We use cookies to show content based on your preferences. If you continue to browse you accept their use and installation. More information. >

FMF - Friends of Minerals Forum, discussion and message board
The place to share your mineralogical experiences


Spanish message board






Newest topics and users posts
29 Mar-00:03:53 Identification question (Jim Wilkinson)
28 Mar-23:16:36 Re: collection of volkmar stingl (Volkmar Stingl)
28 Mar-18:25:15 Re: collection of firmo espinar (Firmo Espinar)
28 Mar-09:37:50 Re: 2 unknowns co-occurring with caledonite, grand reef mine, az (Cfrench58)
27 Mar-19:47:08 Re: 2 unknowns co-occurring with caledonite, grand reef mine, az (Pete Richards)
27 Mar-16:15:44 Re: 2 unknowns co-occurring with caledonite, grand reef mine, az (Cfrench58)
27 Mar-15:18:59 Re: 2 unknowns co-occurring with caledonite, grand reef mine, az (Alfredo)
27 Mar-14:39:29 2 unknowns co-occurring with caledonite, grand reef mine, az (Cfrench58)
27 Mar-05:21:48 Re: the mim museum in beirut, lebanon (Mim Museum)
27 Mar-05:03:26 Re: trying to find information on rose/pink quartz and tourmaline associations. (Ning)
27 Mar-02:39:50 Re: the mim museum in beirut, lebanon (Tobi)
27 Mar-00:23:28 Re: collection of volkmar stingl (Volkmar Stingl)
26 Mar-00:53:41 Re: collection of volkmar stingl (Volkmar Stingl)
25 Mar-13:32:10 Re: collection of michael shaw (Michael Shaw)
25 Mar-00:25:58 The mizunaka collection - quartz (Am Mizunaka)
23 Mar-13:35:22 Re: collection of firmo espinar (Firmo Espinar)
22 Mar-08:32:28 Re: collection of michael shaw (Michael Shaw)
22 Mar-04:20:41 Re: the mim museum in beirut, lebanon (Mim Museum)
21 Mar-22:49:19 Re: green seam. Looks like it in a state of decay. (Ning)
21 Mar-22:47:40 Re: green seam. Looks like it in a state of decay. (Ning)
21 Mar-22:45:25 Re: green seam. Looks like it in a state of decay. (Ning)
21 Mar-15:34:23 Re: the mizunaka collection - quartz (Am Mizunaka)
21 Mar-14:35:08 Re: jim’s mineral collection (Jim Wilkinson)
21 Mar-14:15:36 The 4th phoenix heritage mineral show (phms) hosted by mineralogical society of arizona (m (Chris Whitney-smith)
21 Mar-04:36:10 Re: the mizunaka collection (Tobi)

For lists of newest topics and postings click here


RSS RSS

View unanswered posts

Why and how to register

Index Index
 FAQFAQ RegisterRegister  Log inLog in
 {Forgotten your password?}Forgotten your password?  

Like
111810


The time now is Mar 29, 2024 05:18

Search for a textSearch for a text   

A general guide for using the Forum with some rules and tips
The information provided within this Forum about localities is only given to allow reference to them. Any visit to any of the localities requires you to obtain full permission and relevant information prior to your visit. FMF is strictly against any illicit activities related to collecting minerals.
The amount of radioactivity handling specimens is negligible?
  Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
  Index -> The Ten Thousand Club
Like
1


View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message

John S. White
Site Admin



Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 1295
Location: Stewartstown, Pennsylvania, USA


Access to the FMF Gallery title=

View user's profile

Send private message

PostPosted: Sep 09, 2009 04:29    Post subject: The amount of radioactivity handling specimens is negligible?  

After much deliberation I have decided to respond to the Sept. 7 -> https://www.mineral-forum.com/message-board/viewtopic.php?p=6994#6994 , comments of Lluis which I regard as unnecessarily alarmist. The amount of radioactivity encountered in handling a small specimen of metatorbernite is negligible and certainly poses no threat. While I do not recommend it, I am confident that one could even drink the water the specimen was soaking in without endangering oneself. My good (deceased several years now) friend the Belgian mineral dealer Gilbert Gautier spent most of his adult life immersed in a potent inventory of radioactive minerals from Africa and he was in excellent health right up until he died at the age of 82.

It makes sense to be aware of real hazards but I do not regard this one as warranting a caution, just as handling an asbestos specimen is not going to give one asbestosis.

_________________
John S. White
aka Rondinaire
Back to top
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Like
   

lluis




Joined: 17 Nov 2006
Posts: 710

View user's profile

Send private message

PostPosted: Sep 09, 2009 05:56    Post subject: Re: The amount of radioactivity handling specimens is negligible?  

Good morning. Mr. Sampson-White

For the dangers, well, Mr. and Mrs. Montal, a well known "classical" mineral dealers in Spain both died from leukemia.
As far as I know, Mr. Montal complained about be due to handling radioactive minerals.

True? Wrong?
Who knows what had happened if he had not dealt with radioactive minerals.

I suppose that you will agree that handling could may be not very dangerous, but eating particles is very dangeorus. And that is recomended to clean hands after touching radioactive minerals.
Yes, of course was an epoch in which radium-beer was sold as a panacea for all illness. And that all was cured with some radium. But ....

Anyway, I prefer be safe than sorry.

With best wishes

Lluís
Back to top
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Like
   

John S. White
Site Admin



Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 1295
Location: Stewartstown, Pennsylvania, USA


Access to the FMF Gallery title=

View user's profile

Send private message

PostPosted: Sep 09, 2009 06:48    Post subject: Re: The amount of radioactivity handling specimens is negligible?  

And I prefer to not be paranoid about what I perceive as non-threats.
_________________
John S. White
aka Rondinaire
Back to top
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Like
   

Tracy




Joined: 15 Sep 2006
Posts: 551
Location: Toronto


Access to the FMF Gallery title=

View user's profile

Send private message

PostPosted: Sep 09, 2009 09:06    Post subject: Re: The amount of radioactivity handling specimens is negligible?  

With utmost respect to both parties, I'm inclined to agree with John. I live in a region that is high in uranium and thorium. The most significant hazard from living here is inhalation of gaseous radon (a decay prouduct of uranium), which subsequently decays to solid particles that can lodge in the lung, causing an increased risk of lung cancer. The higher-than-average amount of radon present in the water and soil was studied for years at my grad school, NYU. Even though the NYU scientists were able to detect measurable amounts of excesss radon in shower water, no warnings were ever issued to not take showers because, while higher than average, the increase is not high enough to make a difference. I find it hard to believe that one small specimen will contaminate rinse water enough to pose anysignificant health risks. We're also not talking about huge amounts of water, either, meaning less likelihood of getting exposed to a large dose of radioactives.

We get exposed to natural radiation every day from a variety of sources, also from many air pollutants. But again, generally not enough to present a health risk. In most cases, if a person develops cancer there is virtually no way to pinpoint the root cause - even if one has a suspicion. I think it is an overreaction to worry about residues in rinse water, as in this case - I'd be more worried about spending too much time in the sun - but if such is Lluis' preference, it is his prerogative.

My 2 cents...

- Tracy

_________________
"Wisdom begins in wonder" - Socrates
Back to top
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Like
   

nurbo




Joined: 23 Sep 2008
Posts: 457
Location: Lancashire


Access to the FMF Gallery title=

View user's profile

Send private message

PostPosted: Sep 09, 2009 10:31    Post subject: Re: The amount of radioactivity handling specimens is negligible?  

Here are the numbers

According to webmineral.com the radioactivity given off by a 1kg sphere of Torbernite (Radius approx 8.4cm) if held in the hand for 1 hour is 1218.11 mRem,
the maximum permissible dose over 1 year is 50 000 mRem for the hands (Only 15000 for the eyes!)

50000 / 1218.11= ~ 41
So to get the maximum permissible dosage of radiation from Torbernite you would need to hold around 41 kilos of it in your hands for 1 hr or 1 kilo for 41 hours

The average estimated annual exposure to radiation is 360 mRem

The piece in question weighs under 2 grams, 2 grams gives off approx 5.82 mRem per hour

50000 - 360 = 49640 / 5.82 = ~ 8529.2

So for me to get the maximum permissible dose of radiation from my Torbernite I'd need to hold it for 8529 hrs and 12 minutes (Approx), there are 8760 hours in a year,

To reach the average yearly exposure of 360 mRem it would take around 61 hr 51 minutes (approx)

The lower bound of a lethal dose is 400000 mRem equivalent to holding this piece for about 68728 and a half hours, which is almost 8 years, so a piece weighing around 16 grams worn on the body for a year could kill,
Back to top
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Like
1
   

Les Presmyk




Joined: 06 Dec 2007
Posts: 372
Location: Gilbert, AZ

View user's profile

Send private message

PostPosted: Sep 09, 2009 11:01    Post subject: Re: The amount of radioactivity handling specimens is negligible?  

Interesting information. I am still trying to get my hands around why anyone would drink, or contemplate drinking, the water in which they just washed their minerals.
Back to top
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Like
   

GneissWare




Joined: 07 Mar 2008
Posts: 1287
Location: California


Access to the FMF Gallery title=

View user's profile

Send private message

PostPosted: Sep 09, 2009 11:10    Post subject: Re: The amount of radioactivity handling specimens is negligible?  

Les, I think Torbernite is good for your 4th chakra. I'm sure you remember about 15 years ago when the healy-feelies were buying strange things, like orpiment, to grind up and ingest?
Back to top
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Like
   

Tracy




Joined: 15 Sep 2006
Posts: 551
Location: Toronto


Access to the FMF Gallery title=

View user's profile

Send private message

PostPosted: Sep 09, 2009 11:11    Post subject: Re: The amount of radioactivity handling specimens is negligible?  

There's also the matter of alpha, beta, and gamma radiation. If memory serves, most long-lasting members of the uranium series are alpha emitters, and not particularly strong ones, not likely to penetrate the skin so most likely routes of entry are by inhalation or ingestion. But I'm starting to stray outside my areas of expertise...

Nice job with the numbers, Nurbo.

- Tracy

_________________
"Wisdom begins in wonder" - Socrates
Back to top
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Like
   

Tracy




Joined: 15 Sep 2006
Posts: 551
Location: Toronto


Access to the FMF Gallery title=

View user's profile

Send private message

PostPosted: Sep 09, 2009 11:22    Post subject: Re: The amount of radioactivity handling specimens is negligible?  

Genissware, just saw your note...arsenic was used throughout history for its vasodilatory properties. Women would ingest it to get a nice rosy glow on their cheeks. They also applied it to their faces to whiten the skin). I think it was generally believed that arsenic had restorative or curative properties, probably due to the fact that it causes GI toxicity (vomiting, diarrhea) and as such would serve as a purgative. Don't know anything about grinding up orpiment, but I can offer a suggestion as to where this practice might have originated.

- Tracy

_________________
"Wisdom begins in wonder" - Socrates
Back to top
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Like
   

Les Presmyk




Joined: 06 Dec 2007
Posts: 372
Location: Gilbert, AZ

View user's profile

Send private message

PostPosted: Sep 09, 2009 11:23    Post subject: Re: The amount of radioactivity handling specimens is negligible?  

Yes, the numbers were very interesting. I guess I have missed a real opportunity. I have been throwing my mineral wash water onto my lawn. Maybe I should be bottling it and selling it. Any takers?

I do believe that a few collectors might want to be concerned if they have a number of radioactive minerals in a closed cabinet or room. The first breath or two when opening the drawer might provide some exposure issues if done repeatedly over a number of years but for the vast majority of us, we are more likely to die of old age than radioactive poisoning.
Back to top
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Like
   

John S. White
Site Admin



Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 1295
Location: Stewartstown, Pennsylvania, USA


Access to the FMF Gallery title=

View user's profile

Send private message

PostPosted: Sep 09, 2009 14:20    Post subject: Re: The amount of radioactivity handling specimens is negligible?  

How can I resist carrying on? While at the Smithsonian we had drawers and drawers of very radioactive minerals which were opened frequently by the staff and, of course, who knows how many deep inhalations occurred in the process. Thus far I am totally unaware of any adverse effect on any of the staff, former and present. On the other hand all of the former curators up to myself are now not living.

One of the older curators there, Ed Henderson, once told me a story about his visit to an elderly gentleman in New York who had made his fortune in uranium mining. In his study he had a large urn full of water and chunks of pitchblende. It was his practice, he told Ed, to draw off a tumbler of water from the urn every day and drink it. He lived to a quite old age. Ed did say, however, that "I bet his bones are glowing in his grave." Les, this story is what made me think about drinking the water.

Finally, at one point there was concern that the radioactive minerals in the exhibition gallery were possibly exposing visitors to dangerous levels of radioactivity. So we brought in an expert and following his analysis he stated that a pregnant woman could sit on the hottest case for the full term of her pregnancy and not put herself in danger.

_________________
John S. White
aka Rondinaire
Back to top
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Like
   

Les Presmyk




Joined: 06 Dec 2007
Posts: 372
Location: Gilbert, AZ

View user's profile

Send private message

PostPosted: Sep 09, 2009 15:07    Post subject: Re: The amount of radioactivity handling specimens is negligible?  

At the height of the asbestos scare, I had a geologist friend who had a jar of yellowcake and a specimen of asbestos with up to 3" fibers. His wife never gave a second thought to the uranium but insisted he remove the asbestos specimen from the house. I always figured the biggest danger from either one was if it fell off the shelf and broke one's toe or foot.

John, I appreciate your information about the museum environment. I once bought a collection that had a set of drawers in which the collector had lined several of them with thin lead sheathing for his uranium minerals. In spite of your best efforts, I am not going to start drinking either my bath water or mineral washing water, regardless of how much radioactive may or may not be there.
Back to top
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Like
   

alfredo
Site Admin



Joined: 30 Jan 2008
Posts: 979


Access to the FMF Gallery title=

View user's profile

Send private message

PostPosted: Sep 09, 2009 15:18    Post subject: Re: The amount of radioactivity handling specimens is negligible?  

In Germany many years ago I visited an old mine where a deep underground chamber had been outfitted as a kind of waiting room where one took "radon baths" - just sitting there on the couch for a few hours and inhaling the supposedly radon-rich air was supposed to be good for ones health and medically approved. The cousins who took me on that excursion were both anti-nuclear power activists. When asked about this apparent discrepancy, the answer was that the radioactivity in the mine was better for you because it was "natural" radioactivity. Tell that to anyone who is scared of your natural minerals!
;-))
Back to top
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Like
   

lluis




Joined: 17 Nov 2006
Posts: 710

View user's profile

Send private message

PostPosted: Sep 09, 2009 15:49    Post subject: Re: The amount of radioactivity handling specimens is negligible?  

Good afternoon

Just some points

One could not be paranoid about a thing that is not perceived as a thread.

In Spain it would be highly questionable that you discard the water after cleaning the torbernite. More or less like to discard something that has ppm of mercury (like the vials used to determine the CDO)

Radon causes health troubles. Other is what was said about radium and radon a health sources...

One think is exposure to radiation and other is to ingest particles. Particles that tend to be assimilated in bones, and is showed that could produce leukemia.

Anyway, I think that is clear that I avoid radioactives (I would be very unhappy to glow in the obscurity).
But, a chaqun sélon son goût. I love Fledermaus :-)

At the end, was cited in the MR a case of a collector that was found as a radioactive anomality when searching for radioactive deposits in USA.
He was alive....(at least, still)

With best wishes

Lluís
Back to top
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Like
   

Cesar M. Salvan
Site Admin



Joined: 09 Jun 2008
Posts: 126
Location: Alcalá de Henares


Access to the FMF Gallery title=

View user's profile

Send private message

PostPosted: Sep 09, 2009 18:40    Post subject: Re: The amount of radioactivity handling specimens is negligible?  

The issue of the radiactivity of minerals is a classic question among the mineral collectors, revived in forums and corridor talks from time to time. For me, as a professional user of radioactive isotopes is always an interesting and funny question.

First of all, the question that entitled this topic: the amount of radioactivity is obviously not negligible from a physical point of view. In fact, is easily detected and measured even with the simplest instrumentation and nearly all motivated individuals are able to construct their own working radiometer.
The question is if this radioactivity is an actual danger. The long term work of greenpeacers, pipe dreamers, armchair scientists and fraidy cats, taken together with spectacular and dramatic events (Three Miles Island, Chernobyl, military uses of fission...) impregnates the media and laypersons, generating an unnecesary fear to just the word radioactivity.
Actually, the energy and dose of radioactivity generated by the NORM (naturally occurring radioactive materials) in minerals is sufficiently low to be considered safe in the quantities handled by collectors. Even the ingestion of uranium salts could be dangerous from a chemical point of view and irrelevant from a radiochemical or radiological one. If we take the numbers calculated by "nurbo", these calculation are valid from a whole body exposure!. why?- the alpha emission of uranium is not considered due to the very low reach of the helium nucleons in non-vacuum medium. The gammas associated to alpha emission in uranium are quite non energetic and, hence, of low reach and has low ability to induce chemical changes in DNA, for example. The beta emission maybe the riskiest form of radiation (apart neutrons, non considered in natural materials) and are not considered here, due to the lack of beta emitters in uranium chain. The major amount of radioactivity in uranium minerals come from U235, Ra226, Pb214 and Bi214. The quantities of these isotopes in uranium minerals are low and only could represent a threat after concentration and purification from a high quantity (tons) of uranium minerals. After the purification, these isotopes could generate a whole body exposure. But I guess that anybody will attemp to purify isotopes in the garage...

An usual error of mineral collectors is to take a radiometer or dosimeter and to bring it closer to the mineral sample. After that, the collector take the reading in microsieverts per hour and scares with the danger of this pretty high dose. No way. The dosimeter should be carried near the chest and is used to measure the dose or dose rate that receive the body. If used properly, the usual handling of typical mineral specimens by a collector do not increase significatively the dose received by the body. Of course, a diary exposition to a huge collection of uranium minerals could be significative from a dose point of view, but still could not be biologically significant (the concept of stochastic dose). My recommendation is to buy a cheap digital rate meter and use it properly. Is the best form to beat the fear.

We must take in mind that our own body is a significative radiation source, through K40. We are all exposed to radiation emitted by rocks, radon, cosmic sources. The use of high tension is a source of radiation, the strong electromagnetic fields could have biological effects, ultraviolet radiation,....
And the medical sources: a radiography or the injection of radioactive isotopes as tracers give us a dose several magnitude orders over the dose generated by a metatorbernite cabinet specimen. We need complete months or years of handling of such specimens to receive the same dose received with one chest radiography. I worked with isotopes thousands times more active than natural uranium and I never received a radiation dose significatively higher than the dose received by the public. Each radiation type and concrete isotope requires the adequate handling measures. In the case of uranium minerals, the handling rules are common sense (the same common sense used during the handling of mercury minerals or chemicals as caustic soda or bleach: lower exposition as possible, cleaningless of the hands and bench, out of the reach of children...) and, if you have a significative collection of uranium minerals, a dosimeter or rate-meter to control your dose. Some people cautions about the eyes: the eye is one of the sensitive targets of radiation in our body. Others are the gonads, the thyroid (in case of radioactive iodine, not considered here), bone marrow (in case of strong emitters, or internal fixation of radium, plutonium or high quantity of uranium, not considered here) and internal organs. So, the continuous close observation of high-level uranium minerals could be dangerous for the eyes, the only target actually reachable by the uranium minerals.
IN the practice, I never observed or heard about such effects, but a reccomendation to avoid potential damages is the observation through an stereomicroscope.

Finally, if your intention is to repeat the M. Curie purification of radium using one ton of Bohemian uraninite processing tailings, of course, you should take precautionary measures.



espectros gamma.jpg
 Description:
Typical gamma spectrum of a small sample of natural uraninite showing the main contributions to the detected radioactivity. Note that U238 is not detectable.
 Viewed:  47989 Time(s)

espectros gamma.jpg



espectros gamma.jpg
 Description:
Typical gamma spectrum of a secondary uranyl mineral. The amount of radioactivity is low and the system requires high count time, despite of the "tak-tak" perceived using a Geiger probe. The graphic shows the main contributions to the radioactivity of mineral.
 Viewed:  48020 Time(s)

espectros gamma.jpg


Back to top
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Like
   

jimB




Joined: 07 Sep 2009
Posts: 51
Location: Tucson, Arizona

View user's profile

Send private message

PostPosted: Sep 09, 2009 22:13    Post subject: Re: The amount of radioactivity handling specimens is negligible?  

Alfredo, there was just such a mine in New Mexico near Truth or Consequences (1960) that advertised radiation baths. One would pay a fee the go sit in the mine and let the "helaing waters" drip on you and soak the radiation and people would swear they felt better. Id bet the radiation was sligfhtly above background radon and everyone was was having fun and I didnt see any one with strange growths or even lime green lips. Now of course if you measure noticable radon in your house it takes a team including an exorcist to cleanse your house before you can sell it. I think we take most of this stuff to seriously.
_________________
JimB
Back to top
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Like
   

keldjarn




Joined: 18 Feb 2008
Posts: 157


Access to the FMF Gallery title=

View user's profile

Send private message

PostPosted: Sep 15, 2009 06:13    Post subject: Re: The amount of radioactivity handling specimens is negligible?  

Caring for your health and taking sensible precautions also when handling radioactive minerals should not be converted into a senseless scare of the "invisible and deadly radioactivity" which is really all around us in small amounts. I fully agree with John - even if I would not drink the water after washing my radiocative specimens or inhale the dust from such minerals.But the precautions taken by some mineral collectors, academics and museums in relation to radioactive minerals sometimes make me wonder if these people ever dare venture into the traffic which would be statistically much more deadly than handling a specimen of Torbernite.
Recently there was a seminar at the University here with top-notch academics and representatives of Industry and the Goverment discussing the possibility of developing "safer" nuclear power based on rich deposits of Thorium-ore in Norway. As a contribution I presented a piece of Thorite from a pegmatite in the Langesundsfjord-area (which also hosts the type locality for this mineral.) My intention was for the participants of the conferance to see a real piece of Thorium-ore and to remind them of the historical connection between this element and Norway . After a heated debate with management and leading academics (who had never seen real Thorite in their whole life even if making a living of studying the issue of Thorium-based nuclear power), the sample was removed and locked down in a "safe place" far from the venue and participants.


Knut
Back to top
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Like
   

Ed Huskinson




Joined: 15 Apr 2009
Posts: 318
Location: Kingman, Arizona


Access to the FMF Gallery title=

View user's profile

Send private message

PostPosted: Sep 15, 2009 13:41    Post subject: Re: The amount of radioactivity handling specimens is negligible?  

Yeah Knut. If it's nuclear in nature, it scares them. Reactions like this always leave me shaking my head at the power of the media. People fear the onslaught of the giant tarantulas and the attack of the 50 Foot Woman, both caused by "nucular rays".

Later,

Ed

_________________
La respuesta está en las rocas!! Estudiadlas!!
Ed
Back to top
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Like
   

alfredo
Site Admin



Joined: 30 Jan 2008
Posts: 979


Access to the FMF Gallery title=

View user's profile

Send private message

PostPosted: Sep 15, 2009 14:07    Post subject: Re: The amount of radioactivity handling specimens is negligible?  

A clarification of something Nurbo wrote above: "The lower bound of a lethal dose is 400000 mRem equivalent to holding this piece for about 68728 and a half hours, which is almost 8 years, so a piece weighing around 16 grams worn on the body for a year could kill."

In order to kill you, the "lethal dose" has to be delivered in a relatively short period of time, so carrying this specimen in your pocket for 8 years would *not* constitute a lethal dose, as the human body's natural repair mechanisms would be healing some of the damage as time went by.
Back to top
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Like
   

Ed Huskinson




Joined: 15 Apr 2009
Posts: 318
Location: Kingman, Arizona


Access to the FMF Gallery title=

View user's profile

Send private message

PostPosted: Sep 15, 2009 14:20    Post subject: Re: The amount of radioactivity handling specimens is negligible?  

Yeah Alfredo, but it's "nucular". I'm a-feared....
_________________
La respuesta está en las rocas!! Estudiadlas!!
Ed
Back to top
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Like
   
Display posts from previous:   
   Index -> The Ten Thousand Club   All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 3
  Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next  

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


All pictures, text, design © Forum FMF 2006-2024


Powered by FMF