Go Hug A Tree - Tomorrow’s Earth Day! Saturday, Apr 21 2007

Yep, tomorrow, April 22, is the day in which we celebrate the earth and all it has to offer. If we’re lucky, it’ll be a nice day. Begun in 1970 and continuing to this year and hopefully sticking around forever, people and organizations come together to recognize the earth and appreciate the environment. But I’m willing to bet that some people ignore Earth Day. Don’t be one of those people! Now, Earth Day is ideal for large organizations to do their own charity projects or whatever they may be, but that certainly doesn’t mean you can’t do anything on your own!

The Earth Day Flag.

Image Credit: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f3/Earth_flag_PD.jpg/320px-Earth_flag_PD.jpg

Earth Day should really be every day because the environment needs our help now more than ever. Here are some things that you personally can do to celebrate Earth Day:

• If you need to go somewhere that’s relatively close to your house, walk there or ride your bike instead of driving - you’ll have the satisfaction of knowing that you saved the air from your car exhaust
• Carpool, take a bus, or get a car that’s fuel efficient (has more miles per gallon)
• If you’re outside and you see garbage on the ground, pick it up, even if you think it’s gross, and don’t litter yourself
• Save water by leaving the water off when brushing your teeth and taking shorter showers
• Try and make the switch from plastic to paper bags if you can - plastic cannot easily be broken down and recycled
• Buy paper that’s been recycled
• Make the switch from incandescent light bulbs to compact fluorescent light bulbs - they’re more efficient
• Use cold water when doing laundry, and only do laundry when necessary (but don’t wait until your clothes smell!)
• Plant a tree - as we’ve learned, they take up CO2
• Buy locally produced food - don’t travel far to buy anything if it isn’t necessary
• Use energy efficient appliances in your home
• Don’t have any electronics on if you aren’t using them, and unplug them when they are not in use to cut back on wasted energy

These are just some of the many things you can do this Earth Day to show your support and appreciation. Don’t see them as chores - have fun with them, even if it’s just for Earth Day. Then if you can, carry them out in your daily life! =]

Sources: http://earthday.envirolink.org/organizers.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_day

http://www.earthday.net/

No Responses »

 

Ethanol - Worse Than Gasoline??? Saturday, Apr 21 2007

 Ethanol.

Image Credit: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0f/Ethanol_Flasche.jpg/180px-Ethanol_Flasche.jpg

Yet another issue that refers back to something specific that we learned earlier this year. We’ve heard it, and our book even states it: A switch from gasoline to ethanol is necessary, and one of the reasons is that ethanol burns much more cleanly than gasoline does. So with this in mind, how can a study show that ethanol makes the air dirtier and is responsible for smog-related deaths?

The new research says that if all automobiles in the United States ran on mostly ethanol fuel, by the year 2020 almost 200 more people would die yearly due to respiratory problems. Think about it - that’s a considerable increase.

Although, the shift to the use of ethanol as a fuel to replace gasoline is not likely to occur that quickly.

According to the study, about 4,700 people die each year due to respiratory problems from ozone. If ethanol increases the levels of ozone, even more people will by dying per year from respiratory problems because ozone is toxic in the lowest layer of the atmosphere. This new study shows that not only is ethanol no better than gas, it may even be a bit worse as far as air pollution.

Unsure what to think? Me too. Even the science books tell us that ethanol is a good alternative to gasoline - even though it may be more expensive, it burns more cleanly and would therefore help reduce the number of harmful and/or toxic chemicals that are released into the air from gasoline. This is just like the debate in my previous post - new information presented that conflicts with what scientists have thought for who knows how long! President Bush has even announced the reduction of gas usage by 20% over 10 years and using alternative fuels such as ethanol. Scientists believe that due to the switch this alternative, smog (mixture of smoke and fog) may go up by 1%.

However, many environmentalists have problems with this study, done by Mark Jacobson, Stanford University civil and environmental engineering professor. Ethanol is supposed to cut down on smog and reduce greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Scientists see no necessary reason to stop the usage of ethanol based on Jacobson’s study. Matt Hartwig of the Renewable Fuels Association said that actual data shows that ethanol is in fact ”greener” than gasoline, in other words, better for the environment. But according to Jacobson, ethanol being a better alternative depends on location. He says that ethanol use is a problem in areas where smog is already a considerable issue, such as in Los Angeles (where he believes most of the additional 200 deaths per year will take place) and the Northeastern states. Why would ethanol, a clean-burning fuel, produce more smog? Jacobson tells us that this is because: 1) ethanol produces more hydrocarbons than gas, and hydrocarbons are essential components in ozone production; 2) ethanol produces chemicals that turn into hydrocarbons, last a long time, and can spread over a pretty vast distance; 3) the lack of nitrogen oxide in the air due to ethanol can be a problem in places like Los Angeles, where smog dominates - excess nitrogen oxide would destroy the additional ozone being produced because of ethanol.

Well this is another interesting debate. Many environmentalists disagree with Jacobson, saying that the differences in his calculations are so small that they don’t really mean much at this point. It should also be noted that Jacobson, in his calculations, did not account for the fact that ethanol  decreases the number of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which cause global warming, a very critical issue that the world faces. Will Jacobson’s speculations prove to have some validity in the future, or will ethanol prove to be one solution to the problem of global warming?

Sources:

http://enn.com/today.html?id=12597

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol

No Responses »

 

The Hurricane Debate Friday, Apr 20 2007

You might recall that when we covered the topic of global warming earlier this year, we learned that one of the effects of global warming is more violent storms. Well, in terms of hurricanes, this would mean stronger, more violent hurricanes, right? Such as Hurricane Katrina? Hmm…maybe not.

Apparently there is currently a debate about whether global warming affects hurricane intensity, or even the mere formation of them. Many researchers strongly believe that global warming is linked to hurricanes, while others do not. A new study that’s come out shows that it’s possible that global warming actually makes it more difficult for hurricanes to form!

Gabriel A. Vecchi of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and Brian J. Soden of the University of Miami utilized 18 complex computer climate models to predict the impacts of global warming for the time spans 2001-2020 and 2018-2100. Part of their results was an increase in vertical wind shear over the tropical Atlantic and eastern Pacific oceans. Vertical wind shear = a difference in wind speed or direction at different altitudes. Normally, when hurricanes encounter these they can weaken because the heat of the rising air spreads over a bigger area.

BUT…as we learned in class, warm water is what drives storms such as hurricanes, so it should seem that warmer conditions should make storms stronger, not weaker.

 A tropical cyclone is shown above. This is a type of hurricane.

Image Credit: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/89/Cyclone_Catarina_from_the_ISS_on_March_26_2004.JPG/250px-Cyclone_Catarina_from_the_ISS_on_March_26_2004.JPG

Vecchi and Soden don’t know if this change in wind shear will negate the increased potential from warmer oceans, but they do believe that it will make the Atlantic Ocean and Eastern Pacific ocean not as favorable to hurricane formation. On this issue, Vecchi states, “Which one of the two — warming oceans or increasing shear — will be the dominant factor? Will they cancel out? We and others are currently exploring those very questions, and we hope to have a better grasp on that answer in the near future.”

All they know is that the change in vertical wind shear will be large enough so that it cannot and should not go unnoticed. It should also be kept in mind that this recent study does not in any way intend to undermine the realities of global warming - they are out there, beginning to affect the world and scientists want everyone to constantly be aware of this.

So, on what do we base our own opinions? Well, there’s Hurricane Katrina that struck in 2005, which was highly devastating and would lead us to believe that global warming is producing stronger storms than ever. Now we’re just weeks away from the start of hurricane season - June 1. Forecasters, scientists, residents, and probably many others are anxiously waiting to see what will happen this summer as far as hurricanes. William Gray of Colorado State University, who is a top researcher, believes that there will be at least 9 hurricanes this year, with one of them likely striking the United States.

Even though Vecchi and Soden’s research predicts that hurricanes might be less intense because of increased wind shear, they did not get the same results for the west and central Pacific Ocean - rather, these areas will see better storm development.

Hurricane expert Kerry Emanuel of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology believes, in contradiction with the findings of Vecchi and Soden, that storms’ vulnerabilities to wind shear is exaggerated. Emanuel published information last year that calculated that increasing the intensity of a storm via warming by 10% increases hurricane strength by 65%, but increasing shear by 10% only reduces hurricane strength by about 12%.

If the experts are split in their beliefs on this issue, then we can be sure that there is definite uncertainty regarding global warming and hurricanes. It seems to me that the only solution to this debate is time.

Sources:

http://enn.com/today.html?id=12596

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropical_cyclone

No Responses »

 

Green Weddings? Friday, Apr 20 2007

“Here comes the bride, all dressed in — green.”

Or at least that’s what they may be singing in London. It seems as though trying to reduce impacts on the environment is becoming noticeable in many aspects of life, and apparently British wedding nuptials are no exception.  So what does that mean? It means British couples “revolutionize” their weddings by having crazy new elements such as wedding dresses that have been recycled, guests commuting to the ceremony by bicycle, flowers grown at home rather than bought from a florist, and catering the reception with locally grown food rather than processed and shipped food.

A typical wedding dress. Gals, would you be willing to wear one that you knew was made from recycled materials?

Image Credit: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/cd/White-wedding-dress.jpg/220px-White-wedding-dress.jpg

British celebrity Liz Hurley’s wedding came under scrutiny when she claimed to have a green wedding, but as it turned out, her wedding produced about 200 tonnes of carbon emissions, which is higher than an average couple produces in 10 years.

Even wedding gifts are becoming more environmentally friendly. Guests have the ability to donate money to charities on behalf of newly weds.

So why have weddings jumped on the “stop global warming” bandwagon? According to Nicola Baird, for the Friends of the Earth organization, “A lot of people seem to feel that when they are making a big commitment to each other they would like to do some good as well.”

A woman named Sarah Webber, who is a Briton living in Australia, is attempting to make her wedding “green” by holding the actual ceremony in Australia but having a reception in Britain so that her family members won’t have to fly that great distance (the plane commute emits so much CO2!). She also intends to cater it with locally produced food so that shipping food from far away won’t add to CO2 emissions.

Recycled wedding dresses can be found on the Internet at charity shops or vintage shops if one prefers to be more stylish =].

Katie Fewings started www.ethicalweddings.com last year, and this site allows brides who are interested in having “green” weddings exchange information on obtaining tricky items such as recylced invitations or confetti.

An added bonus to the planning of green weddings is that they seem to be much more personalized than regular ol’ weddings. The brides feel as if they are really making a contribution to the welfare of humanity as a whole. And they really are. Weddings can still be fancy yet at the same time environmentally friendly. So keep all this in mind in about 10 years when you’re all planning your own weddings =].

Source:

http://enn.com/today.html?id=12541

One Response »

 

Do Those Big, Gentle Creatures Roaming Florida’s Waters Stand A Chance? Sunday, Apr 15 2007

I just returned from a vacation in Miami, where I happened to learn a little about manatees and their fate down in Florida. Strangely enough, when I come back, one of the first news articles I come across is about manatees down near Miami…

What’s going on with the manatees is that they are dying in huge numbers. This is due to three main factors: speedboats, red tide, and the loss of their winter habitats at power plants. With all this in mind, how could the government have a valid reason for taking the “endangered” label off the manatee?

 

Image Credit: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/b1/Manatee_photo.jpg/230px-Manatee_photo.jpg

According to wildlife officials, manatees are no longer considered “endangered” because they are not in any immediate danger; rather, they would prefer to label the manatees as “threatened.” This change of status, though, may take many years to occur, and if it does happen, some fear that the general public will no longer view manatees as “in danger” and ignore the efforts to keep them up and about in the oceans.

In 2006 there were 3,113 manatees in Florida. This year the count is 2,812. As a percentage decrease, that is: 3113 - 2812 = 301, 301/3113 = x/100, x = 9.67% decrease in Florida manatee population in one year. Wow, hopefully that % decrease per year doesn’t remain constant for the next ten years, because if you round that percentage up to a 10% decrease per year, that means it would take just 10 years for the Florida manatee population to go extinct.

The manatee does not have natural predators; however, it has a material predator, and that is the boat propeller. When I was at Key Biscayne National Park, I saw pictures of manatees that had scars all over their bodies due to speedboat propellers. I also read on one of the plaques that most manatees do not survive when they come into contact with speedboats. The place I was at, Biscayne National Park, has manatee zones marked off so that speedboats know when to slow down. This has helped to cause a general increase in the number of manatees over the last 30 years or so. Other problems that they face are being drowned in canal locks, hurt by fishing lines and hooks gone astray, red tide algae blooms, and cold winters.

The likely closings of power plants in Florida over the next few decades won’t help their survival either. Manatees cannot survive in excessively cold water (they need at least about 60 degrees Fahrenheit). They rely on warm discharge water from power plants.

As I learned when I was down in Florida, the best thing that people (or boaters) can do for them is to simply slow down when they are in those marked off manatee zones.

Sources:

http://enn.com/today.html?id=12572

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manatees

2 Responses »

 

Cutting Down on the Elephants Saturday, Mar 3 2007

 

Picture Credit: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/5c/African_Bush_Elephant_Mikumi.jpg/300px-African_Bush_Elephant_Mikumi.jpg

The population of elephants in South Africa is growing steadily - so much that it is getting to the point where environmentalists are proposing culling and contraception in order to curb the population growth. The growth is about 6-7% and is expected to double by the year 2020. There are about 20,000 elephants in South Africa, and a single elephant consumes about 300 kilograms of grass, leaves, and twigs per day. So in South Africa:

20,000 elephants(300 kg) = 6,000,000 kg of grass, leaves, and twigs eaten up in South Africa each day.

But because they are messy, 60% of this is wasted:

6,000,000(.60) = 3,600,000 kg wasted each day.

So undoubtedly this takes a huge toll on South Africa’s environment. If the elephant population keeps expanding, South Africa’s vegetation may become completely destroyed.

Proposed methods of managing the elephants include moving them to other areas, putting up enclosures to protect other animals, expanding parks, contraception, and culling, which is the selection of surplus animals from a population. It is being said that no mass slaughter will occur.

But there are some problems with these curbing methods. For instance, contraception leads to female elephants fighting with bulls. The average lifespan of a female elephant in the South Africa region has been reduced from 65 years to about 45 years. Also, translocation can be a problem because of the cost and the limited space available for transport.

I think that curbing the elephant population in South Africa is necessary because they are overgrazing big time. 3.6 million kg of grass, leaves, etc. that is purely wasted each day by elephants in South Africa and not even consumed is a harsh yet real statistic. Something has to be done, or the future of South Africa’s environment will certainly be jeopardized.

 Sources:

http://enn.com/today.html?id=12306

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culling

No Responses »

 

Incandescent vs. Fluorescent Friday, Mar 2 2007

The war is on between incandescent light bulbs and compact fluorescent light bulbs.  The aim right now is to switch to bulbs that save energy in an effort to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and help reduce global warming.  The world’s three largest light bulb manufacturing companies - General Electric Company, Siemens AG, and Royal Philips Electronics NV, also

known as the European Lamp Companies Federation - are pushing Europeans to purchase the more energy-efficient fluorescent light bulbs as opposed to incandescent ones. It has been estimated in Europe that if all the incandescent bulbs sold in Europe were replaced by the efficient compact fluorescents, the continent of Europe could get rid of 27 of their power plants!

Compact fluorescent light bulbs are three times as efficient as incandescent bulbs and they last a lot longer, but people are hesitant to purchase them because they cost more per bulb, even though in reality they save money in the long run (because they last so long). In Australia and California, bans on incandescent light bulbs have even been proposed. The General Electric Company is against a ban - it opts for a gradual change over time. Most of the U.S.’s fluorescent light bulbs are produced in China, so if bans on incandescent bulbs were put into place, then the U.S. would be almost totally dependent on foreign manufacturers for its lighting.

The ELC Federation Statement says, “The group is now actively working on scenarios for the various governments so as to recommend realistic targets and timelines for an effective, successful shift.”

So what’s the difference between incandescent and fluorescent light bulbs?

 Picture Credit: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/10/Gluehbirne_2_db.jpg/180px-Gluehbirne_2_db.jpg

Incandescent light bulbs work in the following way: an electric current passes through a very thin filament and causes it to become excited, and in the process it releases photons. A benefit of using this type of bulb is that it can be made for a wide range of voltages. But this bulb has a poor luminous efficacy. This means that the ratio of the light that is “usable” for human vision to the total light emitted is low. Incandescent light bulbs are about 5% efficient because about 95% of the power used by them is released as heat, rather than light.

 Picture Credit: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/40/Compact_flourescent_globe.JPG/463px-Compact_flourescent_globe.JPG

 Compact fluorescent light bulbs are fluorescent lamps that fit into standard bulb sockets or plug into lighting fixtures. They last longer than and use less electricity than incandescent bulbs. Also, they use about 1/4 of the energy that incandescents use. This is a big component of the environmental issue involving these 2 types of light bulbs: a gradual mass switch over to fluorescent light bulbs will mean a huge conservation of energy.

Clearly, fluorescent light bulbs are the way to go. Will you make the switch?

Sources:

http://enn.com/today.html?id=12318

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incandescent_light_bulb

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_fluorescent_light_bulb

No Responses »

 

Cell Phones and Endangered Species? Hmm… Friday, Mar 2 2007

We all have them. We all use them. In fact, most of us can’t go anywhere without them. Yes, our cell phones. We are used to hearing all the normal, everyday ringtones, or songs, as the case may be. But imagine your reaction if you were to instead hear a click-click sound made by a rare Central American poison arrow dart frog, or the howl of a Mexican gray wolf, or the bellow of a beluga whale.

An environmental group in the United States wonders if people hear these strange sounds on their cell phones, they will wonder about them and what is going on with the animals that make them. They want to educate and inspire people. They want to use cell phones to bring these rare sounds from these rare animals to people’s attention. It has reached some people, because 24,000 people have downloaded these ringtones.

“With the ringtones, this is the tip of the iceberg,” said Peter Leyden, director of the institute, which studies the impact of cell phones.

Picture Credit:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/31/Black-RAZRV3-closed.jpg/426px-Black-RAZRV3-closed.jpg

Co-founder of the Center for Biological Diversity Peter Galvin invented this new technological method of informing the younger generation about these animal species. He spent days at a time in jungles recording the odd sounds of these animals. He figured using cell phone ringtones would be an interesting, cool way to go about doing this.

The ringtones also include the sounds of multiple species of frogs, as well as birds from South America and owls from North America. While this idea of “ringtones from the wild” might be entertaining, it was created with serious intentions. The aim is to get people interested in knowing more about these endangered animals, and even to contribute in doing something to help.

I find this whole concept interesting. I think that the whole motive behind the “ringtones from the wild” is good. After all, there really is no better way to get through to the young generation nowadays than to reach them via their cell phones. However, I don’t really see all that many young people changing their ringtones from their favorite songs to these new and unusual sounds from the wild. It’s all about what’s popular, particularly with people under 20 years of age or so. Perhaps the revolution in ringtones will catch on for a lot of people, or perhaps it won’t. But I think that if environmental groups really want to get people interested in endangered animals, somewhere along the line they will find some solid methods of doing it. I think that other good ways of educating young people about these types of environmental issues involving endangered species might include television programs and/or advertisements or learning about the situation in schools.

Source:

http://enn.com/today.html?id=12296

One Response »

 

And So Begin the Serious Impacts of Global Warming… Friday, Mar 2 2007

Apparently Al Gore isn’t the only person attempting to make the world aware of the threats of global warming. A man named Simon Nattaq, an Inuit, had his life changed when he lost his feet to frostbite after falling through ice that had become thin from higher Arctic temperatures. Today he has prosthetic feet and still hunts to this day. He and other Inuit from the United States, Canada, Russia, and Greenland have been spending more than a decade making the world aware of thinning ice and wind shifts and how well-established hunting patterns are being threatened due to the deaths of much of their hunting game.

Ice surfing, as shown in this picture, in addition to other “ice” activities, cannot happen in the Arctic because the ice is becoming too thin.

 Picture Credit: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/42/Ice_surfing.jpg/800px-Ice_surfing.jpg

Sheila Watt-Cloutier, recently nominated with Al Gore for a Nobel Peace Prize, was scheduled to argue yesterday before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights that the United States is violating the Inuit people’s rights because it is the country that emits the largest quantity of greenhouse gases into the atmoshpere.

The Arctic region suffers the most from this current problem of global warming, and unless action is taken now to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the Arctic region’s late-summer sea ice will be almost entirely gone by the second half of the twenty-first century. This means that our children will be dealing with the severe consequences of global warming unless action is taken now to reduce its impacts. Polar bears, seals, and walruses are already moving north because of the lack of solid ice in their current locations.  There have been reports of walruse and seal pups stranded on pieces of ice. They die because their mothers are too big to float with them on these shrinking “rafts” of ice.

According to the weather service in Canada, last winter was their warmest since 1948.

Watt-Cloutier says, “The wisdom and answers from our hunting culture may leave us, because the ice is melting so fast.”

If the polar ice keeps melting, the Inuit culture faces extinction. There will be no more Arctic animals for them to hunt or from which to get their furs that keep them warm. Their climate is certainly part of what make the Inuit who they are. It would be a pity if something so preventable, like global warming, put an end to their lives as they now know them.

Source:

http://enn.com/today.html?id=12311

No Responses »

 

Gas Storage Tank Leaks Costing LOTS of Money… Friday, Mar 2 2007

 Gas, stay at the gas stations where you belong.

Photo Credit : http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/33/Shellgasstationlosthills.jpg/300px-Shellgasstationlosthills.jpg

We are now well aware of the problem of run-off into our bodies of water because of the excess chloride, oil, and other wastes that it brings into our water sources. This is a very serious issue; however, it is not the only “leakage” problem that we are currently facing.

Tens of thousands of gasoline storage tanks, many from gas stations and convenience stores, are leaking underground and causing contamination. And it will cost about $12 billion to clean it all up. Given that the Bush administration only provides $72 million per year to aid in this effort (info from the General Accountability Office), we are presented with a huge financial problem.

Important to take into account is that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has already dished out about $10 billion in efforts to limit the gas-leakage contamination from the past 20 years. The $12 billion estimate is enough to clean up about 54,000 leaks from storage tanks underground. But over the next five years, most U.S. states say they expect about 16,700 new gas tank leaks. So, in addition to this current $12 billion estimate, over the next five years :

(16,700 leaks/54,000 leaks) ($12,000,000,000) = about $3.7 billion dollars to be spent on the cleanup of additional gas tank leaks over the next five years.

This, to me, is a real eye-opener. $3.7 billion dollars spent on cleaning up gas tank leaks. Over a mere five-year period. The idea seems ridiculous. Imagine what would happen if we could give that amount of money to the starving children in Uganda.

Another problem is that some tank owners are not covered by insurance, and so quick cleanups cannot always happen. Most tank owners have to pay a deductible, while the government pays for most of the cleanup.

 What causes these leaks? Up until about 30 years ago, most tanks were made of steel, which eventually corrodes and causes gas to leak into the environment. Incorrect installation or problems with operation and maintenance processes can also cause leaks.

These leaking gas tanks underground pose serious potential threats to human health. It contaminates our drinking water supplies with carcinogens such as methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE).

Back in 1985, Congress banned unprotected steel tanks from operation. Another amendment in 1986 required that all underground storage tank owners be financially capable of cleanups. Some action has been taken recently to reduce the leakage of these gas storage tanks, such as the passing of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which states that underground gas tanks need to be inspected once every three years.

Hopefully more can be done by the government in the next few years to reduce these gas leaks into our environment and water supplies.

Sources:

http://enn.com/today.html?id=12281

http://www.epa.gov/oust/overview.htm

No Responses »