Note: Transcripts may contain errors. If you wish to re-use all, or part of, a transcript, please contact CBC for permission. Please check the corresponding audio before quoting in print. Copyright © CBC 2019

The AIH Transcript for May 14, 2019

Hosts: Carol Off and Jeff Douglas

CAROL OFF: Hello, I'm Carol Off.

JEFF DOUGLAS: Good evening, I'm Jeff Douglas. This is As It Happens.

[Music: Theme]

Prologue

JD: Tonight:

CO: Once more unto another breach. This time, it's the widely used program WhatsApp. But it turns out hackers may have had just one of its hundreds of millions of users in mind.

JD: Toxic relationship. After decades of use, a California couple says the weed killer Roundup caused their cancers. And a jury agreed, awarding them two billion dollars.

CO: A beef summary of the situation. Quebec cattle producers don't like the “Beyond Meat” company using the phrase plant-based meat. And they want the authorities to force a rebranding.

JD: The screeds of his own destruction. A self-styled YouTube “activist” posted hateful, Islamophobic videos. Now, a judge has ordered him to pay the man he was targeting 2.5 million dollars.

CO: a dear John Thomas letter. The UK government refuses to write off a famous copy of “Lady Chatterley's Lover” — blocking a foreign buyer from taking it out of the country.

JD: And come hell in high water. A B.C. man is utterly terrified — whilst slightly confused — when he sees the towering waves left by a gigantic lake behemoth — or maybe a sturgeon.

As It Happens, the Tuesday edition. Radio that figures if it’s a fish, they can relax and leave it alone. But if it's a monster, they'd better get kracken.

[Music: Theme]

Part one: WhatsApp spyware, Paramount Foods case, giant sturgeon?

WhatsApp spyware

Guest: John Scott-Railton

JD: People who spy are usually looking for something in particular. So what were the people who hacked WhatsApp to monitor users' phones looking for? You probably heard on the news about a vulnerability discovered in the popular messaging app that allowed spyware to be installed. Now, a British human rights lawyer has told several media outlets that he was a target of that surveillance technology. When he became suspicious that someone was trying to access his phone, he contacted the cybersecurity experts at Citizen Lab for help. John Scott-Railton is a senior researcher at Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto.

CO: Mr. Scott-Railton, what does this spyware actually do?

JOHN SCOTT-RAILTON: So the case that we're looking at is a vulnerability in WhatsApp that could be used to remotely infect a cell phone using a missed call. The only thing required would be that cell phone had the WhatsApp app on it.

CO: So one phone call. One phone call and they're in?

JSR: A missed call and they’re in.

CO: But this is WhatsApp, which is they say privacy is in their DNA — that they’re totally encrypted. So a single phone call demolishes all those claims?

JSR: Well, not exactly. WhatsApp’s encryption remains intact here. What they found was a vulnerability in how WhatsApp connected calls. And, of course, it's true that if you can infect a phone — even if you can't you know break the encrypted stuff as it goes across the wire — then you can listen to both sides of the communication, which is why this is so concerning. And why WhatsApp clearly was very concerned and took very quick and forceful action to shut this down.

CO: And once it's in, what can it get? What does it do?

JSR: Well, we don't know in this case publicly what the malware is that would be insinuated through here. But some people are saying that the party responsible is NSO Group, an Israeli spyware company. And NSO Group, they're sort of flagship product is something called Pegasus, which once it infects phone, turns that phone into a kind of a virtual spy in your pocket. It can enable the microphones, it can siphon off your private communications, even listen to what's going on in a room, which is obviously extremely disconcerting. That's a pretty powerful technology.

CO: So a lawyer came to you — who's not named — with suspicions that someone was trying to hack his phone. What were those suspicions?

JSR: So on Sunday, we observed what we believe was somebody trying to use this vulnerability in WhatsApp to compromise this lawyer's phone. We observed it not once but twice in quick succession. And we think that that means — among other things — that the person operating this infection couldn't figure out why it wasn't working. The reason we think it wasn't working is that on Friday night, WhatsApp had implemented a filter that would make it hard for anyone to infect phones using this vulnerability. So this suggests that even the attacker, in this case, didn't know that WhatsApp was now blocking what they were trying to do.

CO: This is a human rights lawyer we're talking about. Why did he feel that he might be targeted?

JSR: Well, he had good reason to be concerned for a couple of reasons. One of them is that he was working representing victims of NSO’s Pegasus spyware in Mexico and the UAE — journalists, human rights defenders, even the minor children of journalists have been targeted with Pegasus. And some of them are part of a lawsuit in Israel against NSO Group. And so this layer had every reason to be suspicious that bad things might be going on, which is why we were brought in to take a look at this case.

CO: So wait a second, the lawyer who is representing people who were suing because they believed that NSO was doing this to them it seems that the same thing might have been done to the very lawyer who is who is representing them?

JSR: I think the technical term for this is a doozy.

CO: [dry laugh] But now at the same time, does this mean that this group — NSO Group, this Israeli organization — is actually trying to do the spying?

JSR: Well no, what NSO Group has said publicly is that they didn't do it. But notably absent from their denial is any statement that their customers might not have done it.

CO: But they do say they've issued a statement saying they only license it to customers, who are government agencies who are trying to fight crime and terror. And they said that it itself would not use technology to target any organization or group including a lawyer. And it only licensed it to those who are trying to do good in the world. So what's your response to the company?

JSR: Yeah, that is indeed what they'd been saying for a few years. The problem is year after year researchers at Citizen Lab, my colleague Bill Marczak, researchers at Amnesty International, and others have found now dozens of cases of governments using an NSO’s spyware to target human rights defenders, activists, lawyers, peoples’ children and spouses. None of that looks like fighting crime or terror. And indeed this case on Sunday — also if indeed this was NSO Group's technology — doesn't look like fighting crime either. It looks like something much more insidious.

CO: I'm just thinking back to last December when Citizen Lab was helping this Saudi dissident who is in Montreal, Omar Abdulaziz, who was part of this lawsuit against Israel because of having his phone targeted. He was trying to be in contact with Jamal Khashoggi, the journalist who was murdered and carved up in Turkey. So is this the same case? Is he also a target of the same spyware?

JSR: So Omar Abdulaziz is indeed a target of NSO’s Pegasus spyware. And it's why this case is so concerning because there's sort of a pattern here of dissidents and the people who represent them being targeted by really dubious and concerning foreign regimes. And the case of Omar Abdulaziz, he was he said publicly he believes that his targeting resulted in his private communications with Jamal Khashoggi going to the Saudi government, which is very concerned given what happened next.

CO: Is it possible that Saudi Arabia has a license to use this NSO technology?

JSR: Well, we and others have reported that Saudi Arabia is indeed using Pegasus spyware.

CO: Now back to this human rights lawyer that is speaking out now. We don't know why he specifically was targeted, I guess?

JSR: We don't. Although, it looks extremely suspicious given that he is known really for that work.

CO: Just finally, journalists use WhatsApp because it's believed to be encrypted and that they can talk to their sources without revealing them and without revealing details. And NGO use them. Human rights groups obviously. Should people stop using WhatsApp?

JSR: I think that the message here is actually that WhatsApp has done the right thing here. They identified something really problematic, and they took action. I think that what your listeners should be concerned about is actually the fact that there are companies out there marketing this kind of really insidious technology that could be used against any of us.

CO: Okay. Well, we're going to leave it there. Mr. Scott-Railto, I appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

JSR: Thanks so much for your time.

JD: John Scott-Railton is a senior researcher at Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto.

[Music: Jazz]

Paramount Foods case

Guest: Mohamad Fakih

JD: An Ontario Superior Court Justice made it very clear what she thinks of Kevin Johnston's remarks. She called them, quote, "A loathsome example of hate speech at its worst." Unquote. Kevin Johnston is a self-styled “online pundit” who regularly spouts anti-Muslim sentiment. And the judge's ruling yesterday also made it clear that his hate speech is going to cost him. He was ordered to pay 2-point-5 million dollars in damages to Mohamad Fakih, the CEO and founder of the Toronto-area restaurant chain, Paramount Fine Foods. The award comes years after Mr. Johnston publicly accused Mr. Fakih of supporting jihadists — and only allowing patrons into his restaurant after they have committed rape. Lawyers who specialise in cyber libel say the ruling, and the record-setting damages, are a significant development in the Canadian laws around online hate speech. We reached Mohamad Fakih in Toronto.

CO: Mr. Fakih, when you heard the decision from Superior Court Justice Jane Ferguson, how did you react?

MOHAMAD FAKIH: I was very happy. I felt very relieved. And because it went on for a very, very long, and he was able to prolong the whole attendance of court, and because he was self-reped, so the judge wanted him to get all the opportunity to defend himself and provide a lot of documents that was needed. So it took much longer. And I felt is this going to ever end for me and for my family?

CO: And when you talk about him, you’re talking about Kevin Johnston. And it was interesting what Justice Ferguson had to say beyond awarding the 2.5 million dollars in damages, she went after him, didn't she? She said it was motivated by ignorance and reckless regard for acceptable norms. A loathsome example of hate speech. She said that it showed where social media and Internet allow for the darkest forces in our society to get attention. It's quite extraordinary how she took on the case and what she said, isn't it?

MF: Well, it was amazing because it's the truth. And he showed so much disrespect and disregard to the judge herself — to the justice system. And he's simply hiding behind social media and the Internet. And those dark fringes, you know this is the new way of hiding I guess and attacking people, attacking people's life. He even called the comments that he made about me as a joke. And the judge reacted on the spot, and she said people's life is not a joke. You can do that to people. So yeah, absolutely — and she spoke about how this could be poisonous to Canada entirely — not only to my case.

CO: Very strong statements, but can you tell us what it was based on? This defamation suit focuses on videos and online posts made by Kevin Johnston going back a couple of years ago. How did he go after you?

MF: He started posting, calling me jihadist, terrorist. He said that if you want to come to Paramount, you have to have raped your wife or someone else's wife so many times to be allowed in Paramount Fine Foods.

CO: And that's your restaurants, Paramount Fine Foods.

MF: Yes, yes. And he was standing in front of one of our locations saying that, being videotaped. And he did stop. It was a series of videos of eight in the beginning. And when we sent him letters and we asked him to apologize and take it down because he put it on social media, he declined. And he actually continued, and using my pictures photoshopped with the blood on my face and my hands. And my son got to see it got through one of his friends asking him why is your dad on that picture, and why is that man talking that way about your father? So I didn't know this man. I've never had any dealings with Kevin Johnston. I simply didn't know him when they saw the videos.

CO: In the course of the trial, it didn't come out why he decided to victimize you in this way?

MF: Well, it's simply what the previous judge — the judge before Justice Ferguson said — it’s simply based on hate to Muslim — because I'm Muslim, and I'm a successful business man in the Muslim community. And he basically decided to attack me because of my background and my religion. We all try to avoid the word Islamophobia, but this is exactly what Islamophobia means.

CO: Now, in the midst of this suit — while you were suing him — and the process is going along, you actually had an encounter with him in public. Can you tell us about that?

MF: Yeah, I mean I took my three boys to a barbershop, and I thought we'll go eat something after to spend some time together between me and them. And he actually saw me in the barbershop, and he walked into the barbershop and asked for a haircut. Apparently, that's the barber shop where he goes often. And he came to me and he said hi, I'm Kevin Johnston; you're Mohamed Fakih. That was our first encounter. And he put his arm to shake my hand. And I said sorry, I'm not going to shake your hand. You're someone who attacked me, called me names, and made false accusation about me without knowing me. And then I asked him to appreciate the fact that I have my three boys with me. That if he wants to deal with this, there is legal action going on. And we'll deal with lawyers, or will deal me and him in person with it. But the children has nothing to do with it. And he called me coward loudly. He went and sat down on his chair. My son was getting a head sat beside him. And he kept calling me coward. So I took my children after they got their haircut. And we left, and he start running after us in the mall. And he start telling me, in front of my children, why don't you tell your children why you support people that kills children around the world. And said Kevin, you know this is not true. And please stop talking to me in front of my children. You're scaring them.

CO: I can see what effect it had on your children, who are quite terrified by this. But what effect did it have on your business?

MF: Well, of course, I mean a lot of cases customers used to walk in and ask the staff how true it is those information and what they heard or what they saw. As well, we had some executives seeing some of the articles and some of the videos, and their family members they were worried, and wondering how true it is the information in those videos. And most importantly, when we were making and striking big deals — especially on master of franchising worldwide — people were wondering, and asking. Because when they Googled me, they saw those videos. And they said what is the reality? What is the truth behind this? And in the world today definitely being a Muslim on its own is not fun to be out there and crossing borders — and especially if you're trying to open businesses.

CO: So that's the effect the videos had on your business and on your life. But at the same time, this man, Kevin Johnston, he actually ran for mayor of Mississauga in the last race. He came in a distant second. But nonetheless, a lot of people voted for him. Does that worry you?

MF: When someone can run around falsely and call you names and terrorist, and then you find out that there are several thousand people voting for him, I think it's very worrisome not only for me, for all Canada. I think it's worrisome for every single one of us because we do have a great Canadian set of Canadian values, and this is a Canadian dream that we all came here to Canada and immigrated here to live that Canadian dream. And I have lived it until that moment. So I think yeah, it does worry me. Finding the city where I started my business, Mississauga, and people in Mississauga voting for someone like him. And it made me want to protest more definitely because my children really deserved the right to restore…. I wanted to restore that confidence in Canada in my children. And you know what? Yesterday, that's what told my kids.

CO: Mr. Fakih, thank you very much for speaking with us.

MF: No, thank you very much for having me.

JD: That was Mohamad Fakih, the CEO and founder of the Ontario restaurant chain Paramount Fine Foods. We reached Mr. Fakih in Toronto.

[Music: Electronic]

Giant sturgeon

Guest: Jeff Putman

JD: Jeff Putnam was standing near the edge of Kamloops Lake when he spotted something strange in the water. And whatever it was, it was moving fast. At first, he thought it was a kayaker, and then realized the whatever-it-was was swimming. So he snapped a photo, and tweeted it — and ever since, the stories and theories about a lake monster have been pouring in. Mr. Putman is the Director of Parks and Recreation for the city of Kamloops, British Columbia. That's where we reached him.

CO: Jeff, do you think you've possibly taken the photo of a monster?

JEFF PUTMAN: [laughs] Well, I'm certainly curious on what it could be. A lot of people have theories, but not quite sure yet what it is.

CO: Okay, so this was on Kamloops Lake. And is this a place that people have talked about possibly monsters living there, or anything mysterious?

JP: Well, until I snapped the photo, Carol, a couple of weeks ago, I wasn't aware of any legendary creatures. But all of a sudden, I posted a photo on Twitter, and I just got deluged with theories and stories about their grandfather fishing in the ‘50s and nearby lakes, creatures. And it was quite overwhelming. So it's kind of created some really interesting discussion.

CO: Okay, I've seen the photo that you took. When you when you first looked, before you snapped the photo, what did you think you were looking at?

JP: When I first saw it, the lake was just like glass. And just for your listeners to understand, Kamloops Lake is about 30 kilometres long. It's about two kilometres wide. And about 500 feet deep. And I saw in the corner of my eye what I thought was a kayak because it a very fast-moving weight behind, and it is quite large. It was about a kilometre away. And then I thought well, I've never actually seen a kayak in the lake. That's really interesting. So I looked back again. I realized well, it wasn't a kayak. There was something swimming at a very fast rate, like for example as someone was paddling a kayak, and there's quite a wake behind it.

CO: What you can't see is nothing above the surface, right? So the swimming is going on just below.

JP: Whatever it was with swimming yeah just below the surface. I was definitely not seeing things. It was definitely larger than you know a goose or a fish. We're still trying to figure it out. There are a few theories though.

CO: Could it be an otter? Is that possible — a river otter?

JP: I was at such a distance if there is a single otter out there, I wouldn't even see the wake for it. So there's a lot of bighorn sheep in the area — like California bighorn sheep — and apparently, they are aquatic. They do swim across lakes. But there's no way it could swim this fast. So that was kind of discounted.

CO: And if it was a bighorn sheep, you might see a big head with horns coming out of top the water. [laughs]

JP: Exactly.

CO: Okay, but you're the size of the wake is there, and the speed that this creature is going, what kind of a size do you think it must be?

JP: I mean I'm guessing, but it could be between five and 12 feet long to create a wake like that. And then local media contacted me, and then they also contacted some First Nations folks that have fished the lake for many years. And they've actually caught a sturgeon — which is quite an ancient, prehistoric fish that's usually only in the Fraser river system. And because a lake is so deep, it's quite possible that it could have been a very large white sturgeon. But again, I'm not familiar with them swimming at the surface.

CO: What do you know about this giant white sturgeon?

JP: Well, they can grow quite large. I think the world record is 16 feet long, caught in the Fraser River. It was like something like 600 pounds. So that is definitely a possibility. I don't know how fast they normally swim. I think they're more bottom dwellers. But from what I heard, it was quite a surprise to Fisheries and Oceans Canada that there was a sturgeon caught in Kamloops Lake because they never thought the species was in the area.

CO: Okay, these are all the realistic explanations. How about the unrealistic ones — the ones about what's the monster that people think might this might actually be?

JP: There's a nearby lake called Shuswap Lake, which is quite a popular resort area. And there is a family that's come forward I guess about five years ago, they saw a very large creature, and they were actually were contacted by national media. And they had a name for it. Gosh, I can't remember the name of the top of my head.

CO: I think is it Ogopogo?

JP: Ogopogo was Okanagan Lake, near Kelowna. And that's a similar type of creature that you see a lot of sightings. But I've been told in that particular case, there's some unusual wave action from Okanagan Lake that can generate kind of the illusion of a creature swimming on the surface.

CO: And so obviously people are really caught up in this. Are they all coming to the area to see if they can get a sighting?

JP: Well, there's a brand new marina that well what's been new within the last ten years called Bruker Marina, right below where we live. And there's a lot of people coming and just generally curious because Kamloops Lake in general is very pristine. It hasn't been in the past a busy tourist spot. And it's just getting busier now because it is a beautiful lake. It’s a very deep blue, very pristine lake. So I think it's going to generate a lot of curiosity for sure. And the community's talking a lot about it, which is kind of neat.

CO: [laugh] Okay, of all the theories, which one are you kind of leading toward?

JP: I'm leaning toward the white sturgeon — because they do get large. I'm sure they could swim fast if they need to. I'm just curious to see why they would be swimming on the surface — unless there's some sort of food source? But I'm very interested in learning more about them.

CO: All right. A giant, ancient fish. That sounds pretty interesting just in itself — without being a monster. Jeff, it’s good to talk to you. And we will follow developments on Kamloops Lake.

JP: Well, thank you very much. Yeah, and if I hear anything more, or see anything more, I will let you know.

CO: Thank you. Bye-bye.

JP: Bye-bye.

JD: [Jaws sound] Jeff Putnam photographed a mysterious creature that was swimming in Kamloops Lake. And we do have that photograph on our website: www.cbc.ca/aih... actually on our Twitter feed: @cbcasithappens. We reached Mr. Putnam in Kamloops, British Columbia.

[Music: Banjo]

‘Lady Chatterly’s Lover’

JD: In his remarks to the jury, British Crown Prosecutor Mervin Griffith-Jones famously said, quote, “When you have read it through, would you approve of your young sons, young daughters — because girls can read as well as boys — reading this book? Is it a book that you would even wish your wife or your servants to read?” Unquote. Well, the jury members I guess weren't worried about their servants, or they didn't have any, or they just found a thoughtful defence witnesses more convincing them Mr. Griffith-Jones and his moralistic harrumphing. Because in 1960, the jury took just three hours to decide that “Lady Chatterley's Lover” by D.H. Lawrence was not, in fact, obscene. And within two years, British readers had bought two million copies. It is more than just a book in the UK. It is a dividing point between a puritanical era, and a more enlightened one. And the beat up, personally annotated copy used by the judge is especially significant — which is why the British government just blocked it from leaving the country. Last year, an anonymous better paid the equivalent of 98,000 Canadian dollars for that copy, and planned to take it out of the UK. Now, the government has quashed that. And given another buyer until early August to match — or raise — that price to keep the book in its homeland. That copy of “Lady Chatterley's Lover” will be taken abroad if there is no buyer before the deadline. But there is hope that someone will. As long as they don't find it obscene — the price tag, I mean.

[Music: piano concerto]

Part two: Monsanto verdict, Quebec farmer

Monsanto verdict

Guest: Brent Wisner

JD: For 30 years, Alva and Alberta Pilliod used the weedkiller Roundup on their property in Northern California. Now, they say that the Monsanto-made product caused them both to get cancer. And now, a jury has agreed with them, and ordered the company, which is now owned by Bayer, to pay a whopping two-billion dollars in damages to the couple. Bayer maintains that the product is safe, and has vowed to appeal. Brent Wisner is a lawyer for Alva and Alberta Pilliod. We reached him in Oakland, California.

CO: Mr. Wisner, first of all, how did your clients react when the jury announced this two-billion dollar verdict?

BRENT WISNER: I think my clients were very happy and appreciative of the jury. You know, for Mr. and Mrs. Pilliod, it's really not about the money. It's about doing justice against this company. And I think they were really proud of this jury that sat through the evidence for six weeks and came to this essentially unanimous verdict. It was pretty cool.

CO: And your clients were both diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. What evidence did you present that — or the jury believed showed — that disease was caused by Monsanto's chemical called Roundup?

BW: Well, for the last 45 years, there's been an increasing volume of studies in animals and laboratory experiments, as well as in human populations who are spreading this stuff as part of their jobs. And the data pretty much across the board has shown that it is, in fact, causing a specific type of cancer. In animals, we see it consistently causing lymphoma — malignant lymphoma. And in humans, we see it highly associated with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. And when you put all that together, and you look at each of the Pilliod’s medical histories and personal experiences, and you compare what are the things that could have caused their actual cancer, the single thing that kind of unifies them is they had over 35 years of exposure to Roundup.

CO: We should point out that, of course, Bayer pharmaceuticals now owns Monsanto — and, of course, roundup, this herbicide. But they point out that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency approves glyphosate, which is in Roundup. It says the consensus among leading health regulators worldwide is that it's safe. It's not carcinogenic. What do you say to Bayer?

BW: Well, I think Bayer knows — and we know — that those regulatory agencies are wrong. We also know that they are essentially captured by the industry. We have internal emails and text messages between senior Monsanto and now Bayer officials and EPA officials. We have the same relationships with people at Health Canada. And the simple fact is that these regulators are not doing their jobs. We have consistently seen that when independent scientists look at this science, right? Independent meaning they don't have a dog in the fight at all. They don't have a 40-year history of saying it's safe. They're looking at it freshly in the new unit of time, saying okay, does this cause cancer? Every single time that happens, they conclude that it does. We saw that with the International Agency for Research on Cancer. We saw that with a scientific advisory panel that was convened to assess the EPA’s own analysis. We saw that in multiple hundreds of scientists. Finding you know robust scientific literature and an articles saying hey, this stuff causes cancer.

CO: They also say though that both your clients have long histories of illnesses that are known to increase the risk of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. So how can you be so certain that Roundup was the cause of their cancers?

BW: Well, that's exactly what they told the jury. And after five weeks of hearing that nonsense, the jury rejected that argument. I mean the simple fact is we all have things that are risk factors. But when you look at what's the cause of a person's cancer, you have to use common sense and say okay, is it the fact that Mr. Pilliod has a fair complexion, and had skin cancer 20 times — is that likely a cause? Or is it Roundup? Or — and this is the important question — is it both? You know, one of the things that people understand is that cancer is multifactorial, and it's multi causal. And when you take someone like Mr. Pilliod or Mrs. Pilliod, who do have risk factors. There's no question about that. And you add glyphosate in Roundup to the equation, it's kind of like putting lighter fluid on a barbecue, right? It exacerbates the underlying condition.

CO: Do you think that this two-billion dollar sum that has been awarded might be reduced — even substantially — given that this has happened elsewhere. What are the chances that your clients will ever see that two-billion dollars?

BW: The likelihood that it will get reduced is that there is a likelihood of that, obviously. I mean there is a legal system in place that deals with you know how damages like this are dealt with. I think legally, we are on firm ground with the two-billion dollar verdict. And there's a very high probability that it stays the same. But obviously, there's these risks. But I think at the end of the day, it's not really about the money. It's about the message. And it's about sending a message to Monsanto, to Bayer, and the executives there who have failed us in telling them they need to take the right step forward. Mr. and Mrs. Pilliod obviously are very happy with this award, and they will get paid at some point. Obviously, we have to go through the appeals process. But they will they will see some of that money at some point. But for them, it's not about the money. It's about helping change the world. It was a real honour to have a right to represent them as part of this kind of monumental and historic lawsuit.

CO: How is their health now?

BW: Mrs. Pilliod it has permanent brain damage. Her lymphoma actually occurred in her brain. She has to take about twenty-thousand dollars’ worth of medication every day or she will die. She cannot walk straight. She has constant balance issues, and hearing issues, and sight issues. Mr. Pilliod is cured, but he spends his life taking care of Mrs. Pilliod. And you know they can't travel, they can't do any of the things they used to do. So their lives have been devastated by cancer. But it's our hope and our prayer that they will live hopefully another 15-20 years.

CO: All right, we will leave it there. Mr. Wisner, I appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

BW: Absolutely. Take care. Thanks so much for having me.

JD: Brent Wisner is a lawyer for Alva and Alberta Pilliod. We reached Mr. Wisner in Oakland, California. We requested comment from Bayer about the case, and the company responded by email. A press representative for Bayer wrote, quote, "Bayer believes the punitive verdict in this case is excessive and unjustifiable.... We will challenge the verdict and damages in post-trial motions, an appeal with the California Court of Appeal, or possibly both. We have not decided on the specific arguments for our appeal, but it could potentially cover that the scientific evidence presented at trial failed to prove that Roundup caused plaintiffs' cancer, that there is no basis for a different warning given the international consensus that Roundup is safe, and that the claims in this case are pre-empted by federal law." Unquote. We have more on this story on our website: cbc.ca/aih.

[Music: Instrumental]

LR: Bread ends

JD: Timea Ganji just wanted to make a sandwich. But now she feels like the butt of some cruel joke. As we told you on the program last night, Ms. Ganji went public when she discovered a bakery sold her a bag full of bread crusts. The entire loaf was nothing but heels. According to the BBC, the offending bakery sent Ms. Ganji, quote, "a more conventional loaf." Unquote. And assured her they are investigating this, quote, "particular collection of crusts." Unquote. After that story went to air, however, many of you went to great ends to defend those ends.

CO: On Facebook, Michael Blair wrote, "I love the crusts! They hold more butter and jam!" On Twitter, someone named "Rosemary Barton", have you heard that name before? I thin she’s CBC?

JD: [ponders]

CO: She’s on the television! Anyway, she says "For the record, I would be into this." And Olivia Robinson recalled, "When I worked at our campus coffee shop we didn't use bread ends to make sandwiches. At the end of the shift, we'd each take home a bag of bread ends. And that, kids, is why I never needed to buy bread during university."

JD: So clever! Anne Farquhar got metaphysical and asked, "Were there two middle pieces at either end? Did this loaf come from some kind of parallel bread universe?" On Twitter, @DouglasEich wanted more details and quipped, "a solid hour of coverage is the yeast you can do."

CO: [sad joke sound] Finally, there was at least one listener sympathetic to Ms. Ganji's crusty ordeal — and they claim to speak for an important demographic on this subject. On Twitter, the University of Toronto's Arts and Science Student's Union put it simply: Ms. Ganji's bag of crusts is: "The devil's own loaf of bread."

JD: Fair enough! Thank you to everyone who wrote, or called, or tweeted, or twitted, or whatever…

[crosstalk]

CO: Or toasted.

JD: Toasted! To join the conversation, you can find us on the Twitter, and the toast and the Facebook — all those accounts: @cbcasithappens. Our email is: aih@cbc.ca. And as always, we do love to hear your voice — give us a call: 416-205-5687.

[Music: Indie rock]

Quebec farmer

Guest: Kirk Jackson

JD: It "looks, cooks, and satisfies like beef." That's one of the catchphrases for the very popular, very meaty-looking vegetarian patty known as the "Beyond Burger." But you know who isn't so satisfied? The Quebec Cattle Producers Federation. They've got some major beef with some of the words the "Beyond Meat" company is using to describe its products. And now, they've taken their complaint all the way to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Kirk Jackson is the vice president of the Quebec Cattle Producers Federation. We reached him in Saint Anicet, Quebec.

CO: Mr. Jackson, what is the phrase that you want “Beyond Meat” to stop using?

KIRK JACKSON: We want them to stop using the ter. that to using: “plant-based meat”. By definition, meat comes from part of an animal carcass.

CO: And what do they call it instead?

KJ: Well, they call it whatever they want to call it. But it by definition, meat under our rules and regulations for Canadian Food Inspection Agency, the definition of meat is the product derived from the carcass of an animal.

CO: And do you have problems with them calling them… well, “Beyond Meat” is the overall label. But they call, for instance, their burgers “Beyond Burgers”. Should they stop calling them burgers as well?

KJ: As far as I know, we don't have any rules regulations on what the definition of a burger is. But for meat, we definitely do, and we're trying to protect the integrity of the product that we produce.

CO: Don't you think that people know that they're not eating meat when they're buying something like “Beyond Meat” plant-based burger?

KJ: There's probably quite a few that do. There could be some that don't. But again, the rules are there that are clear. And we just want to be on the same level playing field.

CO: Who do you think should stop this? How do you end this labeling then?

KJ: Well, this is all regulated by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. They regulate us, and they regulate all the food that's produced. They regulate the food that we feed our animals. They regulate everything that's exported and imported in this country. And this is their definition and their terminology. These are their rules. So it's up to them to take action.

CO: And this is the second time your organization — the Quebec Cattle Producers Federation — has lodged a complaint with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency regarding the “Beyond Meat”, is that right?

KJ: We did lodge a complaint a few months back with a food chain when they're using the term in French.

CO: Right, this is the A&W. And what came of that?

KJ: There seemed to be a gentlemen's agreement at that point between A&W and the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, where they were going to as soon as they ran through all the advertising material that they had on that in French, they weren't going to continue it.

CO: Do you have any sense of what a threat you think these products are to beef producers?

KJ: Well, the threat is the integrity of the product that we produce, which is pure meat.

CO: Why do you feel the integrity is threatened if people are marketing vegetable burgers?

KJ: There's nothing wrong with marketing a vegetable burger. But it's not a plant-based meat. That's where it stands. If we go back a few years back even on the dairy side of things, all of a sudden what we have known today as soy beverage or almond beverage at one point when it first came out was called soy milk or almond milk. But at some point, the name got replaced for what it was. So it's for a precise definition of what a product is and what a product isn't.

CO: And so you think that if people are buying products, if they’re seeing it on the supermarket shelf, that they will think that they're buying meat, and that's the integrity you're concerned with?

KJ: At the end of the day, it's just a case of upholding the rules to make it a fair, level playing field for all of us that are involved. It can easily create confusion. Maybe not for all, but for some, it definitely can.

CO: Isn't the bigger problem for cattle producers is that there are so many people — millions of people — in Canada and around the world who are giving up on meat, or reducing the meat they eat because simply that's a dietary choice they're making. And it's not that they're confused about what they're buying. They're quite sure what they're buying, and they want to eat less meat.

KJ: And we respect that. We respect everybody's individual choice. But we want our product to be clear of what it is. There is nutritional differences — nutritional confusion — that can lead up from that. And that's probably not something that we hear a lot of talk about. But the nutritional factors are quite different.

CO: This company “Beyond Meat”, it's an American company, it’s valued at one-and-a-half billion dollars. In its first day of trading, its shares tripled in value. It's selling to 30,000 grocery stores, restaurants, schools, in five countries. That's the trend, isn't it? I mean is that the bigger threat that the cattle producers are facing?

KJ: Well, I mean it's a world market of protein consumption is a constant shift. But we don't feel it as a threat. I mean and there could be a social tendency that might be starting up now that's going possibly more on vegetable-based proteins in this part of the world, while other parts of the world are doing a shift the opposite way. Example, China. But we don't we don't see it as a threat. It's just two different products. And again, it's upholding the rules that we have here in Canada.

CO: You don't see vegetarian trends and vegan trends to be any threat to your industry?

KJ: No, we don't.

CO: Really? Millions of people turning to eat less meat or no meat at all is not a threat to meat producers?

KJ: We don't have any indication that there's millions and millions of people going that way. And again, like I said, when you do comparisons, China is going the other way where meat is being introduced into their diet. Numbers can go in a whole lot of directions when it comes to that. But we do not feel that as a threat.

CO: Have you ever had a veggie burger?

KJ: I did.

CO: What did you think?

KJ: On a personal level, and I cooked beef burgers at the same time, and all I eat was the straight patties. And I had my employee that day that was with me, and we and we tried it, and it wasn't the same eating experience one to the other. I encourage everybody that questions it to try it. But try it in a fair way. Don't put it into a bun. Don't dress it up with sauce. Just try pure patty to pure patty and see for themselves.

CO: Did you like it?

KJ: Myself, I didn't like it. The texture wasn't the same, nor the flavour wasn't the same.

CO: Did you like it even if it wasn't the same?

KJ: No, honestly, I didn't.

CO: All right, we’ll leave it there. Mr. Jackson, thank you.

KJ: All right, thank you.

JD: Kirk Jackson is the vice president of the Quebec Cattle Producers Federation. We reached him in St. Anicet, Quebec.

[Music: Sombre]

Flavourless tomatoes

JD: A grocery-store tomato is a thing of wonder. So unnaturally shiny, and hard as a racquetball. When you slice it, you get pallid pink circles with hard green bits near the centre. And when you force yourself to bite down on this rigid, yet mealy, puck, there it is: the distinct flavour of nothing at all. What are these things? They're shaped like tomatoes. But they sure don't taste like them. And it's not the farmers' fault: there are a whole bunch of us, and we all demand tomatoes all the time — hence, these tomato-shaped imposters. That's the simple explanation. But there's also a more involved one, courtesy of an international team of scientists who decided to get scientific about this issue. They constructed what's called a "pan-genome" — an entire set of all the genetic information of 725 different types of tomatoes, farmed and wild. Then they compared this pan-genome to the genome of a tomato strain called Heinz 1706 — a kind of Everytomato. And they found — as Discover Magazine's "D-Brief" blog explains — quote, "...[that] a version of a gene that helps give tomatoes their flavour is actually missing in about 93 per cent of modern, domesticated varieties." Unquote. Now, I'm just a layperson, but it seems like a major flavour gene might be nice to have in a thing we eat. But, as I said, farmers had to grow tomatoes that were bigger, and could stay on shelves longer. Not their fault. Ours. Still, apparently that flavour gene is making a comeback, as people realize what they're missing. And this study will help. Because there may be no accounting for taste, but there's obviously accounting for the lack of it.

[Music: Sad guitar]

Part three: Syria torture, gas canisters

FOA: Tim Conway obit

JD: When Tim Conway was on set, you'd often find his castmates cracking up, despite their very best efforts. Tim Conway, a veteran sketch comedian who rose to fame on "The Carol Burnett Show," died today. He was 85 years old. Mr. Conway once told a reporter, quote, "I would much rather stand in the background and make small funny things than be up at the head of the class." Unquote. And while his castmate Carol Burnett always got top billing, Mr. Conway himself frequently stole the spotlight. Here's Tim Conway, in conversation with Barbara Smith, host of CBC's "Morningside," in a 1979 interview.

BARBARA SMITH: Tim, I've got to ask you about Carol Burnett.

TIM CONWAY: Never liked her.

BS: [laughs]

TC: She is probably the nicest lady — outside of you, of course, always qualify those things — that you could meet. She really has never said one derogatory marker about anything or anybody that I've known in 11 years. You know I expect her someday to come out with those questions and answers and really be truthful, you know? Yell ah shut up, you know? But she is a delightful person, her husband's delightful, the people that she surrounded herself were delightful, and it was just a great show to work because they just gave you total freedom. And they're beautiful people — they really were. I hated to see a show go off in one way. But also in another way, I think we'd come to the end, you know? Although, we're gonna do four more of them this summer.

BS: But is she tough to work with? Is she a very precise lady in what she wants?

T: No, as a matter of fact, towards the end, we were rehearsing about 20 minutes. She wanted to keep everything very fresh. And the Wiggins and Tuddball sketches that we were doing. I originally wrote those. And she had very little to do because she was a secretary who said very little. But we would just read them, and then show everybody where we're gonna be. And then I would practically ad lib a good portion of it, you know? So that's why it seemed so fresh to an audience, and sometimes you know myself. I even laughed at some of the things I said because it’s the first time I heard it. So it remained very fresh. She was very good in that way. Or if somebody community said I really want to rehearse this until we drop, she would do that too. So she's a very unusual lady.

JD: That's Tim Conway, speaking with CBC's "Morningside" host Barbara Smith in 1979. You just heard them mention a sketch called "Tudball & Wiggins." Tim Conway played a businessman named Tudball, Carol Burnett played Mrs. Wiggins, his secretary. Here's a sketch where Tudball attempts to teach Mrs. Wiggins how to play Blackjack.

SOUNDCLIP

CAROL BURNETT: What does and “A” mean?

TC: That's an ace. And you count that either as a one or an eleven.

CB: Oh. I got this “A” and I got this man.

TC: What's the little fella wearing?

CB: He’s got on this kind of a long flowing robe, and a page boy hairdo, and a golden crown, and he's carrying a sword.

TC: That's either a king, or a guy trying to get on “Let's Make A Deal”. Give me those cards. Ah, you see you dumb o’clock you got the 21 there. That's a Blackjack. Unfortunately, you win. Let’s see, you bet the two. So you get the three dollars.

CB: Three! but I only bet two. Why do I get three?

TC: Because you had the Black Jack. You have the Blackjack, you get a one-and-a-half times the money that you bet.

CB: Oh… I don't get it.

TC: You don't have to get it. You got it.

[/ac]

JD: That was Tim Conway and Carol Burnett, acting out their "Tudball & Wiggins" sketch on "The Carol Burnett Show." Comedian Tim Conway died today. He was 85 years old.

[Music: Acoustic guitar]

Syria torture

Guest: Anne Barnard

JD: For years, Syria's civil war has played out on the streets — killing hundreds of thousands, and forcing out millions of Syrian refugees. But a new investigation by The New York Times offers a deep and disturbing look at the war playing out behind closed doors — in a brutal network of secret torture prisons that more than a hundred thousand Syrians have entered and never left. Anne Barnard is the former Beirut bureau chief at the New York Times, and a fellow with the Council on Foreign Relations. We reached Ms. Barnard in New York.

CO: Anne, I know this investigation was seven years of reporting. You’ve spoken to relatives of the dead and missing, survivors of these prisons. What did people tell you about the conditions inside?

ANNE BARNARD: Sometimes the things that happened inside the prisons were unbelievable even to the people who experienced them. Some people were tortured with really creatively sadistic methods. Like making them act like animals, and beating them if they didn't follow the stage directions.

CO: This is in particular, there was one officer whose nickname was Hitler, who would torture people publicly or parties for the entertainment of guests.

AB: Yes, exactly. And then there were what you know shutter to call routine. But the more routine types of torture included: being hung from their wrists for hours at a time, or being electrocuted, sexually assaulted or humiliated, tied in all kinds of painful positions and then beaten. And at the same time, they're being kept in cells which often don't have any toilets. Where people are packed literally body to body like sardines. Sometimes, there was barely enough room for people to stand. And certainly, they had to take turns lying down to sleep in many cases.

CO: I want to ask you but one detainee in particular because it's just so overwhelming — we're talking about tens of thousands of people treated this way. But there's one that you write about, Muhannad Ghabbash. How did he end up in prison?

AB: Well, he's quite typical in that he was a young college student taking part in protests against the government. And eventually, he began to organize protests. And he was actually arrested two or three times. But it was the fourth time and ended up being inside for more than a year. And he was taken to many different facilities and tortured in many different ways, and forced to confess to something that he didn't do.

CO: He describes how he was tortured, stuffed into a tire, hung from his wrists, sprayed with water on cold nights. Just he had to say anything I guess to stop the pain.

AB: Yes. At first, he tried to resist. And he resisted for 12 days. And eventually, he agreed to write his confession.

CO: You also document the sexual abuse and the rapes that takes place. One woman who describes not just what happened to her, but what happens afterwards. Can you tell us about Mariam Khleif?

AB: Yes. So Mariam was also accused of terrorism. Her crime was assisting wounded protesters. nd she was arrested and held for a month. And was raped nightly by the head of the Investigations Branch where she was being held in the city of Hama. And when she got out, she was disowned by her parents and at the time husband, which was common. Not universal, but a double punishment for women in this situation is that when they come from a socially conservative family, there is a belief that if they've been raped they have dishonored the family. And some women have even been subject to so-called “honour killings” by their families. But other families have taken a different approach and have viewed those women just as they would view anyone who was wounded in the course of this uprising. And Mariam did meet her second husband, who took that attitude, and really honoured her for what she had been through.

CO: It's not just that you have documented systematic abuse in these prisons. But you advance the story of who knew, and what they thought they were getting away with. There are government memos that you have uncovered. Can you tell us about those?

AB: Yes, so many organizations have been collecting documentation. And one of them is the Commission for International Justice and Accountability, which has collected 800,000 documents generated from inside Syrian security agencies and government institutions. And in those memos, we can see a number of different things that show that this was the system. And that top officials reporting directly to President Assad knew about it. Some of the memos talk about bodies piling up. And complaining that there's been too many deaths in detention. And asking that the branches report each death to the Head of Military Intelligence in a way to justify and explain the deaths. So all the memos that we've seen ended up saying that the detainees had died of their heart stopping, which is in a way a tautology — of course, when you die, your heart stops. But as we've seen from pictures of bodies taken out by a defector, many of the bodies show clear signs of starvation or injury.

CO: And this builds on what emerged in 2014 with the extraordinary former military police officer in Syria known only as Caesar. He left with all these photographs of the corpses — 6,700 hundred corpses that he had actually documented. So there have been since then efforts to see if people responsible could be prosecuted. Is there enough in what you're revealing — what's been found — that could lead to some kind of international prosecutions of those responsible?

AB: The amount of evidence is overwhelming. And the efforts to keep a chain of custody on this evidence so that it would be pristine enough to use in court have been very robust. But the problem is though that Assad has won, essentially. He's close to declaring victory over this uprising. And in order to bring Syria to the International Criminal Court at The Hague, it would require a vote from the U.N. Security Council. And Russia’s veto because Russia is an ally of Assad's government has been preventing that from happening.

CO: And you report also that as this war comes to an end, and Bashar al-Assad declares victory, the arrests are actually on the rise.

AB: Yes, there's growing evidence that even the people who agree to stay in a government-held area, and they sign what's called a reconciliation agreement with the government. Some of them are then subsequently arrested. The arrests had dipped over the past few years, but have begun to climb again. So anyone who thought that maybe the government would ease up on this now that they could feel more confident in their victory it seems to the contrary they are going to clamp down even harder and double down on a system that in their view has worked very well.

CO: Anne, we will leave it there. I thank you for your reporting. We will continue to follow what you expose on this story in Syria. Thank you.

AB: Thank you. And thank you for your interest.

JD: Anne Barnard is the former Beirut bureau chief at the New York Times, and the Edward R. Murrow fellow with the Council on Foreign Relations. We reached Ms. Barnard in New York. We've posted more on that story on our website.

[Music: Soft rock]

Pompeo-Lavrov

JD: This week, Mike Pompeo made his first trip to Russia as U.S. Secretary of State. And he says he went with a goal straight from President Trump: to improve ties with Russia. But if a news conference with Secretary Pompeo's Russian counterpart was any indication, there wasn't a whole lot they agreed on. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said he had "frank" conversations with Secretary Pompeo on everything from Iran to Venezuela to Russian interference into U.S. elections — which Minister Lavrov called a baseless accusation. Here is how Secretary Pompeo responded.

SOUNDCLIP

MIKE POMPEO: You can see we have some disagreements on this issue. I promised not to go back to history from the early ‘30s. But I made clear to Foreign Minister Lavrov, as we've made clear for the past months, that interference in American elections is unacceptable. If the Russians were to engage in that in 2020, it would put our relationship in an even worse place than it has been. And encourage them not to do — that we would we would not tolerate that. You know, we've said this not only about the Russians, but about other countries as well. Our elections are important and sacred, and they must be kept free and fair, and with no outside country interfering in those elections.

JD: That was U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, speaking alongside his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov, at a press conference in Sochi, Russia today.

[Music: electronic]

Gas canisters

Guest: Chris Falconi

JD: When a company tried to dig on Victoria Island, just behind Parliament Hill in Ottawa, workers made an unexpected and a somewhat unwelcome discovery: more than 200 canisters of gas buried in the ground. The canisters had been there for decades. And, obviously, they had to be removed. That's when Chris Falconi and his team were called in. Working alongside a team of nuclear and chemical specialists, they built a robot to help clear the island. But it's a long and potentially dangerous process. We reached Chris Falconi in Ottawa.

CO: Chris, why are there gas canisters buried on this island in the middle of the Ottawa River?

CHRIS FALCONI: [dry laugh] So I think in order to explain that we need to go back 100 years or so. So the island actually used to be owned by Leopold Wilson. If you go to Victoria Island now, you'll actually see the Wilson carbide mill. Now Leopold Wilson, he was a inventor. He invented a couple of different processes. One of which was to extract acetylene gas. It's used in welding. It's kind of the blue welding torch that you'll see. And so Leopold Wilson, during his trials of experimenting, we believe he was testing different concentrations of the acetylene gas. And packing in asbestos and acetone to stabilize it. If it didn't work quite properly, rather than disposing of them properly, he was actually burying them on Victoria Island.

CO: [laughs] So how large are these canisters he was burying on the island?

CF: So they're about four feet tall. They look like a large scuba tank.

CO: And you estimate there are hundreds of them?

CF: Yeah. So Paul Butler and his team, they're specialists in dealing with chemical and nuclear weapons. They did some magnetic scanning, and it looks like there's two to three hundred of them buried.

CO: Did people know that? Was this a surprise discovery when they were unearthed.

CF: I believe it was a surprise for everyone. My team did not discover them. They were actually discovered by an excavator driver doing some initial digs when they were looking to develop the land. And apparently, on one of his first scoops, he actually dug down. And in the scoop of the excavator there were three of these canisters.

CO: Wow! And, of course, He wouldn't know what was even in them, right?

CF: No, and they look like large, rusted cylinders. So they definitely look like something you don't want to be tampering with.

CO: And how dangerous are they?

CF: So they vary cylinder to cylinder. Since he was doing trials, some of them are more full than others. But it has been concluded that they could explode.

CO: Tell us a bit more about the kinds of gases that are inside?

CF: Yeah, so it's acetylene gas with acetone itself. And since it has been sitting there for such a long time, it's no longer in a stable condition.

CO: And so what effect would it have if it came out? If it was airborne and you were in that environment?

CF: Well, if you're directly beside the cylinder, of course, it would have a toxic effect on the body. That's why Paul Butler and his team are the ones in charge of excavating them out and decommissioning them properly. So we've actually developed the process to do so. So Paul Butler and his team, they were initially called down to the site to determine what they were. And we actually ended up getting put into contact with each other. So we actually needed to come up with a method — a safe way to actually decommission these cylinders. So together we worked on actually designing and developing a robot. And now, this is not the typical kind of robot that you would imagine with wheels or legs. But it's simply a remotely operated device. It's a specialized drilling tool that has electro magnets on the bottom that we actually fastened to the cylinder. And it pierces a hole, releasing these fumes, and making the cylinder safe to transport.

CO: How long does that take?

CF: Each cylinder depends on how much gas is in the cylinder at the time. It really does vary between a couple of minutes of releasing the gases. We do release it slowly with just a small hole. After the initial hole is drilled, a safety personnel will approach the cylinder, and they’ll ensure that the area is safe, and they'll actually put a larger bit into the robot. And we'll drill a second hole just to be sure that all the gases have been released.

CO: But you have hundreds of these. Is there no faster way? I guess could they just be gathered up and in a controlled way, could you just blow them up?

CF: Yeah. So all the all the testing is actually being done in downtown Ottawa. So we can't exactly just start blowing things up in downtown Ottawa.

CO: [laughs] Oh yeah.

CF: They must be handled in a safe manner. It was thought to actually transport them offsite. But there are dangers associated with actually transporting them since they are unstable. So it was concluded that the best way to deal with them is onsite.

CO: I'm looking at a photo, and that was all the sandbags around to sort of protect those who are working on that. And with the uniforms it looks like a World War 2 bunker.

CF: Yeah, there's definitely a lot of safety precautions being taken anytime that you're dealing with something dangerous. So they have constructed a sandbag bunker. And each cylinder is actually placed within the bunker. The remote drilling tool is attached to the cylinder. And then the bunkers sealed. There's also a filtration device that's attached to the bunker just to ensure we're not releasing any of those gases into the atmosphere.

CO: For people don't know exactly where the island is, Victoria Island well, I guess the Portage Bridge passes over it, and you're right behind the parliament buildings. Are people a bit spooked by that?

CF: Well, it's actually quite a beautiful sight while you're working down on the island you can see Parliament right in the background. But there really shouldn't be anything to be afraid of because they are being handled in the correct manner.

CO: I guess the story of Leopold Wilson and his carbide mill has another chapter?

CF: Yeah, yeah, exactly.

CO: Chris, it’s good to talk to you. Thanks.

CF: Yeah. Thank you.

CO: Bye

JD: Chris Falconi is part of a team that is working to remove gas canisters on Victoria Island, behind Parliament Hill. We reached Mr. Falconi in Ottawa.

[Music: Piano]

FOA: Stanton Friedman obit

JD: Stanton Friedman may have never seen a UFO — but he sure believed they existed. And he spent half a century trying to prove it. The nuclear physicist died yesterday. He was 84 years old. Mr. Friedman devoted his life to researching and investigating the existence of extraterrestrials — around the world, and in his own backyard in New Brunswick. He wrote countless books, went on talk shows, and became the leading authority on the Roswell incident. After more than 40 years of research, his hometown honored his extraterrestrial expertise. In 2007, the city of Fredericton proclaimed August 27th "Stanton Friedman Day". Here is Carol's conversation with Mr. Friedman on that day.

SOUNDCLIP

STATON FRIEDMAN: Never seen an alien, no.

CO: So why do you think they exist?

SF: Because there's an enormous amount of evidence, large-scale scientific studies that most people are unaware of, evidence of physical trace cases — where saucers are seen on or near the ground — and leave behind changes in the ground. Multiple witness, radar visual sightings, all kinds of data, and I know most people aren't aware of it because they start all my lectures with dealing with five large-scale scientific studies. I show a slide, tell them what's in it, and then ask how many people here read this? And if I'm lucky, I'll get 2 per cent have read any of them.

CO: What do aliens do when they take us — when they capture us people?

SF: Well, generally, what they seem to be doing is gathering specimens, evaluating them, and tossing them back. Catch and release, you might say. If I can put it that way. They study our physiology. They seem to extract some I’ll call it DNA — genetic material — for want of a better word. These guys may all be attending classes. This is their graduate student research on capturing a strange species. Who knows? But they don't seem to be intentionally nasty. And they don't put a gun to your head, or a knife to your throat the way we would I think.

CO: And how come we don't capture any of them? I mean you say we'd probably be more violent if we did, but why don't we get any of them?

SF: Well apparently, we have. The Roswell crash involved aliens that were picked up and gathered in. And what we did with them isn't clear at all. They're obviously not here to have tea with Stan Freidman — even in Fredericktown and on my day. [laughs]

CO: Because they never come calling at your place?

SF: No. But people be surprised you haven't seen one? Why should I be surprised? Why should they be surprised?

CO: And what do they tell you that aliens look like —the ones who have actually had an encounter with aliens?

SF: Well, little guys, big heads, no hair, big eyes, a slit for a mouth. They're humanoid. Two arms, two legs, a head, and a body.

JD: That was famed UFO researcher Stanton Friedman, speaking with Carol in 2007. Mr. Friedman died yesterday. He was 84 years old.

[Music: World music]

Microsoft Solitaire

01:11:32 - SPEAKER: M20

JD: Microsoft Solitaire was dealt a tough hand. The computer game debuted in 1990, when Microsoft launched its brand-spanking-new Windows 3-point-oh operating system. But there was little fanfare for the modest game. The developers only hoped that the familiar solo card game would help users learn how to use a mouse. But from those humble beginnings — like a towering stack of sequentially laid cards — the greatest time-waster of all time rose to dizzying heights. Microsoft now estimates the game has been distributed on more than a billion computers around the world, and translated into 65 languages. And I'm pleased to announce that earlier this month, Microsoft Solitaire finally got its due. The game that taught us how to use a mouse — and how to avoid endless hours of office work — has now officially been inducted into the World Video Game Hall of Fame. According to the museum that houses the Hall of Fame, quote: "Microsoft Solitaire meets all the criteria ... influence, longevity, geographical reach, and icon status. And yet it is often overlooked -- perhaps because it's a digital version of a centuries-old game -- and because it is so common as to seem commonplace." Unquote. Solitaire joins other, flashier hall-of-famers like "Doom", "World of Warcraft", and "Mortal Kombat". But here's hoping this ushers in a new era off commemorating the commonplace. And that the museum stays on-trend next year by immortalizing "Minesweeper". For now, congratulations Microsoft Solitaire. It was long overdue, but you're now a proud card-carrying member of the Hall of Fame.

May 14, 2019 episode transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode