| Author |
 Topic  |
|
julian
Forum Admin
United Kingdom
2834 Posts |
 Posted - 28 Nov 2009 : 18:30:34
|
While laid off from work (very tedious) I've been doing some reading and found a great book in the library that gives a very solid explanation of what is happening and more importantly why - and it has nothing to do with CO2.
The basic premise is that the atmosphere is like a giant bubble chamber (for those that remember their physics lessons at school) with cloud formation being driven by high energy sub-atomic particles (radiation). The variations in cloud cover at critical altitudes driving changes in temperature trends, these in turn being driven by cosmic radiation (the hard stuff from exploding stars) and limited by the magnetosphere on our planet and sun.
If you want some ammunition in the ongoing verbal combat with the greenies (and the government) then the book is very worth reading. It's called "Chilling Stars - a new theory of climate change", written by Henrik Svensmark and Nigel Calder. (ISBN 978-1840468-15-1)
It's a couple of years old so not necessarily the very latest information but definitely readible and more importantly understandable. |
1998 Seicento 600M - extreme version
2000 Ford Explorer LPG'd up but well and truely f****d
1978 Replica Icsunonove w/Uno Turbo power (250bhp+ and 600kg)
2009 Abarth 500 |
|
|
sumplug
Moderator
United Kingdom
5112 Posts |
Posted - 28 Nov 2009 : 19:13:22
|
Yes. Our carbon footprints has nothing to do with global warming.
Over the centuries, the exact thing has been happening. And each century, the Ozone Layer starts to break up, then repair itself. Currentlly, it is back to normal again [a fact the greens blatently leave out in their scare tactics scenarios].
If it was down to CO2, then why didn't the Ozone layer disappear, when the Great Industrial Revolution started, and so called harmful gasses were being belched out World Wide until late last Century?
The best bit I leave to last.
The Greens are harking on about the planet warming up. Yet recent figures released, said the last decade was actually slightly cooler then the previous one!!
Andy.
|
Fiat Coupe 20vt
Audi A6 Avant 4.2 Sport LPG
??? Wait and see!!
|
 |
|
|
Roasty
Net Member
United Kingdom
256 Posts |
Posted - 29 Nov 2009 : 09:07:58
|
Andy, global warming hasn't got a great deal to do with the Ozone layer really most of the Ozone stories during the 80s were all about skin cancer because the main effect of the Ozone layer is to filter out UV ray hence the hole in the ozone layer stories. Global warming in theory is caused by increased levels of certain gases trapping more heat energy. Yes ozone is one of them but a relatively minor one and depletion of the ozone layer means less energy trapped but that seems to have been contributed to CFCs which have been all but erradicated.
CO2 is not the only gas but is hit upon because of it being a significant by-product of combustion of fossil fuels. Water Vapour is actually the most significant greenhouse gas and methane is pretty significant too much is much more potent because it has he ability to absorb more energy.
Personally i don't particularly doubt that humans are having an impact on the climate and our huge emmissions of greenhouse gases is probably a big factor in climate change. Yes geologically there have been huge fluctuations in global temperatures from ice ages to hot hot periods however the rate of global temperature increase seems to be quite significant over the past 100 years since humans have contributed significant volumes of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Whether in the long term we really need to worry about it I don't know.
What does concern me is the fact that governments have jumped all over the greens ideas and turned them into tax opportunities, I think more thoughtful living in terms of consumption and waste is a good idea we have and do live quite a wasteful lifestyle in the uk just look at the whole thing around cars, lets scrap perfectly good cars and make people buy new ones. Great so ok some of the cars being scrapped aren't the cleanest but ultimately CO2 is directly linked to fuel economy which has hardly changes for years, they might chuck out less noxious gases that are bad for your health but they still pump out the same CO2. By scrapping perfectly good cars you then got to recycle the old cars (landfilling the bits you can't) which uses energy, you've got to get the raw materials for the new one probably by digging them out the ground and then expend large amounts of energy making a new shiny model - hardly green is it.
As for this book, without knowing anything about it sounds like some alternative theory stuff, you've got to take everything with a pinch of salt from the established climate change ideas to any sort of counter arguement. Ultimately it's always pretty easy to play data into whatever you want it to say and make it fit your ideas. |
Edited by - Roasty on 29 Nov 2009 09:11:14 |
|
|
|
julian
Forum Admin
United Kingdom
2834 Posts |
Posted - 29 Nov 2009 : 11:45:59
|
It isn't a new theory - just one that many established climatologists and governments have been keen to keep quiet. It also goes some way to explaining the ozone "holes" as well since much of the theory is tied to magnetism and the earth's magnetic field is currently in major decline and where are the magnetic poles and largest changes in magnetic flux? Right where the ozone holes appeared. I've no doubt that certain manufactured chemicals had a part to play in it but those holes healed up far faster than the chemists predicted and no way did it show any correlation to the arrest in the use of those same chemicals - especially given how long they were supposed to stay active in the atmosphere...
The bit about water vapour is really where the book is going but not just the presence of vapour - it has to be condensed and more importantly at the right altitude, the warming effect comes from the relatively low altitude cloud (the stuff you see blanketing the landscape from an aeroplane).
CO2 may still be having an influence but not on the scale the climatologists are claiming and that cannot go any way to explain previous periods of warming and cooling (there are plenty of examples of things being *much* warmer than they are now and we aren't talking millions of years ago either). There is a very real danger from the release of methane trapped in the polar ice as there is an awful lot in there - it would be better to burn it and convert it into CO2 and water vapour than let it escape into the atmosphere but getting it out safely is a logistical nightmare.
The basis of everything I've been reading though is explaining how clouds form in the first place - none (and I do mean *none*) of the climate models in use today or previously can explain why clouds form in the first place. It is the primary reason why weather forecasts are only really good to about 3 days ahead. You model the movement of existing clouds and general thermal loadings and hence predict cloud cover, rainfall and ambient temperature but they just can't predict where and when clouds will form in the first place. The key is in those high school experiments illustrating the interaction between low energy radiation (alpha particles) in those bubble chambers I mentioned. Each particle leaves a streak of condensation behind it as it loses energy though impacts with the gases in the chamber. The big clouds that form are not coming from alpha or beta radiation hitting the atmosphere from space - it is the really high energy stuff, the kind of thing that the egg heads at CERN have been toying with for the last few decades. When one of these "rays" hits the atmosphere it starts a cascade of collisions, the primary particles are travelling at nearly the speed of light and carry absolutely immense energy - for the relativity cognicenti among you that also means they are carrying immense mass (for their size). Each collision results in multiple lower energy particles being emitted, the conservation of energy and mass means that by the time these particles are travelling at slow enough speeds to really interact there are lots of them and they are at relatively low altitude - which just happens to be where the clouds we are interested in are forming...
The important bit is proving it and you can trace the relatively energetic periods in the atmosphere through heavy oxygen and that can be retrieved from the ice cores taken from the polar ice. The correlation is firm and well recognised as it is used to map variations in the formation of C13 - the radio isotope used in carbon dating. |
1998 Seicento 600M - extreme version
2000 Ford Explorer LPG'd up but well and truely f****d
1978 Replica Icsunonove w/Uno Turbo power (250bhp+ and 600kg)
2009 Abarth 500 |
|
|
|
sumplug
Moderator
United Kingdom
5112 Posts |
Posted - 29 Nov 2009 : 12:01:42
|
Yes, these climate models do not show what the Biomass does. This is where the key lays. Biomass is the link to carbon, which is the whole life of our planet. Is there enough carbon being produced, to offset carbon dioxide? Further research needs to be done on our oceans, clouds, the dust, the chemistry, and the biology of fields and farms and forests. I still think human's contribution is negliable.
Andy. |
Fiat Coupe 20vt
Audi A6 Avant 4.2 Sport LPG
??? Wait and see!!
|
|
|
|
fostertom
Net Member
United Kingdom
505 Posts |
Posted - 29 Nov 2009 : 12:05:02
|
| Julian, you realise your language and approach is mirror-image identical with your despised 'greenies'? You decide in advance, as humans do, for god knows what murky unconscious reasons, what you want to believe, and then go around selecting evidence to support your 'ongoing verbal combat' with the enemy. As Roasty says, but more politely, in his last para! |
|
|
|
julian
Forum Admin
United Kingdom
2834 Posts |
Posted - 29 Nov 2009 : 16:45:52
|
| I do realise this - of course I do, the difference is (I hope) is that 1) I'm not being paid by the government to say this, and 2) I actually did some research first rather that just spouting what I've been told by a faceless pseudo-scientist... |
1998 Seicento 600M - extreme version
2000 Ford Explorer LPG'd up but well and truely f****d
1978 Replica Icsunonove w/Uno Turbo power (250bhp+ and 600kg)
2009 Abarth 500 |
|
|
|
parrish
Moderator
United Kingdom
592 Posts |
Posted - 22 Dec 2009 : 02:58:51
|
Carbon foot prints:
Cutting back on any emmisons has to be a good thing, but do you honestly think that the UK is going to make that much difference!!
Populations:
China = 1,334,820,000
India = 1,174,150,000
UK = 61,634,599
UK population is less than 2.5% of the two largest developing nations, If we could cut 10% of our UK carbon footprint, it aint going to make any difference to the global situation not until all the world is all pulling in the same direction, and that simply isnt going to happen as developing countries dont want their hands tied to having to abide with rules and regulations on emisions that are going to stump the growth of thier country.
I know whats comming next: we have to start somewhere! i agree, so lets start with the rich countries? will be the reply! OK GDP (Wipedia)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita
list of countries shows China as being in the top 22% of richest countries, India for reasons i dont understand appears not to have a GDP!! What can we read into that?
What im trying to say is that those countries that can make a difference (if change is needed) are simply not interested or not able to.
Steve |
Cars and bikes owned:
1983 Fiat 131,
1997 BMW Z3,
1984 XR3i,
2007 Fiesta Ghia,
2007 Harley Sportster (for sale)
2007 Sport KA
Plus three Grandchildren!
Looking for a Ferrari. |
Edited by - parrish on 22 Dec 2009 02:59:51 |
|
|
|
julian
Forum Admin
United Kingdom
2834 Posts |
Posted - 22 Dec 2009 : 10:09:25
|
The irony is that, despite being developing industrial nations with little regard to emissions the likes of China and India still only add a tenth of the carbon emissions that a typical european country does, UK being the worst offending of that group using easily twice as much as the nearest rival but we pale in comparison with the USA which outscales our emissions many times over.
If carbon dioxide is the key ingredient in global warming then China and India need to do their part but nowhere near as much as we do and they needn't bother when compared with the USA but it is the USA that is offloading their carbon budget on other countries so that they don't have to do anything, instead we suffer as the govenment picks on the soft underbelly of our society. It suits the general victim mentality of the nation that we should undergo such self-flagellation in order to satisfy our collective guilty consciencies without the realisation that it is just pissing in the wind. The next step will be pricing basic energy supplies out of the reach of the masses so we can't afford to heat our homes or run the 100" plasma TVs that everyone is getting this christmas (I exagerate of course, its more like 60").
So much for clean nuclear fuel too - all the nimbys put paid to that one despite the fact that it is still a remarkably safe supplier of our needs (even with two significant disasters). Chemical (fossil fuel) power sources aren't going away (what signal does that give to the common people?) and will continue to belch forth huge volumes of the accused culprit. Environmental sources are too unreliable and insignificant so we prepare to downgrade instead while the rest of the world continues to upgrade their energy requirements.
An interesting question is why is it that we use such huge amounts of energy for heating alone - the energy bill in scandanavian countries is suprisingly small, most of it comes down to how they build their homes and recycle waste heat. A typical modern home there doesn't really need heating, just the waste body heat from the occupants is enough to keep the house cosy. They've been building houses like that for a very long time - timber frame with vapor barriers and excellent insulation but we can't do that here because everyone knows that timber frame houses fall down (which is why all of the oldest houses in the country are timber frame) so we continue to build porous brick and block with make-do insulation and rely on gas and electricity to keep us warm.
Sorry - rant over |
1998 Seicento 600M - extreme version
2000 Ford Explorer LPG'd up but well and truely f****d
1978 Replica Icsunonove w/Uno Turbo power (250bhp+ and 600kg)
2009 Abarth 500 |
|
|
|
sumplug
Moderator
United Kingdom
5112 Posts |
Posted - 22 Dec 2009 : 11:37:45
|
Did you know, that plant life thrives on Carbon Dioxide. The more there is, the more plant life. That is a fact.
Slowly, the truth about all these climate studies is coming out. Selective and massaged figures. Vastly reduced Russian Weather Station Data.
I still believe the Earth goes through a natural warming and cooling down process. The historic evidence backing this theory, is vast!!
Andy. |
Fiat Coupe 20vt
Audi A6 Avant 4.2 Sport LPG
??? Wait and see!!
|
|
|
|
fostertom
Net Member
United Kingdom
505 Posts |
Posted - 22 Dec 2009 : 20:07:36
|
quote:
Originally posted by julian
we suffer as the govenment picks on the soft underbelly of our society ... The next step will be pricing basic energy supplies out of the reach of the masses
Is 'the government' in control of energy price? It's a big mistake to think that 'our' politicians can save us from the £400 tank-full.
After 6 decades holding level in real terms, fuel price rose steadily @ 32% pa from 2002-7, went crazy for 1.5yrs, now (still in recession) right back on the resumed curve. Will it decline from now on? No. Will it hold level? No. The only question what rate will it rise. Compound 32% pa for say 8yrs - what do you get? What do we hope will save e.g. our motoring habits from 10-fold rise?
quote:
Originally posted by julian
A typical modern home there (Scandinavia) doesn't really need heating, just the waste body heat from the occupants is enough to keep the house cosy
Not quite - body heat helps, so does cooking/lighting/computers etc (tho contributing less as technology does more with less). If no heating fuel's being burnt, that means the loss is being supplied by solar heat absorbtion and storage. As will be compulsory on English housebuilders by 2016, Wales 2013, Eire 2011, already near-complusory in Germany.
Don't worry, the national building stock (new and existing) will respond to crippling fuel price and stop using fuel at all for heating, over the next 15yrs, returning (as was till 150yrs ago) to reliance on solar heat. That's 40% of energy demand gone, so no need for nukes.
What though about the transport sector? And the IC engine in particular? Remember we're looking for another 40% demand reduction, on top of buildings' 40%. It'd be interesting to hear what this forum plans to do about that. |
|
|
|
julian
Forum Admin
United Kingdom
2834 Posts |
Posted - 23 Dec 2009 : 10:39:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by fostertom
quote:
Originally posted by julian
we suffer as the govenment picks on the soft underbelly of our society ... The next step will be pricing basic energy supplies out of the reach of the masses
Is 'the government' in control of energy price? It's a big mistake to think that 'our' politicians can save us from the £400 tank-full.
Save us? They have no intention of saving us, it would suit them very much to see fuel costing such astronomic prices. Less personal movement means voting consituencies can be effectively locked down and controlled.
quote:
Originally posted by fostertom
After 6 decades holding level in real terms, fuel price rose steadily @ 32% pa from 2002-7, went crazy for 1.5yrs, now (still in recession) right back on the resumed curve. Will it decline from now on? No. Will it hold level? No. The only question what rate will it rise. Compound 32% pa for say 8yrs - what do you get? What do we hope will save e.g. our motoring habits from 10-fold rise?
quote:
Originally posted by julian
A typical modern home there (Scandinavia) doesn't really need heating, just the waste body heat from the occupants is enough to keep the house cosy
Not quite - body heat helps, so does cooking/lighting/computers etc (tho contributing less as technology does more with less). If no heating fuel's being burnt, that means the loss is being supplied by solar heat absorbtion and storage. As will be compulsory on English housebuilders by 2016, Wales 2013, Eire 2011, already near-complusory in Germany.
Don't worry, the national building stock (new and existing) will respond to crippling fuel price and stop using fuel at all for heating, over the next 15yrs, returning (as was till 150yrs ago) to reliance on solar heat. That's 40% of energy demand gone, so no need for nukes.
What though about the transport sector? And the IC engine in particular? Remember we're looking for another 40% demand reduction, on top of buildings' 40%. It'd be interesting to hear what this forum plans to do about that.
I've been envolved on the sidelines of the building industry for pretty much all my life. While I've seen how the building of houses has improved in the last 30 years in terms of insulation and heating dependencies and I can tell you that it is a long, long way from what can be achieved or even could have been achieved. The basic construction methods are fundamentally flawed in this respect - only specialist built-to-spec houses have used the technology that is available and no more expensive (in many cases cheaper) than the methods and technologies commonly used. The primary reason for this is a massive reluctance on the part of the british building industry in general to adopt anything different. The big construction companies won't use them because the average british home buyer wants a house built with traditional brick and block methods because they "know" they are better.
Believing that older buildings (even those built in the last fifteen years) can be converted to the level of insulation needed to reduce heating bills by the amount required is a little misguided. You can improve anything but the cost starts to become considerable, to the point where it is cheaper to knock the houses down and rebuild. Houses from the war era (30s and 40s) are exceptionally hard to convert due to solid walls and someones bright idea that a skin of rendering will keep the damp and cold out. It is true that an external render will reduce the level of damp coming through the walls but not enough. Modern materials can help but a typical 3 bed semi detached house costs something in the region of £30,000 to convert to those modern materials if you don't do it yourself and funnily enough the suppliers don't like to sell to the diy market. In the towns and cities an immense number of houses fall into this category simply because this is what was built in a hurry after the war to meet emergency housing requirements and they carried on building like this because it was quick and cheap. Even into the 60s and 70s you have only marginal improvements in methods. |
1998 Seicento 600M - extreme version
2000 Ford Explorer LPG'd up but well and truely f****d
1978 Replica Icsunonove w/Uno Turbo power (250bhp+ and 600kg)
2009 Abarth 500 |
|
|
|
sumplug
Moderator
United Kingdom
5112 Posts |
Posted - 23 Dec 2009 : 16:41:13
|
One of the biggest problems with House building, was after the war, the lack of housing. Like You say Julian, cheap ways were used. For example, non-solid floors. Then in the 70's, the wooden frame, and brick way. But all these houses lacked loft insulation. Now, its all the rage to insulate with several inches of glass fibre. But most people forget, not only should the loft floor be insulated, but also the inside of the roof.
Evidence of poor roof insulation, is how quick the snow melts of the roof.
Simply drawing the curtains, can have a dramatic effect on a rooms efficiency.
Boilers are much much more efficient then years ago. The best are around 80% efficient, compared to less then 50% a few years ago.
But we as consumers of power, are using more then ever. Look around the average home, and the amount of electrical gadgets we possess! Why solar panals are not more used in house building has amazed me for years. Contrary to popular believe, they do not need constant sun, and people that use them and use water catch tanks, have saved a lot of money yearly. Usually, the cost of installation, has paid for itself, within 15 years or so.
The IC engine needs to really evolve. Using it as a pump and running it on water is one idea. I would like to see more plastics within the engine. Indeed, a whole plastic engine, with low-none friction. Very small lubrication and coolant. Direct drive [no belts or chains] and no camshft[s]. And a much more efficient fuel to power it.
Ceramics are already used in the Truck industry in engines, so lets see this technologhy transfered to the Car Engine.
Eventually, a whole car made of plastic can be built, which is 100% recyclable. With some of the modern plastics, this is very achievable.
Last. Who owns the patent to the panal moulding using High Density Polyethlene [plastic used to make Milk bottles] ? Well its Chrysler!!! So Fiat, could be a world leader here!!!
Andy. |
Fiat Coupe 20vt
Audi A6 Avant 4.2 Sport LPG
??? Wait and see!!
|
|
|
|
fostertom
Net Member
United Kingdom
505 Posts |
Posted - 31 Dec 2009 : 01:02:08
|
quote:
Originally posted by julianBelieving that older buildings can be converted to the level of insulation needed to reduce heating bills by the amount required is a little misguided. You can improve anything but the cost starts to become considerable
but the future cost of not doing so will be very much worse, or put it another way, the investment in doing so (over the next 5yrs) will pay off increasingly well.
Actually, it's only secondarily about insulation, as that implies merely reduced heating bills - not good enough. The essential is to get rid of fuelled heating bills altogether, and that requires super-insulation, yes, but only in order to reduce the nett heat loss to a level where stored solar heat can cope. Collection of solar heat is not the limiting factor - it's how much can be stored, and for how long and still be useful. As techniques for the latter continue to evolve, we'll be able to relax a bit on the insulation (and airtightness).
quote:
Originally posted by julian.... to the point where it is cheaper to knock the houses down and rebuild. Houses from the war era (30s and 40s) are exceptionally hard to convert due to solid walls
No need to rebuild - older houses uprate very well, often more effectively than new ones. Massiveness is a vital factor in heat storage, and old buildings often have lots of that. Solid walls are also an asset - in fact cavity walls will in future have their cavities filled with massive material, if they haven't been misguidedly filled with half-measure insulation.
quote:
Originally posted by juliana typical 3 bed semi detached house costs something in the region of £30,000 to convert to those modern materials if you don't do it yourself and funnily enough the suppliers don't like to sell to the diy market
External Wall Insulation prices are coming crashing down - lots of skilled guys out in the marketplace now, and franchised suppliers keen to supply-only, with advice and on-site supervision freely given. |
Edited by - fostertom on 31 Dec 2009 01:04:20 |
|
|
|
julian
Forum Admin
United Kingdom
2834 Posts |
Posted - 31 Dec 2009 : 13:10:40
|
Air-tight is actually bad - especially on certain terrain as radon gas can collect with pretty nasty long-term consequences. All buildings need to be able to breath in this respect if only to dispose of accumulated water vapour.
No argument at all on the need to invest in insulation - the costs still get very high. The carrot on the end of the pointy stick is the rising cost of fuel but there is a huge gap in the population between those who get such things for free and those who can afford it out of their own funds - the rest are fighting to pay their existing bills and keep their houses in good order to start with. Round where I am the roofers are doing very well as the original roofs are starting to get to the point where they need serious work. The roofs are only 70-80 years old but the tiles are disintegrating and cannot be replaced piecemeal as they haven't been made in decades. You can still get recovered tiles but they don't last long as they are the same age and suffering the same problems of exposure to the elements - they also cost a lot in comparison to new tiles to the point where it can be cheaper to have the whole roof replaced instead of just repairing. The new roofs going up are stronger, more watertight and longer lasting plus the backing felt is so much better than the old felt but no matter how you look at it, the cost is big.
I can't comment on any decrease in external wall insulation, the cost has mostly been labour but it is a skilled job, as evidenced by the fact that even with "experts" it can take a couple of attempts to get it to stick properly. If done improperly it traps water in the walls resulting in rotten cement and bricks and freezing cold walls, come the next bit of freezing weather it all starts to fall apart.
The solid walls may well be an advantage but only if they are kept dry, if you can't keep them dry then any insulation effect is immediately lost and they actually act to siphon heat out faster. The same goes for window frames, modern UPVC may not be particualarly esthetically pleasing but it works, timber and metal frames both act to siphon heat out and worse still timber has to have room to expand and contract resulting in air gaps over time and if the water gets in it just rots no matter how good the timber is. There are all sorts of improvements in the designs of such things constantly being added to the already long list of features intended to distinguish one brand from another of course but it just shows how relatively poor a 10 year instalation is compared with the latest ones.
I know I sound all doom and gloom, that isn't the point I'm trying to get across. The point is that as always the building industry is full of cowboys trying to make money out of you with the latest quick-fix - it takes some real planning and careful decision making to get any house upgraded properly. The building industry generally doesn't work that way though and is very quick to fill the needs of anyone misguided in their choices. It is never cheap to do this sort of work. |
1998 Seicento 600M - extreme version
2000 Ford Explorer LPG'd up but well and truely f****d
1978 Replica Icsunonove w/Uno Turbo power (250bhp+ and 600kg)
2009 Abarth 500 |
|
|
|
fostertom
Net Member
United Kingdom
505 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jan 2010 : 23:07:06
|
| Airtightness is essential, because once insulation is good, accidental airchange becomes the largest remaining cause of heat loss. An average non-airtight building will suffer 2-5 accidental airchanges per hour in any kind of a breeze. That's all the air sucked out and replaced with cold outside air every 12-30mins, which has to be heated from scratch for its short spell in the building, before being thrown away again. An airtight building can get down to 0.5 accidental airchange per hour. Airtightness goes hand in glove with 24/7 heat-recovery controlled ventilation, which can recover 80% of the heat from the air outgoing from bathrooms, kitchens etc, and pass that heat into the incoming fresh air to living rooms, bedrooms etc. That way, all the toxic pollutants that we today live in - from artificial carpets, MDF/chipboard and many other common materials - as well as radon - are continually removed. The universal verdict - far from the 'sealed box stuffiness' that the ignorant assume - is mountain-freshness. It's usually a popular feature, especially effective in reducing allergic/asthmatic symptoms. |
Edited by - fostertom on 05 Jan 2010 23:09:28 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Off topic-ish - global warming again
