Bioelectromagnetics

You can find the Stiller, Quinn et al., 2004 data at

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/Children/downloads/child_cancer.pdf

where Table 3a shows the age standardised incidence between 1971 and 1999 for the main types of childhood cancers. The mortality figures mercifully show declines as a result of improved treatments and earlier diganosis, but that is not the issue here.

Perhaps some of those who disputed my claim about this would now retract their rude comments?
 
Originally posted by cogreslab
Liz Ainsbury gave a useful overview of the relative importance of circular polarisation, and made the same point as I did that this implicated the electric component as a bioeffector, since linear polarisation has a much lower current density.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Prag responded: Pseudoscientific nonsense, as usual. Polarization of what? And how can the state of polarization have anything to do with current density? How can that "implicate the electric component"? Don't you ever learn that you can't fool people on here with this kind of rubbish?


Praggers, why do not you take a look at Kato's 1993 paper in Bioelectromagnetics 14, 97-106 instead making of these wild and unsupported accusations, which serve only to impress those who foolishly trust you.?
 
cogreslab said:
I posted: "Also the issue of whether ELF fields can penetrate the body: tbis is now generally also accepted",

Hans replied: "Not electrical fields. You know, the laws of physics have not changed lately, so you are either misunderstanding, misrepresenting, or lying".


It is very important to get this straightened out, Hans. As I understand it, conceding myself not to be a physicist, an ELF alternating current-carrying wire will be attended by electric and magnetic fields detectable outside its physical material. (Let us for now leave out the issue of what happens when the wire is "live" but not supplying a current). The magnetic fields will induce electric fields in its vicinity, and since the human body is transparent to magnetic fields there will be currents induced inside the body, which themselves give rise to electric fields. In my posts I have abbreviated this effect to saying simply that RF/MW and ELF electric fields can penetrate the body. One way or another there can exist electric fields inside the body as a result of a nearby current carrying wire.

The well recognised concept of SAR reflects the level of internal electric fields engendered as per above by some external source, multiplied by the conductivity of the tissue, and then divided by the permittivity of the tissue.

I do not think that is wrong, nor that I am lying.
Click to expand...

You said it yourself. The MAGNETIC fields will induce electric currents. So it is the MAGNETIC component that comprises the most significant external component in exposure. Which is what the NRPB and everyone else is saying and which you have been denying.

There is also a vast difference between electric fields at ELF and RF/MW. The electric fields at ELF frequencies are very unlikely to penetrate below the skin, because the skin is a conductor and acts like a Faraday cage for the body. At RF, the skin effect also comes into play and causes currents to be confined to surfaces of bodies.

When a current (induced by MAGNETIC fields) flows in tissue at ELF (the tissue is highly conductive at ELF), then there will be a small electric potential across the tissue itself as a result of that current. But this potential will be absolutely microscopic in most cases and not even worth mentioning.

As for SAR the calculation is simply the amount of power absorbed by a certain mass of tissue. It is measured in watts per kilogram. So there are effectively two separate calculations wrapped up in that equation, one for the total power, and the other for the mass of tissue in a given standard volume (i.e. 1 cc of tissue).

As I have already described, the power can be calculated in several different ways. One way is to multiply voltage by current, i.e.:

P = I * V

Another is to multiply the square of current by the resistance:

P = I<sup>2</sup> * R

Another still is to divide the square of voltage by the resistance:

P = V<sup>2</sup>/R

In the case of the traditional SAR they just choose the last one. Since conductivity = 1/R, then the equation becomes:

P = V<sup>2</sup> * conductivity

And then they just substitute E field for V (since it's effectively the same thing) to give:

P = E<sup>2</sup> * conductivity

Once they have the power, they just need to work out the mass of tissue in the standard sample of 1cc. Which is simply the density in grams per cc. They then divide the power by this to get the SAR:

SAR = (E<sup>2</sup> * conductivity)/density

But I could just as easily use one of the other equations to do the same thing without implying any electric field at all, for example:

SAR = I<sup>2</sup> / (conductivity * density)

Of course "resistance" above is not really just resistance in real tissue, it's IMPEDANCE which is a complex quantity. And conductivity in SAR calculations is the inverse of impedance not resistance. But the same principle holds, since the units of resistance and impedance are the same.

In any event, SAR is NOT power "divided by the permittivity of the tissue" as you claim. You are wrong.
 
cogreslab said:
Originally posted by cogreslab
Prag responded: Pseudoscientific nonsense, as usual. Polarization of what? And how can the state of polarization have anything to do with current density? How can that "implicate the electric component"? Don't you ever learn that you can't fool people on here with this kind of rubbish?


Praggers, why do not you take a look at Kato's 1993 paper in Bioelectromagnetics 14, 97-106 instead making of these wild and unsupported accusations, which serve only to impress those who foolishly trust you.?
Click to expand...

It's your claim, YOU prove it! You have made arguments based on the claim about "polarized magnetic fields" (and I don't know if the latest claim above refers to "polarized magnetic fields" since you didn't say what it refers to).

Regarding Kato:

The argument is real simple. Either you know precisely what a "polarized magnetic field" IS, or you don't. If you do, then explain it. So far you haven't been able to. You simply copied someone else's work about polarized ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVES, which has nothing to do with pure MAGNETIC FIELDS.

And if you DON'T know, then we have the proof that you have been BS'ing once again, don't we?

Regarding Ainsbury:

Was Ainsbury referring to "polarized magnetic fields" - or something else? You didn't say. Hence my question, which I repeat, "Polarization of WHAT?"

And following on from that are the questions, "How can the state of polarization (of anything) have anything to do with current density?"

and... "How can that "implicate" the electric component?

These are YOUR claims. If you can't explain what they refer to, then you are simply bullsh*tting are you not?
 
"You said it yourself. The MAGNETIC fields will induce electric currents. So it is the MAGNETIC component that comprises the most significant external component in exposure. Which is what the NRPB and everyone else is saying and which you have been denying".
Prag: you have to distinguish between the physical means by which the two components of the wave arise inside the body (which is what you have been concerned with, and where I have not denied the physics of induction) and which of these two components are affecting life processes. Electric fields can be induced or arise from contact currents or perhaps even from some other means, and imho it is the electric component which is the bioactive parameter, not the magnetic.

Do you yet see the difference between what I am saying and what you allege I am saying?

Btw, Rolfe, I am not a "Board member" of IoB South Wales, but a Committee member, and have been for some years. I suggest that if you have concerns about my membership you should write to the Chairman of the IoB S. Wales Committee and express them.
 
cogreslab said:
"You said it yourself. The MAGNETIC fields will induce electric currents. So it is the MAGNETIC component that comprises the most significant external component in exposure. Which is what the NRPB and everyone else is saying and which you have been denying".
Prag: you have to distinguish between the physical means by which the two components of the wave arise inside the body (which is what you have been concerned with, and where I have not denied the physics of induction) and which of these two components are affecting life processes. Electric fields can be induced or arise from contact currents or perhaps even from some other means, and imho it is the electric component which is the bioactive parameter, not the magnetic.

Do you yet see the difference between what I am saying and what you allege I am saying?
Click to expand...

Oh, I see the difference all right. I see a complete reversal from what you have been claiming all along. It's no good wriggling around trying to change the definition of what you MEANT by "electric field" before - what you said and meant before was both explicit and obvious from the context.

You did NOT say, "the MAGNETIC component from power lines induces electric fields in the body". You said, "the ELECTRIC field from power lines has direct penetration of the body". If you had meant what you NOW claim before, then why were you going about measuring the ELECTRIC field in children's bedrooms and telling us that the NRPB's measurement of the MAGNETIC fields were irrelevant?

Let me take you back to your (in)famous "kettle lead experiment", where you said:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&action=showpost&postid=1870461817

The magnetic field readings demonstrate that there is no identifiable magnetic field around the lead when the kettle is not under load other than the fields ambient in the room, whereas there is an evident ELF electric field present in all cases except when the lead is physically detached from the mains supply.

......

This small study supports the assertion of WHO (see their website) that electric fields are present in cables attached to the mains even when their associated appliances are not under load. The implications for these findings is that future epidemiological studies should take the measured ELF electric field into account when assessing potential health hazard.

Now that most certainly does NOT claim that the magnetic field induces a "hazardous" electric field, because you were explicitly denying that there WAS any magnetic field! But you still concluded that the electric field was potentially hazardous!

And then of course we have your assertion that there is no relation between electric and magnetic fields at ELF frequencies, remember? By the way I'm still waiting for you to explain how a mains transformer works if this is true. But NOW you are trying to convince us that all along you have been talking about the RELATED electric field that is caused by a magnetic field...????!

Come off it!

And all that aside there is the question of whether the electric field, induced or otherwise is the bioactive component. The problem with that is that pure electric fields on their own don't DO anything. It's when they cause CURRENT to flow that they may actually have some physical effect.

For example, the mere existence of gravity (which is a potential like an electric field) doesn't cause any hazard. It's when you actually fall off something under the influence of gravity and get accelerated by it (like a current) that the problems occur. Like they say, it's not the fall that kills you, it's the splat when you reach the ground that's the problem!

So your contention (NOW) is that magnetic fields induce currents which cause electric fields which....uh....do WHAT precisely? Cause currents....? But that is the SAME current that caused the alleged field! Wonderful example of circular logic!
 
First let me apologise for accidentally using the word permittivity when of course Prag is quite right to correct me : it is the physical density which is the divisor in SAR calculations. I expect Bouncer will now crow about this ad nauseam (sic).

However the point I was trying to make (and continue to make) is that the electric fields either induced or produced via contact currents are what causes the biological damage at less than thermal levels, and not the internal magnetic component, which is largely the same inside the body as outside.

Induced currents and their associated electric fields are part of that interior environment. But the ambient electric fields also have an impact, (and with contact currents especially if the skin is not dry, as it often is when e.g. touching a watertap or bathing). A good rule of thumb I beleive is that the internal electric field (on which SAR is based) is around one third of the ambient external field. The argument that induced fields are many orders of magnitude less is not tenable in the world of the cell membrane and its exquisite sensitivity to ion movement.

Because there is no fixed relatiion between the electric and magnetic components at ELF frequencies it is therefore important to take into consideration the ambient electric field and not just the magnetic component when investigating internal electric fields derived from the exterior.

However, what has happened is that there have been umpteen epi studies of the ELF magnetic field either measured or historically calculated, or using wire codes, but with no accompanying agreed mechanism(s) to strengthen the argument for causality, whereas there are plenty of mechanisms derived from electric field effects, but no decent epi studies to derive causality.

Given the persistent strength (16 out of 18 studies were positive)of an association between e.g. childhood leukaemia and exposure to ELF EM fields, it must surely be logical to develop good quality measured E-field epi studies. That way we could have both the epi evidecne and the mechanism(s) in support.

My contention is that the utilities have deliberately avoided doing this, by e.g. offering EPRI designed EMDEX instruments which lack E-field probes, by avoiding electric field studies in the laboratory, and as John Swanson has just demonstrated, by pointing the argument towards a search for a magnetic field metric.

My 1996 (peer review published) pilot study reporting nigh five fold OR association between childhood cancer and ELF electric field exposure upset the applecart, and led to curiously vigorous denials, witness the entire paragraph devoted to it in a recent NRPB document.

One might be tempted say that the UKCCCR study measured ELF electric fields but found nothing. But the only data reported were of diurnal spot measurements which are unrepresentative of nocturnal bedplace exposures, or 48 hours time weighted averages which are equally unrepresentative since they dilute the results to one third of nocturnal bedplace exposures. The bedplace is the exposure condition of most importance. Studies with portable worn probes are not representative either, since they too do not reflect the electric component adequately.

It is obvious that the present guidelines are clearly not protective even for magnetic fields: a persistent threshold of elevated cancer incidence at 0.4uT is not protected by a guideline which begins at 100uT. As for the electric component both the former USSR studies, the McGill occupatinal studies, and my own report all point to elevated incidence at less than 100 V/m ELF. Other countries are already beginning to lower their PELS towards that figure.

Against that background as a way of drawing attention to the anomaly, I mounted my Coghill Challenge. In my eyes the NRPB are, as it were, encouraging people to think that jumping out of a ten storey window is safe, and as a result of their flawed advice kids are getting leukaemia at ever increasing rates (Stiller, 2004). I am saying to the NRPB and the utilities (but not to the public) OK you now prove that by jumping out of a first floor window (i.e. expose someone to a 100V/m field when your guideline is 10,000V/m). Some of you might think my stance is abhorrent, but it is in no way so abhorrent as knowing there is an elevation at 0.4uT (or 20V/m for that matter) yet refusing to tell the public the truth on the grounds that there is no mechanism to explain the facts, just through commercial pressure. MY challenge has harmed no one: their wilful inaction has led to hundreds if not thousands of family tragedies over the last decade in the UK alone.

When smoking was first identified with increased cancer risk there were no mechanisms in place at that time either: we have good epi data showing elevated cancer incidence at 0.4uT so why delay in reducing the thresholds to biological demonstrable limits until there is a consensus over mechanisms?
 
cogreslab said:
I posted: "Also the issue of whether ELF fields can penetrate the body: tbis is now generally also accepted",

Hans replied: "Not electrical fields. You know, the laws of physics have not changed lately, so you are either misunderstanding, misrepresenting, or lying".


It is very important to get this straightened out, Hans. As I understand it, conceding myself not to be a physicist, an ELF alternating current-carrying wire will be attended by electric and magnetic fields detectable outside its physical material. (Let us for now leave out the issue of what happens when the wire is "live" but not supplying a current).

Why do we need to leave out the central point in your argumentation? Have you realized that it is moot? Well, OK, fine!.

The magnetic fields will induce electric fields in its vicinity, and since the human body is transparent to magnetic fields there will be currents induced inside the body,

Yes, yes. As we have been saying all along.

which themselves give rise to electric fields.

That is not penetrating. The fields wil lstil lbe poutside the body.

In my posts I have abbreviated this effect to saying simply that RF/MW and ELF electric fields can penetrate the body. One way or another there can exist electric fields inside the body as a result of a nearby current carrying wire.

NO, there cannot.

The well recognised concept of SAR reflects the level of internal electric fields engendered as per above by some external source, multiplied by the conductivity of the tissue, and then divided by the permittivity of the tissue.

Whaaat? The only interpretation I can find of that sentence is incorrect. And, for the umpteenth time: THERE ARE NO INTERNAL ELECTRICAL FIELDS! If you cannot understand it, try to learn it by heart.

I do not think that is wrong, nor that I am lying.

It is wrong, but I'm willing to assume that you are just terribly ignorant, and thus not lying, which implies intent.
Click to expand...

Hans
 
"1.5kV is not a measure of a field. Fields are measured in V/m, remember?"

The text regarding the Bilgin Elcin study should have read 1.5V/m, just to clear that point up. Sorry. The subjects were 24 Sprague Dawley male adult rats. The authors concluded:

"The present study demonstrates that various rat tissues are affected by 50Hz electrical field exposure".

The work was partly carried out at the Tissue Engineering and Biomaterials Laboratory of Ankara University, and partly at the Dept of Biophysics of Adna Menderes University.

This is only one of hundreds of such studies, Tai Chi.
 
Hans said:

"THERE ARE NO INTERNAL ELECTRICAL FIELDS! If you cannot understand it, try to learn it by heart".

Well, what is your evidence for the absence of internal electric fields as a result of external E-field exposure at ELF frequencies, and how do you explain the results described in my last post?

If you cannot, perhaps Prag or even Bouncer might?
 
A word about incidence of cancer.

There is a difference between the number of diagnosed cases and the incidence of cancer as illustrated by this example:

Case 1
Year 0 : 0 cases (incidence 0)
Year 1: 1 new case (incidence 1)
Year 2: 1 new case, 1 fatality (incidence 1)
Year 3: 1 new case, 1 fatality (incidence 1)

Case 2
Year 0 : 0 cases (incidence 0)
Year 1: 1 new case (incidence 1)
Year 2: 1 new case, 0 fatality (incidence 2)
Year 3: 1 new case, 0 fatality (incidence 3)

There are 2 things which determine incidence of a disease, the number of new cases diagnosed and the number of people with the disease who aren't dead. In you look at the graphs in the it's not clear what the rete for new diagnoses is, but it is clear that the survival rate is greater and so a greater proportion of cases are survuving to be counted in subsequent years.
 
cogreslab said:
My previous post reminded me that there was a new study reported at the WHO Istanbul conference (Saito, Kabuto et al., from Japan's National Research Institute for child health and development).

An association between electric appliances such as hair dryers and TV watching and childhood leukaemia was found in this all-Japan 1439 patient study. The authors concluded:

"A significant association was found between childhood leukaemia and the use of some electric appliances during the conception of the child and the use by the child. However, apparent dose-response relationship was not found."

As usual they used EMDEX probes, so I doubt whther they captured the electric component, and this may be why they found no dose response.

Anyway, this is further strong support for my argument.
Click to expand...
How is it support of your argument? You argue that serious dangers are being overlooked (or deliberately ignored) because electric fields are not taken into account. How does the abovementioned study support that?

Hans
 
cogreslab said:
*snip*
Prag: you have to distinguish between the physical means by which the two components of the wave arise inside the body

We are not talking about waves. We are talking about ELF. AN ELF wave is several thousand kilometers long, it does not arise inside a human body.

(which is what you have been concerned with, and where I have not denied the physics of induction) and which of these two components are affecting life processes. Electric fields can be induced or arise from contact currents or perhaps even from some other means, and imho it is the electric component which is the bioactive parameter, not the magnetic.

Nonsense and smoke-screening. NOBODY (and that includes you) has been talking about contact current so far, and it is entirely IRRELEVANT for the discussion at hand. Electric fields are not induced. Electric currents are induced.

Do you yet see the difference between what I am saying and what you allege I am saying?

What we allege you are saying is that you don't know the first thing about the subject you are trying to be authoritative about. You have just confirmed this, yet again.

*snip*
Click to expand...

Hans
 
cogreslab said:
Dr Tracy Lightfoot from York Univ. a geneticist confirmed that no human leukaemia virus has ever been found.
Click to expand...

As has already been pointed out the Virus HTLV is associated with leukeamia.

http://virology-online.com/viruses/HTLV.htm

cogreslab said:
Since DNA repair is carried out by enzymes it was interesting to learn of several studies where the effect of non-thermal EMF has been to inhibit enzyme activity.
Click to expand...

But cogreslab you don't think the cancer is caused by DNA damage. Reversaposition!!!!
 
cogreslab said:
First let me apologise for accidentally using the word permittivity when of course Prag is quite right to correct me : it is the physical density which is the divisor in SAR calculations. I expect Bouncer will now crow about this ad nauseam (sic).

Density? Density as in grams/cubic centimetre? What density? What are you talking about?

However the point I was trying to make (and continue to make) is that the electric fields either induced or produced via contact currents are what causes the biological damage at less than thermal levels, and not the internal magnetic component, which is largely the same inside the body as outside.

No, that is not the point you have been trying to make. The point you have been trying to make has all along been that EXPOSURE to electrical FIELDS caused damage. No talk about contact current, no talk about induction. You are just trying to smoke-screen the fact that your previous argumentation has been atomized.

Induced currents and their associated electric fields are part of that interior environment.

Yes they are (albeit without fields, which cannot exist in a conductive medium), but that is the thing you have been arguing against.

But the ambient electric fields also have an impact, (and with contact currents especially if the skin is not dry, as it often is when e.g. touching a watertap or bathing).

External electrical fields may cause currents to flow in the body, quite correct, Roger. And this is what I asked you about very clearly a couple of dozen pages back in this thread: Is that the mechanism you are postulating to be the cause of damage? You answered "No, I do not think that is the only mechanism" (if you deny this, I shall take the trouble to find the post and cite it). Now, when all your other avenues have been closed to you, you suddenly come full circle and dig up that old thing again.

However, it is easy to show that these currents are very small compared to those arising from the electromagnetic field, which is probably the reason serious reserchers have chosen to ignore them.

No, it does not matter if the skin is moist or not. The impedance of the coupling from electric fields is so high, that the range of skin resistance (~100-10,000 ohms) is unimportant.

A good rule of thumb I beleive is that the internal electric field (on which SAR is based) is around one third of the ambient external field.

There is no internal field (the reason I sound like a broken record here is because you insist on repeating this error). So it is not a good rume of thumb, it is a good measure of your total lack of understanding.

The argument that induced fields are many orders of magnitude less is not tenable in the world of the cell membrane and its exquisite sensitivity to ion movement.

Ehhh? And this follows from, what??

Because there is no fixed relatiion between the electric and magnetic components at ELF frequencies it is therefore important to take into consideration the ambient electric field and not just the magnetic component when investigating internal electric fields derived from the exterior.

Good, Roger! You are getting close to the record of our long-absent friend Franko. You are now contradicting yourself within the same post (Franko could do it in 4 words, so you have a bit to go yet ;)). Just a little above of here, you attributed the effect to induction from the magnetic field. Now, you are back to the independent field stuff, which we scredded long ago. We can go over it again, but,.... are you SURE you wanna do that?

However, what has happened is that there have been umpteen epi studies of the ELF magnetic field either measured or historically calculated, or using wire codes, but with no accompanying agreed mechanism(s) to strengthen the argument for causality, whereas there are plenty of mechanisms derived from electric field effects, but no decent epi studies to derive causality.

And these plentiful mechanisms are? (no you have not mentioned one plausible one yet).

Given the persistent strength (16 out of 18 studies were positive)of an association between e.g. childhood leukaemia and exposure to ELF EM fields, it must surely be logical to develop good quality measured E-field epi studies. That way we could have both the epi evidecne and the mechanism(s) in support.

ELF EM fields? That would be including the magnetic field, right??

My contention is that the utilities have deliberately avoided doing this, by e.g. offering EPRI designed EMDEX instruments which lack E-field probes, by avoiding electric field studies in the laboratory, and as John Swanson has just demonstrated, by pointing the argument towards a search for a magnetic field metric.

Yes, Roger. It has sort of occurred to us that this is your contention. Unfortunately, after hundreds of posts, you have still failed to give a plausible explanation for it.8/b]

My 1996 (peer review published) pilot study reporting nigh five fold OR association between childhood cancer and ELF electric field exposure upset the applecart, and led to curiously vigorous denials, witness the entire paragraph devoted to it in a recent NRPB document.

Do you want us to go over your 1996 study and its many flaws again? Are you SURE you wanna do that??

One might be tempted say that the UKCCCR study measured ELF electric fields but found nothing. *snipped, long paste-in of Rogers old tirade, of allegations and conclusins based on his unfounded theory * Anyone who likes to go over that again can read the first dozen or two pages in this thread :rolleyes: stowards that figure.

Against that *snipped, long paste-in of Rogers lame and illogical defense of his immoral and unethical "Coghill Challenge" *

I expect this issue will be dealt with extensively elsewhere, soon.

When smoking was first identified with increased cancer risk there were no mechanisms in place at that time either: we have good epi data showing elevated cancer incidence at 0.4uT so why delay in reducing the thresholds to biological demonstrable limits until there is a consensus over mechanisms?

Back to the magnetic field (uT is a measure of magnetism) :rolleyes:. Do you know what you are talking about at all, or are you just trashing around blindly?
Click to expand...


Hans
 
cogreslab said:
Hans said:

"THERE ARE NO INTERNAL ELECTRICAL FIELDS! If you cannot understand it, try to learn it by heart".

Well, what is your evidence for the absence of internal electric fields as a result of external E-field exposure at ELF frequencies, and how do you explain the results described in my last post?

What results? Anyhow, it is not my duty to disprove your theory, it is your duty to prove it. And, so far, you have failed.

If you cannot, perhaps Prag or even Bouncer might?
Click to expand...
The body is a conductive medium. Inside a conductive medium there are no elctric fields because all parts of the conductive medium is at aproximately the same potential. Faraday cage effect. This is basic physics, and I am not obliged to rehash basic physics for you. As a scientist (and you DO consider yourself a scientist, don't you?) you are under obligation to aquire basic knowledge of the field you work in.

Note that I said "approximately same potential" above. The body is not a perfect conductor, so outside influences that cause currents to flow in the body will also give rise to small potentials. So will various electrochemical processes in the body. It is possible to argue that minute electrical fields exist in connection with this, but you cannot argue that they have an effect; they are caused by the currents, so they don't cause currents. A bit like the fact that an electric eel does not get a chock from its own discharges.

Hans
 
Prester John said:
cogreslab said:


As has already been pointed out the Virus HTLV is associated with leukeamia.

http://virology-online.com/viruses/HTLV.htm

cogreslab said:


But cogreslab you don't think the cancer is caused by DNA damage. Reversaposition!!!!
Click to expand...
As I pointed out a while ago, Roger has now put out so much nonsense that he is bound to begin contradicting himself.

Keep digging, Roger ;).

Hans
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom