Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 04-14-2011, 11:07 AM   #61
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
ls99's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 4,792
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregLee View Post
Maybe not. My electric company can turn off my electric water heater remotely, when power runs short. We could extend that strategy.

Hydroelectric could provide storage devices if we pumped water back into reservoirs above dams.
Re. second paragraph: It seems like the invention of the perpetual motion machine.
__________________

__________________
There must be moderation in everything, including moderation.
ls99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 04-14-2011, 11:24 AM   #62
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,278
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregLee View Post
Maybe not. My electric company can turn off my electric water heater remotely, when power runs short. We could extend that strategy.
Huge difference between shutting down an electric water heater during peaks (which has its own local storage system) and doing this on the kind of scale it would take for several cloudy and/or windless days.


Quote:
Hydroelectric could provide storage devices if we pumped water back into reservoirs above dams.
No risks to that?

Banqiao Dam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:
1975 Flood
The Dam was designed to survive a once-in-1000-years flood (300 mm of rainfall per day). In August 1975, however, a once-in-2000-years flood occurred, ...

Casualties
According to the Hydrology Department of Henan Province,[5] in the province, approximately 26,000 people died from flooding and another 145,000 died during subsequent epidemics and famine. In addition, about 5,960,000 buildings collapsed, and 11 million residents were affected. Unofficial estimates of the number of people killed by the disaster have run as high as 230,000 people.
-ERD50
__________________

__________________
ERD50 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2011, 11:40 AM   #63
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
GregLee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Waimanalo, HI
Posts: 1,881
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
No risks to that?
Little new risk (unless of course we built new hydroelectric plants).
__________________
Greg (retired in 2010 at age 68, state pension)
GregLee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2011, 12:54 PM   #64
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
haha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Hooverville
Posts: 22,384
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
OK, OK, it may be deadly, but at least it's a green deadly.

Ha
__________________
"As a general rule, the more dangerous or inappropriate a conversation, the more interesting it is."-Scott Adams
haha is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2011, 12:57 PM   #65
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
GregLee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Waimanalo, HI
Posts: 1,881
Wikipedia has an article on Pumped-storage hydroelectricity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia .
__________________
Greg (retired in 2010 at age 68, state pension)
GregLee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2011, 02:42 PM   #66
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: France
Posts: 1,195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tigger View Post
But historical death rate is only one side of the coin. Death rate if the worst possible case shows up is much more important. That chart simply doesn't take tail risk into account.
Actually, Chernobyl pretty much (57 or so direct deaths, plus 4000 extra deaths from cancer over 50 years, thus making it equivalent to 1% of the annual road traffic accident death rate in Ukraine) is the worst possible case, and it's close to impossible for it to happen again, except perhaps in somewhere like North Korea, and we don't get a vote on how they run their energy policy anyway.

Having major cities like Tokyo and San Francisco in places where a major destructive earthquake is just a matter of time, is a far greater risk. It just doesn't involve something "scary" like radiation, the health risks of which, while serious, are probably overstated. And the implicit innuendo that there might be some kind of nuclear explosion is just that, innuendo.
__________________
Age 56, retired July 1, 2012; DW is 60 and working for 2 more years. Current portfolio is 2000K split 50 stocks/20 bonds/30 cash. Renting house, no debts.
BigNick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2011, 04:14 PM   #67
Recycles dryer sheets
Tigger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 388
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigNick View Post
Actually, Chernobyl pretty much (57 or so direct deaths, plus 4000 extra deaths from cancer over 50 years, thus making it equivalent to 1% of the annual road traffic accident death rate in Ukraine) is the worst possible case, and it's close to impossible for it to happen again, except perhaps in somewhere like North Korea, and we don't get a vote on how they run their energy policy anyway.
"Worst possible case" means just what it says. Everything goes wrong and turns for the worst. Circumstances and coincidental events are as adverse as possible.

What I can imagine as a potential worst possible case includes at least all reactors on the largest site in existence being in full operation and then something going horribly wrong (someone dropping a "bunker buster" on it? An extreme earthquake?) and all of them getting out of control and melting down, thousands of tons of spent fuel that is being stored on the site overheating and burning, huge quantities of heavily radioactive materials from the fuel being liberated into the atmosphere, the sea, drinking water and soil over many months, no successful attempts to contain it, maybe some explosions or a new tsunami to spread it a bit more around, having major cities in the vicinity and not enough time to evacuate the population. Etc.

Sure, this isn't *likely* to happen, but the same would have been said of Fukushima and other disasters before they actually happened.

Chernobyl certainly isn't the worst *possible* case. And 4000 certainly isn't the greatest possible number of victims.


As a sidenote, the estimate of 4000 extra deaths is incorrect.

"The full report suggested another 5,000 of the 6.8 million people exposed to lower levels would also die - but this figure did not appear in the 50-page executive summary." Source
__________________
Tigger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2011, 04:43 PM   #68
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
GregLee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Waimanalo, HI
Posts: 1,881
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tigger View Post
"Worst possible case" means just what it says. Everything goes wrong and turns for the worst. Circumstances and coincidental events are as adverse as possible.
The reference ERD50 posted above on the failure of the Banqiao dam is an instructive example of such a "perfect storm". A huge typhoon contacts a large cold front producing a massive rainfall, causing many upstream dams to fail, engineer's warnings about technical problems with the dam overridden (engineer fired), request to open flood gates refused, then accepted, but telegraph line fails preventing reception of message, ...
__________________
Greg (retired in 2010 at age 68, state pension)
GregLee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2011, 04:52 PM   #69
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,929
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tigger View Post
"Worst possible case" means just what it says. Everything goes wrong and turns for the worst. Circumstances and coincidental events are as adverse as possible.
Okie dokie.

In the wonderful world of physics, 'worst possible case' has a meaning that you might not care for.

There is a finite chance, for example, that all 10 ^ 37 particles that compose your body might simultaneously translate their position to the center of the Sun when you finish reading this. (Roughly 1 in 10 ^ (10 ^ 500). I didn't bother solving Schroedinger's Equation for the full set of 10 ^ 37 particles. I'm so lazy...). That's pretty bad, and doesn't even require a nuclear reactor.

And don't get me started on the killer asteroids, risk of a supernova in our end of the galaxy, or the incredibly small, but again, non-zero chance of our not fully understanding the physics that CERN is exploring:



Oopsie. (Note: This does not actually happen. Although Walter Wagner and Luis Sancho did file suit in Federal District Court in Hawaii to block CERN, just in case. Wrong jurisdiction, dudes!)

Technically, every person exposed to radiation will die. Also, persons not exposed to radiation will all die, too. Handwaves to imply attribution are not the most rigorous methodology...

There's this thing called innumeracy, an inability to understand numbers and reach rational conclusions. It's the same thing that leads people to take inappropriate risks with their lives, and worry about events that are very unlikely to pose any real risk.

Here's an easy one for you. The risk of getting a fatal cancer from one pass through a TSA Rapiscan full body scanner is around one in 30 million. If the Rapiscan use blocks half of all terrorist attacks on airplanes, has it increased or decreased the overall risk to an airline passenger? (Hint: use airline terrorist-related deaths for the 2000-2010 period, where mayhem has largely replaced hijacking, for the results that put Rapiscan in the least unfavorable light.)
__________________
M Paquette is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2011, 05:06 PM   #70
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
GregLee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Waimanalo, HI
Posts: 1,881
Quote:
Originally Posted by M Paquette View Post
There's this thing called innumeracy, an inability to understand numbers and reach rational conclusions. It's the same thing that leads people to take inappropriate risks with their lives, and worry about events that are very unlikely to pose any real risk.
I don't think you quite understand the problem. You're thinking of single disastrous events which are quite unlikely and consequently probably not worth worrying about. But real life disasters sometimes arise through the coincidence of events, each of which taken singly would be manageable, but which combine in a way nobody anticipated to produce a very bad result. If you don't know in advance what combinations can occur, how can you calculate the probabilities so you know you are within safe margins? (And by the way, Wikipedia has an entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_storm .)
__________________
Greg (retired in 2010 at age 68, state pension)
GregLee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2011, 05:26 PM   #71
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
haha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Hooverville
Posts: 22,384
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregLee View Post
I don't think you quite understand the problem.
I am pretty sure that he does understand the problem.

Haq
__________________
"As a general rule, the more dangerous or inappropriate a conversation, the more interesting it is."-Scott Adams
haha is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2011, 05:31 PM   #72
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: France
Posts: 1,195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tigger View Post
What I can imagine as a potential worst possible case includes at least all reactors on the largest site in existence being in full operation and then something going horribly wrong (someone dropping a "bunker buster" on it? An extreme earthquake?) and all of them getting out of control and melting down, thousands of tons of spent fuel that is being stored on the site overheating and burning, huge quantities of heavily radioactive materials from the fuel being liberated into the atmosphere, the sea, drinking water and soil over many months, no successful attempts to contain it, maybe some explosions or a new tsunami to spread it a bit more around, having major cities in the vicinity and not enough time to evacuate the population. Etc.
Sorry, but you're starting to sound like my son when he was an over-imaginative 8-year-old, putting together dozens of things that just won't happen: world's biggest site, plus a bunker busting bomb, plus the site just happened to be unfortunately located near a major city, oh and then there's a tsunami, and the leaks last for months but nobody thinks to evacuate people... all you left out was the velociraptors.

To take just one factual point, the amount of fuel stored on a nuclear site is measured in kilograms, not "thousands of tons". But "thousands of tons" of anything sounds scary, I'll admit.

Do a bit of reading on the giant gates which can close the mouth of the Rhine downstream from Rotterdam. They are designed to be operational for 50 years and withstand (IIRC) a 5,000 year storm. There is still a chance that a storm will happen which will overwhelm them. If at the same time all the early warning systems break, because the storm knocks them out, tens of thousands of people could die. Worried? No, me neither, because the worst things do not all happen together. What's happening at Fukushima is only a collection of the "worst things that could possibly happen ever ever ever" in the minds of journalists. It's a series of pretty unlikely events that has given Japan a big bill, a major electricity supply headache, and killed (with radiation) a total of zero people - the same number as were killed by radiation at Three Mile Island.

You want something with the potential to kill millions of people? Try climate change. Or try malaria, which already is killing millions of people every year - but very few of them on TV with scary theme music.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tigger View Post
Sure, this isn't *likely* to happen, but the same would have been said of Fukushima and other disasters before they actually happened.
Actually, what happened at Fukushima was more or less planned for. The engineers were given a slightly less catastrophic earthquake scenario (8.2 instead of 9.0, I think I read), but being thorough, they made a site which survived 9.0 anyway. The reactors scrammed immediately, making a meltdown impossible, and the containment vessels basically held, despite being 40 years old and numerous issues with defective maintenance over the years - things which are likely to happen. It's a huge mess, and it will take time and $$$ to fix, but that's economics. The entire population of Japan will die of something other than radiation-induced illnesses.
__________________
Age 56, retired July 1, 2012; DW is 60 and working for 2 more years. Current portfolio is 2000K split 50 stocks/20 bonds/30 cash. Renting house, no debts.
BigNick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2011, 05:41 PM   #73
Recycles dryer sheets
Tigger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 388
Quote:
Originally Posted by M Paquette View Post
In the wonderful world of physics, 'worst possible case' has a meaning that you might not care for.
Indeed, I don't. I live in the real world where things man do can and sooner or later do go wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by M Paquette View Post
There's this thing called innumeracy, an inability to understand numbers and reach rational conclusions. It's the same thing that leads people to take inappropriate risks with their lives, and worry about events that are very unlikely to pose any real risk.


You can only reach valid conclusions if your assumptions and data are correct. I don't claim to be as good as you with numbers and I'm even certain that I'm not. But the fact that I have great doubts about both your assumptions and your data, and thus about the validity of your conclusions has nothing to do with innumeracy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by M Paquette View Post
The risk of getting a fatal cancer from one pass through a TSA Rapiscan full body scanner is around one in 30 million. If the Rapiscan use blocks half of all terrorist attacks on airplanes, has it increased or decreased the overall risk to an airline passenger? (Hint: use airline terrorist-related deaths for the 2000-2010 period, where mayhem has largely replaced hijacking, for the results that put Rapiscan in the least unfavorable light.)
To solve that I would need to know how many passengers are going through these scanners, and how many people have died from airline-terrorism while they were in use or while they weren't in use.

Apart from those numbers, that I don't have, your approach heavily relies on a number of assumptions: that these scanners really block terrorist attacks, that it blocks exactly half of them (sounds like a very wild guess to me; I wouldn't trust the number from the brochure of the vendor), that the estimate of the risk increase is correct, that the machines are operated correctly, etc. That's a lot of estimates and assumptions.

Such calculations are necessary to help in decision making, but the results are dangerous in the hands of people who ignore or forget that there are a lot of assumptions behind it and more generally, the limitations of the model. (looking good in Excel doesn't make numbers based on flawed thinking correct)
__________________
Tigger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2011, 05:42 PM   #74
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,278
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tigger View Post
"Worst possible case" means just what it says. Everything goes wrong and turns for the worst. Circumstances and coincidental events are as adverse as possible.

...

Sure, this isn't *likely* to happen, but the same would have been said of Fukushima and other disasters before they actually happened.
And while you worry that this might happen, someday, maybe... every single day, coal plants are spewing radiation, sulfuric acid, mercury, particulates, and creating environmental damage at the mine with runoff, mountain top removal, habitat destruction, erosion, deforestation...

Don't we need to weigh the risks?

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2011, 05:53 PM   #75
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,278
bold mine
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tigger View Post
Such calculations are necessary to help in decision making, but the results are dangerous in the hands of people who ignore or forget that there are a lot of assumptions behind it and more generally, the limitations of the model. (looking good in Excel doesn't make numbers based on flawed thinking correct)
And how dangerous are the results from not making the best assumptions we can make? Seems like all your 'arguments' fail to consider that there is an alternative that must be made. To not do nuclear means we must do something else (conservation si an option, but that's not going real well).

What's the old saw? To not decide is to decide, or to not take action is to take action, something like that? IOW, something is going to happen regardless. So is that 'something' better or worse than what you you object to?

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2011, 05:53 PM   #76
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,929
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregLee View Post
I don't think you quite understand the problem. You're thinking of single disastrous events which are quite unlikely and consequently probably not worth worrying about. But real life disasters sometimes arise through the coincidence of events, each of which taken singly would be manageable, but which combine in a way nobody anticipated to produce a very bad result. If you don't know in advance what combinations can occur, how can you calculate the probabilities so you know you are within safe margins? (And by the way, Wikipedia has an entry Perfect storm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia .)
There's nothing unique to nuclear power regarding complex, or multiple point of failure, accidents. The Banqiao Dam accident certainly demonstrates that. In all cases the failure engineering folks try to make their best estimates of what could possibly go wrong, under the worst possible conditions, and design for that.

One of the things that has changed over the years is the accumulation of real world experience that informs engineering. The recent earthquake in Japan was, quite literally, a 'once in a thousand years' sort of event, which obviously was not considered in their original power plant siting and structural design.

In dealing with engineering in the face of complex events, the sorts of complex interactions possible can usually be reduced to a relatively small number of scenarios. Ways to address these can then be designed and incorporated into the finished product.

The gotcha, as always, is those pesky 'unknown unknowns.' Those are best addressed with a healthy dose of paranoia and what sounds like absurd hypothetical problems. "Suppose a double-ended shear of both main cooling loops occurs while operating the reactor at 100% power after four or more days. What happens?" "Suppose the control rods all disappear? What happens?"

The bad news is that we didn't know as much when the GE Mark I BWR was designed as we do now. The good news is that we know much more now than we knew back in the late 1960s.
__________________
M Paquette is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2011, 06:10 PM   #77
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
GregLee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Waimanalo, HI
Posts: 1,881
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigNick View Post
If at the same time all the early warning systems break, because the storm knocks them out, tens of thousands of people could die. Worried? No, me neither, because the worst things do not all happen together.
Right. The worst things, being each unlikely, when taken singly, their coincidence is even much less likely. That works for me. But how about the coincidence of events which are not the worst things and are slightly less unlikely, which taken together can produce a catastrophe?
__________________
Greg (retired in 2010 at age 68, state pension)
GregLee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2011, 06:22 PM   #78
Recycles dryer sheets
Tigger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 388
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
And while you worry that this might happen, someday, maybe... every single day, coal plants are spewing radiation, sulfuric acid, mercury, particulates, and creating environmental damage at the mine with runoff, mountain top removal, habitat destruction, erosion, deforestation...

Don't we need to weigh the risks?
I'm not advocating more coal plants. I'm advocating investing in the search for better sources of clean energy.

It's clear that we can't get rid of coal, oil and nuclear right here right now, but that doesn't mean we have to settle for the status quo.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
bold mine
Originally Posted by Tigger
Such calculations are necessary to help in decision making, but the results are dangerous in the hands of people who ignore or forget that there are a lot of assumptions behind it and more generally, the limitations of the model. (looking good in Excel doesn't make numbers based on flawed thinking correct)
You put "but the results are dangerous" in bold. That almost gives the impression that I consider building models in general as a bad thing that should be avoided. What I'd put in bold is "but the results are dangerous in the hands of people who ignore or forget" (the assumptions and limitations).

Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
And how dangerous are the results from not making the best assumptions we can make? Seems like all your 'arguments' fail to consider that there is an alternative that must be made. To not do nuclear means we must do something else (conservation si an option, but that's not going real well).
Indeed. We need alternatives. Nuclear energy didn't invent itself. It took time and money. If we want alternatives, maybe we should spend time and money on them too. I'm not advocating throwing out nuclear today. But I'd be pleased if we could do that tomorrow.

I know there are a number of people in this forum whose career was in that sector and I can imagine how unpleasant this kind of talk must be for them.
__________________
Tigger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2011, 06:37 PM   #79
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,278
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tigger View Post
I'm not advocating more coal plants. I'm advocating investing in the search for better sources of clean energy.
Actually, you are.

Quote:
Indeed. We need alternatives. Nuclear energy didn't invent itself. It took time and money. If we want alternatives, maybe we should spend time and money on them too. I'm not advocating throwing out nuclear today. But I'd be pleased if we could do that tomorrow.
But we need baseline power. Lots of it. While we research better systems, we better keep going with the best of what we have today. In many ways, that appears to be nuclear.

Quote:
I know there are a number of people in this forum whose career was in that sector and I can imagine how unpleasant this kind of talk must be for them.
I never worked in the sector, but I get the impression that those posters who have only find the distortions from some posters to be 'unpleasant'. I haven't seen bias from them, just facts. And I do see bias from you - in that last comment (trying to passively claim a 'win' by saying those who don't agree with you are just uncomfortable with the discussion), and in your quoting Ran Prieur - that quote was another attempt to discredit those who disagree with you. And in that case, the whole quote was bogus, the claims of how logical people think were illogical themselves.

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2011, 06:56 PM   #80
Recycles dryer sheets
Tigger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 388
Quote:
Originally Posted by M Paquette View Post
The recent earthquake in Japan was, quite literally, a 'once in a thousand years' sort of event, which obviously was not considered in their original power plant siting and structural design.
Which brings us back to Ran Prieur: "Fukushima doesn't count because..."

Quote:
Originally Posted by M Paquette View Post
The gotcha, as always, is those pesky 'unknown unknowns.' Those are best addressed with a healthy dose of paranoia and what sounds like absurd hypothetical problems.
Sounds like we're in agreement about at least one thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by M Paquette View Post
The bad news is that we didn't know as much when the GE Mark I BWR was designed as we do now. The good news is that we know much more now than we knew back in the late 1960s.
Indeed. And today we don't know everything either. We will know more in the future. In the meanwhile we'll probably make mistakes, have blind spots and maybe underestimate what's "possible".
__________________

__________________
Tigger is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Nuclear power stocks or funds Sam FIRE and Money 7 09-05-2009 04:56 PM
Nuclear Blowhard ScooterGuy Other topics 6 12-09-2008 07:39 PM
Nuclear Energy..........why not?? FinanceDude Other topics 60 11-19-2007 11:18 AM
Nuclear power plant I am a dope newguy88 FIRE and Money 33 08-16-2006 04:07 PM

 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:59 PM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.