Essay Color Key

Free Essays
Unrated Essays
Better Essays
Stronger Essays
Powerful Essays
Term Papers
Research Papers




Investigation of River Gwaun

Rate This Paper:

Length: 3887 words (11.1 double-spaced pages)
Rating: Red (FREE)      
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Investigation of River Gwaun


Introduction

I am investigating how the course of the river changes from the source
to the mouth. I will study the River Gwaun at 4 sites, starting at
Gellifawr (near the source), then going to Pontfaen, then Llanychaer,
then finally ending at Lower Fishguard, near the mouth where the river
meets the Irish Sea.

I went to do my fieldwork on the 20th May 2002 with my Geography class
and another from my year. I was in a group of 5, with Richard
Gledhíll, Chrís Strzeleckí, Jason Inglesant. Ashley Stone and James
O'Shea. We worked in a group because it is the easiest and probably
the only way to collect all the data we need at each site. We
collected data from each of the 4 sites.


Site 1 - Gellifawr
------------------

Overhanging and heavy vegetation and steep V-shaped valley

[IMAGE]


This is close to the source and is situated in the Preseli Hills. The
relief is steep and the banks are V-shaped, typical of parts of the
river in the Upper Profile. The water and the banks are very muddy.
The river was apparently flowing slowly, there was a lot of large,
angular bed load and there was a few small waterfalls. There was
evidence of turbulence at some parts of the river.


Site 2 - Pontfaen
-----------------

This site was on a floodplain next to a farm. There was evidence of an
ox-bow lake nearby, which shows the river had been meandering. The
river is flowing quite fast and the bed load is mostly small
sub-angular/rounded pebbles. The river is quite wide and had much
clearer water than Site 1. The riverbanks were flat but there was an
overhang. There was some evidence of man-management as there were big
boulders on one side of the river (the side bordering the farm), which
is presumably to stop eroding on to farmland and the small pebbles
covered the bed to stop erosion and making the river deeper.

[IMAGE]

Flat land -Floodplain

[IMAGE]



Site 3 - Llanychaer
-------------------

Heavy vegetation

Site 3 was situated next to a small village. The river was a lot wider
and deeper than in site 2. The riverbanks were not steep but there was
a (large) overhang in some parts. Bed load was less frequent than in
site 2 but there was some more large and angular rocks.

[IMAGE]


Site 4 - Lower Fishguard

Human development/settlement

Sea, ferries and boats

[IMAGE]
This is in the middle of a residential area with access to ferries. It
is at the mouth of the river and is a lot wider than any of the other
sites. This is probably down to two main factors, erosion and
man-management. The bed load was a mixture of small round rocks and
mediocre (sub)angular/rounded rocks. The river was straight and
flowing very fast.

Gabions and large rocks to stop erosion of riverbanks


Landforms and Man-made structures

Waterfalls/rapids

Waterfall

Plunge Pool

[IMAGE]
There were a few small waterfalls in Site 1 and a few instances of
rapids. Waterfalls are formed when a hard resistant cap of rock does
not erode but the softer rock underneath does, forming an overhang.
When the pressure is too great, some of the hard rock snaps off into
the plunge pool and the cycle begins again.

Ox-Bow Lakes

This is when a meander in the river carries on eroding at one side and
eventually makes a straight(er) connection with the river. All the
water travels through this channel and so the old meander dries out.
There is a faded ox-bow lake in Site 2 but it is still visible.

[IMAGE]

[IMAGE]


Old Ox-bow lake


Overhang

Overhanging grass

[IMAGE]


Dark shows gap under the grass

There are a few examples of overhang on the River Gwaun, particularly
in Sites 3 & 1. The most prominent are in Site 3. Overhang is formed
when the river erodes part of the riverbank but not the top part, thus
causing an overhanging bit of grass/earth/etc. on the riverbank.

Bridges

Bridge arc blocks parts of river

[IMAGE]


Bridges can affect the speed of flow of a river and maybe cause rapids
because they obstruct parts of the river, which will force the water
to go round it and thus affecting the speed. There are many bridges
along the River Gwaun, especially near houses and towns/villages.
There was a bridge near Site 2 but it was downstream from us and so
didn't affect our results.



Width
=====

Hypothesis

I think that the width will increase from Gellifawr (site 1) to Lower
Fishguard (site 4). I think this will happen because of erosion,
primarily in the form of hydraulic power and corrasion. The load will
wear away the sides of the river, causing the riverbanks to be further
apart the lower down the river you go. The water will be moving
quickly and the force will loosen and break away parts of the
riverbank, causing it to become wider.

Method

[IMAGE]


[IMAGE][IMAGE][IMAGE]The way we measured width was by holding a tape
measurer at the edge of the riverbanks where the water touches. We did
this a total of 5 times at each site and then made averages. We did an
average because then my results would be more accurate and we repeated
it 5 times because it was as accurate a number of repetitions we could
manage in our time limit at each site.

Tape Measure

Gauging pole

Riverbank


Results

Site Number

1st Width

2nd Width

3rd Width

4th Width

5th Width

Average

Site 1

400

420

422

170

160

354.4

Site 2

470

465

430

510

515

469

Site 3

710

650

630

650

600

648

Site4

1720

1520

1690

1640

1630

1640

All Widths in cm

Averages

The average width for each site is:

Site 1 - 354.4cm

Site 2 - 469cm

Site 3 - 648cm

Site 4 - 1640cm

Graphs

[IMAGE]

Description

This shows that the width increases from Site 1 to Site 4. This is
because of erosion and man management. At Site 1, there is less
erosion in the form of corrasion and the large bed load slows down the
speed of flow of the river, which makes the hydraulic power less
effective. does not erode as much as the other sites. At Site 2, there
was a line of large rocks along one side of the river next to the farm
to stop erosion occurring and therefore destroying the farmland. This
shows the first signs of man management in the river and shows that
this is not a 'perfect' river. However, the width still increases on
the other side of the river where an ox-bow lake is visible, and
because this riverbank is allowed to grow, as shown by the overhang
formed at the riverbank, the width at Site 2 increases from that at
Site 1. There is also a bridge but that is further down the river so
is irrelevant to our results. At Site 3, the width increases because
there is more erosion by way of hydraulic power and corrasion and the
only human intervention at Site 3 is a bridge, but seen as that is
further down the river from where we were, it has no impact on our
results. At Site 4 the width is in many cases over double those in
Site 3. This part of the river has been modified because it runs
through a residential/developed area, Lower Fishguard. The width has
been increased to prevent/lessen the risk of flooding in the area.
Also, there were gabions at either riverbank, which have been placed
there to stop the width increasing and wrecking
homes/businesses/gardens/etc.



Depth
=====

Hypothesis

I predict that the river will become deeper from Gellifawr to Lower
Fishguard. I think this will happen because of erosion, chiefly
hydraulic power and corrasion. The load will wear away the riverbed,
causing the river to be deeper the lower down the river you go. The
water will be moving quickly and the force will loosen and wear away
parts of the riverbed, making it deeper. By the mouth, it will get
shallower because the river will slow down and will deposit some of
the load. Also, bed load that moves by way of traction
[rolling/bouncing along the river bed (load)] will scrape off parts of
the riverbed as it moves.

Method

[IMAGE][IMAGE]

[IMAGE]


The way we measure depth is holding a tape measurer across the width
of the river, and at 25cm intervals, placing a 1m ruler in the water
until it hit the riverbed. We did not dig it into the ground or move
bed load out of the way because that is tampering with the depth. Once
we had covered the whole stretch of the river, we made an average.

1m ruler for measuring depth

Tape measure along width to check depth at every 25cm


Results

Depth (Every 25cm)

Site 1

Site 2

Site 3

Site 4

25

2

20

15

32

50

5

31

27

35

75

8

32

30

43

100

12

40

34

125

125

35

41

40

60

150

52

45

37

62

175

46

45

44

57

200

37

46

52

63

225

35

47

58

58

250

25

44

60

61

275

20

48

59

62

300

13

46

55

63

325

9

42

54

54

350

6

40

50

54

375

42

47

55

400

40

45

50

425

36

38

53

450

36

36

50

475

37

35

44

500

35

31

41

525

26

39

550

24

40

575

31

41

600

17

41

625

14

42

650

16

37

675

36

700

35

725

35

750

32

775

29

800

25

825

34

850

20

875

19

900

19

925

28

950

30

975

34

1000

19

1025

17

1050

16

1075

17

1100

19

1125

16

1150

16

1175

14

1200

16

1225

12

1250

8

1275

10

1300

10

1325

7

1350

10

1375

8

1400

9

Averages

The average depth for each site is:

Site 1 - 19.06 cm

Site 2 - 36.05 cm

Site 3 - 34.82 cm

Site 4 - 34.14 cm

Graphs

[IMAGE] [IMAGE] [IMAGE] [IMAGE][IMAGE]

[IMAGE]Description

The deepest part of the river at any site was -125cm at 100cm across
at Site 4. This was an anomalous result and probably happened because
the metre ruler slipped between two (large) pieces of bed load. The
highest average depth was Site 2, with -36.05, marginally ahead of
Site 3 (-34.82) and Site 4(-33.98). The deepest depth was a lot deeper
than any other depth because at there was bed load at each site which
affected the depth and there were many large rocks (piled up) in Site
4 as a flood/riverbed defence so we probably slipped down the side of
the rocks. The average at Site 2 was higher because:

* Of man management in Site 4 preventing more results such as the
-125cm depth occurring and causing the depth to frequently rise
and fall unsteadily.

* The width is narrower in Site 2 than in Sites 3&4, therefore less
widths measured and a lower number as the denominator (every 25cm
the depth was measured at so the wider the river the more results
there are and seen as the average = Total sum of results/Total
amount of results, if you're dividing by a higher amount it
decreases the average width with each extra result) which makes
the average width higher.

This proves that the average depth is not a fair method of measurement
because most of the widths in Site 4 were larger than those in Sites
2&3 and it only had a lower average because of the amount of results
were over double those in the other sites, which lead to a higher
denominator and therefore a lower average.

This proves my hypothesis correct because the depth increased from
Site 1 to Site 4. This is because the river gets faster, increasing
erosion from hydraulic power.



Speed
=====

Hypothesis

I predict that the river will flow faster from Gellifawr to Lower
Fishguard. I think this will happen because of hydraulic power, bed
load size and corrasion. The greater the hydraulic power is, the more
energy the river has and therefore the faster it will go. When there
is lots of (large) bed load on the riverbed, it slows down the river
in some parts and can also create rapids/turbulence.

Method

The way we measured speed was by using two ranging poles and placing
them 10m away from each other. Then we timed how long it took for a
tennis ball to travel the whole 10m with a stopwatch. We then made
averages for each site. We used a tennis ball because it was not too
heavy/light and although it floated. It wasn't too easily affected by
the wind and depended nearly completely on the river. We did a
distance of 10 metres because it doesn't take too long to measure and
because many other people were doing measurements we needed an area
that didn't take up lots of room. We made an average to make our
results more accurate and repeated it 5 times because it was as
accurate a number of repetitions we could manage in our time limit at
each site.

[IMAGE]

[IMAGE]

[IMAGE]


Gauging pole to show 10m start/finish

Stopwatch to time how long tennis ball takes to travel distance


Results

Site Number

1st Speed

2nd Speed

3rd Speed

4th Speed

5th Speed

Average

Site 1

18.93

65.97

28.07

51.72

23.08

37.554

Site 2

28.57

25.35

23.03

22.51

28.25

25.542

Site 3

10.61

9.61

12.84

19.78

14.37

13.442

Site 4

16.69

15.29

17.6

15.82

25.37

18.154

All speeds in seconds

Averages

The average speed for each site is:

Site 1 - 37.554 seconds

Site 2 - 25.542 seconds

Site 3 - 13.442 seconds

Site 4 - 18.154 seconds

Graphs

[IMAGE]

Description

The results show that the speed of flow increases from Site 1 to Site
3 but then decreases at Site 4. Part of this is due to erosion; part
is due to human interference. In Site1, the bed load largely
influences the speed. The bed load is mostly large and angular and the
slowest speed of flow we recorded (1min5seconds - 2nd speed measured
at Site 1) was so long because it was caught by bed load and had to be
loosened otherwise it would have been void. In Site 2, the entire bed
load was (evenly) spread out over the riverbed and was mainly small
(round) pebbles. This had little effect on the speed. In Site 3, the
bed load was inconsistent in size and shape and did not have a (big)
impact on the speed of flow. In Site 4, the river had been modified so
the speed of flow was fast (therefore less deposition at the
riverbanks/on the riverbed which decreases the risk of flooding) but
it was slower than Site 3 because it was at the mouth of the river so
was beginning to slow down, because of the human interference and
because most of the bed load is large to stop erosion and spread out
along the riverbed to minimise flood risk.



Discharge
=========

Hypothesis

I predict the river discharge will increase from Gellifawr to Lower
Fishguard. I think this because discharge = length x width x speed,
and if they all increase like I predict, then the discharge would then
subsequently increase.

I will only use the average discharge because it is the most
accurate/even/fair discharge and it gets complicated when deciding and
justifying which speed goes with which width and which depth, etc.

Results

Site Number

Discharge (m³)

Site 1

138947.6

Site 2

249554

Site 3

265345.1

Site 4

526302.2

Graph

[IMAGE] Description

The discharge increases from Site 1 to Site 4. This is because of all
the forms of erosion that are actively involved in the increase of
width/depth/speed of flow the further down the river you go (primarily
corrasion and hydraulic power) and also the way that humans have
edited the course of the river for their own benefits e.g. widening
the river near residential/urban areas to prevent floods at Site 4.
This proves my hypothesis correct.

Bed Load Size

Hypothesis

I predict that the bed load size will decrease from Gellifawr to Lower
Fishguard. I think this because as the water picks up speed, it has
more energy and therefore can transport more/bigger bed load. The bed
load:

* Rubs against the riverbanks or other rocks, making it smaller and
smoother (Suspension, Saltation)

* Bounces along the riverbed, chipping bits off it by banging into
other rocks (and transferring energy to them which may make them
move) or rubbing against the riverbed (Traction)

The main processes of erosion are corrasion (see bullet point 1) and
attrition (both bullet points).


Method

The bed load was randomly chosen from the riverbed. We measured its
length by using a 1m ruler and measuring from its longest axis. We
then recorded down if it was Angular (Graded 1), Sub-Angular (2), Sub-
Angular/Rounded (3), Sub-Rounded (4) and rounded (5). We then made
averages of the lengths of bed load at each site.

Results

Site 1 Site 2

Bed Load Sample

Bed Load Size (cm)

Bed Load Sample

Bed Load Size (cm)

1

18

1

28

2

22

2

16

3

20

3

18

4

25

4

50

5

14

5

36

6

24

6

25

7

21

7

12

8

9

8

14

9

25

9

13

10

36

10

16

11

16

11

12

12

16

12

9

13

27

13

8

14

28

14

20

15

22

15

12

16

13

16

12

17

24

17

18

18

14

18

16

19

29

19

14

20

30

20

14

Site 3 Site 4

Bed Load Sample

Bed Load Size (cm)

Bed Load Sample

Bed Load Size (cm)

1

14

1

25

2

12

2

22

3

13

3

35

4

14

4

26

5

16

5

30

6

18

6

34

7

10

7

39

8

9

8

22

9

7

9

25

10

6

10

21

11

11

11

19

12

7

12

19

13

18

13

26

14

12

14

18

15

10

15

31

16

9

16

13

17

11

17

16

18

6

18

18

19

16

19

9

20

12

20

6

Averages

The average speed for each site is:

Site 1 - 21.65m/s

Site 2 - 18.15m/s

Site 3 - 11.5m/s

Site 4 - 22.7m/s

Graphs

[IMAGE]

[IMAGE]

[IMAGE]

[IMAGE]

Description

The results show that the size decreases from Site 1 to Site 3 but is
largest at Site 4. This is because humans have covered the riverbed in
Site 4 with large rocks to stop the river getting too deep/any deeper
and possibly eroding/flooding farms/houses/shops/etc. The results
suggest there may be a possible link between the size of the bed load
and the speed of flow. At Site 1, most bed load was of size 21-25cm,
compared to 11-15cm in Site 2, 6-15cm in Site 3 and 16-25cm in Site 4.
The largest average bed load was Site 4 (22.7cm) and the smallest was
Site 3 (11.5cm), which shows that the average is in the middle of the
most common group of sizes and can represent which site had the
largest bed load. There was one anomalous result, which was 50cm from
Site 2. There were no samples under 6cm, which is quite odd because
there should be lots of small pebbles in the lower sites but because
Site 4 in particular had large rocks added to the riverbed to stop
erosion, I did not find any.

Bed Load Shape

Hypothesis

I predict that the bed load shape will become smoother/more rounded
from Gellifawr to Lower Fishguard. I think this because as the water
picks up speed, more bed load is moving at a higher speed so when it
collides with another rock or the riverbed/riverbank it will take off
more angular bits/rasp rough edges. The main processes of erosion are
corrasion and attrition.


Method

The bed load was randomly chosen from the riverbed. We measured its
length by using a 1m ruler and measuring from its longest axis. We
then recorded down if it was Angular (Graded 1), Sub-Angular (2), Sub-
Angular/Rounded (3), Sub-Rounded (4) and rounded (5). We then made
averages of the lengths of bed load at each site.

Results

Site 1 Site 2

Bed Load Sample

Bed Load Shape

Bed Load Sample

Bed Load Shape

1

5

1

3

2

4

2

4

3

4

3

2

4

3

4

3

5

2

5

2

6

5

6

3

7

4

7

4

8

5

8

4

9

5

9

3

10

5

10

2

11

4

11

3

12

4

12

4

13

3

13

4

14

5

14

3

15

5

15

4

16

4

16

5

17

3

17

2

18

4

18

3

19

4

19

3

20

5

20

4

Site 3 Site 4

Bed Load Sample

Bed Load Shape

Bed Load Sample

Bed Load Shape

1

3

1

2

2

2

2

5

3

1

3

4

4

3

4

3

5

2

5

4

6

2

6

3

7

1

7

5

8

3

8

4

9

3

9

3

10

3

10

2

11

3

11

1

12

2

12

3

13

2

13

3

14

4

14

4

15

1

15

1

16

1

16

2

17

3

17

5

18

2

18

5

19

3

19

2

20

2

20

1

Graphs

[IMAGE]

[IMAGE]

[IMAGE]

[IMAGE]

[IMAGE]

Averages

Site 1 - Angular/Sub-angular (5&4)

Site 2 - Moderate (3)

Site 3 - Moderate (3)

Site 4 - Moderate (3)

Description

The most common shape(s) of bed load in:

Site1are angular and sub-angular with 40% each and 80% (16 samples)
overall. There is no rounded sample and only one sub-rounded sample,
which suggests the vast majority of bed load in Site 1 is angular and
sub-angular. This is in line with my prediction.

Site 2 is moderate with 40% but 5% (1sample) less is sub-angular.
There is no rounded sample yet only 1 angular sample, which suggests
the vast majority of bed load in Site 2 is sub-angular and moderate.
This is in line with my prediction

Site 3 is moderate with 40% but 5%(1 sample) less in second was
sub-rounded. There was no angular sample and only one sub-angular
sample which suggests that the vast majority of bed load in Site 3 is
moderate/sub-rounded. This is in line with my prediction.

Site 4 is moderate but only by 5% (1 sample). The lowest was rounded
but the range was only 2 samples (10%) which shows that there is
nearly an even distribution of different shaped bed load in the site.
This proves my hypothesis wrong but had there been no human
interference in this site it would almost certainly have.

Over the whole river, the most common was moderate. There was less
rounded than angular and less sub-rounded than sub-angular, which is
probably because of the modifications in Site 4 that added extra
sub-angular and angular bed load.

Links and Relationships

Some of the results from the River Gwaun will be influenced/linked
with other results, for example the width could be linked to bed load
size/shape because as corrasion erodes the riverbanks making the river
wider the bed load gets smaller/smoother.

Is there a link between the speed, width and bed load?

The possible link I am investigating is if the speed of flow is linked
with width and also with bed load size. I think that because as the
river gets more energy, it becomes quicker, picks up (more/bigger) bed
load, which erodes the sides of the river (more) and making the bed
load smaller, thus showing that there is a link between them.

Results

Site Number

Average Width

Average Speed

Average Bed Load Size

Site 1

354.4cm

37.554 seconds

21.65cm

Site 2

469cm

25.542 seconds

18.15cm

Site 3

648cm

13.442 seconds

11.5cm

Site 4

1640cm

18.154 seconds

22.7cm

Graphs

[IMAGE]This graph shows that as the river width increases, the river
gets faster. The result for Site 4 would be in line with the other
sites had there been no human interference.

[IMAGE]This graph shows how the wider the river gets, the smaller the
bed load is. Site 4 is again an anomalous result because of the human
interference, but there is an obvious trend shown from the other
sites.

[IMAGE]This graph shows that as the river gets faster, the bed load
size decreases. Again, Site 4 is an anomalous result because of the
human interference there. However, it is still easy to see the pattern
that the river (would have) follows (followed).

The results and graphs have proved my hypothesis about a link between
the speed of flow, bed load size and width right up to Site 3. Site 4
would have followed the same pattern had it not been tampered with.

Conclusion & Evaluation

The results from the fieldwork have proved that the further down the
river you go, the wider, deeper, faster the river is and the smaller
and smoother the bed load is. That is if the river has not been
modified, though as proved by the results in Site 4, in particular the
bed load samples.

There were some problems with the methods and results from the
fieldwork. The main problem was that the river had not run its natural
course; it had been modified to suit people like farmers (Site 2 - the
large rocks against one side of the river to stop it eroding the
farmer's garden and more bed load was added to stop it becoming deeper
and eroding the garden from underneath) and townspeople (Site 4 -
widened, gabions put up to stop width erosion and riverbed covered in
lots of large, angular rocks to stop the river eroding and flooding
homes, businesses, etc.). This affected the results at the sites,
especially at Site 4, which had the largest bed load when it should
have had the smallest and was slower than Site 3.

As well as the river hindering our results, there were human errors as
well. Simple things like misreading the ruler and not stopping the
timer at the exact time the tennis ball crossed 10 metres or being
just over/under 10 metres probably happened, but also instances such
as when measuring speed the tennis ball was stuck behind a rock,
anomalous results, etc. can wreck the investigation's results, which
is why measures such as taking averages and repeating ones that went
(horribly) wrong were taken to either avoid or minimalise the damage
caused by such events.

Some decisions on methods can also change the outcome of an
investigation; how many sites to go to? How many widths/depths/etc.
should be recorded? How many repetitions should be done? Etc. Most of
these factors are down to how much time you have to do your
investigation. I couldn't do 10 widths and 10 repetitions or have 50
bed load or go to 12 sites, etc. because I was only at each site for
45 minutes and there would be no time for other things. Another
important decision is to decide when to go. In summer there is less
rainfall so the depth is lower than in winter, which can affect the
discharge, speed and width, as well as speed, which then affects the
hydraulic power and erosion levels. The field trip I went on was in
June, but it was postponed twice because of torrential rain making it
dangerous to work in, so the climate also affects the results.

However, a lot of my predictions made in the hypotheses sections of
each aspect measured were correct, or correct in parts. The ones that
were not correct, particularly bed load and speed in Site 4, was
because of human intervention and I believe that, had the river run
its natural course, would be correct. I did successfully fulfil my
aims, which were to investigate the changes in the river Gwaun as it
goes from source to mouth and I have documented it well.

Overall I am happy with my set of results. I believe that all of the
results that were odd and other things that went wrong were
unavoidable and it might have balanced out the conditions with other
times of the year. Any errors with the results would be natural as
they are never going to be perfect, especially if the methods are not
done with top-of-the-range equipment and technology that professionals
use.

How to Cite this Page

MLA Citation:
"Investigation of River Gwaun." 123HelpMe.com. 25 Oct 2014
    <http://www.123HelpMe.com/view.asp?id=121668>.




Related Searches





Important Note: If you'd like to save a copy of the paper on your computer, you can COPY and PASTE it into your word processor. Please, follow these steps to do that in Windows:

1. Select the text of the paper with the mouse and press Ctrl+C.
2. Open your word processor and press Ctrl+V.

Company's Liability

123HelpMe.com (the "Web Site") is produced by the "Company". The contents of this Web Site, such as text, graphics, images, audio, video and all other material ("Material"), are protected by copyright under both United States and foreign laws. The Company makes no representations about the accuracy, reliability, completeness, or timeliness of the Material or about the results to be obtained from using the Material. You expressly agree that any use of the Material is entirely at your own risk. Most of the Material on the Web Site is provided and maintained by third parties. This third party Material may not be screened by the Company prior to its inclusion on the Web Site. You expressly agree that the Company is not liable or responsible for any defamatory, offensive, or illegal conduct of other subscribers or third parties.

The Materials are provided on an as-is basis without warranty express or implied. The Company and its suppliers and affiliates disclaim all warranties, including the warranty of non-infringement of proprietary or third party rights, and the warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. The Company and its suppliers make no warranties as to the accuracy, reliability, completeness, or timeliness of the material, services, text, graphics and links.

For a complete statement of the Terms of Service, please see our website. By obtaining these materials you agree to abide by the terms herein, by our Terms of Service as posted on the website and any and all alterations, revisions and amendments thereto.



Return to 123HelpMe.com

Copyright © 2000-2014 123HelpMe.com. All rights reserved. Terms of Service