[OTE102] On the Edge with Nicole ‘Stoneleigh’ Foss

Stacy Summary: We interview Nicole ‘Stoneleigh’ Foss about Fukushima and deflation.

163 comments on “[OTE102] On the Edge with Nicole ‘Stoneleigh’ Foss
  1. Jayme says:

    @Robert Mockan

    I do hear what you are saying.

    “Waste disposal, admittedly, has been mis managed.”

    This happens with any waste product from any process. Nuclear energy itself is not the problem.

  2. t-rex and the slick pig says:

    @ronron love the music, but it should be, “look out IF you come to cleveland” and yes we have our own nuke plant about 25 miles out in perry, and yes its right on lake erie.

  3. foober says:

    @jayme, the point with the nuke industry, is. There is no safe way to control nuke material now or the last decades that they’ve made. Its a permanent disastor for all of us for 1,000”s of years. Until they can figure out how to difuse and make nuke material safe they shouldn’t make it.

    But then again were talking about greedy seflish people like the oil people that don’t care for life over making a buck and having power.

    The question should be how did these very evil energy people get in control of the earth. The first thing that shuld be done is arrest adn try all big oil and nuke people and try them for crimes against humaity.

    But humanity is bought off by these ashwipes. So no good happens.

  4. Keehotee says:

    The wisdom of Maxwell Igan

    http://thecrowhouse.com/032511.html

    I am another yourself

  5. John Q Public says:

    Glad to hear Radation is Bad for Humans.

    So it depends on the which way the wind blows?

    Dont Store spend fuel rod on top of the reactor in case the roof blow off.

    Storing Danger Danger More and More Spend fuel Rods in suspended animation until we figure what to do with them. ??XF**k=Skyword..

    Wait till the Humans left Glow then impliment Codex Maxium Irradiate Food then finally solution say they can eat spent fuel rods mixed with GMO radition Immune Food Stuffs.
    Yum Yum.

    Reference to self ,
    Dont eat the yellow cake or the yellow snow.
    (Sorry no spell check still use dos.)..;-)

  6. @F.Beard

    Yah, I have to admit, I never really considered the Thorium (i.e. LFTR) reactor before.
    (Thx MirrorMirror for hammering on the topic ;) )
    I’ve just been thinking “next generation”, which seems to have its roots (at least 3 of the designs, anyway) based on this LFTR technology.

    Either way, the ability to “burn” up the “waste” from LWRs is there.
    So once again, another part in the paranoids’ argument is dismissed.
    I’m a little surprised, however, that Foss (being an “expert”… ahem) didn’t know more about this. Then again, it seems one can go through a PhD in Nuclear Engineering and never even come across this topic.

    PS. there are another 2 or 3 TechTalks on this subject. I need to watch them still.

  7. :lol:

    Kirk Sorensen came back in Dec 2010 to give another TechTalk on
    Is Nuclear Waste Really Waste?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rv-mFSoZOkE

    This is another good one (and shorter, too)
    I just noticed. some of the products from the Nuclear Fuel Cycle are REEs (although it mostly seems like Yttrium, but I think Dysprosium and Neodymium are in there,too)
    So, there is potentially another beneficial use for “waste”.

  8. AlienApeHybrid says:

    We seem to have painted ourselves into a technological corner.

    Not to worry though…another bite from the tree of knowledge will surely fix everything. :)

  9. FranSix says:

    #Genpatsu on twitter heating up, they’re just starting their day:

    http://twitter.com/#search?q=%23genpatsu

  10. Mark Lytle says:

    For all of those that think that all water power in the U.S. and elsewhere has already been tapped:

    http://practicalaction.org/practicalanswers/product_info.php?products_id=362

    RIVER TURBINES

    No new dams required, just fast flowing water.

    This is a relatively NEW option……

  11. Mark Lytle says:

    Also like to suggest GEOTHERMAL.

    Currently depleted oil and gas wells, sufficiently deep, can function like small Nuclear plants using earths heat.

    And this:

    Germany continues breaking clean energy records

    http://peakenergy.blogspot.com/2011/03/germany-continues-breaking-clean-energy.html

    s the nuclear reactor accident at the Fukushima Daiichi plant continues to dominate the world’s attention, Germany has quietly broken more renewable energy records.

    The conservative government of Chancellor Angela Merkel, struggling to stay ahead of public attitudes toward nuclear power in the run-up to regional elections, issued its annual report on the contribution of renewable energy to the German energy market in 2010.

    Wind turbines, hydroelectric plants, solar cells, and biogas digesters now provide nearly 17 percent of Germany’s electricity.

    he reports on the rapid growth of renewable energy in Germany may give Merkel’s government the cover it needs to reverse direction on nuclear power, and by doing so reverse its faltering political fortunes.

    Germany uses an advanced system of feed-in tariffs to pay for renewable energy generation, and has an aggressive target of meeting 39 percent of its electricity supply with renewable energy by 2020. Its system of advanced renewable tariffs has enabled Germany to exceed its 2010 target of 12.5 percent by a wide margin.

    Chart.New renewables near 17 percent of electricity supply in 2010: The German Ministry for the Environment and Reactor Safety reports [PDF] that in 2010, renewable energy generated more than 100 TWh (billion kilowatt-hours) of electricity, providing nearly 17 percent of the 600 TWh of supply.

    Wind turbines and biomass plants delivered more than 70 percent of renewable generation.

    Biogas plants powered with methane from manure alone generated nearly 13 TWh.

    In 2010, renewables generated more electricity in Germany than gas-fired power plants — nearly as much as hard coal — and are fast approaching the contribution of nuclear power.

  12. Mark Lytle says:

    N U C L E A R N O T N E E D E D !

  13. Jayme says:

    @foober – I don’t know enough about the research into eliminating radioactive waste. Some seem to think it can be done but I am highly skeptical about this too. I do know that it can’t be very simple or cheap to do because the ‘solutions’ for dealing with waste disposal range from pathetic to none.

    Everyone of these grand plans to bring the world great new breakthroughs always seem to end up lining the pockets of the financial backers who leave the waste and clean up bill to the people, after the economic party is over.

    The essential failure is unbridled greed and desire for power and control which are based on fear and addiction due to trauma of a hostile environment.

    “Fear produces a desire for an invulnerable defense. The world is dangerous so you gotta be prepared to get the other person before they get you.” Sam Keen making a point about how our thinking works in an environment of fear.

    These power brokers are psychologically damaged through acculturation to violence and fear. I resonate with Gabor Mate’s research into these areas.

    So, basically, I agree (to a point) but I do not think that doing away with those greedy selfish people alone would fix the problem without changes in the laws and institutions themselves. I do think that some very specific examples could be made – some clear cases where these crooks are tried and brought to justice which would certainly move the culture into a less fearful condition. However, I have to agree with Max that it is unlikely to happen without the entire system collapsing. It really is a house of cards and no amount of renovation will make it stand.

    I think Max and Stacy are right to ‘follow the money’ in their analyses as a root cause of these systemic problems. Even if it doesn’t work 100% of the time, money does tend to be a strong temptation to the compromise of moral behavior and the love of it above life is the root of suffering for most.

  14. Mark Lytle says:

    The world’s wind resource

    Researchers at Stanford University’s Global Climate and Energy Project recently did an evaluation of the global potential of wind power, using five years of data from the US National Climatic Data Center and the Forecasts Systems Laboratory[1]. They estimated that the world’s wind resources can generate more than enough power to satisfy total global energy demand. After collecting measurements from 7,500 surface and 500 balloon-launch monitoring stations to determine global wind speeds at 80 metres above ground level, they found that nearly 13% had an average wind speed above 6.9 metres per second (Class 3), sufficient for economical wind power generation. Using only 20% of this potential resource for power generation, the report concluded that wind energy could satisfy the world’s electricity demand in the year 2000 seven times over.

    http://www.gwec.net/index.php?id=148

  15. Mark Lytle says:

    West Virginia Said to Be Considering a Geothermal Energy Future

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/14/idUS316118491920110314

    A Google-funded study, which found enormous geothermal potential in West Virginia, is reinivogorating the push to develop the resource in the coal state.

    Funded by grants from Google.org, the Geothermal Laboratory found the state’s geothermal generation potential to be at 18,890 megawatts, a 75 percent rise from MIT’s earlier estimates.

    That figure is more than West Virginia’s total current generating capacity of 16,350 megawatts — almost all of which comes from coal-fired plants, the report says.

  16. Jayme says:

    …another bite from the tree of knowledge will surely fix everything. – AlienApeHybrid

    LOL – yep.

    @Keehotee – I like the Century of Self. Good series.

    @Mark Lytle – River turbines are an interesting thought… but then I live in a desert :-( However there may be some geothermal activity in my area but I haven’t checked into its viability.

  17. Mark Lytle says:

    @Jayme

    Somewhere I’ve seen a U.S. map of potential geothermal resources…I will try to find it again..

    here’s a recent story:

    Jan. 21, 2011, 9:59 a.m. EST·CORRECTED
    Geothermal energy picking up steam
    Industry planning up to $6 billion in construction

    http://www.marketwatch.com/story/geothermal-energy-picking-up-steam-2011-01-19?siteid=bigcharts&dist=bigcharts

    Some technological advances also have made geothermal more attractive, Gawell elaborated. Use of fluids with lower boiling points than water in geothermal plants has helped reduce the amount of heat needed from the sources, he said. That means wells may not have to be drilled as deeply as before, resulting in a cost savings.

    In recent years, the potential for geothermal has moved beyond its base in the Western United States to include resources in Louisiana, North Dakota and West Virginia.

    Investors seeking exposure to geothermal in the United States already have a number of options for pure-play companies including Ormat Technologies Inc. (ORA 24.96, -0.09, -0.36%) , Nevada Geothermal Power Inc. (NGLPF 0.66, +0.02, +2.64%) Magma Energy Corp. (CA:MXY 1.25, 0.00, 0.00%) , Raser Technologies Inc. (RZTI 0.14, -0.0040, -2.76%) , U.S. Geothermal Inc. (HTM 1.08, -0.01, -0.92%) and Ram Power Corp. (CA:RPG 1.44, +0.06, +4.35%)

    Several conglomerates take part in the geothermal industry as well, including Calpine Corp. (CPN 15.80, +0.09, +0.57%) and Berkshire Hathaway’s (BRK.A 127,869, +119.00, +0.09%) MidAmerican Energy Co.

  18. susan says:

    Fukushima owned by GE; GE started by Edison; Edison rival of Tesla; Tesla invented free ernegy; Tesla died in poverty; GE now second-largest Corp in world; GE pays no taxes. Is there a pattern here?

    http://leguerrat.blogspot.com/

  19. Mark Lytle says:

    @susan

    Be careful. There is no ‘free energy’..

    Lots of myth and crap going around these days about Tesla.

    Smart guy?
    Yes.

    Created ‘magical’ free energy?
    No.

    Think about it, the sunlight and the wind are already free energy, but you need equipment to harness it.

    Would some other form of energy not need equipment to make it available, also? Would this equipment be free?

    Probably not.

    Windmills and solar panels aren’t free either.

  20. I guess Geo-thermal induced earthquakes are just a minor nuisance, too.

    (i’d post a link from IEEE Spectrum, but the filter denies it. The article’s title is:
    Earthquakes Hinder Green Energy Plans)

  21. Mark Lytle says:

    @Piccola Economista

    They’re generally small.

    Oil and gas drilling occasionally, and extraction of deep aquifer water extraction,more rarely, does the same thing.

    Seems not enough reason to stop drilling for oil and gas, I guess.

    I think very large hydroelectric dam projects have also been accused of doing this, but they go ahead with them anyway.

  22. Mark Lytle says:

    @Piccola Economista

    Just do a Google search on “oil and gas drilling” and “earthquakes”

    I get 212,000 results. So there IS a problem.

    We can always give up driving…

  23. Mark Lytle says:

    @Jayme

    I see you found some of those Geothermal maps. I’m thinking now that a lot of the eastern states have them too, if you go to each state’s geologic group’s page..

  24. Mark Lytle says:

    I think the biggest problem with Geothermal is that Nuclear advocates just have to have their radioisotopes above ground where they can see them.

    It’s just so boring having them deep underground, making heat and electricity for you AND STAYING DOWN THERE.

    Also, there is some rock disposal when you drill a well, but it’s not as impressive as a huge, ugly, open pit mine.

    People just love those big holes in the ground.

    Little holes are, well, boring.

    I know this is why so few people have an interest in Geothermal..

  25. Mark Lytle says:

    Both Nuclear and Geothermal basically heats water to make steam and run a turbine/generator, they are very, very similar.

    Of course, I’m failing to mention that Geothermal plants can break down and stop operating, but only Nuclear has the capacity to kill thousands and sicken many, many times that number.

    So it’s obvious why Nuclear is the preferred technology, right?

    Makes sense to me…

  26. ZORRO LONDON says:

    Fukashima….

    From this mornings BBC

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12872707

    And is the Japanese stock market reacting accordingly?

    Looks like theres going to be increasing printing of the YEN……………..Z

  27. Jonathan says:

    Excellent interview. You must have her on many more times. She was great loved listening to her.

  28. Jayme says:

    Hmmm. Geothermal energy is largely due to nuclear heating. I expect no one has figured out how to put meters on heat extraction from the core so it isn’t ‘economically viable’ because no one has figured out how to make much money off it.

    PROS AND CONS OF GEOTHERMAL ENERGY
    http://www.energy-consumers-edge.com/pros_and_cons_of_geothermal_energy.html

    Geothermal Resource Council Data shown below compares global continental (not including deep ocean resources)geothermal energy resources to global oil reserves.

    Units: Billions of barrels of oil equivalent

    Crustal Heat—————–79,000,000

    Thermal Aquifers——————–130

    Oil Reserves———————–5,300

    *Annual Global Energy Consumption—-70

    *A Stanford University Wind Power Study shows total annual global Btu consumption from all sources of about 50 to 70 billion barrels of oil equivalent.

    —-

    In my area, it looks like a variety of applications are possible but mostly the use is for things like warming greenhouses. Kinda odd but it seems like a highly plausible use is to simply warm one’s house in the winter. That would save a lot on fuel oil in the cold states and really appears to be low tech – a hole in the ground with water and a generator.

  29. FranSix says:

    The Simpsons censored on European TV (translated from spanish)

    http://tinyurl.com/4smhzkf

  30. Mark Lytle says:

    @Jayme

    Just below the data you presented it also said this:

    *A Stanford University Wind Power Study shows total annual global Btu consumption from all sources of about 50 to 70 billion barrels of oil equivalent.

    Thermal aquifers are the primary source of geothermal electrical power using current technology. That 130 billion barrels of oil equivalent masks the fact that geothermal resources are a form of nuclear power and can continue to provide those energy supplies year after year, decade after decade, century after century.

    Fossil fuel reserves, on the other hand, may be gone in a few decades.”

    So the 130 Billion barrels of oil equivalent, almost twice our current total global energy consumption, can go on for hundreds and hundreds of years

    Also, I think that article doesn’t address recent advances in low-temperature Geothermal which is a far bigger resource both geographically and in BTU’s then the high temperature sites used for comparison in the tables shown…

    In short, it’s a great resource..

  31. Jayme says:

    “Little holes are, well, boring.” – Mark Lytle

    I wouldn’t have been interested when I was younger. I wanted to do accomplish great things. Delusions of grandure. A shame, really.

    @ Keehotee – animation didn’t come up.

    @ ZORRO LONDON – crap ! 10 million times more radiation than normal.

    ‘nite all.

  32. Mark Lytle says:

    Because it’s so incredibly sensible and low-cost, and low footprint, Geothermal is having a difficult birth.

  33. Yah, Geothermal is interesting.
    Personally, I think it is better for heating a home, instead of generating electricity (and you don’t need to dig a hole 3+ km underground either… I think you can do heating with a 2m trench, especially if you live near a lake).

    BTW how many MWatts is $6Bn going to get?
    I remember seeing a presentation by one of the boys from Casey Research at a Resource Conf where they said the initial cost was steep, but then the operating costs are comparable to “traditional” methods in the long run.

    The U.S. Geological Survey estimates the United States possesses 350,800 megawatt-hours (MWh) of geothermal resources—enough to satisfy 10 percent of current U.S. electricity demand—that can be tapped with existing, off-the-shelf technologies.

    I guess the question is, where does the other 90% of the electricity supply come from, assuming all the GeoThermal resource is tapped?
    Or are the USGS numbers WAY off?

  34. Jayme says:

    @ Mark Lytle – I think you’re onto something with the geothermal and free energy in general.

  35. Jayme says:

    @Mark L. – I should have put quotes around “free energy” – in reference to your comment to susan.

  36. Mark Lytle says:

    @Piccola Economista

    “Or are the USGS numbers WAY off?”

    Read what I and Jayme just posted:

    The earth is a huge fission reactor, 4000 miles wide. We can with current technology tap into and supply twice the ENTIRE Global energy budget for hundreds and hundreds of years.

    Period.

    The USGS figures are, well, stupid.

    They know better. The problem is this thing called the Oil and Gas lobby. Kapish?

  37. Mark Lytle says:

    If you add in advances in low-temperature Geothermal, you could probably multiply those estimates by 4 or 6, i.e. 8 to 12 times the entire global energy budget we have now, for maybe thousands of years, with virtually no emissions of any kind.

    The oil and gas people hate this…and so do the Nuclear people….

  38. Lynne says:

    Very interesting speaker. It was good to hear that the net energy from nuclear is low. I have always HATED the idea of nuclear energy because of the waste. I think there should be a detailed cost benefit study of all types of energy production. The difficulty will be making this objective. As soon as you get interested parties, the bribes start to flow and the ‘research’ gets distorted. I’m not sure that wind is the answer because the wind farm I sometimes pass is motionless quite often. Tidal energy should be an interesting one for the UK. Maybe there is no such thing as a free lunch. But the nuclear industry has to be the best example ever of market failure – kicking all the problems down the road for society to solve, while some fat cats make a fortune.

  39. Mark Lytle says:

    Contrary to what the oil and gas, and Nuclear lobbies will tell you, most of the Renewables can do similar levels of energy production, although wind and solar need to develop some kind of storage technology to smooth out their intermittent output.

    We just like breathing chemical toxins and radiation, that’s all….

    Actually, I have a hunch the Human race is toast, anyway.

    Do the math.

    Japan is now rated at 70% of Chernobyl, which was one bad sumbitch of an accident. That’s after, what, two weeks?

    Now, they’re saying this could go on for months?

    Isn’t anybody realizing what this is?

    Do the math.

    I’m not trying to be dramatic, (I sometimes can be) but you’re going to kill a sizable portion of the entire Northern Hemisphere if this clusterf**K goes on for months.

    Try this:

    6 months = 24 weeks

    (24 weeks/ 2 weeks) * ( .70 Chenobyls) = 12* .70 = 8.4 Chernobyls

    1 year would be twice that, or 16.8 Chernobyls

    Doesn’t anybody on this damn planet but me understand what that means?

  40. Mark Lytle says:

    Further, at one point does the earthquake hammered, irradiated population of Japan just ‘lose it’, individually and/or collectively. They are currently operating 50 additional Nuclear plants. When does something happen to one of the other 50, just because some grief stricken, depressed, maxed out person throws the wrong switch?

  41. Umm…
    The theoretical heat of the Earth doesn’t mean you can tap it all, and then send it to America.
    One could use that sort of logic to say the SUN could power the solar-system’s electricity needs for a gajillion years.

    Don’t get me wrong, if it can work, then great.
    But keep it realistic, you’re not going to send electricity from Iceland to New York, right? Or are we going to start using Tesla’s ideas of electrical transmission now?

    Nevertheless, if the electricity generation can be scaled up as you purport, then at least the western states would get more than enough power, I suppose.
    But that still leaves the larger chunk in the grid out East without benefit.

    BTW what are these other fluids that are proposed for use? Iso-Butane?

  42. Marc Authier says:

    EXTREME radiation now detected at reactor 2. One after the others the reactors are cracking and melting away. Last week it was reactor 3. Now it’s two. This crisis is potentially 24 times bigger than Chernobyl. You will notice how these bastards from Tepco announce the bad news bit by bit. Just as if it will make a difference when the 6 reactors all melt down.

    http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/27_12.html

  43. jischinger says:

    educational

    Radiation & its Effects to you Body 101 – Fukushima Nuclear Plant Japan
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDri43B22oA

  44. whoa…
    slow down with the Chernobyl comparison

    50Sv in ten minutes (i.e. 300 Sv/hr at Chernobyl)
    is a far cry from 1 Sv/hr in a pool of basement water at Reactor 2.
    Wait for the explosion before bringing up comparisons like that.

  45. Mark Lytle says:

    Take this a step further. I would assume the elites can do math too.

    How many of them do you think are entering their expensive shelters now?

    I’ll bet you, a WHOLE BUNCH.

    Watch and see when major Congressmen and Billionaires start ‘disappearing’. If you see that, it’s over…

  46. Mark Lytle says:

    I’m hearing 70% Chernobyl on main news. CNN. That’s Radio-Iodine and Cesium.

    Granted, it’s not particles of uranium or plutonium, because the reactor core didn’t spit out of it’s hole like Chernobyl did. Much of the cancers caused at distance were from the Iodine and cesium, the heavy stuff generally didn’t make it as far…get what I’m saying?

  47. Mark Lytle says:

    You have 4 reactors in different stages of meltdown, it’s not a reach to make comparisons and a reasonable guess that the four cores are pouring out something similar to Chernobyls one core, minus the real heavy stuff.

    I think the comparison is reasonable.

    I think the media is Bullshit.

  48. Mark Lytle says:

    “50Sv in ten minutes (i.e. 300 Sv/hr at Chernobyl)
    is a far cry from 1 Sv/hr in a pool of basement water at Reactor 2.”

    I’m not convinced the Japanese government isn’t lying their butts off on these numbers. Without independent corroboration, I wouldn’t trust them at all.

  49. Mark Lytle says:

    Reactor Core May Be Breached at Damaged Fukushima Plant

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-22/nuclear-plant-s-fuel-rods-damaged-leaking-into-sea-tokyo-electric-says.html

    Wind will carry the radionuclides for a “short while” inland, the center said on its website. Reactors at Fukushima may have released as much as 20 percent of the radioactive iodine and up to 60 percent of the radioactive cesium that resulted from the Chernobyl meltdown in 1986, according to the report yesterday.

    I earlier saw a 70% figure somewhere. Remember these reactors are DETERIORATING.

    The rate of emissions will probably climb as the damage to all 4 cores worsens…

  50. Mark Lytle says:

    So what I’m saying here is:

    (1) The Japanese government, like ours, is probably lying. Lying a lot.

    (2) You have 4 cores, all getting steadily worse, with the workers near them spending shorter and shorter amounts of time trying to contain them because they are getting more and more dangerous to be around higher levels of radiation as the damage increases.

    (3) They have already collectively emitted a fair percentage of the level of Chernobyl’s wind carried contamination.

    (4) the powers that be are saying this goes on for many months.

    Doesn’t look good to me….

  51. Mark Lytle says:

    I suspect the Japanese are regretting that they put six cores so close together. The ones that aren’t so bad still need constant ‘nursing’ to keep them cool.

    If some event happens that’s real severe at any one of the six, such that humans can’t stay at the complex at all, Well, you know, the water boils away at the rest. Then it starts getting kinda bad.

  52. Mark Lytle says:

    Well, I hope I’m wrong, I’m not hoping for death for lots of people (including me).

    But I am puzzled that so few people have done the simple calculations that show we _could_ be seeing an unparalleled disaster far beyond Chernobyl.

    People should be much more angry than they are…

  53. Marc Authier says:

    @Mark Lytle

    Reactor 2. Radio-activity at unit number 2 dramatically at 10,000,000 times the usual radio-activty levels ! WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON ! It’s the lies that are unbearable. 10 million times the usual radio-activity levels. Can you just imagine what the hell is going on in the reactor ?

    http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/27_12.html

  54. susan says:

    @Mark Lytle

    Thanks for all of your comments here.

    Appreciated.

    Good Luck everyone!

  55. El_Puerco says:

    A Nice Expose of the atomic plant…….
    I would like if it is possible, came back with the Canadian housing Bubble..

    Nos gustaría si es posible que, se vuelva a tocar el tema de las Hipotecas en Canadá..

    Saludos..

  56. Febo says:

    You can’t dismiss her. And remember – she says
    a) the dollar will be going sharply up
    b) PMs are not adviseable

    Good episode.

  57. AS says:

    max la menace your hair are growing again, what is it that you are using… silver powder ?

Access The Max Keiser Podcast
Weekly Downloads, live Q & A Session and exclusive video posts from Max and Stacy

Subscribe Learn More
Buy Gold Online
Buy Gold Online
Watch the latest Keiser Reports:


Watch our Google Hangouts: