Notices
Results 1 to 36 of 36
Like Tree1Likes
  • 1 Post By Stanley514

Thread: liquid flouride thorium

  1. #1 liquid flouride thorium 
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Is it the panacea some think it is?


    (Hint Finger Prince you start).


    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Thank you for raising topic near and dear to Prince's heart, esteemed moderator. Below is link to transcript of interview with Kirk Sorensen, leading advocate of this technology:

    Kirk Sorensen: Thorium Could Be Our Energy "Silver Bullet" Safer, cleaner and cheaper thorium reactors could change the world | James J Puplava CFP | FINANCIAL SENSE

    As introductory material it may suffice and comments of any kind are most welcome. One thing appeals in particular to Prince and that is abundance of this element, 2.5 to 3 times as abundant as uranium- less likelihood of wars breaking out due to scarcity. Anyhow, if there ARE significant drawbacks to implementation, better to find out now, agreed?


    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    The odds of a war involving the USA breaking out due to scarcity of Uranium are already near zero. The first biggest supplier is Canada at 23%, followed closely by Australia at 21%.

    In a Uranium driven world, those two would be your new Saudi Arabia and Iran. Russia might begin to have strained relations with Kazakhstan, though.



    Uranium mining - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    The thing about thorium is that it is less radioactive than U235. This has advantages and disadvantages. Among the advantages are that it is near impossible to get a melt-down, so safety is high, and it cannot be used to make a bomb. Disadvantage is that it makes it a lot harder to get a sustained fission reaction to release all that lovely energy. End result is that research is still under way, and thorium is not quite yet practical. Hopefully, though, it will become a viable alternative soon.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Esteemed dotcomrades, thank you for participation so far.

    Liquid thorium reactors are of necessity meltdown proof and are producing virtually NO plutonium. Also advantage is liquid for adding fuel as required and using chemical means to separate protactinium to ensure more efficient reaction.

    Uranium has been economically extracted from seawater in Japan, so it is reasonable to assume thorium could be extracted in similar fashion, not so?

    Again thanks to all including esteemed moderator.
    Last edited by The Finger Prince; August 23rd, 2011 at 09:47 AM.
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Thorium Energy Future - YouTube

    Promotional video suitable for lay public, exaggerates drawbacks of conventional nuclear power installations but otherwise acceptable.
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    That's a very convincing (and repetitive) ad, and it points out the most beneficial trait: safety. Followed by the second most beneficial trait: less waste. However, since it's clearly a marketing plug, I wonder whether I should be trusting all of its claims.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    A clever fellow such as yourself must even now be conducting own investigation, provided curiosity is strong enough.

    As some must know by now, Prince is a most curious character, but he accepts this thread as olive branch from esteemed moderator, letting past differences subside, no?
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,568
    SO what are the draw backs of implementing liquid flouride thorium reactors? Less power? End byproducts? reaction control?

    (BTW finger prince: it is very off-putting to have to converse with someone referring to themselves in the royal third person....)
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    SO what are the draw backs of implementing liquid flouride thorium reactors? Less power? End byproducts? reaction control?

    (BTW finger prince: it is very off-putting to have to converse with someone referring to themselves in the royal third person....)
    Is it not the custom of royalty to refer to self in first person plural, e.g. "We are not amused"? Prince is not much of potential monarch, fortunately for all concerned! Nor is he a well respected peer reviewed scientific periodical, but nobody's perfect, agreed?

    Some might find "paleoichneum" off-putting, or even hard to pronounce, dotcomrade. But by way of apology for personal idiosyncrasy, for convenience of all is presented:

    http://www.thoriumenergyalliance.com/downloads/American_Scientist_Hargraves.pdf

    Very much looking forward to insightful participation, thanks in advance.
    Last edited by The Finger Prince; August 23rd, 2011 at 09:45 AM. Reason: Grammatical excursion- really!
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,568
    Could you summarize the information relevant to my question here please?

    and the name paleoichneum is easily shortened to paleo or similar. deciphering when you are talking about yourself and when you are not is very hard and very off putting.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Good God, paleo, is there ANOTHER Prince on board? Horrifying!



    Anyway, IF reading PDF is too much effort, summarizing briefly:

    Q: Less power?

    A: More efficient process due to higher temperatures and avoidance of necessity to shut down operations for refueling/reprocessing. "Power" per se can be set at any level by design engineers as with any electrical power generation facility.

    Q: End byproducts?

    A: Significantly less in volume and hazard, 83% of generated isotopes are stable within 10 years.

    Q: Reaction control?

    A: Passive safety features designed in, including "Freeze plug" feature which drains fuel into subcritical geometry catch basin if electric power is interrupted.

    Again, thanks for participation and interest.
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Fukushima incident was caused by power failure to reactor cooling system, when power is off to LFTR, freeze plug thaws, fuel is drained, problem solves itself without further intervention.

    To digress slightly, next generation of Boiling Water Reactors will also be protected by passive safety features:

    Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    5
    The liquid thorium fuel reactor with molten salt coolant is re-emerging as potentially the safest, most cost-effective solution to future energy needs in the carbon-containment era. Thorium is abundant, produces far less toxic fission products than uranium and may soon compete with coal for cost per kilowatt-hour. The chemistry of thorium fission is compelling, and the engineering of thorium reactors, with a longer history than most people realize, appears to be seductively manageable.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Indeed. Well, this REAL solution is not as "seductive" as the terrestrial solar energy piddle-power fantasy, but there is simply no accounting for tastes. Thanks to all for participating.
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    703
    I think LFTR is a much complex system than a combustion engine & nuclear reactors; and that is not good. Easy system is much reliable: for example look at how reliable combustion engine & boiling water nuclear reactor is and how easy it was for kids to grasp the mechanic. I think any volatile/hazardous system should be simple, and only then we know for sure it will work to expectation.

    For example: IEC fusion reactor is so simple even a university student can build one. LFTR in otherhand is not something you could test right away. There should at least be a simulation that prove the system work.
    Last edited by msafwan; September 24th, 2011 at 09:18 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,568
    plus issues with the byproducts such as protactinium.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Quote Originally Posted by msafwan View Post
    I think LFTR is a much complex system than a combustion engine & nuclear reactors; and that is not good. Easy system is much reliable: for example look at how reliable combustion engine & boiling water nuclear reactor is and how easy it was for kids to grasp the mechanic. I think any volatile/hazardous system should be simple, and only then we know for sure it will work to expectation.

    For example: IEC fusion reactor is so simple even a university student can build one. LFTR in otherhand is not something you could test right away. There should at least be a simulation that prove the system work.
    Indeed and it HAS been tested and shown to work, and that many years ago. Much more than mere "simulation", my friend. As for the dreaded protactinium(half life 27 days), there are a variety of ways of dealing with the material, obviously the best one should be identified and implemented. Bottom line is that this alternative is clearly better than solution now in use.
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,568
    The problem is the removal of the protactinium from the melt without disruption of the reaction.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Perhaps this approach will serve the purpose. If so, it is fortunate that iron is readily available and nontoxic generally. Thank you for your interest.

    Recovery of protactinium from molten fluoride salts
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,568
    and what are they suggesting should be done?
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    It would appear to be various applications of fluoridation and distillation are being weighed pro and con. Of course, the prosaic steel wool patent seems rather an elegant solution, at least to a layman such as your humble correspondent.
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    It is matter of historical record that one of first uses of radioactivity was for medical diagnosis and treatment- this practice continues today. Will LFTR improve it? Find out here:

    LFTR vs CANCER

    LFTR vs Cancer - medical isotopes molybdenum-99 & bismuth-213 - YouTube
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    652
    James Hansen on the subject:

    "The Liquid-Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) is a thorium reactor concept that uses a chemically-stable fluoride salt for the medium in which nuclear reactions take place. This fuel form yields flexibility of operation and eliminates the need to fabricate fuel elements. This feature solves most concerns that have prevented thorium from being used in solid fueled reactors. The fluid fuel in LFTR is also easy to process and to separate useful fission products, both stable and radioactive. LFTR also has the potential to destroy existing nuclear waste, albeit with less efficiency than in a fast reactor such as IFR.

    Both IFR and LFTR operate at low pressure and high temperatures, unlike today’s LWR’s. Operation at low pressures alleviates much of the accident risk with LWR. Higher temperatures enable more of the reactor heat to be converted to electricity (40% in IFR, 50% in LFTR vs 35% in LWR). Both IFR and LFTR have the potential to be air-cooled and to use waste heat for desalinating water.

    Both IFR and LFTR are 100-300 times more fuel efficient than LWRs. In addition to solving the nuclear waste problem, they can operate for several centuries using only uranium and thorium that has already been mined. Thus they eliminate the criticism that mining for nuclear fuel will use fossil fuels and add to the greenhouse effect."

    http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailin...ma_revised.pdf
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    In his first post, Prince said there was 2.5 to 3 times as much thorium in the world as uranium. I would like to point out a further fact. Of that uranium, only about 0.7% is immediately useable, since only 0.7% is uranium 235 isotope. All the thorium is useable.
    So a better statement is that there is 350 to 450 times as much thorium available compared to useable uranium 235.

    While the majority uranium 238 isotope can be converted to plutonium, it is problematic whether this is a good thing, due to the nuclear weapons risk of plutonium.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    652
    Well, that is just the problem that the LFTR can solve- add a little U238 to the mix, neutron rich environment turns it to Pu239 which fissions into decay products, which are then recovered as indicated for further uses.

    THERE ARE NO SOLID FUEL ELEMENTS, so, little opportunity to divert uranium or plutonium for illicit purposes, which, if security is good, will not happen anyway. Besides, there are an amplitude of bombs already assembled which are MUCH more attractive targets for theft.

    It is off topic, but why not consider removing peoples' MOTIVATION to build nuclear weapons? Me, I get along without one in the house just fine. If the world were more just, maybe others would feel the same way...


    Like I said, off topic. Sue me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Arthur

    Personally, I have no problem with the odd off topic digression. Some of the most interesting discussions arise this way.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    Arthur

    Personally, I have no problem with the odd off topic digression. Some of the most interesting discussions arise this way.
    Hopefully to start threads of their own. In any case, if humanity is to prosper it will eventually need to exploit this source of power and it is in the best interest of the species to do so, as a single planet will not be adequate to provide for us all and thorium has been determined to exist on the Moon and Mars, the two most likely places for us to settle in the Solar System. Neither body has an ecosystem to damage so the Green Obstructionists will have nothing to object to.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    703
    Just put it underground. This design exist; but it is for geographically stable region and with no seeping ground water. In case of failure: the reactor will simply be burried (the ground will act as a sarcophagus/a concrete containment field) and it will stay there for 100,000 years and top-ground is safe.

    Its soo safe you'd even install it under your home!! I really do imagine a future where we can have 1 nuclear reactor for every home. It could even power our electric car and increase factory profitability by offseting energy price... hmmm... (but I think this is crazy ;P)

    US firm unveils plans for mini nuclear reactors - physicsworld.com ;burried nuclear reactor
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by msafwan View Post
    Just put it underground. This design exist; but it is for geographically stable region and with no seeping ground water. In case of failure: the reactor will simply be burried (the ground will act as a sarcophagus/a concrete containment field) and it will stay there for 100,000 years and top-ground is safe.

    Its soo safe you'd even install it under your home!! I really do imagine a future where we can have 1 nuclear reactor for every home. It could even power our electric car and increase factory profitability by offseting energy price... hmmm... (but I think this is crazy ;P)

    US firm unveils plans for mini nuclear reactors - physicsworld.com ;burried nuclear reactor
    This design uses 10% enriched uranium and not thorium for fuel but thanks for the link, it is very interesting.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    I would see a mini reactor as having value propelling vessels. If every ship had a mini reactor, there would be no risk of oil spills during shipwrecks, and the entire fleet of ships world wide would stop emitting CO2.

    I see people arguing that this is more risky. History suggests that it would not be. Nuclear powered ships have been used by several navies for many decades, and a number of shipwrecks of nuclear powered vessels have happened. The reactors remained sealed off, and no radio-contamination of the environment occurred. Even the Kursk - the Russian nuclear sub that had a torpedo explode in its bow, and sank to considerable depth - did not release any nuclear material. A well designed, and sealed mini reactor would be a boon to shipping everywhere.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,094
    As I know currently the disadvantage of Thorium energy is its cost.
    In foreseeable future it will be probably not less expensive than traditional
    light water reactors power.The problems are needs to constantly reprocess
    already radioactive fuel right on power plant such as isotope separation and
    build reactor from expensive corrosion resistant materials.It makes it uneconomical
    for now.
    Antislavery
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley514 View Post
    As I know currently the disadvantage of Thorium energy is its cost.
    In foreseeable future it will be probably not less expensive than traditional
    light water reactors power.The problems are needs to constantly reprocess
    already radioactive fuel right on power plant such as isotope separation and
    build reactor from expensive corrosion resistant materials.It makes it uneconomical
    for now.
    I disagree. One problem with solid fuel elements, for example, is the build up of xenon gas, a product of the decay series. This disrupts the structural integrity of the fuel element, and the particular isotope of this gas involved is a potent neutron absorber, slowing down the rate of neutron induced reactions and power output. If liquid salt fuel is used, as in the LFTR, the xenon bubbles out of solution naturally. Liquid fuel also allows chemical separation techniques to be employed, up to the point of continuous reprocessing without the need for the removal, dismantling, and re-fabrication of fuel rods necessary with conventional reprocessing.

    Liquid fluoride thorium reactor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    http://energyfromthorium.com/2006/05...m-for-an-lftr/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,094
    Need to operation an on-site chemical plant to manage core mixture and remove fission products.
    Molten salt reactor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Do you think it is not expensive enough to maintain?
    Also add costs of constructing reactor core from corrosion resistant materials.

    But principally I agree that even if it`s not less expensive than light water reactors
    it may have some sense to build LFTR istead of new light water reactors.But some
    countries decided to phase out nuclear energy completely.Such as Germany.
    Arthur Angler likes this.
    Antislavery
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    652
    True enough, but you have to examine what is derived from such an investment:

    a.) less downtime for refueling with solid fuel elements, as these have been eliminated
    b.) smaller volume of residual radioactive material
    c.) enhanced capacity to make use of existing radioactive "waste" and to recover energy and valuable fission products such as neodymium, xenon, and medically useful isotopes

    At the time Hyman Rickover discovered that huge quantities of zirconium were required for the nuclear Navy, it was a rare and expensive commodity. He did not allow this to deter him. Most of the zirconium metal produced today is used in the nuclear industry since it has excellent corrosion resistance at high temperatures and does not absorb much in the way of neutrons.

    Finally, the cost to Germany of rejecting nuclear power has recently been found to be significantly greater that first estimated- there is a thread on the forum devoted to the issue, search "mugged" and you will find it readily enough, I expect.

    Currently reprocessing is done at locations remote from reactor operations- to my way of thinking, this complicates the security issue unnecessarily. You raise an excellent point and I hope to have addressed it to your satisfaction, best regards.
    Last edited by Arthur Angler; January 30th, 2012 at 10:19 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Liquid Flouride Thorium Reactos
    By The Finger Prince in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: August 7th, 2011, 10:16 PM
  2. Solid vs. Liquid vs. Gas
    By asxz in forum Chemistry
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: March 30th, 2009, 12:48 PM
  3. Liquid Murcury
    By LoKo1Wolf in forum Biology
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: January 11th, 2009, 04:52 AM
  4. Certain liquid required
    By blochee in forum Chemistry
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: February 22nd, 2008, 09:00 PM
  5. Liquid of life?
    By 8873tom in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: July 18th, 2005, 07:08 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •