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 July 24, 2019

Hosts: Megan Williams and Chris Howden

Prologue

MEGAN WILLIAMS: Hello I'm Megan Williams.

CHRIS HOWDEN: Good evening. I'm Chris Howden. This is As It Happens.

[Music: Theme]

CH: Tonight...

MW: Often a dull moment. In two Congressional hearings today U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller stayed calm, stayed on course -- and despite pointed partisan questioning, stayed extremely staid.

CH: Damages for damage. Facebook will pay a record breaking 5 billion dollar fine for mishandling user data -- but one privacy expert says that chunk of change won't change Big Tech's dubious behavior.

MW: Either my country goes or I do. She couldn't get the UK out of the EU so Theresa May is out as PM -- and her personal Brexit reminds our guest of the last days of another prime minister in Britain: Margaret Thatcher.

CH: Prine goeth until the fall. Fans of singer-songwriter John Prine are concerned by the announcement he's going in for surgery but relieved that he's just rescheduling his summer tour dates for the autumn.

MW: Pompeii and circumstance. It's like the Sharks versus the Jets in the area beneath Mount Vesuvius -- but this particular turf war involves two unlikely rival gangs: volcanologists versus archaeologists.

CH: And the unbearable stress of an unbearable container. A black bear is hell bent on getting into the dumpster behind a Colorado cannabis dispensary -- but despite its best efforts it's left with broken dreams and an unbroken garbage bin. As It Happens. The Wednesday Edition. Radio that guesses it was hoping for pot luck.

[Music: Theme]

Part 1: This bear couldn't break into a pot shop's dumpster — so it took the whole thing

Mueller Testimony

Guest: Jennifer Rodgers

CH: If Robert Mueller was a witness for the prosecution he was a reluctant one. The former special counsel was in Washington today to testify before the U.S. Congress. The questions were about his investigation into Russian interference in the election that brought Donald Trump to power. But while the Democrats did their best to dig up dirt on the president and the Republicans tried to undercut those accusations, Mr. Mueller kept his answers to a minimum. Here's Adam Schiff the Democratic chair of the House Intelligence Committee doing his best to get Mr. Mueller talking about the dishonesty around Mr. Trump.

SOUNDCLIP

ADAM SCHIFF: Mike (Michael) Flynn lied.

ROBERT MUELLER: He was convicted of lying, yes.

ADAM SCHIFF: George Papadopoulos was convicted of lying.

ROBERT MUELLER: True.

ADAM SCHIFF: Paul Manafort was convicted of lying.

ROBERT MUELLER: True.

ADAM SCHIFF: Manafort's deputy Rick Gates lied.

ROBERT MUELLER: That is accurate.

ADAM SCHIFF: Michael Cohen -- the president's lawyer -- was indicted for lying.

ROBERT MUELLER: True.

ADAM SCHIFF: And when Donald Trump called your investigation a "witch hunt" that was also false, was it not?

ROBERT MUELLER: I like to think so yes.

ADAM SCHIFF: Well your investigation is not a witch hunt...

ROBERT MUELLER: It is not a witch hunt.

ADAM SCHIFF: When the president said the Russian interference was a hoax that was false, wasn't it?

ROBERT MUELLER: True.

CH: That was former U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller testifying this afternoon before the U.S. House Intelligence Committee in Washington D.C. Jennifer Rodgers is a former federal prosecutor in the Southern District of New York. We reached her in San Diego.

MW: Ms. Rodgers how damning was Robert Mueller's testimony for President Trump today?

JENNIFER RODGERS: Well you know it wasn't that damning in the end I think because he really stayed true to his promise not to go beyond the four corners of the report. And the report is very damning. But I thought today in terms of adding to that you know it didn't add much. They didn't get very many good sound bites. And he just kind of steadfastly wouldn't tell us more than we learned when we read the report a couple of months ago.

MW: Now the Democrats of course wanted Robert Mueller to say that he would have indicted Donald Trump if only he weren't the President of the United States. How did he respond?

JR: Well you know it was interesting because he did seem to say in the morning session that you know he kind of agreed with the statement that if not for the OLC memo that the indictment would have happened. But then at the outset of the second session in the afternoon he backed off of that and repeated that in fact they never even made a determination about the strength of the case. So they didn't even get close to an indictment decision because of the OLC memo. So it's kind of you know which came first. So we kind of corrected that. So they didn't end up getting what I think they thought they had for a short time which was that admission that if he weren't the president right now and therefore protected by that memo that he would be indicted.

MW: And the Republicans also did their best to raise questions about the work of Robert Mueller's investigation. How successful do you think they were?

JR: I think the Republicans were pretty unsuccessful. Well they kind of did two things. You know about half of them tried to attack the integrity of Mueller and his investigation mostly by going after the team of people that he assembled. And that's one area where actually Mueller was willing to speak outside of the report itself and kind of became most active I would say in defending the integrity of his team saying that he never in his career has made hiring decisions based on politics and you know it's wrong to do that. The other Republicans went after that origins of the investigation by asking a lot of questions about the Steele dossier and you know wasn't that the genesis of all this and wasn't that based on faulty information and someone with a grudge and they went into all of these areas that Mueller time after time just refused to talk about because he said there were other investigations underway that we're getting at those facts and would draw conclusions about the origins of the investigation. So you know I don't think they succeeded very well in either of those areas but in terms of giving their constituents you know people who believe in the Christopher Steele conspiracy theories and believe that his team was you know 14 angry Democrats or whatever it was they did give them some sound bites there but nothing really of substance right now.

MW: There was also criticism both from Republicans about Donald Trump tweeted that this was a disaster for the Democrats and a disaster for the reputation of Robert Mueller. But some Democrats as well expressed some disappointment in Mueller's performance. How well do you think he did?

JR: Well I think he certainly maintains his own integrity and the integrity of his investigation. I don't think anyone can look at his performance today and suggest that he appeared to be partisan -- that he wanted to help one side or the other. He appeared very by the book -- very down the middle. So in that respect I think he succeeded in what he was trying to do. I do think that Democrats have cause to be disappointed just because I think they were after two things. They were hoping for some additional information -- they wanted to get more than what the report gives us about you know would he have been indicted if not for that OLC memo? You know what happened to the counterintelligence investigation? Is the president a Russian asset? There were all these questions that they wanted answers to. He did not answer those questions. So that was disappointing for sure. And the second thing the Dems really wanted is they wanted the report to come to life through Robert Mueller. They wanted to be able to point to these kind of snippets and sound bites and have people pay attention to what's in the report in a way that they haven't up to now. And I think that that failed too because Mueller just wouldn't give that to them. You know a few of them even asked would he read passages of the report? Would you please read the sentence? And he said no, I'd prefer you to read it. So he wouldn't even kind of give them you know the acting as the mouthpiece for the report. So on that score you know I just don't think they managed to get what they were looking for there either.

MW: Right. They didn't get the TV version of the book.

JR: Yeah exactly. And that's one thing that a lot of people thought they really needed in order to have this impeachment thing kind of catch momentum. And I don't think that they got that today.

MW: So should Donald Trump be resting easy in the White House tonight?

JR: Well I do think you know it certainly could have been worse for him. Mueller could have been a lot stronger in countering some of the Republicans questions. He could have been willing to read sections of his report with emphasis. So probably all in all a victory how it played out.

MW: Right. Now one of the questions that Robert Mueller answered yes to was whether or not the president could be charged with a crime once he left office. I mean do you think that Donald Trump has even more motivation to stay in power now?

JR: Well yes I do. I mean I think he knew that before today but certainly the statute of limitations for obstruction of justice is five years which means that if he is not re-elected there will still be time left on that clock to charge him. If he is re-elected the statute of limitations will expire before his second term does. So yeah that is big incentive for him to try to get re-elected -- it's somewhat ironic but I think that does give him some additional motivation if he needed anything to try to stay in office and avoid getting charged.

MW: Ms. Rodgers thanks very much for speaking with us today.

JR: Thanks so much.

CH: Jennifer Rodgers was a former prosecutor with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York. We reached her in San Diego.

[Music]

Theresa May Exit

Guest: Caroline Slocock

CH: Boris Johnson is the UK's new prime minister. And Theresa May is headed to the backbenches. Today, Ms. May handed in her resignation to the Queen after failing to deliver Brexit. She'd been prime minister since 2016. Here's some of what Theresa May had to say in the House of Commons today.

SOUNDCLIP

THERESA MAY: I've said earlier I will return to the backbenches and it will be my first time in 21 years. So it's going to be quite a change from standing here at the despatch box. I'm told that over the last three years I've answered over 4500 questions over 140 hours in this House -- more than I might have expected Mr. Speaker. In future I look forward to asking the questions but we are as the right honourable lady has said living through extraordinary political times. This House of Commons is rightly at the centre of those events. And that's because of the vital link between every single member of this House, and the communities, the Commons that we represent. That's the bedrock of our parliamentary democracy and of our liberty. And each one of us -- wherever we sit, whatever we stand for -- can take pride in that. And that duty to serve my constituents will remain my greatest motivation.

[Applause]

CH: Theresa May speaking in the House of Commons today. Caroline Slocock was there when another prime minister resigned. Ms. Slocock was Margaret Thatcher's private secretary. And she sees parallels between Ms. May's and Ms. Thatcher's exits from Number 10 Downing Street. She's also written a book about Margaret Thatcher. We reached Caroline Slocock in London.

MW: Ms. Slocock we've just heard that clip of Theresa May in the House of Commons but behind closed doors how do you think she's feeling today?

CAROLINE SLOCOCK: I think she's probably feeling extremely sad and probably still a little angry. But certainly she went out very graciously today and seemed relatively relaxed compared to when she announced her resignation when she pretty much broke into tears. But she's been through a heck of a day -- having seen it myself at first hand. It's a huge thing to leave Number 10. You're not just leaving your job and actually leaving your home but you will also leaving probably your career behind you.

MW: You say sad and angry. Do you have any idea about what she might be feeling sad or angry about in particular?

CS: I look back to my time working for Margaret Thatcher when I saw her resign in front of her cabinet colleagues in the Cabinet Room. It was a private occasion. I was the only other woman in the room. And she broke down in tears as she was trying to read out a resignation statement. Many people started to cry in the room including myself. I was a politically neutral civil servant -- actually quite left-wing, not a natural supporter -- but I really felt her pain and what I felt in those tears was not just shock and distress but also anger. And what I saw there and I suspect has been happening to Theresa May behind the scenes as well as on camera. But what I saw at Number 10 in those days was that the senior male colleagues for some time had been not really accepting her authority and seeking to undermine her and I think you know by their own lights rightly so. But I think Margaret Thatcher felt that it was partly because she was a woman that they were treating it like that and I think Theresa May definitely feels you know -- obviously we haven't spoken to her -- but I think she probably definitely feels that she's been treated badly partly because she is a woman. She is herself very much aware -- and she said in parliament today -- she is very much aware about being a second female prime minister.

MW: And as you've been watching Theresa May's downfall, have you seen any parallels between the way that her Conservative Party treated her to the way that Margaret Thatcher was treated?

CS: I do. I think they're very different women instantly. I think that Margaret Thatcher had a much greater vision, she was in power for 11 and a half years, she won three elections resoundingly, and she created enormous change in Britain and also on the world stage. And Theresa May has failed in her one big task, and is not a good communicator, and didn't win a resounding election. So they are very different. But I think the similarities are that in both cases the Conservative Party which is in many respects very traditional allowed women always to slip through the net to become prime minister -- put them up on a pedestal. In Margaret Thatcher's case it was the Iron Lady. But when times got tough were really quite ruthless -- even vicious -- in how they treated them. And you know the only two prime ministers that I've seen hounded out of office in the way that they have been are women.

MW: Now we just heard her in her speech describe the extraordinary political times the UK is facing right now. Just briefly with Boris Johnson replacing her, how do you think things will change?

CS: The basic facts haven't changed. And in fact they've possibly got worse because the government's very very slim majority is shrinking. They may lose another seat next week. And Europe I think stands fast that it is not going to change that deal. So you know not a lot has changed but what has changed is Boris Johnson talks you know a very big talk. You know he says you've got to be optimistic, we're going to do this and if we don't we will leave without a deal. And I suppose in a way we have to go through this in Britain. I personally don't think he's going to succeed. But I think that the Conservatives have been split ever since in fact Margaret Thatcher was forced out of power. They've been split over the issue of Europe. And there are many in the Conservative Party who believe that it has to be a Brexiter in charge. So this is Boris's moment. But I think he lacks the qualities to be a good prime minister.

MW: Can you see him meeting the same fate that Theresa May has met?

CS: Yes I can. But I don't think that it will be quite so nasty. You know I don't think people will talk as they talked about Theresa May when she was going to see her backbenchers. They won't say to him, bring your own noose and we're heating a knife and we'll stick it and twist it into her front. You know I don't think that is that sort of dark misogyny that's always there in politics certainly in Britain. I think some other places too for example Trump supporters chanting about Hillary Clinton. But I think he probably will end up unsuccessful either you know he will fight an election -- maybe he will succeed. I don't know. I mean politics here is deeply unpredictable at the moment. But I think he will fail. And I think the Conservatives will continue to fight over this issue for some while yet.

MW: Ms. Slocock thanks very much for speaking with us today.

CS: You're very welcome.

CH: That was Caroline Slocock a former private secretary to Margaret Thatcher. We reached her in London.

[Music]

Pot Shop Bear

Guest: Nikko Garza

CH: Workers at The Bud Depot in Colorado say they do a pretty steady business these days selling both recreational and medical marijuana. But they recently got a visit from a new and insistent customer who sadly left unsatisfied. Yesterday, Colorado Parks and Wildlife shared a video in which a bear can be seen busting through the dispensaries fence and heading for its dumpster. And then providing real-life bear proof that it's completely bear-proof. Nikko Garza works at The Bud Depot. We reached him at the shop in Lyons, Colorado.

MW: Mr. Garza can you walk me through what the bear was caught doing on video?

NIKKO GARZA: [Chuckles] Of course. The play-by-play we had from our security camera. We had the fence and then we had our dumpster behind it which is all locked up. So the bear ripped through the fence, tore it open, then proceeded to try and get into the dumpster. And when he couldn't get into the dumpster he started moving it around. Next thing you know he's spinning around in circles with it and he drags this really heavy dumpster out into the parking lot and then proceeded to drag it a few yards all the way across the parking lot before he -- I guess -- gave up and tried to find something a little bit easier to eat.

MW: Now you told one reporter that the bear quote "busted through like The Shining."

NG: Yes. I was referring to that scene of Jack Nicholson when he puts his face through the wall after breaking a hole in there. Because just watching him break through there it was really reminiscent of that. But I imagine he's a lot friendlier. Instead of running away or instead of running towards you, it'll runaway or at least I would hope.

MW: [Laughs] Now the million dollar question here is of course was there any weed in his dumpsters? I mean is that what the bear was after?

NG: Unfortunately no. I imagine he could probably smell something from the shop. But as far as the dumpster goes we don't have any cannabis products in there.

MW: How often do you see bears hanging around The Bud Depot?

NG: [Laughs] No -- not too often over the past couple of years I've been here. However this month there's been a change, there's been a lot more bear activity. Been taken some pictures you know trying to see what he's been or should I say what they've been getting up to because there have been from what I've seen, two bears.

MW: So tell me about this particular bear. I understand you've given it a nickname. [Laughter] Tell me about that.

NG: The nickname is Cheeseburger just because of all the good food he's been trying to get so the name was fitting.

MW: So what ultimately happened to the bear?

NG: So actually yesterday I drove by there and there was a sighting. I saw him just chilling up there on the rock and I saw him just stare and I was like wow still coming around huh? Even after all these people are coming and bothering you today. But every time we've tried to get a hold of the Rangers it just disappears. But hopefully we can get him relocated. At least that's what I hope to see.

MW: Get him relocated where? Like somewhere in the wilds?

NG: Exactly -- a little further into the wild just because we are a small town. We have about 2000 people here in Lyons -- small mountain town. And you know how nature and people work -- while we can still exist it feels like we've been pushing nature out of its home and this is what happens, you know.

MW: I'm assuming the pot shop in itself is not responsible for attracting the bears.

NG: You know everybody wants to work at the pot shop and maybe the bear is just showing some initiative and showing what he can do with that garbage. [Laughter]

MW: And how surprised are you by the reaction that this incident has gotten from the public? I mean the video has gone viral.

NG: It's great to have people checking out our shop. In fact yesterday I went over to a restaurant next door and someone came up to me and said "Hey! You work at the dispensary with the bear, right?" [Laughter] And it seemed to have just snowballed in less than a day. Less than a couple hours. And we've had people coming through asking if we're here the bear dispensary and while we do serve people 21 and up, we are bear-friendly. [Laughter]

MW: Well thanks very much for speaking with me Mr. Garza. Good luck.

NG: Have a good one.

CH: We reached Nikko Garza at The Bud Depot in Lyons, Colorado. And if you want to see "Cheeseburger" -- the dumpster diving bear -- visit our webpage: cbc.ca/aih.

[Music]

Part 2: Volcanologists say archeologists are hogging study of Pompeii all to themselves

Facebook Fine

Guest: Lindsey Barrett

CH: Facebook mishandled users' data and now it will pay the price. The social media site has agreed to pay a 5 billion dollar fine from the U.S. Federal Trade Commission after deceiving users about the privacy of their personal information. In addition to the unprecedented penalty Facebook was also ordered to introduce new oversight including an independently appointed privacy committee and privacy audits. But critics still say the FTC's settlement with Facebook doesn't go far enough. Lindsey Barrett is a privacy lawyer and attorney with Georgetown Law's Institute for Public Representation. We reached her in Washington D.C.

MW: Ms. Barrett in its majority ruling the FTC called this settlement, quote, "A historic victory for American consumers." What message do you think it sends?

LINDSEY BARRETT: Historic is fair. But I think when we're talking about what kind of records we are breaking in line for crossing it's helpful to contextualize what those lines are. So the 5 billion dollar fine that Facebook has to pay is you know orders of magnitude larger than any other fine that we has assessed for privacy. But at the same time the scale of the wrongdoing and the feel of the harm is pretty egregious not to mention what kind of deterrent value it has for a company of Facebook coffers. I think Commissioner (Rebecca Kelly) Slaughter did the math. This is a month's income for them.

MW: So what dollar amount would you have liked to have seen Facebook have to pay?

LB: It's honestly less about the money. I mean money is important in terms of making it clear to both Facebook and the rest of the industry that the law applies to them and if you break it something bad will happen to you.

MW: Now by agreeing to this settlement, what exactly did Facebook admit to when it comes to users data?

LB: Well they didn't admit [inaudible] which is you know again unfortunate when we're talking about how to signal to Silicon Valley that you can't break the law and violate users privacy. So Facebook was already under the same kind of order that was announced today. So in 2012 it basically had deceptive terms where people weren't aware of the fact that their information was more public than they realized. And so they were brought under order like this because the commission found that Facebook’s conduct was deceptive. So this doesn't say that they've admitted guilt. And probably the most problematic part of it is the fact that it gives the company, its directors, and executives blanket immunity.

MW: Can you describe to me what that means?

LB: Yeah. So what this order -- that was announced today -- is saying is for any conduct that took place up to June 2019 that violated the 2012 order Facebook's officers and directors -- all of those claims are resolved. But it also says is any other claims under what the FTC has authority to investigate are also resolved in this order if the FTC knows about them. But what it does not say is what claims the FTC is referring to. So advocates have filed a bunch of claims over the years of any conduct up to June 2019 -- it could be that Facebook cannot be held responsible for it in the future.

MW: Right. Now the company as we know has been given a financial penalty of 5 billion. But beyond that what steps has the FTC ordered Facebook to take to ensure greater privacy protection for us all?

LB: Well it has to have a privacy program which it had before. It has to comply with independent audit which it did before. It now has what is supposed to be an independent privacy committee. But I think you can take the word independent as it is defined in this consent order which means literally not a Facebook director or employee. And that's very different from does the person you're putting on this submission have any incentive to read the facts a certain way or design the procedures a certain way?

MW: Right. So do you think it's sufficient?

LB: No. No I don't. This deal doesn't require any fundamental changes to Facebook's business model. It doesn't require them to open themselves up to additional transparency to the public. When we're talking about conduct that is illegal because it is based on sharing information with third parties and sharing more information than people were aware was being shared, there are no additional substantive limits on data collection or third party sharing being imposed. But we're talking about a company of enormous size and power that has shown no particular inclination to play by the rules. And this still doesn't give them a reason to change that.

MW: And yet people keep flocking to the site. Why do you think that is?

LB: Well because they don't have other options. I mean if you're a reporter and your sources are on Facebook. You know a lot of people use Facebook groups to connect with people who they can't connect with in real life. Or you know maybe their relatives only use Facebook. Maybe they have a small business and they use it for advertising. Whatever it is, people just don't have enough visibility into what is being done with their information and they're not in a position to gauge the risks. But the way that we frame this is oh well you know why are you still using this? When you have no other alternative and have no real reason to see what could happen here. We should be placing the blame on the companies that choose to prioritize profits over people's privacy rather than saying you know hey Bob why are you still using Facebook?

MW: Right. Well lots to think about there. Ms. Barrett thanks so much for speaking with us today.

LB: Thank you so much for having me.

CH: Lindsey Barrett is a staff attorney with Georgetown Law's Institute for Public Representation. We reached her in Washington D.C.

[Music]

Kawhi Leonard

CH: He came, he clawed, he conquered. But now Kawhi Leonard is officially a Los Angeles Clipper. As you likely know Mr. Leonard helped lead the Toronto Raptors to their first-ever NBA championship. And Raptors fans hoped it was the first of many seasons with the star forward. But instead of resigning Mr. Leonard opted to return to his hometown of L.A. Today he was formally introduced by his new team. But before saying hello to L.A., Kawhi Leonard shared a short goodbye to Toronto.

SOUNDCLIP

KAWHI LEONARD: You know I want to thank the Toronto Raptor fans. You know I don't have social media so I'm not able to put out you know a paragraph or whatever but...

[Laughter]

KAWHI LEONARD: Like I was going to say just thank all of Toronto, the city, the country. You know it was a great amazing season. Best parade ever. Thanks to the doctors for you know delivering my baby -- my baby boy.

[Applause]

KAWHI LEONARD: He's three months now and still healthy. Also just want to thank the city as far as the restaurants you know for giving up that Kawhi-N-Dine throughout the playoffs. Took advantage of that. You know the players they already know what's up. You know, text or FaceTime me we'll talk. Coaching staff as well. And the whole organization really. Just thank the whole city. Thank you.

CH: That's former Toronto Raptor Kawhi Leonard who was officially introduced to his new team today, the Los Angeles Clippers.

[Music]

Pompeii Researcher

Guest: Christopher Kilburn

CH: There's been an eruption of frustration in Pompeii. Three of the volcanologists studying the Roman sight in Italy have written a public letter accusing archaeologists there of destroying invaluable scientific evidence. The evidence is rock. The lava that came raining down when Mount Vesuvius erupted in 79 A.D.. But the archaeologists have to chip away at that rock to uncover the incredibly well-preserved details of ancient life that lie beneath. Christopher Kilburn is one of the letter's signatories. He's a volcanologist at University College London. We reached him in Sussex, UK.

MW: Mr. Kilburn as a volcanologist why did you publish this letter taking aim at the archaeologists working in Pompeii?

CHRISTOPHER KILBURN: There were two reasons for doing this. I think that the first is that the site is being expanded at the moment and it's revealing new deposits for volcanologists to study. And that's not being allowed to the degree that we would like. That's trying to get scientific information from the deposits while they're still available before they're dug out and moved elsewhere. But the second reason is more of an educational one. And that is Pompeii in particular -- there's very little connection between the archaeological site and the volcano which not only destroyed the town but then also preserved the town for it to be found and looked at today. And it wouldn't take a great deal of effort to leave some of the geological structure in the vicinity of buildings so that visitors could make a direct connection between the volcano and life in Roman times.

MW: And why is the rock there so valuable to volcanologists?

CK: The thing is the rock is not the same everywhere. So from this one eruption you can go to different parts around the volcano and what you find are totally different types of deposits. Finalizing the deposits we can work out the process that destroyed the towns and hence that gives an insight into how the people behaved or reacted to the eruption and whether they were able to escape or not. So it's important to see the deposits actually in the place where it affected the people because to dig up somewhere else it will give us information that's interesting for sure but it won't give us the information of what actually affected the towns themselves.

MW: And based on the access that you've had to the deposits in Pompeii what have you been able to determine so far from that rock? What has it told you about that eruption?

CK: In fact Roberta Scandone -- the co-author -- who has been the person who's been trying to gain access, direct access, to deposits that he hasn't been granted this access. Except for a group who work at the University of Naples. And that's fine but just allow two people to see these deposits and analyze them. I mean it's a bit like saying well we'll just have two archeologists to help dig out the ruins. You need a team because volcanology is mature and sophisticated science. You need skill sets that range all the way from geophysics to geochemistry to understand what the deposits can tell us and what we would hope to see is that some of these deposits you can see how for example clouds of hot gas and volcanic fragments came racing down the side of volcano and you can see how they interacted or moved around buildings. From this we get some idea of the dynamic properties of these clouds and from that information we can start thinking about are there ways of protecting or mitigating hazards from these types of process in the future -- not just at Vesuvius but at other exposed volcanoes worldwide.

MW: Now there are 600,000 people who live around Vesuvius right now and of course Naples is nearby with 3 million people that's about 12 kilometres away. What is it that you would like to learn specifically from the eruption from 79 A.D. that you think is so important for people to know today?

CK: It is more about the detail. I think we have a very good idea of the broad picture of what happened during the eruption of 79 AD. But in the modern era when you want to do more detailed numerical modelling for example of the processes -- the dangerous processes -- the volcano triggers we actually have to have much more detailed information about the rock itself.

MW: This is what you're frustrated about is that the volcanologists are not getting access to the rock now. So why is it that the archaeologists are not allowing the access to you that you'd like?

CK: That's a very good question because to an outsider you'd thought surely we can just get on. If we're digging you know during an excavation we allow the archaeologists to look at the archaeology and the volcanologists to look at the volcanologist and in principle there shouldn't be any particular controversy or conflicts because we learn from each other. I can only speculate that it's not so much to do with the different disciplines but perhaps quite a lot to do with personalities.

MW: Does it have anything to do with the fact that visitors are more interested in the personal stories of people who might have once lived in Pompeii?

CK: Let's be honest if you go to a site and you can see Roman buildings and roads and shops that is more interesting than seeing just a pile of rocks definitely stuck in the wall. I mean I think we all agree on that. It's just that the rock isn't useless -- it actually contains a huge amount of information that maybe only certain specialists can evaluate. And that's why we wouldn't suggest keeping all the deposits everywhere. Just some representative sections because just to say oh yes there was eruption of Vesuvius and it destroyed Pompeii and Herculaneum you might have seen that everybody understands this. Well actually in detail it turns out not to be the case.

MW: What would it take for you and your fellow volcanologists to get the access that you need? What do you want?

CK: To be able to see those deposits before they get taken away and lost forever so that we can extract as much information as possible about what happened during that eruption and how it affected the town itself. Because once those deposits are dug out that's it. That information will be gone forever. Our understanding of life in Pompeii is in part conditioned by our understanding of how the people were killed during the eruption.

MW: Mr. Kilburn thanks very much and I hope you're able to get the access you need to study this.

CK: Fingers crossed. Many thanks.

CH: Christopher Kilburn is a volcanologist at University College London. We reached him in Sussex, UK. To learn more about the excavation work at Pompeii, go to our website: cbc.ca/aih.

[Music]

John Prine

CH: The good news is John Prine is expected to make a full recovery. But yesterday the Grammy-winning singer-songwriter announced he's canceling a string of tour dates across the U.S. and Canada. A message posted on Mr. Prine's Instagram account reads: "In consultation with his doctors, John has been advised that he has an elevated risk for a stroke. He will have surgery this week to insert a stent which will remedy the issue. He looks forward to a full and speedy recovery." Mr. Prine has overcome health complications before -- including surgeries for lung and neck cancer. In June, the 72-year-old was inducted into the Songwriters Hall of Fame and this tour was in support of his latest album: "The Tree of Forgiveness." Some of the tour dates have already been rescheduled.

[Music]

Ruth Bader Ginsburg

CH: Ruth Bader Ginsburg wants you to know that she is very much alive. Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court justice sat down with NPR for a wide ranging interview. Late last year the 86-year-old took a leave to recover after cancer surgery. Despite two earlier cancer surgeries, this year marks the first time she had ever missed arguments in her long career. It sparked rumors and fears that the champion of women's rights would leave the bench. But she is here to tell you that is not happening. Here's part of the conversation in which Justice Ginsburg is asked about whether she worries a more conservative bench will lead to backpedaling on gender equality.

SOUNDCLIP

RUTH BADER GINSBURG: I don't think there's going to be any going back to old ways. What we were doing was trying to win the law both state and federal of explicit gender based classification and we were on a roll. You take Roe v. Wade you know only two dissenters: Byron White and (William) Rehnquist. And yet Byron White was in my corner in...the classifications said women can't do this. But you think about the world has changed really in what women are doing. I went to law school when women were less than three percent of the lawyers in the country. Today they're 50 percent. The changes have been enormous. And they've gone much too far. Well then going back.

NINA TOTENBERG: You do realize as my editors wanted to ask you this that when you get a cold or a hangnail there's a substantial portion of the population -- a large part of it female but men too -- who go into a complete panic.

RUTH BADER GINSBURG: Some panics -- there was a Senator -- I think it was after the pancreatic cancer who announced with great glee that I was going to be dead within six months. That senator whose name I've forgotten is now himself dead. And I am very much alive.

CH: U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg speaking with NPR's Nina Totenberg yesterday.

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

July 24, 2019 Episode Transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode