Skip to content

Kelp: It’s What’s for Dinner

Kelp is the miracle food of the future. It will solve so many problems, you don’t even know. For starters, it grows in the ocean, which is awesome, because there’s lots of room there. Plus, it can restore damaged marine ecosystems and revive collapsed fisheries. It can help prevent algal blooms. It absorbs carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus, which means it can help combat climate change. Finally, a robust kelp farm provides a fantastic ecosystem that can protect vulnerable coastal areas from dangerous storm surges. Win, win, win. Dana Goodyear tells us why the ocean is the farm of the future in her New Yorker expose on kelp:

The ocean covers seventy per cent of the earth and produces less than two per cent of our food. To grow the rest, we use almost forty per cent of the world’s land and nearly three-quarters of our fresh water.

Heed the dire warning! Yes, kelp is a form of seaweed and seaweed is algae, but mushrooms are fungi and we consider them delicious. So it’s really all about attitude. Kelp is perfectly edible and the kelp byproduct alginate has been an essential thickening ingredient in ice cream and salad dressing for decades. Even better, scientists are gathering evidence to prove that alginate helps prevent absorption of fat. So—yes—eating kelp may keep you thin. What kelp really needs to spread this news is PR. Maybe this adorable harbor seal can help:

Harbor seal in a kelp forest near San Diego. Source:

Harbor seal in a kelp forest near San Diego. Source:

Nevermind the public relations, you say, how does kelp taste? Well, let’s make another analogy: Everyone and her mother eats kale these days but no one would ever confuse it with a pint of Haagen-Dazs. Moreover, you are already familiar with seaweed from your beloved California rolls. The gray-ish papery nori that your rice and veggies are wrapped in is seaweed (a kelp relative). Granted, this is a utilitarian use of kelp–a side note on your plate instead of the main attraction. But if kelp were the main attraction, we’d be reaping health benefits galore. The sea vegetable is chock full of iodine, calcium, antioxidants, and other minerals we need for optimal functioning. It packs a punch of goodness. For that reason, it’s a popular nutritional supplement in pill form. So, to answer your question about taste–which is subjective–let’s just say there’s room for innovation.

Kelp noodles: Try adding toasted sesame seeds.

Kelp noodles: Try adding toasted sesame seeds.

The Miracle Crop

Kelp grows quickly, up to 18 inches a day. You don’t need to water it. You don’t need to prepare soil or do much in the way of fertilizing. It requires little investment of labor. It grows when the rains don’t come and it grows when the monsoons inundate the land.

Kelp forests are dynamic ecosystems, and the kelp itself can be used as either food or fuel. Maintaining healthy kelp forests is an essential part of maintaining healthy marine ecosystems. Even if kelp doesn’t make its way to the dinner table, it can still be a part of the food chain. Rich in nitrogen, it can be farmed as a natural fertilizer for land crops, helping replenish the nitrogen that is leeched out by heavy-duty agriculture. It becomes part of a closed-loop nitrogen cycle. More good news!

Bren Smith’s Thimble Island Oyster Co., off the coast of Stony Creek, Connecticut, boasts a harvest of between 30 and 60 tons of kelp per year and provides a thriving marine environment for hundreds of plant and animal species. He calls this a 3D ocean farm, because he uses the entire water column, growing different crops at different depths. The goal of 3D farming is to restore the oceans rather than deplete them, as traditional fishing and aquaculture have done over the past century.

Bren Smith, climate farmer and kelp enthusiast. Source:

Bren Smith, climate farmer and kelp enthusiast. Source:

As a food, kelp is typically harvested and dried. This makes it easy to store and ship. Cooks use it as a garnish or add it to dough for crackers and pasta. Fresh kelp is harder to find, tends to be expensive, and is used as a vegetable. It can be a soup stock or used in salads. Different species of kelp have different tastes and textures. Kelp is common in Asian cooking and needs to find the star chef that can help it transition into the darling of American haute cuisine.

One of the more common varieties of kelp, if there is such a thing, is dulce. This red kelp variety has long been harvested and eaten in Ireland and the UK. It’s usually sold dried and has a chewy texture similar to jerky. Or you can fry it up like bacon, and make a DLT with it for the vegan in your family.


But let’s say you want to ease into your new diet. You can take a cue from the trendy toddlers in the Bay Area, who are reportedly addicted to SeaSnax. They’re the paleo-friendly roasted seaweed chip. Check your local food co-op for availability.

Or check out Ocean’s Halo chips. They’re vegan, gluten-free, organic, and come in compostable packaging. Sales are going through the roof.




Let’s say you’re down with crunchy seaweed and looking to take the next step in your green-blue diet. Yet you don’t live near any trendy restaurants with a kelp-based menu and you’re beyond the sushi stage. How can you experiment with this superfood at home? Find recipes galore at Maine Coast Sea Vegetables: candied kelp, kelp hot potatoes, sesame carrots with kelp, and soothing seaweed soup. You can order many varieties of fresh and dried kelp right on their website. Maybe you can impress your family at Thanksgiving by going one step beyond the traditional Tofurky. A side dish of spruced-up kale will be food for thought and thanks that you’re not serving this:


Tofurky: ‘Nuff said.


Posted on: November 12, 2015, 3:02 pm Category: Admin

Are Your Recyclables Really Being Recycled?

As a sentient, media-consuming citizen of Planet Earth, I am a natural cynic. You can hardly blame me for thinking, while watching the recycling truck trundle down the road, “I bet those recyclables end up in the landfill.” It would be easier to simply tip the recyclables into a landfill than pay extra to sort, bale, and ship it overseas to China. Right?


Well, mostly wrong. Turns out that unless there’s a vast, as-yet-uncovered conspiracy (always a possibility, but so far only in the U.K., according to the Daily Mail) our recyclables are recycled. Count me somewhat surprised, given that my giant single-stream recycling bin groans under more weight each week than my trash bin, due to my city’s awesomely comprehensive recycling program. (Note to City: It’s the trash bin that should be picked up every other week—not the recycling.) Perhaps part of my perception is due to the fact that the garbage trucks and the recycling trucks are identical. I’m rightly suspicious for wondering if they actually serve different purposes.

In fact, when it comes to recycling fraud, the most common shenanigan is hauling returnable bottles and cans across state lines to reap a higher bottle return. In California recently, several out-of-state haulers were indicted for this practice. Bottle deposit laws are incredibly effective in getting people to recycle.



Turns out that the biggest problem with recycling isn’t fraud; it’s contamination. This is when nonrecyclable items are mixed in with the recyclables. Sorting out the offending materials takes time, costs money, and can gum up delicate machinery. Recycling contamination is a growing problem due to the switch to single-stream recycling many communities have made over the past decade or so. This is when you place all your recyclables together in the same container rather than pre-sort them. All recycling programs have lists of acceptable and unacceptable items. The trick is to get people to read them and keep their recyclable steam top-notch quality. According to, here are the Dirty Dozen things to avoid when recycling:

  1. Plastic bags. They’re not recyclable.
  2. Recyclables lovingly placed in plastic bags. Just don’t.
  3. Shredded paper. It mucks up the conveyer belt. Either compost it or put it in the regular trash.
  4. Scrap metal. Like a faucet you’ve replaced or an old car part. Food cans only, thankyouverymuch.
  5. Hazardous waste: Paint, batteries, antifreeze, pesticides, etc. Hold on to these until your county’s household hazardous waste day.
  6. Diapers, needles, and syringes. This is garbage people.
  7. Nonrecyclable plastic: This includes polystyrene, plastic lids, and anything with a forbidden number on it according to your community’s guidelines.
  8. Flattened containers. You’re not helping; you’re only confusing the sorting equipment, which thinks flat items are paper. Keep containers in their original shape.
  9. Lids on bottles and jars; take them off. Throw plastic lids out. Recycle metal lids.
  10. Rinse and dry. Don’t leave a sticky mess to gum up the machinery.
  11. Ceramics and non-recyclable glass. No light bulbs, dishes, mirrors, broken drinking glasses, etc. This stuff can contaminate a whole load of recyclables and result in them being sent to the landfill.
  12. Frozen food boxes. They contain plastic-coated cardboard that doesn’t break down enough to be recycled.

Mickey Mouse is not recyclable!

Mickey Mouse is not recyclable!

The Environmental Protection Agency has created guidelines and standards to ensure a quality stream of commingled recyclables at the nation’s materials recovery facilities, or MRFs. Now, I’m not about to recommend that you read the entire 100+ page document, but it’s pretty comprehensive and will help allay your fears, if your fears are about how fluctuating commodities prices might dry up the market for shipping our recyclables overseas.

I didn’t find a smoking gun, but one sentence in particular gave me pause:

The original concept of “diversion” assumed that if recyclables were not being landfilled, they must be being recycled in a manufacturing system. There was no contemplation that the materials might be diverted but then not be usable by manufacturers. In fact, many recyclables are diverted from the local jurisdictions where they are collected, but still end up landfilled near manufacturing sites.

Yikes! So, yes, your community delivers recyclables to the MRF, and the MRF sends them back where they belong. By then the materials are long considered “recycled,” but perhaps they never make that final step to be reborn into new products or packaging. Sounds like a job for VICE Media instead of yours truly (of course, Shane Smith et al. would undoubtedly discover that not only are manufacturers landfilling perfectly good recyclable material, but they’re also using orphans as slaves to tamp down the dirt with old-timey shovels covered in lead paint.)


Okay–maybe that’s too cynical. Here’s a viewpoint that’s just cynical enough: Recycling is based on good intentions but structured around a somewhat rickety capitalist framework. Creating markets for recyclables, recycled products, and the MRFs to cater to them has been one of the great environmental success stories of the last couple decades. The system employs lots of people, has a high rate of civic participation, and has made our landfills last much longer than they were initially projected to. No system is perfect, but this one is actually working pretty well!



Posted on: November 12, 2015, 3:00 pm Category: Admin

Can We Really Suck Carbon out of the Air?

An experimental facility just opened near Vancouver, British Columbia, that uses giant fans to suck carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and then store it in little pellets of calcium carbonate that can be safely buried or used as raw material for new fuel. This process is called direct-air carbon capture (DAC).


CE senior process engineer Jane Ritchie holds solid calcium carbonate pellets that were formed by precipitating captured carbon dioxide at Calgary-based Carbon Engineering’s first direct air capture plant in Squamish, B.C. Source: Darryl Dyck/Canadian Press.

The experimental facility is run by Carbon Engineering, founded in 2009 by David Keith, a Harvard climate scientist and environmental science pioneer. The company’s CEO is Adrian Corless, a scientist with a background in alternative energy and venture capitalism. The small plant in Squamish, a town populated mostly by the members of the Squamish Nation, is a small-scale pilot facility. In its first few months of operation it sucked 10 tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. When trapped in the pellets, the carbon can later be combined with hydrogen to create synthetic fuel suitable for ships and airplanes. So far, however, the statistics are slight: At full power, the plant can capture only about a ton of carbon per day, which works out to the equivalent of eliminating 100 cars from the road per year. Not enough to make much of a dent, even in British Columbia.

But it’s a laudable start. If all goes well with the pilot operation, Carbon Engineering plans on scaling up the process in a new $200 million plant scheduled to become operational by 2017. The goal is to capture up to a million tons of carbon dioxide a day. This can be transformed into 52 to 100 gallons of gasoline—not a whole heck of a lot, although Corless told the CBC that “there are no real limitations for it to ultimately, in theory, displace all of the existing fossil-based transportation fuels.” According to Corless, the technology has been available for a while; Carbon Engineering is simply the first company to put all the pieces together.

The Squamish facility, which runs on natural gas, is not the first carbon capture project to go live—it’s not even the first in Canada. The SaskPower carbon capture and storage facility in Estevan, Saskatchewan, opened in 2014. But the Boundary Dam facility, as it’s known, is a traditional coal-burning power plant that captures its carbon emissions instead of smokestacking them into the sky. The Carbon Engineering plant is the reverse: It takes carbon from the air and makes fuel from it. The advantage of this technique is that it allows the capture of non-point source carbon emissions—those that do not come from a power plant; i.e., all the vehicles on the roads, seas, and skies.

Carbon Engineering’s lynchpin is its pellet reactor system. This allows the carbon that is captured from the atmosphere in liquid form to be transformed into a storable solid through a chemical reaction. The idea is that the carbon pellets serve as a conduit that gets the carbon from the atmosphere to its new usable fuel form.

Carbon Engineering’s Pellet Reactor System being installed at the demonstration plant in Squamish, British Columbia. Source:

Carbon Engineering’s Pellet Reactor System being installed at the demonstration plant in Squamish, British Columbia. Source:

So will large-scale carbon capture technology soon become a reality? It’s promising that the kinks in the technology have been ironed out, but those of us who have watched the slow growth of renewable energy sources in the face of advancing climate change aren’t holding our breath. Wind and solar have been proven concepts for decades. The real hurdles are economic. Carbon Engineering is well aware of this, however, and its business plan is focused on providing a cost-efficient, low-carbon transportation fuel.

Keith, as a scientist and entrepreneur, is a valuable player in this emerging technology. In his 2009 article in Science magazine, he stated that “unless we can remove CO2 from the air faster than nature does, we will consign Earth to a warmer future for millennia or commit ourselves to a sustained program of climate engineering.”

I love the company’s optimism, but I’ve seen so many of these endeavors come and go over the years that I’m a bit jaded. Previous efforts at carbon capture and sequestration focused on pumping vast quantities of CO2 underground and hoping it stays there. (Maybe it will, and maybe it’ll cause earthquakes like fracking does.) Carbon Engineering’s plan to make lemonade out of lemons, rather than just hiding the lemons in a big underground hole is visionary. But most visionaries are initially seen as crackpots, whether you’re Nikola Tesla building the Wardenclyffe Tower or Elon Musk promoting the hyperloop. Yet as every bullish stockbroker with a fetish for triple-digit growth says in the face of overwhelming evidence of an unsustainable bubble: “This time it’s different.”



Posted on: October 29, 2015, 1:37 pm Category: Admin

The Strange Saga of the Khian Sea

I was all set to write about Agbogbloshie, the neighborhood in Accra, Ghana, that is the world’s epicenter of toxic e-waste. But in researching the topic, I stumbled upon the tangentially related story of the Khian Sea, a ocean-going vessel that sailed the seas for years with a payload of poisonous incinerator ash from Philadelphia. Maybe not as timely as the e-waste situation, but a good lesson in environmental history and a reminder that the long arc of history bends toward justice.

The Northwest Incinerator in Philadelphia. Source:

The Northwest Incinerator in Philadelphia. Source:

Our story begins in 1986 at the Northwest Incinerator in the Philadelphia neighborhood of Roxborough, where a good portion of the city’s garbage ended up. The facility devoured the trash in its fiery maw and transformed it into ash, which contained dangerous amounts of aluminum, arsenic, copper, lead, mercury, chromium, and dioxins. The ash had previously been landfilled in New Jersey, but recently the state had wised up and stopped accepting Philly’s sad remains. Instead, the incinerator’s managers contracted with an independent waste hauler to take 15,000 tons of ash off their hands.


The waste hauler, Joseph Paolino and Sons, offloaded the ash to the corporate operators of the Khian Sea, sailing under a Liberian flag of convenience. The Khian Sea planned to sail to some poor, unsuspecting country and dump the ash there. This was business as usual back in the day.

Funny thing, though. The countries the Khian Sea sailed to didn’t want the toxic ash. For 16 months the ship sailed to one country after another: Honduras, Panama, Guinea Bissau, Dutch Antilles. All refused to be a dumping ground for America’s pulverized garbage. Eventually, 4,000 tons wound up on the shores of Gonaives, Haiti, after the ship’s management convinced Haitian officials the ash was really topsoil fertilizer. The ship set sail just as Haitian officials got wise to the scheme and ordered the shipping company to take back their “topsoil fertilizer.” The ship’s captain pretended he didn’t hear them.

Still laden with 11,000 tons of ash and a bad reputation, the Khian Sea left the Western Hemisphere. Next ports of call: Senegal, Sri Lanka, Singapore. No one wanted their tainted cargo. The shipping company launched Plan B: They changed the ship’s name and registration. The Liberian-registered Khian Sea became the Honduran-registered Felicia. Plan B failed. The ship changed its name again to the Pelicano. Still no luck.

The Khian Sea, aka Felicia, aka Pelicano. Source: EcoNet.

The Khian Sea, aka Felicia, aka Pelicano. Source: EcoNet.

Then, in late 1988, somewhere between Singapore and Sri Lanka, the remaining 11,000 tons of ash disappeared. Five years and reams of legal documents later, the owners of the shipping company were convicted of perjury for denying they had ordered to crew to dump the ash in the ocean.

This still left the small issue of the 4,000 tons of topsoil fertilizer in Haiti, which the government of the impoverished nation had demanded be removed. In 1997—eleven years after the debacle began—the New York City Trade Waste Commission granted a license to Eastern Environmental Services (EES) to operate in the city. Guess who owned EES? A guy from Joseph Paolino and Sons—the firm that made the original deal with the Khian Sea. The terms of the license stipulated that they take back the ash that was still sitting on the dock in Gonaives. Three years later—in 2000—the ash was loaded onto a barge and shipped to Florida. Haiti, however, was still on the hook for the lion’s share of the shipping costs to remove the ash they didn’t want in the first place. The barge remained docked in the St. Lucie Canal for a couple of years until the Environmental Protection Agency declared the ash nonhazardous and thus suitable for the landfill. The ash’s long journey ended at the Mountain View Reclamation Landfill in Antrim, Pennsylvania, not far from where it had been generated sixteen years earlier.

Source: Ft. Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel.

Source: Ft. Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel.

The Basel Convention

The saga of the Khian Sea was an impetus for the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal. This UN treaty was signed in 1989, shortly after the Philly ash had been illegally dumped in the ocean, and entered into force in 1992, amidst the worst of the legal wrangling.

The purpose of the Basel Convention is to prevent developed countries from foisting their hazardous waste onto less developed countries, a practice known as “toxic colonialism.” Oddly enough, the treaty has had wide support; only the United States and Haiti have not ratified it.


In recent years, however, conferences regarding the Basel Convention have focused on e-waste. Thousands of tons of discarded electronic products have found their way to developing nations under the guise of being a commodity that has value in recycling its components. But those interested in adhering to the spirit of the Basel Convention argue that e-waste is simply waste, not a commodity, and that the recycling business exploits poor people and causes health problems.

In the forefront of this movement is the Basel Action Network, a Seattle-based NGO devoted to ending the practice of treating places like Guiyu, China and Agbogbloshie, Ghana, as “digital dumping grounds.”

This, as you can imagine, is a serious topic for another time. But the story of the Khian Sea has two interesting footnotes: First, the Northwest Incinerator, which generated the toxic ash that bedeviled the ship, was eventually decommissioned and converted into office space. The project received a LEED Silver Rating from the U.S. Green Building Council, meaning it attained a high level of energy efficiency. Thus, instead of generating environmental waste as the facility used to, it is now a beacon of conservation in the neighborhood.

Second, in 2002, as the remaining several tons of ash were residing on a barge in Florida, journalist Glenn Henderson saw for himself what had become of the toxic payload, which was recounted later in Mark Frauenfelder’s book The World’s Worst:

“Squeezing between multitudes of spider webs, I peered down into the ‘hold’ and couldn’t believe my eyes. Australian pines were everywhere, some as tall as 10 feet. There were dandelions, weeds with small blue-and-yellow blossoms, patches of seemingly manicured grass, and tall brown weeds resting in layers across grayish piles punctuated by pure-white chunks of who-knows-what. And there was a hibiscus plant with pretty pink blooms.”

Not sure I want to read too much into this, but it is a reminder that nature, given time and proper conditions, has the capacity to heal itself.



Posted on: October 6, 2015, 12:04 pm Category: Admin

The Problem with the LED Revolution

Stop me if you’ve heard this one before: For the sake of our collective wallets and the fate of the planet, we need to replace all our light bulbs.

Many of us who dutifully switched to CFLs back in the aughts are grumpy about the new switch to LEDs. Why? Because CFLs didn’t live up to the hype. Their light was harsh; they didn’t work in three-way lamps or on dimmer switches.* The bulbs didn’t last for 10 years like they were supposed to. And finally, they were hard to dispose of properly because they contained mercury. Plus, lots of light fixtures required candelabra/decorative light bulbs or halogen bulbs and simply wouldn’t work with CFLs. Honestly, I don’t think they ever saved me a cent and they didn’t help the planet.



So I don’t blame you for being skeptical of the LED revolution, which repeats a lot of the same verbiage espoused by the fizzled CFL revolution: Higher up front cost! Lower utility bills! It’s your duty to save the environment!

I got news for you, light bulb lobby, none of us 99 percenters care to spend $56.82 for a 6-pack of light bulbs, no matter how you break down the cost savings. Which actually is a very good idea. The cost savings between incandescent, CFLs, and LEDs is like this:



Sure, these numbers look great. Who wouldn’t want to spend $90 instead of $940 over the 50,000 hours of lighting? But the facts not compelling, and I’ll tell you why:

My utility costs—and yours too, I’m guessing—are fairly reasonable. I pay far less for electricity each month than I do for my cell phone and cable TV. Cutting a few bucks off the electric bill isn’t going to do much for my bottom line, as long as I conserve energy in the usual ways. This is the same reason why more people don’t drive electric cars: Gas is CHEAP, honey!



The only cost that really matters in my short-term world is the one that pops up on the cash register at the hardware store. It’s hard to beat this four-pack of eco-incandescent light bulbs at $4.97. The closest you’re going to get in an LED is this Philips 60W equivalent LED light bulb for $3.97 each. While LED light bulbs have come down immensely in price—they were $25 apiece just two years ago—most of us will choose the $1.24 light bulb over the $3.97 light bulb any day, because we can spend that extra $2.73 on a latte.

This is a psychological issue, not an economical issue. Most people are pretty happy with how long their light bulbs last: the 1,500-hour life span of an incandescent bulb is a long time—about 4 hours a day for an entire year. In comparison, the life span of an LED light bulb is 50,000 hours. The difference between 1,500 hours and 50,000 hours is comparable to the distance between the Earth and the moon (238,900 miles) and the Earth and the Sun (93 million miles). We know one number is more, but they’re both pretty far removed from what matters to us in our daily lives.



But, hey, just for the fun of it, let’s consider that 50,000 hours. It breaks down to a light bulb that can be turned on for 4 hours a day, every day of the year, for 34 years. That’s longer than you’ll own the light fixture, and probably even your house. (If, in fact, the 50k figure is true. Remember, my CFLs did not last half as long as they were supposed to.)

However, I can see the advantages of switching to LED bulbs if you’re, say, the landlord of the Burj Khalifa, or you own DisneyWorld, and you’re staging an Electrical Parade each night.



But for the rest of us, here’s what you really need to know: Today’s incandescent light bulbs are not the same as yesterday’s incandescent light bulbs. They’re more efficient, and they’re made with halogen.

A few years ago, governments around the world moved to phase out traditional incandescent light bulbs due to their inefficiency. In the United States, this was done through the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. The purpose of this act is admirable:

To move the United States toward greater energy independence and security, to increase the production of clean renewable fuels, to protect consumers, to increase the efficiency of products, buildings, and vehicles, to promote research on and deploy greenhouse gas capture and storage options, and to improve the energy performance of the Federal Government, and for other purposes.

Thanks, Obama. Oh, wait—I mean George W. Bush. The law requires an increase of 25 percent efficiency for light bulbs to be phased in from 2012 through 2014. This obvious communist plot incited all the get-off-my-lawn types to horde as many incandescent light bulbs they could get their freedom-loving fingers on before they disappeared forever.



I kept waiting for the incandescent light bulbs to disappear. And guess what? They didn’t. Turns out the light bulb companies did something sneaky: They increased the efficiency of traditional incandescent light bulbs to meet the new government targets without telling us. The new bulbs use tungsten like the old bulbs, but they are halogen based. Now, here’s the really sneaky part: You know how you can’t touch a halogen light bulb because the oil on your fingers can make it explode? Well, the manufacturers have encased a new-fangled, high-efficiency light bulb INSIDE a traditional incandescent light bulb shell. You don’t even know the shell is a sham. Ingenious!

Here—can you tell the difference between “old” and “new”?

new light bulb


Source:  Source:


So, the upshot is, I’m perfectly willing to buy eco-incandescents for myself. But anyone looking to buy me a stocking stuffer for Christmas is welcome to give me an LED bulb. That should hold us for the next few years (i.e., 2020), when the law requires another 20 percent increase in efficiency. Who knows what will happen then, except for the fact that we will hopefully never have to deal with another CFL again. Those swirly-headed nuisances truly are the compact discs of the lighting revolution.

Posted on: September 18, 2015, 12:59 pm Category: Admin