What Is The Maximum Weight Of An Animal That A Technician Should Be Able To Lift On His Or Her Own
past Ted Holden
THE ANOMALIST: 1
Summer 1994
from Scribd Website
Scientists please in devising explanations for the great dinosaur extinctions.
But at that place are several questions which they accept failed to even enquire, much less tried to answer.
Why, for case, in all of the time claimed to have passed since the dinosaur extinctions, has nothing ever re-evolved to the sizes of the large dinosaurs?
If such sizes worked for creatures which ruled the World for tens of millions of years, then why would not some species of elephant or rhino have evolved to such a size again?
What kinds of issues, if any, would sauropod sizes entail in our world as it is soon constituted?
Could it be that some aspect of our surround might accept to be massively different for such creatures to exist at all?
A careful written report of the sizes of these antediluvian creatures, and what it would accept to deal with such sizes in our world, has led me to believe that the super animals of World's past could not live in our present world at all. A expect at
Both the brachiosaur and the supersaur were larger than the brontosaur, and the ultrasaur appears to have dwarfed them all.1 The ultrasaur is at present estimated to have weighed 180 tons.2 A comparison of dinosaur lifting requirements to human lifting capabilities is enlightening, though in that location might be objections to doing so. One objection that might be raised is that animal muscle tissue was somehow "better" than that of humans. This, however, is known not to be the case.
According to Knut Schmidt-Nielson, author of Scaling: Why is Creature Size And so Of import ? , the maximum stress or force that can be exerted by any muscle is independent of body-size and is the same for mouse or elephant muscle.3 Another objection might be that sauropods were aquatic creatures. Only nobody believes that anymore; they had no accommodation for aquatic life, their teeth bear witness wear and tear which does not come up from eating soft aquatic vegetation, and trackways prove them walking on land with no difficulty. A final objection might exist that dinosaurs were somehow more "efficient" than summit human athletes. This, however, goes against all observed data. As creatures get bulkier, they become less efficient; the layers of thick musculus in limbs begin to make it each other's way and demark to some extent. For this reason, scaled lifts for the super-heavyweight athletes are somewhat lower than for, say, the 200-pound athletes.
Past "scaled lift" I mean a lift tape divided past the two-thirds ability of the athlete'south body weight. Equally creatures get larger, weight, which is proportional to volume, goes up in proportion to the cube of the increase in dimension. Strength, on the other hand, is known to exist roughly proportional to the cross-section of muscle for any item limb and goes up in proportion to the square of the increase in dimension. This is the familiar "square-cube" problem.4 Consider the case of Bill Kazmaier, the king of the power lifters in the 1970s and 1980s.
Power lifters are, in my interpretation, the strongest of all athletes; they concentrate on the three nigh hard total-body lifts, i.e. bench printing, squat, and dead-lift. They piece of work out many hours a day and, it is fairly common cognition, use food to flavor their anabolic steroids. No animal the same weight as i of these men could be presumed to exist as strong.
Kazmaier was able to do squats and expressionless lifts with weights between 1,000 and 1,100 pounds on a bar, assuming he was fully warmed up.
Standing Up at 70,000 pounds
Whatever creature has to be able to lift its ain weight off the ground, i.e. stand up up, with no more difficulty than Kazmaier experiences doing a one,000-pound squat.
Consider, however, what would happen to Mr. Kazmaier, were he to be scaled up to 70,000 pounds, the weight commonly given for the brontosaur. Kazmaier's maximum effort at standing, fully warmed upwardly, assuming the 1,000 pound squat, was one,340 pounds (1,000 pounds for the bar and 340 pounds for himself). The scaled maximum lift would exist 47,558 pounds (the solution to: 1,340/340.667 = 10/70,000.667).
Conspicuously, he would not be able to lift his weight off the ground! A sauropod dinosaur had iv legs you might say; then what happens if Mr. Kazmaier uses artillery and legs at 70,000 pounds? The truth is that the squat uses virtually every muscle in the athlete's body very nearly to the limits, but in this example, it does not even matter.
A near maximum bench press endeavor for Mr. Kazmaier would fall effectually 600 pounds. This merely changes the ane,340 pounds to 1,940 pounds in the equation to a higher place, and the reply comes out as 68,853 pounds. Fifty-fifty using all muscles, some more than once, the strongest human being who we know annihilation about would not exist able to lift his own weight off the basis at seventy,000 pounds. To believe so, that a brontosaur could stand up at 70,000 pounds, i has to believe that a creature whose weight was more often than not gut and the vast digestive mechanism involved in processing huge amounts of low-value foodstuffs was, somehow, stronger than an almost entirely muscular animate being its size, far better trained and conditioned than any grazing beast.
That is not only ludicrous in the case of the brontosaur, simply the calculations merely get more absurd when you try to calibration up to the supersaur and ultrasaur at their sizes. How heavy can an creature get to be in our world, then? How heavy would Mr. Kazmaier be at the point at which the square-cube problem made it as difficult for him to stand equally it is for him to do one,000-pound squats at his nowadays weight of 340 pounds?
The answer is xx,803 pounds (the solution to: i,340/340.667 = 10/ten.667). In reality, elephants do not appear to go quite to that point.
Christopher McGowan, curator of vertebrate paleontology at the Royal Ontario Museum, claims that a Toronto Zoo specimen was the largest in Due north America at 14,300 pounds,v and Smithsonian personnel in one case informed me that the gigantic bush elephant specimen which appears at their Museum of Natural History weighed around viii tons.
A study of the sauropod dinosaurs' long neck further underscores the problem these creatures would have living nether current gravitational conditions. Scientists who written report sauropod dinosaurs at present claim that they held their heads low, because they could not have gotten blood to their brains had they held them high.six
Sauropod Dinosaurs' Necks
McGowan mentions the fact that a giraffe's blood force per unit area - which at 200-to-300 mm Hg (millimeters of mercury) is far higher than that of whatever other animal-would probably rupture the vascular system of any other animal. The giraffe's blood pressure is maintained past thick arterial walls and by a very tight skin that plain acts similar a jet pilot's force per unit area suit. A giraffe's caput might attain to 20 anxiety. How a sauropod might accept gotten blood to its brain at fifty or lx feet is the real question.
"Gravity is a pervasive force in the environment and has dramatically shaped the evolution of plants and animals," notes Harvey Lillywhite, a zoologist at the Academy of Florida at Gainesville.
Equally some land animals evolved large body sizes,
"cardiovascular specializations were needed to help them withstand the weight of claret in long vertical vessels. Perhaps nowhere in the history of life were these challenges greater than among the gigantic, long-necked sauropods"
For a Barosaurus to concur its head high, Lillywhite has calculated that its heart,
"must accept generated pressures at least 6 times greater than those of humans and three to iv times greater than those of giraffes." seven
Faced with the same dilemma, University of Pennsylvania geologist Peter Dodson remarked that while the Brachiosaurus was built like a giraffe and may have fed like one, most sauropods were built quite differently.
"At the base of the cervix," Dodson writes, "a sauropod's vertebral spines, dissimilar those of a giraffe, were weak and low and did not provide leverage for the muscles required to elevate the head in a high position.
Furthermore, the blood pressure level required to pump claret up to the encephalon, thirty or more feet in the air, would have placed extraordinary demands on the heart and would seemingly have placed the animal at severe risk of a stroke, an aneurysm, or another circulatory disaster." 8
Inside recorded history, Fundamental Asians have tried to breed hunting eagles for size and strength, and have not gotten across 25 pounds or thereabouts. Even at that weight they are able to take off only with the greatest difficulty.
Something was vastly different in the pre-inundation earth. The only way to keep the required blood pressure "reasonable," Dodson goes on to add,
is "if sauropods fed with the neck extended just a little above middle level, say from ground level upwardly to fifteen feet..."
One trouble with this solution is that the skillful leaves were, in all likelihood, above the 20-foot mark; an ultrasaur that could non raise its caput higher up twenty feet would probably starve.
Dodson, it should likewise exist noted, entirely neglects the dilemma of the brachiosaur. And at that place is another trouble, which is worse. Try holding your arm out horizontally for even a few minutes, then imagine your arm being forty anxiety long. Given a scale model and a weight effigy for the entire dinosaur, it is possible to use volume-based techniques to estimate weight for a sauropod's neck. An ultrasaur is by and large thought to exist a well-nigh cousin - if not simply a very large specimen - of the brachiosaur.
The technique, then, is to measure the volume of h2o which the sauropod'south neck (severed at the shoulders and filled with bondo or auto-body putty) displaces, versus the volume which the entire brachiosaur displaces, and simply extrapolate to the 360,000-pound figure for the ultrasaur. I did this using a Larami Corporation model of a brachiosaur, which is to scale.
To make a long story short, the neck weighs 28,656 pounds, and the center of gravity of that cervix is 15 feet from the shoulders, the cervix itself being 38 feet long.
This equates to 429,850 foot-pounds of torque. If nosotros assume the sauropod could elevator its head at to the lowest degree equally hands as a homo with an 18-inch neck can move his head against a neck-exercise motorcar set up to 130 pounds, then the sauropod would require the muscular strength of a cervix 17.4 anxiety in bore.
With a more reasonable assumption of endeavour, equivalent to the man using a l-pound setting, the sauropod would require a cervix of over 20 feet in diameter. Simply the sauropod'south neck, at its widest, manifestly measured nearly ten anxiety by seven anxiety where it joined the shoulders, and then narrowed rapidly to virtually half-dozen or seven feet in diameter over the residuum of its length.
McGowan and others claim that the head and cervix were supported by a dorsal ligament and not muscles, simply we know of no living creature using ligaments to back up a body structure which its available musculature cannot sustain.
In all likelihood, sauropods, in our gravity at least, could neither hold their heads up nor out.
Antediluvian Flying Creatures
The large flying creatures of the by would also have had difficulties in our present-twenty-four hours gravity.
In the antediluvian world, 350-pound flight creatures soared in skies which no longer let flying creatures above 30 pounds or and then. Modern birds of prey, like the Argentinian teratorn, weighing 170 to 200 pounds, with 30-human foot wingspans, also flew. Within recorded history, Central Asians have been trying to brood hunting eagles for size and force, and have non gotten them beyond 25 pounds or thereabouts. Even at that weight they are able to take off only with the greatest difficulty.
Something was vastly unlike in the pre-flood earth. Nothing much larger than 30 pounds or so flies anymore, and those creatures, albatrosses and a few of the largest condors and eagles, are marginal. Albatrosses, notably, are called "goonie birds" by sailors considering of the extreme difficulty they experience taking off and landing, their landings existence badly controlled crashes, and this despite long wings made for maximum lift. In remote times, the felt issue of the forcefulness of gravity on Earth must take been much less for such giant creatures to be able to wing. No flight fauna has since re-evolved into anything of such size, and the i or two birds that accept retained this size accept forfeited flying, their wings becoming vestigial. Adrian Desmond, in his book The Hot-Blooded Dinosaurs, has a expert deal to say about some of the problems the Pteranodon faced at just 40-to-l pounds. Scientists once thought this pterosaur was the largest animal that ever flew.
The bird's not bad size and negligible weight must accept made for a rather fragile creature.
"It is easy to imagine that the paper-thin tubular basic supporting the gigantic wings would have fabricated landing dangerous," writes Desmond.
"How could the creature have alighted without shattering all of its bones? How could it have taken off in the commencement place? It was obviously unable to flap 12-foot wings strung between straw-thin tubes. Many larger birds take to reach a certain speed by running and flapping earlier they tin take off and others have to produce a fly vanquish speed approaching hovering in club to rising.
To reach hovering with a 23-pes wingspread, Pteranodon would have required 220 pounds of flight muscles as efficient as those in humming birds. But information technology had reduced its musculature to about viii pounds, then information technology is inconceivable that Pteranodon could accept taken off actively." nine
Since the Pteranodon could not flap its wings, the simply flying it could ever exercise, Desmond concludes, was as a glider.
Information technology was, he says,
"the near advanced glider the creature kingdom has produced."10
Desmond notes a fairly reasonably modus operandi for the Pteranodon.
Non merely did the bird have a pharynx pouch like a pelican only its remains were plant with fish fossils, which seems to suggest a pelican-like existence, soaring over the waves and snapping upwards fish without landing.
If so, and so the Pteranodon should take been practically immune from the bang-up extinctions of past ages. Large animals would have the greatest difficulty getting to high ground and other safety havens at times of floods and other global catastrophes. Simply loftier places safety from flooding were always there, oceans were e'er there, and fish were always there.
The Pteranodon'due south way of life should have been impervious to all mishap. In that location is 1 other problem. The Pteranodon was not the largest bird.
The giant Teratorn finds of Argentina were not known when Desmond's book was written. News of this bird's existence first appeared in the 1980s. The Terotorn was a 160-to-200 pound eagle with a 27-foot wingspan, a modern bird whose existence involved, among other things, flapping wings and aerial maneuvers.
But how and so? How could it even have flown? How large tin can an animal be and withal fly?
"With each increase in size, and therefore also weight," writes Desmond, "a flying animate being needs a concomitant increment in power (to shell the wings in a flapper and to concur and maneuver them in a glider), but power is supplied by muscles which themselves add still more than weight to the structure.
The larger a flyer becomes the disproportionately weightier it grows by the addition of its own power supply. There comes a betoken when the weight is but too great to permit the car to remain airborne. Calculations bearing on size and ability suggested that the maximum weight that a flying vertebrate tin attain is nigh 50 pounds..."
Information technology is for this reason that scientists believed Pteranodon and its slightly larger simply lesser known Jordanian ally Titanopteryx were the largest flight animals of all time.
The experience from our present globe coincides well with this and, in fact, don't go quite that high. The biggest flying creatures which nosotros actually see are albatrosses, geese, and the like, at 30 to 35 pounds. The Pteranodon's reign equally the largest flying creature of all time actually cruel in the early 1970s when Douglas Lawson of the University of California institute partial skeletons of iii ultra-big pterosaurs in Big Curve National Park in Texas. This discovery forced scientists to rethink their ideas on the maximum size permissible in flying vertebrates.
The immense size of the Big Bend pterosaurs may be gauged past noting that the humerus or upper arm bones of these creatures is fully twice the length of Pteranodon's. Lawson estimated the wingspan for this living glider at over fifty feet. The Big Bend pterosaurs were not fishers. Their remains were found in rocks that were formed some 250 miles inland and nowhere almost any lake deposits. This led Lawson to suggest that these birds were carrion feeders, gorging themselves on rotting mounds of dismembered dinosaur flesh.
Just this hypothesis raised numerous questions in author Desmond's heed.
"How they could take taken to the air later gorging themselves is something of a puzzle," he wonders.
"Wings of such an boggling size could not accept been flapped when the animal was grounded. Since the pterosaurs were unable to run in society to launch themselves they must accept taken off vertically.
Pigeons are but able to take-off vertically by reclining their bodies and clapping the wings in front of them; equally flappers, the Texas pterosaurs would have needed very tall stilt-like legs to raise the body enough to allow the 24-foot wings to clear the ground.
The chief objection, however, still rests in the lack of adequate musculature for such an functioning."12
The only solution seems to be that they lifted passively off the ground by the wind. But this situation, notes Desmond, would leave these ungainly Brobdignagian pterosaurs vulnerable to attack when grounded. While Desmond mentions a number of coincident bug here, any of which would throw doubt on the pterosaur'due south ability to exist as mentioned, he neglects the biggest question of all: the calculations that say 50 pounds are the maximum weight have not been shown to be in fault; we have simply discovered larger creatures. Much larger.
This is what is called a dilemma. Those who had estimated a large wingspan for the Large Bend bird were immediately attacked by aeronautical engineers.
"Such dimensions broke all the rules of flight engineering science," wrote Colorado paleontologist Robert T. Bakker, in The Dinosaur Heresies, "a creature that large would have broken its arm bones if it tried to wing..."xiii
Later, the proponents of a large wingspan were forced to back off somewhat, since the consummate fly basic had not been discovered.
Simply Bakker believes these pterosaurs really did have wingspans of over lx feet and that they only flew despite our not comprehending how. The problem is ours, he says, and he proposes no solution. So much for the thought of anything re-evolving into the sizes of the flying creatures of the antediluvian world. What about the possibility of man breeding something like a Teratorn? Could homo actively breed even a fifty-pound eagle?
And Atlanta, an eagle that Sam Barnes, one of England'due south superlative falconers in the 1970s, brought dorsum to Wales from Kirghiz, Russia, is, at 26 pounds in flying trim, as big as they ever get.xiv These eagles take been bred specifically for size and ferocity for many centuries. They are the well-nigh prized of all possessions amongst nomads, and are the imperial hunting bird of the Turko-Mongol peoples.
The only reason Barnes was immune to bring her back is that Atlanta had a disease for which no cure was bachelor in Kirghiz and was near to death. A Berkut of Atlanta's size, Barnes was told, would unremarkably exist worth more than a dozen of the most beautiful women in Kirghiz.
Elephants are only too heavy to run in our world. The all-time they can manage is a kind of a fast walk. Mammoths were equally big and bigger than the largest elephants, nevertheless, and Pleistocene fine art clearly shows them galloping.
The killing powers of a big eagle are out of proportion to its size. Berkuts are normally flown at wolves, deer, and other large casualty. Barnes witnessed Atlanta killing a deer in Kirghiz, and was told that she had killed a blackness wolf a season before. Mongols and other nomads raise sheep and goats, and patently have no love for wolves.
A wolf might be picayune more than a day at the office for Atlanta with her xi-inch talons, even so, a wolf is a big deal for an boilerplate-sized Berkut at 15-to-20 pounds. Obviously, at that place would be an reward to having the birds exist bigger, i.east. to having the average Berkut counterbalance 25 pounds, and for a large i to counterbalance xl-to-50 pounds. It has never been done, however, despite all the efforts and funds poured into the enterprise since the days of Genghis Khan.
The breeding of Berkuts has continued quickly from that day to this, but the Berkuts have nevertheless not gotten any bigger than 25 pounds or so.15 It is worth recalling here the difficulty which increasingly larger birds experience in getting airborne from flat ground. Atlanta was powerful enough in flying, but she was not easily able to accept off from flat basis. This could spell disaster in the wild. A bird of casualty volition often land with prey, and if take-off from flat footing to avert trouble is non possible, the bird's life becomes imperiled.
A bird bigger than Atlanta with her 10-pes wingspan, similar a Teratorn with a 27-foot wingspan and weighing 170 pounds, would simply not Survive.
At that place are other categories of evidence, derived from a careful analysis of antediluvian predators, to show that gravitational conditions in the distant by were non the aforementioned every bit they are today.
Assorted Other Evidence
It is well known, for instance, that elephant-sized animals cannot sustain falls, and that elephants spend their entire lives fugitive them.
For an elephant, the slightest tumble tin intermission bones and/or destroy plenty tissue to prove fatal. Predators, even so, live past tackling and tumbling with casualty. One might call back that this consideration would preclude the existence of any predator as well large to sustain falls. Weight estimates for the tyrannosaurs, withal, include specimens heavier than any elephant.
That appears to exist a contradiction. Moreover, elephants are but likewise heavy to run in our earth. Equally is well known, they manage a kind of a fast walk. They cannot jump, and annihilation resembling a gully stops them cold. Mammoths were every bit big and bigger than the largest elephants, however, and Pleistocene art clearly shows them galloping. Finally, there is
The beast apparently ran on the assurance of its two hind anxiety, on ii toes in fact, the 3rd toe conveying a 12-inch hook for disemboweling prey. This suggests a very active lifestyle. Very few predators appear to be congenital for attacking casualty notably larger than themselves; the Utahraptor appears to exist such a example. In our earth, of class, i,500-pound toe dancers exercise non exist. The only instance we have of a 1,500-pound land predator is the Kodiak bear, the lumbering gait and mannerisms of which are familiar to us all.
Then, over and over once more, this same kind of dilemma-things which cannot happen in our world having been the norm in the stick-in-the-mud world.
An Caption Ventured
The laws of physics do not change, nor does the gravitational abiding, as far every bit we know.
Only something was obviously massively different in the earth in which these creatures existed, and that divergence probably involved a alter in perceived gravity. This solution derives from the standing enquiry of neo-catastrophists, that is, followers of the belatedly Immanuel Velikovsky , and is known equally the "Saturn Myth" theory.17 The bones requirement for an attenuated perception of gravity involves the World being in a very close orbit around a smaller and much cooler stellar trunk (or binary body) than our nowadays Sun. Ane pole would always be pointed directly at this nearby small-scale star or binary system. The intense gravitational attraction would pull the Globe into an egg shape rather than its present spherical shape, so that the planet's center of gravity would be off center towards the small star.
This would generate the torque necessary to annul the natural gyroscopic force and keep the Globe's pole pointed in the same direction as it revolved around the star. The consequences of this intense gravitational pull would be dramatic. Information technology would allow, first of all, for gigantic animals like the dinosaurs (merely as any change in gravity to the nowadays situation would likely cause their demise). It would also tend to draw all of the Earth'southward country mass into a single supercontinent (
Why else, after all, should the Earth's continental masses have amassed in one identify?
And finally, with the Earth'south pole pointed directly at this star or binary organisation, in that location would be no seasons. All literature of the distant by points out that the seasons did not announced until after the flood.
The state of the present solar system indicates that this previous system was eventually captured by a larger star, our nowadays Dominicus.
But the pieces of this old arrangement have not vanished. The influential pocket-size star or binary organization of the past remains, though its reign of ability has ended. The star or stars are Jupiter and Saturn, the side by side largest objects to the Sun in our present organization. It is instructive that the ancients worshiped Jupiter and Saturn as the two chieftain gods in all of the antiquarian religious systems.
If the present solar system was present in the distant past, one would look primitive peoples to have worshiped the well-nigh visible of the astral bodies:
the Sun
the Moon
Venus
There is no believable reason they would worship as gods two planets which most people cannot even find in the night sky - unless, of course, these bodies occupied a far more prominent identify in the heavens than they practise today.
Notes
i. David Lambert and the Diagram Group Staff, Field Guide to Dinosaurs: The First Complete Guide to Every Dinosaur At present Known, New York, 1983, p. 118.
2. Christopher McGowan, Dinosaurs, Spitfires & Sea Dragons, Cambridge, 1991, p. 118.
3. Knut Schmidt-Nielson, Scaling, Why is Animal Size So Of import?, Cambridge, 1984, page 163."It appears that the maximum strength or stress that tin can be exerted past any muscle is inherent in the structure of the muscle filaments. The maximum strength is roughly a 3 to 4 kgf/cm2 cross-section of musculus (300-400 kN/m2). This force is body-size independent and is the same for mouse and elephant musculus. The reason for this uniformity is that the dimensions of the thick and thin muscle filaments, and besides the number of cross-bridges between them are the same. In fact the structure of mouse muscle and elephant muscle is then similar that a microscopist would have difficulty identifying them except for a larger number of mitochondria in the smaller fauna. This uniformity in maximum strength holds non simply for higher vertebrates, simply for many other organisms, including at to the lowest degree some, only not all invertebrates."
four. The normal inverse operator for this is to but carve up by 2/3 power of body weight, and this is indeed the normal scaling factor for all weight lifting events, i.e. it lets united states tell if a 200-pound athlete has actually done a "better" lift than the champion of the 180-pound grouping. For athletes roughly between 160 and 220 pounds, i.e., whose bodies are fairly similar, these scaled lift numbers line upward very nicely. It is then fairly easily seen that a lift for a scaled up version of one item athlete can be computed via this formula, since the similarity will exist perfect, scaling being the only difference.
v. McGowan, op. cit,. p. 97.
6. Ibid., pp. 101 -120.
7. Harvey B. Lillywhite, "Sauropods and Gravity", Natural History, December, 1991, p. 33."...in a Barosaurus with its head held high, the heart had to work confronting a gravitational pressure of about 590 mm of mercury (Hg). In order for the heart to eject blood into the arteries of the cervix, its pressure must exceed that of the blood pushing against the opposite side of the outflow valve. Moreover, some additional force per unit area would have been needed to overcome the resistance of smaller vessels within the head for blood flow to meet the requirements of brain and facial tissues."
8. Peter Dodson, "Lifestyles of the Huge and Famous," Natural History, December, 1991, p.32.
9. Adrian J. Desmond, The Hot-Blooded Dinosaurs: A Revolution in Paleontology, New York, 1976, p. 178.
10. Ibid, p. 178.
eleven. Ibid, p. 182.
12. Ibid, pp. 182-183.
13. Robert T. Bakker, The Dinosaur Heresies, New York, 1986, pp. 290-291.
14. David Bruce, Bird of Jove, New York, 1971.
15. Ibid.
16. Tim Folger, "The Killing Machine," Discover, January, 1993, p.48
17. David Talbott, The Saturn Myth, New York, 1980.
Source: https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_dinosaurs01.htm
Posted by: emerickthavisa.blogspot.com
0 Response to "What Is The Maximum Weight Of An Animal That A Technician Should Be Able To Lift On His Or Her Own"
Post a Comment