Another Week in the Planetary Crisis, April 7, 2013

Logging the Onset of The Bottleneck Years

This weekly posting is brought to you courtesy of H. E. Taylor. Happy reading, I hope you enjoy this week’s Global Warming news roundup


skip to bottom

Information Overload is Pattern Recognition

April 7, 2013


co2now gfx skeptisci app gfx

 


It’s always nice to start with a chuckle:

Not much good news coming out of Fukushima:

 

 

88 thoughts on “Another Week in the Planetary Crisis, April 7, 2013

  1. Mandas, I criticized a paper for drawing a silly conclusion (for that I did not even need to read the paper) based on the facts that its conclusion flies in the face of many hundreds if not thousands of papers evaluating the effects of radiation on health effects AND the fact that the two authors have been caught doing highly unethical data analysis before. I feel entitled as a scientist to dismiss such reports.

    You, on the other hands, felt entitled to just call me a lobbyist (don’t even try to point to that weasel word “appear”, it was a well considered attempt at deniability, but certainly not plausible).

    P.S. the claim that H.E. Taylor did not endorse the paper is the same lame argument Judith Curry and Anthony Watts often use when they publish a piece of crap.

    Like

  2. freddykaitroll, you wouldn’t know science when it hit you in the face continuously for five years. You’ve already shown that by your own repeated errors and failure to even come close to acknowledging those errors.

    Like

  3. Wow, did you forget your own hopelessly flawed attempts to claim there was a causal link, showing you had even less knowledge than even the most cursory reading of wikipedia could have given you?

    That’s endorsing the paper, supporting its flawed causality claims.

    Like

  4. “Wow, did you forget your own hopelessly flawed attempts to claim there was a causal link,”

    Ah, I see. You’re making shit up.

    I no more forgot that than i forgot my alibi on the assassination of JFK more than a decade before my birth…

    Cs for example is very close in body chemistry terms to Calcium and gets taken into the bones and accumulates there. I don’t know the biological entry for thyroid cancers, but Tritium has a similar bioloical problem in that it gets swapped in for Hydrogen in H2O.

    So where, precisely, is my causation that leads me to “this is a ‘dog bites man’ story” so “hopelessly flawed”????

    Is the answer “only in your head”, Marco?

    Like

  5. “That’s endorsing the paper, supporting its flawed causality claims.”

    That is at least a valid way to assert “endorsing the paper”, but a long way from what you claimed earlier that was my “tell” for supporting the paper: refuting Eamon’s silly statement of ‘it’s statistically flawed’.

    Problem is, your assertion holds no more weight.

    Like

  6. In case you wish proof of where I say your earlier assertion was based on my NOT supporting Eamon’s silly “poor statistical technique” is in post #34:

    “Your continued attempt to dismiss the criticisms”

    Since the criticisms made were solely ones about “they cherry picked!!!!”. Your post #34 gives further proof of this reading.

    Like

  7. Mandas,

    regarding your post, #47, I can see where you are coming from, however, your last sentence in paragraph 2, post #33 is unclear. This:

    “This paper was just one of hundreds in the list, and it would probably have been completely ignored by just about everyone if you hadn’t raised it.”

    Should have read:

    “This paper was just one of hundreds of links in the list, and it would probably have been completely ignored by just about everyone if you hadn’t raised it.”

    Like

  8. Marco #33

    Eamon, I assume you refer to these three:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22993968

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22993969

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22993970

    If you have any full text links (other than at the journal), please do add them. I don’t have access to this journal at my University.

    Yes, those are the ones. I don’t have journal access myself, but the abstracts of the responses to Mangano and Sherman’s papers are pretty damning – especially so as one is by the anti-nuclear stalwart, Dr. Alfred Körblein. Another is from the leukemia expert Dr.Robert Peter Gale, who has a track record of over 800 scientific publications over 41 years.

    Even if we dismiss these criticisms, we have to wonder why no goverment agency or academic body has taken up the “worrying” report. It could be a global conspiracy, or it could be because the Mangano and Sherman paper of 2012 is fatally flawed. I go with the latter, as I know how curious and tenacious scientists can be chasing up phenomena and data which are interesting or novel.

    Like

  9. Marco

    I accept – and have always accepted – that the Mangano and Sherman paper may well be flawed. I have never argued otherwise.

    But – as you admit – you did not read it before embarking on a scathing criticism of the paper and the authors. You accused them – on numerous occasions – of cherry picking the data period, of drawing conclusions which are at odds with existing knowledge, and ignoring alternative explanations for their findings.

    Now that you have read it, you would obviously have noted that you were incorrect with your criticism of temporal period cherry picking. That, by itself, should have given you pause to reconsider both your position on the paper and your reliance on what you read in a non-peer reviewed source as the basis for your criticism. They got it wrong and led you astray – so I have to wonder why you would continue to accept what they have to say on the issue

    The number of times I have criticised deniers for not reading papers, and for using media reports and blog sites as supposed reliable sources is almost too numerous to mention. I should not have to do the same for someone who has a scientific background. For god’s sake – READ THE PRIMARY SOURCE BEFORE CRITICISING.

    Finally, here are a couple of quotes from the paper (which is open access by the way – there is no excuse not to have read it) :

    “There are limitations to the data in this report that call for future actions to address them……..to obtain more precise temporal and geographic data on environmental levels of specific radionuclides in the US after Fukushima, including I-131…….In addition, there are technical changes that may be made to data in this report, such as using a period greater than just 2010 as a baseline; including data on CH cases after 2011; and conversion of trends in cases to rates when official numbers of 2010-2011 live births by state and month become available.

    The data presented in this paper, including both exposure levels and CH incidence, should be considered as

    preliminary. They require confirmation and expansion, including long-term follow-up of infants and other children. However, the current findings should be noted, and encourage the conduct of future analyses of health effects from exposures to Fukushima fallout.

    Understanding why CH rates have risen in developed nations such as the U.S. is a complex task, as multiple factors are likely involved. Exposure to radiation, especially the thyroid-seeking radioiodine isotopes, should be

    considered as one of these factors. The meltdown at Fukushima Dai-ichi presents an opportunity to analyze this

    factor, and studies such as this one should continue.”

    I assume that you have read those sections of the paper – and I have to wonder how that gels with your earlier criticism where you were scathing about “…blindly link(ing) any potential increase to Fukushima…..there is no effort at all to correct for confounding factors…” (post #8).

    So I hope you can understand why I have been critical of your position on this. As I have been saying all along, you may well be correct with regard to some of the problems with this paper. But that does not excuse the ignoring of correct science processes – including reading the bloody thing first.

    Like

  10. But that does not excuse the ignoring of correct science processes – including reading the bloody thing first.

    Not always necessary – seeing how much Sherman and Magnano put out into the media. As for correct scientific processes, reading the abstract is certainly vital, reading the rest of the paper is advisable, save in the case where published comments are available for the paper – comments which show serious flaws in the work we are commenting on. That said, it would still be good to read the paper, which I will in time.

    Like

  11. Sorry Eamon – no.

    You must ALWAYS read the primary source – ie the paper – before commenting. The reason is obvious, as this case demonstrates. Some of the criticisms in the SA blog were simply wrong, and that would have been picked up if you had read the paper first rather than relying on a blog post.

    You see that all the time from deniers – they sprout what they have read on wattsupmybutt and other websiites to criticise what is in a paper, without having read the paper itself. Often the wattsupmybutt comments are second or even third hand as well – based on a media report which is based on a statement by someone not associated with the paper who has read the abstract only.

    I should not need to say this to people who have been trained in the sciences, because it would have been drilled into their heads repeatedly at university. And I will keep saying this over and over again until people get it.

    READ THE PRIMARY DOCUMENT BEFORE COMMENTING. Anything less is not acceptable.

    Like

  12. Sorry Mandas – no.

    As is the case with literature searches, abstract reading is essential, and if more depth is needed a read of the paper is necessary, except in the case of a paper which has had flaws pointed out and published in the paper’s originating journal – in that case it is optional.

    If I am asked to read a paper, for example, that states that “the universe is not expanding, we are shrinking” – I can dismiss it out of hand. A layman, on reading published critiques of the paper can certainly dismiss it. either of us have to read the paper beyond the abstract.

    Like

  13. Well Eamon, it looks as though we disagree.

    You keep on with your approach of relying on others to tell you what your opinion of a paper should be – never minding that a cursory reading of the paper in question would have revealed that their criticisms were wrong.

    I, on the other hand, will actually read the primary document before I put my foot in my mouth in regard to what it supposedly says.

    Like

  14. Mandas, you are being disingenious and mixing things.

    You might want to read the abstract and the introduction as well as the study set-up for the CH study: it is completely built on the premise that the Fukushima radiation causes CH. The “multiple factors” referred to in the discussion refers back to the increase in CH incidence in many countries in the last few decades. It is *not* used as an alternative explanation for the observed claimed increase after Fukushima and one factor is just handwaved away in the discussion (ethnicity).

    I maintain that it is fully acceptable to reject papers written by known ideological hacks that come to conclusions that are at odds with the evaluation of experts in the field.

    Finally, note that several of my comments were related to the earlier mortality increase report. In particular the cherry picking of the time periods is related to those reports. Those criticizing Mangano and Sherman about that *non-peer reviewed* report were correct (although there were even worse issues as the responses to the final paper show).

    It’s like seeing yet another paper by Gerlich & Tscheuschner that the greenhouse effect does not exist and having to evaluate each paper on its own merits, ignoring the prior behavior of these authors.

    Like

  15. Marco

    Then we are simply going to disagree on this issue. I will continue to act as I do – that is, to read the paper in question before I criticise it. And if I use someone else’s critique of a paper, I will appropriately reference them as the source of the critical analysis.

    It is the standard practice of deniers to criticise something without having read it, and to simply parrot what they have read in the denier echo chamber – and I haven’t been able to stop them from acting in that fashion. On that basis, I guess I won’t be able to stop you from acting the same way.

    Cheers

    Like

  16. Mandas

    Well Eamon, it looks as though we disagree.

    Indeed it does.

    You keep on with your approach of relying on others to tell you what your opinion of a paper should be – never minding that a cursory reading of the paper in question would have revealed that their criticisms were wrong.

    And absolute not the point I was making. You assume that everyone will be a beginner when approaching science, that our Sagan “balloney detectors” are non-functional, and that a good overview cannot be obtained save by delving into the guts of a paper. That is not the case, else most PhDs would stall at the beginning literature searches.

    I, on the other hand, will actually read the primary document before I put my foot in my mouth in regard to what it supposedly says.

    And so, I assume, you will disregard resources like “How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic” and Skeptical Science unless you can get access to the papers they mention, and time to read them?

    And how about comprehension? Gerlich and Tscheuschner’s “Falsication Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics”. Is Math-heavy. I have read it, but in all honesty I cannot say I followed it all.

    Does this mean I should just say “They could be right?”

    No. Because from their statements in the abstract they show they have little comprehension of thermodynamics, and make an extraordinary claim, which as Sagan said “requires extraodinary evidence”.

    That evidence was not forthcoming, and the subsequent paper by Eli Rabbet et al showing the flawed reasoning of G&T.

    The same could be said for Shermasn and Magnano. They made an extraordinary claim, provided no extraordinary evidence, and the comments on their paper were damning.

    I did take a quick look at their paper – and find the comments it got were justified. I also note they rate the debunked “Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment” highly. They also attribute a Sudden Infant Death spike in BC to radiation, even though the BC Coroner’s Service attrubutes half to sleeping position, says there is an even distribution of deaths in the province, and that higher birth rates could be a factor.

    Chris Busby’s “Wings of Death over Wales” is also considered relevant, even though his theories, through which he managed to get an inquiry in the Welsh Assembly, were put to rest by the Welsh Stastics Agency. Similar maulings occur in any professional journal Busby manages to get published in, e.g the BMJ.

    And talking of professional journals, why do S&M get published in “International Journal of Health Services”? It’s a very low-rated journal. I would have thought that researchers of S&M’s rank would merit a better journal for their views. This point and others are made in an informative piece here:

    http://www.reportingonhealth.org/blogs/2011/12/20/fukushima-alarmist-claim-obscure-medical-journal-proceed-caution

    The update is also worth following, as the IJHS editor responds and comments on publication and response to comments:

    We do not publish letters to the editors, but when we receive criticisms we believe merit attention, we publish them asking the authors of the original article to reply if they so wish, publishing the exchange in the same issue and let the readers judge. This is how academic debates should be handled.

    So yes, the comments merit attention.

    Now S&M responded to the comments with another paper “FUKUSHIMA UPDATE: RADIOACTIVE FALLOUT

    AND MORTALITY INCREASES IN THE UNITED STATES:

    IS THERE A CORRELATION?”

    I do not have time at present to go through that thoroughly, but I note that their comments on their 12th reference in that paper are completely wrong:

    a recent report found that 573 deaths in 13 municipalities in the evacuation zone have been attributed by officials to radiation exposure from the meltdowns, with dozens more deaths under review (12).

    The article in question is not available, as Japanese Newspapers seldom archive their stories, by the relevant part is available from ENEnews on the internet:

    “A total of 573 deaths have been certified as “disaster-related” by 13 municipalities affected by the crisis at the crippled Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant, according to a Yomiuri Shimbun survey.

    This number could rise because certification for 29 people remains pending while further checks are conducted. […]

    A disaster-related death certificate is issued when a death is not directly caused by a tragedy, but by fatigue or the aggravation of a chronic disease due to the disaster. If a municipality certifies the cause of death is directly associated to a disaster, a condolence grant is paid to the victim’s family. If the person was a breadwinner, 5 million yen is paid. […]

    “During our examination of the applications, we gave emphasis to the conditions at evacuation sites and how they spent their days before they died,” a city government official said. “However, the screening process was difficult in cases when people had stayed in evacuation facilities for an extended time and when there was little evidence of where they had been taking shelter.”

    So, Sherman and Mangano – economical with the truth or poor readers. Either way, does not build confidence in tehir work.

    Like

  17. So, according to mandas Scientific American is “denier echo chamber”…?

    That’s news to me.

    Mandas may also be wise to note that criticisms of Mangano and Sherman frequently come from experts in the field, with the “nuclear industry” or “nuclear power lobbyists” ‘merely’ coming to the same conclusions. It’s like dismissing criticism of Monckton’s nonsense because ‘vested green interests’ are criticizing him.

    Like

  18. Eamon, more scare-mongering of Mangano here:

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/08/15/fukushimas-nuclear-casualties/

    Note that Mangano and Sherman have published several papers in IJHS. It’s not exactly known for its politics-free reporting (it’s not as bad as the Journal of the American Physicians and Surgeons, but not that far off either). Some years ago they got the ire of several large US agencies for their scare-mongering in the Tooth Fairy project, making numerous large claims that were not supported by the data.

    The current stories are no different.

    Like

  19. Problem is, Marco, the nuclear industry refuses (much like the biotech and agribusiness industries do too) to be anything but clandestine.

    The paper you and Eamon whine on about is a dog bites man story.

    Fukushima’s death toll will be almost entirely deaths due to the effects of the fallout. We have absolute evidence from the two bombs at the end of WW2 to show that even when employed AS A BOMB most of the deaths are not from the immediate effects of the explosion.

    “There are no deaths from Fukushima yet” is no different from “This smoker has not died from cancer yet”.

    Like

  20. Indeed the agribusiness industry gives another nail for “The paper used flawed statistics!!!” whine Eamon started with and you picked up and ran with.

    The french study that found cancer rates increased with RR GMO and Roundup use on crops together, and with RR GMOs on its own doing so.

    “It used too few rats!!!”.

    Except it used the same number of rats the Monsato “study” did.

    “It used rats sensitive to cancer chemistry!”

    Yes, the same rats the Monsato “study” used, which are used in ALL such studies for that very reason: makes the test quicker and cheaper.

    What they changed was to do it longer. Which since they used three groups:

    1) No RR GMO or Roundup-contaminated food

    2) Roundup-contaminated food, no RR GMO

    3) RR GMO food and Roundup used on it

    they had the baseline to assert what should be done.

    Also the Monsato study data, as is the case with almost every such study, kept as “commercial in confidence” and unavailable for verification by anyone independent.

    The same routine PM used to “prove” that smoking didn’t cause cancer. When you can give out only those which say what you like, you can keep trying and if your 95% confidence limits are right, after about 20 goes, you’ll get a false negative MERELY BY CHANCE, and with 100% genuine data, no faking required.

    Replication would disprove your paper pretty quickly, but if that happens, obviously you can just scream “BAD STATISTICS!!!!” and a compliant grassroots will defend you.

    Like

  21. Wow, if you admit that the effects are likely not to be visible yet, you implicitly admit that the study by Mangano and Sherman on mortality rates is wrong. Do we really want incorrect articles in the peer-reviewed literature, just because they can be used to create a scare about the nuclear power industry? There are plenty of other studies that DO use proper analysis methods. Only ‘problem’ is that they don’t come even close to the scare that Mangano and Sherman would like to create.

    Regarding the Roundup study…I would not put so much faith in that either, if I were you. Yes, there was some criticism that also applies to the Monsanto study. But Seralini’s “you’re all industry shills or supporters” as a response is a major red flag. His refusal to show the raw data is a red flag, too (“but Monsanto did it too!” – seriously, you want to use that as an excuse?). And if you knew just a little bit about toxicity, you’d put some major questions with the finding that the more GM corn the rats got, the less likely they were to develop cancer. Heck, give them Roundup to drink and they lived longer than those that did not! You fail to see the grassroots on the other side of the fence and to see that that grassroots ‘surprisingly’ does not include many mainstream scientists…

    Like

  22. wow ““There are no deaths from Fukushima yet” is no different from “This smoker has not died from cancer yet”

    I have never heard more bullshit. wow, you are a ideologically mistaken idiot with zero knowledge in natural sciences including medicine.

    you are a psycho by profession, so stay in your esoteric world and spare others with your abimonable and perverse views of reality. ggggrrrrhh

    Like

  23. “Wow, if you admit that the effects are likely not to be visible yet”

    Why would I admit something I haven’t tried to assert? If I haven’t done the sums, I won’t know how likely it is to be, right?

    And you seem unable or unwilling to acknowledge anything that is said that is “off message” for your nuclear fluffing. Did you not see the bit about Phillip Morris being able to wait for a paper that demonstrated valid data “proving” smoking and cancer were unrelated by trying again and again until they got genuine data that genuinely showed what they wanted?

    Apparently not, because that rather blows the “unlikely to have been seen yet” out of the water as a “proof” of the error of the paper: there’s a CHANCE (and even you admit it without admitting you admit it) that it WOULD be seen. I bet you’ll only see part of the paragraph too.

    Why don’t you admit that you jumped the gun and claimed a lot of tosh that turned out to be incorrect? And you’re continuing this malodorous practice too.

    “Do we really want incorrect articles in the peer-reviewed literature”

    No.

    Though this isn’t solved by incorrect rebuttal, is it? Do you want incorrect rebuttal of papers that you don’t like?

    “Only ‘problem’ is that they don’t come even close to the scare that Mangano and Sherman would like to create.”

    Why do you think it is a ‘problem’? I don’t.

    As I’ve continually said, the paper is a dog-bites-man paper and the severity may have meant something to me if I lived in the Pacific North West, but I don’t.

    The *problem* is that those who fanatically defend nuclear power *will not* allow discouraging talk of nuclear and will jump to ANYTHING that will neuter those words, even if that method is as or more flawed than the flaws they are complaining about.

    You and Eamon are not at all concerned about errors, the overriding concern is that nuclear power is not being shown in a good techno-utopian light and the number one priority is to slam the opposing position with whatever is at hand.

    “Regarding the Roundup study…I would not put so much faith in that either, if I were you”

    No, your abilities in advising on this has proven poor so far.

    “Yes, there was some criticism that also applies to the Monsanto study. ”

    Since this study was supposed to be PROOF that the stuff was safe and the default position is that it is not, WHY THE HELL IS IT STILL LEGAL TO USE IT???

    The paper done by Seralini et al was *more* rigorous than Monsato’s. If that paper is too flawed to draw conclusions from then the Monsato submission is worse.

    But that never seems to get through the thick sculls of the idiots pimping the GMO, does it.

    “But Seralini’s “you’re all industry shills or supporters” as a response”

    Except that is YOUR paraphrasing of their response.

    Being a GMO fluffer techno-utopian, you WANT that to be the response so that you can summarily ignore it whilst still pretending to be “rational” about it (unlike EVERYONE who are against GMOs because they’re “ununformed” or “scaremongers”).

    “Heck, give them Roundup to drink and they lived longer than those that did not!”

    Yeah, and since there’s been no warming in the past 16 years, and know about CO2’s warming causation, this proves that the greenhouse effect doesn’t happen!

    But are you saying that Roundup is a health elixir? Please inform us of the causation. Have the alchemists FINALLY found the Elixir of Life???

    Like

  24. wow, you criticize marco with “You and Eamon are not at all concerned about errors, the overriding concern is that nuclear power is not being shown in a good techno-utopian light and the number one priority is to slam the opposing position with whatever is at hand”

    and your position is exactly the opposite: your overriding concern is that nuclear power is not being shiwn in a good-utopian light because you hate nuclear power. Try to be honest for the first time in your life and confess that you hate nuclear power, you coward!

    Like

  25. Wow, you are once again talking out of your behind. There are plenty of studies around that show the risks of radiation (regardless of the source). Those show that the risk of the Fukushima fall out *by necessity* must be limited. The amount of radiation simply is too low to have any measurable impact. There are literally hundreds of cohort studies that show this, and anyone who has spent even a few hours looking at this topic would have known this. I knew. Hence my incredulity with the CH study, and with Eamon’s link (and a bit of further digging) showing me that Mangano and Sherman are a bunch of ideological hacks.

    Regarding Roundup: why should I come with a causation? Seralini did not come with a causation for the GM corn and the increased mortality and cancer rates amongst the rats who got the least (ha!) GM corn of the three groups. It is simple: in the Seralini study spiking the drinking water with Roundup resulted in a lower mortality than the control group.

    It’s quite amazing, but freddy’s reaction appears to be right on the money. The pseudoskeptics referring to the 16-year ‘pause’ as a way to discredit CO2 as a significant forcing is, in fact, EXACTLY the same as what Mangano and Sherman have done: look at short term variations and draw large conclusions.

    Like

  26. Marco, you are once again doing a mandy.

    Great opener, bub (not). “You is a poopyhead!!!”. Way to rebut.

    You see you go from “This is the rebuttal” to “that is why you are a poopyhead”. Progressing FROM the “you’re a poopyhead” rather indicates that you arrived at your poopyhead assertion before any evidence you’re trying to use to prove it.

    In short, you’re being a shithead.

    End of discussion.

    Like

  27. Sometimes it is easier to start with the conclusion. The rest is for those who *can* discern fact from fiction (i.e., not you).

    Like

  28. Wow does not even know what an ad hominem is…unsurprisingly.

    Next he tells me we cannot say someone is wrong, because that’s an “ad hominem”.

    Like

  29. Wow@70

    Fukushima’s death toll will be almost entirely deaths due to the effects of the fallout. We have absolute evidence from the two bombs at the end of WW2 to show that even when employed AS A BOMB most of the deaths are not from the immediate effects of the explosion.

    The US-Japanese Radiation Effects Research Foundation gives between 150,000 to 246,000 acute deaths in Hiroshima and Nagasaki (i.e. within 2 to 4 months of the blasts, from the immediate effects of the blast)

    http://www.rerf.or.jp/general/qa_e/qa1.html

    The RERF gives the total number of radiation-attributable cancers as about 1990 cases.

    http://www.rerf.or.jp/general/qa_e/qa2.html

    “There are no deaths from Fukushima yet” is no different from “This smoker has not died from cancer yet”.

    Do you have some data that counters this?

    Like

  30. Wow@71

    If you look at my reply to Manada@67, you’ll see that Sharman and Magnano badly misrepresent what their references say, which is not only a good indicator of their honesty/reading ability, but also a good indicator as to the quality of their research.

    Like

  31. Yes I do, Marco.

    (yeah, you started it)

    PS not the only ones to “misrepresent what the references say”, really.

    “It *had* to be four weeks!!!”

    “Oh, eh, ten weeks”.

    Like

  32. Wow, you are wrong again. It’s becoming a real pattern (nope, still not an ad hominem).

    Mangano and Sherman used, in their counterpunch article, 4 weeks prior and 10 weeks after. In their final published paper they compared 14 weeks periods in 2010 and 2011. So, where do you get your apparent delusions that someone had to admit it wasn’t 4 weeks, but actually 10 weeks?

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s