America's Being Nuked - Can We Together Stop the Madness Before It's Too Late?

page: 2
42
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 06:31 PM
link   
Just when you thought nuke plants were safe during a short or long term shutdown , think again. youtu.be... Also, think about added radiation to your body and add it all up. So, with the fukashima plant radiation closing in, you might want to consider this to the equation. Ask yourself these questions. How many hours do you watch t.v, how many ex-rays have you had this year, do you live withing 10 miles of a nuke plant, do you live under high power lines, are you always on your cell phone and what kind do you have, how long are you exsposed to the sun. Now, i don't know about you, but i myself live 5 miles from a nuke plant, live next to high voltage wires, have a cell phone, had an ex ray 2 days ago, have a visio 52 inch t.v, got my head overexsposed to the sun and have a sun burn on my face and top of head. I wonder what my chances of getting cancer all of a sudden might be. I believe very easy, and that is why i am moving in two months, away from it all.
edit on 22-4-2011 by cloaked4u because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by g146541
 


I am well awar of Peoples Republic of Kalifornia.. I fled finally in 2009 after living in it since 93.

Irvine, santa ana, n. h-wood, van nuys, petaluma, pt reyes, san diego, and el cajon. I got around


i now live in far east (north carolina coastal plain) went from lala land to the other extreme, backwoods, close minded, bible thumpers
oh well.

the only thing I really miss from Kali is my medical medication program which delivered.
out here its impossible to find cause the cops raid houses with task forces those that posess merely a month's supply of medication, pathetic..

the medical medicine issue has me ready to flee back to cali, if only i could afford pt reyes again..

as far as radiation goes, supposedly a certain oil made from medicinal medicine has been proclaimed by some to remedy it in some people. "run from the cure" thread i watched on here.



posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by thorfourwinds
 



we lost nearly 15 feet of elevation over mean low tide here in southern Puget sound on the day of the 9.1 Japanese earthquake).


Really? Somehow i think someone would have noticed that.

Take your pick from the UNAVCO GPS monitoring stations list.

Take station SC02 for example



That will be no more than 10 mm (not 15ft) and that is the raw data. Basically if you average that out it did not move.

Where is the station?



Somewhere where it might notice 15ft drop in level!!

Station data

edit on 22/4/2011 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 


Puterman, is this possible?
With the radiation issues in Japan, is the following possible to achieve NWO population reduction:

Radiation Immunity, for the elite in a vaccine or antidote; the rest of the 80% die from radiation poisoning and starvation. With genetic modifications and research gone rampant, could Chernobyl workers who suffered no ill effects DNA be used to create the vaccine/antidote for radiation poisoning (the movie "I am Legend" kinda of stuff).

congrats on ur birthday.



posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Krzyzmo
 


Still trying to get to grips with the Kaleidoscope posts!

I will get back to you when I have read further. In the mean time don't forget I have a link to a non-government radiation monitoring network in my signature.

Edit: By the way I take a copy of that page every 12 hours and have done since the 2nd April. If anyone want those images let me know.

edit on 22/4/2011 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by thorfourwinds
 



Does anyone have any stats on the range abilities of the radiation monitors that the EPA is using?


They don't have a range. They measure the radiation where they are situated.

I have to say having got to the end of your second post that much of this source material is over-hyped. Your colouration of it as well makes it difficult to read. Using terminology like radiation cloud is suggestive of something like a nuclear mushroom cloud but it is far from the truth. This is no worse than Chernobyl. We survived the radioactive sheep etc in the UK.

As humans we are designed to cope with a level of radiation anyway, and this is minor. You are probably more in danger from radon gas accumulation.

edit on 22/4/2011 by PuterMan because: I had to edit because I have got so used to seeing green at the end of my posts that I missed it!




posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by thorfourwinds
 



What is the response mechanism to a radioactive cloud hovering over a U.S. city?


You will nuke it!!




posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by thorfourwinds
 


Does anyone have any stats on the range abilities of the radiation monitors that the EPA is using?


They don't have a range. They measure the radiation where they are situated.

I have to say having got to the end of your second post that much of this source material is over-hyped. Your colouration of it as well makes it difficult to read. Using terminology like radiation cloud is suggestive of something like a nuclear mushroom cloud but it is far from the truth. This is no worse than Chernobyl. We survived the radioactive sheep etc in the UK.

As humans we are designed to cope with a level of radiation anyway, and this is minor. You are probably more in danger from radon gas accumulation.
edit on 22/4/2011 by PuterMan because: I had to edit because I have got so used to seeing green at the end of my posts that I missed it!



Greetings:

Thank you for your participation and enlightenment. We, too, could not find a further reference to the Puget Sound drop mentioned by clif. We have contacted him and will get back with further info.


They don't have a range. They measure the radiation where they are situated.

So, does that mean that the following statement is blowing smoke?


“If a monitor in one area is being repaired, EPA’s network will still be able to detect any fluctuation in background radiation levels,” Gilfillan said.

When you check the placement of the monitors, with about 20% of them out of service, and there isn't one for hundreds of miles, doesn't that infer that a single device can monitor a certain (large) area?

If so, how big is the footprint?

"Where they are situated" implies a small area of ability to detect - or are we not understanding what you are so patiently attempting to tell us? 100 feet? 100 yards? One mile?


I have to say having got to the end of your second post that much of this source material is over-hyped.


Just the facts, man. We only post what is provided. Something akin to you taking USGS for gospel, we reckon.

BTW, what do you make of the fact that the FDA refuses to monitor radiation levels in Alaska fisheries?

Would you eat today's catch?

On the coloration thing - we've been working on that - too much enthusiasm in attempting to ensure clarity in what is being presented - wouldn't want the material to get lost, so to speak... our bad.


This is no worse than Chernobyl.


Even though we sincerely admire and respect you and what we have seen of your expertise, we must take exception here to what must be considered a risky statement at best.

If you mean "this" to refer to what we are discussing in this thread - radiation threat to American health and longevity - we have every right to diligently research all avenues of information, no matter how seemingly irrelevant or insignificant to you or anyone else. To infer that Chernoble did no damage to the U.K. is, at best, uninformed, or there is an agenda afoot here.

Consider this:


According to the Union Chernobyl, the main organization of liquidators, 10% of the 600,000 liquidators are now dead, and 165,000 disabled.



The Ukrainian Health Minister claimed in 2006 that more than 2.4 million Ukrainians, including 428,000 children, suffer from health problems related to the catastrophe. Psychological after-effects, as the 2006 UN report pointed out, have also had adverse effects on internally displaced persons.



A report from the European Committee on Radiation Risk (a body sponsored by the European Green Party) claims that the World Health Organization, together with most other international and national health bodies, has marginalized or ignored, perhaps purposely, the terrible consequences of the Chernobyl fallout to protect the vested interests of the nuclear industry.

If a single person is harmed or suffers here in America because of this world-changing incident, it is one too much.


You are probably more in danger from radon gas accumulation.


Somewhat of an open-ended statement - "Probably" ...?

Are we speaking of any of the reported raised levels of various types of radiation?

How about any of these?

Am-241
Am-241/Be
Cf-252
Cm-244
Co-60
Cs-137
Gd-153
Ir-192
Pm-147
Pu-238
Pu-239/Be
Ra-2265
Se-75
Sr-90 (Y-90)
Tm-170
Yb-169
Xe-133


We survived the radioactive sheep etc in the UK.

But, did the sheep survive?


Before Emlyn Roberts, a North Wales sheep farmer, can take any of his lambs to market, he has to call in the government inspectors with their Geiger counters. They scan the animals for signs of radiation because the land they graze is still contaminated from the Chernobyl nuclear disaster which occurred 20 years ago this month. If the radiation levels are too high, the lambs cannot be sold for meat until they have spent time on other land.

Mr Roberts is one of 375 British farmers, with more than 200,000 sheep, whose land is still considered "dirty" and subject to restrictions brought in after radioactive rains brought contamination to Britain in 1986.

When the restrictions were established, farmers were told they would apply for only a few weeks, months at most. Twenty years later, many farmers have had to accept that their land could be affected for years to come.
www.telegraph.co.uk...



Levels of radioactivity from the Chernobyl explosion in 1986 remain unexpectedly high in some parts of northern Europe, researchers have found.

They say restrictions on some foods in both the United Kingdom and the former Soviet Union will have to remain in place for up to 50 years.

They found that the environment is not cleaning itself as fast as previously thought, and that radioactivity can be released to the soil again after it has been absorbed.
news.bbc.co.uk...



The researchers say the contamination "represents only a small health risk to consumers".

But they say restrictions on the consumption of some affected foods will be needed for years ahead.

In 1986, UK Government scientists thought Cumbrian sheep should be kept out of the food chain for a matter of weeks.

Dr Smith and his colleagues say the restrictions may be needed for another 10 to 15 years, 100 times longer than originally estimated.

And forest berries, fungi and fish from parts of the former Soviet Union will remain restricted for another half century.
news.bbc.co.uk...


Do you have any proof that indicates no harm was done to your country or countrymen by Chernoble?

Even the well-trodden path from Highly Manor on the edge of Sherwood Forest to the Half Moon Pub in Balcom glowed enough in the wee hours to find our sodden way home.

In Peace, Love & Light

tfw






edit on 22/4/2011 by thorfourwinds because: wanker alert



posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 10:30 PM
link   
Greetings:

April 20th, 2011
San Francisco Bay Area milk shows highest Iodine-131 found in U.S. since the Fukushima crisis began

UCB Milk Sampling Results, University of California, Berkeley Department of Nuclear Engineering:
UCB Statement: “4/19/2011 7:45pm… we added two raw milk samples from local Bay Area dairy farmers.”

April 20, 2011
Highest Yet: UCB finds 13+ pCi/l of Cesium-137 in store-bought milk from San Francisco Bay Area


UCB Milk Sampling Results

The following are results for milk samples obtained from a Bay Area organic dairy where the farmers are encouraged to feed their cows local grass. We have detected I-131, Cs-134, and Cs-137 and are tracking their levels.



Major revision note: We just performed a major revision of our preliminary milk measurements. Our activity measurements for milk with a “best by” date after 4/4/2011 were accidentally calculated for the “best by” date itself, rather than an earlier date such as the purchase date. Since milk can be on the shelves starting almost 18 days before the “best by” date, our numbers after 4/4/2011 did not accurately reflect the maximum activity that the radioisotopes could have at the time of purchase. Incidentally, our first two milk measurements were not corrected at all and therefore reflect the activity at the time of measurement. The original numbers are at the bottom of the page for reference.

Please note that though all I-131 activities have increased due to this revision, the levels are still very low — one would have to consume at least 1,900 liters of milk to receive the same radiation dose as a cross-country airplane trip.source


2.9 Bq/l = 78.378 pCi/l (conversion calculator)

1 Bq = 27.03 pCi [picocuries]

This, from the Department of Nuclear Engineering at U.C. Berkley, should help make things clear - as mud.


The Dose calculation for water and air intake was performed based upon the annual limit on intake (ALI) for effluent release in table 2 from the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations(10 CFR) part 20 appendix B. The NRC numbers are based on the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) Publication 30.

This annual limit corresponds to the limit of radiation in water and air being released from a site handling nuclear materials (i.e., hospitals, nuclear reactors, research laboratories, etc.). The "reference man" is assumed to drink 730 liters of water per year or breathe 2.4 million (2.4E6) liters of air per year, and if the person drinks water or breathes air at the stated limit for one year the person would receive a total effective dose of 50 millirem. The total effective dose takes into consideration the method of intake (ingestion for water or inhalation for air) and the combined biological and radiological removal of the isotope from the human body.

These figures are conservative because any exposure to these radionuclides in California would be for a short time (days or weeks at most), while the NRC and ICRP numbers assume a yearlong constant exposure where the radionuclides reach equilibrium in the body.

Now let's calculate the dose for a specific case. For example, the first activity we measured for I-131 is 1.52E-6 Bq/L. Using the DCF for millirem/Bq, we can easily calculate the total effective dose equivalent (TEDE) of I-131 per liter of air breathed:

(1.52E-6 Bq/L) * (2.816E-3 millirem/Bq) = 4.28E-9 millirem/L

Then using the average figure of 2.4E6 liters of air breathed per year, the TEDE if breathed continually for one year is:

(4.28E-9 millirem/L) * (2.4E6 L/year) = 0.01027 millirem/year

The TEDE from a typical flight from San Francisco to Washington DC and back is approximately 5 millirem. In order to determine the number of years one would have to breathe to receive this same dose, the dose received for the roundtrip flight is divided by the average dose per year:

(5 millirem)/(0.01027 millirem/year) = 489 years
www.nuc.berkeley.edu...



posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 11:05 PM
link   
Greetings:

April 20th, 2011

“The government doesn’t care if you’re going to have a few extra cases of cancer”
says worker for monitoring program funded by US Dept. of Energy



… Don Curry, 72, works for the Desert Research Institute’s Community Environmental Monitoring Program recording data and collecting air filters, …

Scientists from the Desert Research Institute, an arm of the University of Nevada Las Vegas, analyze the filters and data…

The Department of Energy funds the program, but Curry can vouch for the numerical data because he collects it himself. …

“The government doesn’t care if you’re going to have a few extra cases of cancer,” Curry said. “It’s like they’re saying, ‘We’re going to take that hill—we’re going to have 50 percent casualties, but get your butt up that hill.’” …source


April 21, 2011

Epidemiologist, Dr. Steven Wing and nuclear engineer, Arnie Gundersen, discuss the consequences of the Fukushima radioactive fallout on Japan, the USA, and the world.

What are the long-term health effects?

What should the government(s) do to protect citizens?

Transcript Summary


1:45: We heard from news media that there’s “no threat to health” from Fukushima… this flies in the face of what all the models and studies say about radiation and cancer… Perhaps media was talking about acute risk.

7:25: As a collective group we should be concerned there will be cancers, but there is not much to do about it.

Link




And a member adds this.


Here in WA we've seen rainwater have as much as 125 pCi/l of radioactive iodine. That is 40 times what the FDA recommends the limit for drinking water. I don't think the government is interested in protecting the people at all. They are interested in protecting the dairies and big business, though. And an increase in cancer is a good thing, for the medical industry.

The mouse that roared ... awakens sluggishly ... but awakens, non-the-less.

Public health policy is governmental. Our courts of law have established (on the Federal and State levels) that it is not the responsibility of the government to protect the individual. The courts has ruled that the individual is responsible to protect himself and the liability therefore falls on the individual himself. Those who look to the authorities for protection are looking to the wrong persons.

The military, for example, are there to defend the constitution, which means in practical terms, use of military capability is to ensure continuity of government and the survival of USA Incorporated, not the safety of individuals. The New Colorado airport was designed for continuity of government, not the protection of the individual citizen. source

We'll leave you with this.

April 22nd, 2011

Local newspaper editorial blasts UC Berkeley professor for radiation comments


I opened the Alameda Sun on Friday, April 7, and read with horror its front page article, “Nuclear Scientist Counts Radiation Levels Locally,” (...) The article further states that UC Berkeley professor Kai Vetter says fallout in our area from the Fukushima disaster is nothing to worry about, and that “the extremely low levels of both iodine and cesium he measured should reassure people that there is little danger in the presence of these elements.

The levels were low to begin with and are even lower now.” The article goes on to say that “Vetter told KTVU that even at the highest levels measured, a person would have to breathe that air for 2,000 years to be exposed to the same amount of radiation that one would experience from a cross-country flight. “You should not be worried about your dog going out and drinking some rainwater — he will not light up,” he stated about the rain that recently fell.” (...)

I don’t know about Alameda Sun readers, but I think it is criminally irresponsible for Vetter, a nuclear scientist, to lie to us about the safety and amount of radiation he is measuring, and that the public is being exposed to. Radiation is cumulative, is much more dangerous when it is ingested than when it is outside of you, and Vetter’s own tests have shown the levels to be 181 times the MCLs [Maximum Contaminant Levels] on March 23. (...)

The nuclear industry has been bending over backwards in this tragedy to protect their continuing interests in building plants throughout the world.

They could care less about you or I or anything other than themselves, and by telling us that we have nothing to worry about from this ongoing disaster, and to let our dogs drink the rainwater, Vetter should be the last person to take advice from regarding this ongoing tragedy. source


In Peace, Love & Light

tfw
edit on 22/4/2011 by thorfourwinds because: source



posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 11:52 PM
link   
check out this site:
give it one minute to show the movement of radiation by satellite imagery. Find out where it is safe to be in the world...
movement of radiation



posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 01:07 AM
link   
reply to post by yourmamaknows
 


Ahh ok, see i know nothing of uranus 243 or whatever the evil thing is so i have to rely on the things i do know of.
Now i pose the same question, Are the Japanese all dead yet?
If not then people thousands of miles away will prolly be ok.


reply to post by pop_science
 


Nope no sarcasm, absolutely literal, as you have stated, "I simply do not know enough".
Same here so, as above stated by me, "i have to rely on the things i do know of".
I know folks in Japan are still alive and will be in years to come, they did survive a couple of bombs on their major cities, yes i know they may not have been as potent as this new stuff but...
And so what the Japanese will have a few babies born limbless or with blotchy skin, they will adapt to their environment.


Now just to clear the air, i do not like what is going on over there but we cannot help the situation playing keyboard tag with the mongering of fear.
Cats outta the bag and now we get to chase it down.



posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by g146541
reply to post by yourmamaknows
 


Ahh ok, see i know nothing of uranus 243 or whatever the evil thing is so i have to rely on the things i do know of.
Now i pose the same question, Are the Japanese all dead yet?
If not then people thousands of miles away will prolly be ok.

reply to post by pop_science
 


Nope no sarcasm, absolutely literal, as you have stated, "I simply do not know enough".
Same here so, as above stated by me, "i have to rely on the things i do know of".

I know folks in Japan are still alive and will be in years to come, they did survive a couple of bombs on their major cities, yes i know they may not have been as potent as this new stuff but...

And so what the Japanese will have a few babies born limbless or with blotchy skin, they will adapt to their environment.

Now just to clear the air, i do not like what is going on over there but we cannot help the situation playing keyboard tag with the mongering of fear.

Cats outta the bag and now we get to chase it down.


Greetings:


And so what the Japanese will have a few babies born limbless or with blotchy skin, they will adapt to their environment.


You're joking, right?

My wife is Japanese, my in-laws are Japanese, and many of the surviving in-laws did time in Tehachapi and we do do appreciate your attempt at levity or derailment.

If you do not think anything is wrong, you eat the yellow snow and drink the milk.


Now just to clear the air, i do not like what is going on over there but we cannot help the situation playing keyboard tag with the mongering of fear.


"Playing keyboard tag" as you call it, just might invigorate enough concerned citizens to get up off their lazy butts, turn off American Idol, Dancing With the Stars and Cupcake Wars and question authority.

In Peace, Love & Light

tfw



posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 09:56 AM
link   
edit on 22/4/2011 by thorfourwinds because: wanker alert


Before responding to you am I to take it this comment was directed at me?
edit on 23/4/2011 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by thorfourwinds
 


Sorry but the basis for your calculation is all wrong.

It is not radiation from the air breathed on a flight it is the radiation from space because of the thinner air and thus less protection. I don't have the figures but there is a big (relatively) radiation exposure for pilots and aircrew, and of course for air travellers.



posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by thorfourwinds
 


Hey there,
This is no joke, yet at the same time i rarely take anything serious if it does not affect me or mine.
Don't sweat the small stuff kind of attitude.
It is wonderful that your wife is Japanese and your in laws too.
Although i do not understand what Tehachapi has to do with fukushima.
I am not "attempting" a derailment here, i am just stating facts.
The Japanese are not all dead yet, in fact quite a large number of them are still standing and fighting.
They also still live in Japan near said facility.
So if this is the case then why should i be concerned whether the US will be bombarded with radiation?
I do believe something is wrong, ....over there but if the people there still live, then why should i worry?
Now, last I saw there were some Japanese citizens with not a lazy buttbone in their bodies doing some amazing selfless acts over there.
Just none of them are tepco stockholders, they are average folk, doing the right thing.
Kind of like how a senators son almost never goes to war.
Here in my locality, we have already shut down our Nuke plant so were on our way to fixing the problems.
Were just waiting on the rest of the world.



posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 12:09 PM
link   
World Powers have too many other domestic problems to worry about. With nukes not in their headlights, it could take us by surprise at any time unfortunately.



posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 


Ignore that I think I was misreading what you were saying.

Apologies.



posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by thorfourwinds
 


In the absence of a comment on the intended recipient of your remark I am replying anyway.



They don't have a range. They measure the radiation where they are situated.

So, does that mean that the following statement is blowing smoke?


“If a monitor in one area is being repaired, EPA’s network will still be able to detect any fluctuation in background radiation levels,” Gilfillan said.

When you check the placement of the monitors, with about 20% of them out of service, and there isn't one for hundreds of miles, doesn't that infer that a single device can monitor a certain (large) area?


I am not an expert in these matters but it is my understanding that a Geiger counter style of instrument requires reasonable proximity to a source of radiation in order to be able to detect.

Googling this I find it is actually a very small distance. Smaller even that I thought.


"Where they are situated" implies a small area of ability to detect - or are we not understanding what you are so patiently attempting to tell us? 100 feet? 100 yards? One mile?


My original statement would seem to be correct that it is a small area.


Just the facts, man. We only post what is provided. Something akin to you taking USGS for gospel, we reckon.


The USGS should not be taken as gospel. It can nake errors and does.


BTW, what do you make of the fact that the FDA refuses to monitor radiation levels in Alaska fisheries? {/quote]

I have no knowledge of that area of study.



This is no worse than Chernobyl.


Even though we sincerely admire and respect you and what we have seen of your expertise, we must take exception here to what must be considered a risky statement at best.


You may do so. If you do then please explain in what way this is worse for America than Chernobyl was for the UK? This would be a different matter for the citizens of Japan, but not for the US.


To infer that Chernoble did no damage to the U.K. is, at best, uninformed, or there is an agenda afoot here.


I did not make any such inference. My statement was - "This is no worse than Chernobyl.". That does not say there was no damage.


If a single person is harmed or suffers here in America because of this world-changing incident, it is one too much.


Whilst I appreciate your concern and you are right, perhaps you should look to your own government with regard to people suffering from radiation induced not by accident but on purpose. To state 'if one American is harmed'....is somewhat absurd in the light of your elected government's actions. If you are so concerned about the effects of radiation on citizens, change your government. Research radiation release coverups and the fallout from atmospheric tests and Nevada tests. The radiation you are likely to get from Japan is small fry compared to what your own government has done to you in the past. (Not to mention what it has done to many round the world with DU). (And yes I acknowledge that it is not just the US government that commits these crimes,)



You are probably more in danger from radon gas accumulation.


Somewhat of an open-ended statement - "Probably" ...?


I assume that you do not know about the way radon gas may or may not accumulate in the foundations of houses, about foundation designs to overcome the collection, and where it may be worst affected based on the geology of specific areas. That is why I said probably. One of the biggest health hazards of the modern lifestyle is double glazing and hermetically sealed outside doors. The risk from radon has increased considerably as gas that was previously blown away in the draughts is now trapped in the houses. The level of risk will depend upon the construction of your dwelling and the area in which you live.



We survived the radioactive sheep etc in the UK.

But, did the sheep survive?


As far as I am aware yes. These restriction have been lifted. Your news is out of date. The BBC report, by the way, was 2000.



posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by PuterMan
edit on 22/4/2011 by thorfourwinds because: wanker alert


Before responding to you am I to take it this comment was directed at me?
edit on 23/4/2011 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)

Greetings:

Not in any way, kind sir.

We respect you way to much to do anything that stupid.

You notice that it was in the "edit" thing.

Just a poke of fun at SO and Springer because of the stern edit "must post reason" - if you look at my posts, I switch from "wanker alert" to "lynx" to "color tag" etc... just funnin'...

Even if we gripe about your attitude on certain things on our radiation thread, we still wish you a happy - if belated - birthday.

May your day(s) be blessed and we really do enjoy your earthquake posts.

In Peace, Love & Light

tfw





new topics
top topics
 
42
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join