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 June 20, 2019

Hosts: Carol Off and Chris Howden

CAROL OFF: Hello, I'm Carol Off.

KAREN GORDON: Good evening, I'm Karen Gordon. This is As It Happens.

[Music: Theme]

Prologue

KG: Tonight:

CO: Breaking the silence. one of China's best-known Uighur writers died, shortly after he was released from a Chinese reeducation camp. His loved ones were too afraid to tell his Canadian daughter that he was gone.

KG: The healthy, the wealthy, and a fight for his polls to rise. Jagmeet Singh makes his pitch for corporations and the ultra-rich to pay for his expansion of health care to include dental, eye care, and prescription drugs.

CO: Unimpeachable witness. She is a Democratic congresswoman, and she has had a ringside seat for the impeachments of two American presidents. Now Zoe Lofgren tells us why she doesn't yet want Donald Trump to be the third.

KG: Bringing it home. A farewell conversation with Anna Maria Tremonti, about the tough realities of war reporting, and why “The Current” never shied away from the darker corners of Canadian life.

CO: Tripping the leg, fantastic. Researchers in Nashville create a tripping treadmill so they can study how their subjects stumble — and, in the process, build a better prosthetic leg.

KG: And… horns of a dilemma. Researchers in Australia say we're spending so much time staring down at our smartphones that some of us are growing sharp little bones out of the back of our heads.

KG: As It Happens, the Thursday edition. Radio that always gets straight to the point.

[Music: Theme]

Part one: Uighur author death, Jagmeet Singh, rare whale song

Uighur author death

Guest: Zohra Ilchi

KG: He was one of the most famous writers in the western Chinese province of Xinjiang. He wrote novels and non-fiction works about his people, the Uighurs. Now Nurmuhammad Tohti has died, less than two months after he was released from a Chinese detention camp. The UN says that China may be keeping up to one million Uighurs and other Muslims in so-called "re-education" camps like the one where Mr. Tohti was held. Mr. Tohti and his loved ones are tying his death to his treatment in the camp. We reached Mr. Tohti's daughter, Zohra Ilchi, in Calgary.

CO: Zohra, how did you learn that your father had died?

ZOHRA ILCHI: A friend from the U.S. called me and she told me to check out Facebook, and then the news was there.

CO: Why didn't your family tell, why didn't your mother tell you that he had died?

ZI: Because they couldn't call me because end of 2017, they sent me a message through WeChat and then they told me not to call anyone that I have known. So since then, I didn't call them. And so they couldn't let me know in any other way. Like they can't.

CO: But you did call your mother to confirm, didn't you?

ZL: Yes, I did, because I have to confirm if the news is true or not. Like I was devastated, so I called her.

CO: How did she respond when you called her?

ZL: Well, she was shocked. Like it was kind of middle of the night, and she was shocked that I called her. And she's like yeah, it's true. He passed on May 31st.

CO: What happened the next day after you had called her? What kind of a message did she get?

ZL: I just wanted to make sure she's okay. So I call her, and then she said right away that after you called yesterday, I got this message that said you received a call from the foreign country and it was a dangerous act you did there.

CO: What does that tell you about the conditions for Uighurs in China right now that just receiving a phone call from her daughter confirming that her husband, your father, was dead. Just a phone call about that could actually land her in trouble, possibly even have her put away into one of these detention camps herself. What does that tell you?

ZL: The old Uighur safety is endangered here. It's really really like what can you do with a phone call? Like what can you do? Just to say how are you doing, right? You see, they can't even receive a call.

CO: Do you know anything about the conditions that your father was in when he died?

ZL: [long sigh] Not really because my mom couldn't tell me anything in detail, right? She just said he died on the way to the hospital.

CO: But your father had been in one of these detention camps.

ZL: Yes.

CO: As far as we understand, 1,000,000 Uighurs and other Muslims have been detained in this way. Your father was in one of those camps, wasn't he?

ZL: Yes, yes, he was in there.

CO: What effect did that have on his health?

ZL: Oh yeah, it affected it a lot. Because when they took him, they just said like they just need to ask him a few questions. So like he didn't bring any medications or anything to support his health, and then his health got worse and worse. And then they just let him out. But it was already too late. And then other thing I think that impacts him most is what he has seen in there, but what he has feel in there, right? Because he's a man that he can't bear any of those kind of abuses, human rights, those kinds. So I think what impacted him most is the condition there that he saw.

CO: Because he's a writer, he's a person who documents the human condition. So he's witnessing the worst treatment of humans.

ZL: Mmmm hmm, yes, yes.

CO: And so he was detained from November 2018 until March of this year. But you had a video call with him in May, did you? Is that right?

ZL: Oh yes, we talked with him. And like all my family was here too. But he was just crying, and he couldn't say anything. He just waved at us, and then he left the scene. Like he couldn't say anything. We were crying, he was crying, everyone in my family was crying. [crying] So he just left. We didn't even talk to him.

CO: Zohra, I'm so sorry. But hat was when he had come back, and he looked I guess quite fragile in what you did see of him.

ZL: Yes.

CO: Did he see you and your kids?

ZL: Yes, yes, he did.

CO: And they saw him?

ZL: Yeah, they did, yeah. Yes.

CO: Can you tell us a bit about your dad. He was he was a writer of novels, of non-fiction, He wrote about the Uighur people. Can you describe his writing for us?

ZL: He wrote novellas, and then journalistic reports based on what happened there. And then one of his famous group work was a letter from Hotan, the city we lived in. And since then, he was the target of the Chinese government.

CO: The Chinese government says it is only trying to deal with terrorism and religious extremism. That is what they're trying to stamp out in in the province. What does that say that your father was detained in one of those camps?

ZL: Well, he is not a terrorist. He is just a writer, right? He is just a writer. That means they don't care who you are. They just took you in. They just took everyone into the camps.

CO: Is it possibly because he was a writer, because he wrote about human rights, that he was targeted?

ZL: Yes, I think so. Yes.

CO: The Chinese call them free vocational training camps.

ZL: That's not it. [slight laugh] There is no way that it's a vocational training center because they took in so many intellectual people, teachers, and artists, and everyone. Like they already graduated from university with masters and bachelor’s degrees, why would they need to go there to learn how to fold a comforter? That's not true. Everyone knows that.

CO: Why do you think that there isn't a stronger international response to what's happening to all of these Muslims and Uighurs in China?

ZL: Well, I think it's just you know political game. If there’s a benefit for other countries they might go ahead and do something or say something. But China is getting stronger and stronger. And then you know they don't afraid of anyone. So I think that's why the world is just keeping quiet for now. But I think the world can do much more than that, right? Like if one nation is suffering. So as a human, we should just support them.

CO: Zohra, just finally, I'm so sorry for your loss of your father. I appreciate you speaking with us. Thank you.

ZL: Thank you. Thank you for interviewing me today. Thank you so much.

CO: Bye.

KG: Zohra Ilchi's father was the Uighur writer Nurmuhammad Tohti. He died after being released from a detention camp in China. He had diabetes and a heart condition and his family says he didn't receive his medication while in detention. Ms. Ilchi is in Calgary. For more on this story, visit our website at: www.cbc.ca/aih.

[Music: Sombre]

Jagmeet Singh

Guest: Jagmeet Singh

KG: Jagmeet Sing has some work to do this summer. With the House of Commons shut down for the season, the NDP leader must now take his message straight to voters — voters who now have his party playing catch-up with the Greens in some recent polls. And Mr Singh's message isn't short on ambition. He's released the NDP's platform four months before Canadians go to the polls. And it includes a proposal to extend universal health care to include not just pharmacare, but to cover eye care, dental, mental health, and long-term care. We reached Jagmeet Singh in Ottawa.

CO: Mr. Singh, we almost didn't hear your platform this week. You were caught in the midst of raptors fever, which was the big story. Then there was the Trans Mountain pipeline that the Liberals announced. Were you determined to make sure that it got as little attention as possible?

JAGMEET SINGH: Well, we were excited that we had the opportunity to speak to our base. We had thousands of people in attendance at the New Democratic provincial conference. But despite all the other really exciting news that was going on, with the Raptors particularly, we were able to get some great excitement, lots of folks shared our message, and we're really excited to see our bold platform around expanding healthcare — something that Canadians are proud of, but want to see more expansion.

CO: Okay, well we’ll see if we can get you a little bit more of attention today about this. But I'm asking about the pharmacare coverage, your plan now. Because I mean, at the same time, the Liberals say they're going to do something quite similar. How do you distinguish yourself from the Liberals on what seems to be their central plank of their platform? You’re adding onto it, but it's pretty similar, isn't it?

JS: Not at all, actually. The Liberals have no plan. They have not released any plan whatsoever to indicate that they're going to bring in universal pharmacare. At most, The Finance Minister has alluded to a patchwork system, which is not at all what our plan is. Our plan is a plan to cover every single person in our country. But let's be clear, the Liberals have no plan. And when asked repeatedly in Question Period, they have not committed to a universal, comprehensive, publicly delivered pharmacare program.

CO: I think Mr. Morneau is saying that he is looking to be fiscally responsible. And if there is going to be something, it has to be within reason. And that seems to be reflecting what Canadians are well, yes, we want this, we want a bit more pharmacare. We want a bit more universal health coverage. We don't want it to cost us an arm and a leg. What you're offering is pretty expensive, don't you think?

JS: I think that Finance Minister Morneau’s claim is ridiculous. He is prepared to spend 15 billion dollars on a pipeline. He gave 14 billion dollars away to the largest corporations last year in the fall economic statement. And so I reject that assertion. That Canadians are told that they can't have something like universal pharmacare when every other country in the world that has a universal healthcare system also has medication included, we can do it. And we've laid out a plan to do it. W1e're going to ask the richest of the one per cent, those who have 20 million dollars or more in personal fortunes, we're going to ask them to contribute one per cent. And with that, we'll absolutely cover the cost of this plan, and it's going to save us money in the long run. It's going to save folks who are looking to go to the hospital, who see emergency rooms filled because people who could not get the medication they needed end up getting more and more sick and ended up in the health care system that way. There's so much benefit from the system. And I reject any assertion that it's not achievable. It is achievable.

CO: Okay, but I think that you're not going to ask the one per cent politely to turn over the money. You're proposing to tax them. And that would be financing this 10 billion dollar a year pharmacare plan. But you also want billions more for coverage of dental, vision, hearing, and mental health costs. But you've also promised that you're pharmacare coverage will be available next year. The Liberal Health Minister says that's simply not realistic. What do you say to the Liberals saying that you can't possibly deliver this in a year?

JS: Well, the Liberals are going to say that because they don't have the courage to deliver it. And they want Canadians to just settle for substandard service. We have all the infrastructure in place right now. The federal government purchases medication already. Each provincial government purchases medication. Because when you go to the hospital, your medication is covered. I would sit down with each premier and say for the money you're already spending right now we can cover everyone in your province. I can't imagine any premier who would say no to that idea.

CO: You're offering — you're pledging — 15 billion dollars over four years for a climate plan. But at the same time, we can't seem to find out where you sit on the natural gas development in British Columbia — the liquefied natural gas. What is your view on that? Are you supportive of that project?

JS: Well, British Columbia has a plan. And they have a plan that incorporates all of their measures into their plan to reduce emissions. My problem is that the federal government does not have a plan. They don't have a plan. And now they've approved a pipeline which will dramatically increase emissions. They've got no plan to incorporate this massive increase in emissions into a national climate change plan. And that's where my focus is the fact that there is no plan at the federal level. There is a commitment now to expand a project that also doesn't have any clear economic case. The private sector walked away from this because they knew there wasn't a case.

CO: Right.

JS: And now we've got experts also saying that there's no clear evidence that expanding this pipeline will result in any new markets. So a very weak business case, massive damage to the environment, and no plan to incorporate these emissions into our national framework.

CO: Okay, I'm pretty sure that everyone noticed you didn't answer the question there. So I’ll ask it again. Will you go ahead and…

[crosstalk]

JS: No, no, I don’t accept that. I said very clearly that British Columbia has a plan that incorporates all the…

[crosstalk]

CO: No, wait. Would you go ahead with the liquefied natural gas development in B.C.? Are you committed to that?

JS: No, no, let's not let the viewers be misled. I said very clearly British Columbia has a plan that incorporates all of their emissions into a reductions plan. That is a plan, and I'm very clear that they have a plan, and I support that their plan. My concern is the federal government doesn't.

CO: Okay. I just I want to know what you might do in the limited time we have. If in an election, the possibility that there will be a Conservative minority, what willingness might you have to go into some kind of left coalition with other parties?

JS: I'm absolutely open to working with anyone who wants to support my plan to bring in universal pharmacare. Anyone that's willing to work with me to bring in our climate action plan that protects jobs and reduces emissions. I'm willing to work with any progressive partner that wants to work with me to implement things like proportional representation. I don't imagine it's going to be at all the Conservative Party, but anyone else who wants to work with me, I'm prepared to work with them.

CO: Could you see yourself in a coalition with Justin Trudeau?

JS: Well, I don't want to presuppose the outcome of an election that's four months away. I think Canadians expect that a leader of a national party is running to become prime minister, and that's what I'm planning to do. But as I said before, I would be willing to work with anyone who wants to work with me to implement these important changes that Canadians want to see happen.

CO: Can you see this as a possibility that there will be an election in the fall where there will be a group of parties that joined together that are like-minded on the left that actually becomes the government? Is that a scenario that you talk about in NDP circles?

JS: Well, it would be a scenario that would be more likely if we had proportional representation. And if the Liberal government and Mr. Trudeau would have fulfilled their commitment that the last election was the last election underneath the first past the post system. And the reason why I support proportional representation because I think Canadians want to see parties work together. That's one of the reasons why I've put in our commitment document that we would implement proportional representation, and then allow Canadians to weigh in on it in a referendum after they've seen its benefits and its impact.

CO: But it's still possible to work together — to have a coalition — even without reform.

JS: Yes, New Democrats have done it in the past. Tommy Douglas was in a minority government when we first brought in medicare. And a lot of the great things that we're proud of as Canadians came in as a result of minority governments. Like I said, I'm willing to work with anyone who wants to help me implement some of these very important visions that would help make people's lives better.

CO: Including Justin Trudeau?

JS: Of course.

CO: Mr. Singh, I'm sure we will be talking again before October. But thank you for speaking with us today.

JS: It is my honour. Thank you so much.

CO: Bye-bye.

JS: Bye-bye.

KG: Jagmeet Singh is the leader of the New Democratic Party. We reached him in Ottawa.

[Music: Percussive]

Rare whale song

Guest: Jessica Crance

KG: The north Pacific right whale is one of the rarest in the oceans. There are only about 30 of them left. So it's extremely difficult to observe them. But a group of dedicated scientists finally — after years of frustration — have recorded the large baleen whales singing. Here's a bit of that recording.

SOUNDCLIP

[Sound: Are we sure this isn’t Dorry?]

KG: The song of the north Pacific right whale — recorded by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Jessica Crance is a marine biologist who worked on the project. We reached her in Seattle.

CO: Jessica, that sound we just heard sounds like it could be anything until you know what it is. What was it like for you the first time you heard it?

JESSICA CRANCE: Well, the very first time we heard a pattern of those sounds. It was really exciting, but also very frustrating because we were never able to get visual confirmation of the animal making the sound. But then we started hearing that same pattern in our long-term data set. And we heard that one and three other ones. And that pattern is made up of something called the gunshot sound. And we know that that is produced by the north Pacific right whale. So you know we started hoping that maybe these patterns in these songs were also produced by north Pacific right whales.

CO: But it sounds almost mechanical.

JC: Yes.

CO: It doesn't sound like an animal is making it it. So did you have your doubts that you had the right sound?

JC: We didn't really have our doubts. We've been studying right whale acoustics for quite some time, and so we were familiar with that call type. But yes, it does sound very different than what most people would expect when they hear the term whale song. It doesn't sound like a humpback whale song. It's not melodious or full of these kind of tonal calls. They are comprised almost entirely of that gunshot sound. Yeah, it was interesting to hear them being produced in such a regular rhythmic patterned kind of way. But it wasn't until we got visual confirmation that we were finally able to say definitively yes, this is a right whale. And yes, it's a male that's producing it.

CO: So how did you connect it? How did you finally know that song was the voice of the whale that you saw?

JC: When we're out at sea, we use an instrument called a sonobuoy. And that allows us to monitor acoustically in real-time. So we can hear sounds as they're being produced. And they also have directional capabilities, so we're able to tell what direction the sound is coming from. So by deploying these instruments and following the sound and continuing to deploy as we got closer, eventually we were able to hear the sound as it's being made and localize it or triangulate on a calling north Pacific right whale. And we knew that it was a male because we had previously documented this individual. He was known to our catalogue. And we had previously done a genetic study. And so we knew that he was a male.

CO: What was it like for you to be able to do that? I mean you're hearing the whale, you had a recording of it, but there you were, you were right with this these rare whales. And knowing that this was their voice?

JC: It was so exciting. You know, right whales are not known to sing. This hasn't been documented in any other population or species of right whale. So you know the fact that not only are we hearing it, but we were able to visually confirm and get the I.D. was really exciting. We knew we were onto something big.

CO: Now just the very name, the north Pacific right whale, should tell us a little bit about where they are. But can you be more specific? There's only about 30 of them left, right?

JC: Correct. This population, the eastern population of the north Pacific right whale, is critically endangered. Our best estimate right now is that there are around 30 or so individuals remaining. And because of their low population size and their low resite rate, very little is still known about this population. We know for sure that they occur in the southeastern Bering Sea in the summer months. But their migration routes, their breeding and calving grounds are still unknown. So we have no idea where these animals go once or even if they leave the Bering Sea.

CO: Why are there so few of them?

JC: They became the target of extensive whaling in the 1800s. And then in the 1960s, the Soviets began illegally whaling them and just decimated what was left of the population.

CO: And what are the chances that they will recover their numbers?

JC: You know, we still are holding out hope that there may be a hidden cache of right whales somewhere, but they do have a rough go ahead of them. And, unfortunately, we haven't seen a calf in the Bering Sea since about 2004. So extinction is a real possibility and a real threat for this population.

CO: Okay, I think people want to hear some more of this whale’s songs.

JC: Absolutely.

CO: So this is another tape clip of a north Pacific right whale.

SOUNDCLIP

[Sound: What is this?]

CO: Good heavens! [laughs] That’s extraordinary!

JC: Yes, very different from what people would expect to hear when you tell them you're going to play a clip of song.

CO: How are they making this sound, do you know?

JC: It's difficult to know for certain with such a large baleen whale. And any hypotheses as to baleen whale sound production are all just based off of anatomical studies from stranded or dead animals. So we really aren't entirely sure how they're making the sound.

CO: But you're sure it's coming as a voice, and not something that they're hitting or some other way they're producing the sound?

JC: Correct, yes. Because they're producing a sound when they're underwater when there is no visible behaviour at the surface. So they're not flapping their fins or their tails. It's something that the whale is producing internally.

CO: And what do you think that they're saying? What's the message?

JC: You know, we don't know at this point. Any hypotheses as to the function of the song are still hypothetical and still speculative at this point. Our best guess since we know it's a male that's producing it, and given what is known about cetacean song in general, our current hypothesis is that this is a reproductive display.

CO: It's so lovely to think of that, but so sad when you realize that there are so few possible mates for them.

JC: Yeah, they are really struggling right now. So any sighting, any opportunity to record or detect these animals you know we have to take full advantage and learn as much as we can because there is so much that is still unknown.

CO: Jessica, thank you for sharing them with us.

JC: Thank you so much for your interest. I really appreciate it.

CO: Bye- bye.

KG: Remarkable. Jessica Crance is a marine biologist with the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. She was in Seattle, Washington.

[Music: Folk guitar strum]

Phone head bone

KG: There's fresh evidence that too much screen time is messing with our heads. Reseachers are finding an increasing number of young adults with a small horn-like growth growing from the backs of their skulls. Now a team at Australia's University of the Sunshine Coast think they've dialed in on the cause. They suggest the beak-shaped nubbins are bone spurs, in a paper published in the online journal Scientific Reports. And those bone spurs are the result of the increased strain that's put on the muscles at the back of the head when it's forced to spend hour-after-hour, tilted forward, looking at a smartphone screen. David Shahar, the paper's lead author, says there's call for alarm. The bones themselves are relatively harmless — to a person with the horn. But maybe dangerous for whoever might smash into one of these horn-headed phone addicts, because they're walking along, eyes glued to their screen. Mr. Shahar suggests that 'phone bones,' as they're called, begin forming in early childhood. That, he suggests, is a warning from our bodies about the way we're spending time.

[Music: Up tempo]

Part two: No impeachment Democrat, tripping treadmill study

No impeachment Democrat

Guest: Zoe Lofgren

KG: Zoe Lofgren knows more about impeachment than most of her fellow Democrats in Washington. When U.S. President Nixon was impeached, she was a staffer to a member of the House Judiciary Committee. When the House voted to impeach President Clinton, she was in Congress. Now, as her Democratic caucus argues over whether to go after President Trump, she's among those urging caution. But not everyone is listening. This week, several more Democrats joined the ranks of those pushing for impeachment. They included Congresswoman Katie Porter, who said quote, "I cannot with a clean conscience ignore my duty to defend the Constitution." Unquote. We reached Demnocratic Representative Lofgren in Washington, D.C.

CO: Congresswoman Lofgren, what arguments are you making to your fellow Democrats about the wisdom of pursuing impeachment for Donald Trump?

ZOE LOFGREN: Well, I'm not making any arguments to my fellow Democrats along those lines. What I'm saying is that we need to look at evidence relative to the issues raised in the Mueller report, which we've just begun as of yesterday. And then once we have looked at the direct evidence as well as interviewed direct witnesses, we'll see where we are in terms of whether we have an obligation to act.

CO: The question I phrased it badly, but I mean was it wise to impeach Donald Trump at this point? And you would say it's not wise at this point, yes?

ZL: Well, we don't have the evidence. I mean we have a report that's like saying you should prosecute when you have a report summarizing somebodies activities. That's not the way you can do it. You need to take a look. I mean I was involved not only in the Clinton impeachment, but also the Nixon impeachment as a staffer for a committee member. In both of those cases, they had extensive review of evidence relative to various problematic activities. And you can't proceed without that.

CO: How is this different than what you saw of how Mr. Nixon was pursued for impeachment? What's different? What's changed among the political dynamic.

ZL: Well, there’s a lot of differences. I mean when you think about the Nixon impeachment, first, the House of Representatives, but also the country, had the benefit of something that we have not had, which was the Senate Watergate Committee. Sam Ervin calling in various direct witnesses — people in the White House who were able and had to talk about what they had seen and what had happened, quoting John Dean, the White House counsel. And so there was a lot of direct evidence that caused the House of Representatives to refer the matter of impeachment to the House Judiciary Committee. That whole step is missing here. And so we're really at the point where Sam Ervin was close to the beginning of his process. The other difference, among many, is that the Justice Department at the insistence of the jurors in Judge Sirica’s court insisted that the grand jury material be sent to the U.S. House of Representatives. The tapes — the Nixon tapes. I was just a young staffer; I didn't get to listen to him. But the committee members themselves spent endless hours personally listening to the tapes that the Supreme Court ordered released, so that you know there was substantial evidence collection. And to the point where not only did they reach a conclusion, but the members of the committee had to confront the facts. We’re not really at that point here.

CO: Isn't one of the key differences political in that you had eventually Republican support for the impeachment of Mr. Nixon, and you do not have that for Mr. Trump?

ZL: Well, you didn't at the beginning. By the time the evidence had been reviewed, you did. And I think part of what mattered to the Republican members of the Judiciary Committee at the time. Certainly, Caldwell Butler is a great example. I mean he was not in favour of the impeachment inquiry as a member of the committee. But after he had listened to the tapes, after he had helped interview the witnesses, after he had reviewed the grand jury material, he had a body of evidence that couldn't be ignored. That hasn't occurred yet. I’d like to think that the current Republican members of the House Judiciary Committee take their oath of office as seriously as Caldwell Butler did some number of years ago. And that you know you do what your obligation under your oath to the Constitution requires you to do. But we're not there yet. And it's possible we may never be there.

CO: But you have Mr. Trump thumbing his nose at the Constitution, ordering government employees not to appear at oversight panels.

ZL: We'll see them in court. And we believe that the court will acknowledge that these claims of absolute immunity are preposterous. And that we will then have the court ordering the White House to comply.

CO: Is there a point you can see that that you would say yes, we should proceed with impeachment?

ZL: Clearly, I'm not going to speculate of what that would be or timeframes. I don't think that would be responsible. But there is a set of circumstances where you could say this is so serious that it has really shaken the foundation of constitutional government where you'd have an obligation to proceed. It has to be undertaken in a very deliberate and thorough fashion because it is an enormously consequential action to really upturn an election of the chief executive of the executive branch. So that's a big deal. It doesn't mean it can never happen. But you need to have a very put together set of facts that really require you to act.

CO: On the political side, do you fear that there would be a backlash, that there would be blowback if you were to attempt an impeachment of Mr. Trump?

ZL: That's not part of my calculation. My calculation is how to do my job in a way that is required under the Constitution and in keeping with the precedents of our nation?

CO: We will leave it there. Congresswoman Lofgren, I appreciate your time. Thank you.

ZL: You bet.

KG: Zoe Lofgren is a Democratic member of Congress from California. She was in Washington, D.C.

[Music: Ambient]

Tripping treadmill study

Guest: Maura Eveld

KG: It's been said that you fall down, so that you can get back up again. But at Vanderbilt University, you fall down because they want you to fall down — and — in fact — they created a treadmill that trips you. Researchers in the mechanical engineering department manufactured the "tripping treadmill" to help them learn how people fall. They've just published their findings in the Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation. Maura Eveld is a PhD Student at Vanderbilt's Center for Rehabilitation Engineering & Assistive Technology. We reached her in Nashville, Tennessee.

CO: Maura, what's it like just to walk on your treadmill?

MAURA EVELD: So it's like a normal treadmill, you're walking along. But, unexpectedly, you'll encounter an obstacle that you didn't know it was coming. And you'll have to recover from it on the treadmill.

CO: Okay, I mean can't you just see what's coming and avoid it?

ME: No, so we specially designed the experiment so that you have what they called dribble goggles, so it blocks your vision below you. It's what kids use to practice dribbling basketball. So you can't see below you, so you can't see that the block is coming. And then we also have our participants listened to white noise. And then we give them noise cancelling headphones over that. So they can't hear anything, and they can't see it coming. So they're virtually unaware of the obstacle.

CO: And what happens when they encounter the obstacle?

ME: Healthy people can reflexively respond to such an obstacle — such that they recover, and then they keep walking on the treadmill.

CO: And what happens if you can't?

ME: They're connected to a harness, so they would never actually fall. But we record the weight that's assisted, so we can know if it would have counted as a fallen out real life scenario.

CO: Why do you want to trip people?

ME: So yeah, so our overarching goal is to develop a new prosthetic knee that can recover from stumbles the way that a healthy limb can. Right now, people with trans femoral amputation, so that's amputation above the knee, they're two hundred times more likely to fall. That's because knees on the market right now they don't have the ability to respond the way that a healthy limb does. And so our goal is to record the responses of healthy people without amputations and use that information to program a reflexive response into a new powered prosthetic knee that can then, hopefully, reduce the incidence of falls.

CO: What is it that helps us recover from a stumble then? I would think it was just your inner balance and your strength.

ME: Exactly. So for people without amputation, you don't even have to think about it. You reflexively respond to it. But people with the amputation, because they don't have control of that joint, they don't have control of their knee anymore. They're not able to do the same thing.

CO: So they don't have the muscle memory that your knee has and your legs have in order to recover?

ME: Exactly.

CO: And now what have you found? Testing it, what have been your results?

ME: This first pass, our first study that we just published, was actually validating the stumble system itself. Believe it or not, we're not the first people to try to trip people over and over again. [CO laughs] But we wanted to improve upon some previous systems. So our first kind of pass was just to make sure that we could develop a system that people really didn't know that the obstacle was coming. And that also, we could time or kind of control when they got hit. People respond differently depending on when in their gait they get tripped. And so we wanted to be able to control that.

CO: But they know they're going to be tripped, right? So they're on the treadmill. No matter how much you try to block their vision and their peripheral sight, they're anticipating that they're going to stumble. Does that make a difference?

ME: Yeah, so I was actually one of the pilot subjects, and we encountered that problem when we were tripping me. So yeah, exactly. So you know you're gonna be tripped. You don't know when it's coming, but you know it'll come eventually, so you kind of start walking funny. And a way we got around that is experimentally we had our participants perform serial sevens. So that's just counting backwards by sevens from a number we gave them. We had them do that out loud. And that actually served to completely distract them. So we were able to get them walking like normal before they got hit.

CO: Interesting. Because I couldn't probably do that, but concentrating on that would probably take my mind off the possibility I’m going to fall.

ME: No, that’s exactly it. Yeah, we laughed because we think we had seven participants in our most recent study, and that was their least favourite part because that's exactly what happened was it's hard to think about seven is a hard number to count backwards by. But that's exactly what distracts you from the fact that you're on a treadmill about to be tripped.

CO: Now that you have this data, now that you can see what happens and how people fall, how will you use this in order to make a better prosthetic limb?

ME: Because we were on a force instrumented treadmill, we have a motion capture lab, we collected their motion in space throughout the entire tripping scenario. So what we're kind of digging into now now that we validate this system is kind of what characteristics, what factors are contributing to the strategy that each person chose. And then we can use that information and use the sensors on the prosthetic knee to then choose the correct strategy.

CO: So you can actually program the limb to respond in a way that a healthy knee would?

ME: Yes, exactly.

CO: But is it different for different people?

ME: Yeah, we're still kind of digging into that. And there seems to be a pretty general kind of set of factors that contribute to what we call an elevating strategy where you lift your foot up and over. And then another set of factors that contribute to what we call a lowering strategy, or what people have called a lowering strategy, where you kind of terminate your step and lift up your other limb. So we're hoping though because we tested seven people, and we tripped them each 28 times, we're getting a pretty big sample size to be able to generalize these responses.

CO: And do you think that you will actually successfully be able to help to develop a prosthetic limb where people will be able to recover from a stumble, no matter if they have a prosthetic limb or not?

ME: We actually have been pilot testing that. So Vanderbilt has a powered knee, and we've been working on the controls of the new basically reflex. So we have brought in a couple of participants that have a transdermal amputation. And we're pilot testing that now. So far, we're getting good data to be able to move further on that. But we do think that we're gonna be able to successfully get there.

CO: All right. We will leave it there, Maura. Good work. Thank you.

ME: Thank you.

KG: Maura Eveld is a Ph D Student at Vanderbilt University. She's the co-author of a new study published in the Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation. We reached her in Nashville, Tennessee.

[Music: instrumental]

AMT sign-off

00:40:54 - SPEAKER: F7

After 17 years Anna Maria Tremonti has signed off as the host of CBC Radio's “The Current”. This morning Anna Maria hosted her final episode in front of a live audience at the broadcasting center in Toronto. During the show she took a rare turn as the interviewee with our own Carol Off conducting her exit interview. Carol asked about Anna Maria's distinguished work as a foreign correspondent and her coverage of the war in the former Yugoslavia. Here's part of the conversation that followed.

SOUNDCLIP

CO: you went back to Sarajevo for the 20th anniversary.

AMT: With you.

CO: I was there, yes. You spoke with some women who had been raped during the war, and that was a big part, and ugly part… well, so many ugly parts of that war. But that the sexual assault of the women, the rape camps had existed. You had covered that at the time. And you went back and you found women who had become pregnant because of those rape camps. Do you remember talking to them?

AMT: Oh, so much so. In fact, I'm looking at Lara O'Brien, who's in the audience. Lara was the producer for that. And she found those women. And she started like in the fall. And we were going to go in the spring. And everybody said to Lara nobody's gonna talk to you. And Lara just kept going back and back and back. And two women were willing to talk to us. And we were like just astounded at their stories. We just we would meet them for one day. And we spent the most of one day with each of them. And like I always wondered what happens to you when the war is over? You've been raped, you've been gang raped, you carry a pregnancy to term. What do you tell your kid? How do you relate to that child? What is your life like? I always wondered. And those two women were kind enough to tell us. They’re very different women, very different experiences with their children. One of them, I talk about it in the documentary, she starts playing with the little sticker on her lighter. And I'm just watching her hands, and she's like I don't understand her — this is in translation — and I'm just watching her and she's like building up. And I'm thinking Oh my God, she's gonna tell me now, you know? Cause she wasn't sure she wanted to talk when she got there. And to be able to do that story, to be able to say to “The Current” I want to take half an hour of prime time morning radio,, and I want to talk about the rape of women in war. And the bosses say okay, what do you need? We'll let you do that. That's the gift of “The Current” as well. We have been able to tackle those kinds of stories at a time of day when people would go eh, we're not so sure about that. And you know what? The listeners have said thank you for that. And that's really been important to me.

CO: Because that's the gift of Anna Maria Tremonti. Because what you do with that story is that you don't make it so horrific that no one can bear it. You take us into the humanity of those stories. And that has been your hallmark asked no matter who you've talked to, no matter where you've gone. You have made it a hallmark of your empathy of being able to draw those people out. And I think what people remember most about what you have done for these 17 years is that you have made Canada your hometown. You have been from coast to coast, talking to people on the line, but also going to town halls everywhere. You have connected with this country. What has that meant for you.

AMT: A lot. A You know, when I became a foreign correspondent, it was Joe Schlesinger who said now that you're a foreign correspondent, you better think about what you're going to be when you're not. And I thought about coming home. Because when you're foreign correspondent you never want to come home. It's a great life. And the people you answer to are far away and asleep. So it's perfect. [lots of laughing] But I remember thinking you know I sort of toyed with the idea of going to the States. And I just though no, you know I want to report to Canadians. And I'm going to go home at some point. I need to be closer to my family. I want to be home. And if I go home, I want to do those stories in my own backyard. Because when you do them somewhere else, that's okay. But when you do them in your own backyard, only we in Canada will report on other Canadians. Now they kind of report on us a little bit those foreign correspondents. But if we want to know about ourselves we have to tell ourselves about ourselves. So we're only as good as we want to be right here at home. And it mattered to me to be home.

CO: And so the Fort Mac fires, a party, Newfoundland, Trans Mountain pipeline, all those places where you went and you connected with those stories. What is it that you learned? What's the biggest thing you yourself gained from turning Canada into your hometown?

AMT: That the humanity of an individual no matter where they stand on the political spectrum exists and it shines if you take the trouble to say hi, what do you think? You know that the yelling only happens in clips and you know when the mics are on. But if you just take the time and talk to people, even the most polarizing of people, you know what? They're human beings, and they're not ogres, and they actually want to talk to the other side. And that we live in a pretty damn great country. With all its problems, we still have a way forward.

CO: Right.

KG: Well, that was Carol speaking with Anna Maria Tremonti early this morning. Today, Anna Maria hung up her headphones after hosting CBC Radio's “The Current” for 17 years. She's moving on to some podcast projects. You can hear that full conversation on “The Current Review” tonight, right after As It Happens.

[Music: Instrumental]

Part three: Behrouz Boochani

FOA: Montreal MLB

KG: Some Montreal baseball fans are seeing a ray of hope today. The owner of the Tampa Bay Rays has confirmed there will be talks about a plan for the Rays to play a number of the team's games in Montreal. Details are scarce — but there are media reports that Major League Baseball has given the Tampa Bay Rays permission to look into splitting its games with the former home of the Expos. The Rays have been dealing with low attendance numbers — and the team wants a new stadium. Meanwhile, Montreal fans have always wanted their team back, ever since the Expos left the city in 2004. It's nowhere near a done deal and there would be lots of obstacles, even if the teams come to a travel agreement. But that hasn't stopped some ball fans on Twitter from warming up some possible team names in the bullpen. @AdamCodorette suggested "The Snowbirds." And @WpgSportsTalk tweeted "The Montreal X-Rays" — a mashup of Expos and Rays. While those fans are looking ahead, we decided to look back. We found this interview in our Archives with sports reporter Bob Babinski. He spoke with former As It Happens host Mary Lou Finlay, just ahead of the Expos' last regular season home game in 2004.

SOUNDCLIP

MARY LOU FINLAY: Just listening to Barbara's intro there from 2001, she said that the attendance was down to about 5,300 a game or fewer. Is it still at that level?

BOB BABINSKI: That’s pretty much you know the average attendance you get, unless you have a five-dollar entry, one-dollar hotdog night, where the numbers get up to 11,000 — if not more. Last season, we had a bit of pennant fever here in August. And we had a series against the Philadelphia Phillies where 20,000 to 30,000 people showed up to some of the games in that series. So if the games meant anything over the last couple of years, the fans would still come back. And I'm interested to see what will happen this Wednesday night. There are still enough people out there, unlike me, who do want to pay their respects to this team. And I know one, in particular, a friend of mine. His father was at the opening game back in 1969, and he has always said he wants to see the last game if there is a last game. And so he's planning to go on Wednesday night.

MLF: Oh, but if the fans had ever been there, the team would be you know alive and well, wouldn't it?

BB: I suppose that's a simple way of looking at it. Yeah, if the people kept coming. But you know we've we've talked about this before, and so many others, what are the different reasons that have kept the fans away? And could Montreal support a baseball team? There are some people in this city who make a convincing argument that if certain things were done that yes, Montreal would support a baseball team. However, there are still many others who basically lost interest 15 years ago. And you know obviously not enough has been done to get their interests back into professional baseball.

MLF: It's been a great little team some years.

BB: Oh, from the beginning. And Jerry park, when you know they were a losing team, they had plenty of characters like Rusty Staub and Mack Jones and Boots Day, John Boccabella. Even their names were great. And then through the late ‘70s and early ‘80s, we had those very competitive teams that almost got there, and left us with Blue Monday, where we lost it all on the Monday homerun.

MLF: I know. But they were always sort of like the little engine that could then, weren't they? They had no money, and they had rookie players, and they'd still get to the finals.

BB: That's very much a story of the team from 1985 through to 1994, up until the baseball strike. And certainly both teams of the early ‘90s, and even after the strike. We had a couple of seasons where if certain moves were made late in the season maybe we would have gotten to the playoffs. So it's a question of you know we're a city that we were almost there.

KG: From our archives, that was former As It Happens host Mary Lou Finlay speaking with sports broadcaster Bob Babinski about the Montreal Expos in 2004.

[Music: bluegrass]

Behrouz Boochani

Guest: Behrouz Boochani

KG: Today, on World Refugee Day, there are more displaced people in the world than ever before. According to the UNHCR, more than 70 million people are refugees, asylum-seekers, or internally displaced. Such a large number is difficult to comprehend. So today, we're focusing on one man's story. Behrouz Boochani fled Iran in 2013. The Iranian-Kurdish writer headed toward Australia — but ended up being detained on Manus Island, at a facility run by the Australian government. He's been on the island — in detention — for nearly six years. He has spent much of that time writing about his experience — through WhatsApp text messages. Those messages were transformed into an award-winning book, called "No Friend But The Mountains." And now, that book is available in Canada. We reached Behrouz Boochani on Manus Island.

CO: Behrouz, first of all, can you just describe what it's like around you right now?

BEHROUZ BOOCHANI: You know, right now, everyone is sleeping around me. So we are living in this camp. So I don't know how to describe this. So it is a place so it's a number of you know rooms. You know know at least 120 people are here. And this camp I am living in is one of the three camps on Manus Island. These days, I describe this place as a graveyard because everyone are just locked up in their rooms, and they don't come out. So they are depressed. We wake up you now witnessing some self-harm or suicide.

CO: Just to tell our listeners that sometimes we can't hear you properly because you are talking to us from inside the detention camp. And it's remarkable that we have this connection at all. You have been in what you describe in your book, and in your messages you have been sending out, you are living in unimaginable conditions there. How has that changed you?

BB: You know, it is a really hard question that I answer because you know over the past six years I just have been struggling. So sometimes some people ask me that what do you do when you get freedom? I say I don't know. Perhaps I will just sleep. You know, what is important for me is to survive. And I am struggling to survive. I don't know how to answer this question that how you know living in a situation like this has changed me. But you know I think six years is enough to change anyone.

CO: You have described the effect it's had on other people that you meet there in your book and in your texts. You describe how people have cut themselves. They’ve set themselves on fire, people who have been beaten by the jailers there — the Australians — who keep them there. Women have been raped. There was a girl who sewed her lips together, a child who stitched a heart into a hand. All of these things that people do to keep themselves together. And why was it important to you to document the stories of these other people in the camp?

BB: You know what is important for me you know in this book and other of my works, I always try to describe how life is inside this prison camp. What is systematic torture means. And it is a main concept that I focused on this systematic torture. So when I say systematic torture, many people they say that what is systematic torture means? So I think I cannot tell this you know describe these and tell this tragedy through journalism language. So that's why I wrote this novel to bring the readers to inside the prison camp. So when someone cuts himself or herself, it's not a simple thing, you know? Just imagine a person who has been in this indefinite detention for six years you know and lost hope. You know I think it is a very complicated issue. But now you know sometimes it's like a you know political message that people do that just to get attention from other people around the world to look at them that they are dying here. So they feel that they don't know any way but harming themselves. So I think it is you know sometimes it's like a political message.

CO: When you say torture, when you say that these people suffered torture, someone might think that means some conventional way of torture. But you describe torture as humiliation, as having to stand in line for ever for food, and then they don't have food, and they laugh at you when you get to the front of the line when there's nothing to eat. How the toilets don't work, and there is a smell all the time. And that there's people around you who need health care, and they have no health care for those people. That it's the grinding down — the humiliating — of taking away all their hope that is the torture that you're describing, isn't it?

BB: Yeah, yeah, exactly. So when I say torture, mainly I mean the humiliation, you know? When a system treating you in a way to take your identity, take your humanity, and reduce you to just a number, and take your individuality, I think it is a big torture. And another thing I would like to mention is that when you are living in detention, and you don't know how many years you should live in a situation like this, how many years it will take. And when you get the freedom, when you get off of this island, and also you don't know where. Where do you end up finally? So I think it is a big torture. And when you think, and when you believe, and it is true that you are an innocent person, just you seek asylum to Australia, and you committed no crime, and they keep you in this indefinite detention for six years. And they steal your life — they have control on your life. And they are treating you like a terrorist, like a criminal, while you are only a simple person like other people around the world. I think it is a big torture, you know? One of the main question that the people in Manus Island all ask. And actually it is my question for years and years that what is my crime? What is my crime?

CO: You are a refugee. You were seeking asylum after you left Iran. You were a journalist, a writer, in your Kurdish language in Iran. You had to flee Iran because it was too dangerous for you. You would be arrested for just the fact that you were writing. That's why you're a refugee. Now, you are a refugee in an Australian detention camp in Papua New Guinea, and it's writing that you have turned to give yourself hope, is that right?

BB: Yeah. You know I say that you know first I would like to mention something about my background. You know I was working as a writer journalist in Iran. So you know I left Iran because I didn't want to live in prison you know to waste the rest of my life in prison. And I seek asylum to a country with a liberal democracy structure, and they jailed me. So that is interesting. And why did I leave Iran, you know? A part of it because I didn't accept that religious dictatorship system. So now, I'm in between religious dictatorship system, which is Iran, and the fascist Western system, which is Australia. So where should I go? But about the writing, so it is not only the writing, you know? Creating art writing for me first is an act of resistance because I can survive through writing and creating.

CO: I'm speaking with Behrouz Boochani about his book “No Friend But The Mountains.” And Behrouz, this book is beautiful. It has poetry. It has amazing stories. Sometimes you are a war reporter, working as a journalist in that zone. Other times you’re writing poetry, writing art. But you had to send this entire book — this is 400 pages. It was all sent out in texts and tweets that you sent outside. Why was that? Why couldn't you write it all down as one text?

BB: Actually, I didn't feel safe with the authorities because you know any time it was possible that they come and take my phone or take my writing and my papers, so that's why. Because they already attacked our room. Sometimes, they just suddenly attack, and take our properties. You know after three years, we could have access to phone. But before that, we didn't have this right. So we had to hide our phones that we smuggled them. You know my phone, I smuggle it with you know the local people who were working inside the prison camp. So I smuggled the phone, I brought it in, and I started to work. So that's why it was dangerous. I didn't want to lose my works.

CO: The stories and the writing in this book are filled with despair, you are filled with despair, and yet, something about writing I think gives you hope. That if you don't have hope, why are you telling us this story? Why do you want to reach the outside world with your story? You must at some place in yourself believe that this is not the end that there is something after this?

BB: What is important for me is that we teach the young generation. Right now that I'm talking with you, this book actually in some of the universities in Australia and internationally are teaching this book to the students. And I think that is really important. And this six years, so far, is a part of Australian history. And it is a part of the human history. So that's why I think it's important that I record this for that history to teach the young generation. And, hopefully, the next generation don't do it again. So I feel that while I'm writing and creating, I am alive.

CO: You write at one point. This is what you say, this issue must be understood as the annihilation of human beings, the incarceration of human beings within the history of modern Australia. This writing that comes out of Manus is the unofficial history of Australia — a history that will never be authorized by the government. It is the suppressed history, the marginalized history. This is the history from down below. In the end, this is a history book, isn't it?

BB: Yeah, we can say that it is a book about history. And you know actually we cannot reduce this book to only the historical category. And even we cannot put this book as a part of prison literature. So I think this book is with different kind of layers. It is about justice. It is about freedom. A part of it is about Kurdish culture and Kurdistan history. It is about Australia. So we cannot reduce this book to just put it on only one frame.

CO: You have been texting and tweeting. As you say, you've had a film about what's going on in Manus Island that you shot on your phone. You have won Australia's highest literary honour for your book. You've published dozens of articles. What would it take to have people care? What would it take for Australians to actually decide that this can't go on any longer?

BB: Yeah, definitely. So the people of Australia cannot say that they don't know or on future, they cannot say that we didn't know, you know? Everyone should know because there is hundreds of articles, you know? There are books, movies, so that they cannot say that we don't know or we didn’t know. But what I want to say is that you know, unfortunately, fascism and fascism culture make people blind. So people cannot see the reality. Make people cruel. So that's why I think a big part of the Australian society don't care, although, a big part of the Australian society really they stand up for humanity, and they are fighting against this barbaric policy.

CO: This week it was announced that there are more displaced people in the world than there have been since the Second World War. That is there are 70-million people who have fled violence, war persecution, and about half of them are refugees like you. It seems it's not just Australia that is ignoring the plight of so many people. What is the message you want people to take away from this book?

BB: You know first, I would like to ask people because the book released in Canada and America just last week. So first, I would like to ask people just to read this book. And don’t scare to read this book. Because many people in Australia, they say that we bought the book, but we are scared to read it. People should don't be scared to see the reality, to see truth. Also, this book is not like you know some part of it is funny. So people are able to enjoy. But regarding you know the current situation in the world, I think it is the time that people show some compassion. But, unfortunately, many the governments around the world they encourage people to don't show compassion. So that's why I think it's important that people understand this: that we should keep all our values and humanity and principle and morality.

CO: Behrouz, I know it is very late, and I can't imagine the conditions in which you will now sleep. But I think this is a remarkable book, and it's a great honour to speak with you. Thank you.

BB: Yeah, thank you very much for having me. Thank you.

CO: Goodnight.

BB: Goodnight.

KG: Behrouz Boochani is an Iranian-Kurdish writer, who has been detained at an offshore facility on Manus Island in the Pacific Ocean for nearly six years. His book is called "No Friend But The Mountains," and it's published in Canada by House of Anansi Press. And you can learn more about it, on our website at: www.cbc.ca/aih.

[Music: World music]

SCC Legal Aid

KG It's not often that you hear a Canadian Supreme Court justice comment on the decisions of elected officials. And I'm not saying that Supreme Court of Canada Chief Justice Richard Wagner did that today. But...he didn't not do that, either. At a news conference, CBC News Reporter Hannah Thibodeau asked Chief Justice Wagner if he had any concerns about cuts made by Ontario Premier Doug Ford. The premier cut 133 million dollars from Legal Aid Ontario -- one third of its total budget. Here's how the chief justice responded.

SOUNDCLIP

RICHARD WAGNER: It's not my place to comment on the decisions of elected officials. But I have to say this. I think that legal aid is essential to the justice system to make sure that the justice system is strong and fair. And it's also a smart investment. You know there are some studies in the U.K. and the U.S. and Australia. The research that has found a six-to-one return on every dollar spent in legal aid so that's not only a wise choice, but it's a right choice to make sure that people have access to legal aid. And I don't you know the justice system for the last I would say the last 40 years even did not properly put the money in the justice system. They put it in the health department, education, which is great. So as a result, of course, we saw the problems that now we're trying to resolve. And when we release the decision in Jordan a couple of years ago, it was a big alarm for governments to say listen, you have to invest in the justice system. And they reacted positively I think in most provinces and on the federal level. And they realized that they needed to invest more money. And that should be a continued effort.

KG: That was Supreme Court of Canada Chief Justice Richard Wagner, responding to a question about the Ontario government's cuts to legal aid.

[Music: Spanish guitar]

Reversible glue

SOUNDCLIP

[Sound: An commercial for Krazy Glue from the 1980 lists off things you can fix with Krazy Glue]

KG: Just a normal 1980s commercial for Krazy Glue, featuring a barrage of sounds including a narrator doing a not-great imitation of James Cagney for some reason. Considering it's a commercial for glue, it doesn't really hold together. But one image did stick in viewers' heads: a guy in a construction hat that's Krazy Glue-ed to a girder, hanging there and flailing about. I don't remember ever seeing that actor again. I guess he spent the rest of his life dangling from that girder. Because once that glue had fused, it was very hard to de-fuse. Now, though, a major breakthrough — making glue reversible. The Guardian newspaper sums it up like this. Quote: "A reversible superglue that mimics the under-appreciated properties of dried snail mucus has proved strong enough to bear the weight of an average man." Unquote. Well, now I feel bad that I didn't appreciate this property of dried snail mucus, which is called an "epiphragm". It's a layer of slime that can harden to keep snails from drying out. And it's dissolved by moisture. This new glue — created by scientists from the University of Pennsylvania and Lehigh University -- copies that property. When it's dry, it forms an unbreakable bond. But when it's wet, it's just regular goop. Like I say, it's a big deal. So congratulations to those scientists for sticking together. And, more important, for un-sticking, together.

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

June 20, 2019 episode transcript

More Stories Like This