The Fukushima Disaster
Guest avatarLoginRegisterLost password


New reply
Home
 
  • 242 Votes - 3.76 Average
The Fukushima Disaster
Author Message
01-10-2014 02:57 PM#1381
UniqueStrangerArt in my heart
Posts: 14,445Joined: Jun 2012
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
(01-09-2014 02:02 AM)Below Average Genius Wrote:  
(01-05-2014 05:57 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
(01-05-2014 01:36 AM)Below Average Genius Wrote:  
(01-04-2014 03:02 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
(01-04-2014 08:35 AM)Below Average Genius Wrote:  The excuse used to postpone future reports wouldn't give me a lot of confidence. How in the world can they be running an incredibly high risk operation with the removal of fuel rods and not report daily how they are proceeding!

Their unwillingness to REPORT what is going on should send shivers up your spine.

Hey BAG, why not register on this site as there are up to date reports. I'm just not sure how to read the measured results. Maybe you could help here.

http://nucleus.iaea.org/sso/NUCLEUS.html...g/inisnkm/

Thanks for the invite, Unique. The problem is that I don't trust the IAEA to give full and complete information or even accurate information. It's populated by nuclear apologists. It didn't help any that El Baradai (sp?) was their former head.

I would agree all the measurements and information is confusing if one is not a nuclear engineer, but are all of them apologists, or are they actually stating facts?

You might want to check out this story about the IAEA agreeing in writing to WITHHOLD/CONCEAL information about Fukushima.

http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/201...alresponse

I glanced over the agreement and it is somewhat confusing, in that their aim appears to be to provide public awareness on radiological effects of public health, yet the information is treated as confidential and highly classified and the IAEA has no freedom to act independently. dunno.gif

http://www.turnerradionetwork.com/images/fmu-iaea.pdf
01-11-2014 05:25 AM#1382
Below Average GeniusMember
Posts: 1,940Joined: Apr 2013
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
(01-10-2014 02:57 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
(01-09-2014 02:02 AM)Below Average Genius Wrote:  
(01-05-2014 05:57 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
(01-05-2014 01:36 AM)Below Average Genius Wrote:  
(01-04-2014 03:02 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  Hey BAG, why not register on this site as there are up to date reports. I'm just not sure how to read the measured results. Maybe you could help here.

http://nucleus.iaea.org/sso/NUCLEUS.html...g/inisnkm/

Thanks for the invite, Unique. The problem is that I don't trust the IAEA to give full and complete information or even accurate information. It's populated by nuclear apologists. It didn't help any that El Baradai (sp?) was their former head.

I would agree all the measurements and information is confusing if one is not a nuclear engineer, but are all of them apologists, or are they actually stating facts?

You might want to check out this story about the IAEA agreeing in writing to WITHHOLD/CONCEAL information about Fukushima.

http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/201...alresponse

I glanced over the agreement and it is somewhat confusing, in that their aim appears to be to provide public awareness on radiological effects of public health, yet the information is treated as confidential and highly classified and the IAEA has no freedom to act independently. dunno.gif

http://www.turnerradionetwork.com/images/fmu-iaea.pdf

Here's how I see it. The IAEA isn't so stupid as to say, "Hey folks, we're going to cover up the stuff that would have you running at us with pitchforks."

No what they do is dress up the same action under the rubric of proprietary information. The IAEA works for TPTB. They know what their role is and they follow it.

Their job is to make the TPTB look good and to make us look the other way.

Pray for me. hug.gif
01-11-2014 06:49 AM#1383
UniqueStrangerArt in my heart
Posts: 14,445Joined: Jun 2012
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
(01-11-2014 05:25 AM)Below Average Genius Wrote:  
(01-10-2014 02:57 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
(01-09-2014 02:02 AM)Below Average Genius Wrote:  
(01-05-2014 05:57 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
(01-05-2014 01:36 AM)Below Average Genius Wrote:  Thanks for the invite, Unique. The problem is that I don't trust the IAEA to give full and complete information or even accurate information. It's populated by nuclear apologists. It didn't help any that El Baradai (sp?) was their former head.

I would agree all the measurements and information is confusing if one is not a nuclear engineer, but are all of them apologists, or are they actually stating facts?

You might want to check out this story about the IAEA agreeing in writing to WITHHOLD/CONCEAL information about Fukushima.

http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/201...alresponse

I glanced over the agreement and it is somewhat confusing, in that their aim appears to be to provide public awareness on radiological effects of public health, yet the information is treated as confidential and highly classified and the IAEA has no freedom to act independently. dunno.gif

http://www.turnerradionetwork.com/images/fmu-iaea.pdf

Here's how I see it. The IAEA isn't so stupid as to say, "Hey folks, we're going to cover up the stuff that would have you running at us with pitchforks."

No what they do is dress up the same action under the rubric of proprietary information. The IAEA works for TPTB. They know what their role is and they follow it.

Their job is to make the TPTB look good and to make us look the other way.

I invision it this way, that they don't know what the hell they are dealing with and will work together to not freak the public out...or freak out the public.
01-19-2014 06:09 PM#1384
UniqueStrangerArt in my heart
Posts: 14,445Joined: Jun 2012
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
sad2.gif The Japanese officials are into total denial. Crazy s***t.


http://truth-out.org/news/item/21169-fuk...nt-go-away

From same article...

"Health officials in San Mateo County confirmed the radiation spike in snow but remain ‘befuddled’ as to its cause.":

Why are all gov't officials either befuddled or puzzled?
01-20-2014 01:50 AM#1385
The SurvivorTruthtard
Posts: 5,337Joined: Sep 2012
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
Japan TV: ‘Problem on their hands’ at Fukushima, constant flow of water pouring from foot-wide leak at Reactor 3; “They don’t know where water it’s coming from” — WSJ: Radiation level spikes 60-fold in seconds nearby.

http://enenews.com/japan-tv-problem-at-f...d-in-secon

Life is like a penny, you can spend it on what you like, but you can ONLY spend it once.


https://twitter.com/NigelLondon2014
01-22-2014 10:17 PM#1386
UniqueStrangerArt in my heart
Posts: 14,445Joined: Jun 2012
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
So, my nuclear engineer nephew, whose favorite words are "It's only background radiation!", posted this for everyone, which he also says "...is based on science" ... not doom (my words).

http://www.theprovince.com/news/Fukushim...story.html
01-23-2014 03:51 AM#1387
Below Average GeniusMember
Posts: 1,940Joined: Apr 2013
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
(01-22-2014 10:17 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  So, my nuclear engineer nephew, whose favorite words are "It's only background radiation!", posted this for everyone, which he also says "...is based on science" ... not doom (my words).

http://www.theprovince.com/news/Fukushim...story.html

I'm in a foul mood right now based on unrelated issues, so let me apologize for my bluntness.

Your nephew is full of the same crap every nuclear apologist is full of. For instance let me quote from the linked article:

"OSU’s Delvan Neville, a co-investigator on the project said: “To increase their normal annual dosage of radiation by just one per cent, a person would have to eat more than 4,000 pounds of the highest (radiation) level albacore we’ve seen.”

This is pure deadly bullsh!t. Neville is basing his statement on the utterly false idea that natural background radiation and highly refined Cesium-137 or highly refined strontium are the same.

They are even 1,000,000 shades of gray the same. As I wrote before in Post: #1293:

"But the SAME amount of cesium-137 is well over 10 million times MORE toxic than the banana's radioactivity.

"The radioactivity of a banana is: .0000071 Curies per gram.
The radioactivity of Cesium-137: 88.0000000 Curies per gram.

"Divide 88 by .0000071 and you get 12,400,000 times more toxic!

"One gram of cesium-137 has the same amount of radioactivity as 10 tons of Potassium-40!"


So when these idiots claim the Fukushima radiation in the food is safe, they are either LYING or they are IGNORANT. Natural background radiation has been with us since the beginning of time.

But Cesium-137 is a manmade isotope that is 12.7 MILLION times more potent gram for gram. Trying to compare the two is like saying a grain of sand is like a large boulder. A boulder can crush a car whereas a grain of sand is not even noticed.

Pray for me. hug.gif
01-23-2014 03:56 AM#1388
UniqueStrangerArt in my heart
Posts: 14,445Joined: Jun 2012
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
I am begging to believe that this nuclear science is flawed. damned.gif
01-23-2014 04:19 AM#1389
Below Average GeniusMember
Posts: 1,940Joined: Apr 2013
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
(01-23-2014 03:56 AM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  I am begging to believe that this nuclear science is flawed. damned.gif

Please don't beg to believe something that is false. The truth sets us free, Wanting to believe in something simply because it is more comforting doesn't usually end well.

Don't take my word for it. Ask your nephew these two questions:

How many curies are there in one gram Potassium-40 found in a banana?

How many curies are there in a gram of Cesium-137?


Watch him squirm. But insist on the answer.

You or I could spread a couple truck loads of bananas on the ground and be in no danger.

But one gram of Cesium-137 (which is 1/454th of an ounce) would contaminate two acres of land for the rest of our lives so much that it would be unlivable.

Pray for me. hug.gif
01-23-2014 05:24 PM#1390
UniqueStrangerArt in my heart
Posts: 14,445Joined: Jun 2012
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
(01-23-2014 04:19 AM)Below Average Genius Wrote:  
(01-23-2014 03:56 AM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  I am begging to believe that this nuclear science is flawed. damned.gif

Please don't beg to believe something that is false. The truth sets us free, Wanting to believe in something simply because it is more comforting doesn't usually end well.

Don't take my word for it. Ask your nephew these two questions:

How many curies are there in one gram Potassium-40 found in a banana?

How many curies are there in a gram of Cesium-137?


Watch him squirm. But insist on the answer.

You or I could spread a couple truck loads of bananas on the ground and be in no danger.

But one gram of Cesium-137 (which is 1/454th of an ounce) would contaminate two acres of land for the rest of our lives so much that it would be unlivable.

It's just difficult for me knowing which truth is the truth.

I can't simply ask him those two questions, without any background information; he will ask me what do I already know of curies and what is my reason for asking, etc. dunno.gif
01-23-2014 06:58 PM#1391
Below Average GeniusMember
Posts: 1,940Joined: Apr 2013
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
(01-23-2014 05:24 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
(01-23-2014 04:19 AM)Below Average Genius Wrote:  
(01-23-2014 03:56 AM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  I am begging to believe that this nuclear science is flawed. damned.gif

Please don't beg to believe something that is false. The truth sets us free, Wanting to believe in something simply because it is more comforting doesn't usually end well.

Don't take my word for it. Ask your nephew these two questions:

How many curies are there in one gram Potassium-40 found in a banana?

How many curies are there in a gram of Cesium-137?


Watch him squirm. But insist on the answer.

You or I could spread a couple truck loads of bananas on the ground and be in no danger.

But one gram of Cesium-137 (which is 1/454th of an ounce) would contaminate two acres of land for the rest of our lives so much that it would be unlivable.

It's just difficult for me knowing which truth is the truth.

I can't simply ask him those two questions, without any background information; he will ask me what do I already know of curies and what is my reason for asking, etc. dunno.gif

Tell him some a--hole asked you to ask him. See if he gives you a straight answer. If he doesn't, you have your answer.

Pray for me. hug.gif
01-23-2014 09:00 PM#1392
UniqueStrangerArt in my heart
Posts: 14,445Joined: Jun 2012
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
OK, I asked him.

Quote:While its continued use is discouraged by NIST[3] and other bodies, the curie is widely used throughout the US government and industry.

Why is using the curie discouraged?
01-24-2014 01:20 AM#1393
Below Average GeniusMember
Posts: 1,940Joined: Apr 2013
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
(01-23-2014 09:00 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  OK, I asked him.

Quote:While its continued use is discouraged by NIST[3] and other bodies, the curie is widely used throughout the US government and industry.

Why is using the curie discouraged?

According to wikipedia the change was made because the symbol for Curie © gets mixed up with another mathematical symbol ©. The symbol for bequerel is Bq.

The important thing to understand is the difference in the amount of curies between the radiation in naturally occurring substances and the super highly refined man made radioactive material.

There is no such thing as Cesium-137 in nature. That alone should set off alarm bells.
But the concentration of the radioactivity in the purified Cesium-137 is more like a ship's fog horn implanted in your ear in terms of the loudness of the warning.

Pray for me. hug.gif
01-27-2014 08:37 PM#1394
UniqueStrangerArt in my heart
Posts: 14,445Joined: Jun 2012
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
Prof. Masaki Shimoji - "It's a nightmare".




sad2.gif
02-09-2014 10:23 AM#1395
ocker1Member
Posts: 1,913Joined: Mar 2011
RE: The Fukushima Disaster

02-09-2014 11:18 PM#1396
Below Average GeniusMember
Posts: 1,940Joined: Apr 2013
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
(02-09-2014 10:23 AM)ocker1 Wrote:  http://www.greenpeace.org/international/...log/47984/

It looks like Greenpeace has been penetrated.

Pray for me. hug.gif
02-11-2014 06:48 PM#1397
UniqueStrangerArt in my heart
Posts: 14,445Joined: Jun 2012
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
They plan to dump more radioactive groundwater to be dumped into the ocean, after reassuring Japanese fishermen that it's OK. I wonder why the fishermen don't stand up to the government and demand they find another way and fast?

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/...log/48149/
02-11-2014 11:57 PM#1398
SoftyIncognitoAnonymous
 
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
Hi US,

fishermen don't eat fish,,,

fishermen sell fish...

(:X
02-12-2014 04:35 PM#1399
UniqueStrangerArt in my heart
Posts: 14,445Joined: Jun 2012
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
(02-11-2014 11:57 PM)Softy Wrote:  Hi US,

fishermen don't eat fish,,,

fishermen sell fish...

(:X

???? I don't believe that.
02-12-2014 06:28 PM#1400
SoftyIncognitoAnonymous
 
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
(02-12-2014 04:35 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
(02-11-2014 11:57 PM)Softy Wrote:  Hi US,

fishermen don't eat fish,,,

fishermen sell fish...

(:X

???? I don't believe that.

Well the point is they may only care so much,,,

want to keep fishing to keep selling,,,sure they don't want

the place contaminated,,,but also don't want it shut down,,,

do fishermen eat fish???,,,well of course,,,but they may not

eat those,,,now,,,depending,,,but sure they will keep fishing...

(:X
02-12-2014 06:33 PM#1401
UniqueStrangerArt in my heart
Posts: 14,445Joined: Jun 2012
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
(02-12-2014 06:28 PM)Softy Wrote:  
(02-12-2014 04:35 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
(02-11-2014 11:57 PM)Softy Wrote:  Hi US,

fishermen don't eat fish,,,

fishermen sell fish...

(:X

???? I don't believe that.

Well the point is they may only care so much,,,

want to keep fishing to keep selling,,,sure they don't want

the place contaminated,,,but also don't want it shut down,,,

do fishermen eat fish???,,,well of course,,,but they may not

eat those,,,now,,,depending,,,but sure they will keep fishing...

(:X

From my take on this, the Japanese gov't is just informing the fishermen that they will be dumping radioactive groundwater in the ocean and the fishermen really have no say in the matter. As done with the farmers there, I am sure the gov't will offer similar compensation monies to the fishermen, so all is well in the gov't eyes, except for the health of ocean life in the short term.
02-12-2014 08:21 PM#1402
SoftyIncognitoAnonymous
 
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
Hi US,

Welcome back,,,

I should have said,,,

fishermen do not eat "these" fish,,,

fishermen sell "these" fish,,,

and sure the fishermen will have very little to say about any of this,,,

protest all they want,,,and probably some compensation,,,perhaps,,,

or they will keep testing the fish,,,sounds dangerous to me,,,

one hot one gets through,,,welcome to the new world,,,some of the ground

water is pretty hot...

(:X
02-14-2014 05:11 PM#1403
The SurvivorTruthtard
Posts: 5,337Joined: Sep 2012
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
Green, contaminated water fills bottom of Unit 4 – Removed: Report, photos of destroyed containment vessel interior deleted from website — Reporters: We strongly feel that effort from whole nation is needed to face future at Fukushima

İmage

FUKUSHIMA—Water contaminated with radioactive substances continues to flow into the basement level, while the collection of spent nuclear fuel rods is progressing steadily at the No. 4 reactor of Tokyo Electric Power Co.’s Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant. That was the situation, due chiefly to the absence of any decisive countermeasures, when we visited on Wednesday.

When the Great East Japan Earthquake occurred on March 11, 2011, the No. 4 reactor was not operating, having been suspended for regular checkups. Therefore, the radiation level inside that reactor still remains lower than those at the plant’s Nos. 1 to 3 reactors where the core meltdowns occurred.

However, the contaminated water still continues flowing into the No. 4 reactor from the adjacent No. 3 reactor via pipes and other routes. We went down to the basement level for the first news coverage from the spot. The radiation level in the area measured 10 to 12 microsieverts per hour, which would add up to one millisievert in a matter of four days—the level that an ordinary person is estimated to be exposed to in a year.

http://the-japan-news.com/news/article/0001029870

Life is like a penny, you can spend it on what you like, but you can ONLY spend it once.


https://twitter.com/NigelLondon2014
02-17-2014 05:47 PM#1404
UniqueStrangerArt in my heart
Posts: 14,445Joined: Jun 2012
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
I read somewhere that a (American?) nuclear scientist suggested they divert the groundwater before it flows into the plants. I also read that they are considering this...but what is taking them so long to act? 13.gif
02-26-2014 11:26 AM#1405
The SurvivorTruthtard
Posts: 5,337Joined: Sep 2012
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
North American scientists track incoming Fukushima plume

İmage

The likely scale of the radioactive plume of water from Fukushima due to hit the west coast of North America should be known in the next two months.

Only minute traces of pollution from the beleaguered Japanese power plant have so far been recorded in Canadian continental waters.

This will increase as contaminants disperse eastwards on Pacific currents.

But scientists stress that even the peak measurements will be well within the limits set by safety authorities.

Since the 2011 Fukushima accident, researchers from the Bedford Institute of Oceanography have been sampling waters along a line running almost 2,000km due west of Vancouver, British Columbia.

And by June of last year, they were detecting quantities of radioactive caesium-137 and 134 along the sampling line’s entire length.

Although the radioactivity concentrations remain extremely low – less than one becquerel per cubic metre of water – they have allowed the scientists to start to validate the two models that are being used to forecast the probable future progression of the plume.

One of these models anticipates a maximum concentration by mid-2015 of up to 27 becquerels per cubic metre of water; the other no more than about two becquerels per cubic metre of water.

Bedford’s Dr John Smith told BBC News that further measurements being taken in the ocean right now should give researchers a fair idea of which model is correct.

And he emphasised again: “These levels are still well below maximum permissible concentrations in drinking water in Canada for caesium-137 of 10,000 becquerels per cubic metre of water – so, it’s clearly not an environmental or human-health radiological threat.”

Dr Smith was speaking at the Ocean Sciences Meeting 2014 in Honolulu, Hawaii.

He was joined on a panel discussing Fukushima by Dr Ken Buesseler from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26329323

Life is like a penny, you can spend it on what you like, but you can ONLY spend it once.


https://twitter.com/NigelLondon2014
02-28-2014 01:44 AM#1406
Anonymous KritterIncognitoAnonymous
 
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
Someone was planning the Fukushima disaster for decades.

Just look at these cards from 1995:

"Fuckyoushima" (quite similar to "Fukushima").

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=illu...edIndex=50

And just look at the clock, the hands are pointing at 3 and 11, the date of the Ffukushima disaster happened on 3/11.

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=illu...dIndex=278

These cards were made by Steve Jackson games in 1995, one of Steve Jackson's employees hacked into a government computer and the secret service later raided the company.
03-08-2014 04:06 PM#1407
UniqueStrangerArt in my heart
Posts: 14,445Joined: Jun 2012
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
Quote:BABYSCAN is so sensitive that it can even pick up potassium-40, a naturally occurring radioactive isotope present in all living things.

So far, one of the scanners has been installed at the Hirarta Central Hospital in Fukushima and thankfully, no abnormal radiation has been detected in the first 100 children tested using the machine, only normal levels of potassium-40.

İmage

http://fukushimaupdate.com/japanese-scie...y-scanner/

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1402.5508v1.pdf

It would have been more beneficial to have scanned these children within hours/days/weeks of the initial accident as I wonder what the radiation exposure might have been at that time so as to predict long-term health problems.

This new machine was derived from a machine for adults named FASTSCAN.

http://www.canberra.com/literature/inviv...stscan.pdf
03-09-2014 08:04 PM#1408
The SurvivorTruthtard
Posts: 5,337Joined: Sep 2012
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
Japan Newspapers: It appears ‘high-level radioactive contaminated water’ is flowing into ocean at Fukushima — “Fear nuclear complex might not be scrapped” — Official admits disaster at plant “is barely being managed”

http://enenews.com/japan-newspapers-it-a...News%20(En

Life is like a penny, you can spend it on what you like, but you can ONLY spend it once.


https://twitter.com/NigelLondon2014
03-10-2014 05:02 PM#1409
UniqueStrangerArt in my heart
Posts: 14,445Joined: Jun 2012
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
Don't eat bottom feeding fish. damned.gif

03-10-2014 05:05 PM#1410
The SurvivorTruthtard
Posts: 5,337Joined: Sep 2012
RE: The Fukushima Disaster
(03-10-2014 05:02 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  Don't eat bottom feeding fish. damned.gif





Life is like a penny, you can spend it on what you like, but you can ONLY spend it once.


https://twitter.com/NigelLondon2014
New reply
Home





Free TopSite


DISCLAIMER / Terms of Service (TOS)

Kritterbox.com - Current events, paranormal, UFO, conspiracy, politics, ancient lost treasure, ancient technology, tech, music and more! This website is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. kritterbox.com shall not be liable for any damages whatsoever, including, without limitation, those resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether or not advised of the possibility of damage, and on any theory of liability, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of this site or other documents which are referenced by or linked to this site. This website exists solely for the purposes of exchange of information, communication and general entertainment. Opinions from posters are in no way endorsed by kritterbox.com. All posts on this website are the opinion of the authors and are not to be taken as statements of fact on behalf of kritterbox.com. This site may contain coarse language or other material that kritterbox.com is in no way responsible for. Material deemed to be offensive or pornographic at the discretion of kritterbox.com shall be removed. kritterbox.com reserves the right to modify, or remove posts and user accounts on this website at our discretion. kritterbox.com disclaims all liability for damages incurred directly or indirectly as a result of any material on this website. Fictitious posts and any similarity to any person living or dead is coincidental. All users shall limit the insertion of any and all copyrighted material to portions of the article that are relevant to the point being made, with no more than 50%, and preferably less of the original source material. A link shall be visible in text format, embedded directly to the original source material without exception. No third party links, i.e. blogs or forums will be accepted under any circumstances, and will be edited by staff in order to reflect the original source of copyrighted material, or be removed at the sole discretion of kritterbox.com. Fair Use Notice:This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Users may make such material available in an effort to advance awareness and understanding of issues relating to economics, individual rights, international affairs, liberty, science, and technology. This constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for educational and/or research purposes.This Disclaimer is subject to change at any time at our discretion. Copyright © 20011 - 2016 kritterbox.com