Jump to content

C&RT say don't empty your compost toilet in our bins.


Alan de Enfield

Featured Posts

18 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

Is he relying on the poo fairy to dispose of his "compost"?

 

(just couldn't be arsed to listen to all of it, gave up after a minute or two...)


Goodness knows. I have to admit to glazing over after a while. He's obviously got no damn sense when it comes to boating, as his opening line on toilets was that if he was buying a boat, he wouldn't even look at a boat with a pumpout. Whereas we all know you could be missing out on the perfect boat in every other way if you do that. 

He also fails to grasp the basics of boating, when he goes onto talk about increased engine wear/diesel consumption/servicing costs associated with the increased water consumption of conventional toilets as you have to visit waterpoints more often?? We all know you just incorporate water filling into your cruising, or do it at your mooring if not. Of course maybe he plans to CM!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I lost interest when he suggested that climate change might mean we can't afford to use a couple of gallons of water to flush the toilet. I thought that rather misses the point given that every time a boat passes through a lock it uses thousands of gallons of water!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, MtB said:

 

Makes me glad I didn't! 

 

 

Doesn't matter to me, my compost goes to grow food so it's as good as it gets as far as I am concerned. What happens when all the sanitary stations close as seems to be happening?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, peterboat said:

What happens when all the sanitary stations close as seems to be happening?

 

Sh*t happens !!!

 

Spread it out on the roof to dry, cut into 'cakes' and use it as fuel for the fire.

 

The experimental results show that the dry human faeces had a higher energy content (∼25 MJ/kg) than wood biomass.

 

Unlike well-established fuels with uniform fuel characteristics such as coal, the physical and chemical characteristics of human faeces vary with nutritional intake, health status, gender, body weight and age of individuals [1]. Faeces also possess complex compositional characteristics, such as the presence of a viscous “sticky” substance, possibly from the linings of the intestinal wall, which makes handling and pre-treating of the samples difficult. There is therefore the need to understand the combustion processes of human faeces and establish the right operating range for fuel conversion, considering sample variabilities and uncertainties. This study describes the combustion performance of a bench-scale downdraft combustor test rig when utilised for human faeces combustion. Initial set of analyses were conducted using simulant faeces and wood biomass to ensure repeatability, for fuel comparison and to understand the combustion operating conditions of the test rig. Parameters such as fuel moisture content, air flow rate, fuel pellet size and ignition mode were investigated. Performance evaluation was carried out on the basis of combustion temperature, fuel burn rate, modified combustion efficiency (MCE) and carbon conversion efficiency

 

An experimental investigation of the combustion performance of human faeces - PMC (nih.gov)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Sh*t happens !!!

 

Spread it out on the roof to dry, cut into 'cakes' and use it as fuel for the fire.

 

The experimental results show that the dry human faeces had a higher energy content (∼25 MJ/kg) than wood biomass.

 

Unlike well-established fuels with uniform fuel characteristics such as coal, the physical and chemical characteristics of human faeces vary with nutritional intake, health status, gender, body weight and age of individuals [1]. Faeces also possess complex compositional characteristics, such as the presence of a viscous “sticky” substance, possibly from the linings of the intestinal wall, which makes handling and pre-treating of the samples difficult. There is therefore the need to understand the combustion processes of human faeces and establish the right operating range for fuel conversion, considering sample variabilities and uncertainties. This study describes the combustion performance of a bench-scale downdraft combustor test rig when utilised for human faeces combustion. Initial set of analyses were conducted using simulant faeces and wood biomass to ensure repeatability, for fuel comparison and to understand the combustion operating conditions of the test rig. Parameters such as fuel moisture content, air flow rate, fuel pellet size and ignition mode were investigated. Performance evaluation was carried out on the basis of combustion temperature, fuel burn rate, modified combustion efficiency (MCE) and carbon conversion efficiency

 

An experimental investigation of the combustion performance of human faeces - PMC (nih.gov)

I will just compost its easier Alan and makes great plants food 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, peterboat said:

Doesn't matter to me, my compost goes to grow food so it's as good as it gets as far as I am concerned. What happens when all the sanitary stations close as seems to be happening?

 

 

I suggest the vast majority of boaters without a land base will bring their sh!t round to you for composting, given you have all the facilities.

 

:giggles:

  • Greenie 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So much fuss over something so easy to achieve, relatively inexpensive and so much better for the environment than current practice. Whatever, it's the direction of travel whether you like it or not and I believe it behoves organisations such as the CRT who have a stake in our natural environment anyway, to be leading the way and helping to facilitate practices which in the long run help to sustain it.

 

Veolia recycling-reuse-and-treatment-facilities

WASTE-COMPOST_975PX-325PX_0.jpg

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, chris.holden said:

So much fuss over something so easy to achieve, relatively inexpensive and so much better for the environment than current practice. Whatever, it's the direction of travel whether you like it or not and I believe it behoves organisations such as the CRT who have a stake in our natural environment anyway, to be leading the way and helping to facilitate practices which in the long run help to sustain it.

 

Veolia recycling-reuse-and-treatment-facilities

 

 

You are totally correct - maybe C&RT should add another £1000 to the liccence for those with waterless toilets (they are not composting toiilets are they !) to cover the additional handling costs and infrastructure costs to accomodate this.

 

Many marinas already ban boats with waterless toilets beacuse of the 'handling / processing' problems.

 

(I bet a lot of folk would then not admit to having a waterless toilet on board).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, chris.holden said:

So much fuss over something so easy to achieve, relatively inexpensive and so much better for the environment than current practice. Whatever, it's the direction of travel whether you like it or not and I believe it behoves organisations such as the CRT who have a stake in our natural environment anyway, to be leading the way and helping to facilitate practices which in the long run help to sustain it.

 

Veolia recycling-reuse-and-treatment-facilities

WASTE-COMPOST_975PX-325PX_0.jpg

Seams not so easy for a lot of boaters to achieve, hence the banning of putting compost waste into bins, as most was just un-composted raw excrement, mixed with sawdust. I’m seeing boaters now removing their compost toilets and fitting Cassette types, as they don’t want to use their compost toilets to compost correctly, also new boats being built with cassette or Pumpout toilets not composting. So something has gone wrong with the trend of a few year ago.

Edited by PD1964
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, chris.holden said:

So much fuss over something so easy to achieve, relatively inexpensive and so much better for the environment than current practice. Whatever, it's the direction of travel whether you like it or not and I believe it behoves organisations such as the CRT who have a stake in our natural environment anyway, to be leading the way and helping to facilitate practices which in the long run help to sustain it.

 

Veolia recycling-reuse-and-treatment-facilities

WASTE-COMPOST_975PX-325PX_0.jpg

Yes, composting human waste is a good thing. But all that happens on a boat is that the waste is partially dried. How then do you get that material safely, cleanly and affordably stored and transported to a suitable composting facility?

Edited by David Mack
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

You are totally correct - maybe C&RT should add another £1000 to the liccence for those with waterless toilets

 

I don't see why. Boaters with pumpouts and composting toilets pay for Elsans but don't use them. We don't use every service we contribute to, that's the nature of taxation and the distributed costs associated with living in a civilised society, and ensuring human waste is disposed of in a sustainable way benefits us all. Even this point is moot anyway since as I've already said, it's the direction of travel whether you like it or not, being more sustainable than any of the other solutions in the long term.

 

3 hours ago, PD1964 said:

Seams not so easy for a lot of boaters to achieve, hence the banning of putting compost waste into bins, as most was just un-composted raw excrement, mixed with sawdust. I’m seeing boaters now removing their compost toilets and fitting Cassette types, as they don’t want to use their compost toilets to compost correctly, also new boats being built with cassette or Pumpout toilets not composting. So something has gone wrong with the trend of a few year ago.

 

If I recall the starting point of this thread was that composters were told overnight that CRT guidance was changing and they could no longer do what they had previously been told they could. This was a management failure by the CRT and the results were entirely predictable, it has nothing to do with the behaviour of composting toilet users.

 

No one is using them incorrectly. A composting toilet itself is designed to start the process not complete it and given the marine application it is unlikely the end user is in a position to complete it either - but yes, a holistic solution is required to support the process.

 

3 hours ago, David Mack said:

Yes, composting human waste is a good thing. But all that happens on a boat is that the waste is partially dried. How then do you get that material safely, cleanly and affordably stored and transported to a suitable composting facility?

 

If councils can provide in some cases up to 4 different bins to categorise and collect household waste it is not beyond the wit of man, the CRT and companies such as Veolia to provide suitable collection facilities at rubbish points.

 

In my experience the 'atmosphere' shall we say, around and inside Elsan points is considerably more unpleasant than any effect of composting toilet users currently putting their double bagged waste into regular waste containers (which I am NOT condoning) so once a suitable collection point is provided I do not see the problem.

 

Honestly all I see is reactionary posts citing would are essentially trivial issues with what is otherwise a considerable improvement in the sustainable disposal of human waste over the long term. I don't get what would motivate anyone to be so negative. I appreciate changes in behaviour need to be supported by organisations such as the CRT to make them happen, but surely far better to encourage and lobby for positive change than simply resist what is, as I said before, the direction of travel.

Edited by chris.holden
grammar
  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris,

 

Welcome to the forum.

 

Nice to see you on here, we are often a bit reactionary but by-and-large, we are reasonable people.

 

I for one would not go back to my previous toilet arrangements, I prefer a dry toilet.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, chris.holden said:

 

I don't see why. Boaters with pumpouts and composting toilets pay for Elsans but don't use them. We don't use every service we contribute to, that's the nature of taxation and the distributed costs associated with living in a civilised society, and ensuring human waste is disposed of in a sustainable way benefits us all. Even this point is moot anyway since as I've already said, it's the direction of travel whether you like it or not, being more sustainable than any of the other solutions in the long term.

 

 

If I recall the starting point of this thread was that composters were told overnight that CRT guidance was changing and they could no longer do what they had previously been told they could. This was a management failure by the CRT and the results were entirely predictable, it has nothing to do with the behaviour of composting toilet users.

 

No one is using them incorrectly. A composting toilet itself is designed to start the process not complete it and given the marine application it is unlikely the end user is in a position to complete it either - but yes, a holistic solution is required to support the process.

 

 

If councils can provide in some cases up to 4 different bins to categorise and collect household waste it is not beyond the wit of man, the CRT and companies such as Veolia to provide suitable collection facilities at rubbish points.

 

In my experience the 'atmosphere' shall we say, around and inside Elsan points is considerably more unpleasant than any effect of composting toilet users currently putting their double bagged waste into regular waste containers (which I am NOT condoning) so once a suitable collection point is provided I do not see the problem.

 

Honestly all I see is reactionary posts citing would are essentially trivial issues with what is otherwise a considerable improvement in the sustainable disposal of human waste over the long term. I don't get what would motivate anyone to be so negative. I appreciate changes in behaviour need to be supported by organisations such as the CRT to make them happen, but surely far better to encourage and lobby for positive change than simply resist what is, as I said before, the direction of travel.

It's bad enough dog walkers now wanting someone else to deal with the excrement their pets produce. I reckon every dog owner ought to spend one month a year emptying dogwaste bins full time.

But now you want some other poor sod to get rid of your personal  crap too. Funny how it's always someone else who has to clear up the mess of the ecologically right on...

  • Love 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, frahkn said:

Chris,

 

Welcome to the forum.

 

Nice to see you on here, we are often a bit reactionary but by-and-large, we are reasonable people.

 

I for one would not go back to my previous toilet arrangements, I prefer a dry toilet.

 

And there's nothing wrong with separating/dry/composting [choose your term] toilets, they're an excellent idea so long as the waste is actually composted -- which from the survey when all this blew up, about a quarter of boaters with them fitted (like Peter) did, having landside facilities to do so.

 

The cost of providing extra "uncomposted compost" disposal facilities around the system is quite high -- the estimates were a 6-digit cost -- and this would also be fine if (for example) 20000 boaters (the majority) used these toilets at some green time in the future, the cost per boat would be reasonable. However the number was actually about 2% of boaters, and the other 98% don't see why they should pay extra to allow the 2% to use composting toilets... 😞

4 minutes ago, Bargebuilder said:

Councils make no fuss about providing numerous and widespread dog waste bins where raw excrement is deposited, so it can't be that difficult or expensive.

And it benefits millions of dog owners, and everyone else who doesn't want to tread in dogsh!t...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One wee point. Dog waste is bagged before being put in a dog poo bin but I understand that human waste from " composting toilets " is put into a composting facility or compost heap unbagged. I don't think you can compare dealing with the contents of dog poo bins with the handling of waste in human poo containers. Ok, we hear that composted human waste is not unpleasant to deal with but what about the period from production till it gets to that stage? 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, haggis said:

One wee point. Dog waste is bagged before being put in a dog poo bin but I understand that human waste from " composting toilets " is put into a composting facility or compost heap unbagged. I don't think you can compare dealing with the contents of dog poo bins with the handling of waste in human poo containers. Ok, we hear that composted human waste is not unpleasant to deal with but what about the period from production till it gets to that stage? 

Semi-dry toilet waste would be bagged if it was destined for a collection bin in the same way that dog poo is.

These bags are ripped off at the processing plant by a machine, so operatives shouldn't come into direct contact with the material.

There is, without doubt, the unresolved issue of dealing with the partially dried-out waste from separating toilets, but they do have major  advantages over pump-outs and cassettes, and maybe are overall better, both for the user and for the environment, with the only unsolved issue being the arrangement to collect and process the waste? 

 

I wonder where councils send the waste from dog bins?

 

The C&RT have already invested in pump-out facilities and spend fortunes struggling to maintain the same, plus, they are in effect also paying for the drinking water we use to flush down the toilet, assuming we fill up from canal-side water taps. 

 

If the waste were to be commercially composted for use as a soil conditioner and fertilizer, then the use of manufactured artificial fertilizer could be reduced. Such fertilizers being neither environmentally friendly to manufacture or to spread onto our fields with the resulting run-off into water courses. The recent rocketing of fertilizer prices should make composted humanure a more valuable product.

 

If the waste was sent to a digester, the gas produced could generate electricity and waste heat could heat glasshouses for the production of crops.

 

Not just the humanure from boats of course, but in 2010, composting toilets were given official approval by 'Building Control' for use in domestic dwellings as an alternative to flushing toilets.

 

I understand of course that nobody wants to pay, and I see no reason at all why they should, but maybe composting loos are the future???

 

Separating loos:

 

1. cost a tiny fraction to Instal; perhaps 1/10 or less of the cost of a macerator, tank and all the associated cabling and plumbing.

And:

Lower input of raw material and energy in the manufacture of a composter compared to the ceramics, pumps, plumbing and storage tanks of pump-outs.

2. Cannot block; ever.

3. Cannot smell within the boat and usually hardly noticeably outside. 

4. Require you to store two or three small buckets (10Kg each) of maturing compost, instead of hundreds of litres of the most foul smelling slurry.

5. Avoid the often unpleasant nature of macerator  toilet repairs and maintenance tasks.

6. Avoid the regular carting of heavy toilet cassettes and those splashes in the eye!

7. Vastly reduce the amount of water you need on board and so the frequency of fill-ups compared to a boat with a flushing macerator loo.

8. Avoid the need to contaminate highly processed and valuable, pure drinking water and the subsequent processing of liquid sewage, some of the processes being consumers of energy and chemicals.

9. Avoid the need to use 'blue' chemicals that may be toxic to the environment and to the bacteria that live in sewage treatment works.

10. Have almost zero maintenance costs: no macerator pump or control box failures, no flexible hose replacement, no aggressive 'black' water eating away at steel or even stainless steel tanks from the inside.

11. For static live-aboards, means no more trips to the pump-out in mid-winter when the canal might be frozen.

12. The compost produced is an excellent soil conditioner and useful fertiliser, reducing the need for energy hungry, industrially produced inorganic chemical fertilizers.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Bargebuilder said:

Semi-dry toilet waste would be bagged if it was destined for a collection bin in the same way that dog poo is.

These bags are ripped off at the processing plant by a machine, so operatives shouldn't come into direct contact with the material.

 

And there's the problem -- dedicated collection bins (not general waste or dog waste) are needed, and these have to be provided/emptied, and somehow other waste kept out of them, and then the result taken away and processed -- and somebody needs to make a profit out of this (or not lose money) or it won't happen.

 

All of which costs a lot of money, to service a few hundred boaters today. In the last discussion the guesstimate costs per boater using them came out similar to (maybe higher than...) pump-outs, which immediately removes one of the attractions of these toilets.

 

Bear in mind there are already two functioning methods of human waste disposal on the canals (cassettes/Elsan and pumpouts), both of which take advantage of an existing (paid-for) way of getting rid of the result (the sewage system), and probably each used by at least 10000 boaters. Cost to replace these just on the boats, at least £10M.

 

Fast-forward to a time in the sunlit uplands where most boaters use composting toilets and everything is fine. The problem is, how do we get to there from here?

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In 1989 when I bought our first liveaboard, a few gulible people had composting bogs, the idea has been pushed ever since and long before then. Take a look on current adverts in 2022 and see how many boats have pumpout/cassette and how many have " Dry " 🤣 toilets. There is a very good reason they are still very much in the minority, its that they arnt fit for purpose for the vast majority of boating lifestyles today, just as  all those years ago. I luv the term dry toilet 🤣 does it not make your eyes water, doing dry pee?

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Bargebuilder said:

Semi-dry toilet waste would be bagged if it was destined for a collection bin in the same way that dog poo is.

These bags are ripped off at the processing plant by a machine, so operatives shouldn't come into direct contact with the material.

 

Ok - a selectin of bullet points from the various legislation :

 

5 Offensive/hygiene wastes are the product of a healthy population (not known to be infectious). However, when handled, there is a residual health risk, which should be assessed, and appropriate precautions should be implemented. In addition, the waste can be offensive in appearance and smell. Provided the waste is appropriately wrapped, properly handled and free from excess liquid, the risk of ill health is considered to be low.

6 These wastes can include:

■ human and animal waste (faeces), incontinence pads, catheter and stoma bags, nappies, sanitary waste, nasal secretions, sputum, condoms, urine, vomit and soiled human bedding from a non­infectious source;

■ medical/veterinary items of disposable equipment such as gowns, plaster casts etc;

■ plasters (minor first aid or self care) generated by personal use;

■ animal hygiene wastes (animal bedding, dog faeces etc);

■ wastes from non­healthcare activities, for example wastes from body piercing or application of tattoos

 

 

 

9 Offensive/hygiene waste should only be processed by licensed facilities capable of safe handling and disposal

 

What hazards are associated with offensive/hygiene waste?

12 Offensive/hygiene waste has the potential to harm the health of those exposed to it. Typical effects can be:

■ skin/eye infections (eg conjunctivitis);

■ gastroenteritis (symptoms include stomach cramps, diarrhoea and vomiting)

 

Who can come into contact with it?

13 Occupations (and others) that may be exposed to offensive/hygiene wastes include:

■ collection workers/loaders;

■ pickers hand sorting on picking lines/conveyor belts of materials recovery facilities (MRFs);

■ maintenance engineers/employees working on conveyor belts of MRFs where waste is sorted or equipment used to shovel waste material onto conveyors;

■ vulnerable members of the public (eg children or elderly people)

 

Offensive waste must not be put into the same bins as general waste - it must be put into 'tiger-striped' bags and collected and dealt with separately.

 

 

17 Offensive/hygiene waste (yellow bag with black stripe) will require disposal at a suitably permitted or licensed landfill, incinerator or other permitted or licensed alternative treatment facility. This waste should not be compacted unless in accordance with the conditions of an environmental permit/waste management licence. Where compaction is authorised the operator should have procedures in place to contain, minimise, and monitor potential bio­aerosol releases. 18 Liquid offensive/hygiene waste cannot be sent for disposal to landfill but should be disposed of through the normal sewage system

 

All of this would require C&RT to have additional waste contracts and have additional trucks visiting the same locations for picking up general waste and again for the collection of Offensive waste. The cost of disposal of offensive waste is considerably higher than general waste.

 

Who is going to pay for (say) 1000 extra (special offensive waste) bins and pay for additional loading  (we pay £30 a 'lift' with Veolia) so that would be (say) £30,000 per week to visit and empty all the offensive waste bins.

50 weeks per annum = (I think) £1,500,000 additional cost - purely for emotying, there is then the additional 'hire cost' per week of each of the 1000 bins.

 

 

Who is going to stop boaters putting the general waste into the Offensive waste bin - or vice versa.

Currently it appears that some boaters just go close to the compound and then 'lob' the bags into the compound. That would not be very pleasant when a bag of sloppy faeces splits and spreads around the compound.

 

 

I'm guessing that you have not really given this much thought and certainly have not looked at the true implications of handling raw untreated faeces.

 

Jumping on the 'I'm Green' bandwagon requires a bit of thought.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

In 1989 when I bought our first liveaboard, a few gulible people had composting bogs, the idea has been pushed ever since and long before then. Take a look on current adverts in 2022 and see how many boats have pumpout/cassette and how many have " Dry " 🤣 toilets. There is a very good reason they are still very much in the minority, its that they arnt fit for purpose for the vast majority of boating lifestyles today, just as  all those years ago. I luv the term dry toilet 🤣 does it not make your eyes water, doing dry pee?

I remember many years ago there was one at the Foxton Lift visitor centre. I don't think it lasted that long.

38 minutes ago, Bargebuilder said:

I wonder where councils send the waste from dog bins?

 Probably Landfill

I understand of course that nobody wants to pay, and I see no reason at all why they should, but maybe composting loos are the future???

 Someone has to pay

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think some of the fans of composting toilets lose sight of what actually happens to human waste which comes out of pump out tanks or cassettes. I know there are exceptions when the waste goes into septic tanks but most of it makes its way via huge sewers to treatment plants. At these plants, there are numerous processes to extract what is usable from what comes in and this is deployed in numerous ways.  I watched a program on the subject a while ago and I was amazed at the uses extracts from human waste could be put to.  The human waste from composting toilets doesn't make its way into this process and while a few uses have been found, like growing vegetables, I don't think it can compete with what happens to stuff which finds its way into sewers.

I think the traditional method is more environmentally friendly but each to his own. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, haggis said:

I think some of the fans of composting toilets lose sight of what actually happens to human waste which comes out of pump out tanks or cassettes. I know there are exceptions when the waste goes into septic tanks but most of it makes its way via huge sewers to treatment plants. At these plants, there are numerous processes to extract what is usable from what comes in and this is deployed in numerous ways.  I watched a program on the subject a while ago and I was amazed at the uses extracts from human waste could be put to.  The human waste from composting toilets doesn't make its way into this process and while a few uses have been found, like growing vegetables, I don't think it can compete with what happens to stuff which finds its way into sewers.

I think the traditional method is more environmentally friendly but each to his own. 

 

I agree -- it also doesn't need several hundred bins to be made, installed, maintained, and emptied -- presumably by somebody driving a truck around. All of which is not very green... 😞

 

Composting toilets are great for something that doesn't move and can process and use the compost locally, such as isolated houses or Peter's boat. They make little or no sense for things that move around a lot (like RVs/motor-homes), and even less for ones that also can't quickly and easily drive to a disposal point (like boats).

 

They might appear "green" (and cheap and convenient) when you just look at the boat from the owner's point of view. But this alters when you look at the bigger picture, including all the issues of disposing of the waste.

Edited by IanD
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, haggis said:

I think the traditional method is more environmentally friendly but each to his own. 

 

The traditional method is to take it away and spread it on the fields raw.  That's what the honey wagons did ...

 

 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.