- Home
- Blogs
- News
- Music
- Film
- Food
- Arts
- Columns
- Elections
- Best of the Triangle
- Ads & Classifieds
- Free Stuff
Browse News
Browse Elections
Browse Columns
Browse Music
Browse Arts
Browse Film
Browse Food
- Triangle Dining Guide
- Submit or update a dining listing
- Big Bite, the INDY's food blog
- Farmers Markets
- Dish special issue
- Food Archives
- Eats 2012-2013
Browse Sports
Browse Ads & Classifieds
- Advertise with Us
- Free Classifieds
- Consignment & Resale
- Open for Business
- Annual Manual 2012-2013
- Eats 2013-2014
- Earth-friendly
Browse Free Stuff
- Giveaways & Contests
- Newsletter sign-up
- Astrology, Cartoons, Puzzles
- Gifts of Love
- Top Dog
- INDY Animals
- Give!Guide
- Give!Guide Nonprofit Application
Browse Blogs
- Triangle Offense (sports)
- Triangulator (news)
- Citizen (Raleigh)
- Big Bite (food)
- Artery (arts)
- Scan (music)
Browse Best of the Triangle
jaypet
Member since Dec 28, 2007
Manifesto/Bio
Links to Me
- Nobody links to me!
Recent Comments
Custom Lists
- Zip.
© 2013
Indy Week • 302 E. Pettigrew St., Suite 300, Durham, NC 27701 • phone 919-286-1972 • fax 919-286-4274
RSS Feeds | Powered by Foundation
Re: “Two more strikes vs. NBAF”
Stem and Creedmoor are right to reject the proposed BADF facility for many reasons. First only 18 of the 24 security recommendations have been implemented. Assuming each recommendation is weighted evenly, that comes out to a 75% chance that security will not be breached. Secondly, has an independent group been set up to determine the environmental impact? Probably not. Given our other problems in this region, we should definitely pass on this one.