These days, there’s a lot of emphasis on keeping kids from smoking – everything from billboards and television spots, to educational programs in schools. But for kids who already smoke, there haven’t been many programs to help them quit. In the first of a two-part series,the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Wendy Nelson reports, getting help is getting tougher:
Year: 2000
Sub to Be Tourist Site?
A Lake Superior-based yacht company is selling a Soviet attack
submarine… and it might make some community the proud owner of a
unique tourist attraction. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mike
Simonson has more:
Transcript
A Lake Superior-Based yacht company is sellin a Soviet attack submarine. And it might
make some community the proud owner of a unique tourist attraction. The Great Lakes
Radio Consortium’s Mike Simonson reports:
Not surprisingly, this is probably the only Soviet “whisky-class” attack submarine on
the market. A steal at $495,000, says Richard Rose-Oleck of Owen’s Yacht in Duluth.
The 250 foot sub is docked in Sweden, where it’s used as a mueseum. but Rose-Oleck
would like to see soemone or some community in this region buy it and move it for
display.
“I would love to see it in the Great Lakes. Number one, it would last longer, and I
think it would be an interesting exhibit.”
The fresh water in the Great Lakes would help preserve the diesel-powered sub. It no
longer has any of its twelve torpedoes, but the engines work, and the 1955 vintage
craft has been restored.
The submarine has been on the market since December. There’ve been serious inquiries,
including one from Duluth-Superior, the only one from the Great Lakes region. Another
offer is from a private company which would use it as a corporate boat, giving new
meaning to the term, “hostile takeover.”
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Mike Simonson in Superior, Wisconsin.
Bird Decline Tied to Exotics
According to the National Audobon Society, some species of
songbirds have experienced a 30 percent decline in their population
over
the past decade. Now, there’s evidence that non-native plant species
may
be contributing to the problem. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s
Karen Kelly reports:
Transcript
According to the National Audubon Society, some species of songbirds have experienced
a thirty percent decline in their population over the past decade. Now, there’s
evidence that non-native plant species might be contributing to the problem. The Great
Lakes Radio Consortium’s Karen Kelly reports:
American robins and wood thrushes like to build their nests in shrubs. Typically, they
choose tall bushes with long thorns that keep predators away. But as those plants are
replaced by non-native species, the birds are forced to move into the new shrubs. And
that makes them vulnerable to predators.
Christopher Whalen is an avian ecologist with the Illinois Natural History Survey. His
study found birds that nest in exotic shrubs were twenty percent more likely to lose
their eggs to a predator.
Because of the different way these plants grow, the exotic shrubs provide a
suitable-looking confluence of branches at a lower height above the ground. So, nest
height drops a meter and a half to two meters on average.”
That makes it easier for raccoons to invade. Whalen’s study focused on Illinois, but
he says birds are doing this throughout the Northeast and Midwest.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Karen Kelly.
Commentary – The Public’s Right to Say No
Earlier this month, the U-S completed a controversial shipment of
weapons grade plutonium to Canada. Despite considerable protest
before the event, the material was shipped without any public
knowledge.
As Great Lakes Radio Consortium commentator Suzanne Elston points
out, this sets a dangerous precedent:
Transcript
Earlier this month, the U.S. completed a controversial shipment of weapons-grade
plutonium to Canada. Despite considerable protest before the event, the material was
shipped without public knowledge. This sets a dangerous precedent, as Great Lakes
Radio Consortium’s commentator Suzanne Elston points out:
Proponents of the plan think it’s a good idea. Take plutonium from dismantled nuclear
weapons, mix it with uranium and use it for fuel in nuclear reactors. The process
doesn’t destroy the plutonium, but what it does do is make it very difficult to use.
Supporters hope that this will prevent the plutonium from falling into the wrong
hands.
The plan had been in the works for several years. The problem was getting the stuff
from Los Alamos, New Mexico to an experimental nuclear facility in Chalk River,
Ontario. As soon as the public got wind of the trucking routes there were howls of
protest, particularly from a group of activists in Michigan. They were concerned about
the risks of an accident when the plutonium was shipped through their community. They
were desperately trying to get a court injunction to stop the plutonium from being
shipped when it was discovered that the stuff had already been sent.
There was no public input, no warning – nothing. Even the mayors of Sault Ste. Marie,
the towns where the plutonium crossed the border into Canada weren’t notified until
after the event. And because the whole thing went off without any problems, officials
were rather pleased with themselves. They duped the public, nobody got hurt – mission
accomplished.
I find this really scary. Whether the shipment was safe or not isn’t the issue here.
Not only does the public have a right to know what was going on, they also have the
right to stop it, if that’s the will of the people. But that right was taken away by
the boys at the Department of Energy and Atomic Energy Canada who seemed to think they
know better somehow.
Well guess what? That’s not what the democratic process is all about. Public input –
regardless of how inconvenient – has got to be considered. Just because a plan is
proposed, doesn’t mean that it should go ahead. Debate is the cornerstone of
democratic process. One of the possible outcomes of that debate is that the public
will exercise its right to say no.
But that wasn’t allowed to happen here. We the people are supposed to decide. That’s
called democracy.
Suzanne Elston is a syndicated columnist living in Courtice, Ontario. She comes to us
by way of the Great Lakes Radio Consortium.
Plutonium Shipment Outrages Activists
Activists in Canada and the U-S are trying to stop plutonium from
dismantled warheads from being shipped to Canadian nuclear power
plants. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports… the
first shipment was recently slipped into Canada and another is coming
this spring:
Transcript
Activists in Canada and the U.S. are trying to stop plutonium from dismantled warheads
from being shipped to Canadian nuclear power plants. The Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Lester Graham reports the first shipment was recently slipped into Canada
and another is coming this spring:
The Canadian government plans to dispose of weapons-grade plutonium from dismantled
nuclear warheads from Russia. Canada suggested it could mix the weapons-grade
plutonium with uranium and use it for fuel in its nuclear power plants.
Protestors in the U.S. and Canada vowed they’d stop the shipments. During public
hearings in Michigan, some environmentalists and politicians said they’d lie down in
the road to stop trucks. So, when the U.S. Department of Energy planned a shipment of
sample material, the DOE made the shipment classified. Nobody was told when or where
the plutonium would be shipped. This month, the secret shipment left Los Alamos and
entered Canada at Sault Sainte Marie.
Verna Lawrence is the mayor of Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan. She’s outraged her town was
not notified the shipment was coming.
“We’d have barricaded I-75. I had people that would go with me. How dare they do that
to us in our area with the Great Lakes Basin. It’s crazy!”
Mayor Lawrence says the federal government is shipping the plutonium against the
wishes of the people.
“See, the Canadian government and the United States government are in cahoots. They
don’t give a damn about anybody else. And let me tell you another thing: the governors
are not protecting their citizens. If I was the governor and I had the National Guard
and the State Police, they would not set foot on the state of Michigan.”
Just on the other side of the border, the mayor of Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario also was
not notified.
Once in Canada, the shipment was put on a helicopter and flown to the Chalk River
Nuclear Power Plant where the fuel is being tested. Protestors say it was flown to
avoid blockades by activists and native people. The only road from Sault Ste. Marie to
the Chalk River Nuclear Plant runs through the Garden River Reservation. Cathy
Brosemer is with a coalition of environmental groups in Ontario called “Northwatch.”
She says the shipment was kept secret and the helicopter was used to avoid angry
peopole along the route.
“What we’ve been dealing with right now is the utter contempt the government holds its
citizens in. The government decided to ignore the public’s views on this issue and
literally fly over our heads.”
Canada’s nuclear industry says that’s not the case. Larry Shewchuck is a spokesperson
for Atomic Energy of Canada, Limited (AECL). AECL operates Canada’s nuclear power
plants. He says avoiding protestors was not the reason AECL used the helicopter.
“Quite frankly, AECL was just as happy to leave the shipment on the road. It was the
government of Canada that asked us to put it in the air because that’s what Canadians
were asking for. So, in the end, we did what the politicians wanted.”
Shewchuck says at public information stops this past fall, many people suggested if
the shipments were as safe as AECL and the Canadian government said they were, they
ought to fly them to the nuclear plant.
Protestors question whether a last minute switch from ground transportation to air was
a regulatory shell game to trick opponents of the plutonium shipments. Shewchuck says
the change was proper and followed the rules.
“The regulations in Canada did not have to be changed to accommodate air transport.
Air transport was made under existing Canadian regulations. Everything was done by the
book and nothing had to be changed.”
Environmental activists in the area don’t believe it. Cathy Brosemer says that flight
might have violated regulations and might be key in an effort to get an injunction.
“We believe that there have been some breaches in the way that this was handled and we
are going to try to get something to stop the test of the substance at the CANDU
reactors in Canton/Chalk River.”
The AECL plans to go ahead with tests of the plutonium mix fuel. Brosemer says the
environmentalists will also seek an injunction to stop future shipments. This spring,
Russian plutonium is scheduled to be shipped through the St. Lawrence Seaway, on
through the Great Lakes and finally to the Chalk River plant in Ontario.
The U.S. Department of Energy says there won’t be any more shipments from the States.
And official with the DOE spoke on the condition his name not be used. He says while
the United States is helping to pay for the disposal of plutonium from dismantled
Russian nuclear warheads, the U.S. has decided to use its plutonium in American
nuclear power plants.
The mayor of Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, Verna Lawrence, doesn’t believe the Energy
Department. She says she and other people opposing the shipments have to be more
vigilant.
“We got to get somebody on the inside, I think. You know, that’s the only way we’re
going to – If you can’t lick ’em, trick ’em, you know. But we’ll figure out a way
because that’s just the first shipment. There’ll be many, many, many more.”
Officials in Canada and the U.S. say it’s ironic that the shipments are causing so
much controversy among some of the same people who opposed the nuclear arms race.
Canadian officials say the nuclear material as fuel is a safe and efficient way to
dispose of weapons-grade plutonium. If the mixed fuel works well in Canada’s nuclear
plants, regular shipments of plutonium from Russia’s dismantled warheads will travel
through the Great Lakes region for at least the next ten years.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.
Black Carp Introduction Gets Hooked
States in the Mississippi river basin are protesting a decision by the state of Mississippi to allow a foreign fish to be introduced tocontrol a pest. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports… the other states are concerned the fish will escape into the wild and damage the environment:
Transcript
States in the Mississippi River Basin are protesting a decision by the state of Mississippi to
allow a foreign fish to be introduced to control a pest. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester
Graham reports the other states are concerned the fish will escape into the wild and damage the
environment:
If you buy a package of catfish filets at the supermarket or order blackened catfish at your
favorite restaurant, chances are that fish was raised in a farm pond in Mississippi. The state of
Mississippi supplies almost three-fourths of the world’s commercial catfish. It’s a two-billion
dollar a year business, coming in only after cotton and timber as one of Mississippi’s largest
industries.
In recent years, Mississippi farmers have been struggling with a parasite that’s attacking the
catfish. Jimmy Avery is a researcher with the National Warmwater Aquaculture Center at Mississippi
State University. He says the parasite is causing quite a bit of damage.
“It’s either killing these fish outright or it’s stressing them to the point they no longer grow.”
Avery says the parasite makes its home in snails. To get rid of the snails, the Mississippi
Department of Agriculture and commerce has approved introducing an Asian fish called the black
carp. The black carp eats snails and mussels. But, other states are worried that the black carp
will escape the farm ponds and get into the wild. Avery says that’s not likely…
“The Mississippi Department of Agriculture and Commerce has decided that through the permit
process, we can minimize this. They’ll know where every black carp is located. They’ll know what
kinds of system they’ve been put in and it felt like that those regulations that had been put in
place are strong enough to prevent that.”
But the State of Missisippi’s assurances don’t convince others. Roger Klosek is the Director of
Conservation at the Shedd Aquarium in Chicago. He studies native mussels.
“If black carp are used to deal with the snail problem, eventually they’ll escape into the main
waterways, and start reproducing. And once they do that, they’ll start feeding on the native
mussel fauna which is one of the last remaining native mussel faunas in the United States and
literally wipe it out.”
Klosek says native mussel populations have already been hurt by another exotic species, the zebra
mussel. He believes the black carp would be the last straw for American freshwater mussels.
“So, somebody’s going to lose and it’s probably better – I know the catfish farmers will hate me
for saying this, but – it’s probably better that they lose a little economically rather than
reduce some of the native fauna to an irretrievable state.”
Some states’ officials agree with Klosek. Bill Bertrand works with the Illinois Department of
Natural Resources fisheries office. He says there’s a history of Asian carp getting loose. The
silver carp, the bighead carp, and the grass carp have already escaped from farm ponds, mostly
from Arkansas where there are few regulations.
“There’s a history of these exotics, imports, escaping into the river system, spreading throughout
the entire river basin system and causing impacts on all the other states in the system. And
Mississippi appears to tend to ignore that fact and go ahead their own merry way, saying ‘Well
we’re doing this because we want to do it and it’s beneficial to us.'”
Bertrand says governors of some of the states along the Mississippi River have sent letters to the
Governor of the State of Mississippi, asking him to stop the use of black carp. Several of the
states intend to ask the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to ban the importation of the fish. The
federal agency has not yet received that request… but even if the Fish and Wildlife service
found a ban was appropriate, it would take several months to go through the process. Even then, a
ban would not apply to black carp already in the U.S.
Mike Oetker is a fisheries biologist with the Fish and Wildlife service. He says the agency is
trying to play the role of mediator.
“Right now the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is trying to work with states and the industry to
try to prevent the problem of the possible release or accidental release of black carp into the
environment. There are several alternatives to black carp where we can use native fish such as the
red ear sunfish or freshwater drum or even big mouth buffalo to do the same type of biological
control that the black carp are doing. And that would give of the ability to kind of circumvent
this problem.”
The catfish farmers in the State of Mississippi say the native fish don’t eat the snails as
quickly as the black carp. The Mississippi Department of Agriculture and Commerce says it will ask
farmers to use chemical treatments first and where native fish will work, they’ll try to use them.
but in the end, the Mississippi agency says it will allow catfish farmers to use black carp when
it appears other methods don’t work.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.
Administration Seeks Money for Areas of Concern
The Clinton administration is asking Congress for money in the
2001 federal budget to speed along pollution clean-up plans in some
Great Lakes areas. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham
reports… some believe it’s in part an election year move:
Automakers Unveil Green Concept Cars
Ford and General Motors each plan to unveil new
environmentally friendly concept cars at this year’s North American
International Auto Show in Detroit. The cars are the outgrowth of an
initiative between the federal government and the big three auto
companies to develop a car that could fit a family of five but get 80 miles
to the gallon. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Julie Edelson Halpert has more:
Transcript
Ford and General Motors each plan to unveil new environmentally friendly concept cars at this
year’s North American International Auto Show in Detroit. The cars are the outgrowth of an
initiative between the federal government and the big three car companies to develop a car that
could fit a family of five but get eighty miles to the gallon. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s
Julie Edelson Halpert has more:
A mid-sized vehicle that triples the fuel economy of today’s cars. That was once only a pipe dream
for domestic auto makers. But after six years of research, they’ve done it. Using a combination
diesel and electric engine, Ford and General Motors have developed cars that get gas mileage up to
eighty miles per gallon. Jeff Coleman is a spokesman for General Motors. He says GM’s car, the
Precept, makes great environmental strides. but one big obstacle remains: cost.
“Many of the technologies that are on the GM Precept are not in high volumes today, and so you’d
expect the vehicle to be quite expensive. And the job over the next few years is to learn more
about these technologies, put these into use in real vehicles that are on the road today.”
Coleman says that as the technologies become more widespread, costs will come down. The auto
companies hope to develop an affordable high mileage car by 2003.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Julie Edelson Halpert.
Commentary – Beyond Y2K
After all the hype and preparation, Y2K came and went without
so much as a bleep on the computer screen. But instead of congratulating
ourselves for a disaster avoided, Great Lakes Radio Consortium
commentator Suzanne Elston thinks we should be remembering what
caused the problem in the first place:
Transcript
After all the hype and preparation, Y2K came and went without so much as a bleep on the computer
screen. But instead of congratulating ourselves for a disaster avoided, Great Lakes Radio
Consortium commentator Suzanne Elston thinks we should be remembering what caused the problem in
the first place;
I have to admit I was one of the few people who didn’t stockpile canned goods and cash in
anticipation of the Y2K crisis. And although I had plenty of candles on hand New Year’s Eve, they
were there to create a festive atmosphere for my dinner guests, not to light our way into some
post millennium darkness.
But if all the hype leading up to Y2K wasn’t enough, ever since the greatest non-event of the
century came and went, we’ve had to listen to all this self-congratulatory nonsense. All the hard
work. All the careful planning. Aren’t we great? Doesn’t anybody remember we caused this mess in
the first place? We keep developing these new technologies and then applying them without ever
looking beyond the most obvious consequences.
Things like the personal computer promise to change our lives. And they do, but until there’s a
crisis – like the silly Y2K thing – nobody bothers to ask at what cost.
Look at the environment. We deal with the obvious and forget about everything else. So if a
chemical’s highly toxic or a nuclear device is highly explosive, then we have a tendency to avoid
it, or at least try to contain it somehow.
But look at things that have had a subtle but deadly impact, like chlorofluorocarbons. Down here
an earth they were the greatest thing since sliced bread. Inexpensive, inert substances that could
do everything from keeping our food frozen and our houses cool to cleaning our computer chips. And
then we found out that CFCs were destroying the ozone layer. Who knew? Better yet – who even
bothered to ask?
Look: I’m not saying that we should abandon any new ideas in case they might backfire on us. What
I am saying is that everything has a cost… everything. And we could avoid a whole lot of trouble
and panic, if we really bothered to look at the price tag in the first place.
Suzanne Elston is a syndicated columnist living in Courtice, Ontario. She comes to us by way of
the Great Lakes Radio Consortium.
A Fight Over Dam Decommissioning
More small river dams are being torn down around the U-S. In
fact, a recent report by conservation groups says several states in the
upper Midwest are leading the way at getting rid of dams that no longer
produce electricity. Environmentalists say tearing down thestructures
helps water quality. But some people who live near the dams feel like
they’re losing an old friend. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Chuck
Quirmbach prepared this report:
Transcript
More small river dams are being torn down around the U.S. In fact, a recent report by conservation
groups says several states in the upper Midwest are leading the way at getting rid of dams that no
longer produce electricity. Environmentalists say tearing down the structures helps water quality.
But some people who live near the dams feel like they’re losing an old friend. The Great Lakes
Radio Consortium’s Chuck Quirmbach prepared this report:
(sound of rushing water)
“This is an excellent example of the state of many of the dams across Wisconsin and the fact they
are rapidly deteriorating.”
Stephanie Lindloff is standing on top of the Franklin Dam in Sheboygan Country. The rural area’s
about fifty miles north of Milwaukee. The Franklin Dam is about two stories high and half a
football field long. It was built in the 1850’s, to power a grist mill. But the mill is long gone.
And now, on its way to lake Michigan, the Sheboygan river pours through a small hole. That’s
slowly draining the impoundment, or lake behind the dam. Stephanie Lindloff says the hole is a
sign of advanced aging.
“This dam in particular, not unlike a lot of dams around the state, had a gate that was boarded up
and the wooden boards were what was holding the water back in the end of June, two lowermost
boards cracked and water started seeping out of impoundment… wasn’t an emergency situation, but
nonetheless there was a break in the dam.”
Lindloff is with the environmental group, The River Alliance of Wisconsin. She estimates it would
cost at least 350,000 dollars to fix the Franklin Dam. It might take only one-fourth of that
amount to tear it down. Besides saving money, Lindloff says removing the Franklin Dam would also
make the Sheboygan River healthier.
“Scientists agree dams devastate river systems. They continue to block natural functioning of
rivers, impact water quality, they block fish migration and spawning grounds.”
Lindloff says ten miles of the Sheboygan River and river shoreline could be improved if the
Franklin Dam comes out. But some people who live along the small lake are sounding off about the
proposed teardown.
“I mean the dam’s solid. It’s built solid.”
Kris Wilkins believes the Franklin Dam merely needs some repairs. She loves the small farm she has
along the lake, and has even taken to raising geese.
(sound of geese)
Wilkins predicts that removing the dam would drastically cut the size of the lake and harm the
value of her property.
“It’s gorgeous out here, we have all kinds of wildlife: green herring, blue herring, our geese,
fox, woodchucks all around, it’s just nature all the way.”
Wilkins and several of her neighbors are trying to create a lake district. That’s where local
people could assess themselves a tax to raise some of the money to fix the dam. The group’s
leader, Don Last, says he’s prepared to hike his own taxes.
“It’s really the only alternative we have to find the funds and possibly get matching money to
restore and maintain.”
But some wonder if the small number of folks in this rural township can raise enough cash. They
won’t get any help from the dam’s owner, which is the Franklin volunteer fire department. The
department no longer gets its firefighting water from the lake, and fire officials say they have
no money for dam repairs. A state bailout is unlikely too.
If the Franklin Dam comes down, it would join about fifty other Wisconsin dams that have been
removed in the last twenty years. Ohio and Pennsylvania have also taken out a sizeable number of
the old structures. Steve Born is a regional planner at the University of Wisconsin – Madison.
He’s written nationally about dam removals. Born says the entire Great Lakes region can benefit,
as long as officials keep a check on contaminated sediments that may have built up behind the
dams.
“There has to be provisions for either draining the impoundment… dredging these… moving them
to safe landfill sites… neutralizing them in some way. But they can’t be allowed to just
disperse throughout the system.”
Born is an advisor to trout unlimited, which is another of the groups pushing for dam removals. If
state and local governments go about removing dams carefully, Born and others will welcome the
site of more free-flowing streams.
(sound of stream)
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Chuck Quirmbach in Sheboygan County, Wisconsin.