Reader comments
Would Utah firm open U.S. door to nuclear waste?
71 comments | Read story
Bob G | 5:08 a.m. Feb. 29, 2008
It's been the plan all along for Energy Solutions to turn Utah in to the
worlds dumping ground for waste. The writing was on the wall when they came here
and got approved to handle this waste. If the truth were known, our legislators
knew of the long term plans to bring world wide nuclear waste to Utah. Why else
would such a company set up shop in a state that has no nuclear plants? None
that I know of anyway. They got their foot in the door now its a matter of
financial persuasion of the legislation to get additional approvals for
increased imports of waste. We can count on our legislators to go after the
money and personal financial gains ahead of the safety of the citizens they
represent. We can bet the CEO government in Utah will approve the imports,
there's money in it for them. The radiation icon will become a part of our
state symbolism and not a place you will want to live.
Anti-sensationalist | 5:22 a.m. Feb. 29, 2008
I'm not really buying this whole slippery slope argument. If we allow
EnergySolutions to dispose of some low-level Italian nuclear waste, then somehow
we lose the ability to reject future permits for nuclear waste disposal?
Comments continue below
Ken W. | 6:08 a.m. Feb. 29, 2008
We already encourage foriegn low level waste into the state. Why not allow
Italian nuclear waste and at least make some money to offset our other money
losing projects.
Anonymous | 6:18 a.m. Feb. 29, 2008
Dear Energy Solutions. Why are you trying to turn your own country into a toxic
waste dump? Don't you realize that even the most starving third world
countries don't want it or the jobs it brings? There is a lesson to be
learned there.
Put it to good use | 6:22 a.m. Feb. 29, 2008
We've got a bunch of deseret out there doing nothing. Why not put it to
good use and allow it to bring us in some income?
Just Say No | 6:43 a.m. Feb. 29, 2008
There should be a grass roots effort against bringing nuclear waste to the state
of Utah. Does anyone know of such movement?
Mahershalalhashbaz | 6:52 a.m. Feb. 29, 2008
Here's a thought, why don't we start MAKING our own nuclear waste so
we decrease our carbon footprint? (it's very hard for me to say carbon
footprint-makes me feel dirty like I want to vomit). Then energy solutions can
have a job right here at home, the elitists (those politicians pushing their
global warming hysteria) won't be successful in creating their energy
monopoly, and our energy prices will fall way down. I say energy solutions may
be on to something. If we can take care of the worlds nuclear garbage, we might
as well start first by taking care of our own.
JW | 7:28 a.m. Feb. 29, 2008
You poeple who talk about about this being a bad thing are simply ignorant.
Explain to me how this is a bad thing? We safely and in a controlled manner
dispose of low level waste in the middle of nowhere which generates huge
income....jobs...economics...etc. Does anyone even know what low level waste
is? You poeple are rediculous. How is this a bad thing?
woo hoo | 8:06 a.m. Feb. 29, 2008
Yes, turning Utah into the World's Largest Dump will do wonders for the
tourist industry.
Charlotte Van Tielen | 8:08 a.m. Feb. 29, 2008
Energy SOLUTIONS? Energy DELUSIONS would be a more proper description of this
compmany. Why on earth would we want to bring all this garbage to our beautiful
state? Just to make money? Let Italy find another place to get rid of its
nuclear waste!
Same Stuff | 8:32 a.m. Feb. 29, 2008
Interesting that people didn't become upset about nuclear waste until they
learned that some would come from Italy.
Nuclear waste is nuclear waste. It doesn't matter if it comes from Italy, Israel, Iran, or Indiana.
Nuclear waste is nuclear waste. It doesn't matter if it comes from Italy, Israel, Iran, or Indiana.
TO JW... | 8:45 a.m. Feb. 29, 2008
Yeah, we're all ignorant. We should be clamoring to bring nuclear waste
from all over the globe to our state. I mean, just think of all the jobs and
money that will come with it.
My guess is you work for Energy Solutions. Only someone that has a vested interest in making $$ off of this would try to make it sound as if becoming a nuclear waste dump for the world is a good thing. Its like the old saying goes, no matter how you polish a turd, its still a turd. You can take the jobs and $$ you make somewhere else. I think Utah can much, much better.
My guess is you work for Energy Solutions. Only someone that has a vested interest in making $$ off of this would try to make it sound as if becoming a nuclear waste dump for the world is a good thing. Its like the old saying goes, no matter how you polish a turd, its still a turd. You can take the jobs and $$ you make somewhere else. I think Utah can much, much better.
Scott R. | 8:49 a.m. Feb. 29, 2008
It's bad enough that other states want to dispose of their radioactive
waste in Utah, but to make Utah the dumping ground for the world's
radioactive waste is a terrible idea. Utah has no nuclear reactors. The
citizens of our state have already suffered health consequenses after the
nuclear tests in Nevada left downwinders exposed to radiation and the cancer it
brings. There is a reason why other places don't want radioactive waste
near them. Just say "no" and keep our citizens safer.
To ease the pain | 9:12 a.m. Feb. 29, 2008
That the lawmakers are going to inflict on us citizens when they allow it to
happen (ES is their best friend, afterall), maybe the state can start a fund
like Alaska has based on its big oil industry where each Utah resident gets an
annual stipend from the hugh fees and hugh profit the state and ES will make.
wild bill | 9:24 a.m. Feb. 29, 2008
okay, so I can't bring wine to Utah from California but I COULD bring
radioactive waste from Italy??? Maybe a statement about radioactive waste should
be added to the "word of wisdom".
Something to think about | 9:31 a.m. Feb. 29, 2008
Why not open the door to more?
If it's "Safe" to store a little, it should be "safe" to store a lot.
Europe will do "Anything" to dispose of their nuclear waste, that means Energy Solutions can charge "Anything" to take it off their hands. Utah can tax nuclear waste facilities at any rate they want. So some day Energy Solutions could carry the State's whole tax burden (like casinos do in Nevada) so we could do away with our Income Tax or Sales Tax (like in Nevada).
So someday Utahns may look to Energy Solutions and the Nuclear Waste industry in much the same light as Navada residents embrace or at least tolerate gambling.
I'm sort of kidding, but if we're going to accept nuclear waste at all and we are really convinced that it is 100% safe, why not expand it. The reason is... Because we all suspect that it ISN'T 100% safe and is probably going to bite us someday.
If it's "Safe" to store a little, it should be "safe" to store a lot.
Europe will do "Anything" to dispose of their nuclear waste, that means Energy Solutions can charge "Anything" to take it off their hands. Utah can tax nuclear waste facilities at any rate they want. So some day Energy Solutions could carry the State's whole tax burden (like casinos do in Nevada) so we could do away with our Income Tax or Sales Tax (like in Nevada).
So someday Utahns may look to Energy Solutions and the Nuclear Waste industry in much the same light as Navada residents embrace or at least tolerate gambling.
I'm sort of kidding, but if we're going to accept nuclear waste at all and we are really convinced that it is 100% safe, why not expand it. The reason is... Because we all suspect that it ISN'T 100% safe and is probably going to bite us someday.
If it's so benign... | 9:28 a.m. Feb. 29, 2008
Why do they want to ship it to the opposite hemisphere of the planet to get rid
of it? Anyone who's seen Clint Eastwood westerns knows that there are
deserts not so far from Italy.
Max S | 9:31 a.m. Feb. 29, 2008
This is just one example of why Nuclear power is a horrible solution. First of
all it is not solving the carbon foot print problem as it requires an enormous
amount of fossil fuels to bring this waste over from Europe and then across the
U.S. Imagine all of the energy we are wasting just taking care of this with
transportation and then running a facility FOREVER to take care of the waste,
not to mention the power plants themselves. Low level is just a nonsense feel
good word to make people not worry about this huge problem, it's a
lie...the same as "Energy Soulutions". By the way...I love our deserts
and I don't need nuclear waste placed in them to make them useful.
Anonymous | 9:35 a.m. Feb. 29, 2008
I don't think one more toxic substance introduced to Utah will hurt
anything.
JW | 9:41 a.m. Feb. 29, 2008
Actually I don't work there but I'm educated on the subject. ...(I
don't even live in Utah) I would like for someone to tell me the negative
effects of what they are doing out there in Utah. Someone....anyone? All I
have heard are the words "dump". Has anyone been out to see this
"dump"? I doubt it because unless you are out shooting antelope there
is nothing out there is really no reason to go out there. I just don't see
how this effects anybody in any way other than bringing revenue to your state.
JW | 9:45 a.m. Feb. 29, 2008
What pain will they inflict?
Rachel Morris | 10:10 a.m. Feb. 29, 2008
It is difficult for people to make decisions when they are removed from the
negative impact of their choices. For example, when we buy goods made in China,
we don't feel the working conditions, when we eat eggs from caged chickens
we don't see the "yellow lung" it causes in farmers nor the
pathetic state of the birds, and so on.
Nuclear power is the same way. We enjoy "clean energy" as long as the birth defects aren't happening to our daughter, the cancer didn't take out our best friend. This is one reason I am so opposed to people shipping toxic waste to other areas. Let the people who reap the benefits also feel the full brunt of the impact. In that way, we will all make more humane, educated, and intelligent choices.
Nuclear power is the same way. We enjoy "clean energy" as long as the birth defects aren't happening to our daughter, the cancer didn't take out our best friend. This is one reason I am so opposed to people shipping toxic waste to other areas. Let the people who reap the benefits also feel the full brunt of the impact. In that way, we will all make more humane, educated, and intelligent choices.
Just a matter of time... | 10:19 a.m. Feb. 29, 2008
Ever since energy solutions has member by member bought and paid for our
legislators...it was only a matter of time that this would happen. It was only
last year the our beloved legislators gave energy solutions pretty much carte
blanche at what they could store at their facility out there in our desert.
It's sad how fast all our legislators sold out our state just to pad their pockets with a little cash.
Before you write me off as just some crazy left wing environmentalist, just take a look at all of their list of campaign contributors - I think there are only few that turned money down from engergy solutions.
They want to say it's safe - but there is just no way that it can be. You are talking about radio-active material (no matter how low level) that takes hundreds of years to break down. Really how is that safe.
The only people who are telling you it's safe are people who are in line to make money from this. Ask if any of those people would want to live anywhere near the plant - I don't think you're going to get any takers.
It's sad how fast all our legislators sold out our state just to pad their pockets with a little cash.
Before you write me off as just some crazy left wing environmentalist, just take a look at all of their list of campaign contributors - I think there are only few that turned money down from engergy solutions.
They want to say it's safe - but there is just no way that it can be. You are talking about radio-active material (no matter how low level) that takes hundreds of years to break down. Really how is that safe.
The only people who are telling you it's safe are people who are in line to make money from this. Ask if any of those people would want to live anywhere near the plant - I don't think you're going to get any takers.
Anonymous | 10:29 a.m. Feb. 29, 2008
it will always be the delta center to me baby
Get Real! | 10:35 a.m. Feb. 29, 2008
There is not two sides of the story to whether we should allow Utah to be the
world's nuclear waste dumping ground or not!
To the residents of the State of Utah the following needs addressing before this even approaches hearing 'two sides of the story.'
Has Energy Solutions put a perpetual bond (which would need to be billions of dollars) in place to cover any potential catastrophic events to either the environment and/or people, even long after Energy Solutions is gone (the reason for a 'perpetual' bond).
Has Utah State and the Federal Government (which has oversight/approval input on much of this) committed to a binding non-rescinding fund for covering their share of actual and punitive costs in the event of a catastrophic event resulting from these nuclear waste dumps?
Unless both are solidly in place, there is no other side of the story. Just a huge catastrophic event waiting to happen to which the public and/or individuals will have no recourse.
I have a great idea! If a State or country produced nuclear waste within their borders, then they should keep the waste within their own borders. They allowed for and created the waste, they should keep it.
To the residents of the State of Utah the following needs addressing before this even approaches hearing 'two sides of the story.'
Has Energy Solutions put a perpetual bond (which would need to be billions of dollars) in place to cover any potential catastrophic events to either the environment and/or people, even long after Energy Solutions is gone (the reason for a 'perpetual' bond).
Has Utah State and the Federal Government (which has oversight/approval input on much of this) committed to a binding non-rescinding fund for covering their share of actual and punitive costs in the event of a catastrophic event resulting from these nuclear waste dumps?
Unless both are solidly in place, there is no other side of the story. Just a huge catastrophic event waiting to happen to which the public and/or individuals will have no recourse.
I have a great idea! If a State or country produced nuclear waste within their borders, then they should keep the waste within their own borders. They allowed for and created the waste, they should keep it.
Charlotte Van Tielen | 10:43 a.m. Feb. 29, 2008
JW.................if you are so "educated on the subject" then you
would not mind if we send this nuclear waste to YOUR state? We love Utah,
including its beautiful deserts. If you think there is nothing out there,
well....that just shows ignorance. Better go back to school. If we had to clean
up our own nuclear waste, I would not be opposed to that. But to have other
nations and states dispose of their garbage here, makes no sense at all, except
money sense for Energy Solutions.
Thinkin' Man | 10:43 a.m. Feb. 29, 2008
If it's done safely (which it is), why not? It's a great economic
boon and won't hurt anyone. Most other countries don't have the
technology to dispose of this stuff safely, but we do, so wouldn't you
rather have it done safely here rather than hurting people elsewhere and maybe
falling into malevolent hands? And remember, low-level radioactive stuff
doesn't stay radioactive all that long.
Correction | 10:49 a.m. Feb. 29, 2008
There are 13 members of Utah's Radiation Control Board. So it was 2 of 13
who oppose it, not 2 of 3. Check your facts there is a board listing on the
governor's website and DEQ's.
Re: Just a matter of time 10:19 | 11:22 a.m. Feb. 29, 2008
So... If campaigns don't turn down contributions, they are "Bought and
paid for"? Sounds like that's sort of your assumption. So your
saying, if you ran for office, you would be in the pocket of anyone who
contributed to your campaign? Glad your not running for office!
I don't think accepting contributions from them automatically means they own you. I'd watch their record to see if there's any evidence of that first.
I don't think accepting contributions from them automatically means they own you. I'd watch their record to see if there's any evidence of that first.
Veronica from Orem | 11:18 a.m. Feb. 29, 2008
The same people who trust Energy Solutions to do the job right are people who
would have supported "down wind" atomic bomb testing 50 years ago. The
fallout from that debacle is hardly in dispute these days. The revenue rationale
is simply not enough to offset the potential risk. Blindly trusting any
government or representative of the military industrial complex with health
and/or safety issues is a mistake made by naive and greedy people.
JW | 11:24 a.m. Feb. 29, 2008
Charlotte, I am from Utah originally and am in the industry of removing and/or
destroying nuclear facilities to remove the "footprint." FYI I will
be going back to school this fall. I have never felt more safe than where I
currently work.
You have to understand the regulations that are met in order to have a site that has been approved for waste of this type. I'm sure millions of dollars have been spent to ensure there that one of these "catastrophic events" do not occur. The government and nuclear industry go to unthinkable lengths to make sure no such catastophe's occur. If they did occur they know that a valuable resource such as the nuclear industry will suffer do to the public's view which will take years and years to recover from. The public outcry, unwarranted or not, is what makes state and national governments shy away from handling waste.
You have to understand the regulations that are met in order to have a site that has been approved for waste of this type. I'm sure millions of dollars have been spent to ensure there that one of these "catastrophic events" do not occur. The government and nuclear industry go to unthinkable lengths to make sure no such catastophe's occur. If they did occur they know that a valuable resource such as the nuclear industry will suffer do to the public's view which will take years and years to recover from. The public outcry, unwarranted or not, is what makes state and national governments shy away from handling waste.
JW | 11:32 a.m. Feb. 29, 2008
Also, low-level waste is just that....low-level. I don't know why people
think there is a big conspiracy here. It has to go through numerous screens to
check for levels of contamination as well as radiation levels.
As for safety and health of Utahns....there is no risk to you. The perception of risk is real but the actual risk is not. You drive you car, which statistically speaking is rediculously risky, yet you probably give it no thought. Swimming is statistically risky. Somehow putting low-level waste in an engineered containment miles away from anything is a risk deemed worthy of outcry. I disagree.
As for safety and health of Utahns....there is no risk to you. The perception of risk is real but the actual risk is not. You drive you car, which statistically speaking is rediculously risky, yet you probably give it no thought. Swimming is statistically risky. Somehow putting low-level waste in an engineered containment miles away from anything is a risk deemed worthy of outcry. I disagree.
Anonymous | 11:29 a.m. Feb. 29, 2008
If they fill it with nuclear waste, where will the Jazz play?
Anonymous | 11:37 a.m. Feb. 29, 2008
Man is the only animal that poisons its own drinking water.
There is nothing to worry about.
Man is on his way out of this self-correcting system called Earth.
Man will be long gone and the Earth will be still rolling along as naturally as it has before man came along and mucked things up.
There is nothing to worry about.
Man is on his way out of this self-correcting system called Earth.
Man will be long gone and the Earth will be still rolling along as naturally as it has before man came along and mucked things up.
Captain Howdy | 11:55 a.m. Feb. 29, 2008
Get Real (10:35),
You do know that there IS a surety fund set up, as required by EnergySolutions' radioactive materials license, right? I guess you think that it's just not enough. You want all of the parties involved to put up billions more in case of a - as you put it - "catastophic event".
So that we all can see how much you know about the radioactive waste that's out there, exactly what kind of a "catastrophic event" do you anticipate happening?
Please tell us, so we can be prepared for it.
If you're going to try to instill fear in the folks here, I want you to tell us just exactly what it is we need to fear.
You do know that there IS a surety fund set up, as required by EnergySolutions' radioactive materials license, right? I guess you think that it's just not enough. You want all of the parties involved to put up billions more in case of a - as you put it - "catastophic event".
So that we all can see how much you know about the radioactive waste that's out there, exactly what kind of a "catastrophic event" do you anticipate happening?
Please tell us, so we can be prepared for it.
If you're going to try to instill fear in the folks here, I want you to tell us just exactly what it is we need to fear.
Bombadil | 12:00 p.m. Feb. 29, 2008
1600 tons doesn't sound like much. Well, it represents 15 fully loaded
train hopper cars (108 tons per car) This waste will roll right through major
thoroughfares in our state. You folks are delusional if you think lawmakers are
supporting this for any other reason that energy solutions putting money in
their pockets. Look at the public record.
Re: Max S | 11:56 a.m. Feb. 29, 2008
Waste could be transported in the future with electricity produced by nuclear
power. Nuclear is the only viable option to replace carbon fuels. It is wrong
to put down nuclear power because the waste will have to be transported in the
mean time using carbon fuels.
maybe | 12:22 p.m. Feb. 29, 2008
just maybe if we ask our legislatures to show some COMPASSION for the Utah
citizen we might have a chance but I think there is too much money at stake for
them to care about the little faithful UTAHN who keeps electing these people.
Our Gov must have money in the pot as he supports it. mmmmmm There must be
other jobs we could bring to Utah. Do we really know what impact it will have
over time on our water and what if an earthquake hits the spot what then are the
affects on the folks of Utah? Oh we don't really care, just bring in the
almight dollar
2 Anonymous 11:37 | 12:21 p.m. Feb. 29, 2008
Man is the only "Animal" that poisons it's own drinking water?
You haven't raised cattle have you? Where do you think Giardia comes from?
You haven't raised cattle have you? Where do you think Giardia comes from?
Do something useful | 12:33 p.m. Feb. 29, 2008
We ought to take the worlds waste, reprocess it and turn it into nuclear fuel.
The USA should do this with its own waste. There is a lot of energy in that
waste.
dump in mich | 12:41 p.m. Feb. 29, 2008
They do that in Michigan. It started as household waste, then medical waste. The
businesses eventually leave or go broke and leave the whole mess behind. We are
then required to clean it up at a cost of billions of dollars. Eventually you
learn that the inspectors and goverment officals were paid off that the proper
regulatory requirements were never met and the stuff leaks into the ground,
water tables, air. Here when it poisons the aquifer they call it a plume. The
greatest fresh water resource in the world. As long as business control our
goverment, we will all lose.
Captain Howdy | 1:06 p.m. Feb. 29, 2008
Where exactly is this aquifer that you call "the greatest fresh water
resource in the world"? Out in the West Desert? Last time I looked - and
yes, I have looked - the water out in the west desert is undrinkable and nowhere
near anyone's drinking water.
Anonymous | 1:14 p.m. Feb. 29, 2008
Man is on the way out.
It will be by his own doing.
Then Mother Earth, with her self-correcting ways will be normal once again.
Then maybe God will have second thoughts about adding man to paradise again.
It will be by his own doing.
Then Mother Earth, with her self-correcting ways will be normal once again.
Then maybe God will have second thoughts about adding man to paradise again.
Brad Tew | 1:43 p.m. Feb. 29, 2008
Read "PIPM Ultimatum," my new book, to get a better perspective of
adverse impacts of humanity on the earth and the future legacy that could
result.
Brad Tew
Brad Tew
An old question | 2:23 p.m. Feb. 29, 2008
Would Mother Earth be better off without man?
Charlotte Van Tielen | 2:59 p.m. Feb. 29, 2008
JW..........Who said anything about "a catasprophy?" Certainly not I!
I just do not want our state to set a precendence. That you work in the nuclear
industry comes as no surprise, but that does not bother me in the least. I know
that nuclear energy can be very safe. I grew up in a country where, at the time
of my departure, there were already three plants. My disagreement with you lies
in the fact, that I do not want any kind of waste from any place but our own,
polluting our deserts. "Low level" or not, it still is not welcome
here.
P.S. I am glad you are going back to school. :)
P.S. I am glad you are going back to school. :)
Re: Re: Max S | 3:38 p.m. Feb. 29, 2008
So we make more waste to transport our own waste. How about there are other
solutions than Nuclear. I know many here will think solar is a waste of time,
but the sun has been powering life on this planet since the beginning and there
is plenty to go around. More money and energy needs to be put into solar power.
Now that is an effective and friendly use of our deserts.
Offset costs... | 3:35 p.m. Feb. 29, 2008
The waste could help offset the cost of the soccer stadium (future parking lot)
that's draining money from the state coffers.
anonymous | 3:40 p.m. Feb. 29, 2008
People really need to understand that what is called "nuclar waste"
really insn't nuclear waste, but spent fuel cells. These cells are easily
recycled and entirely reusable anywhere else in the world, except the United
States. Do your reasearch. The only reason why we can't recycle these
fuel cells, and have to store them as "nuclear waste", is due to an
old exectutive order past by our dear friend Jimmy Careter that forbade the
recycling of these fuel cells due to fears of what that would look like to the
Soviet Union. It would seem that our ever vigelant environmentalist friends
would, out of great concern for the environment, want to support the overturn of
such a ridiculous executive order, and allow this "nuclear waste" to
be used to its full capacity.
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining
E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.
- The Who for the Super Bowl 7:08 p.m.
- Thursday's sports transactions 7:06 p.m.
- Holiday festivals offer family fun 6:30 p.m.
- Story of the 'Bells' retold 6:30 p.m.
- Reasons Brooks, Reiner are classics 6:30 p.m.
- Festival of Trees 6:30 p.m.
- Region 7 All-Region Team 6:29 p.m.
- Discovery has come a long way, baby 5:11 p.m.
- Dining out: Scaddy's 5:11 p.m.
- Boyfriend needs to pull own weight 5:11 p.m.
- Man trapped in Nutty Putty cave dies
- Rivalry has had some 'turkeys'
- Cave rescuers committed to free man
- Holiday television program listings
- Highland players make special friend
- Temple Square to use LEDs
- Matt Reynolds vs. Koa Misi
- Missions teach players perseverance
- Salt Lake City woman shot
- Provo star leads Bulldogs to win
- BYU would like friendlier rivalry
261 - Glenn Beck to enter politics?228
- Protests against Phoenix LDS temple210
- RSL wins MLS Cup on penalty kicks202
- Bronco, Kyle rubber match139
- BYU records with win133
- Letters: Rushing to judge Palin131
- Thunder rolls by Jazz130
- Boys basketball rankings117
- Editorial: Poor welcome for Palin112
Latest comments
Cousin, I feel horrible for what happened. The fact that they had him out...
happened because people/voters respected Lavell. Congrats, coach.
There is no question on what Lavell did for BYU football program. Great...
John was one of the most incredible individuals that I have ever met. He was...
Rob, agreed. She does deserve one. But sometimes in situations like this. The...
My family and I are so saddened to hear of the outcome of this story. Our...
My grandfather, Mack Bateman, was one of the survivors of the accident. He...
re: byu turkeys | 5:49 p.m. Nov. 26, 2009 our BEST EVER PLAYERS completely...
Meanwhile the real kids are caught in the middle. What about them?
when you play an inferior team (than your team), there is no need to...
Advertisements
Please take more responsibility for your journalism and at least try to be impartial when reporting the news. And before anyone tries to crucify me for my comments, I have not decided wether I am for or against the plan. What I do know is I cannot count on the D News to give me equal time and reporting from both sides of the debate. Articles like this will only serve to make me cancel my subscription!