It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Leaked!: Complete Assay Of The "Crude oil" & Corexit Warning Label

page: 4
110
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
 


Toxic is not relative. Chemicals regulated by the EPA must be tested for toxiclity before they are "approved" for use in the environment.

Toxiclity is then measured by exposure and survival rate.
I am posting all the information here, I suggest you look into it, as you have not done.

DAY 77 & 77 Crucial Fact Finding Links


The testing was done on the dispersants by themselves – not in combination with oil. I posted earlier that acute toxicity increased as one progressed from dispersant by itself, to oil by itself, to the mixture of oil and dispersant. We’ll have to wait longer for EPA to release data that will shed further light on whether that conclusion holds or not.

blogs.edf.org...-782< br />

Professor Mark Sephton said arsenic, which is found in seawater, was normally filtered out of the ocean when it combined with sediment on the sea floor.

“But oil spills stop the normal process because the oil combines with sediment and it leads to an accumulation of arsenic in the water over time," he said.

"Arsenic only needs to be a 10th of a part per billion to cause problems.”

He added: “Our study is a timely reminder that oil spills could create a toxic ticking time bomb, which could threaten the fabric of the marine ecosystem in the future.”
www.adelaidenow.com.au... 8l-1225888272667



Effect of Goldcrew and Corexit on selected blood
parameter of the African cat-fish Clarias gariepinus
following sublethal exposures


www.academicjournals.org...

Allegations Corexit was responsible for Exxon Veldex Worker Deaths
www.rikiott.com...

ORAL TREATMENT OF FISCHER 344 RATS WITH WEATHERED CRUDE OIL AND A DISPERSANT INFLUENCES INTESTINAL METABOLISM AND MICROBIOTA

www.informaworld.com...=all~content=a713852826

Accusations brought before the U.S. FDA about Dispersant Corexit
globalwarming.house.gov...

Recent Samples were taken and I am not suprised at the toxicity level.


jamescfox. In his own words: "Oil and water samples were taken from both the Shores of Grand Isle and from 20 miles out. The preliminary analysis was done at an academic analytical chemistry laboratory. Looking for the likely pollutants from the deep water Horizon Oil spill. It was focused on the detection of benzene and propylene glycol. Benzene and other highly toxic contaminants were very low however the concentration of propylene glycol was between 360 and 440 parts per million. Just 25 parts per million is know to kill most fish and propylene glycol is just one of many ingredients found in Corexit. In short, the Gulf is being poisoned by BP's usage of the dispersants even after the EPA asked them to stop back in May. We are willing to provide ANY respected/known laboratory these samples or provide them with more. This is very serious to all people and marine life in and around the Gulf."


www.zerohedge.com...




[edit on 10-7-2010 by burntheships]




posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by burntheships

the dispersant maker’s own test data demonstrate that the combination of oil plus dispersant is quite a bit more toxic than the dispersant alone and – even more significant – the combination is more acutely toxic than the oil by itself.

Let me repeat that: The data indicate that dispersed oil is more toxic than undispersed oil. EPA has posted the dispersant manufacturer Nalco’s “Technical Product Bulletins” for each of the dispersants that have been used in the Gulf: Corexit® EC9527A and Corexit® EC9500A.


Section VII of each of the bulletins shows the toxicity data for a) dispersant alone, b) the reference oil used in the test, No. 2 fuel oil, and c) a mixture of dispersant and test oil at a 1:10 ratio. Here are the data (remember, the lower the value, the more toxic the substance
www.justmeans.com...


If you pour more xylene (distilled from oil) into a bucket of sweet light crude, it will be even more toxic... until it evaporates off and you're left with wax and asphalt. Solvents on your face skin burn. When you see that slippery sloppy looking sludge on the beach it's still thinned with solvents. When the solvents evaporate you're basically left with tar and wax, which sucks but isn't the end of the world if you get it on you. When you see those birds totally sledged over by WET black nasty, they're literally burning in pain. If people actually understood some of this stuff half those birds would rightfully be put out of their misery. Instead people just see black sludgy nasty and scream. Meanwhile the tars and asphalts are used to make virtually all of the roads and roofing shingles, waxes used to make candles we burn to elevate the mood of a room.

What makes Corexit different than oil distilled solvents (especially synthetic residues) is the data you're looking for.

I went a did a little googl'ing a few weeks ago, and didNT see much in that regard. Been waiting for something to actually 'leak'. A picture of a irritant warning label isn't it.

[edit on 10-7-2010 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 01:09 PM
link   
Nalco says here it's 25 times safer than dish soap..


nalco corexit fact sheet


"Environment Canada studies show that Corexit 9500 is more than 25 times as safe as common dishwashing liquid."



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by depth om
 




Sure it is.

Here are a few lab papers with results that say otherwise.

www.iosc.org...

Science Direct

[edit on 10-7-2010 by burntheships]



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 


Yea, disgusting how facts are relative.

I read that cor. shouldn't be used near the coastline, but inevitably, won't large amounts of tainted oil, water and fumes reach the coast?

It's looking more and more like a classic TPTB death/power play, and probably no matter what we find out, it will come down to the nightly news, glossing over everything to keep the majority ignorant. Then the next thing happens, then the next, and so on.

what a joke..



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
 


Toxic is not relative. Chemicals regulated by the EPA must be tested for toxiclity before they are "approved" for use in the environment.


Yes it is.

Take for example Hydrogen Sulfide, and a major ordeal people have been going crazy over:


Hydrogen sulfide is considered a broad-spectrum poison, meaning that it can poison several different systems in the body, although the nervous system is most affected. The toxicity of H2S is comparable with that of hydrogen cyanide. It forms a complex bond with iron in the mitochondrial cytochrome enzymes, thereby blocking oxygen from binding and stopping cellular respiration.
...
Long-term, low-level exposure may result in fatigue, loss of appetite, headaches, irritability, poor memory, and dizziness. Chronic exposure to low level H2S (around 2 ppm) has been implicated in increased miscarriage and reproductive health issues among Russian and Finnish wood pulp workers,[11] but the reports have not (as of circa 1995) been replicated.

* 0.00047 ppm is the recognition threshold, the concentration at which 50% of humans can detect the characteristic odor of hydrogen sulfide,[12] normally described as resembling "a rotten egg".
* Less than 10 ppm has an exposure limit of 8 hours per day.
* 10–20 ppm is the borderline concentration for eye irritation.
* 50–100 ppm leads to eye damage.
* At 100–150 ppm the olfactory nerve is paralyzed after a few inhalations, and the sense of smell disappears, often together with awareness of danger.[13][14]
* 320–530 ppm leads to pulmonary edema with the possibility of death.
* 530–1000 ppm causes strong stimulation of the central nervous system and rapid breathing, leading to loss of breathing.
* 800 ppm is the lethal concentration for 50% of humans for 5 minutes exposure (LC50).
* Concentrations over 1000 ppm cause immediate collapse with loss of breathing, even after inhalation of a single breath.
en.wikipedia.org...

But when you scroll a little further down the page:

Hydrogen sulfide is produced in small amounts by some cells of the mammalian body and has a number of biological signaling functions. (Only two other such gases are currently known: nitric oxide (NO) and carbon monoxide (CO).)

The gas is produced from cysteine by the enzymes cystathionine beta-synthase and cystathionine gamma-lyase. It acts as a relaxant of smooth muscle and as a vasodilator[18] and is also active in the brain, where it increases the response of the NMDA receptor and facilitates long term potentiation[19], which is involved in the formation of memory.

Eventually the gas is converted to sulfite in the mitochondria by thiosulfate reductase, and the sulfite is further oxidized to thiosulfate and sulfate by sulfite oxidase. The sulfates are excreted in the urine.[20]

Here's where it gets good:

Like nitric oxide, hydrogen sulfide is involved in the relaxation of smooth muscle that causes erection of the penis, presenting possible new therapy opportunities for erectile dysfunction.[23][24]


TOXICITY:

A central concept of toxicology is that effects are dose-dependent; even water can lead to water intoxication when taken in large enough doses, whereas for even a very toxic substance such as snake venom there is a dose below which there is no detectable toxic effect.
en.wikipedia.org...


In general, synthetic compounds are what will add to what is already there. There's already xylene, acetone, and etc solvents.

What people don't want to realize is that 'burnt' used black motor oil is literally thousands of times worse for the environment than raw medium crude oil:


Like several individual PAHs, waste crankcase oil has been shown to be mutagenic and teratogenic. The results are mixed, but some immunological, reproductive, fetotoxic, and genotoxic effects have been associated

The concentration of various PAHs is much higher in used oil than in (fresh) lubricating oil. For example, concentrations of dibenzanthracene, 4-methylpyrene, fluoranthene, benzanthracene, benzopyrene, benzoperylene, and benzopyrene, respectively, 36, 49, 253, 720, 1,112, 4,770, and 7,226 times higher in used compared to fresh oil.

As an oil used in a crankcase, motor oil breaks down to give a wide variety of oxygenated and aromatic hydrocarbons. Other organic compounds found in waste oil include toluene, benzene, xylenes, and ethylbenzene. Also present are organic and inorganic compounds of chlorine, sulphur, phosphorus, bromine, nitrogen, and metals such as zinc, magnesium, barium, and lead resulting from oil additives and contamination during use or disposal.

Used engine oil is a contaminant of concern, with large volumes entering aquatic ecosystems through water runoff. The major source of petroleum contamination in urbanized estuaries comes from waste crankcase oil. PAHs, heavy metals, additives and antioxidants, trace levels of chlorinated solvents, and PCBs have been detected in used engine oil. As mentioned above, naphthalene, benzo(a)pyrene, fluorene, and phenanthrene are common PAH components of used motor oil.
www.nature.nps.gov/hazardssafety/toxic/oilused.pdf
www.abovetopsecret.com...

See how that shows how much worse used motor oil is than unused motor oil? That's the kind of data I'm looking for.

The data I posted, it even looks like they're not even comparing used motor oil to raw crude. Think that over real good. In motor oil they do all sorts of fancy distillation techniques, then take different compounds to then synthesize new manmade compounds, then mix those back into the blend, and from there we burn it in our crankcases which creates or amplifies even more nasty compounds.



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by depth om
 


It is quite the display of Corrupt Power and Greed. It is clear that BP and the Coast Guard are completely out of their league.

We´re now talking about a coordinated, deliberate and well thought out response to the polluted waters and tainted coastline of the Gulf of Mexico that is an epic fail.

What have the US Government and BP really endeavored to do in order to protect coastlines, embargo estuaries and pluck the still living marine life from the depths of this petrochemical cesspool?



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 


Well it seems they have endeavored to do the contrary.



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by burntheships
Toxic is not relative.


Here's another way to consider things. When you dabble in chemistry you'd be shocked how something like sulfuric acid and chlorine gas can in one or 2 steps become a life saving compound such as Iodine.


The brine is first purified and acidified using sulfuric acid, then the iodide present is oxidized to iodine with chlorine. An iodine solution is produced, but is dilute and must be concentrated. Air is blown into the solution, causing the iodine to evaporate, then it is passed into an absorbing tower containing acid where sulfur dioxide is added to reduce the iodine. The hydrogen iodide (HI) is reacted with chlorine to precipitate the iodine. After filtering and purification the iodine is packed.
en.wikipedia.org...





Consider Sodium Hydroxide (lye). In concentrated form it literally burns your skin. It can literally dissolve a body. That is something we'd all call TOXIC. Yet when you dillute it with water etc it makes one of the best soaps, and it wont kill you.

[edit on 10-7-2010 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 01:42 PM
link   
Also useful would be what are they using to make corexit with? I haven't seen this. Is it solvent based? Is it like dish soap? WHAT is it? I'd really like to know. They can tell us what they use to make it without giving the specific formula.



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
 


Well thats fine but quite the rabbit trail.

This thread is about the Toxicity of COREXIT AC9500A and the Crude Oil composition, and the unkown magnified toxicity of the two combined.

I suggest if you would like to make a thread on Iodine, and used Motor oil, go ahead.


[edit on 10-7-2010 by burntheships]



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by burntheships
This thread is about the Toxicity of COREXIT AC9500A and the Crude Oil composition, and the unkown magnified toxicity of the two combined.


That's fine but if you don't know the first thing about chemistry and toxicity then you won't get very far. You scoffing at insights into the world of chemistry isn't a promising sign.

I'm actually trying to help you understand what it is we're looking for about the chemical properties of corexit and you're all offended.

Let me say this another way: The solvents in crude are the most acutely (immediately) toxic. Therefore, if you add more xylene (oil distillated solvent) to an amount of crude, it will therefore make the crude more "toxic" (until it evaporates).

Now assuming corexit is a solvent (is it?), just making the crude oil more immediately 'toxic' (until it evaporates), doesn't actually tell us anything about the chemical properties of the corexit.

How they make it, and what they use to make it would. The residues, and if they're synthetic would.

I've got news for you: The sweet light crude from that gusher is 75% VOC's / solvents. That info isn't on the picture in your OP. Nor does it list the waxes and tars by percentage. I tried VERY hard to gather that data semi-recently and couldn't find much besides a sweeping 75% VOC's figure. The asphaltene / tar content is what does the long term damage in a spill. This spill is about 3% tar. 40% of the gushing is natural GAS (methane etc). 60% is the crude. 75% of that crude is acutely toxic VOC's, which evaporate. So 3% of that 60% crude is actual tar.

Not only am I helping you try to hone in on what we need to know so that we might be able to assess long term damage from it, I'm helping to put your thread up higher on the site rankings today (flags aren't the only thing that makes a thread make it big).

So you might tone it down a notch or two.

[edit on 10-7-2010 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
 


Nice to see that you reigned yourself back in.


While I am no chemist, I have posted numerous times in this thread the components of COREXITAC9500A. Again this time in much greater detail this one component.

COREXITAC9500A list of Ingredients provided by NALCO
www.nalco.com...


CAS# 64742-47-8 Petroleum distillates, hydrotreated light
100.0% 265-149-8

Section 3 - Hazards Identification

EMERGENCY OVERVIEW
Appearance: colorless liquid. Flash Point: 142 deg F.
Caution! Combustible liquid. Aspiration hazard if swallowed. Can enter lungs and cause damage. May cause eye and skin irritation. May cause respiratory tract irritation. May cause digestive tract irritation. May cause central nervous system depression.
Target Organs: Central nervous system.



Potential Health Effects
Eye: May cause eye irritation and possible burns.
Skin: May cause skin irritation. May be absorbed through the skin.
Ingestion: Aspiration hazard. May cause gastrointestinal irritation with nausea, vomiting and diarrhea. Aspiration of material into the lungs may cause chemical pneumonitis, which may be fatal.
Inhalation: Inhalation of high concentrations may cause central nervous system effects characterized by nausea, headache, dizziness, unconsciousness and coma. May cause cyanosis (bluish discoloration of skin due to deficient oxygenation of the blood).
Chronic: Prolonged or repeated exposure may cause nausea, dizziness, and headache.

Carcinogenicity:
CAS# 64742-47-8:
ACGIH: A3 - Confirmed animal carcinogen with unknown relevance to humans


fscimage.fishersci.com...

[edit on 10-7-2010 by burntheships]



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by burntheships
I suggest if you would like to make a thread on Iodine, and used Motor oil, go ahead.


Actually, the motor oil was very important in this toxicity assessment.


Like several individual PAHs, waste crankcase oil has been shown to be mutagenic and teratogenic. The results are mixed, but some immunological, reproductive, fetotoxic, and genotoxic effects have been associated

The concentration of various PAHs is much higher in used oil than in (fresh) lubricating oil. For example, concentrations of dibenzanthracene, 4-methylpyrene, fluoranthene, benzanthracene, benzopyrene, benzoperylene, and benzopyrene, respectively, 36, 49, 253, 720, 1,112, 4,770, and 7,226 times higher in used compared to fresh oil.
www.nature.nps.gov/hazardssafety/toxic/oilused.pdf


Chemicals such as those PAH's are what I consider to be truly toxic: meaning in any dose. The point of the iodine is that many chemicals are "toxic" in the right purity or dosage, where chemicals such as PAH's are a whole other level of toxic. This isn't the stuff produced by the human body, and are destructive to it in any dose.

With chemicals such as PAH's, toxicity really isn't relative, as far as I know.

Consider ammonia. We sweat it out of our skin, and urinate it out. But pouring a jug of ammonia over your body will cause major harm. You should smell some steaming only-half composted horse manure. It smells almost nothing like "crap" as you might imagine. Instead, it smells of suffocating ammonia.

So therefore if there are residues in corexit comparable to PAH's, that would be some damning info.

EDIT: Just because too much of something will burn your skin or harm your liver doesn't mean it will cause long term birth defects and cancer.

[edit on 10-7-2010 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
 


Thats quite the circular way to your point, again, I listed these studies earlier but am happy to do so here .

zoologia.biologia.uasnet.mx...

and here are a few more for the record.

www.dec.state.ak.us...

Oil dispersant increases PAH uptake by fish exposed to crude oil.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

How much more damning eveidence you would like for me to post?



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by burntheships
Oil dispersant increases PAH uptake by fish exposed to crude oil.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...


Now you're getting at what I'm looking for.

Thread flagged.

I think I might know why that is.

I was just finally looking into the chemical components of Corexit. I searched for 'corexit "birth defects"', and found a page listing 2-Butoxyethanol as a main ingredient.


2-Butoxyethanol is an organic solvent with the formula BuOC2H4OH (Bu = CH3CH2CH2CH2). It is a colorless liquid with a sweet, ether-like odour. It is a butyl ether of ethylene glycol.


Ethylene glycol is anti-freeze.
en.wikipedia.org...

But my point is how they make the 2-Butoxyethanol:

Ethoxylation is an industrial process in which ethylene oxide is added to fatty acid alcohols to give them detergent properties.
en.wikipedia.org...


IF they're using organic based fatty acids it could potentially make it more readily uptakable for the fish, is my point.

That all sounds awful fancy. But I'm no chemistry expert nor expert in 'good' dispersants vs. 'bad' ones. I'm just good at mulling over data.

For fairness:

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
The glycol ether solvents 2-methoxyethanol (2-ME) and 2-ethoxyethanol (2-EE) produce testicular toxicity characterized by spermatocyte degeneration, while a similar glycol ether, 2-butoxyethanol (2-BE), has no testicular effects.



Human exposure
Moderate respiratory exposure to 2-butoxyethanol often results in irritation of mucous membranes of the eyes, nose and throat. Heavy exposure via respiratory, dermal or oral routes can lead to hypotension, metabolic acidosis, hemolysis, pulmonary edema and coma. Blood or urine concentrations of 2-butoxyethanol or its major toxic metabolite, 2-butoxyacetic acid, may be measured using chromatographic techniques to monitor worker exposure or to confirm a diagnosis of poisoning in hospitalized patients. A biological exposure index of 200 mg 2-butoxyacetic acid per g creatinine has been established in an end-of-shift urine specimen for exposed U.S. employees.[8][9]

U.S. Employers are required to inform employees when they are working with this substance.[10]

Butoxyethanol is listed in the U.S. state of California as a hazardous substance,[11] though it was removed from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency‎'s list of hazardous air pollutants in 1994.[12]

2-Butoxyethanol has come under scrutiny in Canada, and Environment and Health Canada recommended that it be added to Schedule 1 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA).[13] The use of some common household cleaning products containing 2-butoxyethanol could expose people to levels 12 times greater than California's one-hour guideline, especially when indoor use is considered.[1] These products are not required to list it on the label when diluted to a certain point. The safety of the products as normally used is defended by the American Chemistry Council and the Soap and Detergent Association, industry trade groups.

Environment
2-Butoxyethanol usually decomposes in the environment within a few days and has not been identified as a major environmental contaminant. It is not known to bioaccumulate.[14]



2-Butoxyethanol is only 30-60% of one of the 2 types of corexit they're using. What the rest of it all is is where you'd want to put your energy. I cannot spend any more time on this curiosity unfortunately. Have things I am en expert on to write about.

But one thing I can say is: With all of the outcry over corexit you'd think they'd just start using a different product already.

[edit on 10-7-2010 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
 


Thanks for expounding on the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon


COREXIT 9527 was used initally on the spill, thought it appears that remaining stocks were used up, and the EPA replaced 9527 with AC9500A (9500 was removed from the NCP list in 1995)

NALCO has not released the exact ingredients of COREXIT AC9500A.
They only show a list for 9500.

So it appears that there are propietary ingredients in AC9500A that they have not disclosed.

www.epa.gov...

www.nalco.com...






[edit on 10-7-2010 by burntheships]



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by brokedown
 


You are not alone in that thinking.

projectworldawareness.com...

Many of the chemicals listed in that "crude oil" leak are radioactive also.
This could be one reason they are moving the Naval ships out of the Gulf.



Barium = Radioactive compound. Also remember how the dispersant was used from conventional spraying system's jet-sprayed from the wings of a plane flying at low altitude to spray the Corexit 9500 onto the crude oil.

Barium is also USED in Chemtrails.



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by DClairvoyant
 


The application instuctions for COREXIT direct undiluted application.
However, who knows what is really going on, it is the USCG doing the spraying.

I did dig this up for anyone who is intested in the aspect of barium in the atmosphere being above healthy levels.

More than you wanted to know most likely.

articles.adsabs.harvard.edu...



[edit on 10-7-2010 by burntheships]



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by DClairvoyant
 


The application instuctions for COREXIT direct undiluted application.
However, who knows what is really going on, it is the USCG doing the spraying.

I did dig this up for anyone who is intested in the aspect of barium in the atmosphere being above healthy levels.

More than you wanted to know most likely.

articles.adsabs.harvard.edu...



[edit on 10-7-2010 by burntheships]


My neighbour has achieved her degree, four years aiming for Geology. And she has now a full-time job as an Environmentalist. Its amazing that she gets paid so much money for just anaylising soil
, lol. However the benefit's of having her profession come in use for finding out what falls from the skies above that's sprayed continually on a daily basis and yet I wouldn't be suprised if she receives results on Barium.

Its just handy knowing their are people in the world who will help. As for the information on Barium I have a friend from America who has posted many video's on youtube and has even approached his "what we call in the UK as our Council leader" I do not know what they call it in America, whether it be your Mayor etc.

He has made video's placing water tanks outside his home and collecting the evidence then sending it off for testing to environmentalists and it contained on the paper-work that he presented to his camera the data that it was very high in Barium. He also has more meetings with the Mayor/Council's as he then had enough evidence to bring forward. Whilst he was working away he had a visit from the 'Newsagents' and they asked him many questions and have done interviews.

He's not in it for money or the wrong attention. He's just trying to help mankind's awareness of the dangerous of Chemtrails as he has spent and dedicated his time to trying to prove its no conspiracy. Great effort to him!




top topics



 
110
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join