Pot Luck Supper!
Tuesday Nov. 23rd at 6pm at Little River Baptist Church. Come one come all! Bring some food, eat some food, bring a friend!
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Lobster Fishery
NS: Lobster fishermen anxious about start of season
By John Lewandowski, The Canadian Press
Source: The Canadian Press, November 17, 2010
[LOWER ARGYLE, NS] — Uncertainty tempers Ashton Spinney’s hopes as the Lower Argyle fisherman prepares his boat and traps for the opening of the fall lobster season, usually the year’s most profitable.
As catches rise, earnings have dropped.
“We just can’t face what we have the past two years,” said Spinney of the diminished returns fishermen in Atlantic Canada have reaped on the price of their catch. “There’s not enough margin to keep us going.”
In much of Nova Scotia, the year’s most lucrative fishery gets underway on the last Monday of November. Spinney will be joined by almost 1,800 other fishermen out of ports from Halifax to Digby to begin hauling a catch that was worth more than $400 million to the province in 2008, the latest figure available.
“When we came ashore for the first time last year buyers were offering $3.75 a pound and we told them to forget it if it was anything under $4,” he said. “That kind of return doesn’t pay for your gas and you’re always dipping into your savings to pay for things.”
Given the state of the economy, the decline in discretionary spending and the Canadian dollar’s move towards parity with the U.S. greenback, buyers say there’s not a lot they can do to alleviate the situation.
Denny Morrow, executive director of the Nova Scotia Fish Packers Association, says supply and demand also comes into play.
“Landings have been up over the past 10 years and that would tell you that, at least in the short term, more lobster on the market means lower prices,” he said. “Because 75 per cent of the catch goes to the U.S. we’ve also taken a pounding because of the exchange rate.”
Morrow said that about five years ago the dollar differential allowed them to sell lobsters in the U.S., pay fishermen $5.50 to $6 a pound and still realize a healthy margin.
He said the economy appears to be recovering but it’s still far from robust.
“It’s a last-minute guessing game where prices will be this year, but I certainly don’t see us returning to the wharf prices we had four or five years ago.”
In New Brunswick the first haul of the fall season has left fishermen feeling a little more upbeat than in recent years. Catches have been good and the price is higher — at least in the early going.
“Last year it started at $3.75 a pound and right now it’s between $4.25 and $4.75,” said Maria Recchia, executive director of the Fundy North Fishermen’s Association. “No one’s complaining about price so that’s good, but it is still kind of early.”
She said the price generally tends to drop a bit when the southwestern Nova Scotia lobster fishery opens.
The federal government has jumped into the fray, recently announcing a five-year, $65 million program aimed at helping fishermen adjust to the collapse in prices and build a more sustainable industry.
Ottawa is also trying to negotiate a deal with the European Union to try to soften the impact of a 25 per cent tariff on processed lobster products.
By John Lewandowski, The Canadian Press
Source: The Canadian Press, November 17, 2010
[LOWER ARGYLE, NS] — Uncertainty tempers Ashton Spinney’s hopes as the Lower Argyle fisherman prepares his boat and traps for the opening of the fall lobster season, usually the year’s most profitable.
As catches rise, earnings have dropped.
“We just can’t face what we have the past two years,” said Spinney of the diminished returns fishermen in Atlantic Canada have reaped on the price of their catch. “There’s not enough margin to keep us going.”
In much of Nova Scotia, the year’s most lucrative fishery gets underway on the last Monday of November. Spinney will be joined by almost 1,800 other fishermen out of ports from Halifax to Digby to begin hauling a catch that was worth more than $400 million to the province in 2008, the latest figure available.
“When we came ashore for the first time last year buyers were offering $3.75 a pound and we told them to forget it if it was anything under $4,” he said. “That kind of return doesn’t pay for your gas and you’re always dipping into your savings to pay for things.”
Given the state of the economy, the decline in discretionary spending and the Canadian dollar’s move towards parity with the U.S. greenback, buyers say there’s not a lot they can do to alleviate the situation.
Denny Morrow, executive director of the Nova Scotia Fish Packers Association, says supply and demand also comes into play.
“Landings have been up over the past 10 years and that would tell you that, at least in the short term, more lobster on the market means lower prices,” he said. “Because 75 per cent of the catch goes to the U.S. we’ve also taken a pounding because of the exchange rate.”
Morrow said that about five years ago the dollar differential allowed them to sell lobsters in the U.S., pay fishermen $5.50 to $6 a pound and still realize a healthy margin.
He said the economy appears to be recovering but it’s still far from robust.
“It’s a last-minute guessing game where prices will be this year, but I certainly don’t see us returning to the wharf prices we had four or five years ago.”
In New Brunswick the first haul of the fall season has left fishermen feeling a little more upbeat than in recent years. Catches have been good and the price is higher — at least in the early going.
“Last year it started at $3.75 a pound and right now it’s between $4.25 and $4.75,” said Maria Recchia, executive director of the Fundy North Fishermen’s Association. “No one’s complaining about price so that’s good, but it is still kind of early.”
She said the price generally tends to drop a bit when the southwestern Nova Scotia lobster fishery opens.
The federal government has jumped into the fray, recently announcing a five-year, $65 million program aimed at helping fishermen adjust to the collapse in prices and build a more sustainable industry.
Ottawa is also trying to negotiate a deal with the European Union to try to soften the impact of a 25 per cent tariff on processed lobster products.
NS and Economy
NS: Report reveals economic challenges for Nova Scotia
By Staff, Transcontinental Media
Source: The Daily Business Buzz, November 17, 2010
[HALIFAX, NS] — Today, Scotia Economics released a Provincial Trends Report indicating that Nova Scotia is expected to post real GDP growth of 1.9% in 2011, matching this year’s estimated output advance but lagging behind most other provinces.
After avoiding the worst of the recession, Nova Scotia has seen an uneven recovery in manufacturing and a further, albeit more moderate, decline in its energy sector. Private-sector services will be relied on to drive the economy.
The report also states that Canada’s growth performance has shifted to a lower gear, mirroring trends in the broader global economy. Growth will be relatively more robust in the West, with high commodity prices stoking resource investment and production, and supporting relatively firmer employment, income and spending trends. The Atlantic region is expected to see fairly steady, moderate growth in the year ahead.
“The slower national momentum over the spring and summer is expected to persist into 2011, reflecting a number of factors, including a winding down of inventory restocking, a cooling off in housing activity and a more cautious consumer,” said Alex Koustas, an economist with Scotia Economics. “Meanwhile, resource-related activity is ramping up alongside strong emerging market demand for key industrial products, which along with a weaker U.S. dollar, is boosting commodity prices.”
Trends to watch for in Nova Scotia:
• Private-service sector employment is driving job growth, as manufacturing continues to languish and construction slows. Nova Scotia’s finance, insurance and real estate sector as well as its professional services sector have expanded at an average yearly rate of 2.7% since 2000 — one of the fastest and most significant factors of growth for the province. Of particular note are the information technology and financial components, both of which have a larger stake in the economy than in most other provinces, while exhibiting growth at or above the national average.
• Nova Scotia has achieved modest population gains from 2000 to 2009, with international immigration being the main driver. Halifax has been the chosen destination for immigrants, with its population growing at an average annual rate of 1.5% over the decade — accounting for over three-quarters of total population growth — well ahead of the provincial average of 0.5%.
• To tackle its structural deficit and avoid a significant run-up in debt, Nova Scotia implemented a two percentage point rise in its Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) as of July 2010, filling the tax room vacated by Ottawa. While this measure will hasten the province’s deficit elimination, it will weigh on consumer expenditures.
By Staff, Transcontinental Media
Source: The Daily Business Buzz, November 17, 2010
[HALIFAX, NS] — Today, Scotia Economics released a Provincial Trends Report indicating that Nova Scotia is expected to post real GDP growth of 1.9% in 2011, matching this year’s estimated output advance but lagging behind most other provinces.
After avoiding the worst of the recession, Nova Scotia has seen an uneven recovery in manufacturing and a further, albeit more moderate, decline in its energy sector. Private-sector services will be relied on to drive the economy.
The report also states that Canada’s growth performance has shifted to a lower gear, mirroring trends in the broader global economy. Growth will be relatively more robust in the West, with high commodity prices stoking resource investment and production, and supporting relatively firmer employment, income and spending trends. The Atlantic region is expected to see fairly steady, moderate growth in the year ahead.
“The slower national momentum over the spring and summer is expected to persist into 2011, reflecting a number of factors, including a winding down of inventory restocking, a cooling off in housing activity and a more cautious consumer,” said Alex Koustas, an economist with Scotia Economics. “Meanwhile, resource-related activity is ramping up alongside strong emerging market demand for key industrial products, which along with a weaker U.S. dollar, is boosting commodity prices.”
Trends to watch for in Nova Scotia:
• Private-service sector employment is driving job growth, as manufacturing continues to languish and construction slows. Nova Scotia’s finance, insurance and real estate sector as well as its professional services sector have expanded at an average yearly rate of 2.7% since 2000 — one of the fastest and most significant factors of growth for the province. Of particular note are the information technology and financial components, both of which have a larger stake in the economy than in most other provinces, while exhibiting growth at or above the national average.
• Nova Scotia has achieved modest population gains from 2000 to 2009, with international immigration being the main driver. Halifax has been the chosen destination for immigrants, with its population growing at an average annual rate of 1.5% over the decade — accounting for over three-quarters of total population growth — well ahead of the provincial average of 0.5%.
• To tackle its structural deficit and avoid a significant run-up in debt, Nova Scotia implemented a two percentage point rise in its Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) as of July 2010, filling the tax room vacated by Ottawa. While this measure will hasten the province’s deficit elimination, it will weigh on consumer expenditures.
Labels:
nova scotia economy
via Dan Mills
“Infrasound: Your ears ‘hear’ it but they don’t tell your brain”
—Alec Salt, PhD, Department of Otolaryngology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, USA, at the “Symposium on Adverse Health Effects of Industrial Wind Turbines,” Picton, Ontario, October 29-31, 2010. (See the Cochlear Fluids Research Laboratory site, and “Responses of the Ear to Infrasound and Wind Turbines.”
Highlights:
“Physiologic pathway exists for infrasound at levels that are not heard to affect the brain. The idea that infrasound effects can be dismissed because they are inaudible is incorrect.”
“A-weighted measurements tell you NOTHING about infrasound content.”
“A-weighted spectra totally misrepresent the effects of wind turbine noise (that includes infrasound components) on the ear.”
“A-weighted level readings (e.g., 42 dBA) are totally meaningless for assessing whether turbine noise is affecting the ear.”
Click here to download a PDF of Dr. Salt’s PowerPoint slides, from which the following text was taken.
·
Wind turbines generate infrasound.
Wind turbine infrasound is at levels that cannot be heard.
Widely cited interpretations:
“If you cannot hear a sound … it does not affect you”—Leventhall G. What is infrasound? Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology 2007; 93:130–137
“Infrasound is negligible”—DELTA. Low Frequency Noise from Large Wind Turbines 2008
“Infrasound … is below the audible threshold and of no consequence”—Leventhall G. Canadian Acoustics 2006; 34:29-36.
This logic seems to be applied only to hearing. Consider other senses:
Taste: If you can’t taste it, it can’t affect you? Can you taste salmonella?
Smell: If you can’t smell it, it can’t affect you? Try breathing pure CO or CO₂
Sight: If you can’t see it, it can’t affect you? Photokeratitis, “snow blindness”, “welder’s flash”, cataracts, sunburn: Ultraviolet (UV) light is invisible; even though you can’t see it, UV does affect you. UV can harm you.
“If you can’t hear it, it can’t affect you” is only true:
if no other part of the ear is more sensitive than hearing, and
if no other part of the body is more sensitive than hearing …
and I will show this is not true.
Infrasound at moderate levels is detected by the ear.
Infrasound at levels generated by turbines affect the ear.
Vibrations cause a bending of the ear’s sensory hairs. The inner hair cells are connected to auditory (type I) nerve fibers that send signals to the brain. You “hear” with your inner hair cells.
Inner (IHC) and outer (OHC) hair cells respond differently as sound frequency is changed. IHC respond to velocity. OHC respond to displacement. OHC respond at approximately 40 dB below IHC sensitivity at 2 Hz.
Outer hair cells will be stimulated by wind turbine noise. (See graph, below.)
Outer hair cells do not just detect sound:
For low-amplitude high frequencies, OHC elongate when hairs are bent outwards, which makes stimulus greater for IHC (amplifies signal).
Amplifier becomes less effective (less necessary) for higher level sounds, ineffective about 40 dB above threshold (Reichenbach T, Hudspeth AJ. Proc Natl Acad Sci U.S.A. 2010)
High-Frequency stimulus: OHC elongate; Vibration amplitude at the IHC is amplified.
At very low frequencies, we know that bending the hairs laterally causes OHC to contract.
Infrasound stimulus: OHC contract; Vibration amplitude at the IHC is reduced.
OHC are detecting low-level infrasound and actively canceling it for the IHC.
Physiologic pathway exists for infrasound at levels that are not heard to affect the brain. The idea that infrasound effects can be dismissed because they are inaudible is incorrect.
Infrasound => OHC => (via type II nerve fibers) subconscious brain: ear fullness, ear pressure, discomfort, alerting/sleep disturbance
A-weighting corrects a sound measurement to represent what is heard, based on the human audibility (40 phon) curve. At 1 Hz, −148 dB correction, equivalent to dividing by 25 million.
Effect of A-weighting wind turbine noise: Massive (140 dB) de-emphasis of infrasound component. A-weighting may represent what you hear—but hearing does not give a reliable indication of whether the infrasound is affecting your ears.
“A-weighting” principle applied to UV light is equivalent to adjusting sunlight spectrum for what is visible and then saying: “There is nothing here that can harm you. You don’t need sunscreen. You don’t need sunglasses. Go spend all day laying out in the sun.” This approach isn’t rational when applied to light, so why do we accept similar logic applied to sound?
Measuring visible light (e.g., photographs) tells you NOTHING about UV content. Similarly, A-weighted measurements tell you NOTHING about infrasound content.
A-weighted spectra totally misrepresent the effects of wind turbine noise (that includes infrasound components) on the ear.
A-weighted level readings (e.g., 42 dBA) are totally meaningless for assessing whether turbine noise is affecting the ear.
Documenting Wind Turbine Sound
Most video cameras do not record the infrasound component of wind turbine noise.
Speaker systems in TVs and computers cannot play back the infrasound component.
Even if they did—you can’t hear it!
Video recordings of wind turbines give no indication of the infrasound level being produced.
Infrasound can only be measured with specialized instrumentation capable of detecting sounds down to approximately 1 Hz.
G-weighting weights infrasound components (excluding higher frequencies) according to human sensitivity curve.
G-weighted turbine measurements: For most of these conditions, the ear will be stimulated by the turbine noise. (Jakobsen J. Infrasound emission from wind turbines. Journal of Low Frequency Noise Vibration and Active Control 2005; 24:145-155.)
Other ways that infrasound could affect the ear:
Stimulation of vestibular hair cells (saccule, utricle).
Vestibular hair cells are “tuned” to infrasonic frequencies.
No-one has ever measured sensitivity to acoustic infrasound.
Symptoms: unsteadiness, queasiness
Disturbance of inner ear fluids (e.g. endolymph volume).
Low-frequency sound at non-damaging levels induces endolymphatic hydrops (a swelling of one of the fluid spaces).
Infrasound does affect endolymph volume—it is the basis of a treatment for hydrops (Ménière’s disease).
No one has ever measured what level of infrasound causes hydrops.
Symptoms: ear fullness, unsteadiness, tinnitus
Infrasound—affected structures and long-term exposure effects, ranked by sensitivity:
Outer hair cells — “Overworked, tired, irritated” OHC, type II fiber stimulation
Inner ear fluid homeostasis — Volume disturbance, endolymphatic hydrops
Saccular hair cells — Stimulation
Other, non-ear, receptors — Stimulation
Inner hair cells/hearing — None
Sensitivity and sensations remain to be quantified: ear pressure or fullness, discomfort, arousal from sleep; ear fullness, tinnitus, unsteadiness; unsteadiness; stress, anxiety.
“Wind Turbine Syndrome” — You cannot hear what causes the symptoms!
We need more research to define the sensitivity of these processes.
Sounds you cannot hear …
can affect you.
can disturb you.
can harm you.
can cause disease: auditory and balance disorders, effects of sleep deprivation are serious (hypertension, diabetes, mortality).
Conclusion and Recommendations
For years, people have been told that infrasound you cannot hear cannot affect you. This is completely wrong.
Because the inner ear does respond to infrasound at levels that are not heard, people living near wind turbines are being put at risk by infrasound effects on the body that no one presently understands.
Until a scientific understanding of this issue is established we should not be dismissing these effects, but need to be erring on the side of caution.
For industrial turbines a cautious approach could require :
setbacks of at least 2 kilometers (1.25 miles).
in-home monitoring of both A-weighted (audible) and G-weighted (infrasound) noise levels 24 hours/day for all dwellings within 2 miles.
health monitoring studies for those living within 2 miles (with consent).
Finally …
We need to stop ignoring the infrasound component of wind turbine noise and find out why it bothers people!
Wind turbine noise is not comparable to the rustling of leaves.
“Infrasound: Your ears ‘hear’ it but they don’t tell your brain”
—Alec Salt, PhD, Department of Otolaryngology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, USA, at the “Symposium on Adverse Health Effects of Industrial Wind Turbines,” Picton, Ontario, October 29-31, 2010. (See the Cochlear Fluids Research Laboratory site, and “Responses of the Ear to Infrasound and Wind Turbines.”
Highlights:
“Physiologic pathway exists for infrasound at levels that are not heard to affect the brain. The idea that infrasound effects can be dismissed because they are inaudible is incorrect.”
“A-weighted measurements tell you NOTHING about infrasound content.”
“A-weighted spectra totally misrepresent the effects of wind turbine noise (that includes infrasound components) on the ear.”
“A-weighted level readings (e.g., 42 dBA) are totally meaningless for assessing whether turbine noise is affecting the ear.”
Click here to download a PDF of Dr. Salt’s PowerPoint slides, from which the following text was taken.
·
Wind turbines generate infrasound.
Wind turbine infrasound is at levels that cannot be heard.
Widely cited interpretations:
“If you cannot hear a sound … it does not affect you”—Leventhall G. What is infrasound? Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology 2007; 93:130–137
“Infrasound is negligible”—DELTA. Low Frequency Noise from Large Wind Turbines 2008
“Infrasound … is below the audible threshold and of no consequence”—Leventhall G. Canadian Acoustics 2006; 34:29-36.
This logic seems to be applied only to hearing. Consider other senses:
Taste: If you can’t taste it, it can’t affect you? Can you taste salmonella?
Smell: If you can’t smell it, it can’t affect you? Try breathing pure CO or CO₂
Sight: If you can’t see it, it can’t affect you? Photokeratitis, “snow blindness”, “welder’s flash”, cataracts, sunburn: Ultraviolet (UV) light is invisible; even though you can’t see it, UV does affect you. UV can harm you.
“If you can’t hear it, it can’t affect you” is only true:
if no other part of the ear is more sensitive than hearing, and
if no other part of the body is more sensitive than hearing …
and I will show this is not true.
Infrasound at moderate levels is detected by the ear.
Infrasound at levels generated by turbines affect the ear.
Vibrations cause a bending of the ear’s sensory hairs. The inner hair cells are connected to auditory (type I) nerve fibers that send signals to the brain. You “hear” with your inner hair cells.
Inner (IHC) and outer (OHC) hair cells respond differently as sound frequency is changed. IHC respond to velocity. OHC respond to displacement. OHC respond at approximately 40 dB below IHC sensitivity at 2 Hz.
Outer hair cells will be stimulated by wind turbine noise. (See graph, below.)
Outer hair cells do not just detect sound:
For low-amplitude high frequencies, OHC elongate when hairs are bent outwards, which makes stimulus greater for IHC (amplifies signal).
Amplifier becomes less effective (less necessary) for higher level sounds, ineffective about 40 dB above threshold (Reichenbach T, Hudspeth AJ. Proc Natl Acad Sci U.S.A. 2010)
High-Frequency stimulus: OHC elongate; Vibration amplitude at the IHC is amplified.
At very low frequencies, we know that bending the hairs laterally causes OHC to contract.
Infrasound stimulus: OHC contract; Vibration amplitude at the IHC is reduced.
OHC are detecting low-level infrasound and actively canceling it for the IHC.
Physiologic pathway exists for infrasound at levels that are not heard to affect the brain. The idea that infrasound effects can be dismissed because they are inaudible is incorrect.
Infrasound => OHC => (via type II nerve fibers) subconscious brain: ear fullness, ear pressure, discomfort, alerting/sleep disturbance
A-weighting corrects a sound measurement to represent what is heard, based on the human audibility (40 phon) curve. At 1 Hz, −148 dB correction, equivalent to dividing by 25 million.
Effect of A-weighting wind turbine noise: Massive (140 dB) de-emphasis of infrasound component. A-weighting may represent what you hear—but hearing does not give a reliable indication of whether the infrasound is affecting your ears.
“A-weighting” principle applied to UV light is equivalent to adjusting sunlight spectrum for what is visible and then saying: “There is nothing here that can harm you. You don’t need sunscreen. You don’t need sunglasses. Go spend all day laying out in the sun.” This approach isn’t rational when applied to light, so why do we accept similar logic applied to sound?
Measuring visible light (e.g., photographs) tells you NOTHING about UV content. Similarly, A-weighted measurements tell you NOTHING about infrasound content.
A-weighted spectra totally misrepresent the effects of wind turbine noise (that includes infrasound components) on the ear.
A-weighted level readings (e.g., 42 dBA) are totally meaningless for assessing whether turbine noise is affecting the ear.
Documenting Wind Turbine Sound
Most video cameras do not record the infrasound component of wind turbine noise.
Speaker systems in TVs and computers cannot play back the infrasound component.
Even if they did—you can’t hear it!
Video recordings of wind turbines give no indication of the infrasound level being produced.
Infrasound can only be measured with specialized instrumentation capable of detecting sounds down to approximately 1 Hz.
G-weighting weights infrasound components (excluding higher frequencies) according to human sensitivity curve.
G-weighted turbine measurements: For most of these conditions, the ear will be stimulated by the turbine noise. (Jakobsen J. Infrasound emission from wind turbines. Journal of Low Frequency Noise Vibration and Active Control 2005; 24:145-155.)
Other ways that infrasound could affect the ear:
Stimulation of vestibular hair cells (saccule, utricle).
Vestibular hair cells are “tuned” to infrasonic frequencies.
No-one has ever measured sensitivity to acoustic infrasound.
Symptoms: unsteadiness, queasiness
Disturbance of inner ear fluids (e.g. endolymph volume).
Low-frequency sound at non-damaging levels induces endolymphatic hydrops (a swelling of one of the fluid spaces).
Infrasound does affect endolymph volume—it is the basis of a treatment for hydrops (Ménière’s disease).
No one has ever measured what level of infrasound causes hydrops.
Symptoms: ear fullness, unsteadiness, tinnitus
Infrasound—affected structures and long-term exposure effects, ranked by sensitivity:
Outer hair cells — “Overworked, tired, irritated” OHC, type II fiber stimulation
Inner ear fluid homeostasis — Volume disturbance, endolymphatic hydrops
Saccular hair cells — Stimulation
Other, non-ear, receptors — Stimulation
Inner hair cells/hearing — None
Sensitivity and sensations remain to be quantified: ear pressure or fullness, discomfort, arousal from sleep; ear fullness, tinnitus, unsteadiness; unsteadiness; stress, anxiety.
“Wind Turbine Syndrome” — You cannot hear what causes the symptoms!
We need more research to define the sensitivity of these processes.
Sounds you cannot hear …
can affect you.
can disturb you.
can harm you.
can cause disease: auditory and balance disorders, effects of sleep deprivation are serious (hypertension, diabetes, mortality).
Conclusion and Recommendations
For years, people have been told that infrasound you cannot hear cannot affect you. This is completely wrong.
Because the inner ear does respond to infrasound at levels that are not heard, people living near wind turbines are being put at risk by infrasound effects on the body that no one presently understands.
Until a scientific understanding of this issue is established we should not be dismissing these effects, but need to be erring on the side of caution.
For industrial turbines a cautious approach could require :
setbacks of at least 2 kilometers (1.25 miles).
in-home monitoring of both A-weighted (audible) and G-weighted (infrasound) noise levels 24 hours/day for all dwellings within 2 miles.
health monitoring studies for those living within 2 miles (with consent).
Finally …
We need to stop ignoring the infrasound component of wind turbine noise and find out why it bothers people!
Wind turbine noise is not comparable to the rustling of leaves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
