Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-06-2019, 10:50 PM   #31
Pentaxian
ZombieArmy's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,209
One of the main risks of 5g as far as I'm aware is to weather data collection.

09-07-2019, 07:29 AM   #32
Pentaxian
photoptimist's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2016
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,113
QuoteOriginally posted by MarkJerling Quote
It's basic science and some of the scaremongering going on is ignoring that basic science. 4G networks use frequencies 600 MHz to 6 GHz and 5G uses frequencies in the 28 GHz to (potentially) 300 GHz range. At this point, most 5G networks are using 28 GHz and 39 GHz. Most testing has stayed below 73 GHz and it's unlikely that 300 GHz will become a reality.

Mobile/cell phones, microwave ovens, cordless phones, millimeter waves, airport millimeter scanners, motion detectors, long-distance telecommunications, radar, Wi-Fi all operate between 1 and 300 GHz. Of course, mobile phones are low power devices. 1.5W vs your microwave oven's 1,200W.

28 to 300 GHz is still safely in the microwave frequency range. Beyond that, frequencies move into the infrared light range and from there into the visible light spectrum. Beyond that into UV and from there into the range of frequencies that are not so good for us.



At this point, most of us have been walking around with a mobile phone for 20-25 years and there has been no evidence of any detrimental effect, other than the aforementioned idiots driving while on the phone.
Yes, it is mostly scaremongering.

However, the "scientific" view of the health effects has to be more nuanced than concluding that all these technologies are "safe."

An absence of evidence of harm is not evidence of absence of harm. It all depends on how carefully people have looked for evidence of harm and the detection limits inherent in that search for evidence.

It is fair to say that the decades of mobile phone use do mean that the historically-used radio frequencies and power levels are not acutely dangerous (e.g., like a gun to the head) or even likely to be severely chronically dangerous (e.g., like smoking). In the case of smoking, rates of lung infections, cancer, emphysema, heart disease, etc. were markedly higher than for non-smokers although it still took a few hundred years of smoking to really prove just how bad the stuff was. If the average doctor never asks and never tracks cell phone usage patterns of their patients, it's much harder to detect suspicious correlations between phone use and disease.

The higher frequencies used in 5G basically reset the evidence levels back to near-zero. Every frequency band has different biological effects. That people have not been killed in obvious patterns by low GHz phones does not prove that high GHz radiation is safe. There are some in vitro studies of the effects of various high frequencies on various biological systems. The results are mixed which is not reassuring. The most concerning lines of evidence consider the extent that millimeter-wave radiation induces resonance in DNA, proteins, and cell membranes (e.g., How Terahertz Waves Tear Apart DNA - MIT Technology Review).

One could say that the jury is still out on the health effects of 5G but that's not quite right because the case has not been tried in court yet. In fact, it may be fairer to say that the police have only begun to investigate whether 5G shows criminal behavior.
09-08-2019, 01:52 PM   #33
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Southeastern Michigan
Posts: 4,509
I greatly limit cell phone use, and now have a car where I can use mine though the car system instead of holding it to my ear. At home I continue to use my land line, though I do have a cordless handset system. If talking for a lengthy period, however, I am likely to switch even these to speaker use.

it seems to me some years ago coming across info regarding uv radiation from florescent ceiling lights in gymnasiums, and possibly in some shops and offices. Perhaps steps have been taken to eliminate this problem.

Last edited by mikesbike; 09-08-2019 at 02:00 PM.
09-08-2019, 02:02 PM   #34
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 27,606
QuoteOriginally posted by MarkJerling Quote
Well, I'd be the first to listen if there was some evidence of any risk. After all, I do use my mobile phone a lot.
But, several full body MRI and CT scans later, the scans were probably worse for my health than the mobile phone usage.
I suspect 5G will be no different to 4G in that regard.
CT Scans are actually very problematic and over used in the medical field. A couple of individual scans are not probably an issue, but it is recommended to keep your lifetime radiation exposure at the equivalent of 25 chest CTs or less. That's surprisingly easy to get to these days if you have an illness like kidney stones and frequent the Emergency Department much. CT Scans just give significantly higher levels of radiation compared to plain film x rays.

MRIs seem to have much less long term risk.

09-08-2019, 05:57 PM   #35
Moderator
Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
MarkJerling's Avatar

Join Date: May 2012
Location: Wairarapa, New Zealand
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 20,391
QuoteOriginally posted by photoptimist Quote
Yes, it is mostly scaremongering.

However, the "scientific" view of the health effects has to be more nuanced than concluding that all these technologies are "safe."

An absence of evidence of harm is not evidence of absence of harm. It all depends on how carefully people have looked for evidence of harm and the detection limits inherent in that search for evidence.

It is fair to say that the decades of mobile phone use do mean that the historically-used radio frequencies and power levels are not acutely dangerous (e.g., like a gun to the head) or even likely to be severely chronically dangerous (e.g., like smoking). In the case of smoking, rates of lung infections, cancer, emphysema, heart disease, etc. were markedly higher than for non-smokers although it still took a few hundred years of smoking to really prove just how bad the stuff was. If the average doctor never asks and never tracks cell phone usage patterns of their patients, it's much harder to detect suspicious correlations between phone use and disease.

The higher frequencies used in 5G basically reset the evidence levels back to near-zero. Every frequency band has different biological effects. That people have not been killed in obvious patterns by low GHz phones does not prove that high GHz radiation is safe. There are some in vitro studies of the effects of various high frequencies on various biological systems. The results are mixed which is not reassuring. The most concerning lines of evidence consider the extent that millimeter-wave radiation induces resonance in DNA, proteins, and cell membranes (e.g., How Terahertz Waves Tear Apart DNA - MIT Technology Review).

One could say that the jury is still out on the health effects of 5G but that's not quite right because the case has not been tried in court yet. In fact, it may be fairer to say that the police have only begun to investigate whether 5G shows criminal behavior.
As yet, there's no evidence that using 5G frequencies, at the power rates of mobile phones and their transmitters, will have any detrimental effect on humans. And, there have been several studies already. The few that show detrimental effect are at enormously elevated wattages and exposure durations and apply to 3G/4G used frequencies as well.

Tests have shown that 5G type frequencies cannot penetrate the skin very effectively and certainly cannot penetrate bone, so brain tumours are out of the question. Studies that have attempted to show DNA damage have been inconclusive in that the test groups in those studies have had the same incidence of DNA damage as the control groups.

I think a court of law, especially with a jury, is the wrong place to settle this as the average juror does not know the first thing about science.
09-08-2019, 08:33 PM   #36
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Southeastern Michigan
Posts: 4,509
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
CT Scans are actually very problematic and over used in the medical field. A couple of individual scans are not probably an issue, but it is recommended to keep your lifetime radiation exposure at the equivalent of 25 chest CTs or less. That's surprisingly easy to get to these days if you have an illness like kidney stones and frequent the Emergency Department much. CT Scans just give significantly higher levels of radiation compared to plain film x rays.

MRIs seem to have much less long term risk.
This is something that has long bothered me. I have been exposed to sizable amounts of radiation, if taken collectively, beginning when I was an 11 year old child who was taken to a different neighborhood MD than usual, an older man, to get a shot of penicillin for my recurring tonsillitis. But he had to show off his new toy and had me stand behind a screen while he and my mom sat for an internal view of my entire body. As they talked, I quickly became fidgety so I danced around and stuck out my tongue, causing my mom to scold me, then the doctor turned the thing off. A fluoroscope, as it turned out. Fortunately, we subsequently went back to our regular doctor.

We also had a shoe store not far away that used a fluoroscope to fit shoes, with which if in the area, we kids would run in just to look at the bones in our feet.

Also at age 11 I took a spill in some mud, fell with the small of my back onto a sizable rock. The pain went away after some days, but I had recurring back issues in future years, resulting in numerous x-rays from time to time by various doctors including chiropractors. Exercise has been the only therapy that actually helps me. Then I developed stomach trouble most likely from taking aspirin for my back, whereupon a doctor of foreign origin said he would order an "x-ray of my stomach", done in hospital. A lie by omission. I wound up undergoing an upper and lower G.I. seres, again via fluoroscope. After I figured out what was about to happen, I asked the staff doing the work about the radiation, to which I was told it is so minimal it would have to be done weekly for a year to be of any danger to me!! I later found this to be BS. I finally found a really good GI doctor who uses flexible scopes only.

The worst lie of all was when I consulted a GP doctor in 1986 regarding my long-standing on-and-off irregular heartbeat. Sometimes it would put me through a rough night. He set an appointment for a thallium stress test. I asked what it is, and he said I would be injected with thallium, a radioactive substance. I expressed concern regarding that, and was told the exposure was only the equivalent of a chest x-ray, which is very small. Upon arrival at the hospital, the radiologist and the cardiologist were both there, so again I asked how much radiation would be involved, and got the same answer. The result was "indication of low degree of reduced blood flow". Upon getting the report back at the GP's office, he advised for gradually increased cardio exercise, and to repeat the test again after one year to check for progress. (maybe every year!) But I moved to another suburb which was far too distant to continue with that doctor, so I never bothered with a subsequent re-test. Quite by accident some years later, I discovered that test to be the equivalent of a CT- NOT a chest x-ray!! Then more years later, I discovered it was not just similar to a CT of the heart and chest, it was in fact similar to a full-body CT scan, the highest radiation of all diagnostic tests!! And it never did provide a diagnosis of my irregular heartbeat. A friend went through the same thing, and the test indicated a worse problem so he was put through a heart catheter exam, where his heart was found to be in great shape- well above average!

More years later, after I retired, I consulted with my GI doctor regarding standard checkups, and mentioned I'd been having a lot of the heartbeat issue lately, whereupon with no hesitation he said, "we'll have you do a thallium stress test" (!) after all those years, this was still a standard protocol! I said "I am not doing any thallium!" Right away, he said- "Very well, we'll schedule you for a standard stress test." This was done, and I was hooked up on a monitor along with several others, each having our own along with a treadmill for each. I was lucky- it was acting up badly that morning, and it showed on my monitor, while the others had smooth patterns. I told the cardiologist, just wait, when I get going good on the treadmill, it will smooth out. Exactly what happened. I was fine while the others got worse and had to quit. The cardiologist made my diagnosis right there, which had an exact medical term, and is not dangerous. I turned down an offer for a drug. That was in 1999. A few years later, I accidentally discovered if I take a certain type of magnesium supplement daily, in balance with dairy products or any other source of substantial calcium, this problem will not occur!! I had found the answer myself!

None of the radiation I've been exposed to has ever helped me in any way- only saddled me with possible harm. I've had MRI's and they seem to be ok and useful, with better imaging. But the greatest threat to my health has been from going to doctors! Other than my GI doc, my dermatologist, and my ophthalmologist, my own policy is keeping away from them!

Last edited by mikesbike; 09-08-2019 at 09:49 PM.
09-08-2019, 09:49 PM - 2 Likes   #37
PDL
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: PNW USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,126
Let's put a stop to all this random talk about ionizing radiation and 5G.

Take a look at post #28, 5G frequencies are on the other side of the visible spectrum from ionizing radiation. It is microwave/radio -> heat => visible light ->near UV then -> x-rays. It is physically impossible to get the same effects from 5G and X-Rays. The two do not interact with bodily structures in the same way.

We are bathed in microwave radiation on a nearly continuous level, our phones, radars, AM/FM, television, Wi-Fi etc. blow through our bodies all the time. X-Rays are very rare in proportion to radio waves. You have to actively seek out devices that produce X-Rays and if we were "bathed" in X-Rays the way we are bathed in Radio waves we would be growing extra arms out of our heads. X-Rays penetrate deep into our bodies and can go through our bodies - they tend to be really disruptive and nasty little buggers.

Lets keep the discussion on track - we either talk about 5G or ionizing radiation.

As an aside, there is a lot of false information floating around 5G, a major provider of fake information is Russia. They support the idea that 5G will cause Cancer, liquify your brain and is a plan of the "deep state". Meanwhile, they are forging ahead with implementing 5G as fast as they can. Maybe we can do a little better research/inquiry work before quoting more conspiracy theory's

(You see what I did there?) As for LED's causing vision issues, LED's are narrow band emitters and if the LED's is producing photons in the UV area of the spectrum, then - Yeah, there could be long term issues. So, just don't stare into your LED UV flashlight for hours on end.


Last edited by PDL; 09-08-2019 at 09:56 PM.
09-09-2019, 10:07 AM   #38
Pentaxian
photoptimist's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2016
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,113
QuoteOriginally posted by MarkJerling Quote
As yet, there's no evidence that using 5G frequencies, at the power rates of mobile phones and their transmitters, will have any detrimental effect on humans. And, there have been several studies already. The few that show detrimental effect are at enormously elevated wattages and exposure durations and apply to 3G/4G used frequencies as well.

Tests have shown that 5G type frequencies cannot penetrate the skin very effectively and certainly cannot penetrate bone, so brain tumours are out of the question. Studies that have attempted to show DNA damage have been inconclusive in that the test groups in those studies have had the same incidence of DNA damage as the control groups.

I think a court of law, especially with a jury, is the wrong place to settle this as the average juror does not know the first thing about science.
Inconclusive studies are just that -- inconclusive. They are not evidence of harmlessness. At best they are evidence that the rate or amount of harm is below the detection abilities of the studies. Moreover, none of the studies has replicated the true scenario (millions of people having years or decades of chronic exposure of specific tissues to localized pulses of particular frequencies of GHz radiation). Everything is extrapolated from shorter-term, smaller-scale, in vitro studies often involving non-human cells or test subjects.

At this point, 5G could be entirely safe for say 99,999-in-100,000 people but be lethal to 1-in-100,000 people who use it for 10 years through some unusual mechanism that has not been studied. In fact, until millions of people use 5G for a number of years and until researchers study the data on health outcomes in sufficiently large samples of users versus non-users of 5G, no scientist can state that they have conclusive data on absolute safety.

I'm not claiming that 5G is harmful, it probably is not. But the operative word is "probably" and that probability isn't known to any certainty.
09-09-2019, 11:22 AM - 1 Like   #39
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 27,606
QuoteOriginally posted by photoptimist Quote
Inconclusive studies are just that -- inconclusive. They are not evidence of harmlessness. At best they are evidence that the rate or amount of harm is below the detection abilities of the studies. Moreover, none of the studies has replicated the true scenario (millions of people having years or decades of chronic exposure of specific tissues to localized pulses of particular frequencies of GHz radiation). Everything is extrapolated from shorter-term, smaller-scale, in vitro studies often involving non-human cells or test subjects.

At this point, 5G could be entirely safe for say 99,999-in-100,000 people but be lethal to 1-in-100,000 people who use it for 10 years through some unusual mechanism that has not been studied. In fact, until millions of people use 5G for a number of years and until researchers study the data on health outcomes in sufficiently large samples of users versus non-users of 5G, no scientist can state that they have conclusive data on absolute safety.

I'm not claiming that 5G is harmful, it probably is not. But the operative word is "probably" and that probability isn't known to any certainty.
Probably the best you could do is match people with high use to a group of Old Order Amish and compare rates of cancer, etc. The problem is that there are too many other variables at play there. Amish also eat less processed foods and have less exposure to many other things than people who have the highest use of cell phones.
09-09-2019, 12:38 PM   #40
PDL
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: PNW USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,126
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
Probably the best you could do is match people with high use to a group of Old Order Amish and compare rates of cancer, etc. The problem is that there are too many other variables at play there. Amish also eat less processed foods and have less exposure to many other things than people who have the highest use of cell phones.
The Amish are using cell phones.
Amish Use of Cell Phones Increases | Peaceful Societies
09-09-2019, 01:17 PM - 1 Like   #41
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 27,606
QuoteOriginally posted by PDL Quote
I specified Old Order, because they, unlike the Newer Orders still tend to shun cell phones and electricity. New Order Amish do use cell phones for business purposes (they still aren't supposed to use them for private purposes) and will hire "English" people to drive them around.
09-09-2019, 01:43 PM   #42
Pentaxian
photoptimist's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2016
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,113
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
Probably the best you could do is match people with high use to a group of Old Order Amish and compare rates of cancer, etc. The problem is that there are too many other variables at play there. Amish also eat less processed foods and have less exposure to many other things than people who have the highest use of cell phones.
Yes, there will be natural experiments like that -- subpopulations that use 5G more than others, cities that get 5G installations sooner than others, neighborhoods that have higher or lower levels of 5G base stations and phones. You can then try to control for other confounding factors by asking people about other habits (exercise, processed foods, artificial sweeteners, etc.)

The deeper problem is that both ethics and practicality prevent science from doing a good job on long-term health-related matters like this. There no way to do a gold-standard double-blind test of 5G in which a larger group is exposed neither the researchers nor the subjects know what they are being exposed to (to prevent placebo and confirmation bias errors). To study whether 5G causes cancer or autoimmune diseases or other long-term health effects would take forcing 1 million randomly-chosen people use a 5G phone with millimeter wave radios for a decade or more and making another million people use a phone that is identical to 5G but that does not have these radios.
09-09-2019, 03:42 PM - 1 Like   #43
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 27,606
QuoteOriginally posted by photoptimist Quote
Yes, there will be natural experiments like that -- subpopulations that use 5G more than others, cities that get 5G installations sooner than others, neighborhoods that have higher or lower levels of 5G base stations and phones. You can then try to control for other confounding factors by asking people about other habits (exercise, processed foods, artificial sweeteners, etc.)

The deeper problem is that both ethics and practicality prevent science from doing a good job on long-term health-related matters like this. There no way to do a gold-standard double-blind test of 5G in which a larger group is exposed neither the researchers nor the subjects know what they are being exposed to (to prevent placebo and confirmation bias errors). To study whether 5G causes cancer or autoimmune diseases or other long-term health effects would take forcing 1 million randomly-chosen people use a 5G phone with millimeter wave radios for a decade or more and making another million people use a phone that is identical to 5G but that does not have these radios.
The problem is that while we know that the rates are increasing for various things including autism, auto immune diseases and certain types of cancers, we don't know why. There has been speculation about cell phone use and cancers, but certainly to this point it has not shown any obvious association.

This was a good analysis in Forbes about the subject awhile ago: Are Brain Cancer Rates Increasing, And Do Changes Relate To Cell Phone Use?

I would say that overall there are many things that people know are dangerous that they continue to do, including eating unhealthy diets, choose not exercise sufficiently, and drive in unsafe manners. Certainly the risk of cell phone radiation or LED light exposure is fairly small compared to the other controllable factors in our lives. To this point, EVFs do give me headaches and eye strain and so I choose not to use them, even if I could do so and keep my vision intact.

Last edited by Rondec; 09-09-2019 at 06:21 PM.
09-09-2019, 03:53 PM   #44
PDL
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: PNW USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,126
QuoteOriginally posted by photoptimist Quote
The deeper problem is that both ethics and practicality prevent science from doing a good job on long-term health-related matters like this. There no way to do a gold-standard double-blind test of 5G in which a larger group is exposed neither the researchers nor the subjects know what they are being exposed to (to prevent placebo and confirmation bias errors). To study whether 5G causes cancer or autoimmune diseases or other long-term health effects would take forcing 1 million randomly-chosen people use a 5G phone with millimeter wave radios for a decade or more and making another million people use a phone that is identical to 5G but that does not have these radios.
While it is true that it is impossible for our current society to carry out double blind studies to determine the effects of 5G even in the short term. The sticky issue with trying to answer even short term exposure to supposedly "bad" things is that when the "thing" you are trying to test becomes part of the overall background. If 5G is going to kill us, then the effects should show up in us all since 5G will be everywhere.

The major downfall of 5G, as I see it, is its shortened range. For those people in rural areas or people on the edge of the existing 4G network, there will be no true advantage to getting a 5G device. Even if your 5G device will switch back to LTE as necessary, the benefits of 5G will be mostly for those who are living/working/playing near enough to the 5G towers to get a good signal. I expect that there will not be enough 5G capable towers to serve more wide spread customers and the installation of new cell towers is a on-going political battle. Don't expect 5G to become as wide spread as LTE unless there are enough people or existing infrastructure to support it.
09-09-2019, 04:17 PM   #45
Moderator
Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
MarkJerling's Avatar

Join Date: May 2012
Location: Wairarapa, New Zealand
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 20,391
QuoteOriginally posted by PDL Quote
While it is true that it is impossible for our current society to carry out double blind studies to determine the effects of 5G even in the short term. The sticky issue with trying to answer even short term exposure to supposedly "bad" things is that when the "thing" you are trying to test becomes part of the overall background. If 5G is going to kill us, then the effects should show up in us all since 5G will be everywhere.

The major downfall of 5G, as I see it, is its shortened range. For those people in rural areas or people on the edge of the existing 4G network, there will be no true advantage to getting a 5G device. Even if your 5G device will switch back to LTE as necessary, the benefits of 5G will be mostly for those who are living/working/playing near enough to the 5G towers to get a good signal. I expect that there will not be enough 5G capable towers to serve more wide spread customers and the installation of new cell towers is a on-going political battle. Don't expect 5G to become as wide spread as LTE unless there are enough people or existing infrastructure to support it.
5G covers a very broad range of frequencies. I've written about the higher ranges above. But, 5G starts around 450 MHz (below 3G and 4G frequency bands) and goes up to the GHz bands I wrote about previously. So, some 5G will operate in the existing 3G and 4G spectrum and will have the same towers as 3G and 4G. At the other end, smaller antennae will need to be placed far more frequently, to allow for connection to the higher GHz bands. But, by their very nature, the power of these transmitters/receivers will be much lower. In real terms, there's no point separating these technologies by the basis that 3G and 4G may be safe, but 5G may not. Most 5G will operate in the same frequency bands as 3G and 4G which have proven to be safe. And, as stated, those that will operate in the higher frequency ranges have not shown to have any additional adverse effects over those that operate in the 3G and 4G spectrum.

I suggest that we stop speculating about supposed health effects from LED light or 5G or whatever thing we think is going to kill us next and go out into the sun and shoot some photos.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
article, camera, damage, dslr, electronic-view-finder, evf, light, light causes vision, photography, study, vision
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
K-1 grip (around LED light) makes a clicking noise when pressed awscreo Pentax Full Frame 8 05-18-2017 08:47 AM
ultraviolet light to bring out sun damage ? LFLee Photographic Technique 12 09-17-2015 05:06 AM
New Monitor: LED, LCD, or LCD with Back-light? dmfw Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 11 01-03-2013 05:02 AM
To Hell With VF's: LED Lights Make Augmented Vision a Reality RioRico Photographic Industry and Professionals 25 10-21-2011 06:04 AM
LED light screwed under camera Eric Seavey Pentax Camera and Field Accessories 2 12-12-2010 03:48 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:44 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top