therearewords 11th-Mar-2013 05:24 pm (UTC)
I can't remember much but the pro side said chances of collapse are minimal so no quake risk and stuff while the against side says it can't be contained so there's risk for the ground water and quakes will happen because you're like ..deflating the ground

One side says it's the cleanest, easiest accessible source right now while the other says it's a ticking time bomb ..why don't they find the middle road for economic and environment?
Reply Form 

No HTML allowed in subject


Notice! This user has turned on the option that logs your IP address when posting. 

(will be screened)

This page was loaded Dec 19th 2014, 12:54 pm GMT.