tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post2734363942758088095..comments2024-03-25T05:30:23.847+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: Judith Curry plays (nuclear) politicsSouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger143125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-12267898510603085512015-12-26T14:23:52.828+11:002015-12-26T14:23:52.828+11:00Correction - Above comment by Ken Fabian, not Lyn....Correction - Above comment by Ken Fabian, not Lyn. (My sister had logged into google on my computer and the comment got published under her name by mistake.)Ken Fabianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15774574952211541339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-58271818494552412302015-12-26T14:13:22.948+11:002015-12-26T14:13:22.948+11:00Joris, you sidestep the point that climate science...Joris, you sidestep the point that climate science denial and obstructionism is incompatible with the goal of replacing fossil fuels with any alternative, including nuclear and mainstream political parties, including the US Republicans, support and practice such denial and obstructionism.<br /><br />With such powerful political forces willing to lie about the climate problem to prevent effective policy whilst refusing to use the truth of it in support of nuclear it ought not to be a surprise that nuclear is struggling to gather the necessary support to be a principle low emissions energy option. It won't be Environmentalists changing their minds about it, it will be commerce and industry and their political advocates on the Right of politics accepting the true need for climate action that will lift nuclear out of the political quagmire it's in. Of course governments getting serious and unified about climate will give a huge boost to renewables too.<br /><br />Fossil fuels will indeed begin as the backup to renewables as part of an ongoing transition - but simply by being periodically and intermittently cheaper renewables will force fossil fuel plant into ever greater intermittency. As should be expected and encouraged. The true value of storage technologies - which is much higher than any average daily energy price can reflect - will become more apparent as fossil fuel (and nuclear) plants deal with intermittently cheap renewables and are forced to raise prices to compensate for the lost market share. <br /><br />A big financial incentive and opportunity for storage technologies will be an unstoppable consequence of low cost intermittent renewables in an open electricity market. Only regulatory interventions will keep nuclear from being financially disadvantaged by what should be seen and accepted as a market imposed carbon price.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02494553354636964586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-50502290919504069962015-12-26T00:45:47.046+11:002015-12-26T00:45:47.046+11:00Or...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-innovatio...Or...<br /><br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-innovation_biasBernard J.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16299073166371273808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-56231024917981038092015-12-25T13:21:29.034+11:002015-12-25T13:21:29.034+11:00Richard Betts has disappointed far more climate sc...Richard Betts has disappointed far more climate scientists than Naomi Oreskes has.<br /><br />jqbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07510836914645398165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-80027128145553084872015-12-25T04:40:28.825+11:002015-12-25T04:40:28.825+11:00bill
Firstly, 100% genuinely renewable power is a...bill<br /><br /><i>Firstly, 100% genuinely renewable power is a totally desirable outcome, but it may well not be technically feasible.</i><br /><br />Hence the need (aka desirability) for some nuclear in the future energy mix. <br /><br />It's just how it is, and if the primary concern is efficient pathways to decarbonisation, then that's the end of the matter. If there is a subtext, then it's getting in the way of solving the actual problem and that is itself a problem. People need to think this through. BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-54471252089537136992015-12-24T21:23:55.965+11:002015-12-24T21:23:55.965+11:00It takes long to build a nuke in some regions wher...It takes long to build a nuke in some regions where antinuclearism is endemic, not in others.<br /><br />Modern nukes have a technical life of up to 100 years, so it doesn't matter that they (currently) take longer to build than in the past.<br /><br />The long life of a modern NPP is more than just a gift of cheap electricity for our children. The availability of cheap, reliable electricity is essential for future deep decarbonisation of other sectors. With cheap zero carbon electricity, it becomes economical to recycle waste using plasma arc incineration. Such cheap electricity makes the fabrication of zero carbon drop-in liquid fuels economical, to compete with crude oil products. Cheap electricity also allows cheap desalinisation of seawater, allowing the expansion of agriculture into areas which are not rainforests or wetlands.<br /><br />Solving environmental problems depends heavily on the availability of cheap, reliable electricity. Renewables cannot provide that. Worse, they lock-in the burning of fossil fuels for backup. Countries which attempt to achieve a non-nuclear electricity system will achieve only partial decarbonisation, and a great cost, which will stimulate industry to move away to countries which use cheap fossil fuels and which don't have strict environmental regulation. If industrialised countries don't start soon with a concrete plan to deliver cheap, reliable nuclear electricity soon, then they will not only fail to decarbonise, but they will cripple their own economies and hasten the move of industry to fossil fueled countries without environmental regulations.Joris van Dorphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04716028854724168266noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-55462742329634900712015-12-24T21:07:31.927+11:002015-12-24T21:07:31.927+11:00"'We've f*cked up in the past, sure, ..."'We've f*cked up in the past, sure, but we've learned form that and here's how we can limit f*ck ups in the future, and limit their impact if they occasionally, regrettably do happen. Because the carbon issue is so important...'"<br /><br />The nuclear industry already does that, today. That is why nuclear is the safest energy technology (lowest bodycount/TWh when including Chernobyl and Fukushima, even compared to renewable energy)<br /><br />Antinukes like yourself delude themselves by demanding that the nuclear industry admits it is dangerous and dirty. It is not. It is the cleanest and safest, according to all independent authoritative analysis. If you can't accept that fact, then you are simply a victim of antinuke misinformation which has turned your intelligence to mush.Joris van Dorphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04716028854724168266noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-32585718629503851772015-12-24T20:25:01.049+11:002015-12-24T20:25:01.049+11:00There is currently a Royal Commission in South Aus...There is currently a Royal Commission in South Australia into nuclear power. It is in final stages now. One of the drivers for this is that penetration of intermittent wind and solar power is reaching a point where there has been a serious load shedding incident, and it could happen again at any time. Also, SA is dependent on brown coal-fired electricity from Victoria. Shutting down Hazlewood would effectively shut down SA. The only option for new low emissions baseload power in SA is nuclear.<br /><br />The option for energy storage is simply not available, despite a lot of engineering R&D over many decades. I am reminded of a comment I once heard: "We can send people to the moon, but we can't figure out to fuel a car with water? It's all a conspiracy by the oil companies!". Patent nonsense of course.<br /><br />Nice post, KAP.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-9136761844550534752015-12-24T20:14:04.448+11:002015-12-24T20:14:04.448+11:00"'It was the antinuclear movement, founde..."'It was the antinuclear movement, founded and funded by fossil fuel interests, which is to blame.'<br /><br />[citation needed]"<br /><br />Consider Rod Adams' informative 'smoking-gun' series of articles, here:<br />http://atomicinsights.com/smoking-gun/<br /><br />Or if you can't be bothered, look carefully at the following fossil fuel funded antinuclear propaganda poster.<br /><br />http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_lfibbBnlKt8/S0L-MSQiJ4I/AAAAAAAAAmM/nETEJ6ZO1v0/s1600-h/LILCO_Ad_from_Oil_Heat.JPG<br /><br />Or check out this very clear message from the coal industry:<br /><br />http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.nl/2008/08/australias-big-coal-ad-against-nuclear.html<br /><br />There is no controversy about the fact the the fossil fuel industry has traditionally been supporting renewable energy and fighting nuclear power. That may of course be a bona fide activity, but it's hard to ignore the fact that nuclear power is a real threat to fossil fuel interests, especially coal. Solar and wind are not a threat.<br />Joris van Dorphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04716028854724168266noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-1800003240371573182015-12-24T20:00:58.692+11:002015-12-24T20:00:58.692+11:00"Let me guess; 'I was a zealot in one dir..."Let me guess; 'I was a zealot in one direction, then I underwent a Damascene conversion*, and now I'm a zealot in the other'?"<br /><br />Not at all. I thought that nuclear power was something humanity should move away from. I thought uranium was a limited resource due to run out within decades. I thought Chernobyl killed and maimed a million people, and destroyed a wide area permanently. I thought nuclear power plants posed a risk of nuclear weapon proliferation. I thought nuclear power was very expensive, but that it was subsidized purely because it was needed to produce nuclear weapons. I thought that any amount of radioactive contamination from nuclear technology is deadly. I thought that a meltdowns was be an apocalyptic event with the potential to wipe out humanity. I thought that nuclear power technology was stagnant, with no significant innovation potential. I thought that nuclear power was extremely complicated conceptually, meaning that only specialists can understand it.<br /><br />All of these kinds of thoughts were imprinted on me in our antinuclear educational and media system. All of these kinds of thoughts are wrong.<br /><br />I'll repeat again: don't take my word for it, but go investigate. There are plenty of objective and accurate online literature resources available to help people who want to de-program their own antinuke brainwash. And if you don't like reading, watch the movie "Pandora's Promise" for example. <br /><br />Even better: perhaps the Hotwhopper blog can expand it's repertoire to not just tackle climate denial, but also nuclear denial. These topics are connected after all.Joris van Dorphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04716028854724168266noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-49481683819097842702015-12-24T19:46:57.179+11:002015-12-24T19:46:57.179+11:00"1) If that was wrong at Fukushima, how do we..."1) If that was wrong at Fukushima, how do we know other things are not wrong elsewhere?"<br /><br />This is similar to the kind or argument used by the climate deniers: "If the IPCC was wrong about ice loss in the Himalaya, how do we know that global warming is real?", etc. This kind of argument is a standard element of the antinuclear/anticlimate-science toolkit.<br /><br />We should not be careless when using nuclear technology, and we aren't. That's why nuclear is the safest energy technology.<br /><br />2) They *knew* that it was wrong at Fukushima. And decided not to rectify it. Why does the industry operate plans it *knows* are not safe?<br /><br />The situation at Fukushima was complicated by the fact that to protect the NPP against the theoretical maximum tsunami made glaringly obvious that 500 miles of coastline around the plant was highly unsafe for people to live. The theoretical tsunami would cause catastrophic damage. Such a disaster would make any problem at the NPP insignificant.<br /><br />There is a similarity with the question of whether or not NPP's should be able to withstand a meteor impact, or a military bombing raid. Such a question is in a sense absurd, because if such a meteor strike or bombing raid were to occur, a meltdown at the NPP would be a minor problem.<br /><br />This is not to say that the regulator was right to delay taking action against the Fukushima Daiichi NPP, to force them to expedite improving the flood protection and/or moving the generators to higher ground. But it is to illustrate the fact that risk management is not a cut and dried as it may seem to outsiders. The regulator might well have thought that improving the flood defense was not a priority, since if a flood high enough to swamp to NPP would occur, there would be far more death and destruction on the coastline. Until that far more serious threat was solved, why waste resources on solving the minor threat of meltdown?<br /><br />One can look at it from the other perspective. Let's say the plant had been improved sufficiently before the tsunami. How would the families of the 20.000 tsunami victims have reacted? Might they not have said: "The government spared no expense in protecting the nuclear power plant, but they just left my community to be destroyed. They *knew* my community was at deadly risk. Why does the government care more about nuclear power than about my community?"<br /><br />So it's all not cut and dried. If we demand 100% safety from nuclear power, we get coal instead, which kills and destroys far more intensively.<br /><br />Joris van Dorphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04716028854724168266noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-48619500114760769092015-12-24T11:23:15.252+11:002015-12-24T11:23:15.252+11:00We don't often disagree, BBD, but I'd sugg...We don't often disagree, BBD, but I'd suggest there is not much symmetry here. <br /><br />Firstly, 100% genuinely renewable power is a totally desirable outcome, but it may well not be technically feasible.<br /><br />The technical feasibility of 100% nukes, particularly 'until the end of civilization' is clearly also open to question, but the <i>desirability</i> of such an outcome is even more debatable!<br /><br />As for the Tu Quoque thing, no-one here is playing the 100% renewables <i>must</i> work and everything-else-is-propaganda card, though some studies that suggest its feasibility have been cited. <br /><br />Whereas not only are we informed by a visiting proponent that 100% nukes is not only feasible, and desirable, and <i>eternal</i>, but it's the only <i>moral</i> choice!<br /><br />And that all the ubiquitous negative perceptions of the nuclear industry are the fault of (fossil-fuel-funded!) anti-nuclear activists, because attribution games with Chernobyl and Fukushima.<br /><br />Unwanted (and almost invariably unheeded!) advice section: four things all pro-nuke advocates need to accept if they want to be viewed with anything less than the healthy skepticism they currently are:<br /><br />One: the bulk of the public mistrust of the Nuclear Industry is based on its (occasionally disastrous) failure to deliver on a constant string of overstated promises, and is not just the fault of Greenpeace, the ACF, or whoever. <br /><br />Two: 'but Gen 4' is not a magic, get-out-of-gaol-free card that wins the debate, any more than 'but carbon capture' and 'but cold fusion' are.*<br /><br />Three: we live in a human world where mistakes will be made, officials will be venal, oversights will happen, parts will be made on the cheap, contractors will be dodgy. Proponents can't just say 'oh, but that shouldn't have happened, so therefore Eternal Platonic Fission remains untarnished!' The thing about nukes is that when something goes seriously wrong entire communities get turned upside down for decades. (Again, this is not symmetrical when contrasted to renewables.)<br /><br />Four: nuclear proponents are generally the worst possible ambassadors for the industry. The industry seems to attract many devoted enthusiasts who apparently are incapable of expressing much in the way of a normal human level of doubt, or deploying reservations or qualifications, or empathizing with the plight of others if that means acknowledging the possibility of a fault in the beloved. The failure to address the problem of climate change deniers in their ranks, and the willingness to tag-team with those deniers to attempt to undermine the renewable industry is genuinely deplorable.<br /><br />And, I'll add a five: opportunity cost. It's a real thing. Wind farms are relatively quick and cheap to deploy. I strongly suspect that part of the reason why so many nuke advocates wish to assassinate them is that they rightly fear that their slooooow-to-build, cost-over-running, baroque, statist, uninsurable behemoth won't get much of a look in by comparison, so a campaign has to be mounted that insists that theirs is the one true path, requiring the full backing of a state that must guarantee a market and scorn all other suitors!...<br /><br />'We've f*cked up in the past, sure, but we've learned form that and here's how we can limit f*ck ups in the future, and limit their impact if they occasionally, regrettably do happen. Because the carbon issue is so important...'; to my mind that's how nuclear advocacy should be framed!<br /><br />If one wants to actually win, and not just 'be right', of course. ;-)<br /><br />*I guess we're all lucky that the authoritarian (but rational) Chinese can do the Gen 4 experiment for us!billnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-32483781952086162892015-12-24T10:17:50.578+11:002015-12-24T10:17:50.578+11:00'It was the antinuclear movement, founded and ...'<i>It was the antinuclear movement, founded and funded by fossil fuel interests, which is to blame.</i>'<br /><br />[citation needed]<br /><br />Let me guess; 'I was a zealot in one direction, then I underwent a Damascene conversion*, and now I'm a zealot in the other'?<br /><br />*Monbiot Moment? ;-)billnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-73597223140627658622015-12-24T00:27:29.506+11:002015-12-24T00:27:29.506+11:00@Joris
"Your reaction is typical of hard-cor...@Joris<br /><br /><i>"Your reaction is typical of hard-core antinukes ..."</i><br /><br />Stop projecting your hard-core position on everyone Joris. Just because you are so fixed and certain does not mean everyone else is. There is no way you could come to that description of me based on what I have said. <br /><br />I am not hard-core anti. Actually I do not know quite where to position myself. The point of what I said is your "I know it all" attitude and approach does not generate any confidence in what you say. Especially when you wilfully refuse to acknowledge any problems at all. <br /><br />A PR disaster? What a joke. Jammy Dodgerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08360437479098314946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-32255066093225786532015-12-23T23:51:55.065+11:002015-12-23T23:51:55.065+11:00glyphosateglyphosatejgnfldnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-88557178470034699662015-12-23T23:47:34.707+11:002015-12-23T23:47:34.707+11:00So...your stated position is that it is completely...So...your stated position is that it is completely safe and "no one will die" apparently if everyone just moves back into Chernobyl and Fukushima. I should think that would take expertise and actual evidence other than that of a mechanical engineer. What, for example, is the miscarriage rate in these wonderfully healthy deer of which you speak? What is their rate for various cancers? (I have met many thyroid cancer suffering children from Chernobyl due to a program that sent them to my city over here.) Your willingness to ignore radiation harm verges on that of, oh, ubiquitous use of X-ray machines in shoe stores--another activity with no known death associated with it yet is really, truly, actually unsafe. <br /><br />Like Patrick Moore's assertions re. the complete safety of glucophosphates (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovKw6YjqSfM), I suggest even you might balk at settling in and/or eating food derived from these areas. jgnfldnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-37115230650378316742015-12-23T23:47:22.977+11:002015-12-23T23:47:22.977+11:00JvD
"VTG, I have already acknowledge the fac...JvD<br /><br />"VTG, I have already acknowledge the fact that building the backup generators below the floodline was a mistake "<br /><br />wherein you miss the point again.<br /><br />The point isn't that one particular part of one design was wrong.<br /><br />The point is twofold:<br />1) If that was wrong at Fukushima, how do we know other things are not wrong elsewhere?<br />2) They *knew* that it was wrong at Fukushima. And decided not to rectify it. Why does the industry operate plans it *knows* are not safe?<br /><br />These are serious and substantive questions, NOT timewasting.<br /><br />Do you have answers, Joris?verytallguynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-40393686572202191382015-12-23T23:44:53.123+11:002015-12-23T23:44:53.123+11:00Please note that neither the nuclear industry, not...Please note that neither the nuclear industry, not I, have ever or will ever guarantee that no meltdown will ever occur. But what the nuclear industry, and I, can guarantee is that the consequences will be negligeable. And they are negligeable, as Fukushima has demonstrated decisively. Modern nuclear power plants are safer still.Joris van Dorphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04716028854724168266noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-57547266586541713292015-12-23T23:42:17.310+11:002015-12-23T23:42:17.310+11:00VTG, I have already acknowledge the fact that buil...VTG, I have already acknowledge the fact that building the backup generators below the floodline was a mistake. Please don't waste time I don't have.Joris van Dorphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04716028854724168266noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-76446216494073072932015-12-23T23:38:57.787+11:002015-12-23T23:38:57.787+11:00Just to be clear on this: as I have already stated...Just to be clear on this: as I have already stated, I have nothing to do with the nuclear industry. All I want is clean, affordable energy and an end to anthropogenic co2 emissions. Everything I thought I knew about nuclear energy was a lie. When I dug into the subject, I found out the truth. The truth is that we have been misled on nuclear. That truth has to be brought forward, if we are to have any chance of limiting climate destruction. Pretending that the nuclear industry dug its own grave is a mistake. It was the antinuclear movement, founded and funded by fossil fuel interests, which is to blame.Joris van Dorphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04716028854724168266noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-44586443646108805712015-12-23T23:37:14.784+11:002015-12-23T23:37:14.784+11:00Joris,
They worked.
They were designed to shut d...Joris,<br /><br /><i>They worked.</i><br /><br />They were designed to shut down safely in the event of an earthquake and/or tsunami.<br /><br />They exploded!<br /><br />This is a *failure* of engineering.<br /><br />The reason they exploded is because the operators deliberately chose not to rectify known faults.<br /><br />This is a *failure* of human systems.<br /><br />Until you bring yourself to acknowledge these failures, you have no hope of convincing anyone of the safety of nuclear power. Why should anyone believe other failures are not buried in the designs and regulatory frameworks of the nuclear industry?<br /><br />Your insouciance in the light of these significant failures is exactly the kind of behaviour from within the industry that condemns you to irrelevance (and to future disasters)<br /><br />I’m someone who understands and has designed and operated high hazard installations. Complacency equals failure.<br />verytallguynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-79571793138326892742015-12-23T23:33:36.628+11:002015-12-23T23:33:36.628+11:00@Ken, you write:
"Joris, I suggest that clim...@Ken, you write:<br /><br />"Joris, I suggest that climate science denial and climate action obstructionism - undermining public concern and government commitment to serious climate action - has been a far more potent inhibitor to nuclear as climate solution than all the anti-nuclear opposition."<br /><br />Not so. Fossil fuel interests have directly created antinuclearism, back early in the second half of the twentieth century. They rightly fear losing market share. Rod Adams has provided ample evidence of this.<br /><br />http://atomicinsights.com/smoking-gun/<br /><br />The fossil fuel industry has been supporting renewable energy, because they know they have little to fear from wind and solar power. Being intermittent, the growth of global energy demand will ensure growth of fossil fuel demand, even if wind and solar are ramped-up as quickly as possible. Fossil fuel interests love renewable energy because that energy depends on fossil fuel backup.Joris van Dorphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04716028854724168266noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-1115535339496886442015-12-23T23:27:14.196+11:002015-12-23T23:27:14.196+11:00@Jammy Your reaction is typical of hard-core antin...@Jammy Your reaction is typical of hard-core antinukes and climate denialists: refuse to consider evidence which undermines your predetermined convictions. Good luck with that.Joris van Dorphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04716028854724168266noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-48779579130972963712015-12-23T23:19:30.057+11:002015-12-23T23:19:30.057+11:00Admitting to damages which did not occur or to ris...Admitting to damages which did not occur or to risks that do not exist is what the nuclear industry has been doing, and it has been a failure. To regain trust, the nuclear industry needs to flatly deny the falsehood that it is a dangerous, dirty industry. It is not. The fossil fuel industry is dangerous and dirty. German coal plant air polution kills as many people every three months as the Fukushima radiological contamination will kill during the next 80 years, using conservative estimates of health effects.<br /><br />To suggest that I should not 'minimise consequences' is tired nonsense. Nuclear power is safe, and nuclear power plants are safe. The Fukushima meltdowns have confirmed this. A triple meltdown has killed noone and will kill noone. The reactors - decades old that they were - protected the public. They worked. To demand that we need to deny that the worked is the worst kind of antinuclearism. It is the kind of antinuclearism which insists that 'we can only discuss nuclear if we agree that it is dangerous and dirty'. Nonsense!Joris van Dorphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04716028854724168266noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-51574108290772889532015-12-23T22:49:33.813+11:002015-12-23T22:49:33.813+11:00Whoops.
That is so good of you to grant us it wa...Whoops. <br /><br />That is so good of you to grant us it was a disaster.<br /><br />Jammy Dodgerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08360437479098314946noreply@blogger.com