Hysteria wins at Te Horo primary school

December 30th, 2013 at 10:00 am by David Farrar

Stuff reports:

A Kapiti Coast primary school has decided to switch off wi-fi in its junior classrooms after a survey of parents revealed concerns about radiation exposure.

Damon Wyman, a parent of two children at Te Horo School, sparked the survey when he started researching the effects of wi-fi after his 10-year-old son Ethan died of a brain tumour. In the past two weeks, scientists and experts from around the world have flooded Mr Wyman with advice and shared their concerns.

However, the ministries of education and health have expressed confidence that wi-fi is safe to use in schools.

Te Horo School board of trustees chairman Steve Joss said the school had consulted widely, and the decision to turn off wi-fi in the junior classrooms was not about safety. “We don’t have concerns about safety with the wi-fi, but we received enough feedback from parents not wanting it in the junior school that we decided to switch it off.”

One can only feel sympathy and huge sadness for the loss of Ethan Wyman. But sadly kids have been getting since long long before wi-fi was invented.

Turning off wi-fi because some parents want you to, is like teaching creationism as science because some parents want you to.

I wonder how many of those parents have home wi-fi networks?

Tags:

50 Responses to “Hysteria wins at Te Horo primary school”

  1. eszett (2,272 comments) says:

    Hysteria? More like idiocy.

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Joanne (177 comments) says:

    Well said. I had a malignant brain tumor at 16 in the mid 80s before wifi was invented AND there were a number of kids at Akld Hosp at the same time as me.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Nigel Kearney (747 comments) says:

    I wonder if schools would be as responsive to parents who want them to focus on teaching reading, writing and maths.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Scott Chris (5,687 comments) says:

    I wonder how many of those parents have home wi-fi networks tin foil hats?

    FIFY

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. stephieboy (1,164 comments) says:

    You’ve nailed it DPF.Wifi is reminisce of the recent debacle and hysteria generated by the anti fluoridation network in Hamilton.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Scott (1,614 comments) says:

    Creationism is true. Evolution is false.
    “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth..”
    Yes folks you read it right here :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Reid (15,608 comments) says:

    Strange how people are so willing to accept second hand smoking may cause cancer but unwilling to accept electromagnetic radiation might. Seems inconsistent. Cell phones are the other, aren’t they. I wonder how many eight year olds with cell phones pressed to their soft skulls will come to regret it. Saved in NZ by our high call charges which means we only use them for texting.

    But never mind, the MSM always tells you what’s going on, don’t they.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Keeping Stock (9,791 comments) says:

    So there’s no chance that the iPod that Ethan used to sleep with under his pillow caused his brain tumour?

    I feel every sympathy for Ethan’s parents, but they are lashing out at the wrong target.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. George Patton (330 comments) says:

    The kid slept with their iDevice under their pillow!

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/kapiti/9533808/Parents-of-boy-with-tumour-want-wi-fi-out-of-school

    What’s going to be a bigger risk – a wireless device stuck next to a kids head for several hours on end, or a wifi network at school?

    It’s easy to blame wireless radio waves for cancer, but the sad truth is that the kid’s genetics probably sucked. Terrible anti-lotto.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. georgebolwing (496 comments) says:

    I am saddened, but not surprised, that this school has apparently dis-regarded the official advice of the expert body in New Zealand established to consider this very subject: The Interagency Committee on the Health Effects of Non-Ionising Fields: see the website at: http://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/radiation-safety/non-ionising-radiation/research-non-ionising-radiation.

    The Committee’s conclusions are: “Many reviews of the research in this area have been published over the past few years. These reviews conclude that, overall, the results show that exposures which comply with current limits do not cause health effects. Nor has any mechanism been established through which such exposures could cause effects. On the other hand, further research is needed in some areas (for example, mobile phone use for more than 15 years) in order to provide greater certainty.”

    While any individual death is a tragedy, it is not the job of school trustees to pander to grief-induced anti-science.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. rouppe (852 comments) says:

    WiFi is a radio signal.

    This reaction completely ignores the following radio-wave transmissions that are constantly around us:
    1) The sun
    2) The radio
    3) Cell phone calls
    4) Wireless household phones

    It’s a total crock to think WiFi has contributed to this child’s cancer. It is bad luck. Genetics.

    Not radio.

    Vote: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. grumpyoldhori (2,410 comments) says:

    Dear god save us from the ignorant.
    No doubt all those parents have cell phones putting out 250mw which they keep pressed to their ear.
    It may be a good idea for those parents to get a touch of education themselves, in other words how much output are you getting at 50 metres from the transmitter.
    I would doubt that you are getting as much as a cell phone.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Than (376 comments) says:

    There is a simple test for this hypothesis – has the rate of brain tumours (or tumours in general) gone up since Wi-Fi became widespread?

    But sadly I doubt reason or logic enters into this. This is a couple who have suffered a tragedy looking for something to blame, and Wi-Fi is just the currently fashionable bogeyman.

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. David in Chch (503 comments) says:

    To my regret, I got dragged into consulting on EM fields in a conflict between a school board and some parents many years ago. After reading everything I could find on the subject, the links are unclear at best. And then I found out that the parents had other motives in the dispute, and used the EM fields as an excuse.

    The most telling bit that I saw, was in a presentation from a pediatric oncologist (in other words, a specialist in childhood cancers). She put up a graph of the annual occurrence/diagnosis of a rare but well known (in medical circles) brain cancer. The graph covered the period from the 1940s, through the period of massive power expansion of the 1950s and 1960s, through to the 1980s. The graph was entirely random in its movement up and down. There was absolutely NO correlation with the expansion of the Ontario power grid, and the increasing use of electrical and electronic devices.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. flipper (3,277 comments) says:

    Than (258 comments) says:

    December 30th, 2013 at 11:12 am

    There is a simple test for this hypothesis – has the rate of brain tumours (or tumours in general) gone up since Wi-Fi became widespread?
    *****

    A question that is not easily answered with relevant accuracy.

    If there is an increase, is it due to the increased usage of such or similar devices?
    Does the increase in device numbers ACCOUNT FOR ANY incidence increase?
    Are such devices more readily available?
    Are TV receivers banned in Te Horo?
    Has sun spot incidence been correctly factored in?
    Does the incidence differ from that apparent among adherents of stone age science…like the ARMISH ???

    Oh…. all this is Flat Earth Society witchcraft and horseshit.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Peter (1,471 comments) says:

    Not only do we have this example of paranoid anti-science idiocy in 2013, the irresponsible television news did their level best to amplify it.

    It should not have been a story, any more so than some Destiny Church member maintaining that an evil spirit is lurking at the bottom of his garden.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Reid (15,608 comments) says:

    If EM radiation does cause cellular degradation, why precisely would anyone expect the science to be honest about it?

    Hasn’t anyone noticed how the global warming science has been manipulated? Hasn’t anyone noticed how the science around smoking and cancer was manipulated? What are the common factors? Massive vested interests. Any vested interests in current EM emissions? Of course not. Duh.

    So who knows whether it does or it doesn’t. But FFS if you expect the media and the scientists to be honest about this given the massive vested interests at play, then you’re dumber than Bush 43, who couldn’t even recall (or more precisely couldn’t allow himself to say it) the ‘fool me once’ phrase. And it’s happened twice now, with smoking and AGW, you think it wouldn’t happen again?

    And please don’t hallucinate I’m saying it does cause cancer or it doesn’t. It’s only been around at the relevant frequencies for a few years and common sense would suggest it’s the frequency that is the danger, if there is a danger, not EM per se, since we all vibrate at a given frequency just like the wine glass does but that only breaks when someone replicates the resonance, doesn’t it. So common sense would suggest power transmission EM would not have much useful to add, either way, to this question. And the fact cellphone towers and WiFi have only been around for a short time, may be why it’s not yet showing up.

    Either way, logic says jury is still out, plus logic also says, unless you’re terminally naive, don’t expect anything but the most vigorous resistance from the vested interests to any of the initial, tentative data.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Pauleastbay (5,030 comments) says:

    As they polish their dunking stools this morning the people of Kapiti contemplate how best to milk their Unicorns in accordance with EU guidelines.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. ManuT (33 comments) says:

    Bloody Maori’s (embarrassing!)

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. flipper (3,277 comments) says:

    It was the Taniwha in Lake Horwhenua, was it not??????

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. duggledog (1,119 comments) says:

    I feel so sorry for the father (and mother). It’s not unheard of to do this sort of thing after such a tragedy, it can be a normal part of the grieving process. Hey if all the parents at the school get the shits about wifi even though there isn’t a lot of evidence it causes anything, and they want to go back to cable does it really matter?

    There but for the grace of god etc

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. scrubone (2,972 comments) says:

    I suspect that there may be small number of people who for whatever reason will contract cancer when you hold a WIFI device to their head for hours at a time. It’s entirely possible that the boy who died here was such a person.

    But even assuming those things to be true (and it would be almost impossible to prove either way), moving from that to “WIFI should be banned” is a massive leap which gives a margin of safety several orders of magnitude greater than can possibly be justified – especially considering the costs in terms of less convenience networking and inability to use devices like iPads that don’t plug in.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. David Garrett (5,152 comments) says:

    PEB: Excellent Sir…that comment deserves recognition beyond just a thumbs up…and compliments of the season to you…

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. scrubone (2,972 comments) says:

    I feel so sorry for the father (and mother). It’s not unheard of to do this sort of thing after such a tragedy, it can be a normal part of the grieving process.

    Quite.

    It’s when other people pick up on the irrationality bought on by a traumatic event that you have hysteria. The Zimmerman case was another good example.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Pauleastbay (5,030 comments) says:

    Dg

    I thought you had retired. Have a good one

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. OneTrack (1,985 comments) says:

    Wouldnt the hysteria be better directed at banning iPods instead of just the schools wi-fi? Damn that Steve Jobs.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. jawnbc (40 comments) says:

    This isn’t the story about a tragedy. It’s the story of a school leadership not doing its job. They did the due diligence part—and then tossed the evidence out anyway. If I were another parent in that school I’d be escalating this to get the decision reversed.

    The ability for student’s own brought devices to be used to enhance teaching and learning is HUGE. Or, rather, it was until this decision was taken.

    No one enjoys being the person who has to say “we empathise with you and your famiy’s loss—but the science is clear: wifi does not cause cancer.”

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Reid (15,608 comments) says:

    the science is clear: wifi does not cause cancer.”

    No it’s not, for it hasn’t been around enough time to gather any data. What’s clear is a lot of people who don’t understand how science works have already reached their conclusions thus showing about as much intelligence as a braying donkey trying to free its head from the fence its stuck itself into.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Brian of Mt Wgtn (18 comments) says:

    I bet they all went home and used their cell phones and cordless phones that operate on the same frequency as the wifi at the school. Total tossers.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. rouppe (852 comments) says:

    Brian

    Well… Cellphones use 800MHz or 900MHz depending on the carrier.

    Domestic cordless phones use 1.8GHz, or 2.4GHz or 5.6GHz.

    WiFi most commonly uses 2.4GHz, some 5.6GHz.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Fisiani (861 comments) says:

    Will they ban outdoor play due to solar irradiation which is far more powerful?

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. dog_eat_dog (683 comments) says:

    Rouppe,

    Cellphones on 4G networks in NZ will be running between 700mhz and 2600mhz. These networks are already active.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Pauleastbay (5,030 comments) says:

    Life leads to death – we all catch it.

    When man was living in caves he still died.
    Life is dangerous etc etc etc etc blah blah blah

    And
    I’m not trying to deliberately offensive here but the parents of the child who died. I’m wondering what type of alternative medicine they tried on him?

    I ask because so many people are trying marigold leaves and crap and when they don’t work they go looking for other things to blame. Loosing a child is unimaginable unless its happened to you but this is bullshit and the school board needs a kick in the nuts as well

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Ed Snack (1,540 comments) says:

    Interestingly enough I suggest that we may not really know enough. I work in the IT area, and recently updated an existing Wi-Fi router with a new one, using the higher frequency bands. And I’ve had to remove it because the new router made several people very distinctly nauseous. I tried several locations but the same result. It wasn’t just people reacting to the knowledge that there was a new one, I randomly turned it off and on over several weeks and these people could reliably tell if it was on (remote access to turn it off and on so no warning).

    So wifi can make you feel quite sick, sick enough anyway to leave work and go home to recover. Still want to be absolutely convinced that science has shown that wifi band radiation doesn’t affect humans… Maybe the higher frequency bands may be more problematic, and nausea ain’t cancer, but there is a physical impact, who could be quite sure what it is doing. I think the evidence we have to date implies relative safety, but that would not be on the higher frequency wifi.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Fentex (664 comments) says:

    Strange how people are so willing to accept second hand smoking may cause cancer but unwilling to accept electromagnetic radiation might

    Not weird at all when you consider that non-ionizing radiation can’t cause cancer while inhaling pollutants can.

    Although I suspect most peoples opposition to second hand smoke is more to do with the shear impolite selfishness of expecting others to sit quietly among stinking pollution.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Fentex (664 comments) says:

    the science is clear: wifi does not cause cancer.

    No it’s not, for it hasn’t been around enough time to gather any data.

    It is clear for we do have the data because we know how radiation creates cancers – through the consequences of ionization.

    Radiation that is not ionizing – such as the low energy radio waves of cell phones and wifi – does not cause cancer.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Bad__Cat (117 comments) says:

    My workplace installed Wi-Fi in our open plan office in November. Not long after that everyone seemed to become tired, listless, and sick of work. This lasted right up until the Christmas break.

    Now that I have been on holiday and away from work for over a week I feel a lot better, refreshed and more energised. This is even though I have Wi-Fi at home, because mine has a short aerial pointing up, unlike the dangerous flying saucer shaped one at work that beams out in all directions.

    I will know it’s the Wi-Fi if we all feel like we need another break after two weeks back at work!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. wikiriwhis business (3,302 comments) says:

    ‘You’ve nailed it DPF.Wifi is reminisce of the recent debacle and hysteria generated by the anti fluoridation network in Hamilton.’

    anti fluoridation network in Hamilton showed how fast the govt reacted to a democratic vote against their agenda.

    Please await a public announcement democracy causes cancer. Therefore unveiling the TPP would have caused cancer

    After all, we are run by UN marxism from both sides of the house.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. chiz (1,095 comments) says:

    From Stuff:

    In the past two weeks, scientists and experts from around the world have flooded Mr Wyman with advice and shared their concerns.

    This is part of the problem. The people involved heard opinions from “experts” that backed up their fears of EMR.

    This is a common problem with many issues from EMR to GMOs to fluoridation etc. Many people don’t understand that you can routinely find people with degrees in the relevant subjects who are happy to pass themselves off as experts even though they are fact fruit-loops. Locally we have charlatans like Neil Cherry, who passed himself off as an expert on EMR, or, today, charlatans like Jack Heinmann passing himself off as an expert on GMOs. The Media often fall for this too.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. chiz (1,095 comments) says:

    Bad-cat, Ed Snack – electromagnetic sensitivity is psychosomatic. There have been formal studies on this.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. chiz (1,095 comments) says:

    Reid:

    It’s only been around at the relevant frequencies for a few years and common sense would suggest it’s the frequency that is the danger, if there is a danger, not EM per se, since we all vibrate at a given frequency just like the wine glass does but that only breaks when someone replicates the resonance, doesn’t it.

    We all vibrate at a given frequency? Really? This is New Age Woo. Time to learn some basic science. Individual molecules vibrate but different types of molecules have different types of vibrations. There is no single frequency that we vibrate at. The molecules in our bodies are all vibrating at their own frequencies. and the frequencies involved are in the infra-red rather than at radio wavelengths.

    What’s clear is a lot of people who don’t understand how science works have already reached their conclusions

    This claim applies to yourself. The reason why so many experts have concluded that there is no threat from EMR is (a) because there is no known mechanism by which this is possible – do you even understand the difference between ionising and nonionising radiation? – and (b) there is no empirical evidence to back up such claims. People have done lab experiments with cell cultures for examples. One or two people have evidence – what you would expect from chance if enough studies are done – but they haven’t been replicated. It doesn’t help that some researchers who claimed to have found evidence turned out to be fraudsters, or that the original studies on power lines that started all these scare stories turned out to be based on fudged data.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Psycho Milt (1,989 comments) says:

    My workplace installed Wi-Fi in our open plan office in November. Not long after that everyone seemed to become tired, listless, and sick of work.

    I find the solar radiation coming in through the window did that long before we got wifi – maybe they shouldn’t have installed windows in the building.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. David in Chch (503 comments) says:

    There may actually be an effect, chiz, but it’s not from the EM fields. A fellow in the power industry told me, many years ago, that the power lines in Colorado that were the original “source” for a lot of this BS were accessed by dirt roads. The power company there took the spent transformer oil and sprayed it on the roads to keep the dust down. The oil? PCBs that contained dioxins because the transformers had sparked, causing a chemical reaction that changed some of the PCBs into dioxins.

    And in LA, they found that the incidences of cancers went up as houses were closer to the major arterial roads. At first, it was thought this was because they had higher EM fields, because the power ratings of the houses also went up. But separate measurements of the EM fields showed there was no correlation. Then they measured the gases. Remember that benzene and toluene (which replaced lead in the high octane fuels) are carcinogenic, and those concentrations were highest nearest to the arterial roads.

    So a lot of these so-called effects due to EMFs are actually due to chemical contaminants.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Ed Snack (1,540 comments) says:

    Chiz, I would have thought so but I did a reasonable blind experiment on this, the users did not know if the unit was on, and it was switched on/off remotely. They were 100% correct on if it was on or off depending on how they felt. It was range dependent too, if I moved it far enough away the affect reduced and disappeared when far enough. I cease to believe it is psychosomatic and there does seem to be evidence (admittedly via the internet) that this in fact a real issue for a minority (around 5 – 10%) of people.

    And this new unit is more powerful (it’s an Ubiquiti, model I forget right now) that has 2-3 times the range of the old unit it was supposed to replace and uses additional frequencies. It didn’t affect me, I had it in my office for testing for a couple of weeks, but three people in the main office were affected every time it was within range and turned on. Not official experiments but fairly carefully checked and as I said, effectively blind to the unwitting participants.

    The usual problem was nausea, headaches up to near migraine intensity. Not listlessness or any normal workplace affections !

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Rowan (1,729 comments) says:

    True DPF
    This is just a beat up, there are a number of potential causes of cancer for young people and to blame it all on ‘Wi-Fi’ is ridiculous. As you say cancer has been around a lot longer than Wi-Fi.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Bob R (1,254 comments) says:

    Surely it’s too early to say with much confidence what the effects of this are although I can see why people have concerns. Harvard Medical School neurologist and neuroscientist Dr Martha Herbert writes:

    “In fact, there are thousands of papers that have accumulated over decades – and are now accumulating at an accelerating pace, as our ability to measure impacts become more sensitive – that document adverse health and neurological impacts of EMF/RFR. Children are more vulnerable than adults, and children with chronic illnesses and/or neurodevelopmental disabilities are even more vulnerable. Elderly or chronically ill adults are more vulnerable than healthy adults.

    Current te chnologies were designed and promulgated without taking account of biological impacts other than thermal impacts. We now know that there are a large array of impacts that have nothing to do with the heating of tissue. The claim from wifi proponents that the only concern is thermal impacts is now definitively outdated scientifically.

    EMF/RFR from wifi and cell towers can exert a disorganizing effect on the ability to learn and remember, and can also be destabilizing to immune and metabolic function. This will make it harder for some children to learn, particularly those who are already having problems in the first place.

    I urge you to step back from your intention to go wifi in the LAUSD, and instead opt for wired technologies, particularly for those subpopulations that are most sensitive. It will be easier for you to make a healthier decision now than to undo a misguided decision later.”

    http://www.c4st.org/images/documents/resources/wifi-in-schools/HerbertLettertoLACUSDObjectingToWiFiClassroom2013-0208.pdf

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Left Right and Centre (2,397 comments) says:

    Our lord and master hits this one right out of the ground – it’s a big, big, big , big six…… and it’s still climbing…. fuck me days !!

    We’ve still got idiots now…. and they’ll be around for a long time to come.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Left Right and Centre (2,397 comments) says:

    The usual problem was nausea, headaches up to near migraine intensity. Not listlessness or any normal workplace affections !

    Funny – I’ve got similar symptoms just from reading some of these comments…. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Left Right and Centre (2,397 comments) says:

    What a great excuse to bunk off work for the day….

    Boss – I’m sick. It’s the wi-fi. Prove me wrong arsewipe.

    Brilliant !!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Reid (15,608 comments) says:

    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/02/09/new-study-confirms-electrical-pollution-from-cell-phones-and-wifi-is-hazardous.aspx

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.