Home > Climate, Countries, Depression, General, Japan, Medicine, Radioactivity, Science > Dangers, Properties, possible Uses and Methods of Purification of radioactively contaminated (drinking) Water (e.g. in Japan)

Dangers, Properties, possible Uses and Methods of Purification of radioactively contaminated (drinking) Water (e.g. in Japan)

Most methods and tools being recommended here on the Internet such as purification by filtration will not lead to your desired result of decontaminating “radioactive water”.

Here is what you need to know and what you can do [updated March 31st 2011, see end] – e.g. even if you can’t buy bottled water anymore.

a) Radioactive contamination of drinking water in Japan at this point in time can come about in only two ways:

1) The source is actual surface water like lakes or rivers, possibly filtrated through river banks and thus came into contact with e.g. radioactive rain and/or dust. The Netherlands rely almost totally on water drawn from the Rhine and fed into the drinking water supply after conditioning.

2) The water may have been contaminated after production (e.g. in open cisterns/basins), which in effect is similar to bullet a1).

In all other cases it springs from groundwater (wells) and has often been concealed for years before being extracted again. As limnologists would say “groundwater” has an elephant’s memory, i.e. if you drop a can of used oil in a forest it may take ten years until you become aware of oil traces in your drinking water. This means that on one hand ground water wells should as a rule not yet show contamination from rain fall so shortly after a nuclear accident and on the other hand that when it appears further “down the road” all short-lived contamination should have decayed. This is by no means meant to downplay the issue.

So far I would have thought it unlikely to already find radioactive contamination in water that does not come from surface water or bank filtrate. If it should be true it would be alarming.

Now though, let’s assume it were true as authorities would rather hush up things than exaggerate them, thus let’s take some degree of water contamination for granted.

b) How can you reprocess radioactively contaminated (drinking) water so that it is (relatively) safe to use?

All radioactivity in (drinking) water can take only one of three forms:

1) It is in the form of radioactive hydrogen (called tritium, three times as heavy as normal hydrogen and emitting very weak beta rays, i.e. electrons, which, however, can damage your genome and cause cancer etc. when swallowed). When tritium has been released to the environment it will be incorporated in “heavy” water molecules. However, these are chemically indistinct from normal water, hence you cannot chemically separate radioactive water from normal water. You will have to live with tritium in your water and air (vapour) until it has decayed. With a half-life of approx. 12 years it will be down to one thousandth in about 120 years … All you can do (in theory) is move to another location where the tritium from “your” power plant has not yet reached (eventually the tritium will be evenly dispersed world-wide by wind and wave, however, then also the dosage of radiation will diminish reciprocally with its dilution). Or you “import” clean water (and add a pressurised air cylinder from a clean pristine source for good measure).

And don’t forget: once you’ve moved to another place there might be yet another malfunctioning nuclear power station around the corner – from the frypan into the fire … Help close down all nuclear power stations and so-called reprocessing plants!

2) The water could contain gases, esp. radioactive noble gases (like neon (Ne), argon (Ar), krypton (Kr), xenon (Xe), radon (Rn)) Rather unlikely but for the sake of completeness we will mention them here. These can be driven out from the water by heating it to boiling temperature as hot liquids dissolve less gases than cold ones (with solid solubles, e.g. salts, it is vice versa with the rare exception of kitchen salt –sodium chloride- which hardly changes in solubility from almost zero to 100 degrees centigrade).

3) The main contaminants by far should be soluble solids, e.g. metal salts of e.g. radioactive caesium, rubidium etc. These can not be filtered e.g. by charcoal or any ceramic or paper filter with whatever fine pore structure since they are dissolved! You can only either try to demineralise that water (e.g. by reverse osmosis) or purify it by distillation thus leaving the radioactive solids behind (the condensed water in the lids of your pots consists of such distilled water droplets). A third potential method would be chemical precipitation. However, in order to know which chemical to use to precipitate the contaminant(s) with, you’d first have to analyse the water components. And in all probability the traces would be too small for normal analysis and if the salt etc. was determined then you might find there is no precipitant to go with it or it may have adverse side effects, e.g. be poisonous. So de-mineralisation or distillation it is.

These are the only three viable methods that might help in this predicament. Anything else is “snake oil“.

While activated charcoal does by virtue of adsorption delay the passage even of solved salts all these filtration methods are only really designed for capturing suspended matter. But what has been bank filtrated or springs from ground water wells is not a suspension, or at least no water utility would dare inject murky water into its system!!!

If anyone could translate this into Japanese – you are most welcome to post this anywhere if you attribute the source, and in any form and language!

See the German version here, if you are more comfortable with German:

http://www.dasgelbeforum.de.org/forum_entry.php?id=209608

And if so, you might also be interested in my collection of articles on the Japanese catastrophe, nuclear energy in general and what all this means for Japan and the rest of the world:

http://www.dasgelbeforum.de.org/forum_entry.php?id=208864

Do not use automatic translators – they will garble the meaning beyond comprehension!!! If you lose this texts precision you might as well drink the water “as is”.

I will not comment further on any other “alternative” purification methods as these have been sufficiently excoriated.

> Can you still use contaminated water for the following purposes (keep in mind, it is always a matter of how contaminated it all is!):

> – cleaning a garden path for example,

Yes, but may I suggest: only if the path would be less contaminated than before. But before you breathe contaminated dust from a contaminated path by all means use contaminated water to keep it in place! This is what is already done at Fukushima – they spray water not only for cooling purposes but also to keep the contaminated dust or radioactice debris wet and in place!

> – personal hygiene,

Rather not! You would also absorb some contaminants through your skin, however small. However, if you need to decontaminate yourself from a greater dose than what is in your water, do wash it all down and reduce your exposure! Again – “contaminated” water may be heavily or only negligibly contaminated – use your best judgment! We are talking dangerously contaminated here! The situation in your region may not yet be so dire – so please compare to normal radiation levels from the past – traces of radioactivity may not always be dangerous, but are likely to rise with ongoing leaks and further rainfall adding to ground water supplies from contaminated sources above ground.

> – to wash dishes,

Well, if you dry well it would be better than becoming ill from mouldy dishes! Only if your water were excessively contaminated I wouldn’t. However, your utility will not pump such water and your spigot would be dry by then. When your plates and glasses are without water stains, then there is also no radioactive deposit from radioactive salts. Only if you leave stains – these are the radioactive salts, if you want to take a look at them!

> – laundry,

Weigh your options: if your clothes are contaminated they should be cleaned. The harder you spin dry the less water will still remain on your fibres and the more likely what little water then is left to dry will deposit less radioactive material than you just got rid of by rinsing and washing!

> – cooking?

If you use steam only, instead of cooking in boiling water (like a pressure cooker with a separation between the boiling water and vegetables) and e.g. your vegetables do not come into direct contact with the water – then the steam will be relatively “clean” as this is almost the same process as distillation described above. Also consider frying and other methods that can do away with water. Consider using bottled water if you want to stay on the safe side or if contamination is known to be at dangerous levels, since the spray in e.g. your pressure cooker will still deposit contaminants on your food, even if not in direct contact with the boiling water.

And for drinking, but esp. for your infants or if preparing infant formulas – use bottled water from a reliable brand!!!

What you can do in all regions where contamination is still low or where the drinking water is still uncontaminated but likely to become contaminated soon and bottled water is scarce or sold out or you expect it to be so in the near future:

  1. Get some food-grade (i.e. clean and with no substances in it that could seep into the water; like polyethylene or glass bottles, empty water bottles you have not yet returned etc.) containers and fill them with tap water. Store in a cool, preferably dark place. Since this costs you almost nothing and can be used again anyhow even if nothing untoward happens, stock as much as you can if you fear this scarcity to last or increase.
  2. If your water is already contaminated and you expect or experience shortages of uncontaminated bottled water, you can still stretch your water reserves in the following way:
    a) Get as much clean tap water as before in #1).
    b) Store as long as you can afford not to use it (for drinking), then always use stored water instead of fresh water.
    c) Refill all emptied containers again with fresh tap water, store them at the furthest end of your stash (label them with date and time) and always repeat using the “oldest” water. “Rinse and repeat, rinse and repeat” – don’t forget to relabel and use the oldest first always

    Reasons: We assume that the main contamination from Fukushima at this time will be radioactive iodine-131 esp. from rainfall that got into the wells and feeders of your water utility. Even if the iodine production at the reactors has stopped its environmental levels may still increase considerably.
    Radioactive iodine-131 is highly radiotoxic esp. for your thyroid gland resulting in an increased risk of thyroid cancer. This being the case, iodine-131 has a half-life of only about eight days. So, whatever the initial amount of iodine-131 at the time you filled your respective bottle, it will contain only half the amount of harmful iodine after the first eight days, a quarter only after the next 8 days or then 16 days in total, only one thousandth of iodine radioactivity after eighty days (ten half-lives or “two to the power of ten” = 1,024) and so forth.
    So if you manage to “rotate” your bottles in, say, a three-week cycle, your iodine contamination will almost only be one eighth of what originally came out of the spigot; after 32 days or about a month it will be only one sixteenth!
    This method won’t help with other contaminants such as caesium unfortunately, as these have far longer half-lives (Cs-137 e.g. is over 30 years), so to avoid these you need to either get bottled water from a reliable source/brand or use distillation as mentioned.

And good luck …

If you want to make absolutely sure, this never ever happens again, not in your country and nowhere in the world, then you should also read:

How I brought down the Nuclear Industry in my Country – and how you can do it in yours …

Spread the word – feel free to e.g. repost/retranslate as long as you mention your source.

German overview article:

http://dasgelbeforum.de.org/forum_entry.php?id=208864

This is the English translation of the German original

“Radioaktivitaet in Trink- und Brauchwasser, Bedeutung, Beseitigung, Gefahren … das meiste funktioniert so nicht!”

(To be found here:

http://www.dasgelbeforum.de.org/forum_entry.php?id=209608)

Dangers, Properties, possible Uses and Methods of Purification of radioactively contaminated (drinking) Water

About these ads
  1. 2011-11-04 at 19:18

    The lesson…it’s easier and cheaper to keep water clean in the first place!

  2. 2011-04-17 at 21:53

    Thanks for the exhaustive analysis on water purification to remove radiation. I guess RO or Distillation is the best way to go, or at least as good as we can get.

  3. 2011-04-17 at 21:50

    I would most certainly use reverse osmosis or distilled water as my base, and then add zeolites to my drinking water to make sure it is safe to drink. You can also get a home radiation tester and test the purified water and see if it is all out.

  4. joey j
    2011-04-16 at 00:34

    CM:

    Here is a link to info on the water filters:

    Info on Berkey water filters:

    http://www.berkeyfilters.com/berkeytech.htm

    Any chance this will help?

    • 2011-04-16 at 05:28

      Hi Joey, interesting filter system. Now from what I read, the main strength of the system (allegedly over any of its competitors) is that it absorbs/adsorbs 99% or more of organic compounds and bacteria. The latter are rather big bodies (when it comes to filtering), the former are those “larger” molecules I mentioned before although some of them are much smaller than I would have thought likely to be intercepted. They do not provide an explanation as to how the heavy metals were “filtered” out. Certainly this is unusual. Assuming they don’t “brag” and reflect their laboratory findings correctly then this speaks for a certain amount of inhibition of metals. In the absence of a physical or chemical explanation of the mechanism for metals it’s difficult to judge how far this could analogously apply to metals such as Caesium or Iodine, Rubidium, Strontium all of which do not fall into the category of “heavy” metals though are bigger atoms than e.g. sodium or potassium. There is a chance that their passage will be impeded at least and thus there could be a retention rate of anything between 10% to the same 95% as described for heavy metals.
      It’s probably not a bad idea to ask them. As for the Iodine (though this will be a passing phenomenon due to its shorter half-life) it could be more easily held back by the fluoride filter (http://www.berkeyfilters.com/berkeypf2.htm), which seems to be an add-on, due to the chemical similarity between fluorine and iodine.

  5. joey j
    2011-04-15 at 03:44

    Are water purifiers at all effective? I believe some can filter out heavy metals. Would something like a Berkey filter help get you clean water? Our is storage the only solution?

    • 2011-04-15 at 13:37

      Well the question is – is this a filter in the true sense of the word, then it cannot inhibit the flow of (inorganic) solutions. The qualification “inorganic” (as all the radioactive salts in question are) is made in order to distinguish from large organic molecules, e.g. DNA, proteins and such. However, as I argued, no utility would insert “slurry” into their piping system, and large organic molecules would qualify as “impurities” or “dirt”.
      That said, anything that will come into contact with a water filter from a utility pipe (two qualifications!!!) would be an inorganic dissolved substance, i.e. mostly salts. As such it cannot be filtered by anything that does not abuse the word “filter” for something that is actually a much more intricate device, such as something that uses osmosis etc. The (semi-permeable) membrane used in osmosis is not a filter in the classical sense, however, it is a filter on the molecular level.
      Now, if someone uses such membranes there are indeed membranes that can hinder anything the molecule (ion) size of which is larger than the solvent’s molecule from passing. So if the solvent in this case is water and the atom or molecule is iodine etc. there potentially are membranes that do the trick. However, to get a considerable amount of solvent (water) through to the “other” (the pure) side of the membrane you then normally need a lot of pressure and/or it takes very long to produce even a liter in a household-affordable device.
      If you provide me with links to the Berkeley filter system I will look into this further though.

    • Mitch
      2011-05-13 at 23:45

      The basic rule of thumb that I was taught in water school is that if the water can flow through the filter by gravity alone then the pores are large enough to let many contaminants through. Also, I have seen no mention of ion exchange dual bed resin filters (DI), mixed bed filters, or polishing post filters.

      Ion exchange filters can process huge amounts of water in a short time. The beds are charged by washing with soda or hydrochloric acid and are extremely efficient at removing all radionuclides except the nobles and deuterium or tritium. When I built my last system, I had to coordinate my purchase to not create an outage for nearby nuclear plants using similar technology. When paired with a pre-feed system such as RO, sand filters, and activated charcoal, the water can be polished to the point where it etches glass. After that the water needs to be heated past steam and fed into cyclonic separator tubes where the nine main different types of water are sorted (H20, D2O, T2O, and the various isotopes of oxygen). Since most of the radioactive isotopes of oxygen have half-lives of under 2 minutes and the 17 and 18 neutron isotopes will just give false rejections as D20 or T2O, storage for an hour our so before a second pass should enable nearly pure H2O(16neutron).

  6. Meg
    2011-04-08 at 20:42

    We live in the U.S., do you happen to know how long it takes for radioactive iodine, etc to make its way down to well water. Our town has a well that supplies water to residents.

    Is it important to take precaution now, and store some water, in case?

    Others might be wondering also about well water. Thanks !

    Meg

    • 2011-04-08 at 23:57

      The speed with which rain water resurfaces as well water is never easy to predict but most certainly depends on the soil conditions and varies greatly from place to place. I would suggest to ask your utility company – often they may even have tested this in the past and using, believe it or not, tiny traces of radioactive markers. Also some university geologist that specialises in local conditions might have an idea.
      As for storing drinking water see my other post at the top on revolving water supplies to let the iodine decay. I should say, the US surely is not in great danger, much less than probably Korea etc. but depending on wind conditions there can be bouts of radiation over the coming months.

  7. Rica E
    2011-04-06 at 00:01

    I’m so happy I found you. These are the compilations I’ve been scanning for in the last weeks , and I certainly don’t mind the anti-nuke bent. I have already sent to contacts to get to Japan. Thank you for your efforts!

  8. Aristarque
    2011-04-04 at 23:24

    Cesium can be filtered out of water by using zeolith, according to the following paper : http://www.radioprotection.org/index.php?option=com_article&access=doi&doi=10.1051/radiopro:2000103&Itemid=129

    • 2011-04-05 at 08:45

      Yep, there are ways to “filter” out almost anything from a liquid by ways of adsorption, forming chelates etc. Thanks for sharing – this though will only be feasible for water utilities or other enterprises with some clout. I suspect that “for the layman” and his/her budget, from a point of cost and reward and only the amounts needed for drinking purposes they will be better off with distillation as “anyone” has energy at their disposal to effect this, while few will have access to the proper zeolithes in time of crisis and unprepared. And who doesn’t even have access to heat, like some poor people in Africa will even more so not be able to lay their hands on scarce chemicals I fear.

  9. flyingcuttlefish
    2011-04-04 at 21:23

    I reposted this good item a few days ago and have had over 30 visits to the page on my blog.
    FYI.
    It deserves wide attention.

  10. 2011-04-01 at 13:28

    Haycarb, the world largest manufacturer of coconut shell based activated carbon, offers a range of products for nuclear applications. The product range specifically covers two areas.
    1. KI impregnated carbon
    2. TEDA impregnated carbon

    The consequences of a failure of collapse of a nuclear power generating plant can have catastrophic effect, both short and long term on humans and the environment. Haycarb has the capability to respond to such crucial situations by gearing our production and manufacturing facilities to supply the products that are immediately needed to overcome such catastrophes.
    We can offer standard and special impregnated carbons for water and air treatment that effectively removes gasses such as radioactive iodine 131.
    Our carbons for this application have proven successful.

    Please let us know how we could be of help to supply the special activated carbons as a solution for the current situation in Japan.

    Thanking you
    Asitha Karunaratne – Manager Business Development
    ak@haycarb.com

    • 2011-04-01 at 15:13

      Hi, while this is rather a goods promotion, for the sake of all possibilities to be known in this catastrophe I give you a platform here. However, I am just a scientifically minded citizen of the world with a big heart and maybe an even bigger brain, I make no purchasing decisions for the Japanese government or people (if I did, they wouldn’t be in this quandary) – you should address yourselves to the Japanese government etc.

    • Rica E
      2011-04-13 at 18:08

      @ Asitha, thank you for your efforts . I’m having a hard time accessing your site. Are there home or personal applications for your product. I really would love more info , as I live in coastal northern california and poisons are already in our water system here unofficially , but obvious to me. blessings in these times!

  11. JohnnyD
    2011-03-31 at 12:00

    Thanks crisismaven you are very knowledgeable and indeed correct about the electronegativity of Iodine. I misconstrued its bias from reading that it is the most electropositive of the halogens astatine aside. Perhaps a valid approach then to minimise radiation from the current global spread of iodine 131 is to hold water for a month before drinking as it has a half life of 8 days without new rain input as you say. For the metallic radionuclides the jury is still out on whether a water ioniser can separate of the harmful radioactive particles. Curently not too much issue further afield unless there is a meltdown to the water table in Fukishima and a massive explosion.

    • 2011-03-31 at 13:23

      Indeed, you summed up the issue brilliantly.
      What I suggest is, people get some food-grade drums and store some (hundred?) gallons of tap water until further notice, he, who has unused space should always err on the safe side. Should these become a bit stale one can heat them above 60 degrees centigrade (“pasteurisation”) before use to be on the safe side (boiling unnecessary unless contaminated with hardy spores of an origin other than tap and food-grade drum – exactly what should not happen from these “ingredients”).

  12. JohnnyD
    2011-03-30 at 21:47

    You say you do not want to discuss any other water filtration methods but what about Ionised water (kangen Water). Radio active Iodine and metal salts such as caesium are extremely electro-positive. In an ionised water machine the water passes through a filter such as the ‘Biostone’ and then a small charge is passed through the water that splits the water into alkaline and acidic. Alkaline is the water that you drink which has a mild negative electrical load. What would happen then to the radioactivity?

    • 2011-03-30 at 22:47

      Obviously it would depend on whether the radionuclide being thus separated were positively or negatively charged. Caesium, an metallic alkaline, would be a positive ion, while iodine would be negatively charged if, as is the most likely case always, it was in a ionic compound, i.e. salt. Generally speaking, if the radioactive element were to be found on the lefthand side of the periodic table of elements (such as Caesium, Strontium, Rubidium etc.), it would in almost all cases be positively charged (lacking an electron as an ion), i.e. alkaline, while if from the righthand side of the periodic table such as the halogenic iodine would be negatively charged, a negative ion, i.e. acidic. So if I understand the function of this filter correctly, you would still run a risk of ingesting “half” the nuclides. As a rule of thumb, as I suggested, I would rely on bottled water if the dosage in drinking tap water was noticeably above normal, and use the tap water only for washing etc. An average human can get by with half a gallon or two liters of drinking water easily. Still, the filter described might reduce the radioactive dose by “half”, though that is a misleading rule of thumb as each radio nuclide “fires” at different rates and strengths. Before I experiment, I resort to bottled water when it comes to drinking, making tea or coffee etc.
      Note though that at the present time I believe the situation to apply only to certain areas in Japan while the water contamination further away like the US, Canada etc. would be minimal as long as you don’t drink fresh rain water where the situation could change depending on wind conditions though nowhere near what Japan goes through.

  13. 2011-03-28 at 22:46

    Thanks for leaving a comment on one of our recent articles with a link to this article Chris. If I did not have enough reasons to get a reverse-osmosis filter for my water, here is one more!

  14. 2011-03-27 at 17:02

    Thank you for the post CM. I’ve posted it on my blog and will post it in many other places for general knowledge.

    Ron G.

  15. 2011-03-27 at 05:47

    Thank you for an informative post.

  16. Seppuku
    2011-03-25 at 20:44

    You know this?
    www2.hu-berlin.de/leibniz-sozietaet/download/plutonium.doc
    Can you explain please?

    • 2011-03-25 at 22:05

      Hello Seppuku, what a befitting nick for the link you just sent me. I’m quite certain there should also be English versions, at least of the papers they refer to. You just dropped a bomb-shell. What it says is that before, everyone believed Plutonium to be storable as a relatively inert [i.e. doesn't easily react with e.g. water, oxigen etc.] oxide, PuO2. And because it seemed hardly insoluble it would not be leached when deposited, e.g. not appear in ground water but rather fixated in the ground.
      Now they found Pu far away from its storage spaces (dumps) and incompatible with the former opinion and so they figured Pu forms much more soluble oxides which are much more mobile and hence much, much more dangerous to the biosphere than previously thought. That stands all Plutonium handling on its head and calls for a total reassessment of the current Pu “economy”

      • Seppuku
        2011-03-25 at 22:27

        I’m German, I was unfortunately able to understand most of this paper, though I’m not a scientist.
        These facts evoke more than fears, but I’m not in the position to evaluate, mayby you can?
        But I wanted you to translate it to all the people out there.
        I was reading your statements at the “Das Gelbe Forum”, and I started to research about Plutonium.
        This is more than a mess……

        • 2011-03-25 at 23:20

          Hi Seppuku, indeed I’m grateful you pointed this out. I will give it due attention the moment I find the time, as it is adding gravely to two concerns:
          a) Plutonium being emitted esp. during core meltdown from uranium and MOX (mixed uranium/plutonium oxide pellets) reactor vessels and then deposited outside the reactor (the thing that never happens). These were deemed rather immobile, now we know Plutonium will indeed end up in ground water and then God knows where.
          b) “Safe” storage of radioactive waste, which is where most of the Plutonium goes will have to be completely re-evaluated and a lot of already deposited Plutonium stockpiles will have to be rescued and re-sealed elsewhere.
          A mess indeed.

  17. 2011-03-23 at 09:04

    Dear crisismaven,

    Below you have Takuya’s answer to your request.

    With Love and Gratitude
    luisa

    Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 16:49:26 +0900
    From: …@yahoo.co.jp
    Subject: Re: Dangers, Properties, possible Uses and Methods of Purification of radioactively contaminated (drinking) Water (e.g. in Japan)
    To: …@hotmail.com

    Dear Luisa,

    Thank you .

    I will translate it for me and Japanese .

    Takuya

    • 2011-03-23 at 09:37

      Thanks, great, the world is a better place for it. Tragic only, that people always seem to need to be brought together by crisis (not in capitals, thatsa me … :-).
      If you want me to later post the translation here too, give me a shout!
      CrisisMaven

  18. 2011-03-23 at 03:29

    Good seeing you back Crisis Maven

    • Stevie b.
      2011-03-23 at 13:48

      “good seing you back Crisis Maven”….but…. are you back for good….or just passing through?

      • 2011-03-23 at 14:03

        Hi Stevie & Greg,
        well, apart from being busy otherwise I at some point thought I had made several of the most pertinent predictions and could afford to wait which of them came true. And I thought I had covered enough ground. The predicted adjustable rate mortgage disaster has not yet stalled the markets, much to my surprise and China is still “zombieing on” though that still is within my time frame for its collapse; the ARMs thing though puzzles me but maybe we’re just waiting for the 90-day defaults to mature?
        Then Japan came along and thus the opportunity to finally analyse atomic energy for “all it’s worth”. So stay tuned.

  19. maanja
    2011-03-22 at 16:22

    Danke :)

  1. 2011-05-02 at 11:57
  2. 2011-04-16 at 06:58
  3. 2011-04-01 at 18:45
  4. 2011-03-29 at 01:01
  5. 2011-03-29 at 00:57
  6. 2011-03-29 at 00:08
  7. 2011-03-27 at 05:58
  8. 2011-03-27 at 03:05
  9. 2011-03-26 at 20:12
  10. 2011-03-26 at 18:14
  11. 2011-03-26 at 18:14
  12. 2011-03-26 at 17:59
  13. 2011-03-26 at 05:59
  14. 2011-03-25 at 22:56

Comment/Have your say or else have a good day!

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

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 332 other followers

%d bloggers like this: