understanding of nuclear energy than you do. Just out of curiosity, what’s your technical background for comparison’s sake? Twitter user? YouTube documentary watcher?

Don't even bother with that guy, he's the ultimate NIMBY. This isn't his first time to this rodeo and it's always the same result. Denys any and all evidence you present, refuses to present any of his own and then becomes downright abusive.

What would be awesome is if this thread could get back on topic of a Mustang EV. I personally enjoy discussions on EVs because they're such a new thing to be going en masse.

Coincidentally, we should chat. I'm an operator at a Canadian plant. Your designs in the US are vastly different.
 
Joined
Apr 20, 2017
Messages
628
What would be awesome is if this thread could get back on topic of a Mustang EV.
I mean, it is what it is: a crappy looking EV that they tacked the Mustang name on in desperation. People thought what Pontiac did to the GTO was bad?
People will buy it though, and a bunch of smug "This is the FUTURE. Get used to it" will follow.

Can't wait for things that those people enjoy to get gutted. Happens to all of us.
 

HockeyJon

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 14, 2014
Messages
1,496
Don't even bother with that guy, he's the ultimate NIMBY. This isn't his first time to this rodeo and it's always the same result. Denys any and all evidence you present, refuses to present any of his own and then becomes downright abusive.

What would be awesome is if this thread could get back on topic of a Mustang EV. I personally enjoy discussions on EVs because they're such a new thing to be going en masse.

Coincidentally, we should chat. I'm an operator at a Canadian plant. Your designs in the US are vastly different.

I'm actually Canadian as well. The projects I worked on were at the Bruce on 1&2 restart and at Pickering going back over 10 years ago now, so all CANDU. Call me biased, but I'm a huge fan of the CANDU design.
 

HockeyJon

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 14, 2014
Messages
1,496
I mean, it is what it is: a crappy looking EV that they tacked the Mustang name on in desperation. People thought what Pontiac did to the GTO was bad?
People will buy it though, and a bunch of smug "This is the FUTURE. Get used to it" will follow.

Can't wait for things that those people enjoy to get gutted. Happens to all of us.

I'll admit that I didn't like it at first look, but the design has grown on me a bit. I'd like to get an EV as my next vehicle, but that'll be years down the road (pun intended, because why not). Hopefully we'll have good economies of scale in place by the time I'm shopping, but I wouldn't take the Mustang off my list as an option.
 
Joined
Apr 20, 2017
Messages
628
I'll admit that I didn't like it at first look, but the design has grown on me a bit. I'd like to get an EV as my next vehicle, but that'll be years down the road (pun intended, because why not). Hopefully we'll have good economies of scale in place by the time I'm shopping, but I wouldn't take the Mustang off my list as an option.
Well I can admit I'm biased. I can't really look at it purely physical terms anymore. When I see one it just reeks of desperation not from the driver, but the car itself. If Ford thought it would stand on its own they would have named it something unique. To me it really shows a lack of confidence they have in it.

Or they just don't care. I don't know what's worse.
 

THRESHIN

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 29, 2002
Messages
3,357
I'm actually Canadian as well. The projects I worked on were at the Bruce on 1&2 restart and at Pickering going back over 10 years ago now, so all CANDU. Call me biased, but I'm a huge fan of the CANDU design.

Wow, small world. I did some design work for the company that built all the retube equipment for Bruce 1+2. Got to sign my name on the first platform before it went on the truck :) interesting project, but terrible company to work for.
 

Armenius

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
28,158
I'll admit that I didn't like it at first look, but the design has grown on me a bit. I'd like to get an EV as my next vehicle, but that'll be years down the road (pun intended, because why not). Hopefully we'll have good economies of scale in place by the time I'm shopping, but I wouldn't take the Mustang off my list as an option.
Like a lot of modern car and CUV designs, it's the rear end that kills it for me. The Kia Stinger was the same way. And I wouldn't be opposed to it if it didn't carry the "Mustang" name.

1634150858345.png


1634150914966.png
 

THRESHIN

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 29, 2002
Messages
3,357
I mean, it is what it is: a crappy looking EV that they tacked the Mustang name on in desperation. People thought what Pontiac did to the GTO was bad?
People will buy it though, and a bunch of smug "This is the FUTURE. Get used to it" will follow.

Can't wait for things that those people enjoy to get gutted. Happens to all of us.

I think a lot of it is ford canned their small cars except the Mustang. But they still want to make small cars, especially with the EV scene heating up. They figure they'll sell it on the name. It's pathetic really. All they had to do was give it a new name and nobody would care. Oh well!
 
Joined
Mar 16, 2006
Messages
3,973
I don't get the hate on calling it a Mustang. I could care less what a car is named. The only knocks I see on it is it not having a heat-pump for heating and having miles of cooling loops in the thing. I think it looks OK but there is nothing out there currently that I think looks great. Sandy Munro likes it, so it can't be that bad.
 
Joined
Apr 20, 2017
Messages
628
I don't get the hate on calling it a Mustang. I could care less what a car is named.
Fair enough. Though if the name of the car didn't really matter, why would Ford specifically go with "Mustang"? Because it does matter as far as marketing is concerned. It just shows a motive, that's all. One I don't like.
 

Axman

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 13, 2005
Messages
9,878
Though if the name of the car didn't really matter, why would Ford specifically go with "Mustang"? Because it does matter as far as marketing is concerned. It just shows a motive, that's all.

It tells me that this was designed by committee. Which sorta makes sense. All the department heads are trying to stir the Mustang EV pot, trying to build a Tesla-killer, while the unsupervised engineers are let loose making the Broncos and other actually cool things.
 
Joined
Apr 20, 2017
Messages
628
It tells me that this was designed by committee. Which sorta makes sense. All the department heads are trying to stir the Mustang EV pot, trying to build a Tesla-killer, while the unsupervised engineers are let loose making the Broncos and other actually cool things.
Yeah I can see that. It just goes towards option B of them really not caring about this vehicle and shoving it out the door. The whole thing is just...vapid.
 

Mchart

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 7, 2004
Messages
4,671
I don't get the hate on calling it a Mustang. I could care less what a car is named. The only knocks I see on it is it not having a heat-pump for heating and having miles of cooling loops in the thing. I think it looks OK but there is nothing out there currently that I think looks great. Sandy Munro likes it, so it can't be that bad.
I mean, what if BMW released an electric CUV and called it the M2. Does that make sense? It doesn't to me. All it does is piss off the fanbase to not want it even more. Why not come up with a new name that will usher in the new EV era?
 

sharknice

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 12, 2012
Messages
2,629
At first thought I thought it was stupid to call this a Mustang because it doesn't look anything like a Mustang. But when I think about it more the Mustang look has changed a lot over the years. So I guess it isn't that weird. Ford has a habit of reusing popular names even though the designs change quite a bit.


They probably are gaining more customers than losing by naming it Mustang. The diehard fans mad about the design wouldn't buy a car like this anyways, and the Mustang name will attract a different audience that a new name wouldn't be able to.
 
Joined
Mar 16, 2006
Messages
3,973
I mean, what if BMW released an electric CUV and called it the M2. Does that make sense? It doesn't to me. All it does is piss off the fanbase to not want it even more. Why not come up with a new name that will usher in the new EV era?
See below response.
They probably are gaining more customers than losing by naming it Mustang. The diehard fans mad about the design wouldn't buy a car like this anyways, and the Mustang name will attract a different audience that a new name wouldn't be able to.
I agree with this. The Mustang fans aren't likely to buy it anyway and the name recognition would bring in new people. I see naming it a Mustang as a win/win for Ford. The performance of the Mach-e (excluding the RWD, that one is a bit slow) isn't that far off the normal Mustang, so at least they got that part right for the name.
 

Mchart

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 7, 2004
Messages
4,671
See below response.

I agree with this. The Mustang fans aren't likely to buy it anyway and the name recognition would bring in new people. I see naming it a Mustang as a win/win for Ford. The performance of the Mach-e (excluding the RWD, that one is a bit slow) isn't that far off the normal Mustang, so at least they got that part right for the name.
EVs have great looking magazine numbers, but their handling/driver engagement is abhorrent.
 

HockeyJon

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 14, 2014
Messages
1,496
Wow, small world. I did some design work for the company that built all the retube equipment for Bruce 1+2. Got to sign my name on the first platform before it went on the truck :) interesting project, but terrible company to work for.
Nice! Are you working there now as an operator, or with OPG?
 

HockeyJon

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 14, 2014
Messages
1,496
Fair enough. Though if the name of the car didn't really matter, why would Ford specifically go with "Mustang"? Because it does matter as far as marketing is concerned. It just shows a motive, that's all. One I don't like.

It’s a tough call, because muscle cars will be going away, and no one wants to buy a sedan anymore, but the Mustang name has a following.
 

GiGaBiTe

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 26, 2013
Messages
1,935
I worked for Babcock and Wilcox as a project engineer on site at two different nuclear plants on nuclear power projects. I’m pretty sure I have a better understanding of nuclear energy than you do. Just out of curiosity, what’s your technical background for comparison’s sake? Twitter user? YouTube documentary watcher?

Ok, so you're a construction foreman/engineer with an armchair degree in nuclear physics? Nice to know.

Don't even bother with that guy, he's the ultimate NIMBY. This isn't his first time to this rodeo and it's always the same result. Denys any and all evidence you present, refuses to present any of his own and then becomes downright abusive.

Oh, you mean the abuse all of you people have thrown at me? Calling me a hippie, NIMBY, politician, etc. Still not sure what evidence you've posted besides insults and straw man fallacies, while also being completely out of touch with reality, but that's your prerogative to pretend real widely known history didn't happen. Yes, you do you and pot meet kettle.

And yes, let's get back on the subject of EVs.

Pinto? Cortina? Mustang II?

Ford Fiesta II Electric Boogaloo?
 

HockeyJon

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 14, 2014
Messages
1,496
Ok, so you're a construction foreman/engineer with an armchair degree in nuclear physics? Nice to know.

Whatever you need to tell yourself dude, but your opinion isn't significant enough for me to care one way or another. Your ignorance is on full display in this thread, and I don't care for your validation. I would suggest that you actually attempt to educate yourself before attempting to discuss topics that are beyond your current intellectual capacity and attempt to correct those who demonstrably understand the subject matter at a significantly higher level than you do.
 

serpretetsky

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 24, 2008
Messages
1,889
Don't need another Fukushima, Chernobyl or Windscale. And the power plants are not the most dangerous part of the process either, nuclear contractors are responsible for some of the worst environmental disasters in history. Look no further than United Nuclear and their Church Rock mill that irradiated thousands of square miles across multiple US states and Mexico. Contractors also like abandoning things like radio therapy units and leave them derelict to cause mass poisoning incidents when poor people unknowingly break them apart for scrap.

Nuclear is not safe, nor will it ever be safe. Not saying fossil fuel is without problems, but oil spills aren't disasters that last longer than the human race has existed.

I'm not an expert. Curious what do you think of studies that show nuclear, even including all of the accidents, still results in far fewer deaths per energy than coal or oil.

Example:
https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
 

d3athf1sh

Gawd
Joined
Dec 16, 2015
Messages
920
Not going to bother. Since you know nothing about nuclear accidents, can't differentiate between a test and an accident, don't care about people affected by them and dismiss people that don't agree with you a hippie or a politician; There's really no point on wasting further time on narcissistic behavior.



When you can't differentiate between a mining disaster and a nuclear test, there's no point in discussing anything with you. Your straw man fallacies aren't helping you. If you also can't acknowledge that radiation from nuclear accidents and even past testing is still harming people today, you have zero credibility and have no business discussing anything nuclear. Even more so if you can't understand how uranium gets from the earth to a reactor. You don't seem to be able to comprehend that the manufacturing process is actually far more dangerous and has resulted in more disasters than any nuclear reactor melting down has.

Also, who cares about modern reactor designs? The only countries building them in any capacity is China and India. The vast majority of nuclear reactor designs in operation around the world are decades and decades old. The RBMK reactor design, the same one that blew up in Chernobyl ARE STILL IN SERVICE TODAY. Over 40 years later. More nuclear reactors are being decommissioned world wide than being built. Many of the still operating reactors are far beyond their original service life and have had their operating licenses extended numerous times. Why? Because reactors are insanely expensive. Not a single reactor in the world has been built entirely with private capital, Every step from mining to construction to operation and waste disposal is all heavily subsidized by the government and our tax dollars. This makes it by far one of the most expensive sources of energy production.



Sorry man, but you don't have a leg to stand on with your straw man fallacy. I never said coal and gas aren't dangerous, you created that entire argument on your own. Your conclusions about deaths are also disingenuous. You're comparing apples and oranges and ending up with bananas. People die from pollution related pulmonary issues, yes. But people also get weird cancers, diseases and birth defects related to radiation sickness and don't die from nuclear accidents like Church Rock from 1,100 tons of uranium tailings contaminating hundreds of miles. Or all of the Pacific Islanders still not being able to eat locally grown food or fishing. Their lifeline is literally the US Government for survival, or natives that have moved to the mainland to work and send back money. People that died got off easy.

There are methods of generating energy that don't belch out fly ash or nuclear farts, but they are unfortunately not as efficient and don't work everywhere. Hydroelectric power is good, but care must be taken on ecological impact. Those sun towers in the desert to boil water and make steam for generators are also really interesting, but have their limitations too. Wind is another option, but has obvious hazards to birds. Underwater currents with turbines is pretty safe as well as long as the impellers are protected.
hydro electric kills fish dude. and not even trying to think what would happen if the hoover dam ever breaks... or if... not even gonna say it. and now we already have dumps filling up with batteries. and what about all the mining it takes to get the ore's to make the batteries and the factories that make them? then transporting those heavy suckers all over the place? electric cars are dumb. i already discussed it in another thread about how it took someone over 10 extra hours to get to their destination on what would have been a 17 hour drive in a gas powered car. i can link the vid if you want to watch it. electric cars don't really get the milage per charge that they say they do, it's a "best case scenario".
 
Last edited:

Armenius

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
28,158
hydro electric kills fish dude. and not even trying to think what would happen if the hoover dam ever breaks... or if... not even gonna say it. and now we already have dumps filling up with batteries. and what about all the mining it takes to get the ore's to make the batteries and the factories that make them? then transporting those heavy suckers all over the place? electric cars are dumb. i already discussed it in another thread about how it took someone over 10 extra hours to get to their destination on what would have been a 17 hour drive in a gas powered car. i can link the vid if you want to watch it. electric cars don't really get the milage per charge that they say they do, it's a "best case scenario".
Wind turbine blades also cannot be recycled after they need to be replace after 20 years or so, so now they are just taking up space at landfills that will take them. Made of fiberglass and various other materials, these blades will be in the earth forever. And the world wants to build exponentially more of these disastrous feel-good abominations.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/feat...be-recycled-so-they-re-piling-up-in-landfills
“The wind turbine blade will be there, ultimately, forever,” said Bob Cappadona, chief operating officer for the North American unit of Paris-based Veolia Environnement SA, which is searching for better ways to deal with the massive waste. “Most landfills are considered a dry tomb.”

“The last thing we want to do is create even more environmental challenges.”

1634231014900.png
 

THRESHIN

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 29, 2002
Messages
3,357
hydro electric kills fish dude. and not even trying to think what would happen if the hoover dam ever breaks... or if... not even gonna say it. and now we already have dumps filling up with batteries. and what about all the mining it takes to get the ore's to make the batteries and the factories that make them? then transporting those heavy suckers all over the place? electric cars are dumb. i already discussed it in another thread about how it took someone over 10 extra hours to get to their destination on what would have been a 17 hour drive in a gas powered car. i can link the vid if you want to watch it. electric cars don't really get the milage per charge that they say they do, it's a "best case scenario".

this i think is the interesting discussion about EVs. with current technology, you're probably right it is kinda dumb. the point is to be more environmentally friendly and the battery production is anything but. it's tomorrow that is worth talking about. we don't get there without today so i say let someone else be an early adopter. for example, making a smartphone in the 90s was obviously impossible. screen technology wasn't there, batteries were total crap if you remember NiCad, etc. we wouldn't have what we do now without this past.

sure there's a point where you dump a tech for something better. one wins out over the other. i think it's obvious that change is on the way. it's just a question of how we get there and what it'll look like. we could say screw it to electric in favor of hydrogen, who knows.
 

GreenLaser

n00b
Joined
Sep 24, 2020
Messages
48
In recent news the crabs in the English channel appear to be hypnotized by micro electric fields emanating from the windmills power transmission lines. It is causing them to just sit, not forage food or chase girl crabs and fear is it will damage the food chain there. ...Must be Crab equivalent of an Xbox. :)

If any of you live near heavy powerlines be advised there is a link to additional cancer risk from proximity to EM fields. You don't need a PHD in E energy to see the glaring issue with the massive amounts of transmission lines and current needed to support mass electrification.
 

GiGaBiTe

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 26, 2013
Messages
1,935
hydro electric kills fish dude. and not even trying to think what would happen if the hoover dam ever breaks... or if... not even gonna say it. and now we already have dumps filling up with batteries. and what about all the mining it takes to get the ore's to make the batteries and the factories that make them? then transporting those heavy suckers all over the place? electric cars are dumb. i already discussed it in another thread about how it took someone over 10 extra hours to get to their destination on what would have been a 17 hour drive in a gas powered car. i can link the vid if you want to watch it. electric cars don't really get the milage per charge that they say they do, it's a "best case scenario".

Yeah hydro dams aren't great for the wild life, but neither are wind turbines that kill birds by the hundreds of thousands every year. Fish ladders for dams have had some success though, so that's a start. Not sure how to go about wind turbines though.

Whatever you need to tell yourself dude, but your opinion isn't significant enough for me to care one way or another. Your ignorance is on full display in this thread, and I don't care for your validation. I would suggest that you actually attempt to educate yourself before attempting to discuss topics that are beyond your current intellectual capacity and attempt to correct those who demonstrably understand the subject matter at a significantly higher level than you do.

Again, pot meet kettle. You clearly do care, about being abusive. Your only arguments are ignorance and calling everyone you disagree with stupid, which is clearly shown in this thread. Pretty baffling you have an RDF bigger than Steve Jobs did.

Construction foreman with an armchair degree in nuclear physics it is.

I'm not an expert. Curious what do you think of studies that show nuclear, even including all of the accidents, still results in far fewer deaths per energy than coal or oil.

Example:
https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy

Going by death count is really disingenuous. It doesn't factor in the communities that live in hot zones that have lifelong health complications from radiation sickness. Cancers, anemia, birth defects, etc. There are quite a few children that were born from exposed mothers in Chernobyl/Pripyat that had so many birth defects and mental issues like cerebral palsy that they were given up to the state. Pacific islanders on some islands have drastically increased rates of cervical cancer in women and testicular cancer in men and thyroid cancer in both vs. pre-exposure. The Navajo were equally subject to many of the same issues the other groups had, as well as the smaller excursion events from orphan sources all over the world.

And miners of both Uranium and coal get the worst of it all. Coal miners get black lung, asbestosis or silicosis. Uranium miners inhale/ingest radioactive minerals, and are subject to radon gas as a product of unstable element decomposition, they don't have long lives either. and are subject to weird cancers as well. Always sucks to see 30-40 year old coal miners on disability with end stage black lung where they need pure oxygen just to stay alive. Or uranium miners with lung cancer from years of inhaling radioactive dust and radon gas.

And this isn't discrediting the terrible impact coal and oil have had, but at least those are easier to clean up than a nuclear fart, burp or in the case of Chernobyl, bukakke blaster 9000.
 
Top