Skip navigation
40comments
Share conversation: Share via:

Ingrid Akerlind

May 5, 2014
02:24

Fellow


1 |
Share via:
MIT Nukes, Welcome to the U.S. Federal Agencies contest! Thank you for adding to the conversation and sharing your idea with us. Andrea and I just want to let you know that we will be providing mid-contest feedback in June. Good luck! Ingrid and Andrea

Monad Kiysuren

May 9, 2014
08:46

Member


2 |
Share via:
I am sorry but in my opinion this is a terrible idea. Until we develop a safe and permanent technology for containment of radioactive wastes it is not right to move in the direction of nuclear power. Plus, you have to build so many of them in order to effectively reduce the emissions from coal power plants, and that would take years if not decades. And last, electricity produced by nuclear power is not cheap to begin with.

Sam Massey

May 9, 2014
12:39

Member


3 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Thanks for your comment, Monad. We hope to convince you otherwise once we've actually filled in some details.

Tom Morris

May 13, 2014
09:47

Member


4 |
Share via:
monad, as the team here will certainly show, the fear of nuclear waste is overhyped. The amount of waste produced thus far by operational reactors is not enough to fill a football stadium and safe storage allready exsist. newer reactor designs like the IFR and others limit waste production even further. In response to your objection that "it will require building so many reactors to replace coal" I would counter what other realistically viable clean alternative would you propose? Solar provides a tiny portion of the power we use and wind even less. Solar panels production uses hazarous chemicals and solar is not a viable option in many areas. wind uses large sreas to get any apperciable amount of power generated and always requires some type of fossil fuel backup. The fear of nuclear power is based on erroneous information about safety and wate managment put out to the public combined with a mental tie bewtween nuclear and weapons. new reactor designs would not even provide fuel for weapons. IMHO we have the tchnology now to build a better cleaner and safer world. propaganda funded by the fossil fuel industry prevents the use of the most obvious answer to the problems we face. sorry to rant but this is a pet peeve of mine. Clueless or disingenuos politicions pass laws to "protect" us from technologies that could help all mankind: Safe Nuclear- can contribute greatly to the need for clean power. GMO crops- can reduce land use by getting greater yeilds with more nutritional value and allow crops to be grown in inhospitibal conditions; ridiculous fears that somehow consuming modified DNA/RNA will "mutate" our children have been used to frighten those in areas where this technologhy would be most useful into making it illegal. Lies and poor understanding of real science are handcuffing real viable solutions to the problems we face.

Tom Morris

May 13, 2014
09:39

Member


5 |
Share via:
sorry for all the spelling errors above. I type too fast. :)

Doron Bracha

May 19, 2014
04:08

Member


6 |
Share via:
Hi guys, Even if nuclear power can be made safe, you still have to deal with the disposal of the nuclear waste. Why not put the efforts into developing greener energy sources, that are reliable and renewable?.. Uranium is a finite resource, that takes a lot of energy to mine and process. Wind and solar are abundant, free, and practically never ending... http://www.epa.gov/radiation/docs/radwaste/ http://energytransition.de/2013/11/denmark-surpasses-100-percent-wind-power/ http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/05/13/3436923/germany-energy-records/ Cheers !..

Tom Morris

May 19, 2014
07:38

Member


7 |
Share via:
Denmark has unique wind conditions which allow 100 % wind power-not a feasible solution in many areas. Solar also is not yet at a level where it is practical in all areas. as far as waste from commercial power plants I quote the EPA site you listed "compared to the total inventory of HLW, the volume of commercial HLW from the reprocessing of commercial spent fuel is almost insignificant, less than one percent. Defense-related HLW comprises greater than ninety-nine percent of the volume of HLW. "

Tom Morris

May 20, 2014
07:31

Member


8 |
Share via:
Solar has it's own issues with hazardous materials as well: LINK: http://www.solarindustrymag.com/issues/SI1309/FEAT_05_Hazardous_Materials_Used_In_Silicon_PV_Cell_Production_A_Primer.html

Vantte Kentta

May 21, 2014
07:11

Member


9 |
Share via:
Hi guys, My beef with nuclear isn´t that it is among the cleanest forms of energy, at least at first glance http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-t3QBQHjE0HI/UQa2yMSHJiI/AAAAAAAADK4/visb--n_qy0/s1600/Emissions+per+kWh.png But with the fact that we don´t actually know enough about the true full cost or full lifecycle emissions of Nuclear energy. http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21600135-britain-paying-dearly-neglecting-its-nuclear-waste-glowing-review?fsrc=scn/tw_ec/a_glowing_review http://www.publicintegrity.org/2014/03/10/14345/world-awash-nuclear-explosive?shared_via_impaq_me=true&utm_campaign=53068196623738000c440000&utm_medium=social&utm_source=impaqme I would very much like to see a cost/ emissions calculation of Nuclear energy: - Including GLOBAL security costs (security at all airports, train stations and border controls all over the world) from protecting us against nuclear devices that started from smuggling Coke-can sized radioactive materials. - Also including a certified, verified way of disposing nuclear waste. (Not exposed to future fracking etc.) The biggest argument for or against Nuclear energy is a combined calculation of ALL the costs, and ALL the emissions. But as incredible as that sounds, there are none. We could end the talk of for or against Nuclear with just one such calculation, if all the variables were truly included. If someone was willing to make such a comprehensible calculation I think there would be dozens of willing funders, backers and institutional investors. Greenpeace, IAEA, IEA, OECD, the governments of France, Germany, China etc. etc. So, do you guys know of anybody who could take all the variables in to account and make such an calculation? Cheers!

Sardar Mohazzam

May 22, 2014
09:17

Catalyst


10 |
Share via:
@ MIT Nukes, I am looking forward to your idea to develop to full proposal. Although, it seems like most of the comments are not in favor of what you are proposing, but I believe until you come up with full proposal we shouldn't be judgmental. Further, I believe that your idea will be wonderful analysis of technological constructivism in comparison with social constructivism. Renewable energy has more social constructivist coupled with environmental support. On the other hand, technological constructivism is more top down approach policy orientation where a technological solution (Nuclear) is favored. How you will construct the social reality of safe nuclear for the social constructivism will be challenge, I am looking forward. Best, Mohazzam

Sardar Mohazzam

May 22, 2014
09:29

Catalyst


11 |
Share via:
@ MIT Nukes, I am looking forward to your idea to develop to full proposal. Although, it seems like most of the comments are not in favor of what you are proposing, but I believe until you come up with full proposal we shouldn't be judgmental. Further, I believe that your idea will be wonderful analysis of technological constructivism in comparison with social constructivism. Renewable energy has more social constructivist coupled with environmental support. On the other hand, technological constructivism is more top down approach policy orientation where a technological solution (Nuclear) is favored. How you will construct the social reality of safe nuclear for the social constructivism will be challenge, I am looking forward. Best, Mohazzam

Chad Knutsen

May 30, 2014
10:35

Member


12 |
Share via:
Do very many nuclear plants blow up or cause problems? no. Do very many nuclear plants NEED to blow up or meltdown to cause a global catastrophe? No. They are not statistically very dangerous, definitely not. But the effects of one single meltdown affects EVERYONE, in one way or another. Fukishima, boom. the whole west coasts seafood supply became radioactive. not to mention dangerous levels of Radiation in the milk in my hometown in rural Washington State. There are many better ways to generate power...Geothermal, hydroelectric current turbines, alt. energy like Tesla's designs, and even pyramid based energy centers like the ones in ancient egypt (basically the same setup as tesla's), there's Rodin coils, solar thermal steam turbines (sterling engines basically)...there are SO many ways to generate power that are better, safer, and more efficient than nuclear energy, so in my humble opinion (and I feel I'm not alone here), Nuclear energy is a fad, not unlike the N'Sync...people scream for them until they mature a little, turn around, look back and realize its a really bad idea, and will make their kids ashamed of them.

Chad Knutsen

May 30, 2014
10:29

Member


13 |
Share via:
not to mention the TREMENDOUS amounts of cement used in their construction...have you ever read the stats on how much CO2 is produced while making cement and concrete? yeeeesh...

Chad Knutsen

May 30, 2014
10:58

Member


14 |
Share via:
Also there are a myriad of other designs for wind power besides the typical "wind resistance model". I've seen a few designs using wind redirection to generate as much power out of an 8'x8' unit, what was stackable...Also there are solar technologies that do not require hazardous chemicals, and hydro electric designs that are not destructive like dams are (such as current turbines etc). Even when just looking at all the mainstream, common knowledge energy alternatives, there are very sustainable and low impact ways to produce them. Not to mention once again the incredible potential of pyramid power etc, as I mentioned earlier. Sorry for posting 3 times, the second two came into my head too late. Cheers.

Chad Knutsen

May 30, 2014
11:14

Member


15 |
Share via:
Ugh, sorry again for the multi-post, but I just read the following bit from an earlier post that was in defense of GMO's and to be honest it irked me...... "GMO crops- can reduce land use by getting greater yields with more nutritional value and allow crops to be grown in inhospitable conditions; ridiculous fears that somehow consuming modified DNA/RNA will 'mutate' our children have been used to frighten those in areas where this technology would be most useful into making it illegal. " really? there are a tons of ways to get all the benefits of GMO's naturally, that are cheaper, easier, and that have verified positive effects, rather than potential negative side effects. Look up Rudolf Steiner's book: Agriculture Course. Read up a little bit on the Anthroposophical method and you will see that sometimes the answers are right in front of us, written in nature, and its just a matter of learning to pay attention to the 3's 6's, and 9's as it were. Furthermore...we really do not know what the effects are long term of modern GMO's yet...they really haven't been around long enough for us to find out... And "not enough nuclear waste to fill a football field" is hardly a small enough amount for me. There is no need for there to be any nuclear waste. And as long as it exists on this planet, it will be a threat to us in one way or another IMHO.

Chad Knutsen

May 30, 2014
11:18

Member


16 |
Share via:
Ugh, sorry again for the multi-post, but I just read the following bit from an earlier post that was in defense of GMO's and to be honest it irked me...... "GMO crops- can reduce land use by getting greater yields with more nutritional value and allow crops to be grown in inhospitable conditions; ridiculous fears that somehow consuming modified DNA/RNA will 'mutate' our children have been used to frighten those in areas where this technology would be most useful into making it illegal. " really? there are a tons of ways to get all the benefits of GMO's naturally, that are cheaper, easier, and that have verified positive effects, rather than potential negative side effects. Look up Rudolf Steiner's book: Agriculture Course. Read up a little bit on the Anthroposophical method and you will see that sometimes the answers are right in front of us, written in nature, and its just a matter of learning to pay attention to the 3's 6's, and 9's as it were. Furthermore...we really do not know what the effects are long term of modern GMO's yet...they really haven't been around long enough for us to find out... And "not enough nuclear waste to fill a football field" is hardly a small enough amount for me. There is no need for there to be any nuclear waste. And as long as it exists on this planet, it will be a threat to us in one way or another IMHO.

Patrick Mcnulty

Jun 3, 2014
02:45

Member


17 |
Share via:
Being a former control room operator for FP&L now FPL Group I'll give you a little insight on how much heat nukes add to our atmosphere. It has to go somewhere right? So nukes add to much heat to the atmosphere where GHG's trap that heat. Here's how, the circulating water pumps in a nuke plant discharge water from the condenser 10 to 20 degrees warmer than what the water came into the condenser in at 90 degrees out at at 110 degrees. I have seen it as high as 120 degrees in fossil plants but the nukes run a little cooler.. This heat gets dispersed into the atmosphere where it also warms our planet GHG's don't care what heat they trap it can be from nukes or your cars radiator they are not prejudice.. Some of those circulating water pumps discharge at the rate of 1 million gallons per minute and the plant may have 4 of them. That's 5.6 Billion gallons per day for the 4 pumps or 672 billion btu's at a 15 degree increase per day per plant... That is not good for mother Earth. Arctic sea ice can't afford that...

Monad Kiysuren

Jun 3, 2014
12:31

Member


18 |
Share via:
tominga, you said: "GMO crops- can reduce land use by getting greater yeilds with more nutritional value and allow crops to be grown in inhospitibal conditions; ridiculous fears that somehow consuming modified DNA/RNA will 'mutate' our children have been used to frighten those in areas where this technologhy would be most useful into making it illegal." Do you even know why people are protesting GMO crops? Or do you think they are all ignorant and have "ridiculous fears"?

Andrea Ruotolo

Jun 27, 2014
11:53

Fellow


19 |
Share via:
First of all, thank you so much for sharing your ideas with Third Way and the Climate CoLab. We’re really excited to see what great things can happen with these proposals. The two fellows, Ingrid and I, wanted to give each team some constructive feedback while there are still several weeks before the proposal deadlines. These are not official critiques from the judges. Rather, they are intended to help you identify the areas in which your proposals can improve so the judges are likelier to pass you on to the final round. Good luck during the next three weeks! Looking forward to see the final version of the presentation.

Robert Dedomenico

Jun 30, 2014
06:36

Member


20 |
Share via:
Nuclear power's biggest problem and most expensive contributor to high capital and O&M costs is the politics of fear. It is only politics, and not science or technology, that stands in the way of effectively dealing with spent fuel. This proposal is spot on.

Robert Dedomenico

Jun 30, 2014
06:01

Member


21 |
Share via:
I am going to address Tom's comments about the waste heat from nuclear plants, especially since he pointed out that he was previously licensed at a commercial nuclear power plant. I too am a previously licensed commercial nuclear power plant operator. So, the first thing to point out is that it matters not about the waste heat. All of the energy released winds up as heat in the environment whether we get to use it in between or not (excepting some space applications of energy, of course.) Second, the total solar flux onto Earth's ~50 million square mile profile is many, many orders of magnitude more than all the stored energy that humanity releases from all sources. In conclusion, on a global scale, direct heat production from human activity is miniscule, and always will be. Statements to the contrary amount to fear mongering, whether intentionally or not.

Tom Morris

Jun 30, 2014
07:41

Member


22 |
Share via:
Monad, most of the fears I see expressed about GMO's are 1. that somehow the modified dna/rna will allow consumed foods to harm the consumer; there is absolutly no evidence that this can occur. You consume dna/rna now from natural crops/animal products. 2. the modified crops will cross polinate other cops causing destruction mutation of natural crops. This IMHO is the most valid fear and steps can and should be taken to mitigate this. 3. GMO's must be bad since they were developed by big corporations. The big push behind developement of gmo's was to gain greater yeild with less input(nutrients and land use) along with reducing the need for pesticides. I am not saying it is wrong to have concerns about GMO's but most of the protest I have seen totally disregard the potential gains. Like many topics GMO's and Nuclear take on an almost religous aspect where suppoters and detractors demonize the other side and refuse to look at hard data.

Tom Morris

Jun 30, 2014
07:42

Member


23 |
Share via:
Monad, most of the fears I see expressed about GMO's are 1. that somehow the modified dna/rna will allow consumed foods to harm the consumer; there is absolutly no evidence that this can occur. You consume dna/rna now from natural crops/animal products. 2. the modified crops will cross polinate other cops causing destruction mutation of natural crops. This IMHO is the most valid fear and steps can and should be taken to mitigate this. 3. GMO's must be bad since they were developed by big corporations. The big push behind developement of gmo's was to gain greater yeild with less input(nutrients and land use) along with reducing the need for pesticides. I am not saying it is wrong to have concerns about GMO's but most of the protest I have seen totally disregard the potential gains. Like many topics GMO's and Nuclear take on an almost religous aspect where suppoters and detractors demonize the other side and refuse to look at hard data.

Tom Morris

Jun 30, 2014
07:34

Member


24 |
Share via:
chadith; please elaborate on the enormous potential of "pyramid power" that you mention in an earlier post.

Eric Dargy

Jul 11, 2014
03:46

Member


25 |
Share via:
Yes. I really like this. Two up votes. I'm crossing my finger, but not betting on, a sea change in acceptance for nuclear! Great job for pushing forward.

James D'angelo

Jul 18, 2014
08:08

Member


26 |
Share via:
This idea is too important to be left undeveloped here. OP where are you?

Climate Colab

Aug 5, 2014
08:25

Member


27 |
Share via:
Thank you for this very thoughtful proposal. This is a straightforward proposal that addresses an issue we regularly hear about. There's a lot to like here, and any negative feedback we have should be viewed as constructive criticism on an already-strong idea. To strengthen the proposal, the authors should consider where opposition might come from and how to overcome it -- particularly the reality that the nuclear industry already feels overburdened by fees imposed by the NRC and may object to an increase in licensing fee, however, minimal, to finance new regulations for a set of reactors that are not yet commercialized. Spending more space acknowledging the opposition and discussing steps against it will make it a stronger proposal. It would also be helpful to provide more guidance as to how, politically, get the NRC to act on these recommendations. Would it require executive action? Lobbying by industry or outside groups? Other action? Second, on of the judges was not entirely convinced that this would make a significant change in US greenhouse gas emissions for two reasons. First, you could make a stronger case that the licensing process is actually causing fewer reactors to be built. I understand the logic behind the argument, but don't see a lot of documentation. Second, even if the licensing process was improved, there are numerous other challenges nuclear faces, like long-term waste storage.If you address both of those questions, you would be better-equipped to answer the question about greenhouse gas impact. I understand that the goal is a zero-fossil fuel energy mix, but I don't think you mean that this licensing change would directly achieve that goal. You should try estimating how many more reactors would be built by 2050 if this licensing change was implemented. Finally, I may be missing something, but I think you need to do more with the budget. If you stop subsidizing the operating reactor oversight budget with application fees, then you need to find a new source of funding for operating reactor oversight. Do you have a proposal to address this shortfall? That would make your proposal significantly more workable. All in all, this was a very strong proposal, and one that we judges are eager to revisit during the next judging round. Good luck!

Climate Colab

Sep 3, 2014
12:23

Member


28 |
Share via:
"Impressive proposal really focused on moving past rhetoric and quickly into reality in addressing the need to reduce carbon emissions. Very clear action plan that can enable clean technologies to be more easily approved and deployed." "I would still like to see more detail on the impact of this change, but continue to like the proposal. This is a very actionable policy idea that would move the ball forward."

Mark Pawelek

Sep 3, 2014
10:21

Member


29 |
Share via:
W.r.t.: "tremendous amount of cement used in the construction of nuclear reactors" Conventional nuclear uses far fewer resources than wind. Comparing conventional nuclear with wind: No tonnes material per MWe of electricity: --------- Concrete ---- Steel wind: ------ 65.2 ----- 23.1 nuclear: ---- 5.6 ------ 0.81 See: http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/10/18/tcase4/

Robert Bernal

Sep 3, 2014
10:04

Member


30 |
Share via:
No nuclear options equate to taking more time to prevent the death of the biosphere. Plain and simple. I write this because there is anti-nuclear sentiment trying to limit our ability to address this very serious matter of excess CO2. I must remind the anti-nuclear community just what we are fighting against. Excess CO2 (from fossil fuels and deforestation) is a proven infrared absorber and is proven to lower the pH level of seawater. Combined, these global alterations will change the Holocene into something different, possibly even into a dead world from an anoxic ocean event. 1, A "renewables only" powered world will require vast amounts of land in order for said renewables to overcome the resulting low EROEI (after the ESOI and efficiency of storage is accounted for).

Robert Bernal

Sep 3, 2014
10:32

Member


31 |
Share via:
Looks like I have to paste the rest in sections... 2, Not all countries have good renewable energy resources. 3, In order to transition entirely from fossil fuels, demand for fossil fuels would skyrocket during the "renewables only" buildup, possibly jeopardizing the economy. 4, Most renewable sources do not last as long as nuclear. 5, Wind has a capacity factor of less than 35%, meaning that we must use it to convert into clean liquid fuels, to burn in a gas turbine for its backup, with much further efficiency losses. 6, Solar has even less of a capacity factor! And 7, Almost ALL renewable energy advocates admit that we will need natural gas (and even "clean coal"!) in order to backup the renewables during their daily and weekly lulls. Renewable energy enthusiasts seem happy to achieve 35%. The physics of excess cO2 will not "be happy" until we achieve something like 95%! Neither will I.

Robert Bernal

Sep 3, 2014
10:55

Member


32 |
Share via:
Of course, it is possible to power 10 billion people at high standards using just solar, wind, hydro and the sprinkling of all those other sources (which will never amount to more than trivial parts of a single percent of an entire planetary civilization's worth of electricity and power for mobility) such as waste to heat and biofuels, wave power, etc. However, all these together require that the global economy to be dedicated more towards just making, storing (and losing) energy. If history is any guide, higher EROEI sources make for better economies. The meltdown proof reactors must be re-developed as they will achieve the highest EROEI of any of the clean energy sources because far less mass (and thus digging) is required for a power source that is on the order of SIX magnitudes higher, because less storage (and thus less lost to ESOI and storage inefficiencies)is required than any of the other proven clean energy sources. They have already been proven safe at the demonstration level DECADES ago. How could anyone refuse this, after seeing that renewables require massive fossil fueled backup?

Hemant Wagh

Sep 6, 2014
12:01

Member


33 |
Share via:
If there are doubts or reservations about the GMO plants, how about saving at home the seeds of fruits eaten by families throughout the year and spreading on unused land at rainy season onset to grow fruit-trees in abundance! School kids can be involved in this process. Following is a link to such a proposal. https://www.climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/1300103/planId/1310401 This would bolster the efforts directed at finding workable solution to climate change..

Hemant Wagh

Sep 6, 2014
12:05

Member


34 |
Share via:
If there are doubts or reservations about the GMO plants, how about saving at home the seeds of fruits eaten by families throughout the year and spreading on unused land at rainy season onset to grow fruit-trees in abundance! School kids can be involved in this process. Following is a link to such a proposal. https://www.climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/1300103/planId/1310401 This would bolster the efforts directed at finding workable solution to climate change..

Mark Pawelek

Sep 9, 2014
10:18

Member


35 |
Share via:
1. Many of the comments don't relate the proposal. monad, Doron_Bracha, chadith, vankent, cyclonebuster are making generic anti-nuke statements. I guess they'd close down the NRC if they could. On the proposal: 2. "All application fees be earmarked for the application process". This could help solve NRC understaffing which may possibly be a reason for delaying an application by years. When a new application comes along, NRC will now be able to employ new staff to deal with it. 3. You could add: applications that deal with the vast majority of actinide waste should be expedited. The better a design such as WA-MSR eliminates actinides, the faster it should be dealt with.

Osero Shadrack Tengeya

Sep 17, 2014
04:06

Fellow


36 |
Share via:
Hi MIT Nukes and your friends, kindly consider voting for my proposal shown on this link. https://www.climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/1300206/planId/1002 Thanks.

Sardar Mohazzam

Sep 19, 2014
01:15

Catalyst


37 |
Share via:
A second container of plutonium-contaminated debris may have contributed to a radiation leak that has led to the indefinite suspension of operations at an underground nuclear waste dump in New Mexico. http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/09/19/us-usa-nuclear-new-mexico-idUKKBN0HE03020140919

Anne-marie Soulsby

Sep 23, 2014
01:58

Member


38 |
Share via:
Hi MIT Nukes, Please consider voting for my proposal, https://www.climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/1300801/planId/1309001 Good luck with your entry! Asante/Thank-you @conserveaction

Ed Leaver

Sep 29, 2014
03:16

Member


39 |
Share via:
Hi MIT Nukes! Please consider revisiting your assertion that "the U.S. will continue to emit 2.2 million tonnes carbon annually from electricity production." Seeing as how our electric sector currently emits 2.1 *billion* tonnes CO2e annually (EPA figure: see http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport.html), could you please address how we are to effect a decrease of 3 orders of magnitude? Without going all nuclear on us, I mean. Likewise, your "39.6 million tons of carbon will be avoided between now and the year 2050" appears in similar need of revision (or decimal places). As they displace coal, our five LWR's currently under construction *alone* will save this much CO2e each *year* of regular operation. Thanks!

Robert Bernal

Oct 1, 2014
02:51

Member


40 |
Share via:
Advanced nuclear is the only source that could power a planetary civilization, without interruption. It is the only source that could provide enough power for humanity to clean up its mess, as well. It can also integrate with renewables providing that the renewables accounts for their share of necessary storage. Storage is necessary as the inverse of the source's capacity factor. Thus nuclear would need many multiples LESS storage. Therefore, less energy is wasted to make storage and to account for the inefficiency of that storage. TWh generated by nuclear is safer than TWh generated by oil, gas or coal. In fact, the fear of nuclear has proven to be far more deadly, in so many ways.
ADD YOUR COMMENT
You must be logged into your account to post a comment.