Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Nuclear energy: best hope, or deal with the devil?


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Nuclear energy: best hope, or deal with the devil? Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Nuclear energy: best hope, or deal with the devil? - 5/3/2008 6:11:28 PM   
Owner59


Posts: 17033
Joined: 3/14/2006
From: Dirty Jersey
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: FullCircle

The really funny thing about all this is that people think ground conditions are uniform and no discontinuities exist. If you conducted 100 bore holes and they all returned salt at all levels you can almost guarantee you've missed another sequence in-between them somewhere, it's sods law. So no you should always plan for the worst with nuclear waste and I think putting it in a deep hole is giving a false sense of security to people.


~deep salt mines~

And salt,one of nature`s most corrosive materials,that`s not going to eat away at whatever we "store" the waste in?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Do`n a good job,FC.

And you`re just using common sense.Something techies lose sight of from time to time.

My dad(who I learned carpentry/construction from)once said to me,that "things fall apart,just as soon as we finish building them".Which,if you think about it,is true.

The things men make,don`t last.That`s just nature.To think that we could make things that`ll last ten thousand years or more(nuke storage tanks),is as just dumb.

To keep on producing this nuke waste based on a  false premise, is arrogant and beyond selfish. More like criminal negligence.

Hey techies.....how old are the pyramids? lol 

Even they,haven`t lasted that long.

< Message edited by Owner59 -- 5/3/2008 6:18:58 PM >

(in reply to FullCircle)
Profile   Post #: 41
RE: Nuclear energy: best hope, or deal with the devil? - 5/3/2008 8:04:09 PM   
Real_Trouble


Posts: 471
Joined: 2/25/2008
Status: offline
quote:

If nuclear plants are so safe,then why is it that no one will insure them?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

That`s correct folks,the industry is so "risky",they can`t find insurance,at any cost.

The federal government provides the insurance.

How much does that hidden cost add to the price of a kilowatt hour?

The more people are armed with knowledge,the less nuclear power looks good.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Funny how we never see a pro-nuker invite the nuclear waste sites into their community.It`s always for someone else to deal with.Well,not really all that funny.


As someone who has dealt with the insurance and reinsurance industries extensively, there are two major reasons for this:

- They are considered military and terrorist risks.  That is an extreme peril, and one that is incredibly difficult to rate from an insurance perspective, so they get bounced on that count.  You couldn't get terrorism insurance for anything in Manhattan, either, after 9/11, until TRIA / TRIAE / TRIPPA came along (another gov't program).  Does that mean we should ban office buildings in New York?

- There is huge legal risk; because of the sensationalism around nuclear power (as is being demonstrated in this thread), the thought is that if there is even a minor accident, there will be a flood of lawsuits and litigation which, though completely unfounded, may well cause huge legal defense fees, much less actual losses.  This, likewise, is nearly impossible to rate.

You can't get insurance on a military base either, coincidentally.  Should we ban those as well?

But here is my question for you:

If we assume that Nuclear power is out, and that solar, hydro, and wind power are likely to be insufficient given current technology for our energy needs (I accept they might be plausible eventually, but not currently), what would you recommend instead?  Fighting wars for oil?  Going to coal?  Jacking up food prices and starving people around the world by rolling with ethanol?

What is your alternate gameplan here?

_____________________________

Send lawyers, guns, and money.

(in reply to Owner59)
Profile   Post #: 42
RE: Nuclear energy: best hope, or deal with the devil? - 5/4/2008 3:04:17 AM   
shallowdeep


Posts: 343
Joined: 9/1/2006
From: California
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: FullCircle
...to move technology forward you have to use it so there is the demand to solve the problems associated with it. How one can square this with what we tell Iran for wanting nuclear power is anyone’s guess.

I don't want to take this too far off track, but the issue isn't Iran having nuclear power, it's Iran wanting to have their own fuel cycle. They've been offered enriched fuel along with disposal of the waste several times. They've rejected those offers in favor of developing a domestic fuel cycle and handling their own waste.

There are two possible reasons to do that.

1. They don't want to be dependent on foreign energy.
There is potentially an economic case to be made for building nuclear plants - after all, the oil is selling too well to just burn it - but they aren't exactly facing a domestic energy crunch. It comes down to being more of a prestige issue - or perhaps Khamenei and Ahmadinejad are just extremely ardent environmentalists.

2. They want weapons.
Considering that antagonistic Western countries and, especially, Israel have them, this desire is understandable. I think it takes excessive credulity to believe many of those in power in Iran wouldn't like having nuclear options - or that a sizable minority wouldn't be willing to take the risk of becoming even more of an international pariah to obtain them. They're probably not likely to use them should they obtain them, but that doesn't make it something many want to see happen (hypocrisy of extant nuclear arsenals aside). The potential risk seems greater than any posed by nuclear waste, at any rate.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FullCircle
What happened to the idea of nuclear fusion?

Still working on it. Still going to be a while.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FullCircle
Strange we can send satellites up into orbit but not one containing nuclear waste towards the sun.

Not really surprising. The waste we're talking about is relatively small, volume wise, but extremely dense. Mass is expensive to get into orbit, it's not currently feasible to launch 62,000 tons (the current US stockpile) of it. And, while we have used limited amounts of nuclear waste as fuel for space probes, chemical rockets can, and do, fail (independent of the launching agency) so launching the quantities necessary presently poses far more danger than storing it, even if we did have the lift capacity to do it. A space elevator, or something similarly cool, could change that - so I'm optimistic about it becoming a viable solution well within the next millennium.

(in reply to FullCircle)
Profile   Post #: 43
RE: Nuclear energy: best hope, or deal with the devil? - 5/4/2008 3:09:19 AM   
shallowdeep


Posts: 343
Joined: 9/1/2006
From: California
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
I don't know what bullshit the Discover mag folks are pitching...

The relevant section:
quote:

I asked him to explain how Yucca Mountain had been selected for study. He said that the nation's high-level nuclear waste—"high level" meaning the greatest radioactivity and heat—was originally slated to be buried in an old salt mine in Kansas. "In the 1960s salt looked good for everything," said Peck. However, a decade later, government researchers concluded that old boreholes near the mine might not have been plugged up. If freshwater seeped into those boreholes, the mine could ultimately be breached.

It's more in reference to one particular mine, and even then it doesn't necessarily say that the salt formation couldn't have worked for waste storage - just that there were better alternatives. Overall it's a good article. Not technical, but a nice overview of some of the process involved in analyzing the Yucca Mountain site.

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 44
RE: Nuclear energy: best hope, or deal with the devil? - 5/4/2008 3:26:01 AM   
shallowdeep


Posts: 343
Joined: 9/1/2006
From: California
Status: offline
quote:

It`s not like it`s a one time deal with one single load.It`s a never ending stream of waste.

As I've made clear, I don't see nuclear power as a long-term solution, but as an intermediate bridge to the time when other, better options can fully meet energy needs. As such, the resulting waste would, in fact, be a "one time deal" - with the time frame being the 50 or so years it's likely to take to transition fully to the alternatives.

quote:

And that`s just a fuck`n estimate! No one knows what state the nuke waste will be in 10,000 fuck`n years.

It's actually fundamental nuclear physics, not an estimate. It's not radioactive if it's not decaying.

quote:

OMG! Had to take a few minutes to recover from the laughing fit.

If I understand, you don't believe that anything man-made can be expected to last 10,000 years, let alone longer. You're welcome to hold that opinion, but it's demonstrably in error - as we've found plenty of tools dating back tens of thousands, and even millions, of years. Claiming that something is impossible because it doesn't fit in time scales we can easily comprehend may be "common sense", but it's not a rational assessment.

There are greater uncertainties associated with long-term models, and neither I, nor anyone else I'm aware of, is trying to claim long-term waste storage poses no risk. However, as the status quo already poses a significant risk, it is only prudent to make an attempt to intelligently evaluate the risks associated with alternatives. Dismissing an alternative out of hand from ill-founded paranoia contributes nothing.

The proper repository, even with conservative scenarios, would pose only negligibly increased risks of cancer over a very small area. For the sake of argument, allow that something is utterly wrong with the models. In that case, you might get a polluted aquifer that would cause appreciably elevated cancer risks in the area for tens of thousands of years. That's an immense risk, but even so it's still localized, and it's not catastrophic. It's also unlikely. These sorts of risks can, and need to be, weighed rationally against the alternatives.

quote:

Germany has proven that the solar option works, by using solar technology to meet their growing electric needs.

I already debunked this earlier in the thread. Other countries may be doing more, but the only industrialized countries that have currently made a serious dent in fossil fuel dependence have done so through nuclear power.

quote:

I also imagine that today`s pro-nukers coundn`t give a shit about what future generations think of us. It`s part and parcel of the mindset at work.

All I can do is assure you that I do care - deeply. I believe we have the same goals here. I think you're well intentioned, but approaching the problem with prejudice and some degree of ignorance, and that's not intended as an insult. I assume your assessment of me is similar, but I hope you can ascribe my position to the same good intent.

quote:

My vote, go solar, go conservation, geo-thermal, wind, tidal, hydro, etc. It`s all viable, cost affective, renewable and proven to work.

I'm in full agreement that this is where we should be heading. However, I believe that it's not realistic to build out these technologies cost effectively and in sufficient quantity within the next 20-30 years to meet the nearly 2,000,000,000 MWh of electrical energy currently generated in this country from coal alone each year - let alone the other fossil fuels or existing nuclear capacity. I think nuclear power has a more realistic chance to make an impact. Since nuclear plants can be built with relatively limited amounts of material and labor, I'm hopefully they won't substantially detract from the alternatives, which can, and should, be aggressively built out in parallel.

Sticking with the status quo as we make a gradual transition means the current problems continue. We deal with them everyday, so we're largely numb to them - but that won't stop half a million deaths from coal particulates or, without wishing to ignite a religious war, this.

As I've mentioned, I'm very optimistic that the future will see nuclear waste as a more surmountable problem than it currently is. But even if it isn't, I'd rather bequeath nuclear waste, with risks that I see as manageable, than bear responsibility for the alternative.

If you should happen to come across some interesting, well thought out plans that don't involve increased use of nuclear fuels, please share them. I'm sure I, or someone else, will find them interesting. The more people that get interested in finding solutions, rather than being satisfied with the status quo, or simply complaining, the closer we'll get to a better future... a goal I hope everyone can share.


(in reply to Owner59)
Profile   Post #: 45
RE: Nuclear energy: best hope, or deal with the devil? - 5/4/2008 7:36:55 AM   
bipolarber


Posts: 2792
Joined: 9/25/2004
Status: offline 		Okay, just a few minor points:
First, chances are, if they decide they have to store the waste, it will be handled in the traditional way: find the poorest people, the ones with the least political pull, and dump it near them and forget about it.

Second, this talk of "dropping it into the sun" isn't really cost effective. You'd have a cheaper time of it if you just encased the waste in gold (gold makes for great radiation sheilding) Besides, (supposing you'd be willing to spend the money to launch it)  the laws of conservation of energy actually makes it easier to chuck the junk out of the solar system, than it is to drop inward from the Earth's orbit. Out beyond Pluto, it can drift for 10,000,000,000 years before it encounters anything else. By that time, it'll be stone cold, radioactively speaking.

Now, let's all go to Youtube, and search the term, "exploding rocket" you'll get plenty of hits, including reports on the two shuttles we've lost. Imagine any one of those spectaular failures packed with several tons of depeated plutonium. (incidentally, plutonium is listed as the single most poisionous substance on Earth... two pellets of the stuff (each pettle about the size of a "C" battery) dissolved in water, can theoretically poison a city the size of Chicago.)

So, the problem remains: what do you do with the waste, and how do you insure saftey in a world where religious nutcases armed with box cutters could ram your containment building around the reactor with a fully loaded 747?



(in reply to shallowdeep)
Profile   Post #: 46
RE: Nuclear energy: best hope, or deal with the devil? - 5/5/2008 2:00:46 AM   
shallowdeep


Posts: 343
Joined: 9/1/2006
From: California
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: bipolarber
Incidentally, plutonium is listed as the single most poisionous substance on Earth... two pellets of the stuff (each pellet about the size of a "C" battery) dissolved in water, can theoretically poison a city the size of Chicago.

While this is something you often hear, repetition doesn't make it any less of a myth - one even Wikipedia debunks. It simply is not borne out by what we know of plutonium's toxicity. There are plenty of chemicals with far higher acute toxicity, and it doesn't take a nuclear physicist to point out that a material with a half-life of 24110 years isn't the most radioactive substance known by a long shot. Furthermore, because plutonium is mostly an alpha emitter, it poses virtually no threat unless it has been internalized in the body. Since it isn't absorbed through skin, this means it has to be eaten, inhaled, or come in through some wound.

Let's take a closer look at the example of Chicago. Based on studies in animals, it would take an oral dose of around 0.364 g to have a 50% chance of killing a 70 kg human. So, you need a little over a metric ton (the volume is more like 50 L, not two C cell batteries) to do in even half of Chicago's population. This assumes there is some way to get them all to eat their doses. Your choice of water as the hypothetical medium of dispersal is interesting - because plutonium is pretty insoluble. Assuming you could completely saturate water with plutonium, it would take around 89 billion liters of water to dissolve the requisite metric ton. Every citizen of Chicago only needs to drink a mere 31,000 L or so.

I don't mean to downplay the risk. Inhalation of much more than 1 mg of powdered plutonium is pretty much a guarantee of premature death by cancer, based on other animal studies. The oral doses are higher because the GI tract doesn't appear to absorb very much plutonium at all. The oral dose is a better indication of the risks posed by repository storage, though, as leakage will come pretty much exclusively from waste dissolving in water and then seeping into the local aquifer.

Despite the fact that plutonium isn't the most poisonous substance on Earth, it is the most serious concern for radioactive waste. This isn't because plutonium is the most toxic waste (many of the other fission products are worse) but because it is present in relatively large quantities and has a relatively long half-life. Most spent fuel waste (over 90%) is just ordinary uranium, no different or more dangerous than what was initially mined. However, it is mixed with plutonium and other fission products. The highly radioactive isotopes decay away quickly, but the plutonium (which accounts for some hundreds of the US's current 62,000 metric tons of waste) remains for a while and is capable of posing some threat if not kept in place.

quote:

What do you do with the waste?

I gave my answer to this previously. You put it in a repository. I feel the risk is manageable. The informed opposition to Yucca Mountain that exists doesn't stem from a claim that it's impossible to store waste relatively safely, but from the perception that politics had undue influence on the site selection and that there may be better alternatives.

Even Yucca Mountain, which is significantly more permeable to water than originally thought, is probably an adequate site. The storage casks will last long enough for the worst isotopes to decay. After that, even if the plutonium was just stored as finely powdered oxides (and not as vitrified logs in triple layered casks, as much of it actually would be), its low solubility would prevent the vast majority of it from leaving. Around 60 million acre-feet of water would be needed to dissolve it all, assuming you could saturate the water, which obviously won't happen. Over the next million years, nowhere close to that amount is going to seep through caverns in a ridge that most water runs off of - even allowing for substantial deviations from the seven inch annual rainfall presently in the region. I obviously can't independently verify the DOE's model that deems the site acceptable, and I have seen seemingly valid criticisms of some aspects, but the basic idea that repository storage will impact far fewer people than continued use of fossil fuels is sound in my analysis.

Also, while I'm in full agreement that extraterrestrial destinations are not presently economically feasible or safe, I'm optimistic that better methods of dealing with spent fuel will develop well within the next millennium. There are plenty of potentially viable ideas, including space elevators, mantle dumps, and reactors that burn up the long lived transuranics. I find it hard to not believe that one will work out, but at the same time I'm not counting on it when making a case for nuclear power.

quote:

How do you ensure saftey in a world where religious nutcases armed with box cutters could ram your containment building around the reactor with a fully loaded 747?

The threat of terrorist attacks is a risk, but two factors work to mitigate it. The first is that reactor containment vessels are among the strongest structures built, and have a very good chance of completely containing the core. The second is that, at any given time, the reactor only contains a relatively limited amount of fission products (roughly one metric ton). Those are heavy, so the vast majority won't be distributed very far by a conventional explosion even if the core is breached. Chernobyl (which had no containment vessel - only one of its many design flaws) serves as a worst case model. Seventy people were killed directly (either in the explosion and fire or from radiation poisoning), a few thousand may die prematurely from cancer caused by it, and roughly twenty square miles are unusable for a while. The death toll from a well organized terrorist attack could probably be greater elsewhere - say a full office building. Furthermore, because there are relatively few nuclear plants, and because they can be relatively isolated, heavily defending them is practical, making softer targets with equal payoff more attractive.

(in reply to bipolarber)
Profile   Post #: 47
RE: Nuclear energy: best hope, or deal with the devil? - 12/9/2008 4:01:57 PM   
samboct


Posts: 1817
Joined: 1/17/2007
Status: offline 		At the recent Materials Research Society Meeting, there was an evenings entertainment (more akin to the Three Stooges, than a science conference) covering some pros and cons of the nuclear power industry.  Since there continues to be a great deal of misinformation, I thought I'd take a stab at clearing some things up-

Physical Facts-

1)  There are some 440 nuclear plants globally.
2)  There are no fast breeder reactors operating today, although several are under construction.  Fast breeders are often touted as a way to use waste as fuel and to generate additional fuel.  All fast breeders operated to date have failed.
3)  France has 2,000 cubic meters of high level nuclear waste even with fuel reprocessing.
4)  Nuclear power plants are not very efficient- I think the number was less than 40% since due to materials reasons, they can only operate up to 500C.
5)  France is the country that gets the largest percentage of its power from nuclear at some 80%.

Economics-

1)  Chaim Braun, of the Center for International Security and Cooperation at Stanford, claimed that nuclear power plants were "machines for making money."  There were only two costs listed for a nuclear plant- fuel, and capital costs.  Clearly, some costs such as waste disposal, insurance, and decommissioning have been omitted.  As noted earlier in this thread, waste disposal and insurance are the responsibility of the ever screwed US taxpayer, thus these plants are getting a large operational subsidy.  Decommissioning costs- who knows?  Since much of the arguments for nuclear power are based on economics, these arguments seem somewhat specious.
2)  Reprocessing costs- often cited as a way to reduce volumes of nuclear waste, fuel reprocessing is a rather secretive process.  M. Guen of the French nuclear power industry, when asked what the cost of reprocessed fuel was responded with "I don't know".  One of the panelists from NRDC (the anti nuke individual on the panel) threw out some numbers that were around $7,000/kg.  Note that unreprocessed nuclear fuel costs $30/kg.
3)  Building a new plant takes between 8 and 10 years.
4)  Fuels other than uranium- such as thorium, could probably not be put into service for at least 3 decades.
5)  Construction of new plants is likely to be problematic.  Since the industry has not built much in years, most of the workforce has moved on.  Institutional memory at these organizations appears to be poor, but this analysis may be flawed due to the pervasive secrecy of the industry.  Then again, it probably isn't.  Welds in a reactor being built in Italy needed to be replaced due to inadequate materials and inspection processes.  Note that the industry says that there are no materials issues for scientists to work on involving new construction.  This however, is from an industry which used a stainless steel jacket around a reactor generating hydrogen.  Hydrogen embrittlement of steels has been known for decades, thus this industry does not have a good track record discussing its design flaws and failures.  (The jacket failed and needed to be replaced.)  The industry also claims that the radiation crystallization of metallic alloys is compensated for by the temperatures found in the reactor which anneal the steel.  What I'm worried about are the materials that haven't been inspected for decades, since these things have long operating lives.
6)  Recent improvements in the economics of nuclear power plants are due to increased utilization factors.  Basically, the plants don't need to be idled as often as originally designed and can produce more power than originally thought over time.  However, this progression is reaching an end- thus there are no more rabbits to pull out of the nuclear hat.
7)  Nuclear power plants do not match current grid requirements well.  Nuclear power plants run efficiently wide open 24/7.  Power demand has peaks and valleys.  If nuclear plants are used to be the sole source of power into a grid, there will need to be several factors of reserve over average requirements.  Thus, there will be a lot of nuclear plants sitting idle most of the time.  Under these conditions, it is highly unlikely that these plants will look so attractive economically.  Nor do nuclear power plants take advantage of the energy savings of distributed power sources such as solar and wind to a lesser extent.

Nuclear Waste issues

1)  No one at the meeting brought up Canadian technology based on a mix of conventional light water reactors and CANDU reactors.  The Canadians consider nuclear waste an oxymoron.  First, by going to a heavy water reactor (which doesn't moderate neutrons), fuels at much lower levels of enrichment can be "burned".  Note however, that heavy water reactors are much more expensive than light water reactors due partly to the cost of heavy water (D2O).  Secondly- over time, nuclear waste is going to produce a rich resource of precious metal catalysts since you get pretty much all the elements of the periodic table from the breakdown.
2)  France has lumped most of its high level waste into a single building- which requires forced air to prevent a meltdown/fire.
3)  Treatment and handling of nuclear waste has a number of unknowns since the chemistry of these radioactive byproducts hasn't been studied.  It's hard to do chemistry on stuff which when you handle it in a test tube, is going to kill you in a few minutes without working behind a lead shield.  Note that electronics don't work either- ionizing radiation kills circuits- no chips in a hot environment without shielding.

Nuclear Power and terrorism

The threat to the US population does not come from a nuclear plant operated on US soil.  (same applies to Western Europe.)  However, there is a remarkable coincidence that the states that the State Department considers at risk for seeking to acquire nuclear weapons are often seeking "peaceful" uses of nuclear power as well.  Iran, as cited earlier in this thread is a shining example, but there are a number of other states in the Middle East and Africa seeking nuclear weapons- using nuclear power as a smokescreen.  Thus, while supporters of the nuclear power industry decry the public as unwashed ignoramuses who can't tell the difference between nuclear power and nuclear weapons, the public is far more savvy than the intelligentsia have been in this matter.  It's really quite simple.  If you're not working on a bomb, there really aren't many uses for enriched uranium or plutonium other than nuclear power/weapons.  Well, it's not too hard to use mass spec to make sure that nobody's working on something that's going to lead to a bomb- if you don't have to worry about the subterfuge of nuclear power.  (Amory Lovins pointed this out- and he's right.)  North Korea and Pakistan are two countries that developed nuclear weapons using nuclear power as a blind.  Can't we pull the plug on this industry already before some nice folks get vaporized in the name of Allah?

And to anybody that thinks that we can't go to renewables fast enough- When JFK called in 1962 to put a man on the moon by the end of the decade- he didn't say it would be easy- he said it would be hard- but a test of our national character.  What are we now- wimps?

Sam

< Message edited by samboct -- 12/9/2008 4:03:56 PM >

(in reply to shallowdeep)
Profile   Post #: 48
RE: Nuclear energy: best hope, or deal with the devil? - 12/9/2008 5:22:09 PM   
camille65


Posts: 5746
Joined: 7/11/2007
From: Austin Texas
Status: offline 		Aw. I saw this thread and thought Level was back.

I miss him!!


_____________________________


~Love your life! (It is the only one you'll get).




(in reply to Level)
Profile   Post #: 49
RE: Nuclear energy: best hope, or deal with the devil? - 12/9/2008 7:18:17 PM   
masterBruce


Posts: 133
Joined: 3/30/2004
Status: offline 		send it to NJ no one could ever tell it was their

(in reply to Owner59)
Profile   Post #: 50
RE: Nuclear energy: best hope, or deal with the devil? - 12/9/2008 7:21:26 PM   
Vendaval


Posts: 10297
Joined: 1/15/2005
Status: offline 		So did I, camille.  Any word from him lately? 

_____________________________

"Beware, the woods at night, beware the lunar light.
So in this gray haze we'll be meating again, and on that
great day, I will tease you all the same."
"WOLF MOON", OCTOBER RUST, TYPE O NEGATIVE


http://KinkMeet.co.uk

(in reply to camille65)
Profile   Post #: 51
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Nuclear energy: best hope, or deal with the devil? Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.063