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

Latest Breaking News

(13,685 posts)

15. Thanks for caring CreekDog

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 05:40 PM

Mar 2013

And let's not forget that 160,000 people had to evacuate their lands.

If they stayed there, how would their health be?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

22 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

This ~ In_The_Wind Feb 2013 #1

In light of this how can nuclear energy be seen as safe? madokie Feb 2013 #2

Seriously? FBaggins Mar 2013 #6

NYT article had this to say RobertEarl Mar 2013 #7

So? They're saying the same thing I said. FBaggins Mar 2013 #8

No, went right over your head didn't it? RobertEarl Mar 2013 #9

Nope. It's just what I said (twice now). FBaggins Mar 2013 #10

There you go with the personal attacks RobertEarl Mar 2013 #12

Again... Nope. FBaggins Mar 2013 #16

You should go there and tell the people RobertEarl Mar 2013 #18

So you're really incapable of nuance, eh? FBaggins Mar 2013 #21

Facts RobertEarl Mar 2013 #22

heh zappaman Mar 2013 #19

almost doubling of her risk CreekDog Mar 2013 #11

With numbers that small... why be "horrified"? FBaggins Mar 2013 #13

a 1 in 133 risk turning into a 1 in 78 risk? CreekDog Mar 2013 #17

For someone in that category, yes. FBaggins Mar 2013 #20

Thanks for caring CreekDog RobertEarl Mar 2013 #15

That is what I am afraid of RobertEarl Mar 2013 #5

On a tangent, but related... WilmywoodNCparalegal Mar 2013 #14