Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
The Caspian Hare

Ozone layer is regenerating

25 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

The Caspian Hare
Quote

 

The ozone layer – which protects us from the sun's harmful radiation – is slowly healing, the United Nations announced Monday.

“It’s really good news,” said NASA scientist Paul Newman, co-author of the U.N. report. 

Over the northern half of the world, the layer should be completely repaired by the 2030s, the report said. The good news is due to decades of worldwide cooperation to phase out ozone-depleting chemicals.

“If ozone-depleting substances had continued to increase, we would have seen huge effects. We stopped that,” Newman said. If nothing had been done to stop the thinning, the world would have destroyed two-thirds of its ozone layer by 2065, he said.

 

https://start.att.net/news/read/article/usa_today-good_environmental_news_for_once_the_ozone_layer_i-rgannett/category/science

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
freetoroam

This is good news, but not sure they should be advertising it so soon, lets wait until the companies and countries which have been polluting our planet have really understood the damage they have done. 

Tell them things are getting better and they will start mass polutting again. It should never have got to this stage. 

  • Thanks 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
21 minutes ago, freetoroam said:

This is good news, but not sure they should be advertising it so soon, lets wait until the companies and countries which have been polluting our planet have really understood the damage they have done. 

Tell them things are getting better and they will start mass polutting again. It should never have got to this stage. 

You ARE - presumably - aware that Ozone is a MAJOR greenhouse gas ? It has a radiation forcing effect over 1000% that of CO2 !!  (depending on concentration). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
freetoroam
2 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

You ARE - presumably - aware that Ozone is a MAJOR greenhouse gas ? It has a radiation forcing effect over 1000% that of CO2 !!  (depending on concentration). 

Sorry i am not getting your point. My point is humans have caused the damage. 

I am aware of the Montreal protocol.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol

We are getting there and if it were not for the Montreal protocol, we would have been in serious serious trouble.

It is the protocol which is saving us, 197 countries have signed, and we are on our way to recovery. 

We still have a long way to go, i just hope as we continue to make progress, every single person and country and company follow suit. It has taken many years to get co-operation from some countries  to sign,  now we have to keep striving to protect our planet at the same time as the population increases, this is the main threat.

It is all well and good and marvelous that we are protecting the ozone layer, but the threat to this planet is over population, how will manufacturing companies cope to provide for humans in the future without damaging the planet -again? 

We may be tackling one issue, but another is on the horizon.

Quote

Can the Earth support this many people indefinitely? What will happen if we do nothing to manage future population growth and total resource use? These complex questions are ecological, political, ethical – and urgent.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/phys.org/news/2018-07-billion-countinghow-humans-earth.amp

And this

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/overpopulation-project.com/2018/08/24/population-growth-is-a-threat-to-the-worlds-climate/amp/

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seanjo
1 minute ago, freetoroam said:

Sorry i am not getting your point. My point is humans have caused the damage. 

I am aware of the Montreal protocol.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol

We are getting there and if it were not for the Montreal protocol, we would have been in serious serious trouble.

It is the protocol which is saving us, 197 countries have signed, and we are on our way to recovery. 

We still have a long way to go, i just hope as we continue to make progress, every single person and country and company follow suit. It has taken many years to get co-operation from some countries  to sign,  now we have to keep striving to protect our planet at the same time as the population increases, this is the main threat.

It is all well and good and marvelous that we are protecting the ozone layer, but the threat to this planet is over population, how will manufacturing companies cope to provide for humans in the future without damaging the planet -again? 

We may be tackling one issue, but another is on the horizon.

And this

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/overpopulation-project.com/2018/08/24/population-growth-is-a-threat-to-the-worlds-climate/amp/

Until we tackle the Human population explosion and bring the level down to a sustainable number, nothing (else) we do will stop the Earth being damaged

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
freetoroam
1 minute ago, seanjo said:

Until we tackle the Human population explosion and bring the level down to a sustainable number, nothing (else) we do will stop the Earth being damaged

Absolutely

Manufacturing companies will have to provide the resources and this is the worry...how will they do it, without damaging the planet in other ways? - they can't.

Here is an interesting article

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/overpopulation-project.com/2018/08/24/population-growth-is-a-threat-to-the-worlds-climate/amp/

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AllPossible

So the Earth will heal itself in 40 years after polluting it for the past 100 years?? The earth is like the human body, when we get hurt it only takes a moment but the healing/recovery takes awhile. Why would the earth be any different especially since were still hitting the wound with a hammer. This is propaganda 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seanjo
56 minutes ago, AllPossible said:

So the Earth will heal itself in 40 years after polluting it for the past 100 years?? The earth is like the human body, when we get hurt it only takes a moment but the healing/recovery takes awhile. Why would the earth be any different especially since were still hitting the wound with a hammer. This is propaganda 

The Ozone was depleted by CFC's which have been cut back enormously since the 80's. CO2 and other greenhouse gases don't affect the Ozone.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
freetoroam
34 minutes ago, AllPossible said:

So the Earth will heal itself in 40 years after polluting it for the past 100 years?? The earth is like the human body, when we get hurt it only takes a moment but the healing/recovery takes awhile. Why would the earth be any different especially since were still hitting the wound with a hammer. This is propaganda 

It is not propaganda, it is relaying what has been achieved so far,  a lot has been done to curb the effects which caused the damage.

But there are other factors to consider which is the population increase. 

 

Quote

But at the global population conference in Cairo in 1994, this was toned down – largely due to resistance from conservative and religious groups from a number of mainly Muslim countries. At the same time, it became taboo in the West. People did not want to offend the poor countries, says Frank Götmark.

---

Population growth automatically increases energy consumption, which in turn means increased greenhouse gas emissions, says Götmark. However, this relationship is often neglected.

-------

Bongaarts and O’Neill point out that UN forecasts suggest that the global population will increase from today’s 7.6 billion to 11.2 billion people by the year 2100 – and in the worst case, we could reach 13.3 billion. To believe this unprecedented increase will not affect the climate is to completely ignore reality, according to the researchers.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/overpopulation-project.com/2018/08/24/population-growth-is-a-threat-to-the-worlds-climate/amp/

There are cultures were the birth rate is still high  today and as migrants travel to other continents, many are still having numerous children, at this rate small islands like the UK will find it extremely difficult to cope especially as the future will mean less jobs for humans as robots take over. Everything is combined and related, the ozone is just one issue, although the Montreal protocol is great, it was only part of the problem and the other problem (human population) is the one we need to be looking at. 

We can not be ignoring these issues because of religious or cultural issues, this is not a case of offending, it is a case of our survival in the future and for our future generations to live a healthy and quality lifestyle, this will not be possible if the manufacturing companies have to mass produce products and although we have the Montreal protocol in place, we do not know what measures the companies will take to meet the demand of a vast population of humans who think it their right to breed as they like.

Humans selfishness will be the downfall of the human race.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
2 hours ago, freetoroam said:

Sorry i am not getting your point. My point is humans have caused the damage. 

my point is that a "repairing" ozone layer may not be all good news. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AllPossible
3 hours ago, seanjo said:

The Ozone was depleted by CFC's which have been cut back enormously since the 80's. CO2 and other greenhouse gases don't affect the Ozone.

I understand but isn't radiation and carbon monoxide effect the Earths protection layer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jon the frog
3 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

my point is that a "repairing" ozone layer may not be all good news. 

Well better to not contract skin cancer and blindness  because of the UV... Ozone layer is quite a must have.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
freetoroam
3 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

my point is that a "repairing" ozone layer may not be all good news. 

You have certainly lost me on this one. Can you explain the disadvantages of not have a repaired ozone layer? 

What is worrying is the future  in terms of population increase and what measures will be taken by manufacturers to keep up with the demands, but the Motreal protocol has been set and signed by many, so hopefully the ozone layer will keep repairing, its other areas we have to keep an eye on too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trenix

Has the hate on "people"-kind begun yet? Where's the death penalty for pollution? And yeah hate on dem businesses too! We should tax them until they're bankrupt, right? It's not like we need innovators that will find ways to not only sustain "people"-kind, but also protect our planet from all sorts of catastrophes.

What bugs me is that emotional people who try their best to virtue signal, don't quite understand that they're literally the problem in so many levels than just one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
8 hours ago, freetoroam said:

You have certainly lost me on this one. Can you explain the disadvantages of not have a repaired ozone layer? 

What is worrying is the future  in terms of population increase and what measures will be taken by manufacturers to keep up with the demands, but the Motreal protocol has been set and signed by many, so hopefully the ozone layer will keep repairing, its other areas we have to keep an eye on too.

Simple; the more ozone, the greater the pressure for global warming. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29

Restoration of the ozone layer through international cooperation gives hope that something similar can be done with global warming.

There is one BIG difference, however:  restoring the ozone layer required only outlawing one small class of products:  CFCs.  AND:  there were substitute products available.  Conversion was quick and easy.  That is not going to be the case with global warming.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29
On 11/6/2018 at 8:00 PM, Trenix said:

Has the hate on "people"-kind begun yet? Where's the death penalty for pollution? And yeah hate on dem businesses too! We should tax them until they're bankrupt, right? It's not like we need innovators that will find ways to not only sustain "people"-kind, but also protect our planet from all sorts of catastrophes.

What bugs me is that emotional people who try their best to virtue signal, don't quite understand that they're literally the problem in so many levels than just one.

I think you are jumping off the deep end here:

The people problem will solve itself, given time.  World populations will top out around ten billion about the end of this century.  That's 30% more than there are now, so there is going to be severe pressure on resources.  After peak population, human populations will begin a long, slow decline, culminating in a sustainable population.  Most of this will be accomplished voluntarily by giving people better access to birth control.  Some will come about through disease.  War, with its destruction of resources, will be a wash.

Death penalty for polluters:  unnecessary.  Proper regulation will control the big polluters who are too big to hide what they're doing.  The little ones, like the truck driver who opened the valves on the chemical tank and then drove down the highway, can be handled with jail time.

 Whether a payment is a tax is determined by the consequences of not paying it:  if the govt can take your property to satisfy the debt, then it was a tax.  If it can put you in jail for not paying it, then it was a tax.  If neither of these, then it was not a tax.  So-called carbon taxes are not effective and even counter-productive.  They give the impression that politicians are "doing something" while accomplishing nothing.  In theory they discourage carbon-containing products by increasing the price.  But this means that gas leaking from pipelines and oil spills pays no tax, yet they are a production cost.  We need to charge carbon fees at the well head, mine mouth or port-of-entry so that accidental losses do not escape.  All carbon-based fees collected need to be re-distributed to people on a per capita basis.  This will provide them with the dollars needed to cast their "dollar votes" and affect the market.  This will make low-carbon products more profitable and high-carbon products more expensive, quite apart from who produces/sells them.

Ultimately, it will be innovation that delivers us from the do-nothing clutches of government.  Wind is the cheapest source of energy on the market with solar poised for a major drop in costs.  Converting will SAVE us money.  In the US we are already converting to wind power.  This is only because wind is cheap and the energy companies are worried about not having enough coal.  Renewable energy costs less than fossil fuel - that is what will save us.

Ultimately, virtue has nothing to do with adapting to global warming.  We either do it or face the consequences of not doing it.  That's not about who's good and who isn't.  It's about hard-headed practicality.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29
On 11/6/2018 at 4:17 PM, AllPossible said:

I understand but isn't radiation and carbon monoxide effect the Earths protection layer?

CFCs are a catalyst in the destruction of ozone.  They affect the reaction, but are not a permanent part of it.  They are more effective in dry conditions, such as occur in polar regions during the winter when water freezes.

Doug

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29
On 11/7/2018 at 1:53 AM, RoofGardener said:

Simple; the more ozone, the greater the pressure for global warming. 

The ozone-depleting chemicals, like CFCs and related compounds, are greenhouse gasses.  Fortunately, there are not enough of them in the atmosphere to have much effect on climate and they are gradually decreasing, so their long-term effects appear negligible.

Ozone is a two-edged sword:  High in the atmosphere it is a shield against in-coming UV radiation.  At ground level it is a pollutant that causes lung diseases and damages plants.  Ozone is something we need to keep an eye on, but not something to be alarmed about.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
1 hour ago, Doug1o29 said:

The ozone-depleting chemicals, like CFCs and related compounds, are greenhouse gasses.  Fortunately, there are not enough of them in the atmosphere to have much effect on climate and they are gradually decreasing, so their long-term effects appear negligible.

Ozone is a two-edged sword:  High in the atmosphere it is a shield against in-coming UV radiation.  At ground level it is a pollutant that causes lung diseases and damages plants.  Ozone is something we need to keep an eye on, but not something to be alarmed about.

Doug

And at all levels it is a highly potent greenhouse gas, with 10,000 times the potency of Carbon Dioxide :) 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trenix
7 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

I think you are jumping off the deep end here:

The people problem will solve itself, given time.  World populations will top out around ten billion about the end of this century.  That's 30% more than there are now, so there is going to be severe pressure on resources.  After peak population, human populations will begin a long, slow decline, culminating in a sustainable population.  Most of this will be accomplished voluntarily by giving people better access to birth control.  Some will come about through disease.  War, with its destruction of resources, will be a wash.

There is no lack of resources, we have the entire universe available to us. All we lack is innovation. Just pure fearmongering.

Quote

Death penalty for polluters:  unnecessary.  Proper regulation will control the big polluters who are too big to hide what they're doing.  The little ones, like the truck driver who opened the valves on the chemical tank and then drove down the highway, can be handled with jail time.

 Whether a payment is a tax is determined by the consequences of not paying it:  if the govt can take your property to satisfy the debt, then it was a tax.  If it can put you in jail for not paying it, then it was a tax.  If neither of these, then it was not a tax.  So-called carbon taxes are not effective and even counter-productive.  They give the impression that politicians are "doing something" while accomplishing nothing.  In theory they discourage carbon-containing products by increasing the price.  But this means that gas leaking from pipelines and oil spills pays no tax, yet they are a production cost.  We need to charge carbon fees at the well head, mine mouth or port-of-entry so that accidental losses do not escape.  All carbon-based fees collected need to be re-distributed to people on a per capita basis.  This will provide them with the dollars needed to cast their "dollar votes" and affect the market.  This will make low-carbon products more profitable and high-carbon products more expensive, quite apart from who produces/sells them.

So as I said, we lack innovation. So your solution? Regulation, which directly effects innovation. You are literally the problem and you don't even know it. What you suggest, will most definitely result in lack of resources, war, and illness. Keep trying to regulate those who make your life better and living in a bubble.

Quote

 

Ultimately, it will be innovation that delivers us from the do-nothing clutches of government.  Wind is the cheapest source of energy on the market with solar poised for a major drop in costs.  Converting will SAVE us money.  In the US we are already converting to wind power.  This is only because wind is cheap and the energy companies are worried about not having enough coal.  Renewable energy costs less than fossil fuel - that is what will save us.

Ultimately, virtue has nothing to do with adapting to global warming.  We either do it or face the consequences of not doing it.  That's not about who's good and who isn't.  It's about hard-headed practicality.

Doug

 

Wind energy is cheap? I can't take you seriously. Are you being serious right now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29
14 hours ago, Trenix said:

There is no lack of resources, we have the entire universe available to us. All we lack is innovation. Just pure fearmongering.

Take one quick look at the logistics of taking people elsewhere or bringing food, clothing, timber, etc. from some other planet.  First:  you're going to have to terraform that planet so it can produce things earthlings need.  By the time you can do that to just one planet, we will have reached peak population and be in a declining mode.  The resource crunch is already occurring and will continue over the next 50 years, at least.

14 hours ago, Trenix said:

So as I said, we lack innovation. So your solution? Regulation, which directly effects innovation. You are literally the problem and you don't even know it. What you suggest, will most definitely result in lack of resources, war, and illness. Keep trying to regulate those who make your life better and living in a bubble.

I see no shortage of innovation.  The wind energy industry has developed entirely within my lifetime.  So has solar.  And there are better things on the horizon, like perovskites and better batteries.  Remember when you couldn't power a hand drill with batteries because they couldn't hold enough power?  Now you can go down to Ace Hardware and buy one..  The florescent light bulb is an innovation that made its inventor rich (and cut US power consumption by the equivalent of four coal-fired plants).  There have been and will be others.

If you want a free market, you have to regulate it.  Otherwise, somebody tries to corner it, or otherwise control it for his own purposes.  That's the problem with coal right now:  people have cornered the coal market and want to keep anybody else from getting into energy production.  Remember W. W. Hunt and the silver market?  Regulation is meant to curb cheaters and thieves, not inhibit the honest.  It is meant to keep us safe.  Do you really want the meat-packers to regulate themselves?  Remember why we have those regulations.

14 hours ago, Trenix said:

Wind energy is cheap? I can't take you seriously. Are you being serious right now?

Blanco, M. I.  2009.  The economics of wind energy.  Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 13(6-7) 1372-1382.  https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032108001299   9 November 2018.

From the abstract:  "The research finds that the generation costs of an onshore wind farm are between 4.5 and 8.7 €cent/kWh; 6–11.1 €cent/kWh when located offshore, with the number of full hours and the level of capital cost being the most influencing elements."

 

If you take the average generation costs of existing power plants, you will find that coal and natural gas come off pretty well.  But that ignores construction, financing, operation and repair costs.  All power plants wear out and must eventually be replaced.  So these costs, known as "levelized costs" must be considered:

Energy Innovation Policy and Technology, L.L.C.  2015.  Comparing the costs of renewable and conventional energy sources.  https://energyinnovation.org/2015/02/07/levelized-cost-of-energy/  9 November 2018.

 

The authority on costs of power generation is:

Lazard, N.  2016.  Lazard's levelized cost of energy analysis - version 9.0, a summary of which is available here:

https://energyinnovation.org/2018/01/22/renewable-energy-levelized-cost-of-energy-already-cheaper-than-fossil-fuels-and-prices-keep-plunging/

 

Now can you take me seriously?

Oklahoma already has a dozen or so wind farms.  The world's largest (Windcatcher) is under construction near Guymon, OK.  Each of these is a billion-dollar investment.  When it comes fully online, Windcatcher will have 800 windmills.  Why do you think companies like Nexterra are investing so heavily in wind?  Because they expect to make a profit doing it.  How do they make that profit?  By generating electricity cheaper than conventional plants can do it and undercutting their markets.

Nothing idealistic here - just old-fashioned business at work.

Doug

Edited by Doug1o29

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trenix
1 hour ago, Doug1o29 said:

Take one quick look at the logistics of taking people elsewhere or bringing food, clothing, timber, etc. from some other planet.  First:  you're going to have to terraform that planet so it can produce things earthlings need.  By the time you can do that to just one planet, we will have reached peak population and be in a declining mode.  The resource crunch is already occurring and will continue over the next 50 years, at least.

I've heard this fearmongering so many times that it isn't funny. I remember hearing in 2020, we'll need two planets to sustain ourselves. Now it changed to 2030 and now you're telling me in the next 50 years. While resources are finite, nothing is created or destroyed only changed. Nothing innovation cannot fix. As shortages occur, people naturally find other ways to sustain themselves. This cycle will never end, similar to your fear mongering.

Quote

If you want a free market, you have to regulate it.

Take a course in economics... for crying out loud. You do realize you just said an oxymoron, right?

Quote

Oklahoma already has a dozen or so wind farms.  The world's largest (Windcatcher) is under construction near Guymon, OK.  Each of these is a billion-dollar investment.  When it comes fully online, Windcatcher will have 800 windmills.  Why do you think companies like Nexterra are investing so heavily in wind?  Because they expect to make a profit doing it.  How do they make that profit?  By generating electricity cheaper than conventional plants can do it and undercutting their markets.

If wind energy were to be cheaper, everyone would switch over to it without the need of government intervention. As of now, it is not cheaper. Various of articles are stating it will be, but currently it isn't. Just do a google search.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29
2 hours ago, Trenix said:

I've heard this fearmongering so many times that it isn't funny. I remember hearing in 2020, we'll need two planets to sustain ourselves. Now it changed to 2030 and now you're telling me in the next 50 years. While resources are finite, nothing is created or destroyed only changed. Nothing innovation cannot fix. As shortages occur, people naturally find other ways to sustain themselves. This cycle will never end, similar to your fear mongering.

No.  I'm not telling you we'll need two planets in 50 years.  2070 or thereabouts is when we expect human populations to top out.  That will happen without any major efforts on our part because (1) resource shortages will limit population expansion in the least-developed countries, and (2) people in the more affluent countries will opt for smaller family sizes (already happening).  We can influence those a little, but mostly it will happen whether we do anything or not.

All animal populations follow a more-or-less logistic growth model.  We're no different.  During the early part of the curve they expand exponentially to fill the available habitat; later on they are constricted by shortages and disease.  With us, the inflection point was in 1970.  Populations are still increasing, but the rate of increase is slowing.  Late in this century growth will be slow enough that random fluctuations will produce periods of population decline.

 

3 hours ago, Trenix said:

Take a course in economics... for crying out loud. You do realize you just said an oxymoron, right?

There is no such thing as a free market.  Somebody is always trying to control it for his own purposes.  It is always going to be regulated by somebody for better or worse, whether it's somebody doing insider trading or somebody trying to corner a market, or somebody trying to deny markets to his competition, or a government entity regulating it for the common good.  Somebody ALWAYS regulates markets.  And I'd rather they be regulated in a fair and even-handed way than by somebody whose only purpose is stealing my money.

3 hours ago, Trenix said:

If wind energy were to be cheaper, everyone would switch over to it without the need of government intervention. As of now, it is not cheaper. Various of articles are stating it will be, but currently it isn't. Just do a google search.

Everyone (at least the big energy companies) is switching over to wind without government intervention.  The govt could speed up the process with interest-free loans, but what chance is there of that under the current administration?  Govt is mostly a follower in energy conversion; it doesn't lead.

As of the end of 2016, the US had 52,343 windmills,  At the end of November 2017, wind was generating 6.33% of all power in the US.  As of January 2017 the US' wind generating capacity was 82,183 megawatts.  Wind's best year so far was 2012 when 26.5% of all new power-plant construction was wind power.

That all represents a huge investment; one that wouldn't be made without expectation of profit.

 

Another reason companies are going into wind and solar is that coal is expensive and getting more so.  They're worried they won't be able to get enough.  Same with oil:  we have ten, maybe fifteen years of oil in the Baaken and maybe 20 in that new one in Arizona/New Mexico.  After that, our balance-of-payments problem will really get bad.  Coal and oil will always be around, but their glory days are over.

 

I expect that in three or four years, perovskites (solar) will be moving into the energy market.  That promises to re-arrange the entire industry.  Now might not be the best time to switch to wind.  So unless your current generator plant breaks down it may be wise to repair it and wait.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.