Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

WHO finds Roundup 'Probable Carcinogen'

Re: WHO finds Roundup 'Probable Carcinogen'

Unread postby vox_mundi » Wed 24 Jun 2015, 12:39:40

Herbicide 2,4-D 'possibly' causes cancer, World Health Organisation study finds

The widely used farm chemical known as 2,4-D – a key ingredient in a new herbicide developed by the Dow company – “possibly” causes cancer in humans, a World Health Organisation research unit has said.

The classification of the weed killer, 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, was made by the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). ... epidemiological studies provided “strong evidence that 2,4-D induces oxidative stress … and moderate evidence that 2,4-D causes immunosuppression”.

Among the research presented to IARC was an analysis funded by a Dow-backed group that found no ties between 2,4-D and many cancers.

Dow AgroSciences, a unit of Dow Chemical Co, has had a particular interest in IARC’s review. The company is using both glyphosate and 2,4-D in a herbicide it calls Enlist Duo that received US approval last year. Enlist Duo is designed to be used with genetically engineered, herbicide-tolerant crops developed by Dow.


What’s Wrong With 2,4-D Herbicide?

So, what’s wrong with “a profound increase” in the use of 2,4-D herbicide? First, some scary information, copied verbatim from the National Pesticide Information Center’s fact sheet on 2,4-D:
Because 2,4-D has demonstrated toxic effects on the thyroid and gonads following exposure, there is concern over potential endocrine-disrupting effects.

Work examining incidents of exposure to 2,4-D without simultaneous exposure to 2,4,5-T [which has been banned] has found some association between 2,4-D and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

2,4-D was detected at low concentrations in urine samples collected from all age groups in a large study of the American public.

Traces of 2,4-D were detected in 49.3 percent of finished drinking water samples and 53.7 percent of untreated water samples.

Looking beyond the imminent threats to clean water and health posed by much heavier use of 2,4-D, there is an unanswered question about 2,4-D and dioxins, one of the most potent and persistent group of carcinogens on the planet. Although many known sources of dioxins have been eliminated or controlled, nobody can explain why right now, today, there are enough dioxins in a conventionally produced hot dog to exceed a child’s dietary maximum for the day.

It is suspected that dioxins may be entering the food chain through tainted or substandard batches of 2,4-D, which is sold under more than 80 trade names, often combined with other herbicides, and it is widely available as a generic herbicide at farm supply stores nationwide. The chemical was once manufactured close to home, but current supplies often have international origins and come from chemical plants in Argentina, China, India or Russia. The United States government has decided that these are all trustworthy sources, and has no reality check in place to validate this belief.

The dioxin issue came into sharp focus in Australia last year, when investigative journalists found high levels of dioxin in supplies of 2,4-D (the same supplier that provides 2,4-D to American customers).


House approves bill to overhaul chemical regulation

The House on Tuesday approved a bipartisan bill that would update regulation of harmful chemicals for the first time in nearly 40 years.

Regulation of chemicals took on new urgency after a crippling spill in West Virginia last year contaminated drinking water for 300,000 people. The chemical, crude MCHM, is one of thousands unregulated under current law.

Rep. Paul Tonko of New York, senior Democrat on the environment and economy subcommittee, called the bill a significant improvement over current law.

"The public has too little information about the safety of chemicals they are exposed to every day in virtually every product they use," Tonko said. "Even in the face of overwhelming evidence of harm to people's health, EPA is unable to regulate exposure to toxic chemicals" such as BPA, formaldehyde, styrene and other hazardous substances. Current law is so weak that it even prevented EPA from completely banning deadly asbestos, Tonko and other supporters said.

But Ken Cook, president of the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit advocacy group, said the bill has an untested and ambiguous safety standard and fails to require tough deadlines for final agency action. Promised reviews of dangerous chemicals could languish if Congress does not approve adequate funds for the program, he said.

"Congress has neglected the problem of dangerous chemicals in consumer products for decades, to the great benefit of chemical industry profits," Cook said. "American families should not have to wait more decades for a regulatory system that aggressively protects their health from toxic chemicals."
“There are three classes of people: those who see. Those who see when they are shown. Those who do not see.” ― Leonardo da Vinci

Insensible before the wave so soon released by callous fate. Affected most, they understand the least, and understanding, when it comes, invariably arrives too late.
User avatar
vox_mundi
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3421
Joined: Wed 27 Sep 2006, 02:00:00

Re: WHO finds Roundup 'Probable Carcinogen'

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Wed 24 Jun 2015, 14:28:52

vox_mundi wrote:Man destroys his 40,000 square-foot lawn after mistakenly buying weed AND grass killer

And you put that on this thread because ... this is Monsanto's fault as well?
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 3409
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 20:26:42

Re: WHO finds Roundup 'Probable Carcinogen'

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Wed 24 Jun 2015, 17:53:28

vox_mundi, you can't be serious, can you?

2,4-D Herbicide was in fact the herbicide used to bomb the jungles during the Vietnam war. It was mixed in equal proportions with another herbicide 2,4,5-T. The color and the hard-to-pronounce chemical name led it to be commonly referred to as "Agent Orange". The 2,4,5-T was banned soon afterwards, but 2,4-D remains an approved agricultural herbicide.

The Vietnam-War-era 2,4-D was contaminated with significant amounts of dioxin, an extremely toxic chemical and a definite carcinogen. Although the petrochemical processes used to manufacture 2,4-D have been tweaked to lower the dioxin content, it remains present in reduced quantities, and it is about as persistent as is DDT, and it is spreading slowly throughout the world, along with other nasties.

For example, there was a surge in dioxin levels in the Pacific Ocean following both recent tsunami's in Indonesia and Japan. This came from weeds killed with 2,4-D that had not yet been burned. (You have to incinerate such vegetation in an incinerator at 500+ degrees, or the dioxin remains.)

This thread is about glyphosate, not 2,4-D. Most of us have known all about 2,4-D and Dioxin since the 1970's.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3815
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 16:16:32
Location: California's Silly Valley

Re: WHO finds Roundup 'Probable Carcinogen'

Unread postby PrestonSturges » Wed 24 Jun 2015, 20:38:05

vox_mundi wrote:German Companies Stop Sales of “Roundup”
According to Swiss supermarkets, German companies have announced halting sales of Monsanto’s glyphosate herbicide.
The registration of glyphosate is currently being re-examined by the EU, because the current authorization of the active ingredient ends in December 2015.
After the WHO report in March had glyphosate classified as "probably carcinogenic,” the herbicide is disappearing from some stores.
However, the Federal Institute for Risk Assessment did not previously share the concerns of the WHO and the International Agency for Research on Cancer.

http://deutsche-wirtschafts-nachrichten ... t-verkauf/


Well we know that beer and other alcoholic beverages cause cancer. It's not a "suspected" carcinogen. Not to mention birth defects.

Image
User avatar
PrestonSturges
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 6052
Joined: Wed 15 Oct 2008, 02:00:00

Re: WHO finds Roundup 'Probable Carcinogen'

Unread postby dohboi » Wed 24 Jun 2015, 22:29:14

Sooooo, the argument is:

Some thing cause harm.

Therefore we shouldn't worry about other things that cause harm.

Hmmmmm. Logic much?
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 16022
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: WHO finds Roundup 'Probable Carcinogen'

Unread postby PrestonSturges » Thu 25 Jun 2015, 00:15:22

If we ignore the real problems to work ourselves into a frenzy over stuff that's uncertain, we get two benefits:
1) It's a distraction from the real problems, so we can avoid doing anything about hard problems, because that's simply no fun.
2) We aren't particularly obligated to do anything about the uncertain stuff, so again we avoid doing much of anything.

Still it's a great way to pretend to care about stuff, while being industry's best friend by protecting the status quo (refer back to the part about not doing anything, if you weren't paying attention.)

But I'm sure the German government would like to hurt Monsanto in order to favor their German competitor, BASF.
User avatar
PrestonSturges
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 6052
Joined: Wed 15 Oct 2008, 02:00:00

Re: WHO finds Roundup 'Probable Carcinogen'

Unread postby dohboi » Thu 25 Jun 2015, 12:14:32

Aaaah, so you have decided that you have perfect knowledge about what are 'real' problems and what aren't, and that everyone who has a different judgment about these things are all obviously totally blithering idiots.

Okey dokey.

Oh, and apparently one of your 'real problems' is whenever anyone has a beer.

So great. Start a thread about how bad it is to have the occasional beer. Start a whole freakin' movement. I'm sure you'll be very, very popular.
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 16022
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: WHO finds Roundup 'Probable Carcinogen'

Unread postby vox_mundi » Mon 22 Feb 2016, 10:25:34

Finally,' FDA Will Start Testing Food for Presence of Monsanto's Controversial Glyphosate

The Food and Drug Administration will begin testing food for glyphosate, the world’s most commonly used pesticide, according to Civil Eats. This marks the first time a U.S. agency will routinely test for glyphosate residue in food. It comes after the Government Accountability Office released a report condemning the FDA for failing to disclose its failure to test for glyphosate in its annual pesticide residue report.

The World Health Organization found that glyphosate, commonly known as Roundup, was a probable human carcinogen and has been named as a leading cause of massive declines in monarch butterflies.

“In the wake of intense scrutiny, the Food and Drug Administration has finally committed to taking this basic step of testing our food for the most commonly used pesticide. It’s shocking that it’s taken so long, but we’re glad it’s finally going to happen,” Nathan Donley, a scientist with the Center for Biological Diversity, said. “More and more scientists are raising concerns about the effects of glyphosate on human health and the environment. With about 1.7 billion pounds of this pesticide used each year worldwide, the FDA’s data is badly needed to facilitate long-overdue conversations about how much of this chemical we should tolerate in our food.”

Leading scientists published an article about the exploding use of glyphosate around the world in yesterday’s issue of the journal Environmental Health. Pointing to concerns over rapidly increasing use, outdated science and the WHO’s finding, the authors called on regulatory agencies to take a fresh look at the real-world impacts of glyphosate and to start monitoring its levels in people and in food.

“The alarm bell is ringing loud and clear. The current cavalier use of glyphosate and lax regulation, cannot remain in place,” Donley said. “It’s long past time to start reining in the out-of-control use of this dangerous pesticide in the United States and around the world.”

Just last week 35 members of the U.S. House of Representatives sent a letter to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency administrator Gina McCarthy expressing concerns regarding the potential negative health and environmental impacts of a pesticide, Enlist Duo, that combines glyphosate and 2,4-D. EPA is currently reanalyzing its decision to register the dangerous pesticide following a remand order from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Monsanto is also now embroiled in a legal battle with the state of California over the state’s move to list glyphosate as a carcinogen under Proposition 65 law. As the legal battle plays out California, a new report from the Center for Biological Diversity found that more than half of the glyphosate sprayed in the state was applied in the state’s eight most impoverished counties.
“There are three classes of people: those who see. Those who see when they are shown. Those who do not see.” ― Leonardo da Vinci

Insensible before the wave so soon released by callous fate. Affected most, they understand the least, and understanding, when it comes, invariably arrives too late.
User avatar
vox_mundi
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3421
Joined: Wed 27 Sep 2006, 02:00:00

Re: WHO finds Roundup 'Probable Carcinogen'

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Mon 22 Feb 2016, 13:53:16

Just because you repeated those quotes does not mean that the actions enumerated therein will happen.

Monsanto's glyphosate-resistant corn varieties are GMO plant varieties. They however enable "no-till" agriculture which along with other unsustainable practices such as the direct injection of gaseous ammonia into the ground, boost the corn production to somewhere in the 100X to 150X the yield of the same ground using organic farming methods (the range of yields is seasonal rainfall variations). American farmers thus produce enormous amounts of corn (and other grains) from what is essentially a sterile growing medium which they add chemicals to - which is why I did not call it "soil".

The corn is used to produce ethanol which comprises 10% by volume of the "normal" gasoline sold in the USA, or 85% of the E85 grade. Banning glyphosate would only happen after you have vanquished the ethanol lobby in Congress, which has thus far proved invincible.

Americans do not eat this corn directly (it would have to be labelled as a GMO) but we do consume the corn sweetener which is the same substance used to brew the ethanol, in approximately 40% of the packaged foods in our supermarkets. Such foods are not labelled as GMO's because the glyphosate-resistant corn is blended with other corn varieties before the corn sweetener is produced - a loophole in the law. The remnants of the corn after ethanol production are enriched with more GMO corn plus chopped cornstalks ("silage") and fed to cattle.

Incidentally, the corn sweetener added to so much of our food promotes obesity and adult-onset or Type 2 diabetes, not only from excess calories, but because the corn sweetener contains a natural chemical that suppresses serotonin production - aka that "I'm full" glow.

These cattle are fed enormous amounts of corn, and injected with antibiotics to minimize the losses due to the digestive tract tumors the GMO corn causes, and injected with artificial hormones (yet another petrochemical) to increase their growth rates. The high grain diet and the hormones are adjusted until the resulting fatty meat just barely meets the USDA standard for "Choice" grade beef when slaughtered at an absurdly young age. This fatty beef is however the main source of cholesterol in American diets (The "Prime" grades of meat are produced from cattle fed with some amounts of grass and which exercise more in a pasture rather than a feedlot). (Knowing all too much about this, I buy grass-fed beef and bison meat - even though most bison in America is owned by that flaming liberal, Ted Turner.)

Enough of this corn is exported (mainly to places like Africa and India) as to make the difference between starvation and mere malnutrition for approximately 82 million people, who would actually die without cheap American grain.

Good luck with your crusade against glyphosate - I will be mightily impressed if you get anywhere with this, considering the armies of lobbyists arrayed against declaring glyphosate to be a carcinogen.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3815
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 16:16:32
Location: California's Silly Valley

Re: WHO finds Roundup 'Probable Carcinogen'

Unread postby vox_mundi » Mon 22 Feb 2016, 15:03:26

“There are three classes of people: those who see. Those who see when they are shown. Those who do not see.” ― Leonardo da Vinci

Insensible before the wave so soon released by callous fate. Affected most, they understand the least, and understanding, when it comes, invariably arrives too late.
User avatar
vox_mundi
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3421
Joined: Wed 27 Sep 2006, 02:00:00

Re: WHO finds Roundup 'Probable Carcinogen'

Unread postby dohboi » Mon 22 Feb 2016, 15:50:31

KJ, vox clearly doesn't have the stomach, and I'm not sure how far I can stomach wading through your random rant.

But just to start out:

""no-till" agriculture which along with other unsustainable practices"

no-till is not an unsustainable practice and can be done without herbicides. Look up 'crimping.' Or see here: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_D ... 018551.pdf

"[chemical based corn production methods] boost the corn production to somewhere in the 100X to 150X the yield of the same ground using organic farming methods"

Wow. Just wow. I won't ask where you even got such a fantastic number.

For some glimmering of reality, you might start here:

Organic corn and soybean yields exceeded conventional
Typical of transitioning organic fields, organic corn yields were less than conventional during the first two years of the LTAR experiment. By the third year organic and conventional corn yields were about equal.

In the fourth year organic corn yields averaged across all rotations was 130 bushels per acre and greater than the conventional corn yield of 112 bushels per acre in the corn-soybean rotation.


http://www.non-gmoreport.com/articles/f ... tional.php

OK, I can't stomach any more. Maybe try checking some sources before posting once in a while. :)
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 16022
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: WHO finds Roundup 'Probable Carcinogen'

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Mon 22 Feb 2016, 16:18:31

doughboy, the figures I used came from the permaculture thread here at PO.com. The figure for GMO corn, with no till, chemical injection into the soil, and aerial crop spraying of both glyphosate and various insecticides was 325 bushels per acre, maximum for an ideal rainfall year - and without crop rotation. The figure for natural sweet corn varieties, intended for direct human consumption, with manual cultivation and no irrigation, was 0-18 bushels per acre, depending entirely upon rainfall. The usual range was 100-150X and admittedly this depends primarily upon natural rainfall. In times of drought, American mechanized farmers often spray deep well water, laden with minerals, onto the soil which is gradually rendered incapable of organic production - when compost is combined with such sterile soil, it does not rot. Thereafter only chemical injection works in such soils, they have been poisoned for microbes and nematodes and worms and so forth.

I admit, this is an apples to oranges comparison, because the corn varieties are so different. But it is also a refresher for something you seem to be in denial of - which is that without mechanized agriculture and petrochemical fertilizers, herbicides, and insecticides, America cannot feed itself, much less be the world's breadbasket.

There simply is no way that fully organic methods outproduce mechanized agriculture. There MAY be a happy middle ground where with PermaCulture techniques and some mechanized assistance, a greatly expanded agricultural workforce may be able to feed America in the absence of cheap oil, and do so without destroying topsoil. IIRC, this was a 62X increase in the present number of farmers. Again, this estimate was from the PO.com PermaCulture debate of 2013.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3815
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 16:16:32
Location: California's Silly Valley

Re: WHO finds Roundup 'Probable Carcinogen'

Unread postby dohboi » Mon 22 Feb 2016, 17:47:13

Still not sure how you got 100x to 150x.

Did you just randomly pick 1 from your unsupported range of 0 - 18?

Why not pick zero; then you could say that poison based ag produce literally an infinite amount more than non. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Note, even in the darkest days of the dust bowl, farmers were averaging over 18.

http://www.worldofcorn.com/#us-average-corn-yield

And of course modern organic farming is not the same as 'farming before chemicals.' We have, after all, learned a lot about how to farm effectively without chemicals over the last 80 or so years.

Referring to some other yahoo's stats on some other thread does not instill confidence, by the way.

But I think vox had it right. No use bantering with one so utterly benighted.
Last edited by dohboi on Mon 22 Feb 2016, 17:48:24, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 16022
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: WHO finds Roundup 'Probable Carcinogen'

Unread postby C8 » Mon 22 Feb 2016, 17:47:13

Life is full of picking lesser evils.

Roundup increases food production greatly- do people want certain starvation instead of a possible cancer risk?

DDT was banned in many tropical areas for potential fears- and then malaria went unchecked and killed millions.

Life is not a tidy black and white math problem- mature people see complexity and make trade offs.
User avatar
C8
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 520
Joined: Sun 14 Apr 2013, 08:02:48

Re: WHO finds Roundup 'Probable Carcinogen'

Unread postby dohboi » Mon 22 Feb 2016, 17:50:05

Ah, and now more unsubstatiated bs from C8. Best to just bow out till the current troll swarm passes, I guess.
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 16022
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: WHO finds Roundup 'Probable Carcinogen'

Unread postby careinke » Mon 22 Feb 2016, 19:40:17

Wow 150X????? That means if my organic corn produces 100 bushels per acre, the poisoned stuff produces FIFTEEN THOUSAND bushels of something resembling corn. That's just amazing! I get about 3 ears per stalk but this amazing stuff must have lets see....150 X 3 = 450 EARS PER STALK!!! Why don't they show those cornstalks in their commercials? :roll:

Sometimes you just have to use common sense, of course 150X is a ridicules number. 8)
Cliff (Start a rEVOLution, grow a garden)
User avatar
careinke
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3420
Joined: Mon 01 Jan 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: WHO finds Roundup 'Probable Carcinogen'

Unread postby vox_mundi » Mon 22 Feb 2016, 20:50:42

KJ has been watching too many Jolly Green Giant commercials - thinks they're all real.

Image

Image

Image

Image
“There are three classes of people: those who see. Those who see when they are shown. Those who do not see.” ― Leonardo da Vinci

Insensible before the wave so soon released by callous fate. Affected most, they understand the least, and understanding, when it comes, invariably arrives too late.
User avatar
vox_mundi
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3421
Joined: Wed 27 Sep 2006, 02:00:00

Re: WHO finds Roundup 'Probable Carcinogen'

Unread postby clif » Mon 22 Feb 2016, 20:55:41

150 X 3 = 450 EARS PER STALK!!!
8O

Why do you think they employ the Jolly Green Giant to pick their corn? :mrgreen:

His claim is as farcical as the commercial is. :oops:
How cathartic it is to give voice to your fury, to wallow in self-righteousness, in helplessness, in self-serving self-pity.
User avatar
clif
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 515
Joined: Tue 11 Aug 2009, 12:04:10

Re: WHO finds Roundup 'Probable Carcinogen'

Unread postby PrestonSturges » Mon 22 Feb 2016, 21:23:56

OMG, an anti-GMO site that is not also anti-vaxxer, although I did not look too closely.
User avatar
PrestonSturges
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 6052
Joined: Wed 15 Oct 2008, 02:00:00

Re: WHO finds Roundup 'Probable Carcinogen'

Unread postby dohboi » Mon 22 Feb 2016, 21:34:40

????

Are you knee-jerk prejudices showing again?

I know of no major Anti-GMO group that has anti-vaccination as a major (or really even minor) part of their program. But it's not something I spend a lot of time looking into, so let's just check the first few groups that pop up on google from seaching 'anti-gmo':

http://www.nongmoproject.org/

nothing found when I do a search of their site for 'vaccines.'

http://www.saynotogmos.org/

nothing here either.

https://gmo-awareness.com/resources/ant ... s-america/

nothing

OK, I'm tired of this exercise. I would suggest that you can continue it on your own and tell us how many pages in you have to go before you find some utterly obscure group that works on both of these, but I know you won't---ignorant, uninformed prejudice being so much more cozy and non-taxing on the brain than actually spending a few moments checking for yourself.

Clearly you, or the overlords that have you mesmerized by their pro-business propaganda, have decided that anti-vaccers must be anti-science and so anti-gmo-ers must be anti-science, and so the two must be attached at the hip somehow.

Even trying to count up the number of basic logical fallacies (idiocies would be the better term) in that position would challenge the most vigorous mathematician.

But I'll let you go back to be further programmed now by your overlords so they can tell you exactly what to think and say next.
Last edited by dohboi on Mon 22 Feb 2016, 21:37:50, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 16022
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

PreviousNext

Return to Environment

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: dohboi, Tuike and 16 guests