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 2016

The AIH Transcript for March 29, 2017

Hosts: Carol Off and Jeff Douglas

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

CAROL OFF: Hello, I'm Carol Off.

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

[Music: Theme]

JD: Tonight:

CO: An amicable divorce or the onset of a splitting headache? British Prime Minister Theresa May officially the two-year process of Brexit in motion. Our guest, a Conservative MP, is looking forward to the UK going it alone.

JD: A wrenching decision. Farmers with so-called “smart tractors” cannot afford the maintenance, and so they're turning to illegally download hacked software. Tonight, a John Deere spokesperson gets a fix on the situation.

CO: You can clear history, but they'll still have a clear history. The U.S. Congress strips the privacy from American Internet users giving service providers the freedom to collect and sell people's data — including browsing activity.

JD: Giving back for what it took away. Sweden announces it will compensate transgender people who underwent forced sterilization as a condition of their reassignment surgery. That is a victory for our guest.

CO: Bringing it all back home — finally. after months of apparent reluctance, Bob Dylan announces he'll go to Stockholm, pick up his Nobel Prize and his check, which will hopefully leave the Swedish less sourish.

JD: And… Magnum hopeless. A New York artist creates an algorithm to suggest the best art projects for these difficult times. It's not exactly Bob Ross: one of its suggestions is “create a character that evokes larger social issues”. As It Happens the Wednesday edition, radio that appreciates the carrot-and-shtick approach.

[Music: Theme]

Back To Top »

Part 1: Brexit triggered, Sweden trans compensation, Art index project

Brexit triggered

Guests: James Cleverly

JD: Britain and the European Union are officially getting a divorce. And the European Union took the news hard. EU Council President Donald Tusk said, “I will not pretend that I am happy today. We already miss you. Thank you and goodbye.” Prime Minister Theresa May struck a more hopeful tone. The UK she said would remain the quote, “best friend and neighbor” to its EU partners. And here's part of what she said in the British House of Commons today.

SOUNDCLIP

THERESA MAY: The referendum last June was divisive at times. Not everyone shared the same points of view or voted the same way. The arguments on both sides were passionate. But Mr. Speaker, when I sit around the negotiating table in the months ahead, I will represent every person in the United Kingdom: young and old, rich and poor.

[Sound: Lots of jeering ]

TM: City, town, country and all the villages and hamlets in between. And yes, those EU nationals who have made this country their home. And it is my fierce determination to get the right deal for every single person in this country. As we face the opportunities ahead of us on this momentous journey. Our shared values, interests and ambitions can and must bring us together.

JD: That was Prime Minister Theresa May, speaking in the British House of Commons after officially triggering Article 50. James Cleverley is a British Conservative MP. He was a supporter of the “Leave” campaign. We reached him in London.

CO: Mr. Cleverly, we're hearing many times today including from your prime minister that there is no turning back now. How sure are you that this is the right course for the UK?

JAMES CLEVERLY: Well, I was one of the people who campaigned and voted for the UK to leave the European Union. And I did so because I I have felt for a long time that our best economic future is with the rest of the world. Some of the most established economies like in Canada, but also some of the fast growing economies around the world India, China, Latin America and Africa. And we've been limited from really exploiting those opportunities by our membership the EU.

CO: I’m going to take that as a yes. You are still confident that the right choice has been made?

JC: Yes, I'm very confident.

CO: What we heard today from your Prime Minister Theresa May is that she is pursuing what they call “Hard Brexit”, was there another way that she could have gone?

JC: I think the “Hard Brexit, “Soft Brexit, argument is an artificial one because ultimately what matters is making sure we strike a deal both with the EU and other countries around the world that really boost the British economy.

CO: It doesn't seem it's going to be that easy. I mean we're already seeing what Angela Merkel is saying basically no cherry picking and no easy course for Britain. She's going to oppose any U.K. trade deal talks being at the same time as Article 50 talks, so that's the sort of warning shot already we're hearing from the German chancellor. Doesn't that worry you?

JC: Well, this is the first afternoon of a two-year process. Everyone's initial negotiating positions are their hardest position. No one ever starts off giving away all the positions that they might be willing to move on later in the process. And without a shadow of a doubt there will be concessions or movements both from our E.U. partners and, of course, from ourselves as well.

CO: You're describing it as though tthis is a negotiation between equals. Something that Lord Gus O'Donnell said that you're in a plane being flown by members of the EU about to jump with a parachute designed by people who have made it to deter people jumping. And so you don't have the cards in your hands do you?

JC: Well, I fundamentally disagree with that. We’re the fifth largest economies in the world. We are a consumer nation. We buy in a huge amount of products from the EU. But I'm not going to suggest that we are in a dominant position, but neither is the EU. This is a relationship of — I hope — pragmatic, economically minded people that will ultimately strike a deal which is in the interests of both the UK and also all European neighbors as well. And I do think that the sensible cool headed pragmatic approach will see ultimately a successful negotiated outcome.

CO: This is really important language you're using because this is what we've heard since the referendum that this hope for pragmatic, economic people talking in a cool headed way. You've heard a lot of very hot things being said. The sense that people are not going into this as though it's just an economic discussion, but something far more emotional. How confident are you that there are those there's pragmatic discussions between cool heads that are going to happen?

JC: Every day that goes on the conversations will become calmer and more pragmatic. I think what we saw is in the early days and weeks after the referendum there were a lot of emotionally charged comments made. But what we've seen is that in the months between then and now, a lot of those voices have become much calmer. And I suspect that once these big elections in France and Germany are out of the way, a lot of the more heated comments will be forgotten about. And we will start to focus increasingly on the things which are in our mutual social and economic favor.

CO: And your support for Brexit in discussions we've had with you before and what you've said your support is economic and it's about trade. Much of the support in the UK for Brexit have come from people who are against immigration and Nigel Farage is very happy today. How comfortable are you with your bedfellows?

JC: Well, I was motivated for my own reasons and there were many different motivations as there were different people voting. And you know I do what I do and not to make Nigel Farage happy or otherwise. But because I believe that you know as a major economic player in the world, we should be able to decide who we do and don't have free trade relationships with. I find it massively disappointing that a country like Canada, for example, with whom we've had a very, very strong relationship for centuries. The trade deal with the EU is almost derailed because of an argument of one tiny part of Belgium. I know that the direction we're taking is ultimately going to be the right one for the UK.

CO: Today we heard among many quotes former Scottish National Party leader Alex Salmond painted a bleak picture. He says Northern Ireland is deadlocked. The Welsh are alienated. Scotland is going for a referendum. The English are split down the middle and Brexit MPs are walking out of committees. It doesn't sound like the unity that Theresa May was calling for?

JC: Unfortunately, I think that the Scottish National Party have got their own incentive for painting the most negative interpretation of what's going on. Much of that disharmony, of course, is caused by them in an attempt to deliver their explicit long term goal for Scotland to leave the United Kingdom after 300 years. I'm unsure that I find myself angry or amused that the arguments that the Scottish National Party are putting forward for the UK staying in the EU that is it's our single largest trading partner and single markets are important. They then ignore when they're advocating taking Scotland away from its single largest trading partner, which is England.

CO: What do you think UK will look like in two years?

JC: I think remarkably similar to the way it does now. We’re still a strong economy in the world. We've got a well-established manufacturing sector, a very strong service sector and I think that we will have a healthy ongoing working relationship with our European partners. And I think we'll be in a very good place.

CO: We'll leave it there. Mr. Cleverley, thank you.

JC: Thank you.

JD: James Cleverley is a British Conservative Member of Parliament and a “Leave” campaign supporter. We reached him in London.

[Music: Instrumental]

Murry Sinclair

Earlier this month, Conservative senator Lynn Beyak lamented that the “good deeds” done at residential schools by “well-intentioned men and women” had gone unacknowledged. That prompted an explosion of disgust and outrage. to which the senator responded this week — as you heard on this program — by saying she had suffered alongside residential school survivors. Well last night, one of her colleagues addressed those comments. Senator Murray Sinclair, the chair of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, was at a public forum in Ottawa about missing and murdered Indigenous women organized through CBC's “The Current”. His comments were prompted by a question in the audience from Matilda Wilson. Ms. Wilson is a residential school survivor herself, and the mother of Ramona Wilson, who went missing in 1994 at the age of 16, and whose remains were found months later. Here is Ms. Wilson and then Senator Sinclair.

SOUNDCLIP

MATILDA WILSON: When I was six-years-old and my brother was five. We still crawled in and our mum and dad's bed. And that really did something to us when it took us away to boarding school and we're never to see them for seven years. I want to let you know it still hurts a lot. And I want this person, Lynn Beyak, please stand in my shoes.

ANNA MARIA TREMONTI: Senator Sinclair, I want to ask you if you have any thoughts you'd like to share about the comments of your fellow Senator, Lynn Beyak?

MURRY SINCLAIR: I spent all day telling people no comment, but to those of you who are here I'll say this. Many people have said over the years that I've been involved in the work of the Truth Reconciliation Commission. Why can't you just get over it and move on? And my answer has always been why can't you always remember this? Because this is about memorializing those people who have been victims of a great wrong. Why don't you tell the United States to get over 9/11? Why don't you tell this country to get over all of the veterans who died in the second world war instead of honoring them once a year? Why don't you tell your families to stop thinking about all of your ancestors who died? Why didn't you turn down and burn down all of those headstones that you put up for all of your friends and relatives over the years? It's because it's important for us to remember; we learn from it. And until people show that they have learned from this, we will never forget and we should never forget even once they have learned from it. Because this is a part of who we are. It's not just a part of who we are as survivors and children of survivors and relatives of survivors. But it is part of who we are as a nation and this nation must never forget what it once did to its most vulnerable people.

JD: That was Senator Murray Sinclair, once again chair of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, responding to a question from a residential school Survivor Matilda Wilson. It was at a public forum in Ottawa on missing and murdered Indigenous women organized by CBC's “The Current”. You can hear the audio from the entire forum on “The Current” on Tuesday, April 4th.

[Music: Classic rock]

Sweden trans compensation

Guest: Aleksa Lundberg

JD: Sweden is widely regarded as a tolerant and progressive country and in many ways it is. But up until 2013, it had a rule for transgender people: if you wanted to have your sex reassigned legally, you had to be sterilized. Sweden was not the only country to enforce that policy. But now, it is the first country to offer compensation to those who underwent that mandatory sterilization. Aleksa Lundberg is among those who has been fighting or who have been fighting rather for compensation. She was sterilized when she was 21-years-old. We reached her in Stockholm.

CO: Aleksa, what does it mean for you that your government will offer compensation for having to undergo mandatory sterilization?

ALEKSA LUNDBERG: Well, it means a lot. I mean I was 21 when I did my sex reassignment surgery and then was forced to be sterilized. I wasn't allowed to save any sperm or anything like that. So that the government now say that they were wrong, that means a lot. And it's quite a relief actually because we have been struggling with this for many years.

CO: There's 800 people who are part of the claim. But this the Swedish government is reacting to that you were going to sue them for the compensation. So how willingly is the government actually recognizing that you and the others should be compensated?

AL: Well, they are not that willingly giving this to us. Because as you say, we were about to sue them and even if we wanted to be compensated with three hundred thousand crowns for each person that has been forcefully sterilized. And now they are giving us two hundred and twenty five hundred thousand crowns for each person, which is quite odd. Because this is no money for them, so it's like they are trying to say something to us. OK, here you go, but we won't give you what you want.

CO: Just so people know, Two hundred twenty five thousand crowns is about 26,000 US dollars. So that's what you're getting. Can you tell us a bit about why you were required to undergo sterilization?

AL: That's because of an old law we have been having here in Sweden, which went out of date or we removed it from our laws in 2013. Sweden was the first country in the world to recognize sex reassignment surgery and they allowed us to do it. We didn't have to pay from our own pockets. But for them to do that, they had this demand that if we let you do this you can’t be able to have children because you can't have women who are biologically fathers and we can't have men that are biologically mothers. So that's why this law was there to begin with.

CO: So you were 21-years-old when you had to make this decision that was back in 2004. And did you did you want to have children?

AL: Yes, but I thought at the time being, that I can have kids in some other way when I get older. Now when I am older I understand that I was way too young to understand what it means not ever being able to have children of your own. I didn't understand what I was saying yes to. Today, I'm very sad that I agreed to this. But it is done and now you have to work with what you've got.

CO: But you had no choice. How important was it to you to have that gender reassignment?

AL: It was very important. It was a matter of life and death as I saw it back then. It was like you know I have this feeling that I was trapped in the wrong body. That I couldn't live my life to its fullest. I had always had to think about what I had between my legs and I couldn't even go in the common dressing room without having to have a plan. Even a question about your I.D. card or your passport that tells everyone that looks at it that you are not a women, you are a man. And that can become very dangerous if you're in an unsafe environment.

CO: Just continue this policy of having to agree to sterilization in order to have this surgery. That went on until just four years ago. 2013 was the last sterilization, is that right?

AL: Yeah.

CO: And now the government has agreed to give those like yourselves this money, but have they offered an apology?

AL: No, it's quite odd that they aren’t offering us an official apology when they are giving us the compensation. I haven't heard anything about if they are planning to give us an apology. So I don't think that we are getting one.

CO: How important would it be for you to hear them apologize? Hear the government apologize?

AL; That would be even more important than getting compensation in money. I mean it's not that much money and they can't give me my ability to have kids back. So I mean an apology is getting me my human dignity back in some way. So I think that's more important than the money.

CO: Aleksa, thank you for speaking with us tonight.

AL: Thank you.

JD: We reached Aleksa Lundberg in Stockholm. And to read more about this story you can go to our website: www.cbc.ca/aih.

[Music: Ambient]

Art index project

Guest: Nicole Hee

JD: Some artists draw inspiration from nature others from self-discovery. Nicole He is ruling out the creative process completely, or at the very least, farming it out. Ms. He has developed an algorithm that tells her — and us — what the best art to make is at any given moment. And thus far, that algorithm`s suggestions have been significantly weirder than say “paint a landscape”. Nicole is an artist and programmer who is currently a graduate student at NYU’s Interactive Telecommunications Program. We reached her in Brooklyn to help us understand her latest project, which she calls “The Best Art”.

CO: Nicole, how do you go about calculating the art of the day?

NICOLE HE: So I have a computer program and what it does is that it generates what we call an “Art Index” from a number of factors in the universe including: the weather, how many times Trump has tweeted today and the computer's own horoscope. And then it generates a lot of different art project ideas and it rates them. But then it picks the one that matches the Art Index the most closely. And that's how we know it's the best art project for that specific moment In time.

CO: All right, you've mentioned three things that are all extremely variable and ever changing. Mr. Trump's tweets, the weather and I guess not the computer's horoscope. Well I guess it's a daily thing, so how often are these things shifting?

NH: I think they change pretty quickly, especially the weather. And you know Trump tweets a lot, so that can change pretty quickly as well. And then there's actually another factor I didn't mention which is how close the International Space Station is at any given moment to the computer. But sort of taking all these things together there's a number that changes pretty quickly.

CO: What does it produce?

NH: So what it produces is basically a set of instructions for me to execute. It sort of it prints out this little piece of paper with an instruction it sort of says the date and it says something like, “Good evening human. Rainy day today and it tells me sort of some of the math like the Art Index and the project rating. But then at the end it says something like execute the following. Make a frying pan that reminds me of a black void. So basically that that last part is sort of the important part where that's the project that it has determined to be the best one for a specific moment.

CO: What are some of the others?

NH: So there was one today that was, “Create a carrot that evokes larger social issues.” There's another one, actually this is my favorite one, and I was sort of blown away when I got it which was, “Make everyone feel lonely.”

CO: When you actually create them what is the one “Make everyone feel lonely”? What gets created? What do you visually see?

NH: So basically for that one because you know that's the computer's instructions and then it's my job to interpret that and then produce art with those instructions. So I did something pretty simple, which is I made a video that just has a lot of different stock images of happy families and couples. And then there's a computer voice that says, “You are alone”, over and over. That is basically what I did for that one. I'm sure there are many ways to approach that one.

CO: I looked at that one and the people are happy, happy. They’re big, smiling happy families and this is going to make us feel very lonely.

NH: Yeah exactly.

CO: When you create a carrot that evokes larger social issues what does that look like? How did you turn that into art?

NH: So basically I made a carrot salad. It sort of is like shaved ribbons of carrot with tomatoes, but written on some of the shavings is the message, “Bees are dying at an alarming rate.”

CO: Bees?

NH: Yeah, that's sort of an internet meme, but it's a message about a larger social issue that is incorporated in the salad itself.

CO: Now there's another one that I've seen. You can tell us what the actual execute the following demand was, but it was to create three pages of opposition to trucks.

NH: So basically it said build three photocopied, typewritten pages in opposition to trucks. What I made was exactly that. Basically I had three typewritten pages and I photocopied them over and over. And the pages are basically filled with text that says things like, “trucks are lousy’, “trucks are appalling”, “trucks are poor trucks”, “trucks are raunchy” like over and over. So that was that was my response to that one.

CO: All right, it's all very amusing. But what's the point?

NH: I made this project because I feel like there are a lot of promises that are being made about what artificial intelligence can do and how much smarter and more powerful it's getting. But I think because computers can do things that humans can't. We have this idea that computers might actually know better than us about many aspects of our lives including art. So I think we like to conflate the ability to do things programmatically with objectivity. And because of that we often deflect responsibility of an algorithm output onto a machine. So for me, I kind of hope that the absurdity of “The Best Art” algorithm will make people reconsider the objectivity of other algorithms that they might encounter. And I also hope that it will make them laugh.

CO: What's your next project?

NH: I don't know. I mean I'm going to be working on “The Best Art” for the next six weeks or so and then I'm going to be graduating with my master's degree. I guess my next project is trying to get a job.

CO: All right Nicole, good to talk to you. Thanks.

NH: Yes, thank you so much.

CO: Bye bye.

JD: We reached Nicole He in Brooklyn. And to see “The Best Artwork” visit our website: www.cbc.ca/aih.

Back To Top »

Part 2: Tractor hacking: John Deere, US online privacy

Tractor hacking: John Deere

Guest: Chuck Studer

JD: Most farmers can't do without tractor's. Certainly not in the west here, but some of those tractors they don't know what to do with. On Monday, we interviewed a farmer in Saskatchewan and he told us how hard it has become to fix his own tractor his own self. Most new models require sophisticated technology to run and farmers sign an agreement. That means that they have to go through a dealer to make any software repairs or updates. Now the farmer we spoke with found a different solution. He went online and he bought hacked software off the black market or the darknet. He was so afraid the manufacturer would go after him that he would not let us use his name on the radio. Chuck Studer is the Director of Industry Relations for John Deere. We reached him in Olathe, Kansas to respond to some of our farmers concerns.

CO: Mr. Studer, what does it tell you that farmers, like the one we spoke with in Saskatchewan, they're choosing to go to online black market sources to fix their John Deere tractors?

CHUCK STUDER: Well Carol, I think what it really tells me is that we haven't done a sufficient job of educating them on what options we have available to John Deere and our John Deere dealers and why they should select to get their software through their authorized John Deere dealer.

CO: The problem he says is that first of all, it's much more expensive and when they can fix it themselves. And, as you know, that's a tradition with farmers. But the other thing is it's just not practical that they're losing thousands of dollars every hour that they don't have a machine working and they need to get done faster and they don't have the technicians to do that. What do you say to him?

CS: I can certainly appreciate the heritage of farmers across the world to try to fix things themselves. I grew up in a farming family and my wife grew up in a farming family, so we certainly understand that desire to take things into your own hands, so to speak. One point I need to make is that when you look at the breadth of the repairs that farmers make on their equipment. Well over 95 per cent of those can be completed without any software at all. Our dealers understand the cost of down time and that's why they’ve made investments in qualified technicians and service vehicles that can respond to needs as quickly as possible. and we really think that working through an authorized John Deere dealer remains the most effective and efficient way to repair your piece of equipment.

CO: Let’s go back to what you said about 95 per cent of the repairs don't require software. But is it not true that after you have done the repair the transmission or whatever part of your tractor that it is connected to software. This is what our farmer was saying that you can have the machine and if something breaks down with the machine it's not separate from the software or the base code. And then for that you need to have a John Deere technician plug it into the USB port and authorize that repair. So that's the problem they're having.

CS: I'm not so sure I understand his specific issue, but in general. It's very rare that you would need software even after a repair might be done by a customer. We support a customer's right to do a pair of themselves through making technical manuals available. When a software patch may be needed, on that rare occasion, we're trying more and more to make those available through a wireless connection and more and more we're trying to move in that direction, Carol.

CO: What do you consider to be an unauthorized repair on a John Deere machine?

CS: In general we would look at an unauthorized repair as an attempt to modify or change the embedded code that is part of the control system that managed that that tractor.

CO: So if this farmer — and the other farmers that he says are doing the same thing — if he's bought hacked software in order to be able to repair his tractor on his own. Is that an unauthorized repair?

CS: We would look at that as an unneeded repair and I use that term instead of unauthorized. Because the authorization again depends on the locale of the customer. I think a needed repair would be to go outside the John Deere system in a way that maybe doesn't provide the customer with the best solution possible. Software from a source other than John Deere, they're not certain that that product has been tested appropriately. It's insured that it meets the emissions requirement of the country in which it was sold. So there are some risks that go along with getting some hacked software.

CO: It is obviously needed by the farmer who needs to do the repair. What are you saying what is unneeded? As in he doesn't need to do it himself, he can get John Deere to do it?

CS: Yes. I think there are better solutions for the customer to consider.

CO: So how does that comply with what you said that you support their right to repair their own machinery?

CS: I use the example to explain this. Sometimes when I'm not feeling well I understand how I might address my illness, I'll go out on the Internet and I'll go to a web M.D. instead of going to a doctor that's specialized in that area.

CO: OK but you don't have a licensing agreement with your doctor that you have to go to your doctor if something goes wrong with you. And that's the situation for the farmer right? The farmer has a licensing agreement that prevents him or her from using any software except that comes from the dealer. Doctors are not going to come after you because you violated the licensing agreement.

CS: That might be the case, but John Deere’s license agreement certainly supports a customer's right to repair their equipment. It does suggest that the embedded code is a proprietary and intellectual property of John Deere and if the embedded code need to be replaced, we're happy to make that software available.

CO: So the right the right to repair is the right to use John Deere to repair it for them?

CS: Well, just as they might use John Deere to source a windshield wiper motor, they can use John Deere to source the software that's needed.

CO: Our farmer is concerned enough that he asked us not to use his name and to be anonymous. He doesn't know what your company will do with the knowledge that he is using hacked software. What do you say to him?

CS: I would say to him that John Deere has been in business for 180 years. We've built our reputation on having a very positive relationship with our customers. And it's not our goal to go out and try to police people that might take a different route. To my knowledge, we haven't seek charges against any customer. We have to reserve that right, but we are more focused on wanting to ensure that the customer experience is right. And yes, we want to make sure we maintain the intellectual property so that we can continue to be safe and value to our customers and the products we deliver. Not only today, but in the future.

CO: Mr. Studer, thank you.

CS: Thank you Carol, it’s been a pleasure visiting with you.

JD: Chuck Studer is the Director of Industry Felations for John Deere. We reached him in Olathe, Kansas to respond to an interview we did on Monday with an anonymous Saskatchewan farmer. That farmer said that he had resorted to using hacked software to repair his tractor. To hear that interview and to learn more about this issue go to our website: www.cbc.ca/aih

[Music: Bluegrass]

O’Reeily v.s Waters

JD: California Congresswoman Maxine Waters has had a lot on her mind of late — much of it to do with President Trump. none of it to do, incidentally, with the president's much maligned hairdo. And yet Fox News commentator Bill O'Reilly thought that he could distract from the concerns topping Representative Waters mind with a cheap shot at what tops her head. Appearing on the morning talk show “Fox and Friends”. Mr. O'Reilly joined the hosts in watching a video of Congresswoman Waters addressing the House of Representatives earlier in the week. Afterward, he claimed that he hadn't heard a word she had said and he explained the source of his apparent distraction.

SOUNDCLIP

BILL O’REILLY: I was looking at the James Brown wig. If we have a picture of James it's the same one.

HOST TWO: I got to defend her on that. You can't go after women's looks. I think she's very attractive.

BO: I didn't say she wasn’t attractive. I loves James Brown, but it's the same hair that James Brown, the Godfather of Soul, had.

HOST TWO: So he had girl hair?

BO: Whatever it is, I just couldn't get by it. You're all wrong about Maxine Waters. Number one, she's a sincere individual. Whatever she says she believes — she's not a phony. And that's old school. We are giving Maxine a break here. I love you Maxine and I want to see you on “The Factor” and when hell freezes over I'm sure that will happen.

JD: Bill O'Reilly speaking on “Fox and Friends” yesterday morning. Mr. O'Reilly has since apologized for his comments calling his comments quote, “jest”, and quote, “dumb”. But Congresswoman Maxine Waters is having none of it and none of him. Here is how she responded to his comments last night on MSNBC.

SOUNDCLIP

MAXINE WATTERS: Let me just say this. I'm a strong black woman and I cannot be intimidated. I cannot be undermined. I cannot be thought to be afraid of Bill O'Reilly or anybody. And I'd like to say to women out there everywhere, don't allow these right wing talking heads, these dishonorable people to intimidate you or scare you. Be who you are. Do what you do and let us get on with discussing the real issues of this country. Bill O'Reilly and Roger Ailes have no credibility. They have been sued by women. They had to pay millions of dollars out in fines for harassment and other kinds of things. And so we know about that checkered past. And we also know that when a woman stands up and speaks truth to power that there will be attempts to put her down. And so I'm not going to be put down. I'm not going to go anywhere. I'm going to stay on the issues.

JD: That is California Congresswoman Maxine Waters last night on MSNBC’s “All In with Chris Hayes” responding to Fox News commentator Bill O'Reilly's comments about her hair.

[Music: Jazz]

US online privacy

Guest: Dallas Harris

JD: If you should wander down an Internet rabbit hole in the United States, just know this. You won't be alone down there. American Congress has just passed a piece of legislation that will sweep away Internet privacy protections. And the President is expected to sign it into law any day now. It is a full repeal of an Obama-era law that demanded Internet service providers get permission before sharing sensitive personal information. The repeal has been championed by Internet service providers like Verizon, AT&T and Comcast. It has been widely condemned by privacy activists. Dallas Harris is a policy fellow with the consumer advocacy group Public Knowledge. We reached Ms. Harris in Washington, D.C.

CO: Ms. Harris what restrictions are being repealed by Congress?

DALLAS HARRIS: Well, you know I wouldn't say that these were actually, in fact, restrictions. They were just rules of the road that said that Internet service providers had to get your consent before using your sensitive information. And when it came to information that was not sensitive they could use that on an opt out basis. So it didn't really prohibit Internet service providers from any particular practices. It just made it clear what type of consent you have to get from customers before you use their information.

CO: Now what kind of information that we have online about us is now going to be available for them to share?

DH: So originally, the sensitive information was things like financial information, health information, your social security number, information relating to children, your geolocation, web browsing history and app usage history. Those things are all now available for Internet service providers to use mostly on an opt out basis without getting your permission first.

CO: That's a lot.

DH: And indeed it is. You know as you're in that search for writers they have to collect certain information to deliver the service. And that's understandable. But if they want to use that information further, to go ahead and make an additional dollar, we believe they should ask consumers beforehand.

CO: So if an Internet service provider can use financial information that you have about yourself, your health information, your social insurance number and other things of that nature. They can share that without telling you that they're doing that?

DH: Well, I mean they would have to tell you, but theoretically it could be on page 20 of your long privacy notice. And as long as you don't jump through all the hoops that they may put in front of you to opt out then they can go ahead and use that information.

CO: What will they be able to do? Or what do they want to do with this information?

DH: They want to be the new advertisers on the block. They want to be able to compete with providers websites who you know they use advertisement as their sole source of funding. You get a free service with the understanding that you know you may share your information and they may use that in order to you know supplement how much it costs to provide that service. But with your internet service provider, you already pay them ahead of time. And so really they just want to make additional dollars in the advertising space. They want to be the new “Mad Men”.

CO: How will it be different for someone using the Internet if this information is all available? Will they see different kinds of advertising? Will they be targeted in different ways? Give us an example of how this kind of data about you or I being on the Internet can result in different ways that the “Mad Men” are using us or approaching us?

DH: Well think about this, if your internet service provider has some idea about how much money you make — mostly based upon your web browsing history or other pieces of information that they can collect about you. They may sell that to your local bank. And what you will see then is maybe an advertisement with a particular rate for a loan where your neighbor, who's two blocks down, may see a different rate. So you may end up getting a higher rate advertised to you simply based upon what an Internet service provider thinks your income or credit worthiness is. That's just one example of how data — big data — can lead to discrimination in some interesting ways.

CO: Well the ISP companies are saying that this is of benefit to consumers because they will be targeted better and they won’t have a lot ads that don't pertain to them or are of no interest. This is information that they'll be able to use. What do you say to them?

DH: I say sure. If you can convince a customer that there is a benefit to them to sharing their information then I'm happy to have you do that. Internet service providers, as I mentioned, aren’t prohibited from doing that. We're just asking that you make that pitch to the customer up front. And if they want to go ahead and make this exchange if they feel that there is some value proposition there. That's perfectly fine with me. The only issue is when consumers are having their information used without consent.

CO: Why do you think Congress is agreeing to this? We understand that the President will sign this. So why is this something that the government wants to have happen?

DH: You know I am lost for a reasonable explanation as to why Congress thinks that this is a good idea. I'm even more lost for understanding as to why President Trump thinks this is a good idea. He ran as the person who was going to represent the little guy. Who wasn't going to have any tied to money interests. And there's only one person in one constituency who gains from these rules being repealed and that’s the Internet service providers.

CO: Just one final question because obviously we're calling you from Canada. Will this affect Canadian users of Internet service providers?

DH: No it won’t. You have your own laws in place and every Internet service provider has to comply with the information of the jurisdiction and that they're collecting. And so you know Canadians will still continue to be protected under your strong privacy laws.

CO: But is there a chance that that would be more pressure on the Canadian government to conform with what the United States is doing to sort of make it sort of uniform?

DH: Well let me just say in general. Frankly I see Canada as kind of leading and continuing to have these important protections that the United States is slipping on a bit here. So please continue to be strong and protect your constituents in the way that that Canada feels that they need to be protected.

CO: All right, I hope that our government is getting the message. Ms. Harris, thank you.

DH: You are very welcome.

CO: Bye bye.

JD: Dallas Harris is a policy fellow with the consumer advocacy group Public Knowledge. We reached her in Washington D.C.

[Music: Ambient]

Bob Dylan and his Nobel Prize

JD: Bob Dylan is a contrary dude. You know that if you own “Self Portrait” you know that if you have wondered why one of the great lyricists in music history has released three albums in a row entirely made up of covers? And you know what if you bought “Christmas in the Heart”, which featured “Must be Santa”. So it wasn't that surprising that he was so contrary about winning the Nobel Prize for literature. That he wouldn't take phone calls from the Swedish Academy. That he didn't go to the big official shindig in Sweden in December, but in his place send a speech in Patti Smith. In fact, he is so contrary that he has now stopped being contrary. This weekend, five months and 20 days after he was announced as the 2016 winner, he will finally actually meet with the Swedish Academy to personally accept the Nobel Prize. No big ceremony or anything. It’s just going to be him and the members of the Academy. He’ll collect his medal, collect his diploma and a check for 1.2 million bucks. And he wants to keep that money, he has to give a Nobel lecture, which he has said that he'll do. But he's going to send that lecture on tape rather than give it in person. The reason for that is that he's Bob Dylan. But if you think that contrariness is a bad thing. Well on the contrary, we hope he never changes. Or rather that he continues to change in the exact ways no one expects him to. Like he did back in 1969 when he debuted a new country sound and a brand new singing voice on the album “Nashville Skyline”.

Back To Top »

Part 3: Alberta radon homes, Tasmanian tiger

Quote/Unquote

JD: And now, Quote/Unquote.

[Music: Quote/Unquote theme]

JD: Let's make an assumption. Let's say that you agree with Henry David Thoreau, who began his essay on civil disobedience by citing the dictum, “That government is best which governs least.” The question I have for you is does that apply to your freedom to shoot feral hogs from a helicopter? See Oklahoma has a feral hog problem. And right now, the state's Department of Agriculture Food and Forestry is charged with trying to fix it. And to that end, it has hired licensed contractors to shoot the swine from the air. Last year, those contractors killed more than 11,000 of them. But Oklahoma State Representative Jeff Coody is tired of the nanny state's insistence on professional airborne hog killers. He thinks amateur airborne hog killers are long overdue. And under a bill that he is co-sponsoring to quote from Tulsa World newspaper quote, “a landowner, company or pilot would be required to hold a state license and be responsible for the activity. But the shooters on board the aircraft would not have to have a license or even reveal their names.” Now, Representative Coody believes that these choppers full of anonymous unlicensed pig snipers would already be zipping around blasting away if it weren't for that meddling government. Addressing the Agriculture Department's strict rules. He ruefully told Tulsa World quote, “Like a lot of agencies will, they overregulated and put so many administrative rules on their books. It has made it difficult for private individuals to go out and shoot from an aircraft.” Unquote.

[Music: Quote/Unquote theme]

Alberta radon homes

Guest: Aaron Goodarzi

JD: They want Canadians to get tested. That is the message out of a study done at the University of Calgary that looked at radon levels in people's homes. Researchers examined the presence of the potentially dangerous gas in more than 2,000 households in Calgary and the surrounding areas. And they made made some alarming discoveries. Aaron Goodarzi is the lead author of the study. We reached him in Calgary.

CO: Professor Goodarzi, what did you find in the homes you tested regarding these radon levels?

AARON GOODARZI: So quite alarmingly we found that one in eight or 12.4 per cent of the houses were over health Canada's maximum suitable radon limit of 200 becquerels per cubic meter.

CO: And what does that mean? Tell us what danger level that reaches?

AG: Right. So a becquerel is a measure of radiation. And one becquerel basically means one radioactive event every second. So 200 becquerels is considered to be an unacceptably high level of cancer risk that Health Canada recommends anything above that absolutely must be mitigated. For context, the most spectacularly high home that we had in our study is 3,441 becquerels. That correlates to a lung cancer risk of over 550 per cent relative lifetime risk of lung cancer.

CO: When you told the people in these houses, especially the one that had 3,400 becquerels. How did they respond?

AG: Yeah. So it depends on the person. Some people of course respond with great alarm. And so they should. But we were very careful to educate all of our participants that even if they had a problem, there's a very effective solution that can be implemented very quickly to protect them and their loved ones from this problem. And so what we found was that the majority of our participants, who tested over 200 becquerels, they made the decision to fix their homes.

CO: What is it about these houses that has such high radon levels?

AG: So one of the quite striking things that we found in our study was that newer properties actually had on average 31.5 per cent higher radon compared to older properties. Now that's not to say that older properties meaning homes built 25 years ago or more were safe. In fact, we had many houses in the danger zone. But the newer properties were much deeper in that danger zone with the higher radon levels. And we think that's because our newer properties, especially here in the west of Canada, they tend to be much bigger than they've ever been in the past. In fact in 1979, the typical southern Alberta home was only about thirteen to fourteen hundred square foot. In 2016, the average was twenty-six hundred square foot. So if you're doubling the footprint of the home on the soil, you're also going to increase the amount of radon it can pull out of the ground. In addition to that, our new homes are so much more airtight than they've ever been in the past. Now that's a good thing as far as energy efficiency is concerned. But where it's not installed in such a way that the air balance is maintained what the home can observe is that the amount of air that is effectively being brought into the house from the outside fresh air is less than the air that's leaving the house. As you heat the house and air escapes through the roof. And to make up for that difference what the home starts to do is suck on the ground essentially bringing radon with it.

CO: What is radon where does it come from?

AG: Radon is natural; in fact, it's a component of soil gas that emerges from uranium-bearing soils and minerals in the ground. And uranium-bearing minerals are very prevalent from basically the B.C. interior all the way through The Prairies, also in the Maritimes and in southern Ontario. And as uranium, which is radioactive and is unstable, decays over the course of many, many years. It will become thorium, which will become radium and radium will decay into radon. Now all of those previous elements were solid. They just sit in the ground not harming anybody. But radon is a gas and is under really high pressure and forces its way up to the surface. We will inhale that and radon is a very, very short decay life with only four days more than half of it will have decayed to its next isotope and that's a solid. It becomes radioactive polonium and that will precipitate out in our lungs where it becomes trapped for the rest of our lives and it will continue to emit radiation. And as the radon decays and those other isotopes decay the type of radiation that they emit is called alpha radiation. This is so much more dangerous for us than other kinds of radiation. For example, the X-ray, which is relatively benign by comparison. Alpha radiation is very damaging to our DNA and it's that DNA damage which gives rise to mutations within our cells and it's mutations in the DNA of cells that really makes fertile ground for the for the development of cancer in our lifetimes.

CO: OK anybody listening to this who hasn't tested the homes for radon is terrified right now. So how likely is it that the house they live in has radon? How can they find out?

AG: So the first point I'd like to make here is though although this seems very scary this is one of those good news scenarios where there is a very effective, rapid and relatively inexpensive solution if they are in the least southern Alberta here the one out of eight of the houses that we detected with unacceptably high radon levels. The solution there is basically to identify how the radon is coming in and enact one of the many very good mitigation strategies. In fact, we had homeowners in our study that tested very high and then opted for mitigation. After that process was complete in 100

Per cent of the cases we were able to achieve more than a 90 per cent reduction in the radon. Even that house with 3,441 becquerels was reduced to below 100. The strategies that one uses sometimes can be unique to the house. We had some homes where the culprits, so to speak, was a leaky sump pump. All that's needed there is to seal up that sump pump with a retrofitted airtight cap. However in the majority of cases typically what's used is a process called sub slab depressurization. That's where a relatively small hole perhaps the same diameter as your coffee mug is dug through the foundation of your home sunk into the soil underneath, an airtight pipe is threaded down through that and then that's hooked up to a little fan that vents up and outside of your home. Now what happens is instead of the radon gas forcing its way up through your foundations. Instead it goes preferentially through that pipe because the fan is actively drawing it towards that and vented up outside where it dilutes almost instantly to nothing. And we've observed radon levels. You can you can watch them drop over the course of minutes from lethally high levels to two totally benign levels.

CO: All right, I think a lot of people listening to this are going to be heading out to find out what they can do and how they can test for radon. And Professor Goodarzi, thank you for the warning.

AG: My pleasure. Thank you very much for having me.

CO: Bye bye.

AG: Bye

JD: Aaron Goodarzi is an assistant professor at the University of Calgary's school of medicine. He's also the Canada Research Chair in genome damage and instability disease. Professor Goodarzi’s study on radon levels in southern Alberta households was published this week on “CMAJ Open”. We reached him in Calgary.

[Music: Ambient]

From Our Archives: Rumana Monzur

JD: She was left blind after a brutal attack by her husband. And when that happened to Rumana Monzur in 2011, she was a student at the University of British Columbia. Her husband attacked her though while she was visiting her home country of Bangladesh. And if you saw an interview with her at the time, you likely have never forgotten it. She spoke to the media from her hospital bed with bruises all over her face. Last year, Ms. Monzur appeared on As It Happens. She spoke with us in advance of a keynote speech she was giving at the Big Sisters Spring Lunch in Vancouver about abuse. That interview with Ms. Manzur has been chosen as a winner at this year's Gracie Awards, which recognized work in the media created quote, “by, for and about women”. From our archives, here is that interview. And a warning: some of the details in this interview are disturbing.

SOUNDCLIP

CO: Rumana, first of all, how is your recovery going since this attack?

RUMANA MONZUR: It was a long process, but the amount of support that I have received from the university, my friends and my family most of all it is amazing and it helped a lot.

CO: At the time of the attack and when you're in Bangladesh, we spoke with one of your friends one — of your supporters — Lisa Sundstrom at UBC. And they were all deeply shocked and so did you know when you were in Bangladesh that you had all of these people who were behind you and trying to support you from Canada?

RM: I heard it for the first time when I was going to India for treatment for my eyes. When I was leaving at the airport, I heard my colleagues at the University of Dhaka. They told me how supportive everyone was and then how they were calling them all the time and then wanted to know how I am doing. I think that's when I really felt that I have so many people behind me and I can make it.

CO: Do you have any idea why your husband attacked you?

RM: I'm trying to find a reason since the day it's happened. If you'll try to think OK, how a criminal mind works? You can never find an answer, right? One thing I know is that before this, each time I talked about divorce, he just apologized, pleaded and said sorry. And then I just gave him another chance though we separated. But this time, when I didn't listen to him, I guess that's when he realized that this time it's not going to happen. Maybe that's the reason why he decided to attack me?

CO: Was it in part because you were wanting to return to UBC to continue your studies?

RM: Yeah, that was one of the reasons because he didn't want me to continue with my studies as well. So when he told me that I won't be able to come back that's when I said that I wouldn’t listen to him and I want a divorce.

CO: And this attack on you — this physical attack — left you blind.

RM: Yeah.

CO: I don't want to pry into details that you don't want to share. So you tell us what you'd like about what happened that day?

RM: So it happened when I went to back to Bangladesh, I was staying with my parents. I remembered that day. None of my parents were home and as I told you, we were separated. So he wasn't in my parent's house. I think I was working on my thesis and I didn't know that he came by. The cook actually let him in and I didn't know that he was coming. Then he locked the door inside, he dragged me onto the bed and when I realized his presence it was too late. By that time he dragged me onto his bed and first he tried to strangle me. I was really trying hard to release myself and that's when he bit my forearm. And I started bleeding and then I still didn't stop, he put both his fingers into my eyes. And at one point, I realized that I can't see anything anymore. And that's when I I felt that his face was coming towards my face. And then that's when he bit off the tip of my nose. And I started bleeding and I realized that I was getting weaker. After that I don't actually remember what happened. I remember him beating me, dragging me onto the floor from the bed and then I remember I was sleeping in my own blood. And after a while I heard someone opening the door and I heard the scream of my cook and then that's when he ran away. But before he left, he threatened that he would kill me. He would find me and then he would kill me. So that's how it happened.

CO: I'm so sorry.

RM: Yeah I just feel about that incident and I still can't believe that it happened to me.

CO: Your daughter was there — your 5-year-old daughter. Did she witness any of this?

RM: So my daughter was there and she was actually drawing and coloring when I was working on my laptop. She did witness it, but fortunately she was so young. And then after that, we didn't stay there. She was living with me in the hospital. And then she was always with me after this happened. So I never left her so I'm so glad and so happy that she is doing really well now.

CO: And what happened to your husband after the attack?

RM: So what I heard I came back to Canada and just one month after that attack. I came here and then I heard that he was caught and then the trial began. After the first hearing, when the trial was about to go for the second hearing, he was in a prison hospital. And that's when I heard that he died of cardiac arrest.

CO: So he's deceased?

RM: Yes.

CO: And he never went to trial?

RM: No.

CO: What has been the reaction in Bangladesh because there are so many issues around domestic violence? How did people in Bangladesh respond to the news of what had happened to you?

RM: I think I was really fortunate because I was teaching at most renowned university and prestigious university in Bangladesh — in Dhaka. My colleagues, who were my teachers before, and then my students most of all they just gave the court an ultimatum that if they don't capture him within 24 hours, they would go on strike. I think that made a huge difference. They held human bonds at the university. They blindfolded all the statues , which were symbols of our liberation war in 1971. So the public they're really in favor of me. And then they supported me even after his capture, he was telling all these stories. That's how I had an affair and that's the reason he attacked me. Most of the people's attitude was that. OK, so what? Even if she's the worst person in the world, you can't do that to her.

And I'm really lucky for that that I had such huge public support. Of course, some people there are supporting him. And you’ll always see of that happening in different societies. But I'm just glad that the majority of the people supported me and then they wanted justice.

CO: How is your life now?

RM: I can't say that I'm doing bad. So I finished my master's degree in political science in 2013. I decided to start law school and I did. And now I'm working at an international law firm in downtown Vancouver. It's called DLA Piper. I will start my final year at law school in September.

CO: And your daughter is with you here in Canada?

RM: Yes, she is with me.

CO: Were you able to recover any of your vision?

RM: No. So when I came back to Canada for the second time as a blind student. I was taken directly to the hospital. They tried their best my doctor here and then I will never forget how he tried. So I went through four surgeries, but he couldn't do anything.

CO: I know you have become an inspiration to so many people and in Bangladesh and in Canada, where people see you as a woman of tremendous courage. You are speaking in different to events at the Big Sisters Spring Lunch in Vancouver. What hope do you give to those who suffer these kinds of attacks or are victims of this kind of domestic violence?

RM: So I guess my campaign is not only particularly towards domestic violence. It's not particularly against violence against women. I guess my struggle and my campaign would be against all forms of violence against men, women, children elderly people and everyone because I know that it's happening and then these incidents are happening all over the world. So my approach to this whole thing is that people need to know that there are alternatives. Because when I was facing this kind of violence I thought that I didn't have any alternative. That was the end of it because I was married to such an evil person. But people need to know, especially the conservative societies, women in those conservative societies need to know that they have alternatives. They can still dream for a better life and they can still dream and live a meaningful life.

CO: Rumana, I wish you every success in your career and I admire your courage.

RM: Thank you so much Carol.

CO: Thank you. Bye bye.

RM: Bye.

JD: From our archives, that was Rumana Monzur in conversation with Carol in May of last year. That interview has been recognized with a Gracie Award this year.

[Music: Folk]

Tasmanian tiger

Guest: Sandra Abell

JD: For decades now, if you were to show up at a cocktail party in Australia. Profess your belief that Tasmanian tigers exist and are still roaming free in the forest of Australia and Tasmania, you might very well find yourself standing at the appetizer table all alone. But no longer friends, no longer. Australian scientists say that they have received credible reports of sightings of Tasmanian tigers and they are now searching for them. Sandra Abell is a researcher with James Cook University in Cairns, Australia. She's leading the search. We reached her at home.

CO: Ms. Abell, first of all, what is a Tasmanian tiger?

SANDRA ABELL: A Tasmanian tiger is a marsupial dog, if you like. So it's actually a dog-like animal with a pouch. It occurred on the Australian mainland. It disappeared from the mainland about 2,000 years ago, but it existed in Tasmania for a much longer period. And the last one died in captivity in the 1930s.

CO: It was a real creature? It is not a mythical one like the Loch Ness monster or Big Foot or something. This actually was a creature that once walked the earth?

SA: It's definitely a real animal. And we even have specimens in museums. And yeah definitely it is a real thing.

CO: What happened to them? What happened to the thylacine is the other name for the Tasmanian tiger. What happened to them?

SA: As I mentioned, they are on the mainland in Australia and the hypothesis is that a dingo, when it was introduced from the north, impacted and basically they have the same niche. They’re both predators would have competed when the dingo came in. So that’s the hypothesis about why they disappeared from the mainland, but dingos don't occur in Tasmania so there's that little bit of evidence suggesting why they stayed in Tasmania for a longer period. And you know they thrived there until European settlement and there were clashes with farmers. We know that there was a lot of hunting. And so basically it was the advent of Europeans into the Tasmanian that caused their extinction.

CO: Now there have been seemingly credible reports of people seeing these animals — Tasmanian tigers — in the wild, is that right?

SA: That’s right. So we were really surprised to be informed about the sightings. The sightings were from the 1980s. That's when they actually made their observations. But it's the people themselves that you know are quite credible sources and they afraid to come forward before because of this kind of a little bit of backlash against people when they make sort of observations or claims. And I guess they were very hesitant to bring that to a lot of people's attention. But yeah, they could give us very detailed descriptions.

CO: So if they were afraid in the 1980s of being laughed at or considered to be delusional in some way. Why are they coming forward now?

SA: I think that maybe they've left it a long enough time for them to feel more and more confident. I think because they're worried that I will never get to tell their story. So I guess it's just timing and the timing for them seems to be right. And it's kind of opened a door for a lot of other people to come forward as well.

CO: What do the animals actually look like?

SA: I guess you would first think of when you saw one would be a dog or a dingo. But they’re a large to medium dog size. And they are a tan colour. The hind quarters are the interesting part, so that usually what people notice. It is the stripes on the hind quarters and they're going to really unusual tail as well. A lot of people think it reminds them of the kangaroo's tail.

CO: How are you going to research this or test it to see if they might exist?

SA: Basically it isn't far off from what we already do. We are actually doing a lot of work in north Queensland, which has been experiencing a decline in small mammals. And I'm working on an endangered species of small kangaroo. It's about one kilo. Yes so we're doing a lot of trapping to try to understand the abundance and occupancy of this kangaroo, but also other small mammals and the predators. So we are doing predator tracking using cameras and motion sensor traps. So we set them up in a field. We have an extra 50 that we've been able to mobilize just for this project. And we’ll basically set up the 50 cameras about a kilometer apart. We use either a scent or audio or visual lures to bring in the predators. Basically we're going to be able to get a really nice survey done on predators in general and if that happens to be thylacine, we will get them on camera to.

CO: How do you think you'll react if you actually find yourself standing in front of a live Tasmanian tiger?

SA: My mind boggles. I just can't imagine what it would mean if we actually find one. I think the media interest and public interest in you know the idea that they're out there has been phenomenal. I can only imagine if I can show somebody ia photo and say here they are!

CO: If you do find them you have to protect them, right?

SA: So that would be our very first concern. And the first thing would be to get one into the department. But we’d probably have to go into a complete lock down to be able to make sure that we secure the location and make sure we protect them.

CO: All right, well I wish you success with this, Ms.Abell. Thank you for speaking with us.

SA: Thank you very much Carol.

CO: Bye bye.

JD: Sandra Abell is a researcher with James Cook University in Cairns, Australia. She is leading the search for the elusive Tasmanian tiger. We reached her in Cairns.

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

CBC would like to acknowledge the support of the Broadcasting Accessibility Fund.

March 29, 2017 episode transcript

More Stories Like This