A Small Double Ozone Hole

chloro "catalytic" cycle -- or "paralytic"?

Hi, BatM! Long time no see… (or read) . I have also been busy, away from the board. In the meantime I posted an article (in Spanish) on our website about the stupidity of the<b><I> “ozone’s chlorocatalytic cycle”</I></b>, the theory that earned a Nobel Prize in Chemistry to F. Sherwood Rowland et al., although for <I>“the political consequences of their theory, that saved mankind from a catastrophe”</I>. So much for the value of Nobel Prizes nowadays!

My article is titled: http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/articulos-3/CloroParalitico.html<b>“The Paralytic Cycle of Chlorine”</b> (in Spanish, with a graph) meaning that the cycle is just that: paralytic because it does not “walk” (in Spanish, we use “walk” with the same meaning of “work” or “function”). The reason is, briefly, this:

Everybody is too concerned with the chlorine atom released when UV radiation strikes the ClO (chlorine monoxide) molecule, but loose sight of the oxygen atom left free. While chlorine must go looking for an ozone molecule (stratospheric concentration 0.000003%), the oxygen atom wanders looking for other gases to attach itself and make a new compound. As oxygen concentration is about 21%, (relative to other gases, no matter the altitude or actual abundance) it seems that finding another oxygen molecule is far easier than finding a molecule of the other gas in the list, Argon, (0.93%) or CO2 (0,03%), other gases as methane, chlorine, CFCs) 0.0757%, with whom it might combine. You could easily calculate the odds.

Then, this oxygen atom finds an oxygen molecule much faster than chlorine finds an ozone molecule (21% versus 0.000003%) and attaches to it forming a new ozone molecule. So we can assert that ozone is replenished faster by this catalytic cycle than it is destroyed by chlorine –if that ever happens, as the heterogeneous (surface) phase of chemistry tell us that chlorine can <b>ONLY</b> react with ozone over the hard surface provided by ice crystals in polar clouds, and on the surface of aerosols emitted by volcanoes.

As polar clouds exist only in Antarctica during winter and part of spring, chlorine is NOT attacking ozone outside the Antarctic stratosphere. These conclusions are not mine, however, but come from the study by hard-core “depletionists” as S. Solomon, G.H. Mount, R.W. Sanders, R.O. Jakoubek, and A.L Schmeltekopf, published in <b><I>Science</I></b> magazine, October 28, 1988, vol. 242, pp.550-558, that would be quite easy for anyone to find in the web.

So, BatM, the ozone hole theory has long been deceased, but the green corporation still keeps its corpse mummified to scare the gullible and ignorant. <I>Sic Transit Mundi</i>. <b>R.I.P.</I> (not meaning Rest In Peace, but Requiescat in Pacem).</b>

By the way: did you see the World’s Meteorological Organization revealing that <b>October was (globally) the coldest month in record for many decades?</b> What happened to the Global Warming? We are experiencing in the Southern Hemisphere the coldest summer in decades, with still snowing in the foothills of the Andes, and snowfalls near Buenos Aires! Perhaps this cold could be blamed on warming? We have heard that before coming from Al Gore, remember? Cool!

Avatar: why not use a simple - push and spray - ie a pump as it is in many sprays
Click to expand...

Why not use CFCs in a can? They are better, cheaper, more efficient, won't spoil the product inside, won't explode in your face making you look as The Opera Ghost and, above all, <b>ozone friendly</b>, as I have shown above :D :D
 
Tired Warrior, What is the status of your position as of now, 14 June 2006, i.e. what ha sthe passage of four years done to shed light on this issue?


Edufer said:
Nice picture, wet1. Computer imaging can do wonders with useless data.

It seems that the ozone hole scare is still in good health. They keep passing subtle missinformation (or shameless lies) as <i>"Ozone is vulnerable, though, to CFCs and halons being released into the atmosphere."</i>, without letting know the gullible people that CFCs and halocarbons are <B>INERT</B>, so they can't react with ozone. In any case, the ozone <B>MIGHT</B> react with chlorine, but <b>ONLY</b> on the surface of ice crystals in stratospheric polar clouds (SPC) over Antarctica, as demonstrated (back in 1988) by S. Salomon, R. Stolarski, et al, one of the teams trying to prove the dangers of CFCs to our stratosphere. (published in Science, 1988. I will give you the reference in a next post, if you are interested, maybe quoting the main conclusions of the paper.)

This means that the chlorine allegedly coming from CFCs cannot attack ozone <b>nowhere in the stratosphere</b>, and that's the reason why the ozone levels --outside the infamous hole in Antarctica-- has not changed <b>AT ALL</b>, beyond the natural fluctuactions from one hour to another, day to day, week to week, from one station to another, as recorded by all UV recording instruments all over the world. No arguing possible here.

But the scare and the hoax must be mantained in working conditions, because the amount of money involved is huge. Presently, the production of CFCs is <b>well and alive</b>, esoecially in China and India (besides France and other western countries) and the black market created by the CFC ban is greater than the weapons trafficking, lagging not too far behind the narcotraffic business. Money talks ... and the fools listen. ;) :D
Click to expand...
 
Edufers position will be the same. Edufer is a noted anti-environmentalist.
 
Four years have added a lot of garbage to the yellow press: they make up regularly “press releases” (science by “press release”, the fashionable way to promote hoaxes) to keep alive the scare and the fake science. They need that because the Ozone hole hoax is needed to perpetuate the idea that “scientists” are right when giving alarming news and predictions about the future climate or the long lasting life of the CFC molecules in the stratosphere –even they are well below the 0.01 ppb and well below the region where there is enough energy to split apart those ultra stable CFC molecules.

Take a look at the ozone level and UV-B values records around the world and you will find a seasonal variability, and cyclical trends up and down. So there is nothing new, really. Only the same crappy science used to promote the old scare.

BTW: Environmentalist's position will always be the same: they are noted anti-human, especially anti dark-skinned people living in underdeveloped countries.

I am human, so I will defend myself and my fellow species neighbours from aliens that call themselves "environmentalists". :p
 
Edufer’s stance that ozone does not block much UV makes pretty good sense but doesn’t ozone block a particular wave length that oxygen or nitrogen miss?
Click to expand...

Actually Edufer's stance suggests a lack of basic understanding of chemistry. Beer's Law, Chem 101. It's been discussed on these boards before:

http://www.sciforums.com/printthread.php?t=7017&page=1&pp=40

Scroll down to the beautiful graph posted with the absorbance spectrum of oxygen showing that only some UV wavelengths are absorbed by oxygen.
 
Yes Skylark, go back to the graph and see that oxygen absorbs the real dangerous UV radiation wavelengths. And should I remember you that studies by R. Setlow, et al. 1993. "Wavelengths Effective in Induction of Malignant Melanoma," Proceedings of the Nationel Academy of Sciences, Vol. 90 (July). pp. 666-667, and J. Moan and A. Dahlback, 1995. "Ultraviolet Radiation and Skin Cancer. Cutaneous Malignant Mslanoma," in Ozone, Sun, Cancer; (see note 10) proved that melanoma is caused not by UV-B <b>but by UV-A</b>, of longer wavelenght -and that sunblock creams didn't block UV-A until dermatologists discovered this fact and remodeled the sun creams?

But the scaremongers have kept the myth that UV-B causes malignant skin cancers, and UV increased because of chlorine from CFCs and all that rubbish.

Frank Sinatra used to say: Wake up to reality. Good advice.
 
Thats itneresting, Wikipedia says its both UV A and B that cause cancer. I can find nothing online confirming Edufers assertion that it is only UVA that is the problem. I can find plenty of website ssaying it is both of them that cause problems.
 
Yes Skylark, go back to the graph and see that oxygen absorbs the real dangerous UV radiation wavelengths. And should I remember you that studies by R. Setlow, et al. 1993. "Wavelengths Effective in Induction of Malignant Melanoma," Proceedings of the Nationel Academy of Sciences, Vol. 90 (July). pp. 666-667, and J. Moan and A. Dahlback, 1995. "Ultraviolet Radiation and Skin Cancer. Cutaneous Malignant Mslanoma," in Ozone, Sun, Cancer; (see note 10) proved that melanoma is caused not by UV-B but by UV-A, of longer wavelenght
Click to expand...
The graph shows oxygen absorbing at wavelengths below 200 nm. The Setlow paper (p. 6666-6670) concludes that "90-95% of melanoma induction may be attributed to wavelengths > 320 nm" in the model they used, "heavily pigmented backcross hybrids of the genus Xiphophorus (platyfish and swordtails)".

Look up some of the more recent work with mouse models and melanomas. For example:
De Fabo et al. 2004. "Ultraviolet B but not Ultraviolet A Radiation Initiates Melanoma" Cancer Research. 64:6372-6376.
Perlis & Herlyn. 2004. "Recent Advances in Melanoma Biology" The Oncologist. 9(2):182-187.
 
Skylark,

This is a study of the kind that Stewart and Randi love to expose, as they did with Dr. Benveniste a decade ago or so. The link of the entire study is at:

http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/full/64/18/6372

I extracted this just as a small sample:

Materials and Methods

Neonatal HGF/SF-transgenic mice were irradiated with a specialized optical source which coupled UV interference or cutoff filters to a 2.5 kW xenon lamp (6 , 7), to produce either isolated UVB or UVA wavebands or solar simulating radiation containing UVB, UVA, and visible radiation in proportions approximating sunlight. Neonatal transgenic animals were also irradiated with F40 sunlamps, which produce UVB and UVA radiation and visible light.

The spectral outputs of the sources used are given in Fig. 1 and the doses delivered are listed in Table 1 . Following treatment, animals were monitored weekly over 14 months for lesion and tumor development and melanomas were histologically verified as described previously (2 , 4) . Time to development of the first lesion that subsequently became a melanoma was determined for each animal and used in survival analysis (see Results). In agreement with previous studies (2 , 4) , by far the majority of melanomas produced by irradiation with any of the effective sources had a junctional component with a variety of pathologies that closely resembled the histopathology of human melanoma. No melanomas were observed in wild-type animals either unirradiated or irradiated with any UV source.​

I have highlighted in red the important part of this study. HGF/SF-transgenic mice are mice especially developed to have the highest possible predisposition for cancer. You stare at them intensely and they develop cancer. :p So there is no mystery for the melanoma cancers in those mice. Had you given aspirine to them and you would have also induced cancer.

However, when they exposed normal, good old wild animals (as human beings) with any kind of UV radiation, they couldn’t get melanomas.

I rest my case.
 
Does anyone know what is the mimium wavelength light which is still capable of stimualting vitamine B in normal white human?

Reason I ask is wife does no longer takes vitamin B pills because she has some bone loss, which probably is caused by parathryroid tumor as her PTH and blood Calcium are high, but radiological scan looking for it was negative.

We have read and been told that vitamin B is not advised in this suituation even though normaly it helps fix calcium in the bones (I think the idea is that the over active parathyroid will just try harder to take calcium out of bones and it will win over the small vitamin B effect.)

Anyway she is taking sun to promote "natural vitamin B." I have expressed the idea that Vitamin B is vitamin B, regardless of the source even though not sure that is true and persuaded her to take her sun lying on the floor in our house. (The window is closed and I assume that she is not really making vitamine B in glass filtered sunlight.)

We have better radiological scan scheduled and operation to follow immediately if positive results, but I want to know if I should try to talk her out of her "natural B" or just continue as I am now to think she is not making any behind the window filtered sun and thus if she wants to sun this way, there is no harm in it as she is behind the glass filter. - I do like to glance at her when she is doing this - she is shapely, so I would just as soon she continues if there is no vitamin B actually being made. I fear if I tell this "behind glass suning" is probably not productive she will want to get unfiltered "natural Vitamin B." She is a big believer in all things "natural" and not too trusting (nor am I) in what MDs say. (Many are too busy to keep up and just repeat what they remember from medschool.)
 
HGF/SF-transgenic mice are mice especially developed to have the highest possible predisposition for cancer. You stare at them intensely and they develop cancer. So there is no mystery for the melanoma cancers in those mice. Had you given aspirine to them and you would have also induced cancer.
Click to expand...
The paper you referenced as proof that UVA causes melanoma uses a fish model. They take two differenct species of Xiphophorus and breed them. They then take the those offspring and breed them in a backcross. One quarter of those offspring will have a recessive condition that makes them 1) overly pigmented and 2) highly predisposed to melanoma. Those are the fish they used to "prove" that UVA causes melanoma. So what's the rationale for you not being a big, fat hypocrite?

The mice in the study I referred to are predisposed to cancer. I don't know of anybody using wild-type models to study cancer. And if they did, I doubt they would have the statistical power or money to run the exposures with the enormous numbers of animals they would need to prove anything caused cancer. Not to mention the need to run significantly longer studies. I don't have a problem with using these animal models as long as someone doesn't point to one study, jump and down, and declare it definitively proved anything. Use cumulative evidence from multiple models combined with a mechanistically-based molecular understanding of the cancer's etiology to surport your risk assessments.

Additionally, those mice do not have the highest disposition towards cancer. There are studies out there that do use those types of animals. They are used to screen anti-cancer drugs where you want a really high background incidence of the cancer you are studying. Further the control mice in the study as well as those mice exposed to UVA radiation had low levels of melanoma incidence (7% and 0% respectively), so staring at them does not cause cancer.
 
Billy T,

I guess there is some misunderstanding in your part. Vitamin D is the one that fixes calcium to the bones. Vitamin B (and all their cohorts, B6, B12, etc) have different uses in the body. Vitamin D is is taken by the body from our food and beverages, exudated to the skin and sythesized there by UV-B rays. When ready it is absorbed trhought the skin again and sent to the bones where it helps fixing calcium in the bones. The same mechanism is used for absorption of synthesized Vitamin E on the skin by UV-B rays.

I am not a MD but have some longtime knowledge about physiology. I guess your doctor will advise you much better than I could.
 
The paper I referenced was from 1993, and it is still referenced in today’s scientific literature on the subject, if you care to take a look at references in most recent studies. So it is still a valid peer reviewed paper.

You said: “So what's the rationale for you not being a big, fat hypocrite?” Perhaps the same that makes you point to the study that uses especially created mice for making them develop cancer and blame anything for it. Are you a “big, fat hypocrite”? I guess not –just a big, fat ignorant.

Why is anyone now NOT using normal old-style mice for cancer studies? Because they run the risk of not getting cancer when testing for a given substance that “must” be found guilty of causing cancer. There is much money involved in research that “must” prove cancers or other ailments in humans. If they used “normal” animals (even human beings) then it would be almost impossible to show that a given substance causes cancers at levels found in the environment. That is something that nobody wants to fund. They already know that most substances in the environment will not induce cancer at doses or levels found in everyday life. And for showing that a substance causes cancer –and therefore must be “regulated” or banned, they must feed or inject special rats with huge doses (several thousands or hundred thousands times higher than usually found in our homes, for instance) for having a cancer develop in those poor animals.

What's worse, rats are not little human beings, so the results of those tests cannot be extrapolated to humans. That’s a scientific fact, no doubt about it, but corporations, foundations, companies manufacturing special rats, the EPA, FDA and other agencies (not to mention researchers avid of grant money) don’t want to hear about it. It would ruin their excellent business.

Cancer etiology? Who know anything for sure about cancer etiology? They think they are starting to see a light at the end of the dark tunnel –but that could be an express train coming at full speed.

But we were speaking about people getting melanomas because the increase of the ozone hole in Antarctica, especially those babies in Punta Arenas, Chile, reported by Al Gore back in the early 90s. They reported that babies had developed melanomas due to the ozone hole. As you know, melanoma, and other types of cancer takes several years to develop, as it does with radiation. Gore also lied about rabbit and sheep getting blind in Patagonia because the ozone hole. Gore hid from the public the fact that the blindness of sheep was caused by ashes from Mont Hudson's eruption in 1991, that provoked an incurable case of bacterial conjunctivitis.

They were lying to the public, this man Gore was a liar, and he is still lying today with his recent movie on global warming. And he wanted to be president of the USA! Sometimes I ask myself if it wouldn’t have been much better for the world if Gore had won the election. I wonder if with an economically destroyed USA we who live outside the USA would have a much better life, or we would be subjected to new criminal environmental laws as the DDT, PCBs and CFCs bans.
 
The paper I referenced was from 1993, and it is still referenced in today’s scientific literature on the subject, if you care to take a look at references in most recent studies. So it is still a valid peer reviewed paper.
Click to expand...
I never claimed otherwise. I only pointed at the similarities between it and the paper I pointed to. As I said I have no problem with the usage of these animal models. If you do not think they are appropriate then do not refer to them as proof of something causing cancer.
You said: “So what's the rationale for you not being a big, fat hypocrite?” Perhaps the same that makes you point to the study that uses especially created mice for making them develop cancer and blame anything for it. Are you a “big, fat hypocrite”? I guess not –just a big, fat ignorant.
Click to expand...
Sorry, between the two of us, you are the only one claiming something has been proven to cause cancer. I am, however, blaming you for using a double standard. If the animal model fits your pet hypothesis, then it's OK. If it goes contrary to your personal belief system, then it's bad. You can call me ignorant until you are blue in the face, I don't care, my posts speak for themselves.
What's worse, rats are not little human beings, so the results of those tests cannot be extrapolated to humans. That’s a scientific fact, no doubt about it, but corporations, foundations, companies manufacturing special rats, the EPA, FDA and other agencies (not to mention researchers avid of grant money) don’t want to hear about it. It would ruin their excellent business.
Click to expand...
Don't forget pharmaceutical companies. They develop drugs with those animal models.
 
What's worse, rats are not little human beings, so the results of those tests cannot be extrapolated to humans. That’s a scientific fact, no doubt about it
Click to expand...
OK, so cancer in rats is totally different than cancer in humans. Different mechanisms, different disease, different causes. If you can't extrapolate from rats to humans, it stands to reason you also can't extrapolate from humans to rats right? So most human carcinogens don't cause cancer in rats? Or ... pretty much all human carcinogens cause cancer in rats?
 
Skylark said:
OK, so cancer in rats is totally different than cancer in humans. Different mechanisms, different disease, different causes. If you can't extrapolate from rats to humans, it stands to reason you also can't extrapolate from humans to rats right? So most human carcinogens don't cause cancer in rats? Or ... pretty much all human carcinogens cause cancer in rats?
Click to expand...
You are being disingenuous, showing you have run out of arguments. You are speaking nonsense and twisting arguments to fit your theory. I never said cancers in humans and rats are different. You said it. I never said there are different mechanisms. diseases, etc, because no one knows if there are.

What I insist on is on the known fact that when animals are given doses of chemicals at levels as found in the environment they almost NEVER develop cancer. The "almost" are the exceptions of highly carcinogenic substances as Aflatoxin-B and other highly carcinogenic natural toxins. Even so, it takes quite time to develop a tumor at those "natural" doses. Other potent toxins immediately kill test animals before allowing them to develop any tumor.

Extrapolations from one species to another is something hotly debated nowadays, as species differ from others in many ways, not just morpologically. You are putting words in my mouth that I have never expressed. That's the typical tactic of those losing the high ground and trying to reverse the outcome of the battle.

Go back to previous posts and see that I posted that scientists (not me!) say that melanoma was caused by UV-A: "... and J. Moan and A. Dahlback, 1995. "Ultraviolet Radiation and Skin Cancer. Cutaneous Malignant Melanoma," in Ozone, Sun, Cancer; (see note 10) proved that melanoma is caused not by UV-B but by UV-A, of longer wavelenght..."

It is not me who claimed that, but those wacko scientists that dare to defy the Establishment and the politically correct Nomenklatura that has determined (almost as a holy gospel) that CFC go up to the srtatosphere, then liberates chlorine that destroy ozone, and this allows UV-B to increase and cause melanoma in furry cats in Australia. Allow me to smile.
 
Edufer said:
... Vitamin D is the one that fixes calcium to the bones.... sythesized there {in skin} by UV-B rays. When ready it is absorbed trhought the skin again and sent to the bones where it helps fixing calcium in the bones. The same mechanism is used for absorption of synthesized Vitamin E on the skin by UV-B rays...
Click to expand...
Yes I meant D, don't know if it was memory confusion, or my dyslexia that got me. Are UV-B the shorter or longer UV rays, I forget. Do they pass thru ordinary window glass? I forget exactly where that cut off is, but recall it is not very far into the UV. Thus reasonable sure that if UV-B is the short wavelength one, they will not be passing thru the glass window and wife can safely sun in the glass filtered sunlight on the floor - making us both happier. Thanks for the correction.

---------------------------new subject, more to thread----------------
Years ago when demonstrated cancer production, regardless of dose, forced product removal from market became law, one of the first, if not the first, artificial sweetener was removed from the market because of the new law.

I do not remember the dose required for it to induce cancer, but it was huge - like 10% of body weight eaten each day. I liked that sweetener, so I wrote, only half in jest, to company and suggested that they add a little arsenic to the product, so it would be impossible for anyone to demonstrate the sweetener produced cancer. With arsenic added, it would be legal to sell once more.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Billy T,

The sweetener was potassium cyclamate, one of the many products that came down the sickle of the prohibition fashion that raged in the 80s. The actual dose for getting a cancer was eating about 2 tons of cake with cyclamate, or about 270,000 cans of Pepsi Diet EVERY DAY, DURING A LIFETIME (70 years).

However, cyclamate has been vindicated and has been withdrawn from FDA ban regulations. They also tried to ban saccharin but failed. The basis for banning cyclamate (as all other chemicals) was –and still are- those flawed experiments on animals being fed huge doses of a certain chemical and blame the resulting tumor to the substance.

Those scientists and the agencies will never tell the people about the myogenesis effect, that is, the uncontrolled multiplication of cells caused by the abnormal excess of a chemical substance. This phenomenon was explained by Dr. Bruce Ames and Dr. Lois Swirsky Gold, from UCLA at Berkely, long time ago in the late 80s, who insisted that natural carcinogens are 99,99% of the total carcinogens stalking man in the environment, and not the 0.01% of synthetic chemicals used by the industry.

Their study say this (just as a hook for catching your interest) which gives a clue to the idiocy behind those EPA thresholds used in its regulations on chemicals:

"If TCDD is compared with alcohol it seems of minor interest as a teratogen or carcinogen. Alcoholic beverages are the most important known human chemical teratogen [43]. In contrast, there is no persuasive evidence that TCDD is either carcinogenic or teratogenic in humans, although it is both at near-toxic doses in rodents. If one compares the teratogenic potential of TCDD to that of alcohol for causing birth defects (after adjusting for their respective potency as determined in rodent tests), then a daily consumption of the EPA reference dose of TCDD (6 fg) would be equivalent in teratogenic potential to a daily consumption of alcohol from 1/3,000,000 of a beer. That is equivalent to drinking a single beer (15 g ethyl alcohol) over a period of 8,000 years."​

TCCDD is dioxin (or tetra-chloro-para-dibenzo-dioxin).

Their study (National Proceedings of the NAS) is here (worth reading): http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INGLES/AmesSynth.html

Perhaps this article will be of interest to you, related to carcinogens in our diet: http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/Risks/hollidayDinner.html

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
About UV-B, its wavelength is comprised between 286-320 nanometers (or 2860-3200 angstroms), so it is between UV-A (320-400 nm), and UV-C (40-286 nm). Of course, the chemical action of those wavelength differ, but a photon having 280 nm (UV-B) has about the same energy (and chemical action) that a photon of 291 nm (UV-A). But scientists had to trace a line (the thin red line?) somewhere.

UV-B cannot pass through a 2 mm thick common glass, so you can stay a day long sunbathing behind a window and will not get a suntan –neither the beneficial effect of UV-B over the skin. The so called “UV filters” used in photography are simple pieces of 3 mm thick glass. Other filters (as Wratten 80B, if I don’t recall badly) are light salmon colored to offset the bluish effect in pictures taken in the snow. The bluish effect is not given by UV radiation, of course, but from reflection of the blue sky over the great white surface of the snow.
 
Thanks again.
For last year or so, I have been taking about one ounce or a little less of vodca in small glass of juice before going to bed. I read all about the benefits of "red wine" and then that it was the alcohol, not the esters etc in the red wine etc. but thought I would try it as I often go to bed straight from sometimes strong discussion here and it is certainly aid to quickly falling asleep (never have any problem with that anyway) but one benefit for older men I have noticed: even with bowl soup for dinner and water mellon for desert, I no long get up in the night to go to the bath room. Your article (have not read) seems to suggest alcohol is not entirely safe even in very limited quanity. I had read years agos that It is basically only a food if taken so slowly that it is metabolized with only very low blood level being achieved - my case I am sure.

I am inclined to think the chance of my falling while half a sleep on way to the bath room in middle of the night is a more serious risk than my evening shot.

What do you think?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top