REVscene - Vancouver Automotive Forum


Welcome to the REVscene Automotive Forum forums.

Registration is Free!You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today! The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.


Go Back   REVscene Automotive Forum > Automotive Chat > Vancouver Off-Topic / Current Events

Vancouver Off-Topic / Current Events The off-topic forum for Vancouver, funnies, non-auto centered discussions, WORK SAFE. While the rules are more relaxed here, there are still rules. Please refer to sticky thread in this forum.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 04-16-2011, 03:41 PM   #1
F**K YOUR HEAD
 
ilvtofu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: vancouver
Posts: 8,693
Thanked 7,968 Times in 1,234 Posts
Why Fukushima made me stop worrying and love nuclear power

Quote:
You will not be surprised to hear that the events in Japan have changed my view of nuclear power. You will be surprised to hear how they have changed it. As a result of the disaster at Fukushima, I am no longer nuclear-neutral. I now support the technology.

A crappy old plant with inadequate safety features was hit by a monster earthquake and a vast tsunami. The electricity supply failed, knocking out the cooling system. The reactors began to explode and melt down. The disaster exposed a familiar legacy of poor design and corner-cutting. Yet, as far as we know, no one has yet received a lethal dose of radiation.

Some greens have wildly exaggerated the dangers of radioactive pollution. For a clearer view, look at the graphic published by xkcd.com. It shows that the average total dose from the Three Mile Island disaster for someone living within 10 miles of the plant was one 625th of the maximum yearly amount permitted for US radiation workers. This, in turn, is half of the lowest one-year dose clearly linked to an increased cancer risk, which, in its turn, is one 80th of an invariably fatal exposure. I'm not proposing complacency here. I am proposing perspective.

If other forms of energy production caused no damage, these impacts would weigh more heavily. But energy is like medicine: if there are no side-effects, the chances are that it doesn't work.

Like most greens, I favour a major expansion of renewables. I can also sympathise with the complaints of their opponents. It's not just the onshore windfarms that bother people, but also the new grid connections (pylons and power lines). As the proportion of renewable electricity on the grid rises, more pumped storage will be needed to keep the lights on. That means reservoirs on mountains: they aren't popular, either.

The impacts and costs of renewables rise with the proportion of power they supply, as the need for storage and redundancy increases. It may well be the case (I have yet to see a comparative study) that up to a certain grid penetration 50% or 70%, perhaps? renewables have smaller carbon impacts than nuclear, while beyond that point, nuclear has smaller impacts than renewables.

Like others, I have called for renewable power to be used both to replace the electricity produced by fossil fuel and to expand the total supply, displacing the oil used for transport and the gas used for heating fuel. Are we also to demand that it replaces current nuclear capacity? The more work we expect renewables to do, the greater the impact on the landscape will be, and the tougher the task of public persuasion.

But expanding the grid to connect people and industry to rich, distant sources of ambient energy is also rejected by most of the greens who complained about the blog post I wrote last week in which I argued that nuclear remains safer than coal. What they want, they tell me, is something quite different: we should power down and produce our energy locally. Some have even called for the abandonment of the grid. Their bucolic vision sounds lovely, until you read the small print.

At high latitudes like ours, most small-scale ambient power production is a dead loss. Generating solar power in the UK involves a spectacular waste of scarce resources. It's hopelessly inefficient and poorly matched to the pattern of demand. Wind power in populated areas is largely worthless. This is partly because we have built our settlements in sheltered places; partly because turbulence caused by the buildings interferes with the airflow and chews up the mechanism. Micro-hydropower might work for a farmhouse in Wales, but it's not much use in Birmingham.

And how do we drive our textile mills, brick kilns, blast furnaces and electric railways not to mention advanced industrial processes? Rooftop solar panels? The moment you consider the demands of the whole economy is the moment at which you fall out of love with local energy production. A national (or, better still, international) grid is the essential prerequisite for a largely renewable energy supply.

Some greens go even further: why waste renewable resources by turning them into electricity? Why not use them to provide energy directly? To answer this question, look at what happened in Britain before the industrial revolution.

The damming and weiring of British rivers for watermills was small-scale, renewable, picturesque and devastating. By blocking the rivers and silting up the spawning beds, they helped bring to an end the gigantic runs of migratory fish that were once among our great natural spectacles and which fed much of Britain wiping out sturgeon, lampreys and shad, as well as most sea trout and salmon.

Traction was intimately linked with starvation. The more land that was set aside for feeding draft animals for industry and transport, the less was available for feeding humans. It was the 17th-century equivalent of today's biofuels crisis. The same applied to heating fuel. As EA Wrigley points out in his book Energy and the English Industrial Revolution, the 11m tonnes of coal mined in England in 1800 produced as much energy as 11m acres of woodland (one third of the land surface) would have generated.

Before coal became widely available, wood was used not just for heating homes but also for industrial processes: if half the land surface of Britain had been covered with woodland, Wrigley shows, we could have made 1.25m tonnes of bar iron a year (a fraction of current consumption) and nothing else. Even with a much lower population than today's, manufactured goods in the land-based economy were the preserve of the elite. Deep green energy production decentralised, based on the products of the land is far more damaging to humanity than nuclear meltdown.

But the energy source to which most economies will revert if they shut down their nuclear plants is not wood, water, wind or sun, but fossil fuel. On every measure (climate change, mining impact, local pollution, industrial injury and death, even radioactive discharges) coal is 100 times worse than nuclear power. Thanks to the expansion of shale gas production, the impacts of natural gas are catching up fast.

Yes, I still loathe the liars who run the nuclear industry. Yes, I would prefer to see the entire sector shut down, if there were harmless alternatives. But there are no ideal solutions. Every energy technology carries a cost; so does the absence of energy technologies. Atomic energy has just been subjected to one of the harshest of possible tests, and the impact on people and the planet has been small. The crisis at Fukushima has converted me to the cause of nuclear power.
Sauce

Thoughts? Personally I've always preferred nuclear to coal but interested to hear opinions on whether this columnist's cost-benefit analysis makes sense. I recommend taking a look at some of the comments in the link as some commenters have some very valid arguments to make, only if you're interested in the subject of course.
Advertisement
__________________
Miata
Fiesta
Feedback

FOR SALE
Miata Shock Tower Brace
ilvtofu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2011, 03:55 PM   #2
Banned By Establishment
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Shaugnessy
Posts: 2,610
Thanked 480 Times in 167 Posts
the #1 problem is where do you put the waste? this article fails to address that important issue. no one wants it in their country because once you put it in the ground, you can't touch that ground "forever". any living thing that touches it is fucked. there are running costs of disposing the waste: there has to be security measures to ensure no one can acquire the waste (think terrorists). lastly, if the disposal container leaks then the waste could spread (eg, if theres an underground fault, radiation will be carried to sea where it fucks with our ecosystem).

there have been thoughts about launching the waste into space but the risk is if the shuttle blows up in our atmosphere then its chernobyl^10

personally i dont believe in global warming or conserving the environment but this article is just stupid. it makes it seem like there's a dilemma between energy types. the fact is, if a region requires nuclear power it will get it. if you can use a sustainable resource for energy, you will use it. sustainable energy resources likely have cheaper costs overall than nuclear power (prove me wrong)

Last edited by BNR32_Coupe; 04-16-2011 at 04:01 PM.
BNR32_Coupe is offline   Reply With Quote
This post thanked by:
Old 04-16-2011, 04:13 PM   #3
F**K YOUR HEAD
 
ilvtofu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: vancouver
Posts: 8,693
Thanked 7,968 Times in 1,234 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by BNR32_Coupe View Post
the #1 problem is where do you put the waste? this article fails to address that important issue. no one wants it in their country because once you put it in the ground, you can't touch that ground "forever". any living thing that touches it is fucked. there are running costs of disposing the waste: there has to be security measures to ensure no one can acquire the waste (think terrorists). lastly, if the disposal container leaks then the waste could spread (eg, if theres an underground fault, radiation will be carried to sea where it fucks with our ecosystem).

there have been thoughts about launching the waste into space but the risk is if the shuttle blows up in our atmosphere then its chernobyl^10

personally i dont believe in global warming or conserving the environment but this article is just stupid. it makes it seem like there's a dilemma between energy types. the fact is, if a region requires nuclear power it will get it. if you can use a sustainable resource for energy, you will use it. sustainable energy resources likely have cheaper costs overall than nuclear power (prove me wrong)
Completely agree with you, I think what the columnist is trying to put off is that, so far it doesn't seem so bad (what happened at fukushima) but he published the article less than 2 weeks after the earthquake lol. Not sure about costs economically/environmentally linked to sustainable energy resources, and it likely varies region to region significantly
__________________
Miata
Fiesta
Feedback

FOR SALE
Miata Shock Tower Brace
ilvtofu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2011, 04:56 PM   #4
I don't get it
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: vancouver
Posts: 422
Thanked 259 Times in 88 Posts
The waste isn't as big a problem as you think. The major obstacle to nuclear power is public perception and big oil companies.

Look what happened to the electric car.
darkfroggy is offline   Reply With Quote
This post FAILED by:
Old 04-16-2011, 05:37 PM   #5
I answer every Emotion with an emoticon
 
Nightwalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Van Isle
Posts: 7,653
Thanked 443 Times in 188 Posts
I think the alternatives will leapfrog in effectiveness (technology) before nuclear makes a comeback.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by MajinHurricane View Post
who would ban me? lol. Look at my post count.
Nightwalker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2011, 05:45 PM   #6
reads most threads with his pants around his ankles, especially in the Forced Induction forum.
 
Mr.HappySilp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 9,547
Thanked 1,665 Times in 847 Posts
Let's go back to caveman Time!
Mr.HappySilp is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2011, 07:59 PM   #7
The Lone Wanderator
 
Graeme S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Burnaby
Posts: 12,089
Thanked 4,367 Times in 1,137 Posts
The issue of nuclear waste would be less of a big deal if people were less obstructionist.

There is a giant nuclear waste facility located in Nevada, far from any fault lines or ground water. The estimated life of the facility is (I believe) 10,000 years. And yet, people still feel that it is too unsafe. For an interesting and easy to watch anti-anti-nuclear point of view, I recommend watching Penn & Teller's Bullshit! Episode covering nuclear power.
Posted via RS Mobile
Graeme S is offline   Reply With Quote
This post thanked by:
Old 04-16-2011, 10:39 PM   #8
My homepage has been set to RS
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Edmonton, AB
Posts: 2,451
Thanked 186 Times in 80 Posts
Because the devastation of disposing of nuclear waste is greater than drilling for oil...
__________________
Quote:
Originally posted by CRS
I would make a comment in regards to your intelligence but I don't think that you would appreciate the full mockery of that comment.

In other words..

I would love to insult you but you wouldn't understand.
TekDragon is offline   Reply With Quote
This post FAILED by:
Old 04-16-2011, 10:58 PM   #9
resident Oil Guru
 
LiquidTurbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 7,716
Thanked 10,457 Times in 1,794 Posts
Place waste in barrels, concrete up, dump it into the ocean
LiquidTurbo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2011, 11:11 PM   #10
I WANT MY 10 YEARS BACK FROM RS.net!
 
Soundy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Abbotstan
Posts: 20,730
Thanked 12,144 Times in 3,366 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by TekDragon View Post
Because the devastation of disposing of nuclear waste is greater than drilling for oil...
DRILLING for oil isn't the damaging part... the by-products of burning it are.

And that's the author's point: EVERY form of energy generation we have has issues - whether dangerous, damaging, wasteful, inefficient, or impractical.

When you weigh in all the factors, beginning to end of the cycle, nuclear ranks among the top two or three in most energy output with least impact.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Godzira View Post
Does anyone know how many to a signature?
..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brianrietta View Post
Not a sebberry post goes by where I don't frown and think to myself "so..?"
Soundy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2011, 12:57 AM   #11
WOAH! i think Vtec just kicked in!
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,687
Thanked 730 Times in 294 Posts
^ another point is that it's relatively more stable/sustainable too. I rather have nuclear than Rely on Middle eastern oil, at least until better and cheaper alternatives become available.

I personally think it's a great source of power as long as safety and construction standards are implemented.

The plants that went down in Japan are older most of us here on Revscene. Technology and standards have increased exponentially since then.
iEatClams is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2011, 01:24 AM   #12
The Lone Wanderator
 
Graeme S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Burnaby
Posts: 12,089
Thanked 4,367 Times in 1,137 Posts

The basics of what I was talking about before. The full episode is just as good, but this is the essence of it. This one has details on Yucca Mountain. Winsauce!
Graeme S is offline   Reply With Quote
This post thanked by:
Old 04-17-2011, 02:22 AM   #13
Even when im right, revscene.net is still right!
 
Mr.C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Richmond
Posts: 1,323
Thanked 1,696 Times in 424 Posts
I like coal. I also like Fusion, but that's only going to be available in 2050 if I'm not mistaken.
Mr.C is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2011, 03:24 AM   #14
I *heart* Revscene.net very Muchie
 
adambomb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Noitacol
Posts: 3,841
Thanked 642 Times in 230 Posts
Put nuclear waste in rocket. Fire rocket at Sun.



__________________
...
adambomb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2011, 06:21 AM   #15
I keep RS good
 
Ulic Qel-Droma's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Cosmos
Posts: 28,361
Thanked 5,348 Times in 1,408 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by adambomb View Post
Put nuclear waste in rocket. Fire rocket at Sun.



they would, if the chances of the rocket blowing up and deadly nuclear waste raining death down upon millions wasnt so great.

i tell ya, if they ever get that space elevator up and running, we'd pollute space like no tomorrow. lol!
__________________
nipples neways...wat is with those fuck'n asians! i mean you would think they've never seen a dentist in their life. are dentists really that rare over there in ricey ricey and? looks like they're star trek ferrengi rejects! fuck'n have broken glass for teeth! goddaymn! and the smell....did a rat crawl in there and shit itself then marinate in its own shit as it decayed?ewwwwwwwwww! i swear...if one of those ferrengi asian girls gave head...when u pull the dick out it looks like it went thru a meat grinder! prolly shaved off a few slices of meat! *shudder*
Greebo i t-boned some guy and killed their baby, it was funny
silvia i have a couple asian guy friends that do very well with the ladies. but guess what, they go to the gym, they dont have long hair, they dont wear orange pants, and they dont play counterstrike. its not the ethnicity that the girls dont like, its the style and personality.
450HP Supra I am about to use your eye sockets as a shoe rack for my nuts. ...something about chinks, j-bodys, I can't quite remember as I was drunk and looking for a girl to punch in the clit. Think of it as a digital urinal, and you are the mint, except, instead of actually smelling mint, you smell like mothballs, rotten kimchee and virginity. I'm about to start drinking heavily now and you better be gone before I get back or I swear to god I will break the internet over my knee and use the pieces to beat you in the deformed skull with, cock muffler.
Iceman-19 If your gf cooks and cleans, good, tell the guy to take a fucking hike. If she doesnt, fuck, that joker can have her. Lifes too short to cook your own meals and do your own laundry, thats what women are for!
http://ho316.tumblr.com
Ulic Qel-Droma is offline   Reply With Quote
This post thanked by:
Old 04-17-2011, 07:14 AM   #16
Rs has made me the woman i am today!
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,353
Thanked 1,794 Times in 823 Posts
Even though we have made our consumption of energy more efficient, our overall consumption continues to increase. The demand for power won't decrease, so something has to give. (I personally do believe in the impact that fossil fuels are having on the climate.)

Nuclear is going to be in our future, whether we like it or not.
Tapioca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2011, 07:14 AM   #17
RS.net, helping ugly ppl have sex since 2001
 
hk20000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Richmond
Posts: 8,637
Thanked 1,356 Times in 508 Posts
those plants should just sit somewhere offshore so that in case of meltdown like Fukushima there won't be massive loss of land use which translates to economic productivity of the area.

unless, of course, the meltdown follows the ocean everywhere lol.

So perhaps put it somewhere not near any human habitants??
__________________
⇐ If I bothered replying, that's the face I made while I typed.

hk20000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2011, 08:22 AM   #18
I WANT MY 10 YEARS BACK FROM RS.net!
 
Soundy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Abbotstan
Posts: 20,730
Thanked 12,144 Times in 3,366 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.C View Post
I like coal. I also like Fusion, but that's only going to be available in 2050 if I'm not mistaken.
Fusion would be ideal, because it produces a *lot* of energy with practically no harmful radiation and no harmful wastes... but it takes a LOT of energy input to produce a fusion reaction in the first place (a fusion bomb actually uses a small fission bomb to start the fusion reaction - that's where most of their radiation comes from) and so far, it's a lot harder to control and harness that reaction.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Godzira View Post
Does anyone know how many to a signature?
..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brianrietta View Post
Not a sebberry post goes by where I don't frown and think to myself "so..?"
Soundy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2011, 08:41 AM   #19
Banned (ABWS)
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Richmond
Posts: 5,138
Thanked 2,215 Times in 509 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by hk20000 View Post
those plants should just sit somewhere offshore so that in case of meltdown like Fukushima there won't be massive loss of land use which translates to economic productivity of the area.

unless, of course, the meltdown follows the ocean everywhere lol.

So perhaps put it somewhere not near any human habitants??
except there's an obvious tradeoff you're not considering

the further energy has to travel, the higher the costs of transporting it and the more of it is generally lost
illicitstylz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2011, 12:01 PM   #20
RS.net, helping ugly ppl have sex since 2001
 
hk20000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Richmond
Posts: 8,637
Thanked 1,356 Times in 508 Posts
but electricity just travels over wires.... if the energy is as cheap as they make it out to be, it is probably not a bad tradeoff...

surely private power companies will think otherwise coz they are penny pinching bastards.
__________________
⇐ If I bothered replying, that's the face I made while I typed.

hk20000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2011, 12:36 PM   #21
Captain Happy Bubble is my Homeboy
 
Hurricane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: BC
Posts: 312
Thanked 263 Times in 100 Posts
Putting the Nuclear waste underground in the desert or prairies until they have developed the synthetic microbes to eat it and turn it into harmless byproduct in 20-50-100 years would be no problem whatsoever. It just so happens the environmentalists would like everyone to think otherwise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tapioca View Post
Even though we have made our consumption of energy more efficient, our overall consumption continues to increase. The demand for power won't decrease, so something has to give. (I personally do believe in the impact that fossil fuels are having on the climate.)

Nuclear is going to be in our future, whether we like it or not.
Believe in it? It's not religion, it's science.

Granted science which is in it's relative infancy, and hence the reason people can even conjure up arguments akin to faith about it.

I love how people are still talking about the water level rising to what amounts to absolutely nothing, when in fact we do know there were forests in Antarctica and ice covering all of Canada and the Northern US not too long ago.

It's natural; and if there is anything significant to discuss about human induced climate change, we haven't found it yet. Scientists are working hard everyday on doing so, so let them do their jobs and focus on something more 'relevant.'
Hurricane is offline   Reply With Quote
This post thanked by:
Old 04-17-2011, 01:29 PM   #22
My AFC gave me an ABS CEL code of LOL while at WOT!
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: burnaby
Posts: 1,871
Thanked 471 Times in 151 Posts
i have no idea if this is the case, but
"no one has died from _____"
usually means fuck all coming from a government agency.

because the next line is usually something like
"granted, cancer rates and other crazy diseases seem to occur 100000% more, but those folks died from complications due to their cancer/disease, not radiation"
__________________
Feedback 24-0-0
Hot Karl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2011, 01:46 PM   #23
The Lone Wanderator
 
Graeme S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Burnaby
Posts: 12,089
Thanked 4,367 Times in 1,137 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hot Karl View Post
i have no idea if this is the case, but
"no one has died from _____"
usually means fuck all coming from a government agency.

because the next line is usually something like
"granted, cancer rates and other crazy diseases seem to occur 100000% more, but those folks died from complications due to their cancer/disease, not radiation"
Sadly, like hurricane has mentioned, science often takes a long time to figure stuff out because correlation and causation are two very different things. There was a study done once on hot dog consumption. Turns out people who consume a certain number of hot dogs within a week are more likely to have health problems, cancers and whatnot.

Now, is this because hotdogs cause cancers? Or is it because the people who have to eat hot dogs due to financial constraints are more likely to lead less healthy lives in things like diet and health practices? Who knows. All we know is these two are correlated. The nuclear stuff is exactly the same. I'd take nuclear power over coal any day. Luckily, I live in BC for now. So I don't need to worry about either thanks to our abundance of hydroelectricity.
Posted via RS Mobile
Graeme S is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2011, 05:26 PM   #24
I contribute to threads in the offtopic forum
 
Hehe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: YVR/TPE
Posts: 2,954
Thanked 1,385 Times in 576 Posts
IMO, most green energy support never think deep enough before supporting it.

Going extreme (doesn't matter renewable or nuclear) has very little benefit to us human, the planet and the eco system as a whole.

And the truth is, we as human waste much resources because we can't plan adequately and are afraid of big changes.

It comes down to efficiency for the task that one tries to achieve. For areas who are interested in heavy industries or energy consuming industries, I'd say, just place them all relatively near to a nuclear plant. We could control the pollution (be it from power plant or factories) better as it's all inside a close area. The human resources that these factory requires should live further out (say 40KM away) and be powered more by renewable energy.

By defining clearly the zones for industry, living and natural preservation, we can build more efficient infrastructures and minimize the pollution and effect from industries to our natural environment.

If not, stop complaining because in terms of carbon footprint, as far as I'm aware, only nuclear power is possible to achieve very high energy outputs while producing relatively stable amount of wastes.
__________________
Nothing for now
Hehe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2011, 11:05 PM   #25
Rs has made me the woman i am today!
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,353
Thanked 1,794 Times in 823 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hurricane View Post
Believe in it? It's not religion, it's science.

Granted science which is in it's relative infancy, and hence the reason people can even conjure up arguments akin to faith about it.
My comment has nothing to do with religion: it is based on a broad-based consensus that something is happening to the climate.
Tapioca is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:31 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.
Revscene.net cannot be held accountable for the actions of its members nor does the opinions of the members represent that of Revscene.net