Andrei Sakharov on Radioactive Fallout

The designer of the 1961 50 megaton Tsar Bomba was Andrei Sakharov. Some years earlier, Sakharov had become concerned about the effects of radioactive fallout, and in 1958 he had published a paper in which he estimated the numbers of human casualties in subsequent generations. He believed that the Tsar Bomba, even though it was exploded over an uninhabited area, would end up killing 500,000  to 1,000,000 people.

In Chapter 14 Sakharov writes that after the success of his
1955 Soviet H-Bomb test, he “worried more and more about the
biological effects of nuclear tests… The long-term biological
consequences (particularly atmospheric testing, in which
radioactive fallout is dispersed throughout the hemisphere) can be
predicted and the total number of casualties calculated with some
accuracy.”

Considering only such fission products as radioactive carbon,
strontium and cesium, he calculated that genetic damage, plus the
immediate and delayed damage to immune systems would accelerate
the deaths of between 500,000 to one million persons for every 50
megatons of nuclear explosive power. An important consideration
was what he termed “nonthreshold effects”, by which every
radioactive particle released had a statistical probability of
doing damage to either the DNA of a cell or to the immune system,
by low-level internal radiation from ingesting such particles. He
also predicted that radiation would accelerate the mutation of
microorganisms, leading to the inference that persons with damaged
immune systems would in time succumb more easily to these new
strains.

He states (page 201):

” I posited that cancer and damage to the body’s immune
system (resulting in premature death) may also be due to
nonthreshold effects… I also suggested that a global
increase in mutations of bacteria and viruses
(irrespective of the cause of the mutations) might have
been an important factor in the spread of such diseases
as diphtheria in the 19th century, or the influenza
epidemic, and that low-level radiation might further
increase the rate of mutations.”

After Sakharov began protesting about atmospheric nuclear tests, he fell out with Krushchev, and was removed from further weapons development, and exiled to Gorki, where he was kept under surveillance.

In the Fallout Hypothesis, I explored the idea that radioactive fallout might have been the cause of the increase in the number of cancers. Sakharov seems to have had a far more comprehensive vision, in that he was thinking not just about cancers directly caused by radiation, but indirectly all kinds of other diseases, over very long periods of time.

Using available biological data, Sakharov calculated that detonation of a one-megaton “clean” H-bomb would produce enough radioactive carbon to have long-lasting global effects, resulting in 6,600 deaths worldwide over the next 8,000 years.

Sakharov’s papers, “Radioactive Carbon from Nuclear Explosions and Nonthreshold Biological Effects,” and “The Radioactive Danger of Nuclear Tests,” disputed the soothing conclusions of the American weapons specialist Edward Teller, as well as most of his Soviet colleagues, who argued that tests of nuclear weapons were practically safe. For Sakharov, the death toll from nuclear testing in the atmosphere – however small compared to deaths from other causes – was simply a fact proved by science, with inescapable moral consequences.

In October of 1963, the Soviet Union, USA, and Great Britain signed the Limited Test Ban Treaty which restricted nuclear testing to underground sites. And 3 months later, in January 1964, the US Surgeon General, Luther Terry, released the first report of the Surgeon General’s Advisory Committee on Smoking and Health, which concluded that cigarette smoking was a cause of lung cancer.

Perhaps this wasn’t a mere coincidence. If radioactive fallout was already known to be a cause of cancer, it was perhaps necessary to find (and aggressively promote) some other cause of lung cancer, if governments weren’t going be subjected to litigation in the future. And cigarette smoking was the prime candidate. No, your lung cancer wasn’t caused by radioactive fallout, but by your smoking habit. And as cancer deaths kept mounting even after most people had stopped smoking, it then became necessary to discover that tobacco smoke was even more dangerous than believed, with the dangers of secondhand smoke used to introduce comprehensive smoking bans. Beyond that, it further became necessary to find that alcohol, meat, and any number of other common consumption items were also carcinogenic. No, your lung cancer wasn’t caused by radioactive fallout, but by your cheeseburgers and bacon sandwiches. It’s all your own fault.

And that’s been the message ever since.

Advertisements

About Frank Davis

smoker
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

42 Responses to Andrei Sakharov on Radioactive Fallout

  1. harleyrider1978 says:

    So in effect theres a lot of truth in the government using tobacco as the scape goat for what the government actually did to us all.

  2. harleyrider1978 says:

    No, your lung cancer wasn’t caused by radioactive fallout, but by your smoking habit. And as cancer deaths kept mounting even after most people had stopped smoking, it then became necessary to discover that tobacco smoke was even more dangerous than believed, with the dangers of secondhand smoke used to introduce comprehensive smoking bans. Beyond that, it further became necessary to find that alcohol, meat, and any number of other common consumption items were also carcinogenic. No, your lung cancer wasn’t caused by radioactive fallout, but by your cheeseburgers and bacon sandwiches. It’s all your own fault.

    ……………….
    The rise of a pseudo-scientific links lobby

    Every day there seems to be a new study making a link between food, chemicals or lifestyle and ill-health. None of them has any link with reality.

    spiked-online.com/newsite/article/13287#.U6ibAzYo59A

  3. harleyrider1978 says:

  4. castello2 says:

    Fukishima is still melting down and killing the biggest oceans ecosystem.

    • margo says:

      Precisely, castello2. ENENews has been recording the consequences of Fukushima ever since 2011. It can never be fixed, and we are still being lied to.

      • castello2 says:

        Yes. I’ve been following Dana Durnford and he may be going to jail. I just watched a video from your link by the silver dollar guy and he kind of debunks my guy :) That is way better news than what I was getting but he agrees with my guy about the lies and possible coverups. More research needed.

    • beobrigitte says:

      Fukishima is still melting down and killing the biggest oceans ecosystem.
      Actually, the radioactive particles are heavy, they sink to the ground. Although a lot of people think that this is “quite safe” I do wonder about a few things we don’t know…

      Just like the 1970s when fishermen began to fish the “orange roughy” from the deeper regions of the ocean. A very basic and simple thing no-one had thought of: the life span and therefore reproduction rate of this fish….

    • Bill Schutt says:

      The radioactivity released from Fukushima can easily be quantified. It’s about 520PBq.
      http://fukushimainform.ca/2014/11/21/comparing-the-environmental-impacts-of-the-chernobyl-and-fukushima-disasters/
      The natural radioactivity in the oceans can also be quantified – 16 million PBq, as can the natural radioactivity in the Earth’s crust – 12 billion PBq.
      http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/natural.htm
      So at its peak, Fukushima was releasing 1/30000th of the natural radioactivity in the oceans & 1/25 millionth of the natural radioactivity in the Earth’s crust. Too small to matter.

  5. waltc says:

    Dead horse rises to be beaten anew. From a few days ago: Not to start an argument, just to bolster my contention that Paris, Hanover, Beirut and whatever’s to come aren’t actually based on retaliation for western bombings in Syria. Yes, even tho some of them now say so. Because, as Gilda Radner once famously put it, “it’s always something.” There’s always an excuse. For decades it was US support for Israel. Or the presence of infidel businesses in Arabia. More recently it was the existence of Gitmo. Or Dutch and French cartoons. Always something. And how does that explain that in the last two years the majority of victims have been local Muslims? And local Christians, and Jews everywhere? Radical Islam is at war with everything that isn’t radical Islam (and attracts a lot of psychopaths-without-a-cause) and I don’t believe any actions the west takes, no matter how dumb or otherwise ill-advised have anything to do with it, or not in that sense.

    • Frank Davis says:

      I think you’re right about the Islamic State attacking more or less everybody. But it seems to me that they’ve now included the Western world in their target list.

      Incidentally, Putin now regards himself as the defender of Christianity (and I believe that he does attend Russian Orthodox services). The only other person I can think of who has called for Middle Eastern Christians to be supported is… Donald Trump.

      Russia Insider: Putin quote:

      “To forgive the terrorists is up to God, but to send them to him is up to me.”

      P.S. Apparently Putin never said this. But it was all over the social media yesterday.

    • smokingscot says:

      “Radical Islam is at war with everything that isn’t radical Islam (and attracts a lot of psychopaths-without-a-cause)”.

      Wholly agree with you Walt, except I’d have used adjective of “corrupted Islam”.

      We know about Jihadi John who it would seem came from a well off family, yet delighted in cutting off the heads of perfectly innocent westerners. A classic case of psychopath. I am surprised that he has his very own Wiki page.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihadi_John

      But Abdelhamid Abaaoud (the guy they claim masterminded the Paris attacks on the 13th and who was identified via one of his fingertips (French police took 7 hours yesterday and used 5000 bullets – how many the jihadist used has yet to be announced) – there isn’t a whole heck of a lot left of either of them) was a classic lowlife. Drugs, petty crime etc until he went to Syria.

      There he was elevated, given some title that impressed the heck out of him and “held in high esteem”.

      That’s the trick, make them think they’re crucial to the cause – then they’ll do anything for the cause.

      In fact there are oh so many jihadists out there with their own twitter and facebook accounts and they just love themselves to bits. Oh and they’re still using mobile phones to send text messages to old buddies and pals and saying how wonderful it is in this that and the next town. In short, they LOVE the attention and the one-up-manship they feel verses their old peer group. (Though in so doing they’re traced through their mobile, or their isp, or indeed from background images or even topography when they post photos of themselves. Pigs..t dumb doesn’t do them justice ).

      Yes they have to have a darned good reason to go kill themselves – and those behind the scenes can manipulate the heck out of them by simply having a book with a list of the names of those who “martyred” themselves. That matters to them, they want to be remembered.

      You’re entitled to your opinion Walt, however I cannot agree with:

      “I don’t believe any actions the west takes, no matter how dumb or otherwise ill-advised have anything to do with it, or not in that sense.”

      We British were very, very deceitful with the folks in Basra during the Gulf War, leaving them high and dry to be slaughtered by Saddam. And we were f…..g idiots when we disbanded the entire Iraqi government when we did eventually finish the job.

      What we put into place in Iraq and Afghanistan as “government” was what suited us, not the people of either country.

      Same thing in Egypt.

      No Walt, we cannot wash our hands clean on this one. Ever.

      (Oh, latest on the siege in Bamako. 27 dead and both terrorists toasted)

      http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/nov/20/mali-hotel-attack-gunmen-take-hostages-in-bamako-live-updates

      Oh and neither can the French government walk away from their cock-ups.

      • waltc says:

        I don,t disagree with you that our betrayal of allies in the region, our dumb efforts at setting up governments, our isolating and excluding Sadaam’s allies, our hit-and-run bombing of Libya without a clue about its aftermath , our haphazard invasions and premature withdrawals and likely more things than occur to me to innumerate right now all led to the rise of, and power of, the jihadists. That’s why I said at the end of my post “or not in that sense.” Meaning only that our actions didn,t and don’t create their motivation. It was always there. But our actions and/or selective inactions did, in a chain, lead to their being in a position to turn their roiling motives into bloody mayhem.

    • beobrigitte says:

      There’s always an excuse. For decades it was US support for Israel. Or the presence of infidel businesses in Arabia.
      This didn’t stop Saudi Arabia from further investing into these infidel businesses, quite the opposite.
      After the defeat of the Ikhwan, the official Wahhabism of the Saudi kingdom abandoned militant jihad and became a religiously conservative movement, similar to the original movement in the time of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab, except that takfir was now an accepted practice and, indeed, essential to the Wahhabi faith. Henceforth there would always be tension between the ruling Saudi establishment and more radical Wahhabis. The Ikhwan spirit and its dream of territorial expansion did not die, but gained new ground in the 1970s, when the kingdom became central to western foreign policy in the region. Washington welcomed the Saudis’ opposition to Nasserism (the pan-Arab socialist ideology of Egypt’s second president, Gamal Abdel Nasser) and to Soviet influence. After the Iranian Revolution, it gave tacit support to the Saudis’ project of countering Shia radicalism by Wahhabising the entire Muslim world.
      http://www.newstatesman.com/world-affairs/2014/11/wahhabism-isis-how-saudi-arabia-exported-main-source-global-terrorism

      Radical Islam is at war with everything that isn’t radical Islam (and attracts a lot of psychopaths-without-a-cause) and I don’t believe any actions the west takes, no matter how dumb or otherwise ill-advised have anything to do with it, or not in that sense.
      Let’s face it, previous actions taken by the west created more havoc. Further actions are very likely to produce the same results. The west is far too occupied with life-style “issues” and busy signing diverse lobby groups’ permission to persecute individual groups within our own societies.
      The last politician I would have faith in (although this time the terrorists are not “locals”
      died a few days ago. I have yet to see another politician like him. REAL Backbone!
      http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6314559.stm
      (I do remember the Schleyer kidnapp very well but as my sibling died 6 days later everything else is a blurr. And, yes, at the time you could get onto any motorway. However, getting off was another issue that involved looking down a machine gun’s barrel!)

      In my view it would have been Putin to razor ISIS. But Putin has fallen for the “healthists’ ” lobby groups as well…..

  6. Wow! great post…

    Do you know exactly how many megtons of weapons were air tested out of the 2,000 or so nuclear explosions…?

  7. margo says:

    Totally off-topic: Frank, your blog is no longer automatically coming to me as an email. (For the last couple of days, I’ve had to go to Google for it.) Have I gone and clicked something I shouldn’t? What can I do to get it back? I’ve tried ‘Follow’ but just get a message to say I’m already a subscriber. Any suggestions, anyone, please?

    • Roobeedoo2 says:

      I’ve experienced the same. I thought it was me. I have a friend who might know. I’ll ask ;)

      • margo says:

        Have just had a bright idea; brought up the last Frank Davis email that worked, clicked on Subscribe, Settings (with the idea of Unsubscribing and then Subscribing again) – got told it hadn’t been ‘activated’. I activated it! If I get the blog tomorrow, I’ll know it worked (and will stop thinking I’m stupid with computers).

    • Frank Davis says:

      I’ve just added an email and twitter box (Twitter because Roobee asked for one a while ago), which now seem to be appearing under the post.

      I don’t know what they do. I don’t subscribe to email or twitter for other blogs. Maybe someone can tell me what happens with them,

  8. Fredrik Eich says:

    ” necessary to find (and aggressively promote) some other cause of lung cancer, if governments weren’t going be subjected to litigation in the future.” – Frank

    It might not have been a planned policy to blame manufactured cigarettes for the global lung cancer epidemic. It might of happened by accident.
    There would be no reason to give researchers money to link fallout with lung cancer because it’s a bit like paying a private detective to prove you killed millions of people when you don’t know yet that you did. But when lung cancer rates across the world rose , there would be wings of governments outside of defence that would naturally want to invest money in finding out what has caused this clear trend break. And there were already researchers ready and waiting who were interested in linking smoking rates with the lung cancer epidemic (Wynder,Doll etc). So there is a natural bias there that , I think , remains to this day.

    But it could have been an intentional policy, at some level, because the International Atomic Energy Agency has a veto on any research that the WHO does on radiation research. That could be a deliberate way of shift research money, globally, away from fallout research to anything other than fallout research in the context of what caused the post WWII lung cancer epidemic.

  9. Frank Davis says:

    the International Atomic Energy Agency has a veto on any research that the WHO does on radiation research.

    That’s a much better explanation. With research into the effects of radiation blocked, the effects of something else had to be investigated instead.

    When was the WHO created? Since it’s a subset of the UN, I’d guess it would have been in the 1950s. The IAEA would have come into existence earlier, I’d guess.

    Nope. It was the other way round.

    World Health Organization/Founded April 7, 1948
    International Atomic Energy Agency/Founded 1957

  10. harleyrider1978 says:

    Shows just how BANKRUPT the Nazis are in las vegas charging to see their propaganda now. and steep ass prices to boot.

    Luxor’s BODIES exhibit showcases the reality of smoking

    Yes its the same old BLACK LUNG LIE on display………..

    Inside, guests will be allowed to touch a real smoker’s lung damaged by toxins and tar. More stunning visuals of the dangers of smoking can be seen with the actual side-by-side comparison of a healthy lung next to a smoke-damaged lung. By providing powerful learning tools, BODIES…The Exhibition hopes to increase awareness about the dangers of smoking and support healthy lifestyle choices.

    Ticket for BODIES…The Exhibition prices are $32 for adults, $30 for seniors and $24 for children 4 – 12 years of age.

    http://www.news3lv.com/content/news/story/Luxor-s-BODIES-exhibit-showcases-smokers/H9XECnpXakOUTdVhyqWtig.cspx

    • beobrigitte says:

      Real smoker’s lung? Looks more like a coal miner’s lung to me.
      Also, tobacco control’s smoker’s lung is brown.
      It is always entertaining when overeagerness produces contradictions.

  11. harleyrider1978 says:

    Sheldon C. Sommers, M . D. – Pathologist; Director of Laboratories, Lennox Hill Hospital, New York ; Clinical Professor of Pathology, Columbia University College . and also University of Southern California ; Member of Scientific Advisory Board, Council for Tobacco Research and Research Director, CTR.
    a
    “Honest wide differences of opinion as to the importance
    of reported statistical associations between cigarette smoking and various diseases are held by presently active workers in the pertinent fields of medical science. It would be unfair to deny the existence of evidence both favoring and opposing the belief that cigarettes may be or are associated statistically with various human diseases .” (P• 1)
    “The most common types of lung canceDr”-affect males five
    or six times more often than females . No theory of causation
    known has adequately explained this striking sex difference .” (p. 2)
    “Statistical comparisons between smokers and nonsmokers
    are difficult to make without introducirig two serious types
    of scientific bias : (1) people self-select whether to smoke
    or not, and the populations studied thus are not random : (2) no mathematics exists for statistical comparisons of nonrandom or sele cted populations .” (p. 2) TIMN 0036263
    Source: http://industrydocuments.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/grdk0132
    ° f;heldom C, LSo.m_mere ~ ~ CONFIDENTIAL: ~ MINNESOTA. TOBACCO LITIGATION
    “The overaLll autoppy rate in the U . S. is below 10%, and ‘ without sup~.?orting data there are too many death certifieate errors in distinguishing between primary lung cancer and secondary spread to the lung Qf other cancers, among aA number of diffieultiee in the scientific use of death eertif ieatee,”
    “xt ig a. . gr9ss overs~.znplification to lump together at least 9 different tumor types and ascribe them all to any agent, including ciga_rettes,” (p . 3)
    “After at least 30 years of experimental work, and many smoke inhalation experiments in animals, lung cancers of the most common, squamous cell human type have not been produced. It is usually difficult to prove a negative, but if cigarette smoke were a cause of lung cancer, it is ~ndeed surprising that no animal experiments have succeeded in its production.” (p • 3)
    TV4N 0036264
    Source: http://industrydocuments.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/grdk0132
    Sheldon C. Sommers CONFIDENTIAL: 1VIINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION —
    “Skin painting studies are scarcely relevant to the lung°”
    (p. 3)
    “More study ‘is urgently needed of what other factors, such as viruses, urban air pollutants and degenerative changes
    contribute to lung cancer development in animals and man .” (p• 3) .
    “It is also well to mention that understanding the formation of lung cancers is one of the most•complex and difficult problems’in cancer research, not presently well understood and not yielding simple answers .” (p. 3)
    Sommers describes various factors statistically, but not necessarily causally, related to heart disease . (p. 4)
    “A number of studies show no relation of smoking to heart
    disease and ought not be ignored .” (p. 4)
    “Emphysema has now been added to the list of diseases blamed on cigarette smoking” but “the cause :admittedly is
    unknown .” (p. 4)
    TIMN 0036265
    Source: http://industrydocuments.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/grdk0132
    Sheldon C. Sommers – 4
    MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION ‘t CONFIDENTIAL:
    “Thus death certificate diagnoses or a routine pathologic-‘ diagnosis of emphysema at present are scientifically practi.cally useless, except in a few specialized research centers .” (P. 4)
    “.In the current era of relative ignorance concerning how -to define and recognize emphysema and other;chronic lung diseases, no sweeping generalizations as to causation can be justified.” ‘(pp. 4-5)
    “Some confusion arose through use of the word ‘addiction’ in connection with tobacco use . By generally accepted WHO criteria, smoking tobacco is not considered an addiction.” (P- 5)
    3 “It is not possible grossly or microscopically, or in any
    other way known to me, to distinguish between the lung of a smoker or a nonsmoker. Blackening of lungs is from
    carbon particles, and smoking tobacco does not introduce
    carbon particles into the lung. The educational value of
    the various specimens shown the committee in this situation escapes me .”_ (pp . 5-6) TLVIN 0036266
    Source: http://industrydocuments.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/grdk0132
    Sheldon C. Sommers -‘ 5 CONFIDENTIAL: MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION
    “3,4-Benzpyrene is not proved to be responsible for humari lung cancer, and consequently its amount or the removal of it can scarcely be considered at present crucial .scientific matters .” (p, 6).
    “Scientifically, cigarette smoking has not been proved to be a health hazard at all .” (p. 6)
    “Many figures were’cited concerning 30,000 or 50,000 or 260,000 persons per year having or .-dying from lung cancer or the other diseases being considered . Since it is not known what the causes of lung cancer, coronary heart disease, or bronchopulmonary disease are, the multiplication
    of numbers does not contribute to understanding them any better . One recent article on the thousands of persons
    reported to have one of a long list of diseases concludes that there must be scarcely any healthy people left .” (p. 6)
    Dr. Sommers described various specific areas of deficiencies
    in knowledge and research needs in lung cancer (including
    multifactorial studies and animal models) cardiovascular
    TIMN 0036267
    Source: http://industrydocuments.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/grdk0132
    ‘ Sheldon C. Sommers
    MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION CONFIDENTIAL:
    diseases (including multifactorial studies and mechanism investigations) and chronic pulmonary diseases (including recognition techniques, relationships to various factors and animal models) . (pp. 7-8)
    “.Tension is a daily fact of life in the United States, and -reducing it is one of my important daily professional activities. Smoking, like alcohol and chewing gum or tobacco, is widely used to relax tension. Physicians have more work when people have no release for tension .” (p. 9)
    “The current upsurge of investigative projects and grant requests in the field of smoking and health is one good indicator that at least among research workers the answers we need concerning the causes, developmental stages,
    diagnosis and control of these diseases are not available .”
    “To claim there is no-,•7 sufficient scientific evidence to establish that cigarette smoking cau.ses disease is in my opinion unjustified .” (p. 9) TIMN 0036268
    Source: http://industrydocuments.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/grdk0132
    Sheldon C. Sommers – 7
    CONFIDENTIAL: MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION ~T
    Dr. Sommers described the cooperative efforts with Government and the AMA seeking to outline areas of .
    deficient knowledge as to smoking and health and priorities for research :’ “We are hopeful that in a month or so we will have a single document that will reflect the combined feelings of the National Institutes of Health, the National Cancer
    Institute, the AMA Research Foundation and the Tobacco Council
    Research Scientific Advisory Board as to the deficiencies in knowledge in this field and the order of priorities that one or more of these groups will give. (Tr. 1581-82)
    Dr. Sommers described the 1964 Surgeon General’s Advisory Committee Report as “a disappointment” . (Tr. 1582-83)
    As to any more stringent labeling requirement, Dr. Sommers stated : “I do not believe it would be justifiable to go father . I, myself, could not, with intellectual honesty, make a statement that cigarette smoking is dangerous to your health, and that it may cause cancer and other diseases . “I think that is misleading, si.r, .and I do not believe it has been-demonstrated .” (Tr. 1586)
    – TIMN 0036269
    Source: http://industrydocuments.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/grdk0132
    CONFIDENTIAL: MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION
    LF _ _i
    Dr. Sommers stated : “I do not know of any truly new or convincing evidence beyond what was available years ago.” (Tr. 1588) five
    Dr. Sommers believes the most likely explanation of a statistical relationship in several populations between smoking and heart disease to be that both smoking and the disease reflect a third factor, i .e., a certain type of individual. (Tr. 1592) e.
    That the black pigment in the lung represents
    carbon particles and coal dust and cannot be equated to
    exposure to tobacco products “is known to every well
    trained second-year medical student.” (Tr. 1595)

  12. Pingback: Andrei Sakharov and Trofim Lysenko | Frank Davis

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s