Skip to content

Details

We're currently hosting our discussions at Café Walnut, near the corner of 7th & Walnut in Olde City, just across the street from Washington Square Park. The cafe's entrance is below street level down some stairs, which can be confusing if it's your first time. Our group meets in the large room upstairs.

Since we're using the cafe's space, they ask that each person attending the meetup at least purchase a drink or snack. Please don't bring any food or drinks from outside. If you're hungry enough to eat a meal, they have more substantial fare such as salads, soups & sandwiches which are pretty good and their prices are reasonable.

The cafe is fairly easy to get to if you're using public transit. With SEPTA, take the Market-Frankford Line & get off at the 5th Street Station (corner of 5th & Market), and walk 2 blocks south on 5th and then turn right on Walnut Street and walk 2 blocks west. With PATCO, just get off at the 9th-10th & Locust stop and walk 3 blocks east & 1 block north. For those who are driving, parking in the neighborhood can be tough to find. If you can't find a spot on the street, I'd suggest parking in the Washington Square parking deck at 249 S 6th Street which is just a half block away.

----------------------------------------------
DO WE NEED NUCLEAR POWER, BIOFUELS & FRACKING TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE?

INTRODUCTION:

I've been meaning to host another group discussion on climate change for a while, and so here we are... My guess is that almost all of our members believe that the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming is sound and want more political action to address it. Therefore, rather than preach to the choir about "why climate change is real & man-made", I figured it's probably more important to tackle some issues that are closely related to climate change but might be a bit more controversial among our members - i.e. nuclear power, biofuels & fracking.

Many people who consider themselves environmentalists are very concerned with addressing climate change, but they also tend to be very wary of nuclear power & hydraulic fracking of natural gas due to concerns about the potential of negative impacts on the health of people living near nuclear power plants & fracking wells. And of course natural gas from fracking contributes to greenhouse gas emissions. While the environmental movement promoted biofuels in the 1990s & early 2000s and the majority of Americans (68%) still favor expanding their use, over the last decade environmentalist groups have grown much more skeptical of certain biofuels like ethanol & palm oil, and a few have written biofuels off entirely since while renewable they still produce CO2 when burned. At this point, many environmentalists are promoting a rapid transition to 100% renewable energy based mostly on solar panels & wind turbines.

So the central question we'll be addressing in this meetup is: "Is solar & wind energy enough, or do we need to expand nuclear power, biofuels & fracking as part of the solution to climate change?"

WHAT'S THE SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS? AND WHAT'S THE POLITICAL ORIENTATION OF THE SCIENTISTS?

As usual, our starting point for addressing this question will be to look at the expert consensus among scientists. In 2015, the Pew Research Center polled 3,748 members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) about a range of controversial scientific issues and compared their views to polls of the American public. The AAAS is a science policy advocacy group and it's not necessarily representative of the entire America scientific establishment, but it's one of the only large scientific organizations that has been polled on a large number of issues. Since a STEM degree is common for AAAS members but not required and many members are just high school science teachers or STEM professionals with a bachelor's degree, we'll use the views of the 1,627 members who are working PhD scientists as a rough proxy for the expert consensus. I've included a graphic from the report above, and you can find the results here: https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2015/07/23/an-elaboration-of-aaas-scientists-views

As you can see from the poll, almost 93% of AAAS earth scientists believe that climate change is mostly due to human activity. Among their working PhD Earth scientists, 78% say climate change is a "very serious" problem, 17% say it's a "somewhat serious" problem, and only 5% say it's a "not too serious" problem, and this is similar to the breakdown for the rest of the AAAS.

Perhaps surprisingly, a substantial minority - 38% - of the AAAS earth scientists also favor expanding fracking and 30% favor offshore drilling (47% of AAAS engineers favor both). Since the numbers suggest there's considerable overlap between the earth scientists who say climate change is "very serious" or "somewhat serious" and who favor fracking & offshore drilling, we may assume they want to use natural gas as a lower-carbon alternative to coal and as a "bridge technology" to develop more nuclear & renewable energy.

A slight majority (65%) of the AAAS earth scientists favor building more nuclear plants, but the consensus is stronger among engineers (75%) and physicists (79%).

Among the working PhD scientists in the AAAS, 80% favor increased use of biofuels. As we'll see, one of the major environmentalist concerns with biofuels is they drive up the price of food. The AAAS member were asked if growing world population "will be a major problem because there won't be enough food and resources", and 83% of the working PhD scientists in the AAAS said yes, so food shortages are a concern they share. Note that Pew Research specifically polled the AAAS members about bioengineered plants as a fuel alternative to gasoline, so it may be that they're looking forward to advances in genetically engineering certain plants that make biofuel production more efficient.

In case you're wondering about the political orientation of AAAS scientists and how it may influence their views, we've got a poll from 2009 that can give us some insight:
https://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-4-scientists-politics-and-religion/

As you can see from this 2nd poll, most AAAS members self-identify as liberal (38%) or very liberal (14%), although there's also a sizable amount of self-identified as "moderates" (35%) and a minority identify as "conservatives" (9%). Political affiliation parallels ideology, with 55% saying they're Democrats, 32% independents, 6% Republicans, and 4% saying "other/none". Most independents in the AAAS say they lean Democrat, so that with leaners it's a 81% Democrat to 12% Republican ratio. When asked if they think government is usually wasteful & inefficient, 58% of AAAS members disagreed. However, when asked if business corprations generally strike a fair balance between profits & public interest, 78% disagreed. When asked if it's the responsibility of government to take care of the less fortunate, 78% of AAAS members said yes. So overall, it's fair to say that the AAAS appears to be a fairly left-leaning group in terms of its members' political orientation. Thus, it's hard to argue that the relatively pro-nuclear power & pro-biofuel stances of its members is based on a politically right-wing, pro-corporate & anti-regulation bias unless they conspired to hide their ideology. And even though the AAAS is divided on fracking, the poll numbers make it hard to argue that those who are pro-fracking are all climate change deniers or diehard conservatives.

WHY ARE THESE SCIENTIFIC FINDINGS SO CONTROVERSIAL?

So if scientists mostly agree that climate change is real & nuclear power is safe, why is the general public so divided? Does most Americans support "bioengineered" fuels only because they don't realize these will be made from the dreaded GMOs? And why is the public so divided on fracking when the average person isn't even sure what it is?

The skeptic movement has tended to emphasize the role that both scientific ignorance & misinformation promulgated by special nterest groups plays in these fears. Skeptics tend to emphasize the role of the Republican Party and Big Oil lobbyists in promoting "climate change denial", a term coined to make an analogy with the pseudo-historical ramblings of Holocaust deniers who often have a hidden motive, i.e. anti-Semitism. However, labeling everyone who doubts that global warming is primarily man-made as "deniers" is still somewhat controversial with some skeptics, since it seems to violate a core skeptical principle, i.e. "Hanlon's Razor", which states that we should "never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by ignorance".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

When it comes to the fears about radiation & chemicals that drive a lot of the opposition to nuclear power and fracking, skeptics have pointed out that anti-nuclear activists & paranoid environmentalists have played some role in this, but since these lobbies aren't as poweful as Big Oil and haven't captured the Democratic party leadership, skeptics have generally attributed more of the blame to the public's scientific ignorance. In particular, skeptics have pointed out the misconception that everything "natural" is good & eveything "artificial" is bad - a.k.a. the "appeal to nature" fallacy. They've also cataloged a variety of common misconceptions about radiation & chemicals that lead to what they call "radiophobia" and "chemophobia".
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Radiophobia
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Chemophobia

However, recent research on the psychology of risk perception from Daniel Kahan's research at Yale's Cultural Cognition Project paints a more complicated picture. According to Kahan, the average person's answer to these sorts of questions about societal risks depends on 3 factors: (1) their political ideology - particularly as it relates to hierarchy vs equality & the individual vs the community, (2) their level of "scientific literacy" - i.e. general science knowledge, and (3) their level of "scientific curiosity" - i.e. their motivation to seek out & consume scientific information for personal pleasure.

In general, Kahan has found that liberals tend to believe that anthropogenic global warming is a serious threat, but also tend to believ that nuclear power & fracking aren't safe. Conversely, conservatives tend to minimize or entirely dismiss the threat of anthropogenic global warming and don't fear nuclear power or fracking. Basically, this look like a referendum on: "Is industrial technology good or bad?"

Now you might think that as each side learns more about science, this would shift their views to align more closely with the scientific consensus, but that's not what Kahan found. In general, people with higher levels of science literacy are MORE polarized and even more closely align their views on various risks with their political ideology, even if that brings them into conflict with the scientific consensus. Kahan theorizes this is because smarter people are even better at motivated reasoning, and also because they realize there's social benefits to adhering to their political ideology - i.e. they don't want to alienate their family & friends who probably share the same ideology. (Thankfully, at least for now, nuclear power doesn't show quite as much political polarization as climate change & fracking.)
http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2014/4/2/mapkia-episode-49-where-is-ludwick-or-what-type-of-person-is.html
http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2018/4/5/wsmd-ja-two-trends-in-1-nuclear-power-risk-perception.html
http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2014/3/13/fracking-freaks-me-out.html

You'd think trust in science might help resolve the political polarization of issues, but you'd be wrong. Kahan has found that most people, liberal & conservative, express a generalized "trust in science" when it's asked out of any specific context. However, when their trust is put to the test by asking them to believe something that runs contrary to their political ideology, it usually fails.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/04/20/science-march-war-truth-political-polarization/100636124/

However, "science curiosity" does help depolarize these issues a bit - not entirely, but any progress is rather surprising. You'd think science curiosity would be virtually identical to science literacy, but they're only weakly correlated. Sure, some people are both knowledgeable & curious about science, but others are amateur science fans who don't know a lot but just like hearing about recent discoveries and learning something new. Luckily, science curiosity appears evenly distributed across the political spectrum - meaning there's a roughly even percentage of people on the left, right & center who are more committed to science than partisan groupthink.
https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/2/1/14392290/partisan-bias-dan-kahan-curiosity

RELEVANT MATERIAL FROM PAST MEETUPS:

The above intro section suggests that we should start by looking at the scientific consensus, so this begs the question: Should laypeople should defer to the scientific consensus? Our meetup has both addressed this before. In general, most major figures in the skeptic movement have argued that laypeople should defer to the expert consensus on issues that are empirical, i.e. not questions of ethics or aesthetics. However, laypeople can also check the validity of the expert consensus in several ways:
(1) look to see if the expert consensus could be almost entirely explained by factors that should have nothing to do with expertise - such as political ideology, nationality, or academic clique;
(2) look for a narrower consensus of experts who've published peer-reviewed research on the specific topic in question;
(3) look to see if experts in adjacent fields that share a similar methodology agree;
(4) look to see if a systematic review or meta-analysis of the existing research conflicts with the results of the polls of the experts;
(5) look to see if the experts have produced replicable studies, have a good track record of making accurate predictions, and/or have a successful track record of getting good results in the real world when their policies are implemented;
(6) look at how those with "skin in the game" are acting - i.e. look at prediction tournaments, betting odds, and/or movements in markets to see if people are willing to bet money on the experts being right or wrong.
To the extent that a polls of the experts shows they're about evenly divided and/or to the extent that there appears to some ideological biases or blindspots that make the expert consensus suspect, this can justify hedging or a decentralized strategy. However, it doesn't mean that anything short of 100% agreement means "scientists are baffled", anything could be true, and so you should just believe whatever you want.
https://www.meetup.com/Philly-Skeptics/events/247202284/

Back in November of 2017, we had a meetup entitled "Climate Change & Bad Arguments" where we covered 4 bad memes that climate change proponents should stop sharing: (1) Joel Pett's climate summit cartoon from 2009 that implicitly proposes a "free lunch" from green spending & ignores opportunity costs, (2) Arnold Schwarzenegger's viral facebook post from 2015 that challenged climate change deniers to stay in a closed room with a running car - thus conflating climate change with carbon monoxide poisoning, (3) Greg Craven's viral YouTube video "The Most Terrifying Thing You'll Ever See" that proposes to solve the uncertainty surrounding climate change with a binary risk analysis identical to Pascal's Wager, and (4) Neil DeGrasse Tyson's tweets from 2017 asking why there's no "hurricane denial" or "eclipse denial", ignoring the differences between direct observations & inferences.
https://www.meetup.com/Philly-Skeptics/events/241725185/

NOTE: Immediately after our discussion, the Philly Political Agnostics are holding a discussion from 3-5pm entitled "What Should We Do About Climate Change?" which essentially picks up where our discussion leaves off & looks at how scientists & economists predict the economic damages different levels of climate change could cause & how this suggests different levels of carbon taxes & how quick the transition to zero-carbon energy production has to be. We'll also look at how political scientists & international relations scholars think about the difficulties achieving the political compromises necessary to tackle climate change, both domestically & internationally.
https://www.meetup.com/Philadelphia-Political-Agnostics/events/chrnnqyzjbmb/

-----------------------------------------------

DIRECTIONS ON HOW TO PREPARE FOR OUR DISCUSSION:

The videos & articles you see linked below are intended to give you a basic overview of the debates over renewable energy, nuclear energy biofuels & fracking and how they all relate to the challenges posed by climate change.

As usual, I certainly don't expect you to read all the articles & watch all the videos prior to attending our discussion. The easiest way to prepare for our discussion is to just watch the numbered videos linked under each section - the videos come to about about 46 minutes total. The articles marked with asterisks are just there to supply additional details. You can browse and look at whichever ones you want, but don't worry - we'll cover the stuff you missed in our discussion.

In terms of the discussion format, my general idea is that we'll address the topics in the order presented here. As you can see, I've listed some questions under each section heading to stimulate discussion - we'll do our best to answer most of them. I figure we'll spend about 30 minutes on each section.

----------------------------------------------

I. THE PROBLEMS WITH RENEWABLE ENERGY:

  • HOW "GREEN" ARE SOLAR PANELS & WIND TURBINES - I.E. HOW MUCH FOSSIL FUELS ARE BURNED IN THE COURSE OF THEIR PRODUCTION & MAINTENANCE? HOW COULD WE REDUCE THIS?

  • IS DAVID McKAY RIGHT THAT SOLAR & WIND ENERGY ARE TOO DIFFUSE IN MANY AREAS TO PROVIDE SUFFICIENT POWER? HOW QUICKLY CAN WE EXPECT MORE EFFICIENT SOLAR PANELS & WIND TURBINES TO ALLEVIATE THIS PROBLEM?

  • DOES THE INTERMITTENCY OF SOLAR & WIND POWER MEAN THEY WILL ALWAYS BE MARGINAL SOURCES OF POWER IN MOST AREAS, OR COULD IMPROVEMENTS IN BATTERIES ALLOW US TO STORE ENOUGH OF THEIR ENERGY IN THE NEAR FUTURE?

  • TO STORE THE ENERGY FROM SOLAR & WIND POWER, COULD WE JUST HOOK THEM TO WATER PUMPS & HAVE THEM PUMP WATER DOWNSTREAM FROM HYDROELECTRIC DAMS BACK UP TO THE RESERVOIR TO STORE THE ENERGY?

  • ARE HYDROELECTRIC DAMS A RELIABLE SOURCE OF RENEWABLE ENERGY, OR WILL CLIMATE CHANGE CUT INTO THIS BY MAKING RAINFALL MORE IRREGULAR?

  • IS IT TRUE THAT MANY MAJOR DAMS CAUSE THE EMISSION OF SO MUCH METHANE FROM ROTTING ORGANIC MATERIAL IN THEIR RESERVOIR THAT THEY CAN'T BE CONSIDERED "CLEAN ENERGY"? IS THERE ANY WAY OF REDUCING THIS PROBLEM?

  1. David MacKay, "A Reality Check on Renewables" (video - 18:27 min)
    https://www.ted.com/talks/david_mackay_a_reality_check_on_renewables/up-next?language=en

.
II. THE CASE FOR MODERN NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS:

  • JUDGING BY PAST HISTORY, HOW COMMON ARE NUCLEAR MELTDOWNS AT NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS?

  • WAS THE CHERNOBYL MELTDOWN A GOOD EXAMPLE OF THE WORST CASE SCENARIO OF WHAT COULD HAPPEN AT A MODERN NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, OR WAS IT UNIQUELY BAD BECAUSE OF THE OLDER DESIGN THAT USED GRAPHITE AS A REGULATOR?

  • HOW BAD WAS THE ACCIDENT AT THREE MILE ISLAND? DID IT RAISE THE RATE OF CANCER IN THE SURROUNDING AREA?

  • HOW BAD WAS THE FUKUSHIMA MELTDOWN? DID IT MAKE MOST OF THE FISH IN THE PACIFIC INEDIBLE DUE TO RADIATION AS SOME ENVIRONMENTALISTS CLAIMED, OR WAS THIS JUST HYPE?

  • IS IT TRUE THAT MOLTEN SALT REACTORS (E.G. THORIUM REACTORS) CAN'T MELT DOWN?

  • HOW BIG OF A PROBLEM DOES NUCLEAR WASTE POSE FOR SAFE STORAGE? IS IT TRUE THAT MOLTEN SALT REACTORS DON'T PRODUCE ANY WASTE?

  • WILL MORE NUCLEAR REACTORS ENABLE NUCLEAR WEAPON PROLIFERATION? IS IT TRUE THAT MOLTEN SALT REACTORS DON'T POSE THIS PROBLEM BECAUSE THEY PRODUCE MUCH FISSILE MATERIAL & ITS VERY HARD TO SEPARATE?

  • ARE MOLTEN SALT REACTORS STILL IN AN EARLY DEVELOPMENT PHASE, OR COULD THEY BE BUILT RIGHT NOW?

  • IS IT TRUE THAT THE REGULATORY & FINANCIAL BARRIERS TO BUILDING NUCLEAR REACTORS IN THE U.S. ARE SO HIGH THAT IT MAKES THEM IMPRACTICAL? IF SO, COULD REGULATION REFORM & GOV'T SUBSIDIES MAKE THEM MORE VIABLE?

2a) Kurzgesagt, "3 Reasons Why Nuclear Energy Is Terrible” (video - 4:09 min)
https://youtu.be/HEYbgyL5n1g

2b) Kurzgesagt, "3 Reasons Why Nuclear Energy Is Awesome” (video - 4:20 min)
https://youtu.be/pVbLlnmxIbY

.
III. WHY SCIENTISTS ARE STILL OPTIMISTIC ABOUT BIOFUELS:

  • DOES CURRENT PRODUCTION OF ETHANOL FROM CORN CONSUME AS MUCH OR MORE FUEL THAN IT YIELDS? HOW LIKELY IS IT THAT TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCES COULD MAKE CORN ETHANOL PRODUCTION MORE EFFICIENT IN THE NEAR FUTURE?

  • COULD THE BIOMASS IN OUR TRASH BECOME A MAJOR SOURCE OF BIOFUEL OR METHANE?

  • IS IT TRUE THAT PALM OIL PRODUCTION INEVITABLE PROMOTES SO MUCH DEFORESTATION THAT IT CANCELS OUT MOST OR ALL OF THE BENEFITS OR PALM OIL BIODIESEL?

  • WHY HAVEN'T WE SEEN THE WIDESPREAD DEPLOYMENT OF BIOFUELS MANY HOPED FOR? COULD GM PLANTS & GM YEAST BOOST BIOFUEL PRODUCTION ENOUGH TO MAKE THEM VIABLE IN THE NEAR FUTURE?

  • DOES USING FARMLAND TO GROW CROPS FOR BIOFUEL INEVITABLY DRIVE UP THE PRICE OF FOOD? COULD THIS BE AVOIDED BY SELECTING CROPS LIKE HEMP THAT CAN GROW ON MARGINAL LAND?

  • IS ALGAE A PROMISING SOURCE OF BIOFUEL? WHY HASN'T IT BEEN MORE WIDELY DEVELOPED?

  1. Seeker, "Why Don’t We Have Functional Biofuel Yet?" (video - 5:27 min.)
    https://youtu.be/LEepDbZqFmE

.
IV. WHY A SIGNIFICANT MINORITY OF SCIENTISTS SUPPORT FRACKING:

  • DOES FRACKING ALLOW US TO CUT CARBON EMISSIONS BY SWITCHING FROM COAL TO NATURAL GAS, OR DO LEAKS FROM WELLS CANCEL OUT MOST OR ALL OF THE BENEFIT?

  • DOES FRACKING FLUID POSE A SERIOUS THREAT TO THE GROUNDWATER, OR ARE THEY DRILLING SO FAR BENEATH THE WATER TABLE THAT THE RISK IS NEGLIGIBLE?

  • EVEN IF THE FRACKING FLUID IS TOO VISCOUS TO PERCOLATE UP, DOES FRACKING ALLOW NATURAL GAS TO SEEP INTO WELL WATER?

  • ARE SURFACE SPILLS & DUMPING OF FRACKING FLUID A MAJOR PROBLEM?

  • ARE REPORTS OF LOW-BIRTH WEIGHT & BIRTH DEFECTS IN BABIES NEAR FRACKING SITES TRUE? IF SO, IS IT MORE LIKELY DUE TO FRACKING FLUID LEACHING INTO THE GROUNDWATER OR POOR MATERNAL HEALTH & LACK OF PRENATAL CARE IN RURAL AREAS WHERE FRACKING OCCURS?

  • DOES FRACKING CAUSE EARTHQUAKES? IF SO, ARE THEY JUST MINI-QUAKES (LESS THAN 0.5 ON THE RICHTER SCALE), OR COULD THEY PRODUCE BIGGER QUAKES THAT COULD DO SERIOUS DAMAGE?

  1. Brian Dunning, "All About Fracking" (video - 13:37 min.)
    https://youtu.be/YfM2vWzd6gc

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Events in Philadelphia, PA

Members are also interested in