Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

October 9, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

A BOMB OR A DUD?....Here's what the BBC says about the North Korean nuclear bomb test:

The size of the bomb is uncertain. South Korean reports put it as low as 550 tons of destructive power but Russia said it was between five and 15 kilotons.

And the LA Times:

One intelligence official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said U.S. intelligence agencies detected an explosive event in North Korea with a force of less than a kiloton. Historically, the types of devices used in initial nuclear tests have yielded several kilotons of force.

There's something peculiar here. A geology professor at Yale, Jeffrey Park, emails to tell me that the updated Richter magnitude for the North Korea event is 3.5, which he calls "mighty small for a crude nuke." And that's true: it suggests a very small yield. But the odd thing is that it's actually harder to build a 1 kiloton weapon than a 5 or 10 kiloton weapon, and it's unlikely North Korea has the expertise to do this.

Was this a failed test? A 10 kiloton nuke that fizzled? Not a nuke at all? (The North Koreans seemed unusually insistent that there was absolutely no release of radiation.) Or what?

POSTSCRIPT: I should add that Jeff, who's an old high school friend of mine, stresses that "My skepticism is not to be taken as a conclusion that North Korea is bluffing. A reliable detection of bomb-generated radionuclides would prove that they were not." A paper he cowrote on the 1998 Indian nuclear test is here.

I agree. There just seem to be several oddly suspicious things about the North Korean announcement.

Kevin Drum 12:26 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (114)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Man, that's why I read Political Animal. I don't have any friends with access to seismological data of any kind. I am such a friggin loser.

Posted by: Steve W. on October 9, 2006 at 12:29 PM | PERMALINK

Can you say Bluff?

Posted by: greenchilecheeseburger on October 9, 2006 at 12:29 PM | PERMALINK

KJI wanting some more attention perhaps? World press spending too much time on Iraq? Take a hollow in the ground, fill it with 1kt of conventional explosive, pop it off?

I do agree the whole thing is odd; it is worse than useless to have fewer than 5 nukes that you are sure will work (which is why the Pakistanis tested 3 in a row). Firing off one that doesn't even work leaves you in a worse position strategically.

Cranky

Posted by: Cranky Observer on October 9, 2006 at 12:30 PM | PERMALINK

It seems to me that if you only have a limited amount of plutonium, like NK has, you might want to use as little as possible for a test.

Could have been a dud, I suppose, but I don't think we can assume that, and I don't see that it matters all that much in a practical sense- even a "dud" nuke capability is a pretty good deterrent against the sort of military adventurism that got us into Iraq.

Posted by: pdq on October 9, 2006 at 12:32 PM | PERMALINK

Maybe it was actually one thousand tons of TNT.

Posted by: Tim F on October 9, 2006 at 12:33 PM | PERMALINK

Here's a question: did the announcement of the test from North Korea come before or after the seismic event? Is it possible at all that they had *no* test, but are just bluffing? That is, there was a small earthquake and they are using that as "evidence" that they had a test? Or is that inconsistent with the seismograph readings?

Posted by: Matt Newman on October 9, 2006 at 12:34 PM | PERMALINK

Maybe it was just a really big party.

Posted by: craigie on October 9, 2006 at 12:34 PM | PERMALINK

Ok, what they measured was the "whump" of Hastert's body after it was dumped out of an Air Force helicopter in the dead of night.

They get Foley off the front page, and they get rid of Hastert. It's a twofer!

Posted by: craigie on October 9, 2006 at 12:36 PM | PERMALINK

A BOMB OR A DUD?

Good question Kevin. With the Tom Foley "scandal" dying a quick death, I'm certain the North Korean nuclear bomb test will be a bomb. It will be the explosion heard around the world and middle America. Americans will see the bomb as a failure of Clinton diplomacy that tried to buy off the tin pot dictator with flowers and money rather than threaten the North Korea with lethal force. As Bush threatens Kim to either back down or prepare to be invaded, watch for the American people to rally in support to our Commander-in-Chief in this time of war. I predict a Republican landslide in the November elections as the American people support our Commander-in-Chief in his war against the terrorists state of North Korea.

Posted by: Al on October 9, 2006 at 12:37 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin,

The device they tested was a plutonium device, which requires implosion (as opposed to a uranium device, which can be detonated in a simple gun-barrel type rapid assembly).

Implosion is a tricky thing, very unnatural and hard to get right. The material being imploded is fluid-like under the pressures and temperatures involved, and fluid doesn't like to be densified.

Another important factor is the purity of plutonium. For good results it should be 95% Pu-239 or better. Pu-240, which is always present as an impurity, is a copius neutron emitter and will pre-explode the mass before the proper density is achieved for best explosive yield. I'm guessing the North Koreans chemically purified their plutonium from their reactors, but had no means of isotopically purifying it.

Posted by: Greg in FL on October 9, 2006 at 12:38 PM | PERMALINK

and fluid doesn't like to be densified.

No, but republicans love being densified. In fact, by now, it's unlikely they could get any more dense.

Posted by: craigie on October 9, 2006 at 12:44 PM | PERMALINK

"it is worse than useless to have fewer than 5 nukes that you are sure will work"

Truman didn't seem to think so.

Posted by: BarrettBrown on October 9, 2006 at 12:44 PM | PERMALINK

"Tom Foley scandal"

Don't quite believe the former Speaker of the House and Ambassador to Japan was caught up in any scandal.

The only "scandal" believed by the right was when he voted for the Brady Bill.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on October 9, 2006 at 12:49 PM | PERMALINK

I caught that Paul-3. Tom will be quite shocked to learn of this development, won't he?

Posted by: Global Citizen on October 9, 2006 at 12:53 PM | PERMALINK

The updated richter magnitude? Sounds fishy. What do Korean and Japanese seismologists say? There must be a million and 1 seismographs in Japan alone.

Posted by: Boronx on October 9, 2006 at 12:54 PM | PERMALINK

For excellent explanations of the seismic data, see this thread at MetaFilter, particularly these two comments. The short summary is that there's two materials you can use to build a nuke- U238 or P239. U238, which is what Iran is using, is harder to produce, but easier to build a bomb out of. P239, which is what NK is using, is easier to produce, but harder to build a bomb out of, because there's a bigger tendency for the plutonium chunks to blow apart before the reaction becomes self sustaining. That's called a fizzle, and based on the public data, its probably what happened here.

Posted by: Greg on October 9, 2006 at 12:54 PM | PERMALINK

www.armscontrolwonk.com claims it's a fizzle.

Posted by: Alex on October 9, 2006 at 12:55 PM | PERMALINK

I don't have any friends with access to seismological data of any kind. I am such a friggin loser.

Cracked me up.

Posted by: shortstop on October 9, 2006 at 12:57 PM | PERMALINK

Sorry for the nitpicks:

It's U235 they make the bombs out of, and Pu239.

Posted by: Boronx on October 9, 2006 at 12:58 PM | PERMALINK

One more geeky nuke point:

Kevin's statement about how it's harder to produce a low-yield weapon is not precise.

It is very very hard to produce a low-yield weapon that has the hydrodynamics and reaction history of a larger weapon. In other words, if you want to keep advancing your arsenal technologically but have imposed a test moratorium on yourself (i.e. the United States), you try and cheat by exploding very low yield surrogates that are seismically indistinguishable from large dynamite explosions. But to design a very low yield surrogate that actually has relevance for stockpile munitions in the 300 kt range is damn near impossible.

However, to make a low-yield device in general is less difficult. Especially given doubts about the purity of plutonium used (see my post above), it is entirely plausible that the North Koreans had a "fizzler".

Posted by: Greg in FL on October 9, 2006 at 12:58 PM | PERMALINK

it is worse than useless to have fewer than 5 nukes that you are sure will work

I completely disagree. We're not talking about the old days with the USSR, where there was theoretical first strike capability and tactical battlefield nukes.

In headier days, Bush put NK on his short list of nations to be changed, by force if necessary, and then he invaded the first one on the list. NK doesn't have to have enough nukes to defeat the US, and that's not their goal. They just want something that will give Bush pause, and even one nuke that they could put in a shipping container to the US or give to a terrorist group will do that.

Posted by: pdq on October 9, 2006 at 12:58 PM | PERMALINK

As for the "Blame Cinton for this too!" shrieks I am hearing - the North Koreans agreed to suspend their program in exchange for food and energy aid and two light-water reactors to be built by Japan and South Korea. This arrangement was known as the "Agreed Frame" and the deal was struck in 1994. It held until Bush termed them part of the "Axis of Evil." Then they kicked out the inspectors, fired up the reactor and pulled 800 spent fuel rods out of the secured cooling pond and resumed their program.

Greg in FL is spot on in his explanation of how a Plutonium device differs from a Uranium device, but he doesn't need an endorsement from me, he knows he is right.

The significance of this is not in the size of the blast, or even in how successful it was. the significance is this: Will it start an arms race in the region? North Lorea was a signatory to the Non Proliferation Treaty. Who is going to withdraw next?

Posted by: Global Citizen on October 9, 2006 at 1:00 PM | PERMALINK

"The updated richter magnitude? Sounds fishy."

Richter magnitudes are regularly revised in the first few days after any event.

Posted by: Tom DC/VA on October 9, 2006 at 1:02 PM | PERMALINK

U-238 is depleted uranium. That is the low-rad nuclear materian that makes armament casings and renders armor obsolete, like a bullet through tinfoil - it's a density thang, ya know.

Posted by: Global Citizen on October 9, 2006 at 1:03 PM | PERMALINK

USGS still has it at 4.2

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/recenteqsww/Quakes/ustqab.php

Where is this 3.5 number from?

Posted by: Thentro on October 9, 2006 at 1:07 PM | PERMALINK

It's all Andy Richter's fault.

Posted by: Robert on October 9, 2006 at 1:08 PM | PERMALINK

Okay, perhaps it is a dud, but if it's new forms of torture in today's lineup, is it going to be bunker busters tomorrow?

I wonder if the James Baker brigade has been whispering into poppy Bushs ear, youve got control that torture loving, trigger happy boy of yours before Cheney get little Bushie to go and do something really insane.

Posted by: Cheryl on October 9, 2006 at 1:14 PM | PERMALINK

Where is this 3.5 number from?

Faux News?

Here is the link to the Inchon USGS stations recording of the event.

Posted by: Global Citizen on October 9, 2006 at 1:14 PM | PERMALINK

Now see, before this semester, I didn't have access to the geological databases. So glad I changed my concentration.

Posted by: Global Citizen on October 9, 2006 at 1:18 PM | PERMALINK

This maybe the second failed detonation. Remember, there never was a satisfactory explanation of what happened in that N. Korean rail yard over a year ago.

Has anyone dug up comparisons between what Pakistan has tested and what N. Korea says it tested? I still have a tough time believing that what Pakistan has is all that sophisticated either. Both countries are dirt poor and neither one has much of home grown techonology base to draw from.

Posted by: JeffII on October 9, 2006 at 1:22 PM | PERMALINK

This event (as well as the lack of progress vis a vis Iran) shows the uselessness of the United Nations. The UN is supposed to solve this sort of problem. We should stop wasting money on their dues.

I now see no hope of preventing nuclear proliferation. It's more and more likely that nuclear weapons will eventually wind up in the hands of terrorists or an unstable regime and will be used to destroy a city or two.

Have a nice day.

Posted by: ex-liberal on October 9, 2006 at 1:31 PM | PERMALINK

P239, which is what NK is using, is easier to produce, . . . Posted by: Greg

Gee, I thought the problem was that no one, including the S. Koreans who have the best intelligence on the North, knew what exactly they were doing or capable of. Talking out of our hat perhaps?

Posted by: JeffII on October 9, 2006 at 1:34 PM | PERMALINK

Just kick 'em out of New York and make the entire complex a Trump Hotel, huh?

Hows about we try to fix the problems at the UN? We don't pay our UN dues anyway.

Posted by: Global Citizen on October 9, 2006 at 1:34 PM | PERMALINK

JeffII >"This maybe the second failed detonation. Remember, there never was a satisfactory explanation of what happened in that N. Korean rail yard over a year ago..."

So you are suggesting the rail yard event was a nuclear accident/mistake & no radiation signature was detected (at least that is in the public record) ?

Very odd indeed

"Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact....Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth." - newshog@gmail.com

Posted by: daCascadian on October 9, 2006 at 1:36 PM | PERMALINK

The UN is supposed to solve this sort of problem.

the UN is never any more powerful than its strongest members allow it to be. it should come as no surprise that it's rather weak right now, when the US govt does little to give it any teeth.

Posted by: cleek on October 9, 2006 at 1:37 PM | PERMALINK

My guess it was a dud, not a fake.

It's hard to get an implosion-device right the first time, it takes testing and practice. The design also likely came from AQ Khan - and there was similar controversy over the Pakistan tests.

It's possible that it was designed as a small-nuke on purpose, in order to create doubt and controversy - (an NK you SUSPECT of having nukes is more dangerous than one you KNOW does not have them).

But I don't believe in the "small-by-design" theory. Personally, I think that it's a defective AQ Khan design (supposedly, it's a plutonium-based gun-type, which would be very inefficient at best, because the mass would disperse too quickly after criticality). NK may learn something by this test; or they may learn that they need to refine their design by a bunch.

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on October 9, 2006 at 1:39 PM | PERMALINK

Is this, perhaps, Karl Rove's "October Surprise" he has been promising his base?

Posted by: margaret on October 9, 2006 at 1:39 PM | PERMALINK

It has been common knowledge in the intel community that the North Korean government had the capability. It is also common knowledge among the scientific community what they could do with those spent fuel rods.

Uranium is hard to refine and takes a series of cacsading centrifuges. But it is easy to build a bomb from. Plutonium is easy to refine, but hard to make a bonb from.

You develop a nuke with the technology and fuel source you have, not the technology and fuel source you wish you had.

Posted by: Global Citizen on October 9, 2006 at 1:40 PM | PERMALINK

The image that Global Citizen links to at the USGS has been picked up in the media, but the big wiggle is NOT the North Korean test. It is a later earthquake, Magnitude 6.0 in the Phillipines. The time axis on the left of the plot is GMT time. The North Korean blast was at 01:36 GMT, much earlier than the big signal in the INCH plot.

See http://www.iris.edu/news/special.html for the real waveforms.

Posted by: seismologist on October 9, 2006 at 1:42 PM | PERMALINK

Damn! It updates. Sorry about that!

Posted by: Global Citizen on October 9, 2006 at 1:44 PM | PERMALINK

Since the NK folk are also reportedly very good at building underground facilities, there's a possibility that the explosion was set off in a nonstandard cavity, which would change how the energy went into the surrounding rock. (US nuclear test happened in relatively small cavities, albeit with lots of long tunnels coming off them for test equipment.)

Posted by: paul on October 9, 2006 at 1:47 PM | PERMALINK

Even a crappy A-bomb would just wreck your whole day.

Posted by: Pastor Doodah on October 9, 2006 at 1:48 PM | PERMALINK

Quick plug: if you'd like the lowdown on the history and physics of atomic weapons, Richard Rhodes' The Making of the Atomic Bomb is both informative and an enjoyable read.

Posted by: S Ra on October 9, 2006 at 1:52 PM | PERMALINK

Paul makes a good point. If you set off a firecracher in a barrel of marshmallows, it will be a lot less percusive than one in open air.

We know what they could do - we have no fucking idea where they did it and what kind of det chamber was involved?

Posted by: Global Citizen on October 9, 2006 at 1:52 PM | PERMALINK

The North Koreans seemed unusually insistent that there was absolutely no release of radiation.

Is it normal, or easy, to achieve complete containment of the radiation?

Posted by: cld on October 9, 2006 at 1:54 PM | PERMALINK

It's possible that it was designed as a small-nuke on purpose, in order to create doubt and controversy - (an NK you SUSPECT of having nukes is more dangerous than one you KNOW does not have them). Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten

Unlike Iraq, N. Korea with or without nuclear weapons is a danger. Focusing on nuclear weapons is pointless as N. Korea's conventional capabilities massed near the DMZ are more than enough to fuck up the world economy with it being able to destroy much of Seoul, Sapporo and even Tokyo. We could not mount a first strike sufficient to avert this.

Posted by: JeffII on October 9, 2006 at 1:58 PM | PERMALINK

Since the NK folk are also reportedly very good at building underground facilities, there's a possibility that the explosion was set off in a nonstandard cavity, which would change how the energy went into the surrounding rock.


Interesting idea, could you design a giant super-resonance chamber that would create the impersonation of a nuclear seismic wave?

Posted by: cld on October 9, 2006 at 2:00 PM | PERMALINK

Where was the det chamber is the first question to ask in an attempt to get that answer, cld.

How far underground was it? What type of containment was put in place prior to detonation?

Containment is possible - witness Three Mile Island.

Posted by: Global Citizen on October 9, 2006 at 2:01 PM | PERMALINK

"criticality"

Holy crap, a new word. I find it odd that news reports keep showing these "sniffer" planes, that are supossed to detect trace radiation. Are they flying directly over the test sight? If so, how is that allowed? Can they detect radiation only after it's blown over the border?

Posted by: Punchy on October 9, 2006 at 2:01 PM | PERMALINK

In addition to finding released radionucleotides, a successfull atomic blast has a characteristic twin-peaked siezmic signature (the initial conventional explosion and then the nuke, I believe). As a non-expert looking at what's on the web I'd say that North Korea didn't get a sizable fission reaction.

Posted by: jerry on October 9, 2006 at 2:01 PM | PERMALINK

As Bush threatens Kim to either back down or prepare to be invaded,

Invaded with what army?

Some people have completely lost touch with reality. The US has zero influence with North Korea, and the only people who do have some influence, the Chinese, will wag their fingers in public and laugh themselves sick in private.

Posted by: sagesource on October 9, 2006 at 2:04 PM | PERMALINK

> Is it normal, or easy, to achieve complete containment of the radiation?

No. It took many years and a lot of practice for the US to contain virtually all radioactive blast material at the Nevada Test Site. Ex-patriate of the Soviet Union say that they didnt achieve complete containment, and leaked regularly in their tests.

Posted by: seismologist on October 9, 2006 at 2:04 PM | PERMALINK

It's more and more likely that nuclear weapons will eventually wind up in the hands of terrorists or an unstable regime and will be used to destroy a city or two.

Oh, stop pissing yourself. Or perhaps that's what you really want, 'ex'?

My speculation: KJI's temper tantrums are now seismically-detectable.

Posted by: ahem on October 9, 2006 at 2:05 PM | PERMALINK

Here's a good read, not about the bomb specifically.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200610/kaplan-korea

Posted by: papago on October 9, 2006 at 2:06 PM | PERMALINK

Matt Newman,
In case you haven't given up on an answer and found it yourself, the North Koreans told the Chinese that a test was imminent, the Chinese told the U.S. ambassador, and shortly afterward the explosion occurred.

Posted by: Holdie Lewie on October 9, 2006 at 2:06 PM | PERMALINK

Global,

Yes. You'd think they'd want everyone to know unequivocally, and letting a little radiation out might have been in their interest.

Unless they're being careful to demonstrate their sobriety and security as a nuclear power.

Posted by: cld on October 9, 2006 at 2:08 PM | PERMALINK

cleek wrote: the UN is never any more powerful than its strongest members allow it to be. it should come as no surprise that it's rather weak right now, when the US govt does little to give it any teeth.

What do you mean by "rather weak right now? The last time I can remember them doing something strong was over 50 years ago, when they authorized military action to fight agression in Korea.

And, how can you blame the US for failing to give them teeth? The Bush administration has done more than most to try to get the UN into action. Countries like France, China and Russia have blocked action at every key point.

Compare the last two Presidents. Bush did everything he could to get the UN to act in Iraq, including exaggerating the WMD threat. Bill Clinton, OTOH, didn't even try to get UN approval for his Kosovo incursion. Clinton may have been wiser than Bush. He recognized that that the UN would be useless, so there was no point in even trying to get action from them.

Posted by: ex-liberal on October 9, 2006 at 2:09 PM | PERMALINK

Clinton may have been wiser than Bush.

No argument there.

Posted by: craigie on October 9, 2006 at 2:11 PM | PERMALINK

> Containment is possible - witness Three Mile Island.

In a public-health sense yes, cattle are not dying in the neighboring meadows -- but making the existence of a nuke undetectable is a far larger trick.

Posted by: seismologist on October 9, 2006 at 2:12 PM | PERMALINK

Bush did everything he could to get the UN to act in Iraq, including exaggerating the WMD threat. Bill Clinton, OTOH, didn't even try to get UN approval for his Kosovo incursion. Clinton may have been wiser than Bush. He--

didn't bullshit?

Your grasp on logic is quite staggering, 'ex'. The proof of the UN's ineffectiveness is that they didn't take the bait that too many in the US swallowed? You mean that other countries don't shit themselves at the first opportunity, and you're blaming them for having unsoiled underwear?

Posted by: ahem on October 9, 2006 at 2:13 PM | PERMALINK

The original Pakistani tests came in at Richter 5.0 and were estimated to be about 40KT. Classically, what is referred to as 'nominal' yeild, the size of the detonation of a simple critical mass by either gun assembly or implosion, is usually cited as a range roughly from 15 to 25 kilotons. Significantly less than that looks like either a sophisticated design or a implosion fizzle.

Posted by: Claude Muncey on October 9, 2006 at 2:14 PM | PERMALINK

cld >"...Is it normal, or easy, to achieve complete containment of the radiation?"

If you assume an underground event (which is what is involved here) then it depends on the specific geology of the site; type of rock, structure of the over burden, types of access to the chamber etc

Seems to me that those that know aren`t talking much so far

"...This is not a game." - Lorie Van Auken (2001.09.11 widow)

Posted by: daCascadian on October 9, 2006 at 2:17 PM | PERMALINK

The smallest nukes ever built, tested and deployed were the US Davy Crockett short-range rocket-launched weapons. The two devices that were tested in the early 60s yielded about 20 tonnes equivalent. They were implosion Pu devices, missing most of the yield enhancers a regular A-bomb design would have (thick jacket, beryllium neutron reflector, alpha source kickstart) but because of this they only weighed about 25kg.

Designing and building efficient implosion lenses for Pu bombs isn't that difficult for a state or government to do; the metallurgical science is well-known and the computer modelling is trivial (by today's standards). Refining the design and testing can be done without using Pu until an optimum model is produced. I don't think anyone has ever tested a device that didn't produce close to the expected yield, at least not in the modern era.

As someone else said, underground tests can be "rigged" by detonating the device in, say, a large chamber filled with water. This messes up the seismic signature making it very difficult for outsiders to work out what the true yield was. I've seen this referred to as a "bubblewrap" test; it's thought that some of the last French tests in the Pacific (before they signed the Test Ban Treaty) were of this sort.

The NK government has shown it has working nukes but no-one outside Pyongyang knows just how good they are; for such a secretive organisation that's a win-win situation. The only thing for sure is the test wasn't that of an 100kTonne-plus H-bomb; they're too big to bubblewrap.

Posted by: Robert Sneddon on October 9, 2006 at 2:18 PM | PERMALINK

New right wing talking point via ex-lib:
"Bush did everything he could to get the UN to act in Iraq, including exaggerating the WMD threat"
Man, these right wing extremists will say anthing!

Posted by: RobG on October 9, 2006 at 2:19 PM | PERMALINK

Yes - I am in agreement - containing the fallout from a nuclear detonation would be much more difficult. But rumor also has it that the NorKs are pretty good at underground facilities. We just don't know yet.

Posted by: Global Citizen on October 9, 2006 at 2:19 PM | PERMALINK

The French did use the "bubblewrap" method at Mururoa in the Bikini Atoll - and blew up the rainbow Warrior just for good measure in the harbor of the worlds only "Nuclear Free Zone." What pussies.

Posted by: Global Citizen on October 9, 2006 at 2:25 PM | PERMALINK

Never-was-a-liberal: As far as UN intervention is concerned, how soon you forget... Gulf War I was a UN action, to kick Saddam out of Kuwait. The UN forces included the US, Saudis, French, Canadians, British and many others. Japan and several other countries coughed up cash money to pay for the effort since the action had the UN's complete blessing.

Posted by: Robert Sneddon on October 9, 2006 at 2:26 PM | PERMALINK

Another viewpoint, ex-lib...

This event (as well as the lack of progress vis a vis Iran) shows the uselessness of the [Bush Administration and Republicans in general.] The [Bush Administration and Republicans in general] is supposed to solve this sort of problem. We should stop wasting [votes] on their [party].

Posted by: ckelly on October 9, 2006 at 2:26 PM | PERMALINK

>> it is worse than useless to have fewer
>> than 5 nukes that you are sure will work

> I completely disagree.

And I disagree your disagreement ;-) In order to have a credible nuclear threat, the power involved would have to test three (to prove it was not a fluke and/or one-time shot) and provide believeable evidence that it had two more in reserve (one it could use and one it could reserve for the 2nd round).

Otherwise it is just chest beating. Which KJI is quite good at however.

Cranky

Posted by: Cranky Observer on October 9, 2006 at 2:26 PM | PERMALINK

RobG >"...Man, these right wing extremists will say anthing!"

Yea, sometimes even the truth

The mind is its own place,
and in itself can make a heaven of hell,
and a hell of heaven. - John Milton

Posted by: daCascadian on October 9, 2006 at 2:27 PM | PERMALINK

If the blast is only equivalent to 550 t, perhaps that was what it was - 550 t of dynamite or other explosives. It's a fizzle, it's a dud - perhaps it's a feint. Saddam has a big "Beware of Dog" sign to keep Bush way. It wasn't very effective.

So NK has a "Cave Canem" sign, and a motion-sensored tape recording of a ferocious dog barking. Whether or not it works to prevent Bush from blowing up the house to eliminate the threat of dog bites is yet to be determined.

Off topic - Al, you crack me up!

Posted by: Louise on October 9, 2006 at 2:32 PM | PERMALINK

Bush did everything he could to get the UN to act in Iraq, including exaggerating the WMD threat.

WTF ?

Bush was going to have his war with or without the UN.

Posted by: cleek on October 9, 2006 at 2:33 PM | PERMALINK

The Kool-Aid is in an IV drip, running wide open. But if the molarity of the bloodstream changes, death results. So carry on.

Posted by: Global Citizen on October 9, 2006 at 2:35 PM | PERMALINK

ckelly wrote: This event (as well as the lack of progress vis a vis Iran) shows the uselessness of the [Bush Administration and Republicans in general.] The [Bush Administration and Republicans in general] is supposed to solve this sort of problem. We should stop wasting [votes] on their [party].

You have a point, ckelly. However, the problems of Iran and NK aren't new. Jimmy Carter's mismanagement of Iran allowed the Mullahs to take over. Carter's negotiation with NK during Clinton's Presidency allowed NK to secretly develop their nukes. AQ Khan was selloing nuclear technology during Clinton's Presidency. Bush finally stopped him.

So, you can blame Bush for not solving the nuclear proliferation problem, but I think other Presidents have done no better, and Carter was a lot worse.

cleek, it may or may not be true that Bush was committed to ousting Saddam, but the fact remains that he tried very hard to do so via the UN.

Posted by: ex-liberal on October 9, 2006 at 2:39 PM | PERMALINK

ex-liberal:

By lying to it.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on October 9, 2006 at 2:45 PM | PERMALINK

John Foster Dulles set the Islamic Revolution in motion. history has a long view. It started before inauguration day in 1977, you know.

Posted by: Global Citizen on October 9, 2006 at 2:46 PM | PERMALINK

never a-liberal >You have a point...the fact remains that he tried very hard to do so via the UN."

Nice propaganda spew that you messed up by claiming there were facts involved thereby exposing your lack of knowledge about anything resembling a fact not to mention of recent human history; quit using J.Carter et al as strawmen in your delusional babbling for money from the Rovians

"If you don't deal with reality, reality will deal with you" - C.J. Campbell

Posted by: daCascadian on October 9, 2006 at 2:51 PM | PERMALINK

Was this a failed test? A 10 kiloton nuke that fizzled? Not a nuke at all? (The North Koreans seemed unusually insistent that there was absolutely no release of radiation.) Or what? ... I should add that Jeff, who's an old high school friend of mine, stresses that "My skepticism is not to be taken as a conclusion that North Korea is bluffing. A reliable detection of bomb-generated radionuclides would prove that they were not." I agree. There just seem to be several oddly suspicious things about the North Korean announcement.

Oh please.

While it's entirely possible DPRK's test may have failed, it was not a bluff and hardly a surprise. According to NTI, PRC officials reported on 10/5 DPRK was "more or less ready" to detonate and that the test would occur "2,000 meters inside a coal mine."

Close observers were also aware DPRK would take precautions to minimize venting (i.e., radioactive leakage):

"The current thinking is that they have a horizontal tunnel in the side of a hill," said John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org. "If you have a lot of venting, you give technical intelligence to enemies as to how it works; You want to have many hundreds of feet of rock above you and you might have to tunnel in over 1,000 feet to get that rock above you."

ROK intelligence officials confirming topography & site:

"We detected the explosive sound from Hwadaeri near Kilju in North Hamgyong Province at 10:36 a.m.(KST)," a senior Defense Ministry official said, asking to remain anonymous because of the sensitive nature of the information.

Officials from the National Intelligence Service (NIS) said the test appears to have been conducted at a mountain close to a missile test site from where the communist state launched seven ballistic missiles in early July.

"We believe a nuclear test was conducted around 10:36 a.m. this morning and the (suspected) location of the test is about 30 kilometers away from Punggye-ri in Kilju" which intelligence officials had previously suspected to be a possible test site, an official from the state spy agency was quoted as telling the National Assembly Intelligence Committee.

"We believe the test was conducted under a mountain with an altitude of 360 meters," the NIS official was quoted by Rep. Chung Hyung-keun of the opposition Grand National Party as saying.

Considering the low altitude of the mountain, the intelligence office believes the nuclear test was conducted inside a horizontal tube instead of a vertically-dug tunnel, according to Chung.

Posted by: Riddley Walker on October 9, 2006 at 2:55 PM | PERMALINK

general comment--if the bomb is plutonium based, a fizzle is easier to believe. There is exquisite metallurgical and explosives engineering needed to make a plutonium implosion device work properly, and this is one of the barriers to even state developed nukes. The hard part with uranium is enriching to a critical density, but once you do making a bomb is really easy. The hard part with plutonium is the engineering. It is possible it was a dud because the implosion failed--if it is not quick enough then it will fizzle.

Posted by: calscientist on October 9, 2006 at 3:10 PM | PERMALINK

I think that it's a defective AQ Khan design (supposedly, it's a plutonium-based gun-type, which would be very inefficient at best, because the mass would disperse too quickly after criticality)

Still can get the job done with the added "bonus" of being a very dirty bomb as well. Smaller-than-"optimal" nudet but quite high levels of fallout, with or without a ground burst.

Posted by: Praedor Atrebates on October 9, 2006 at 3:12 PM | PERMALINK

No Pu-239 bomb has ever tested successfully the first time.

Posted by: Global Citizen on October 9, 2006 at 3:13 PM | PERMALINK

It isn't the instability of the fissible materials that makes this development so potentially dangerous. It is the potential instability that this development can set off in the region, no matter how successful, or not, the test might have been.

Posted by: Global Citizen on October 9, 2006 at 3:16 PM | PERMALINK

Does anyone know where Godzilla is these days? Maybe he tripped.

Richard Rhodes other nuke-book (Dark Sun) is equally impressive: it includes a detailed description of the awesome 'Mike' fusion bomb, with a diagram that makes you feel you could build one out in the garage.

Posted by: cynic on October 9, 2006 at 3:22 PM | PERMALINK

Plutonium? Oh man! I thinked we wuz supposed to use Kryptonite!

Posted by: BabyKim on October 9, 2006 at 3:26 PM | PERMALINK

This test really doesn't change much, except maybe to add a few Patriot batteries to some countries' wish list. Nobody wants to invade North Korea and they aren't likely to invade the South.

Posted by: Trashhauler on October 9, 2006 at 3:32 PM | PERMALINK

I question the timing. You'd think Dear Leader would have wanted the nuke to go off in time for the Sunday shouting heads. But they're off by a day

What'd they do, forget about the International Date Line, or what?

Posted by: lambert strether on October 9, 2006 at 3:38 PM | PERMALINK

Praedor Atrebates >"...the added "bonus" of being a very dirty bomb as well. Smaller-than-"optimal" nudet but quite high levels of fallout..."

Maybe that`s what they wanted to test, a "dirty bomb" for uses other than what most are assuming...

If you stop and think about it, scary indeed

"The wind blows over the surface of the lake. In this way, the effects of the invisible are made visible." - I Ching

Posted by: daCascadian on October 9, 2006 at 4:09 PM | PERMALINK

I thought about that too. A dirty bomb would be at least as frightening as a conventional nuke. And a hell of a lot easier to conceal, move and detonate in a civilian area.

Posted by: Global Citizen on October 9, 2006 at 4:18 PM | PERMALINK

One reason for a developing a small nuke is to put it onto one of their rockets.

Posted by: jerry on October 9, 2006 at 4:21 PM | PERMALINK

Global Citizen: No Pu-239 bomb has ever tested successfully the first time.

Excuse me? What about this one?

Also, when a country, such as France, is known to have nuclear weapons, cloaking the yeild makes sense. However, the whole point of this exercise is to prove that the DPRK really has a working nuclear weapon. I would think that they wanted to make sure that the radiation was contained, but that the yield would be obvious. "Bubblewrapping" the weapon makes little sense in this case. The reports that the DPRK is hurrying to set up another test makes a lot of sense, if the first was a fizzle.

Posted by: Claude Muncey on October 9, 2006 at 4:31 PM | PERMALINK

North Korea doesn't have the technology for suitcase nukes - it has to be a partial failure as a test - scattered components before full fission or too low a grade of high yield material.

You know, the GOP talking point will be this was all Clinton's fault because the Bush and the GOP whiny ass titty babies are never responsible for anything.

Posted by: Easter Lemming Liberal News on October 9, 2006 at 4:32 PM | PERMALINK

Claude Muncy: You know, I meant to pose that as a question, and I was toggling screens and running out the door to class. Mea Culpa.

Posted by: Global Citizen on October 9, 2006 at 4:57 PM | PERMALINK

Our friends at the USGS, who should be the foremost experts in the country on all matters seismic, put the magnitude of the shock at 4.2 on the Richter scale. Depending on the geologic composition of the site, this could make the explosion as powerful as 2-15 kT. In any case, the numbers being cited by experts of 550 tons appears to be far too low for the observed shock.

Posted by: AZ_Squeegee on October 9, 2006 at 5:32 PM | PERMALINK

5 million tons of camel dung stored in a cave accidently detonated.

Posted by: Michael7843853 G-O in 08! on October 9, 2006 at 5:49 PM | PERMALINK

Easter Lemming Liberal News >"North Korea doesn't have the technology for suitcase nukes - it has to be..."

It doesn`t HAVE TO BE anything

And what makes you think they would need to do suitcase sized device(s) ?

Quit projecting your sense of how things have to be onto others, particularly people from another culture; it is soooo ReThuglican after all

"...Only the most naive gamblers bet against physics, and only the most irresponsible bet with their grandchildren's resources..." - William H. Calvin

Posted by: daCascadian on October 9, 2006 at 5:54 PM | PERMALINK

"Personally, I think that it's a defective AQ Khan design (supposedly, it's a plutonium-based gun-type"

Is there a source or sources for this?

The accounts I've seen all refer to Khan hawking an implosion design, though that was for HEU. That's what he sold to Libya, anyway. Supposedly it's a 1960s Chinese design that Pakistan obtained and used for their first weapons.

I'm not aware of anyone attempting a Pu gun design; the concept was abandoned in the early stages of the Manhattan Project for the exact reasons (preinitiation) that the previous post cites.

Posted by: Steve on October 9, 2006 at 5:57 PM | PERMALINK

This paper in the Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America seems to indicate (on page S151) using data obtained from previous nuclear tests of known yields that the estimated magnitude of 4.2 for the shock from the explosion indicvates a much larger yield than 550 tons of TNT.


Posted by: AZ_Squeegee on October 9, 2006 at 6:31 PM | PERMALINK

Okay, just a couple of questions and an observation.
1- why would NK say that they have tested a Nuke when some of the empirical evidence doesn't support that ? (no radiation and inconsistent seismographs)

2- In any event, what options does the US have?

3- comment - OMG- between the weapon and seismographic knowledge- this have been a fairly impressive series of posts.

Finally, Trashhauler, why do you believe that NK would not invade SK ?

Posted by: Out on Bond on October 9, 2006 at 6:57 PM | PERMALINK

If the magnitude of 4.2 holds, which it seems to be doing on the USGS site, then the yield was about 2KT.

Posted by: bill on October 9, 2006 at 8:03 PM | PERMALINK

Hmmm...Thinking about the plot of the last Bond film, could this be some kind of massive conventional bomb meant to detonate a mass of land mines in front of a massive invading infantry?

Posted by: doug r on October 9, 2006 at 9:26 PM | PERMALINK

You should get your Yale friend to guest blog sometime. Climate change, earthquakes, my missing moho, etc.

Science Friday?

Posted by: American Buzzard on October 9, 2006 at 10:39 PM | PERMALINK

C'mon, we know that both Bush and foreign governments can spin things.

Wouldn't western Europe possibly have reasons to spin this? More so than Russia, especially, spinning a high blast number?

Posted by: SocraticGadfly on October 9, 2006 at 10:51 PM | PERMALINK

First, it's pretty clear that there was a fission yield. The technology that can determine the seismic "signature" of a nuke yield has been with us since 1963 or so: a nuke detonation takes place much faster than a conventional explosion and thus results in a seismic spike with characteristics significantly different than, say, TNT. Historically, the USGS at Golden, Colorado tagged these events as "boxes" on a map. The rest---including conventional explosions are characterized as circles. The N. Korean event was characterized on the map as a box. It was a nuke.

As for the suggestion that it was a dud, I think this is just an exercise in political damage control: "sure it was a nuke, but it was a "failed nuke."

If anyone evaluated only the U.S. "safety" tests at the Nevada Test Site during Operation Hardtack II in 1958 or thereabouts, they would conclude that all were "failed nuclear tests." Let's take a look at the yields of our own tests during that period: Otero: 0.038 kt; Eddy: 0.083 kt; Hidalgo: 0.077 kt; Quay: 0.079 kt; Hamilton: 0.0012 kt; Dona Ana: 0.037 kt; Vesta: 0.024 kt; Chavez: 0.0006 kt; Humboldt: 0.0078 kt; Titania: 0.0002 kt.


In fact, the engineers were evaluating accident scenarios and running proof tests on weapon design. Thanks in part to those tests we know that it doesn't take a carefully-designed implosion apparatus to push plutonium to critical mass. Other designs and configurations do the job very well indeed.

It is entirely possible the N.Koreans were testing a design and really didn't give a flip about whether they reached the "nominal" 10 kiloton yield figure.

The thing to take away from the North Korean shot event is not the size of the yield, but the fact there WAS a yield. Anyone suggesting that the test was a dud should review the history of the US nuclear testing program.

I suspect that the next shot--and there WILL be one--will give the skeptics their 10-15 kt yield figure.

Posted by: rmiller on October 10, 2006 at 1:01 AM | PERMALINK


Given they don't have missile technology to launch a warhead, perhaps they are deliberately designing a size manageable enough for them to deliver in another way, perhaps in a small plane that would avoid radar before reaching Seoul for example. I'm just guessing.
The above posting by rmiller looks to me like the most knowledgeable explanation I've seen anywhere.

Posted by: Looking for the Mahatma on October 10, 2006 at 2:39 AM | PERMALINK

Basically, every country's first nuke has been on the order of 12 kilotons. (Pakistan claimed theirs was 40 kt, but we don't believe them.)
Making a nuke smaller than 12 kt is a lot harder than making a 12 kt nuke. (Basically, you use a lot of explosives to compress the U or Pu into a tighter than usual sphere.) The only reason you'd do so is if you had a shortage of fissionable material.

North Korea does not seem to have a shortage of fis. mat.

My guess is that this is a sub-critical explosion caused by the explosives timing being off or not being fast enough. Then you get a little bit of the fis. mat. going critical and blowing the mass apart before enough of it crosses the tipping point.

My conclusion is buttressed by the wildly over-hyped claims of the N. Korean missiles. (Guess what? They don't have a missile capable of reaching North America after all.) There is a pocket industry in exaggerating North Korea's military prowess - and don't get me started on the artillery aimed at Seoul.

Posted by: mcdruid on October 10, 2006 at 2:50 AM | PERMALINK

性生活 免费电影下载 免费在线电影 看免费电影 免费电影网站 韩国电影 两性生活 性教育片 两性知识 性爱图片 激情电影 黄色电影 最新电影 性爱电影 免费小电影 性电影 免费成人电影 免费电影在线看 宽带电影 经典电影 恐怖电影 免费影片 免费影院 最新大片 十八电影 美女写真 人体艺术 美女图片 美女走光 美腿图片 三级片 强奸小电影 自拍裸体 美女床上自拍 黄色电影下载 在线色情电影 激情图片 性感图片 妹妹贴图 美女做爱图片 激情小电影 裸露美少女 av美女贴图 色情图片 同志图片 性爱视频 明星露点 激情写真 阴部图片 乳房图片 明星裸照 性爱文学 偷拍走光 漂亮美眉 泳装写真 乳罩内裤 成人贴图 情趣内衣 性生活电影 作爱自拍 艳情图片性交电影 做爱视频 性福电影 人体艺术 明星合成裸照 裸女贴图 黄色小说 成人小说 乱伦故事 强暴图片 轮奸视频 性虐待电影 迷奸图片 妓女日记 汤加丽写真集 全裸美女 淫荡小说 淫乱小说 淫书金瓶梅 舒淇写真 美女脱衣视频 裸体女人图片 人体写真 美女手淫图片 波霸美女 淫水美女鲍鱼 阴户阴道阴毛屁股 美女图库 口交肛交图片 A片下载 毛片 偷窥图片 裸体视频聊天室 成人网站 成人论坛 性爱论坛网站 性变态图片 淫女图片 日本女学生 美女下阴图 女性生殖器 操逼图片 美女激情 戴尔笔记本 戴尔笔记本电脑 戴尔官方网站 戴尔d620 dell笔记本 dell笔记本电脑 dell d620 戴尔网上订购 戴尔电脑 戴尔中国 戴尔主页 dell电脑 戴尔台式电脑 戴尔公司 戴尔官方网站

Posted by: mmf铃声 on October 10, 2006 at 8:06 AM | PERMALINK

how lucky I am
there is a certain nigerian oil industry executive,who wants to give me 9 million$ [u.s.].
I can take this money and build a bomb shelter!!.
I will be swilling dom,and eating caviar while the
rest of you technorati fry!!!
ahahahahahahahah

Posted by: dave on October 10, 2006 at 8:10 AM | PERMALINK

mcdruid

I agree with you re threat overestimation but I do believe they have 1000 artillery tubes pointed at Seoul.

they have been preparing for the end of the ceasefire since it was signed in 1953.

They have 130mm guns which outrange the NATO standard issue 155mm (the same ones which gave the South Africans such trouble in Angola in the 70s). And they have buried them in tunnels-- they have had 50 years to dig in.

If they used nerve gas on Seoul, millions might die. If they use conventional artillery rounds, tens of thousands (concrete buildings are amazingly robust, and I think most South Koreans have bomb shelters in the basement of their apartment buildings?).

I don't think it is likely that they yet have a nuclear warhead which can be placed in a missile to hit Tokyo, let alone San Francisco or Seattle.

What they probably have is 4-5 crude bombs you could strap under a plane. Get Seoul, yes. Tokyo? maybe not, unless they use trickery ('Evening in Byzantium' the terrorists replace 747s with 747s carrying atomic weapons).

The reality is, we are not going to attack them (because we can't be sure of getting all the warheads, and the fallout from ground burst nuclear weapons would pollute the northern hemisphere to a really serious extent) and they are (likely) not going to attack us.

Since we don't conduct our foreign policy with them with an acceptance of the above, we are engaging in flights of fancy.

Posted by: Valuethinker on October 10, 2006 at 8:38 AM | PERMALINK

I'm glad I babel-fished mmf铃声's remarks above and that I did not click the link.

Consider yourself warned.

Posted by: gary on October 10, 2006 at 9:37 AM | PERMALINK

With the data I see, I tend to agree this was a fizzle.

Two reasons. First, getting implosion right is hard. The famous quote is, "Half the effort of the Manhattan Project was getting implosion to work." (Of course, they didn't know it was possible, so they had to research a lot).

Second, I wonder how badly "crapped up" their plutonium is. I believe their plutonium came from their Soviet reactor's old fuel rods. If I can bore you for a moment, I'll go through the process with you:

1) Put U-238 into a reactor that has neutrons buzzing around by the trillions;

2) You want -one- neutron to "stick" to the U-238;

3) Remove the U-238+neutron, which is now Np-239.

It's bad if two or three neutrons "stick".

Some stuff happens (basically you need to wait) and the now unstable stuff becomes Plutonium-239 (Pu-239).

If 2 or 3 neutrons stuck, you have a problem; that's Pu-240 or Pu-241. They are seriously unstable and spray radiation, and try to predetonate the weapon. There's no way that I know of to seperate Pu-239 from -240 and -241.

You do try to hold down the -240 contamination by keeping the U-238 rod in there the optimum amount of time. And here you have a problem. If you're running the reactor to make power, you have a different priority for run time than for making plutonium. The N. Koreans by all reports ran that Sov reactor for energy. The U-238 was in there because fuel rods are typically 3% U-235 and 97% U-238.

So I deeply suspect that they have heavily contaminated Pu-239. With that, your bomb implosion had better be absolutely nailed down.

Since all this stuff is happening in microsecond time intervals (an atom splits each 10 nanoseconds; think of an A-bomb as a 0.10 MhZ or 100 Khz computer) the implosion wave has to hold the crushed core together physically for some time for neutron multiplication to build up so that a large number of Pu atoms split and release energy. If the implosion was weak in one spot, forget it.

Other problems could be a weak spot in their tamper, which helps hold neutrons in and helps hold the physical assembly together; insufficient initial neutrons, especially if they used an "urchin" to pop a few loose; overall bad quality control; a bad detonator; insufficient computer simulations; bad explosive blocks or bad physical size and shaping of the blocks... I could go on and on, but you get the idea.

I wonder how many North Korean scientists got shot yesterday.

Thanks, Dave

Posted by: David Small on October 10, 2006 at 11:31 AM | PERMALINK

Yeah, I've seen the reports, even to tens of thousands of artillery tubes. Intel about North Korea's missiles is probably more reliable, and they were giving us ranges of 12,000 kilometers. Right, tell me another one.

Artillery "buried deep underground" isn't very useful. At least with the Maginot Line, they had devices to raise the guns up to shoot.

The Maginot Line example is worth mentioning for another reason, too. After the declaration of war, but before the beginning of hostilities, the French found that most of their artillery was useless: deteriorated or the wrong caliber. I don't believe the North Korean system is more competant than the French system was. Nor, for that matter, can they actually test their artillery without giving away the locations.

I wouldn't put much credence in nerve gas, either. It is not that effective against cities, artillery shells can't deliver enough to be anything but locally effective, and I would guess that the shelf life of DPRK's nerve gas too short to stockpile much.

Still, it is probably more of a threat than lettuce.

Posted by: mcdruid on October 10, 2006 at 12:21 PM | PERMALINK

Publish your articles free
Auto and Trucks articles Auto and trucks articles
Boats articles boats articles
Cars articles cars articles
Motorcycles articles motorcycles articles
RVs articles RVs articles
Trucks articles trucks articles
Business articles business articles
Advertising articles advertising articles
Careers articles careers articles
Customer Service articles customer service articles
Entrepreneurs articles entrepreneurs articles
Ethics articles ethics articles
Home Based Business articles home based business articles
Management articles management articles
Marketing articles marketing articles
Networking articles networking articles
Public Relations articles public relations articles
Small Business articles small business articles
Computers and Internet articles computers and internet articles
Computer Certification articles computer certification articles
Data Recovery articles data recovery articles
Games articles games articles
Hardware articles hardware articles
Networks articles networks articles
Software articles software articles
Education articles education articles
College articles college articles
K-12 Education articles K-12 education articles
Language articles language articles
Philosophy articles philosophy articles
Psychology articles psychology articles
Science articles science articles
Sociology articles sociology articles
Family articles family articles
Pets and Animals articles pets and animals articles
Babies articles babies articles
Elderly Care articles elderly care articles
Holidays articles holidays articles
Parenting articles parenting articles
Pregnancy articles pregnancy articles
Food and Drink articles food and drink articles
Coffee articles coffee articles
Cooking articles cooking articles
Gourmet articles gourmet articles
Recipes articles recipes articles
Wine articles wine articles
Health articles health articles
Acne articles acne articles
Alternative Medicine articles alternative medicine articles
Beauty articles beauty articles
Cardio articles cardio articles
Depression articles depression articles
Diabettes articles diabettes articles
Exercise articles exercise articles
Fitness articles fitness articles
Hair Loss articles hair loss articles
Medicine articles medicine articles
Meditation articles meditation articles
Men Issues articles men issues articles
Muscle Building articles muscle building articles
Nutrition articles nutrition articles
Weight Loss articles weight loss articles
Women Issues articles women issues articles
Yoga articles yoga articles
Hobbies articles hobbies articles
Home Improvemenr articles home improvement articles
Home Security articles home security articles
Interior Design articles interior design articles
Landscaping articles landscaping articles
Gardening articles gardening articles
Science articles science articles
Astronomy articles astronomy articles
Biology articles biology articles
Environment articles environment articles
Physics articles physics articles
Technology articles technology articles
Kids and Teens articles kids and teens articles
Legal articles legal articles
Family Law articles family law articles
Immigration articles immigration articles
Personal Injury articles personal injury articles
Finance articles finance articles
Credit articles credit articles
Currency Trading articles currency trading articles
Debt Consolidation articles debt consolidation articles
Fundraising articles fundraising articles
Insurance articles insurance articles
Investing articles investing articles
Leasing articles leasing articles
Loans articles loans articles
Mortgage articles mortgage articles
Mutual Funds articles mutual funds articles
Personal Finance articles personal finance articles
Real Estate articles real estate articles
Stock Market articles stock market articles
Taxes articles taxes articles
Online Business articles online business articles
Affiliate Programs articles affiliate programs articles
Auctions articles auctions articles
Audio-Video Streaming articles audio-video streaming articles
Blogging articles blogging articles
Domains articles domains articles
Ebooks articles ebooks articles
Ecommerce articles ecommerce articles
Email Marketing articles email marketing articles
Ezine Marketing articles ezine marketing articles
Ezine Publishing articles ezine publishing articles
Internet Marketing articles internet marketing articles
SEO articles SEO articles
Internet Advertising articles internet advertising articles
Web Design articles web design articles
Web Hosting articles web hosting articles
Politics and Government articles politics and government articles
Commentary articles commentary articles
Current Events articles current events articles
History articles history articles
Recreation and Sports articles recreation and sports articles
Fishing articles fishing articles
Extreme articles extreme articles
Biking articles biking articles
Golf articles golf articles
Gambling and Casinos articles gambling and casinos articles
Hunting articles hunting articles
Martial Arts articles martial arts articles
Running articles running articles
Relationships articles relationship articles
Dating articles dating articles
Divorce articles divorse articles
Marriage articles marriage articles
Sexuality articles sexuality articles
Self Improvement articles self improvement articles
Attraction articles attraction articles
Coaching articles coaching articles
Creativity articles creativity articles
Goal Setting articles goal setting articles
Grief articles Grief articles
Happiness articles happiness articles
Innovation articles innovation articles
Inspirational articles inspirational articles
Leadership articles leadership articles
Motivation articles motivation articles
Organizing articles organizing articles
Spirituality articles spirituality articles
Stress Management articles stress management articles
Success articles success articles
Time Management articles time management articles
Travel and Leisure articles travel and leisure articles
Aviation articles avation articles
Boating articles boating articles
Cruises articles cruises articles
Destinations articles destinations articles
Outdoors articles outdoors articles
Travel Tips articles travel tips articles
Vacations articles Vacations articles
Article Writing articles article writing articles
Book Marketing articles book marketing articles
Copywriting articles copyrighting articles
Communications articles communications articles
Broadband Internet articles broadband internet articles
GPS articles GPS articles
Mobile Phones articles Modile phones articles
Satellite Radio articles Satellite radioarticles
Satellite TV articles Satellite TV articles
Video Conferencing video conferencing articles
VOIP articles VOIP articles
Arts and Entertainment articles art and entertainment articles
Celebrities articles Celebrities articles
Humanities articles humanities articles
Humor articles Humor articles
Movies articles movies articles
Music articles music articles
Poetry articles poetry articles
Product Reviews articles product reviews articles
Book Reviews articles book reviews articles
Consumer Electronics articles consumer electronics articles
Digital Products articles Digital products articles
Movie Reviews articles movie reviews articles
Music Reviews articles music reviews articles

home automation home automation
home automation systems home automation systems
home automation products home automation products
home automation software home automation software
home automation accessories home automation accessories
home automation kits home automation kits
home security and automation home security and automation
home automation controllers home automation controllers
home automation remotes home automation remotes
home automation modules home automation modules
home automation switches home automation switches
home automation motion sensors home automation motion sensors
motion detectors motion detectors
home professional camera systems professional camera systems
home wireless camera systems wireless camera systems
home wired camera systems wired camera systems
home camera accessories camera accessories
home camera software camera software
home security accessories home security accessories
home entertainment home entertainment
home camera systems home camera systems
home security systems home security systems
night cameras night cameras
home security personal alert home security personal alert
home security monitored systems home security monitored systems
home audio home audio
home video home video
home entertainment universal remotes home entertainment universal remotes
home entertainment software home entertainment software

bad credit repair bad credit repair
bad credit report repair bad credit report repair
bad credit mortgages bad credit mortgages
bad credit loans bad credit loans
bad credit auto loans bad credit auto loans
bad credit home loans bad credit home loans
bad credit personal loans bad credit personal loans
bad credit home improvement loans bad credit home improvement loans
bad credit refinance bad credit refinance
bad credit debt consolidation bad credit debt consolidation
bad credit motorcycle loans bad credit motorcycle loans
bad credit boat loans boat loans
bad credit military loans bad credit military loans
bad credit signature loans bad credit signature loans
bad credit mortgage loans bad credit mortgage loans
bad credit repair bad credit repair
bad credit visa cards bad credit visa cards
bad credit california mortgage bad credit california mortgage
bad credit help bad credit help
bad credit second mortgage bad credit second mortgage

Online insurance quotes Online insurance quotes
Online insurance rates Online insurance rates
Online insurance quote Online insurance quote
car insurance car insurance
health insurance health insurance
home insurance home insurance
life insurance life insurance
business insurance business insurance
auto insurance quote auto insurance quote
home owner insurance home owner insurance
travel insurance travel insurance
dental insurance dental insurance
medical insurance medical insurance
renters insurance renters insurance
motorcycle insurance motorcycle insurance
boat insurance boat insurance
pet insurance pet insurance
family health insurance family insurance
disability insurance disability insurance
liability insurance liability insurance
flood insurance flood insurance
property insurance property insurance
car insurance rate car insurance rate
insurance broker insurance broker
online insurance quote online insurance quote

adult personal page adult personal page
adult personals pic adult personals pic
adult photo personals adult photo personals
adult dating personals adult dating personals
casual sex casual sex
sex sex
horny singles horny singles
alternative dating alternative dating
adult personal ads adult personals ads
adult singles adult singles
adult photo personals adult photo personals
adult personals pic adult personals pic
adult personal page adult personal page
adult picture personals adult picture personals
adult dating adult dating
online adult dating online adult dating
sex dating sex dating
single personals single personals
adult dating sex adult dating sex
free adult dating free adult dating
adult dating service adult dating service
adult single dating adult single dating
adult dating chat adult dating chat
adult dating site adult dating site
dating servic dating servic
adult personal adult personal
adult dating services adult dating services
adult dating personals adult dating personals
free personal ads free personal ads
ads adult dating ads adult dating
adult singles dating adult singles dating
free adult dating site free adult dating site
personals ads personals ads
adult dating adult dating
adult personals adult personals
adult dating ads adult dating ads
adult singles adult singles
adult single dating adult single dating
adult personal adult personal
free adult dating free adult dating
adult dating online adult dating online
adult dating site adult dating site
adult swingers adult swingers
adult friend finder adult friend finder
adult dating agency adult dating agency
adult online dating adult online dating
adult free dating services adult free dating services
adult dating service adult dating service
dating services dating services
online adult dating services online adult dating services
erotic adult dating erotic adult dating
online adult dating online adult dating
personals adult dating personals adult dating
discount adult toys discount adult toys
discounted adult toys discounted adult toys
love dolls love dolls
adult toy vibrator adult toy vibrator
adult sex toy store adult sex toy store
erotic sex toys erotic sex toys
discount sex toys discount sex toys
cheap sex toys cheap sex toys
buy sex toys buy sex toys
glass dildo glass dildo
male sex toys male sex toys
female sex toys female sex toys
women sex toys women sex toys

Posted by: discount online pharmacy on October 12, 2006 at 10:52 AM | PERMALINK

Discount prescription drugs online - no prescription!

Cheap meridia cheap meridia

Buy meridia buy meridia

Discount meridia discount meridia

Buy meridia online buy meridia online

Generic meridia generic meridia

Cheap pro pecia cheap pro pecia

Buy pro pecia buy pro pecia

Discount pro pecia discount pro pecia

buy pro pecia online buy pro pecia online

Generic pro pecia generic pro pecia

Cheap pro scar cheap pro scar

buy pro scar buy pro scar

Discount pro scar discount pro scar

Buy pro scar online buy pro scar online

Generic pro scar generic pro scar

order pro scar order pro scar

Cheap finasteride cheap finasteride

Buy finasteride Buy finasteride

Discount finasteride Discount finasteride

Hair loss pills hair loss pills

Weight loss pills weight loss pills

Cheap Rogaine cheap rogaine

Buy Rogaine buy rogaine

Discount Rogaine discount rogaine

Generic Rogaine generic rogaine

Discount minoxidil discount minoxidil

Buy minoxidil buy minoxidil

Cheap cia lis cheap cia lis

Discount cia lis discount cia lis

Buy cia lis buy ci alis

Buy ci alis online buy ci alis online

Generic cia lis generic ci alis

Cheap tadalafil cheap tadalafil

Buy tadalafil buy tadalafil

Discount tadalafil order tadalafil

Cheap hytrin cheap hytrin

Discount hytrin discount hytrin

Generic Hytrin generic hytrin

Buy hytrin buy hytrin

Buy hytrin online buy hytrin online

Cheap terazosin cheap terazosin

Discount terazosin discount terazosin

Buy terazosin buy terazosin

Cheap via gra cheap via gra

Generic via gra generic via gra

Discount via gra discount via gra

Buy via gra buy via gra

Buy via gra online buy via gra online

Cheap sildenafil cheap sildenafil

Buy sildenafil buy sildenafil

discount sildenafil discount sildenafil

discount anafranil discount anafranil

buy anafranil buy anafranil

cheap anafranil cheap anafranil

generic anafranil generic anafranil

buy anafranil online buy anafranil online

discount asendin discount sendin

buy asendin buy asendin

cheap asendin cheap asendin

buy asendin online buy asendin online

generic asendin generic asendin

cheap celexa cheap celexa

buy celexa buy celexa

discount celexa discount celexa

buy celexa online buy celexa online

generic celexa generic celexa

cheap effexor cheap effexor

buy effexor buy effexor

discount effexor discount effexor

buy effexor online buy effexor online

generic effexor generic effexor

cheap elavil cheap elavil

discount elavil discount elavil

buy elavil buy elavil

buy elavil online buy elavil online

generic elavil generic elavil

buy endep buy endep

cheap endep cheap endep

discount endep discount endep

cheap luvox cheap luvox

discount luvox discount luvox

buy luvox buy luvox

generic luvox generic luvox

buy luvox online buy luvox online

cheap pamelor cheap pamelor

discount pamelor discount pamelor

buy pamelor buy pamelor

generic pamelor generic pamelor

buy pamelor online buy pamelor online

Cheap paxil cheap paxil

discount paxil discount paxil

generic paxil generic paxil

buy paxil buy paxil

buy paxil online buy paxil online

cheap prozac cheap prozac

generic prozac generic prozac

discount prozac discount prozac

buy prozac buy prozac online

buy prozac online buy prozac

cheap
sinequan
cheap sinequan

buy sinequan buy sinequan

generic sinequan generic sinequan

discount sinequan discount sinequan

buy sinequan online buy sinequan online

cheap
tofranil
cheap tofranil

buy tofranil buy tofranil

discount tofranil discount tofranil

generic tofranil generic tofranil

buy tofranil online buy tofranil online

cheap
wellbutrin
cheap wellbutrin

generic wellbutrin generic wellbutrin

discount wellbutrin discount wellbutrin

buy wellbutrin buy wellbutrin

buy wellbutrin online buy wellbutrin online

cheap bupropion cheap bupropion

buy bupropion buy bupropion

cheap zoloft cheap zoloft

generic zoloft generic zoloft

buy zoloft buy zoloft

discount zoloft discount zoloft

buy zoloft Online buy zoloft online

cheap
vermox
cheap vermox

discount vermox discount vermox

buy vermox buy vermox

buy vermox online buy vermox online

generic vermox generic vermox

cheap aralen cheap aralen

discount aralen discount aralen

generic aralen generic aralen

buy aralen buy aralen

buy aralen online buy aralen online

cheap sporanox cheap sporanox

buy sporanox buy sporanox

generic sporanox generic sporanox

discount sporanox discount sporanox

buy sporanox online buy sporanox online

cheap zyprexa cheap zyprexa

discount zyprexa discount zyprexa

buy zyprexa buy zyprexa

generic zyprexa generic zyprexa

buy zyprexa online buy zyprexa online

cheap compazine cheap compazine

generic compazine generic compazine

buy compazine buy compazine

discount compazine discount compazine

buy compazine online buy compazine online

cheap
claritin
cheap claritin

discount claritin discount claritin

generic claritin generic claritin

buy claritin buy claritin

buy claritin online buy claritin online

cheap
allegra
cheap allegra

discount allegra discount allegra

buy allegra buy allegra

generic allegra generic allegra

buy allegra Online buy allegra online

cheap benadryl cheap benadryn

discount benadryl discount benadryl

generic benadryl generic benadryl

buy benadryl buy benadryl

buy benadryl online buy benadryl online

cheap periactin cheap periactin

discount periactin discount periactin

buy periactin buy periactin

generic periactin generic periactin

buy periactin online buy periactin online

cheap advair cheap advair

discount advair discount advair

generic advair generic advair

buy advair buy advair

buy advair online buy advair online

cheap albuterol cheap albuterol

generic albuterol generic albuterol

buy albuterol buy albuterol

discount albuterol discount albuterol

buy albuterol online buy albuterol online

cheap salbutamol cheap salbutamol

buy salbutamol buy salbutamol

buy theophylline buy theophylline

generic salbutamol generic sabutamol

cheap singulair cheap singulair

discount singulair discount singulair

buy singulair buy singulair

generic singulair generic singulair

buy singulair online buy singulair online

cheap aceon cheap aceon

buy aceon buy aceon

generic aceon generic aceon

discount aceon discount aceon

buy aceon online buy aceon online

cheap altace cheap altace

buy altace generic altace

generic altace generic altace

discount altace discount altace

buy altace online buy altace online

cheap avapro cheap avapro

buy avapro buy avapro

generic avapro generic avapro

discount avapro discount avapro

buy avapro online buy avapro online

cheap capoten cheap capoten

discount capoten discount capoten

buy capoten buy capoten

generic capoten generic capoten

buy capoten online buy capoten online

cheap diamox cheap diamox

discount diamox discount diamox

buy diamox buy diamox

generic diamox generic diamox

buy diamox online buy diamox online

cheap lipitor cheap lipitor

buy lipitor buy lipitor

discount lipitor discount lipitor

generic lipitor generic lipitor

buy lipitor online buy lipitor online

cheap zocor cheap zocor

buy zocor buy zovor

discount zocor discount zocor

buy zocor online buy zocor online

generic zocor generic zocor

cheap lopid cheap lopid

discount lopid discount lopid

generic lopid generic lopid

buy lopid online buy lopid online

buy lopid buy lopid

cheap mevacor cheap mevacor

generic mevacor generic mevacor

discount mevacor discount mevacor

buy mevacor buy mevacor

buy mevacor online buy mevacor online

cheap pravachol cheap pravachol

discount pravachol discount pravachol

generic pravachol generic pravachol

buy pravachol buy pravachol

buy pravachol online buy pravachol online

cheap actos cheap actos

discount actos discount actos

generic actos generic actos

buy actos online buy actos online

buy actos buy actos

cheap
avandia
cheap avandia

generic avandia generic avandia

buy avandia buy avandia

discount avandia discount avandia

buy avandia online buy avandia online

cheap precose cheap precose

discount precose discount precose

generic precose generic precose

buy
precose
buy precose

buy precose online buy precose online

cheap micronase cheap micronase

discount micronase discount micronase

generic micronase generic micronase

buy micronase buy micronase

cheap glucovance cheap glucovance

discount glucovance discount glucovance

generic glucovance generic glucovance

buy glucovance buy glocovance

buy glucovance online buy glucovance online

cheap lamictal cheap lamictal

discount lamictal discount lamictal

buy lamictal buy lamictal

generic lamictal generic lamictal

buy lamictal online buy lamictal online

cheap mysoline cheap mysoline

discount mysoline discount mysoline

buy mysoline buy mysoline

generic mysoline generic mysoline

buy mysoline online buy mysoline online

cheap neurontin cheap neurontin

generic neurontin generic neurontin

buy neurontin buy neurontin

discount neurontin discount neurontin

buy neurontin online buy neurontin online

Cheap sodium valproate cheap sodium

Generic sodium valproate generic sodium

Buy sodium valproate buy sodium

discount sodium Valproate discount sodium

buy sodium valproate online buy sodium online

cheap tegretol cheap tegretol

discount tegretol discount tegretol

buy tegretol buy tegretol

generic tegretol generic tegretol

buy tegretol online buy tegretol online

cheap dilantin cheap dilantin

discount dilantin discount dilantin

buy dilantin buy dilantin

generic dilantin generic dilantin

buy dilantin online buy dilantin online

cheap aci phex cheap aci phex

discount aci phex discount aci phex

buy aci phex buy aci phex

generic aci phex generic aci phex

buy aci phex online buy aci phex online

cheap bentyl cheap bentyl

discount bentyl discount bentyl

buy bentyl buy bentyl

generic bentyl generic bentyl

buy bentyl online buy bentyl online

Cheap carafate cheap carafate

discount carafate discount carafate

buy carafate buy carafate

buy carafate online buy carafare online

generic carafate generic carafate

cheap cephulac cheap cephulac

generic cephulac generic cephulac

discount cephulac discount cephulac

buy cephulac buy cephulac

buy cephulac online buy cephulac online

cheap colace cheap colace

generic colace generic colace

buy colace buy colace

discount colace discount colace

buy colace online buy colace online

cheap dulcolax cheap dulcolax

discount dulcolax discount dulcolax

buy dulcolax buy dulcolax

generic dulcolax generic dulcolax

buy dulcolax online buy dulcolax online

cheap imodium cheap imodium

discount imodium discount imodium

buy imodium buy imodium

generic imodium generic imodium

buy imodium online buy imodium online

cheap nexium cheap nexium

discount nexium discount nexium

buy nexium buy nexium

generic nexium generic nexium

buy nexium online buy nexium online

cheap prevacid cheap prevacid

discount prevacid discount prevacid

buy prevacid buy prevacid

generic prevacid generic prevacid

buy prevacid online buy prevacid online

cheap prilo sec cheap prilo sec

discount prilo sec discount prilo sec

buy prilo sec buy prilo sec

generic prilo sec generic prilo sec

buy prilo sec online buy prilo sec online

cheap protonix cheap protonix

discount protonix discount protonix

buy protonix buy protonix

generic protonix generic protonix

order protonix order protonix

cheap reglan cheap reglan

buy reglan buy reglan

discount reglan discount reglan

generic reglan generic reglan

order reglan order reglan

cheap zantac cheap zantac

buy zantac buy zantac

discount zantac discount zantac

generic zantac generic zantac

order zantac order zantac

cheap zofran cheap zofran

discount zofran discount zofran

buy zofran buy zofran

generic zofran generic zofran

order zofran order zofran

cheap rebetol cheap rebetol

discount rebetol discount rebetol

buy rebetol buy rebetol

generic rebetol generic rebetol

order rebetol order rebetol

cheap ribavirin cheap ribavirin

buy ribavirin buy ribavirin

order ribavirin order ribavirin

cheap zovirax cheap zovirax

discount zovirax discount zovirax

order zovirax order zovirax

buy zovirax buy zovirax

generic zovirax generic zovirax

cheap epivir cheap epivir

discount epivir discount epivir

buy epivir buy epivir

order epivir order epivir

generic epivir generic epivir

cheap pyrazinamide cheap pyrazinamide

discount pyrazinamide discount pyrazinamide

order pyrazinamide order pyrazinamide

buy pyrazinamide buy pyrazinamide

generic pyrazinamide generic pyrazinamide

cheap retrovir cheap retrovir

discount retrovir discount retrovir

buy retrovir buy retrovir

order retrovir order retrovir

generic retrovir generic retrovir

cheap viramune cheap viramune

discount viramune discount viramune

order viramune order viramune

buy viramune buy viramune

generic viramune generic viramune

cheap zerit cheap zerit

discount zerit discount zerit

buy zerit buy zerit

order zerit order zerit

generic zerit generic zerit

cheap aldactone cheap aldactone

discount aldactone discount aldactone

buy aldactone buy aldactone

order aldactone order aldactone

generic aldactone generic aldactone

cheap calciferol cheap calciferol

discount calciferol discount calciferol

buy calciferol buy calciferol

order calciferol order calciferol

generic calciferol generic calciferol

alfa calcidol alfa calcidol

order alfa calcidol order alfa calcidol

buy alfa calcidol buy alfa calcidol

cheap danocrine cheap danocrine

discount danocrine discount danocrine

order danocrine order danocrine

buy danocrine buy danocrine

generic danocrine generic danocrine

cheap decadron cheap decadron

discount decadron discount decadron

order decadron order decadron

buy decadron buy decadron

generic decadron generic decadron

cheap deltasone cheap deltasone

discount deltasone discount deltasone

buy deltasone buy deltasone

order deltasone order deltasone

generic deltasone generic deltasone

cheap provera cheap provera

discount provera discount provera

buy provera buy provera

order provera order provera

generic provera generic provera

cheap cycrin cheap cycrin

cheap synthroid cheap synthroid

discount synthroid discount synthroid

buy synthroid buy synthroid

order synthroid order synthroid

generic levothroid generic levithroid

cheap levothroid cheap levithroid

cheap robaxin cheap robaxin

discount robaxin discount robaxin

buy robaxin buy robaxin

order robaxin order robaxin

generic robaxin generic robaxin

cheap som a cheap som a

discount som a discount som a

buy som a buy som a

order som a order som a

generic som a generic som a

cheap zana flex cheap zana flex

discount zana flex discount zana flex

buy zana flex buy zana flex

order zana flex order zana flex

generic zana flex generic zana flex

cheap alphagan cheap alphagan

discount alphagan discount alphagan

buy alphagan buy alphagan

order alphagan order alphagan

generic alphagan generic alphagan

cheap betagan cheap betagan

discount betagan discount betagan

order betagan order betagan

buy betagan buy betagan

generic betagan generic betagan

cheap mydriacyl cheap mydriacyl

discount mydriacyl discount mydriacyl

buy mydriacyl buy mydriacyl

order mydriacyl order mydriacyl

generic mydriacyl generic mydriacyl

cheap propine cheap propine

discount propine discount propine

buy propine buy propine

order propine order propine

generic propine generic propine

discount tobramycin discount tobramycin

buy tobramycin buy tobramycin

cheap tobramycin cheap tobramycin

order tobramycin order tobramycin

buy flour-op buy flour-op

order flour-op order flour-op

cheap flour-op cheap flour-op

discount flour-op discount flour-op

cheap advil cheap advil

generic advil generic advil

order advil order advil

buy advil buy advil

discount advil discount advil

cheap celebrex cheap celebrex

discount celebrex discount celebrex

buy celebrex buy celebrex

order celebrex order celebrex

generic celebrex generic celebrex

cheap imitrex cheap imitrex

discount imitrex discount imitrex

buy imitrex buy imitrex

order imitrex order imitrex

generic imitrex generic imitrex

cheap ponstel cheap ponstel

discount ponstel discount ponstel

order ponstel order ponstel

buy ponstel buy ponstel

generic ponstel generic ponstel

cheap timoptic cheap timoptic

discount timoptic discount timoptic

buy timoptic buy timoptic

order timoptic order timoptic

generic timoptic generic timoptic

cheap tylenol cheap tylenol

discount tylenol discount tylenol

order tylenol order tylenol

buy tylenol buy tylenol

generic tylenol generic tylenol

cheap anacin cheap anacin

buy anacin buy anacin

cheap ultram cheap ultram

discount ultram discount ultram

buy ultram buy ultram

order ultram order ultram

generic ultram generic ultram

cheap benadryl cheap benadryl

order benadryl order benadryl

discount benadryl discount benadryl

buy benadryl buy benadryl

generic benadryl generic benadryl

cheap ditropan cheap ditropan

discount ditropan discount ditropan

order ditropan order ditropan

buy ditropan buy ditropan

generic ditropan generic ditropan

cheap eldepryl cheap eldepryl

discount eldepryl discount eldepryl

buy eldepryl buy eldepryl

order eldepryl order eldepryl

generic eldepryl generic eldepryl

cheap arava cheap arava

discount arava discount arava

order arava order arava

buy arava buy arava

Posted by: discount online pharmacy on October 12, 2006 at 10:53 AM | PERMALINK

Shoes information.

Posted by: Victoriya on October 12, 2006 at 4:25 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly