Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Are Uranium Halos the best evidence of (a) an old earth AND (b) constant physics?
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 31 of 142 (478709)
08-19-2008 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by RAZD
08-19-2008 9:47 PM


Gamma rays!
Were back to gamma rays accelerated decay and that its a gamma ray thats the excess energy removed (wikepedia did not say the alpha particles energy was increased when an occasional nucleus was excited only that the excess energy causing the excitation was removed as a gamma ray)!!!!!!!
Basically even with near steady state present decay you have an occasional alpha leaving the nucleus excited and this alpha upon its expulsion from the nucleus there exists excess energy thats causing this excitation that is released as a gamma ray.
Uranium halos too show evidence of accelerated decay or from your point of view uniformitarian decay.
Its not evidence of an old earth because one can spin it to be evidence of accelerated decay when you include the entire decay chain.
P.S. Its also interesting that gamma rays might well be how nucleur wastes will reduce toxic radiation thru accelerated decay using gamma rays to help the alpha particle to get excited and induce quantum tunnelling from the inside out.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Alpha particles are emitted by radioactive nuclei such as uranium or radium in a process known as alpha decay. This sometimes leaves the nucleus in an excited state, with the emission of a gamma ray removing the excess energy.
Alpha particle - Wikipedia
Remedial treatment of nucleur wastes are looking to gamma radiation, proton acceleration, higher magnetic fields, photons " not neutrons or alpha radiation" to accelerate uranium decay rates, to treat nuke wastes, etc...
nukwastpats
In a few major bursts, the sun produces gamma rays with energies up to one million electron volts. The interaction of high-energy electrons, protons, and nuclei of the sun, emit the rays.
SMGAELS | Play to Gain
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by RAZD, posted 08-19-2008 9:47 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by bluescat48, posted 08-19-2008 11:54 PM johnfolton has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 32 of 142 (478722)
08-19-2008 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by johnfolton
08-19-2008 10:02 PM


Re: Gamma rays!
Its not evidence of an old earth because one can spin it to be evidence of accelerated decay when you include the entire decay chain.
The time of decay/half life of U238 is 4.47E+9 years The time of decay of the intermediate daughter isotopes is 3.20E+5 years When added together you still have 4.47E+9 years. This accounts for 99.2742% of the uranium. 0.7204% is U235 half life 7.04E+8 years daughter isotopes time of decay 3.25E+4 years total 7.04E+8 since the %tage of 235 is 7/10 of 1% it becomes negligible as to to the change of time thus the total decay time is still 4.47E+9 years. the remaining %is U234 included in the U338 decay as U234 is one of the daughter isotopes of U238.
Edited by bluescat48, : add missing line in post

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by johnfolton, posted 08-19-2008 10:02 PM johnfolton has not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 33 of 142 (478724)
08-20-2008 12:54 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
08-16-2008 6:30 PM


Re: Not about Polonium, Not about a Young Earth.
This looks like an interesting and fairly strong argument. But what sort of mechanisms are proposed by the YEC crowd for their accelerated nuclear decay? The detailed mechanism might affect this argument. E.g., if one supposes changing the decay simply through some sort of compression/expansion of time (Gerald Schroeder's view comes to mind), this shouldn't change the decay energies. But I doubt that many YEC folks are proposing this--most don't seem to like Schroeder's positions, and it would make God look deceptive.
Chaffin (of the RATE team) seems to suggest that the strong nuclear forces (or maybe the electrostatic force) may have changed. But a change in the strong nuclear force would affect the halo radius, as you point out. A change in the electrostatic force may not affect halo radius, but would probably have huge (disastrous) effects on all of chemistry. A change in either of these fundamental forces would also likely destroy the delicate balances which are required for life (as pointed out in anthropic principle arguments).
It sounds like someone else in this thread is proposing a stimulated decay process (by some as yet unknown mechanism)? Perhaps that would get around your argument?
Your argument may not be foolproof, but it seems to be a strong argument that a change in the strong nuclear force is not a possible mechanism for accelerated nuclear decay. The decay rate would have had to change by roughly 6 orders of magnitude (to make 4 billion years look like about 4 thousand), which would have changed the halo radius by 20% or so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 08-16-2008 6:30 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by peaceharris, posted 09-29-2008 4:56 AM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

  
peaceharris
Member (Idle past 5596 days)
Posts: 128
Joined: 03-28-2005


Message 34 of 142 (484511)
09-29-2008 4:56 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by kbertsche
08-20-2008 12:54 AM


Re: Not about Polonium, Not about a Young Earth.
kbertsche writes:
But what sort of mechanisms are proposed by the YEC crowd for their accelerated nuclear decay?
No one even needs to propose accelerated nuclear decay. Gentry wrote,
"Even without attempting to subtract out the 206Pb component of the common and "old" radiogenic Pb (15), these 238U/206Pb ratios raise some questions. For example, if the 238U/206Pb = 27,300 value is indicative of the formation time of the radiocenter, this is more recent by at least a factor of 270 than the minimum (Cretaceous) and more recent by a factor of 760 than the maximum (Triassic) geological age"
This was published in science vol 194. Even though what is published in a reputable journal need not be correct, Gentry and the reviewers at Science should know basic high school physics. In this case please believe what was published in Science rather than what RAZD keeps repeating.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by kbertsche, posted 08-20-2008 12:54 AM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by RAZD, posted 09-29-2008 7:31 AM peaceharris has not replied
 Message 36 by PaulK, posted 09-29-2008 7:59 AM peaceharris has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 35 of 142 (484517)
09-29-2008 7:31 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by peaceharris
09-29-2008 4:56 AM


STILL Not about Polonium, STILL Not about a Young Earth.
Curiously you are still not on topic. Read the subtitle again, read Message 1 again.
Uranium halos. Focus.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by peaceharris, posted 09-29-2008 4:56 AM peaceharris has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 36 of 142 (484520)
09-29-2008 7:59 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by peaceharris
09-29-2008 4:56 AM


Re: Not about Polonium, Not about a Young Earth.
quote:
This was published in science vol 194. Even though what is published in a reputable journal need not be correct, Gentry and the reviewers at Science should know basic high school physics. In this case please believe what was published in Science rather than what RAZD keeps repeating.
Of course it is quite possible to believe both. The abstract of the paper clearly identifies the uranium haloes in question as "embryonic" - a fact that you did not mention for some reason. Thus well-developed haloes will clearly be older than these very recent examples (themselves older than typical YEC views allow - especially as these would be dated no earlier than the Flood, rather than the Creation).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by peaceharris, posted 09-29-2008 4:56 AM peaceharris has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by peaceharris, posted 09-30-2008 12:30 AM PaulK has replied

  
peaceharris
Member (Idle past 5596 days)
Posts: 128
Joined: 03-28-2005


Message 37 of 142 (484618)
09-30-2008 12:30 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by PaulK
09-29-2008 7:59 AM


Re: Not about Polonium, Not about a Young Earth.
Gentry’s definition of embryonic can be derived from this statement in his report:
“Specifically, it was discovered that the halos (Fig. 1a) surrounding the -active sites are typically embryonic, that is, they do not generally exhibit the outer 214Po ring characteristic of fully developed U halos in minerals.”
He is basically saying that he can see the U halo but cannot see the 214Po ring, thus he has defined it as “embryonic”.
If you look at the decay chain of 238U, you will realize that all of its intermediate descendants have a half life less than the half life of 234U. The half life of 234U is 245 thousand years.
If a sample is significantly more than 245 thousand years, all intermediate members will reach equilibrium, that is for every atom of 238U that decays, there is one atom of 234U that also decays. For every 234U atom that decays, there will also be one 214Po that decays.
If you cannot see the 214Po ring, but can see the 238U ring, what does that mean? It means that there have been lots of 238U atoms that have decayed, but most of these decayed descendants have not yet become 214Po atoms. This implies that the sample is not significantly more than 245 thousand years.
Do you agree that Uranium halos which do not have the 214Po ring are not significantly more than 245 thousand years? Please answer this question, so that I can try to explain this concept more clearly.
Or do you think Gentry is blind . the 214Po halo exists but he can’t see it? If you think Gentry made a mistake, please use data to support your assertion, find the halos that have the 238U ring and the 214Po ring. Post the image in this forum and tell us how you identified each ring.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by PaulK, posted 09-29-2008 7:59 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by PaulK, posted 09-30-2008 1:18 AM peaceharris has replied
 Message 42 by RAZD, posted 09-30-2008 10:36 PM peaceharris has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 38 of 142 (484619)
09-30-2008 1:18 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by peaceharris
09-30-2008 12:30 AM


Re: Not about Polonium, Not about a Young Earth.
quote:
Gentry’s definition of embryonic can be derived from this statement in his report:
“Specifically, it was discovered that the halos (Fig. 1a) surrounding the -active sites are typically embryonic, that is, they do not generally exhibit the outer 214Po ring characteristic of fully developed U halos in minerals.”
He is basically saying that he can see the U halo but cannot see the 214Po ring, thus he has defined it as “embryonic”.
i.e. he is saying that THESE haloes are not "fully developed", just as I said.
quote:
Or do you think Gentry is blind . the 214Po halo exists but he can’t see it? If you think Gentry made a mistake, please use data to support your assertion, find the halos that have the 238U ring and the 214Po ring. Post the image in this forum and tell us how you identified each ring.
I'm not disagreeing with Gentry. I am objecting to your misuse of his work. The fact that THESE haloes are young does not in any way provide the slightest evidence against the existence of older "fully developed" haloes. Moreover even these young haloes require accelerated radioactive decay to be fitted into standard YEC timetables.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by peaceharris, posted 09-30-2008 12:30 AM peaceharris has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by peaceharris, posted 09-30-2008 5:01 AM PaulK has replied

  
peaceharris
Member (Idle past 5596 days)
Posts: 128
Joined: 03-28-2005


Message 39 of 142 (484623)
09-30-2008 5:01 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by PaulK
09-30-2008 1:18 AM


Re: Not about Polonium, Not about a Young Earth.
PaulK writes:
The fact that THESE haloes are young does not in any way provide the slightest evidence against the existence of older "fully developed" haloes.
Could you give us a photo of a fully developed Uranium halo. A halo where the 238U and the 214Po ring can be seen?
PaulK writes:
Moreover even these young haloes require accelerated radioactive decay to be fitted into standard YEC timetables.
You don't understand what I said in message 37.
Anyway, if accelerated radioactive decay did not take place, how old are the Uranium halos in Gentry's paper? Pls tell me how you arrive at your answer.
Edited by peaceharris, : typo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by PaulK, posted 09-30-2008 1:18 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by PaulK, posted 09-30-2008 7:41 AM peaceharris has replied
 Message 41 by PaulK, posted 09-30-2008 7:41 AM peaceharris has not replied
 Message 72 by RAZD, posted 11-29-2008 3:45 PM peaceharris has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 40 of 142 (484631)
09-30-2008 7:41 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by peaceharris
09-30-2008 5:01 AM


Gentry and Uranium Haloes
quote:
Could you give us a photo of a fully developed Uranium halo. A halo where the 238U and the 214Po ring can be seen?
Probably, but since it isn't really releavnt to my point I think we'll settle the issues I did raise first.
Do you accept that Gentry's paper provides no evidence against the existence of older Uranium radiohaloes ?
quote:
You don't understand what I said in message 37.
On the contrary, I do know. That's why I replied to point out the obvious errors. You, on the other hand completely misunderstood my response as can clearly be seen.
quote:
Anyway, if accelerated radioactive decay did not take place, how old are the Uranium halos in Gentry's paper? Pls tell me how you arrive at your answer
Gentry supplied an estimate - which you quoted - putting the age at around 240,000 years. Granted this estimate is rough and probably too large, it is still far enough away from the typical YEC estimate (
Edited by PaulK, : Change of title to reflect contents

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by peaceharris, posted 09-30-2008 5:01 AM peaceharris has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by peaceharris, posted 10-03-2008 2:50 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 41 of 142 (484632)
09-30-2008 7:41 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by peaceharris
09-30-2008 5:01 AM


Re: Not about Polonium, Not about a Young Earth.
Duplicate
Edited by PaulK, : Duplicate (Posting appeared to time out)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by peaceharris, posted 09-30-2008 5:01 AM peaceharris has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 42 of 142 (484691)
09-30-2008 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by peaceharris
09-30-2008 12:30 AM


It;s about gas ... but the topic is uranium.
Thanks peaceharris
“Specifically, it was discovered that the halos (Fig. 1a) surrounding the -active sites are typically embryonic, that is, they do not generally exhibit the outer 214Po ring characteristic of fully developed U halos in minerals.”
He is basically saying that he can see the U halo but cannot see the 214Po ring, thus he has defined it as “embryonic”.
Curiously they may not have Radon-222 halos either -- the stage before Po214, which is also the first and only gas phase, whence the atoms could (and do) readily leave the parent inclusion.
In fact, finding Uranium Halos absent Po214 halos in the same rocks you find Po214 halos without Uranium halos kind of adds up to one logical cause: the one leads directly to the other by Radon gas diffusion.
The fact that not one of the uranium decaying atoms sufficient to form a uranium halo was able to decay to Radon-222 means either something was stopping decay OR that the Radon-222 diffused away from the parent inclusion. So far there is no known process to stop radioactive decay at any intermediate stage, so that leaves one valid conclusion: gas diffusion.
Do you agree that Uranium halos which do not have the 214Po ring are not significantly more than 245 thousand years? Please answer this question, so that I can try to explain this concept more clearly.
Not at all, they could be many times that age, as all that needs to happen is that the Radon-222 gas formed (just before the Polonium-214 stage) leaves the Uranium inclusion.
If you cannot see the 214Po ring, but can see the 238U ring, what does that mean? It means that there have been lots of 238U atoms that have decayed, but most of these decayed descendants have not yet become 214Po atoms. This implies that the sample is not significantly more than 245 thousand years.
Not at all, because Radon is a gas. The uranium decayed down to Radon-222 in one location, the radon left (being a gas), then it decayed to Po-214 in another location, which then continued the sedentary decay of non-gaseous radioactive isotopes ending with lead.
Elvis has left the building.
Or do you think Gentry is blind . ...
Yes, I think he is blind to the evidence that shows how radon can, and does, seep through the rocks he studied/s.
But this topic is not about Gentry and his perennial polonium poppycock problem, it is about uranium and uranium halos.
And curiously you still need a minimum of 245,000 years to form the uranium halo eh? You still need to explain how a young earth concept is compatible with that idea (unless you acknowledge the earth is old). You still cannot change the decay rates.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : added

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by peaceharris, posted 09-30-2008 12:30 AM peaceharris has not replied

  
peaceharris
Member (Idle past 5596 days)
Posts: 128
Joined: 03-28-2005


Message 43 of 142 (484913)
10-03-2008 2:50 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by PaulK
09-30-2008 7:41 AM


Re: Gentry and Uranium Haloes
PaulK writes:
Gentry supplied an estimate - which you quoted - putting the age at around 240,000 years. Granted this estimate is rough and probably too large, it is still far enough away from the typical YEC estimate (<5000 problem.
There are 2 independent methods to estimate the age of the Uranium halos described in Gentry’s paper. Neither of these methods prove that the age of the halos is approximately 240000 years.
The first method is based on the measured ratio of 238U/206Pb. Gentry wrote, “Even without attempting to subtract out the 206Pb component of the common and "old" radiogenic Pb . ”
In Uranium mines, there will be enriched amounts of 238U as well as enriched amounts of all other members of the Uranium decay series. When groundwater flows through such a mine it will pick up all these isotopes on its way depending on the solubility. The solubility of all these isotopes depend on many external factors (Refer Flow-Through Dissolution of Uranium-Thorium Ore Dust, Uranium Concentrate, Uranium Dioxide, and Thorium Alloy in Simulated Lung Fluid | Radiation Protection Dosimetry | Oxford Academic)
When trees suck groundwater, all elements present in the water might be sucked. However the elements need not be deposited homogenously along the tree’s capillaries. In some locations there may be more Uranium deposited, and at other locations there could be more Pb deposited. Gentry based his calculations without subtracting the initial Pb206 present in these Uranium centres. If he subtracted the Pb present during the initial formation of these Uranium radiocenters, he would obtain a younger age.
The important point to remember here is if we do not subtract the initial 206Pb present, we will obtain an upper bound for the age of the sample. In note 15 of his report he gives a proof that there is “old” radiogenic Pb in these U-rich radiocenters.
The second method to estimate the age is based on the claim that the Uranium halo can be seen without the 214Po ring. If the isotopes of the U238 decay series present in groundwater are in equilibrium, and if all these isotopes are deposited in the wood such that equilibrium is maintained, then subsequent decay of radio isotopes would also be in equilibrium . that is for every alpha particle emitted by the decay of U238, there will also be an alpha particle emitted by 214Po.
If we can see the U halo, but cannot see the 214Po halo, then it implies that there have been lots of U238 atoms that have decayed, but not so many Po214 atoms that have decayed.
There are 2 unknowns here:
1. The age of the sample.
2. The initial ratio of the isotopes of the decay series of U238.
I have created a table below to show the ratio of the number of alpha particles emitted from the decay Po214 to the number of alpha particles emitted from the decay U238. The first column is assuming that the initial ratios of the isotopes were in equilibrium with U238 initially. ”In equilibrium’ means that the amount of isotope present is proportional to the half life of that isotope. For example since the half life of 238U is 18200 times more than the half life of U234, the amount of U238 present is 18200 times more than that of U234.
The 2nd column is based on the assumption that all isotopes other than U234 are in equilibrium with U238. The activity ratio of U234 is assumed to be 10 times more than that of U238. In other words, the initial amount of U238 is assumed to be 1820 times more than the initial amount of U234. This assumption is made because in some wells groundwater actually has such a high ratio (refer 234U/238U isotope ratios in groundwater from Southern Nevada: a comparison of alpha counting and magnetic sector ICP-MS - PubMed)
The 3rd column is based on the assumption that all daughter products of U238 were not present initially in the U radiocentres.
Table showing ratio of alpha particles emitted by the decay of Po214: alpha particles emitted by the decay of U238. Only entries highlighted in yellow can explain why Po214 ring is invisible
The first row assumes the age of the sample 245500 years. The 2nd row assumes the age of the sample to be 24550 years, and the 3rd row assumes that the age is 2455000 years.
We can conclude from the table above that if the sample is significantly more than 245500 years, the visibility of the Po214 ring should be comparable to the visibility of the U238 ring. We cannot exclude the possibility that the halo may be significantly younger than 245500 years since the visibility of the Po214 halo relative to that of U238 for a young sample depends on the initial amount of daughter isotopes present.
I want to continue this debate only with those who know how to do the calculations related to radiometry. Here is a question for members who understand the principles of radiometry and who want me to continue debating this topic.
If a sample only contains U238 at the beginning (100% U238), after 20 million years, what is the ratio of high energy alpha particles emitted by the decay Po214 to the low energy alpha particles emitted by the decay of U238?
Edited by peaceharris, : Table not clear, and items highlighted in yellow not explained
Edited by peaceharris, : typo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by PaulK, posted 09-30-2008 7:41 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by PaulK, posted 10-03-2008 7:50 AM peaceharris has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 44 of 142 (484926)
10-03-2008 7:50 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by peaceharris
10-03-2008 2:50 AM


Re: Gentry and Uranium Haloes
quote:
There are 2 independent methods to estimate the age of the Uranium halos described in Gentry’s paper. Neither of these methods prove that the age of the halos is approximately 240000 years.
I didn't say that we had proof - as I indicated I simply used Gentry's rough estimate from your posts and pointed out that it would have to be drastically wrong to fit into YEC timescales.
To remind you, you claimed that Gentry's study showed that there was no need to invoke accelerated radioactive decay. That claim was seriously in error both in the general case (the existence of relatively young haloes does not show that there are no older haloes) and in the particular case (Gentry's estimated age is many times greater than the

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by peaceharris, posted 10-03-2008 2:50 AM peaceharris has not replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 45 of 142 (484939)
10-03-2008 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
08-16-2008 6:30 PM


with fairness and honesty
RAZD writes:
The existence of (common) uranium halos then is evidence that shows the physical constants have not changed while they were formed, and their formation in turn is evidence that the earth is old, at least several hundred million years old.
With an attitude of fairness in regards to the evidence, here is Dr. Russell Humphreys comments on this subject....
source Error | The Institute for Creation Research
For some reason I can't paste this, but he does agree with you.
Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : No reason given.
Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : No reason given.
Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : couldn't paste correctly

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 08-16-2008 6:30 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024