Bill Davenhall: Your health depends on where you live

[crudhousefull]

The only people that don't want to be tracked are the ones that are ashamed of what they have done and what they would do in the future coupled with a completely lack of insight into human causality. I don't fear tyrants because karma is quite self-evident. No one can do anything unethical for too long without it coming back and biting them in the ass

[nicolecarter58]

great video..very interesting..thanks!



[everynewdaysk]

interesting but the better question to ask is why is it that people in pennsylvania or otherwise have a greater risk of heart attack? is it due more to diet, air pollution, water quality, etc? if we can determine what's causing such high rates of disease we can find a better solution like, reduce emissions as opposed to just moving somewhere else

[AbsentiaeAddoAccendo]

Nietzsche wrote about this a hundred years ago...

[bertthebetrayer]

I was hoping he actually survived getting hit by a train.

[ecstatica23]

5:10 hey it's Patch Adams again :P

[ebd33]

Does the chart on heart attacks reflect population density also?

More people means more heart attacks

[Aerosteon]

Alternatively we could just stop dumping toxic crap into the air. Most people don't have the means to move across the country to escape pollution.

[roidroid]

i think i'd take it more seriously if this talk was by a DOCTOR Bill Davenhall.

Otherwise i'm inclined to just write it off as quackery.

[iceifrit]

@roidroid Yes, because 30 years of experience in data analysis is not good enough.... do some research next time please.

[newn0z]

How do i find this map online?

how do i find maps of other places in on the globe online?

I can imagine that a lot of information could be gathered about a lot of things. Right now we have a drought and the dams are low. How can i know the quality of my drinking water through this? (one example) Can we know how much living in the LA area for 40 years has effected me and how much moving away from LA has helped?

I have a lot of questions How do i get any answers ??

[nordictk]

Although environment can play some role in health, what's far more important is the issue of smoking, exercise and diet. Smoking is the most preventable cause of death in the US. Avoiding 2nd-hand smoke also important. Obesity is a huge problem, as is the lack of exercise. In the grand scheme of things, except for those individuals with high job-related exposure to gases, etc, personal choices on diet, exercise, smoking and substance abuse have a far greater impact on health. - an MD

[TheMonsterzero]

5:11--5:16 you can see the real Patch Adams turn around and face the audience

[uuubeut]

Hey genius! what about the life expectancy of Palestinians living under Jewish occupation or other crimes against humanity!

[dooovde]

So they take a geograpical history? The only people I see benefitting from this are the health insurance companies.

Be a lot better if they had a questions and answer section at the end of each of these lectures.

[lemonlees]

Health insurance has many bad points. Hopefully for you Obama will get his social health bill passed.

[BillDavenhall]

Connect the dots for yourself - get an idea on how this app could work with different types of health data - you can put in your actual place history - put "geomedicine GIS" into your favorite search engine.

[seededfury]

I love videos that expand my awareness!

[TheAchtungZ]

Fascinating! What have I been exposed to?

[CityzenJane]

Go the the EPA site - look up TRI - you can check at the zip code level.

[PlayT0E]

Major corporations don't want your location history to show up in your health care profile. They want to pollute without restraint.

[1888junkteam]

excellent work!

[1888junkteam]

excellent work!

[TrueHealthSolutions]

Where we live is a part of a holistic view of our health, along with our diet choices & how we spend our time. It is never to late to design your life. We also owe it to each other & future generations, to make our world a better place to live.

[FOUADMKHAN]

People, hurricane katrina was a terrorist attack... check out the book called katrina nights.

[Aprilshowersss]

lol

[Paulginz]

When did CO2 suddenly become toxic?

Just for that, I have a hard time taking this guy seriously.

[CityzenJane]

It appears to me that you weren't paying attention.

[Paulginz]

Maybe.

My understanding is that the point he tries to make is that environmental factors have a large impact on health. He then lists places he's been and gives examples of pollution in those areas which he thinks may hypothetically have impacted his health.

Amongst the examples of such pollutants from factories/cars he lists carbon dioxide.

What piece of the puzzle did I miss?

[AutodidacticPhd]

Have you ever stuck your head in a cooler full of dry ice and taken a deep breath?

[CityzenJane]

LOL.

[Paulginzberg]

That's besides the point.

We're not talking about breathing large quantities of CO2. You can get dizzy by breathing pretty much any gas (including pure O2).

We're talking about small increases in the concentration of CO2 in cities. (from say 0.04% to 0.06%). Which are negligible compared to, say, the difference in concentration in a crowded indoor space.

[AutodidacticPhd]

"We're not talking about breathing large quantities of CO2. You can get dizzy by breathing pretty much any gas..."

You obviously haven't tried it then... it does not "make you dizzy". It gives you a massive headache, severe chest pain and there is a strong chance it'll make you throw up. Your body is desperate to get rid of the stuff for a reason.

As for your 0.06 numbers, that may be overall, but its way low for someone sitting on the highway.

[AutodidacticPhd]

And, as you increase the concentration of CO2 in the air, you decrease the efficacy of the diffusion in your lungs... ie, your body is less able to get rid of CO2 in the blood. It may not be as deadly as carbonmonoxide, but it does stress the body and can be a contributing factor to overall poor health. Especially in combination with all the other wonderful things a car spits out while idling in a traffic jam.

[Paulginz]

If you spend hours on the highway breathing car exhaust, you have a long list of chemicals that are ACTUALLY dangerous at tiny levels that are going to kill you long before CO2 has any noticeable effect on your health. Why not list those chemicals, if you accept that they should worry you tons more?

The EPA and air quality control people only took an interest on CO2 because of global warming, and that's the reason why they classify CO2 as a polutant. There just isn't a real health concern.

[AutodidacticPhd]

You didn't ask about the others. Yes, they are bad, but CO2 is technically toxic. It is a fact. That is what you seemed to have a problem with so that is what I explained.

What I fail to understand is why you are putting so much effort into arguing about it?

[Paulginz]

Once again, pretty much anything, (e.g. distilled water) is "technically toxic". You can't just make abstraction of dosage/context.

The question here is whether or not it makes sense for the speaker to list CO2 from traffic as a significant (or even noticeable) environmental health risk.

"What I fail to understand is why you are putting so much effort into arguing about it?"

- Maybe we're just both insane.

[samraw22]

This guy is wrong.

If you zoom in closer to those areas in red you will see the REAL reasons for the poor health outcomes. Diet, exercise, cigarette smoking, etc. Just because somebody lives in a red zone doesn't mean they are truly EXPOSED to the risk factors in that zone. "Health" happens to individuals, not populations.

Rather than zooming out and viewing earth from space, this guy needs to zoom in and fill out his risk factors form. It's many orders of magnitude more important.

[austpom333]

We rely need to move on from fossil fuels

[cherylwens]

Does it matter what medical system the US uses if it continues to gorge on burgers and fries? This is why quality of life stats can be misleading when used to dismiss privatized health care.

[michalchik]

Good preventative medical care can help change lifestyle factors and compensate for bad decisions.

[chon4186]

Man this is a great idea, I love constantly having my position tracked, and then guise it for my health.

I'd say we go one step further, and putting a tag into every persons body that not only tracks their location but also what chemical inputs go into their body, all of this information than can be sent to a central computer run by the government, and interpreted by whoever has access to the information.

Big brother is fun!

[michalchik]

Do you honestly think that this information would make anything worse? Cell phone can and are already tracked and can be remote activated as bugs. Most financial transactions are tracked. License plates are tracked. We have no privacy left. This won't make anything worse.

[chon4186]

@michalchik

There is a HUGE difference between your "can be" and the videos idea of mandating it in order for us to be "healthy". If you're cool with the government holding all the information about where you go, when and what you do in a database for whatever they feel like using it for, then sign up, they already have RFID chips people are putting into their bodies, jump on that bandwagon. For myself, on the other hand, I don't feel comfortable about that at all.

[michalchik]

Apparently I didn't convey how horrified i am at the current state of affairs. I was just saying that kvetching about this kind of research, is like locking up the prison after all the inmates have escaped. There is no information that a corrupt corporate or government official can not find out about you now. Name one place this kind of research would intrude that is not already laid bare. You have already completely lost your privacy, only a rollback will restore it.

[planetmax83]

Studys on identical twins have shown that the effect of enviroment and lifestyle have have very little or no influence on health.

This this information would be just an added inconvenience for Doctors.

[BaileysBeads]

How many identical twins would be separated at birth and grow up in a different environment?

[thethreeheadedmonkey]

@planetmax83:

Sources please. I'm particularly picky about asking for those when it comes to people who can't spell the word "studies".

[biscoito1r]

Big Brother is watching

[aaronshows]

Wow! 5:11 is the real Patch Adams!

[VisionQuest2012]

Not many people get to choose where they live and work?

[waysworth]

this makes me think of Miller's "Enemy of the People"

First ; it's bleeding obvious.

Thirty years ago, when I lived in Detroit, it was common knowledge that simply breathing was the equivalent of smoking two packs of cigarettes a day.

But everyone also knows, that making too much noise about the ills of industrial pollution, and actually acting on it, is an invite to economic disaster.

So we choose to believe that not smoking is the answer, while quitting our jobs is out of the question.

[cTaHuMuP]

this sounds like good idea

[wevenhuis]

The information made available could also backfire. Companies and insurance companies could also see that you have been exposed to a significant amount of toxin, making your insurance bill higher or not accept you to a job.

[AutodidacticPhd]

The only problem being they would start rejecting the vast majority of the population. The highest concentrations of these exposure sites are in the major cities where the employers are located. You're talking about a breakdown of the system so broad that a general solution would have to be found or the problem ignored by all anyway. Who knows, someone might even realize that the chemical companies should be subsidizing public medicine.

[wevenhuis]

An idea, which perhaps could be possible.

[CityzenJane]

"Who knows, someone might even realize that the chemical companies should be subsidizing public medicine. "

Now that is change I can believe in. Along with the tobacco, meat and booze companies. All for it.

[AutodidacticPhd]

"Along with the tobacco, meat and booze companies."

Similar idea, though different emphasis. Chemical and oil companies produce products that effect all whether they consume the product or not. My point is that by offering the product at all, they own everyone.

Tobacco, booze and the like however, are consumer choices. They do add to the health risks of the people that consume them, but not many others... at least not to the same extent. A tax for subsidy makes more sense in their case.

[CityzenJane]

Agreed. All though not correct for children of smoking parents...

[seyoumeye]

Your health depends on how well conscious your are about the environment you live in, the food you consume and ABOVE ALL depends on your inner state thoughts and feelings that accompany your social life..

[omegavalerius]

TED talks sometimes are a little light on the data side and this one is no exception. Its of course common sense to anyone that your environment effects your health (as do your genes). But unless one is presented with some new and interesting information its like saying too much fat in your diet is bad for you.

[CityzenJane]

TED talks are purposely kept short. The point is to present the world changing idea in an engaging fashion - anyone interested in further information is invited to dig more deeply in to the presenters body of work which no doubt is available online in most cases - with more data than most would ever be interested in...

[omegavalerius]

Err, they are usually about 20 minutes long. That aside I was pointing out that the idea isn't very "world changing" so I was hoping him to bring it down well with good science. Data doesn't have to be boring as people at TED have shown time and time again.

[CityzenJane]

very true!

[AutodidacticPhd]

I would like to point out though, that the talks orriginally presented on TED (dot) com were closer to 30+ minutes. Most of the presentations I've seen since they started posting to Youtube have been somewhat disappointing... and somewhat less revolutionary than the material I was used to seeing a few years ago.

I recognize what you're saying, but the stuff that makes it here has been a bit lack luster compared to their older videos.

[2008Raw2008]

Agreed. they are lame at best... WTF happened to TED? where's the stimulating, brand new bleeding edge information?

[mehmeh2121]

this is so baised and subjective. yawn... no studies, no health statistics, kinda ignorant. not very phased

[Shaunt1]

Yes air, land and water quality and variation of them in different places will effect you.

[2008Raw2008]

work? who is working? dude, what about all of the out of work people?

[2008Raw2008]

right, Gore sucks! big fraud

[CityzenJane]

because trolltards of the internetz say so!

[mike6459]

I spent a week one day in Scranton Penn

[LemonLimeLaughter]

Fuck, I;m in the red space

[Tengent]

How can I find out if where I live is safe? (btw it's in Southern Indiana)

[generationalist]

I love the idea but would hate to see location history take precedence over lifestyle history. I want to see a cross correlation of lifestyle in relation to location. TN, KY, PA, VA and WV have the nations highest number of cigarette smokers. They also have high rates of alcohol usage. These two alone account for a significant number of health related issues. I like his thinking but would not put it's priority higher than lifestyle. He is correct that location history does deserve attention.

[nvcn86]

that's what i was thinking. he might be putting ore attention to it to bring attention to it, but i don't think that environment is even close in magnitude to nutrition and exercise.

[AutodidacticPhd]

"i don't think that environment is even close in magnitude to nutrition and exercise."

Depends on who you are talking about. Children raised in communities surrounded by toxic release sites have a much higher lifetime risk of respiratory, neurodevelopmental and immune system diseases.

While the LA air may have been a daily stress to his system, I bet that his youth in Scranton had a bigger impact on how his body would react to that stress.

[generationalist]

AutodidacticPhd - the key words in your response were "I bet". Right now environmental toxins are only a bet not a measurable probability. That is why we do actually need this kind of data. But we need to be careful not to mistake the geographic relationship with social habits in geographic locales. Whatever it turns out to be we really do need the information but we also need to face it honestly.

[AutodidacticPhd]

You seem to be confusing the general with the specific. I KNOW that environmental toxins have an effect in the general population... the studies and statistics exist. I can only say "I bet" in his particular case because I don't know his medical history not to mention the fact that statistical data on things like health will always include some anomalies.

Exposure statistics do exist for individual toxins. All he's talking about is personalized combined risk sheets.

[generationalist]

AutodidacticPhd - that is good that you KNOW it. After all KNOWing something is called testimonial evidence. I can go around saying I KNOW all kinds of things but that would only be a testimonial straw man. Studies and statistics are only valid when they are supported by - scientific research. A study without controlled scientific research to back it, is a - potential - moving goal post. Since you KNOW it then perhaps you can site your sources and enlighten us please. Thanks AP

[AutodidacticPhd]

"A study without controlled scientific research to back it"

Excuse me? Try some of these then...

Catherine Karr, M.D. PhD in American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine Nov 15 '09

Prenatal exposure to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons adversely affects a child's IQ, according to research by the the Columbia Center for Children's Environmental Health

Exposure to tetrachloroethylene caused congenital birth defects... Ann Aschengrau, Boston University School of Public Health

etc

[AutodidacticPhd]

And those were just the first few I found scrounging pubmed with only one search. If you want to keep proving your fear of the real issues by being a pedantic nit picker of irrelevant minutia feel free. But the fact is, your insinuation that environmental toxicology is insignificant or that the data doesn't exist is bollocks and you know it.

[generationalist]

The only fear I have of the real issue is that overemotional zealots will pursue a politicized false causal relationship and miss a real causation. I do think there are localized issues with environmental toxins and using technology to localize, study and research these LOCALIZED phenomena will help eliminate them in the future. BUT, do NOT underestimate the effects of social causation: car exhaust and wood stoves as with cigarette smoking are social phenomena. C Karr's study defends my argument

[AutodidacticPhd]

I never said ANYTHING about either location OR made any statement one way or the other about personal habits. To be frank, most of the studies I've read on personal habits are no more controlled nor more numerous than toxicology studies. I merely pointed out that you were dismissing out of hand the importance of environmental exposure and the fact that the studies do exist. The only zealotry here is your devotion to semantic BS.

[generationalist]

APhd This video was entirely about "localized toxins" that's why the title was "Your health depends on where you live". That's called your locale. I do not deny localized toxins I support research to find it but the video showed a large region that is associated with heart disease NOT toxins. Dr. Davenhall's conjecture was toxins. I made the skeptical observation that there are a lot of smokers in the same geographic region, could that be the cause? I was then attacked for being skeptical.

[AutodidacticPhd]

My initial response was not about the video. It was in reaction to this statement... "i don't think that environment is even close in magnitude to nutrition and exercise." The fact of the matter is, we are exposed to the toxins that are released near us. Is the speaker's idea of a map based risk analysis a good one... *shrug* maybe. I don't really care. My point was that exposure to environmental toxins is already linked to several problems. So to some people it is a big factor.

[AutodidacticPhd]

My guess, and I was quite clear about it being a guess, about his particular case though, was based on what I know about gene activation and developmental sensitivity, not the specific things he may have been exposed to.

The fundamental problem in all of this seems to be that every new contributing factor or line of inquiry seems to be presented as superseding all others, and the backlash that follows... I think all lines of inquiry should be pursued and weighted only after the data comes in.

[generationalist]

Thanks AP that was a nice STUDY and NOT research. It concluded with a nice CONJECTURE on causal relationship based on an extremely small sample of 11,000 study subjects. The STUDY was a META analysis which lays the ground work for a good solid conjecture toward further research. Per C. Karr "Conclusions: Air pollutants from several sources may increase infant bronchiolitis requiring clinical care. Traffic, local point source emissions and woodsmoke may contribute to this disease." MAY not DO

[AutodidacticPhd]

What part of "these are only the first few" did you not get? I'm sorry, but I don't have more than ten minutes to waste on this crap. I am not going to sift through thousands of studies and research papers for you. Look for yourself.

Pubmed searches:

environmental pollution and health - 63853

ozone and health - 12189

carbon monoxide exposure - 22198

...even if you get more specific the numbers are in the hundreds...

pollutants and child development - 633

industrial toxin exposure - 477

[CityzenJane]

Environmental Toxicology University Programs - all over that google machine.

[CityzenJane]

How would we ever know without the data in the patient records...

[CityzenJane]

I think those things are always taken into account in the DRs office..and most patients nod and ignore the warnings to give up the smokes and booze. That said - What we don't have is a comprehensive list of high level exposures per patient of industrial outputs - and we can't imagine though we seem to want to that those things have no impact. they obviously do .

[generationalist]

Yes they are taken into account in the Dr.'s office but are not tracked geographically. It's important because it would be easy to look at environmental issues and blame them when the true causal factor might actually be a societal issue. That's why I pointed out the geographic relationship of smoking to states. It closely correlates to the map he showed. He seemed to be implying that environmental toxins were a causal factor and not a suspicious element that -- might -- be a false correlation.

[CityzenJane]

No they are not 'taken into account' in the DRs office. Give me a break. 8 minutes per patient they aren't taking an serious assessment.

Environmental toxins are definitely a factor. To what degree we do not know. WE have the toxicology in most cases for high exposures what we don't have is data about individuals. Correlation is not causation. (DUH) But lack of data makes it impossible to prove anything more than correlation which is SUSPECTED with good reason in many cases.

[generationalist]

CJ you are an odd bird. You - made the claim that 'those things were taken into account in the dr's office'. I merely agreed. Geographic information is needed to establish and identify causation within a locale. But what is most significant that I tried to point out is that I will NOT accept that the primary causation as being environmental toxins - WITHOUT the evidence. I agree there are suspicious correlations but if the results are NOT environmental will you accept the evidence or deny it?

[CityzenJane]

I think we misunderstood each other.

I am for more data per patient record. More data is the only way you get close to determining cause. Excluding it and pre-empting the examinination and incorporation - INCLUDNG training DRs in industrial toxicology - are what is needed.

Not less data and not pre-emptive exclusionary assumptions. What data would I be denying - you are seemingly wanting to exclude from the patient record.

We agree smokes and bacon and sugar are bad.

[generationalist]

Then I think we are in agreement. I am against the assumptions. That's all. I don't make the assumption that all the evidence or even strong evidence for toxins exist. Pursuit of the data needed to perform the research is needed and evidence does exist but...if the evidence turns against toxins and shows stronger cause by social habits I have to side with data not a belief of cause. I think that leaves us pretty much in agreement.

[CityzenJane]

Why do you think 'belief in toxins' is a cause? Does that mean we should shut down university toxicology programs? It sounds to me that it's you that has the ideology problem.

[generationalist]

CJ I did not say 'belief in toxins' you have misquoted me. I said I side with data NOT 'belief in cause'. There is an important difference between those two statements. You can believe in broad toxicological impact but there is little evidence of broad causal relationship which is why we need this research. I have NO ideology, I defend only the research NOT the belief or conjecture. All conjecture should be attacked, that is called peer review. Conjecture that survives peer review is hypothesis.

[CityzenJane]

My apologies.

This is what led me to respond as I did "I don't make the assumption that all the evidence or even strong evidence for toxins exist."  a risable mis-statement..

hence encapsulating your incredulity in 'belief in toxins'

We agree more research is good.

Please don't lecture me on the scientific method. It's obnoxious, you were misunderstood because you were not writing clearly. Not because I somehow lack knowledge of the scientific method.

I also was not writing clearly.

[generationalist]

Thanks CJ, 500 characters makes it a constraint to be both sociable and accurate and even then we all still manage all too frequently to miss the mark. While there are many laughable things about myself, I take slight exception at my statement being called risible "I don't make the assumption...". While evidence probably exists, many experts are pushing for this kind of research to establish the strong evidence. Because we are already aware of some serious localized issues I'm for more research.

[CityzenJane]

I would add people have *some* control over what we eat and smoke and drink (very generally speaking). People don't have control over what gets to them via the environment but more data means more choice.

And please we know exactly what high level of particulate matter in the air does to peoples lungs, just as a for instance...

[marthale7]

In the 1800's they used to send patients to get "sea air" they found that if people got near the sea it would benefit them greatly.

[CityzenJane]

because sea air blew particulate matter of industrialized towns inland...

[scottburton11]

Gore is there to remind you that TED is the NWO Re-education Channel.

[2008Raw2008]

it is becoming that

[Lily2U1515]

I don't think big business would allow government to disperse that information readily, the clusters of disease would be so apparent, and they might have to own up to some responsibility for it. Also forgive me if I am wrong but i just read recently that gas and oil companies are exempt from most of the clean air , clean water acts and monitoring, so how can the data even be accurate?

[Robbo0090]

lol at 5:21.

[senne17]

Oh yeah it would be great if we where followed in every step we take and doctors tell us where and when should move that would be a very nice an healthy situation.........

[CheezMonsterCrazy]

I didn't even know we made rubber here in Louisville....

[devourerofbabies]

Now growing up in the rust belt is going to be a pre-existing condition.

[ratholin]

@devourerofbabies yep HMO's will make this information available and then refuse payment to people who've lived in those areas. Choosing to live in a populated area is the same as smoking :D

[spongebathe]

one word: privacy. Its going to be tampered with, to say the least.

[BFDK]

He has a really good point, it's a wonder we are not up to date with this yet.

[Thymonico]

Hey! Is that Craig Venter in the audience (front row) at 08:00?

[kryptonsa36]

@Thymonico

Yes. He's much more evident at 5:11.

[no1saphead]

fuck now I'm going to have a bunch of new neighbors.

[amaasbier]

i fear assurances will use this geodata to get more money from people who are living in the dangerous zones, though the idea itself is nice

[madamezora7]

I have a knee-jerk negative reation to more collection of personal information, but I think this is coming whether I like it or not. I can certainly see where it would be helpful in making rational personal decisions.

[bamboo4tameshigiri]

re title: Duh. One of the best things you can do for your health is to not live in the USA. Live in Europe or move there.

[penutwi]

typo. one of the best things you can do for your health is to live in the USA

[italianchappy]

I'm afraid in the great european towns and where there are many people it's the same. You should go to some Podunk village on the alps for good air and water.

[oicub2]

One day, peace will come.

I guarantee it.

[italianchappy]

when we die.

[msnae0101]

@bamboo4tameshigiri not everywhere in europe is better than rural america. of course urban america is bad for your health but there are some really great places to live in the united states.

[bamboo4tameshigiri]

If you can afford insurance.

[msnae0101]

of course, but that, i'm afraid is a completely different problem... if only america could figure out health care..

[GordonEdward]

Well... Great places to accelerate your death too.

[msnae0101]

the US? how so?

[ChalleFoV2]

So people should move from these places? The problem will then move as well! Stupid

[peterbundy84]

@ChalleFoV2 i would love to see how Los Angeles evacuate itself bcoz of this

[msnae0101]

@ChalleFoV2 right? just because a place is rural now, means that people will move there when they want a "healthier lifestyle" then these rural areas will turn into urban as well.

[TheOtherSide100]

Wish I could spend only 25% of my time at work.

Most of us are at 33%, not including commute.

@namnack: I also thumbed you down. Nobody likes that "first" business. That's for grade school children.

[sheepwshotguns]

actually if you work 40 hours a week it comes to about 23.8% of your time.

[TheOtherSide100]

I need a job that isn't 7 days per week. Ugh.

[2008Raw2008]

how about a job-share?

[scramignon]

I do believe that where you live is responsible for 80% of your health.

[TyrannosaurusReks]

Damn

[awesomeSkins]

@namnack yes >:]

[TyrannosaurusReks]

lol yeah but no chill out brah go canada lol

urs truly,

t to da rex

[sheepwshotguns]

congrats! as a reward for this accomplishment you can also be the first one marked as spam!

yay!