Real Time; 107.0

Went to college on a basketball scholarship and she was hit by a drunk driver she to blame but she doesn't have a job. This message in the broadcast real time will be made possible by BlueCross BlueShield of Oregon. Ladies and gentlemen one thing we are not going to do on Real Time tonight is look back at the 80s. If you missed that decade you got to catch up somewhere else. That's right. For the next hour we're going to look ahead at some of the issues that need our attention in the future. Join us for this edition of Real Time. Now I've got a couple of things to say Rita before we get started. First some good news real time has already caused one of the major networks to change their Friday night schedule. Now

we've got a visual aid that will show what the other networks were showing back in October when real time went on the air. There it is ABC. Perfect strangers. Dallas on CBS something called hardball on NBC. But since then NBC has dumped hard ball and replaced it with something called True blue collar evidence the big guns are now running scared. Real time has served notice we're going after Dallas right now Larry Hagman. Start looking for a new job. Now that's the good news. Now there is bad news and that is that. Personally I'm angry. I'm starting off tonight in a really bad mood. I'm somewhat bitter. That's because last time we were on the air a couple of weeks ago I said there are a trivia quiz in was going to be harder than ever. Right after the show ended we started getting phone calls with the correct answer. I am upset so I decided what was needed was to punish our quiz researchers we do have a research team. In fact there were some cameras rolling earlier this week when I carried out that punishment. It was kind of grim. This is a family show. This shows though what happened. I am fed up with these questions I ordered that our two researchers should be tied up

and severely disciplined and you can see pretty clearly I hired a couple of guys I mean business and I'm not going to put up with any more easy trivia questions like Jennifer's hair. Well it's that in their program. I want to show exactly what happened to the research crew but they know their jobs are on the line this week. No more nice guy. Well I'm really glad Jeff that that is all straightened out. All right. We do have some serious topics tonight. We're starting a multi-part look at the problems surrounding workers compensation in Oregon. We also have a real time media panel tonight to talk about how the press is treating suspects who are under arrest. And we'll also look at the problem of dioxin pollution in the Columbia River. And we'll even throw in some sports talk. Yes. Sports talk later on. But first here's Jeff with some people who have a lot to say about one of Oregon's most controversial problems. Well read it when you mention workers compensation around the state. You could end up talking for hours because everybody seems to have an opinion on why the system isn't

working. Safe corporation that's the state accident insurance fund recently canceled policies for thousands of small businesses. The system is losing millions of dollars a year. And this week Governor Goldschmidt called together a special panel to try to find some solutions. Tonight we're going to start a multi-part look at workers comp and what's wrong with it. And with us are calling Gorski. He's the state insurance commissioner and his name seems to come up all the time when we hear about workers comp. We'll find out if that's justified or not. We also have heath Skelton. He is a former state legislator who has also worked on a national commission that studied the Worker's Comp around the country. And Bill Musharraf's key is another man who was involved in the process that originally drew up the current system that we got back in the 60s so these men all have the long view. Some people call it the institutional memory. I think that's a term we should encourage a lot of money is using an institutional memory. And the gentleman I think the one thing that I was told and putting together this signal was make these guys talk about what is worker's comp supposed to be don't get them off the track

on what's going wrong right away. What's that supposed to be doing. Why do we have this system. Who wants to take it. Let me let me start on this Jeff. I came to the state of Oregon in 1952. Up until that time I had been in law school and I'd also been working for an insurance company where my main job was that of being hearings representative for worker's compensation claims this was in the state of New York and afterwards in the state of Washington when they came to Oregon I was horrified to discover that only 50 percent of the workers in the state of Oregon were covered by workers compensation which was then insured by the state funds. The other 50 percent went like this about 15 percent of them were covered by a system of insurance called employer's liability where they had to work worker had to establish that the employer was at fault before they could get any any money from their claim. And about 35 percent of the claims were handled under under welfare. So

the general public was picking up the tab for about 35 percent of the claims. And as I said I was horrified by that. And when I got into the legislature I decided that we were going to try to do something to bring workers compensation to all or all that we could. Employees in this state when you say that you are horrified. Is it because you didn't feel that enough workers were getting the coverage they needed as far as I was concerned. The state of Oregon is back in the early 90s. Hundreds as far as compared to other states because most states by that time had developed a system where most or all of the workers were covered by Worker's Comp. So what were the consequences that workers were actually going without needing medical care and they were in fact. So it was a terrible situation very very outmoded system but a lot of people were making money out of it and lawyers were making money out of it because they represented both sides of these employers liability cases and some of those employer liability cases where big verdicts although only 80 percent of them really ever.

So you don't see a difference between what was in Worker's Comp is that the old system the employers go the the worker did not recover anything for an on the job injury unless you could prove negligence. But if he was able to do that he got limited damages. So attractive for litigation under Worker's Comp which is a no fault system a worker who is on the job simply has to prove that he was hurt in the job. He does not have to prove negligence or fall did anything went wrong that was him. That's false. It may have been his own fault. But nevertheless he was covered and got some compensation but not unlimited he would recover immediate medical. Hospital and temporary disability on the scheduled basis. And then if he had a residual or permanent disability he got a scheduled compensation for that. So it was more certain compensation but limited compensation and that was the difference between what was in one Oregon move toward particularly in 1965.

That's the tradeoff between worker's compensation and the liability system the tradeoff is that the worker gets gets short compensation for any work incurred disability but he doesn't get as much money as he might get from a jury. But on the other hand the jury might give him nothing. So you're looking real pensive. Sounds like you just described a really great system to me. So what's happening here doesn't sound like we quite got had had that happen today. Well historically let me just tell you that Oswald was the one he was elected governor in 1910 and what most people in Oregon know was what was for the beach law that's here in Oregon it means that they're free to all the citizens. Oswald was also was the father of the Oregon worker's compensation system in this program. This last November was 75 years old. It's in its 76 year history to show your words when they first claim that was ever filed in the system was filed by an individual named Robert Smith who

worked for the old Oregon power company he missed a day and a half squirm. There were the medical bills were $5 he was paid two dollars and seventy cents for lost time for a total claim cost seven dollars and seventy cents. And you can take it from there to where we are today which is where Oregon probably. Nationally on the comparative ranking in terms of cost for three major benefits medical care I think first in the nation on the average cost on time lost per second in on permanent partial disability were first in. What the problem is what we've done with this system is basically expanded it and Keith and I were talking before and it becomes the basic remedy for a lot of social problems that were originally designed just for the workplace. But it's a compass now a broad spectrum. And in fact the program is.

To the point where in terms of frequency of how many people are have access to the system it's probably one of the most liberal in the systems and gone far outside the original boundary line originally in order to recover even under workers comp you have to show some kind of an accident violent and external means sort of an event. Gradually over the years the definition of what is a compensable injury expand and expand. It covers subjective matters stress heart aches strains and that kind of thing that is not necessarily wrong but it does open up the system to abuse in the sense that people claim that they were hurt in the job and maybe they weren't. And I'm really enjoying this. This is a great history lesson sort of wonderful I bet a lot of people are wondering how we got into this mess and where it all started off with respect to say the largest worker's comp insurer in the state of Oregon which is now dumping $20000. Twenty seven thousand. Yeah. Walk us through that originally was a quasi

public institution correct. Can you give us the sense of how that got started. Well let me is the Oregon insurance squishier says I deal with this every day. Let me tell you that for first the original structure was called sire and this was in 1940 when the law was created was the state Axert Industrial Commission it encompassed both the insurance mechanism and the administrative part and the adjudicative function. In 1965 when what Keith was referring to earlier they created the three way system one of the characteristics of that is they broke the department up. It was no longer called syre. But what was developed were two separate departments so there was the Worker's Comp board which had the adjudicative and the administrative function and there was something called the state compensation Department SCD which was the insurance mechanism and that was the way it was until 1969 when the state exit insurance fund was created as a public agency. Now Nineteen seventy nine.

Just make sure I understand this was created because basically no one else wanted to handle workers comp insurance. No no it wasn't a stream of compensation prior to 1965. One of the characteristics of all of the compensation systems west of the Mississippi basically was the development of a monopolistic fund a state fund under the theory that no one should profit from the injuries have been injured worker and it was viewed as that insurance companies in the private sector would profit from a worker's injuries. It is a phenomenon. There are some funds east of the Mississippi but there promp predominantly west of the Mississippi. Well we have a 180 degree turn now because Nelson wants to profit it wants to turn around. I think it always wanted to make a profit. The question here is is that it wasn't a profit. It's not normally referred to in the private sector where there is a return to shareholders or something of that nature. Under this system the profit was to be returned to the policyholders in the form of lower premiums. Here's what I think is happening is as I understand it this system is paying out more than it's taking

in. It's running in the red Castagnoli not only with safe but many of the insurance companies as well. We're talking about the whole worker's comp system is losing money. One of the biggest insurers in this state and Liberty Mutual is being subsidized. By other states by its profits in other states. Well now is it your view then that that's the basic problem is to stop that outflow of money. Basically the problem is that not enough money is taken in to pay the kind of claims that are being made against whether it's safe or the private carriers are self-insured. And it's largely because of the fact that it's hard to anticipate in advance what kind of costs you're going to have because medical costs are going up. Hospital costs are going up. People are piling more of the determinations of the disability. So they're getting more and more money in and out of running the premiums that are charged to employers. Let me back up just a minute. And part of what Bill just said and. I look at the access to workers compensation claims is a door. And the

door has been opened in this state. So why to everybody. By the by the Court of Appeals of the state the the costs of worker's compensation in this state in my opinion can relate directly to the liberal decision at the foot of the liberal decisions that have been made by the Court of Appeal. They have made the claim so wide that practically any kind of claim at all that you know you fell off your chair here tonight of course you'd have you'd have a claim. But on the other hand let's assume that you. Let's assume that you decided that you were going to be stressed and upset because we didn't answer the questions correctly and that happens on this show constantly. I can see what your point is and I want to ask all of you gentlemen we've got this special panel now that the governor has called. Any thoughts on that is this really going to go anywhere. Is this fixable at all. Let me ask you to answer the question. The answer yes it's clearly fixable but the fact that the governor today and I was with you. He met with the people. It was a highly successful meeting. What is unique about this approach is

traditionally the way that one brings about a group of people to work on this problem is you bring about bring in every interest group that you can think on with the panel. You basically come up with something that doesn't do much in at least typically left out the lawyers and the doctor. There's much more that the left doesn't know because the only two are there that are the employers and employees of the governor's position is that this was the program that was originally designed for those two parties that is going to return to. All right. We're talking here about out of time. I'd love to discuss with you gentlemen the timing of the governor's move. I mean he did have two sessions of the legislature and I'm like yeah but I also want to call him a picture that I pulled out of the files because it's a picture that seems to run a lot in the papers whenever this issue comes up I don't know if we have that on the monitor if we have we can put it up there it is no fooling us. He's the guy with it. He's saying thanks to tape calling got squeaky Skelton and goalmouth shops for being with us tonight. And remember that in the weeks ahead we will be talking with representatives from the business community labor doctors lawyers politicians and

probably a lot more on this worker's comp issue so stay tuned. This. Is. The press convicting defendants before they ever go on trial. Some recent cases in the Northwest have raised that question. Wesley Dodd is accused of murdering three young boys in the Portland Vancouver area. His lawyer wanted to have the press barred from the pretrial hearings because he was upset by the media coverage of the case. Is the press the guilty party in this debate. Tonight we brought together a real time media panel for this discussion. Mark Zusman is editor of Willamette Week a newspaper that often takes unconventional approaches in its reporting. Stephanie Fowler is a former TV

reporter and also served on the editorial board of The Oregonian. And Barbara Gale teaches communication Law and Ethics at the University of Portland. Barbara let me just start off with you when it comes time to teach where to draw the line on things like printing publishing confessions of defendants. And the question of whether or not you're going to jeopardize somebody's right to a fair trial. What did you teach. I really start out with the idea that. The main goal of the press is to be the reporter of the facts not the maker of news. And look at the bench press bar guidelines which clearly indicates that pire confessions are not ethical to prevent criminal history stories that would inflame the public against the defendant. Those kinds of issues that would not give the defendant the chance for a fair trial let's make sure we understand what the bench press bar guidelines are.

Who wants to take it. Does anybody know what they are. Is this a little bit there are guidelines. They're not laws that are that were drawn up many many years ago as a result of some meetings between members of the bar and members of the press. And as a general matter honored in the breach. Meaning. Meaning very rarely are they honored. They're very rarely honored. The idea was to protect both the rights of the press and the rights of a defendant to balance the first amendment rights with a sixth amendment right to a fair trial. All right. Of the cases we're talking about Wesley Dodd in particular there were some fairly lurid details released about how he went about a murder and they were published in the Oregonian. They were broadcast on KGW TV which then had to apologize. There were so lurid I'm just throwing out the question was some sort of line crossed in that or is that pretty much par for the course. What are your thoughts about it. Well. I think it's first of all it's very hard to as

an editor create rules that you can almost apply like a cookie cutter on each particular instance whether it be this murder trial or or or or in another trial of another individual. And there's an enormous amount of judgment that's used on the part of a journalist or an editor every time a story brings to bear. Well in that particular case does a reporter actually do the people sit around and go now. Are we going to jeopardize this guy's right to trial. No. No. Who has time to think about that. And the presumption here is that the reporter is the agent and is as an active entrepreneurial agent going out digging up the news and perhaps where we're blaming the wrong person the reporter. In most cases and particularly in the daily TV news and daily newspapers it's just filtering the information that they get from prosecutors and from law enforcement agencies.

They're reporting that in that case they got it from an affidavit that they needed to search Dadds apartment then and it was a confession which I'm sure reporters have had access to in previous times but have nothing to that that specific affidavit variety variety the newspaper the Daily newspaper in this town as well as for the television stations did make separate judgments about how to handle that affidavit. KGW released more than information that was in the affidavit. The Oregonian did hold back. So there are judgments made and I think those are judgments of taste well where would you come down on it would you have published that stuff that particular affidavit I would not have gone into the detail. Why not. You did. In my mind it it went beyond the bounds of taste which is a very dicey thing for journalists to get involved in. But there are the kinds of things that we do make decisions. Here's something else. Mark now I did bring this on and that's because you have to get a cover here a couple of weeks ago of this guy here Brian Hessle who is a suspect in the murder of Heidi Dozier. And I read the article and it was real interesting and I wouldn't want this guy to come to a slumber party. But I was left with the idea of

well. What did I get out of this article and was this just kind of even the headline here. One chance to many is that kind of suggesting a little more here than has actually come out about whether this guy is guilty or not. Well Jeff make your point. In other words are we suggesting that where we convicting him before this trail in this guy's coffin to be completely honest with you I have fewer concerns about an individual's ability to get a fair trial in this country than I do about the enormous number of injustices that are never brought to trial. So I start there. Secondly in that case clearly we had a great deal of information which if you put it on one side of the scale would suggest that this individual is guilty. It's all factual information. There were a lot of details that from a point of view of taste. We did not present to our readers because I thought it went beyond the bounds but I thought it was a fair story don't you. Don't you feel like the story itself though. We have a presumed innocent until proven guilty and don't you think the story adds to the public's determination of guilt before this person ever had a trial

if you think the Stevens case for example that individual was charged really never even charged was suspected. He was in jail there all kinds of stories similar to the doser one run on him and then we find out months later that indeed he's not even going to be accused as douched I mean that's the point at which this is a very fuzzy issue and as Mark says it in 99 percent of the cases it requires judgment. That case I think is the far side of the line which is very clear. And I think the press has to keep its hands off when the cops don't even have enough goods on someone to arrest them on the charge for which they're a suspect. Then that press to keep hands off I think they went way overboard. This guy's life has been ruined. Well do you think though that in the case of the doe's lawyer. Bill Haas story in the Willamette Week that it's OK if you think they're guilty then we can publish whatever we want. Well I'd say two things. One is the logical extension of your argument is that nothing should have ever been written about Manuel Noriega because the fact is he has yet to be brought to trial. And yet if you've read the newspapers

the general assumption is that he's been guilty of terribly felonious crimes and I doubt very much you would suggest that you wouldn't want to read be reading about him over the last couple of weeks. The Stevens thing if I could make one perhaps conspiratorial theory that information was released by law enforcement authorities. And in my mind it's if anybody's responsible it was irresponsible it was the responsibility for letting that information or floating that information to the press who they knew was going to pick it up and run with it. All right. Do you think that we're seeing is this something new. This phenomenon or is it has. Have some new lines been crossed and are we kind of running into a situation where it's maybe not so much a question of free press as a question of competition. With respect to especially the Dodd situation I have to repeat the DOD is only accused and has not been convicted. So we don't know what we're just kind of wondering about here. I say absolutely not. And if the general presumption here again is is the press too

aggressive. I don't think the press is aggressive enough. Now I think Barbara what I'm curious about as we talk a lot about objectivity and I'm assuming that in teaching classes you talk about the idea of objectivity which a lot of people talk about now but in fact is pretty recent. When you're when you're doing your classes I mean how do you approach that whole subject how can you really be objective and still get out facts that are going to have some kind of implications one way or another. Well we talked about the responsibility to the public the responsibility to be objective in in terms of facts and what kind of facts should you be putting out in the newspaper in fact my class actually did an exercise looking at the Wesley Dodd case and the consensus was that yes you could you can talk about the arrest. You can talk about some of the specifics of that arrest but you need to when you start developing a history of that person and you start publishing lurid details. I think you crossed the line into sensationalism it's not new

by any means. The Shepard case Dr. Sam Shepard was a total mistrial due to sensationalism and the press and trying them in the papers. And I think there's a fine line to be crossed between being objective and reporting facts about a crime so that the public gets the information that has to have and then sensationalizing those facts or trying that person in the paper. I think you have to remember as Mark pointed out that the press is not a monolithic thing and there are different degrees of taste displayed in the treatment of the Dodd case. And as far as his history is concerned I think that's very fair game because that points out we've got to talk about a greater good too. I mean you've got the right of the individual and you have the right. The greater the greater good. And I think his history pointed out some very severe failures in our legal system and laws that were designed to deal with these people and to catch that. And I think the publication of his prior history minus some of the more lurid details

was most relevant and most critical I agree that the public needed to have that information to take some action to change the laws on sexual offenders. But I also think that you also have some of the press stories did harm to the public and that there were children that watched television stories. I have some older women students whose children actually were terrified to go to bed because of the lurid details that were reported in the eye as an alternative. But I guess hey what do we where do we go then with that kind of an approach. Are you are you basically saying we don't want to have big chunks of information reported. For that reason that a reporter is going to make that decision I think there has to be some more guidelines here too. Instead of the race to be who's first and and who has the most sensational story. And I think the Wesley Dodd case is clearly one where people were trying to get there first and it was a hot story and it's about a topic that is distasteful. And I don't think as

much care was given the kinds of facts that were reported that she didn't. He also was caught red handed with a little kid in his arms and that makes a difference in the minds. And that but it does sort of raise the question if you're going to actually start publishing and reporting on all of the exact way someone was murdered. There's very few murders that are not horrifyingly grisly. I mean you could cover the entire Middle East that way if he wanted to. Is that where this thing logically goes. Do we actually start you know will the next horrifically horrible murder get reported in graphic detail. Point by the case here and how far does this go. I think you're hearing a consensus that some of the reporting of the affidavit specifically went too far. The problem is that journalism is not a profession that lends itself well to rules that lends itself well to having talented people who can exercise the appropriate kinds of judgment. I think inappropriate judgment was exercised in that case. I don't think the answer is to clamp the rule and necessarily say this is the way it's got to be in the future right.

Let me just ask about the fate of the infamous Oregon bench press bar guidelines. I mean those things are those things that we can just kind of throw them out the door now. Are they finished. I've never seen them reported for 14 years in Oregon. And I think I was regarded as a very responsible reporter and never saw. You never saw word one about the. We have a public burning. And. Stephanie's point is well taken I think they're very well. All right. OK. Well no. All right. And no kind of guidelines like that do you feel are really necessary. I'm sort of intrigued that they ever existed. I think discussions about what's appropriate is fine. I think the reason why those things are only guidelines is because of a recognition both on the part of the bar and the part of the press that these are not the kinds of things you can legislate comfortable with that. I think too that that in the end however we have to be careful that we don't totally erode someone's right to a fair trial even and a despicable case. And once you start eroding the rights to a fair trial and and going

beyond just factual information I think you start jeopardizing constitutional rights. I want to thank our panel and something tells me this will come up again. We've been speaking with Mark Zusman with Willamette Week. Stephanie Fowler who has been with the Oregonian and was with Channel 6 here in your media consulting now aren't you. Is that a whole other topic. Well this is another word and it's another no. And also with us is Barbara Gale a professor from the University of Portland. Thank you all. I think I hurt my back during that last segment I think is Ted still in the building. I don't know. I think it's too too complicated. Now we have entered a new decade and a lot of so-called experts are going on radio and TV shows to tell us what people who look into the future are thinking. And frankly I don't pay much attention to people who do predict ahead. The fact is we're in the future right now. It's 1990. And when I was growing up I used to read magazine articles that said we'd all be flying around with rocket

belts by now and there would be colonies on the moon. And in many ways it's obvious that the future is running behind schedule. Now I'm not saying that's bad either. A lot of what people predicted for the last half of the 20th century was pretty grim. Here's a good example. I have some scenes from a movie called things to come. And it's a movie that H.G. Wells scripted back in 1936. There we go. Destruction as you can see Welles didn't have a very optimistic view of the oncoming decades. The movie warned about the danger of international conflict and perhaps more important it also demonstrated the need for Hollywood to develop better special effects. And luckily we have them now. We can all be grateful that these predictions of ongoing global wars haven't come true. And with recent developments in eastern Europe it looks as though the world may be entering a period of unprecedented international cooperation for which we should all be grateful. There's also another prediction that many Futurists have made over the years and in some ways I find it even more terrifying than the prospect of global war. And this is the prediction that someday men's fashions may look well. I

have to show you like this did anybody really believe that these kinds of clothes would ever be in style. When I first saw things to come the thought that I might ever have to go out in public looking like these guys. Well it's deeply disturbing that guy looks like he's wearing the curtain from a theater on his back and I don't have those kinds of legs either. Luckily those fashions haven't come in style. A lot of things haven't happened. Who would have thought that in 1990 you still wouldn't be able to pump your own gas in Oregon. So when people make big predictions I tend to be skeptical. Remember no matter how much we'd like to rush into the future we can't go any faster than one day at a time. Precisely how dangerous are dioxin levels in the Columbia River. Is it bad and getting worse. Our Columbia River Fish even safe to eat. Those questions raised a new a month ago have produced a consistent response. Calls for a study study studies and yet more studies but no answers so far. It all began when the Oregonian reported the results of rough samples that showed dioxin levels

in fish up to 10 times the level previously reported. The samples were taken by the Environmental Protection Agency dioxin which is known to cause cancer in animals is among the waste products some of the big pulp mills dumped into the river. Soon after the EPA report was revealed the Northwest pulp and paper Association released its own study concluding Columbia River fish are safe for eating and essentially saying there's not really a big problem here folks. But ultimately whose job is it to determine that. Are they doing their job. And is it really so very difficult in this day and time to determine whether or not a potential health risk exists due to tainted fish. With us tonight to explore some of these very big questions are Doug Morrison with the Northwest pulp and paper mill Association uneatable bell with Northwest environmental advocates which believes the Columbia should be admitted into the national estuary program and thus afforded certain federal protections. Kenneth Brook's operations director with the Oregon office of the environment environmental protection agency and state representative Ron seis who heads the

chief environmental committee in the Oregon House of Representatives and we welcome you all here. And so I'm going to throw out this question. First of all a lot of people you probably know him. I know him maybe some at this table are among them are wondering can I eat the fish out of the Columbia River. Whose job is it to tell me if I can eat those fish. Just tell me whose job is it. We don't need to reach a consensus. I'll take first come first serve. I'll tell you I've talked to a number of different agencies and I don't think it's clear whose job it is. I think EPA collects data and the states collect data and the health departments really are in the end responsible to the citizens both the state and the county health departments to tell them whether they should eat the fish or not. So it's the health department but the health department doesn't do its own study so they need somebody else to tell them it's it's really a matter of coordination and making sure the information is there and that people are addressing it. And I think one of the problems that we found with the information that came out recently was not that EPA was withholding it for malicious or intentional reasons but that they are

doing their studies very slowly but surely but they don't have sufficient resources to do the job that they want to do. And time passed and when the information came out everybody said well the time passed and that was that was due to to you know for bad reasons but I don't I don't really think that was true. Well are we in agreement that then the highest power here is in fact the Environmental Protection Agency and that that is the place that we should turn to for the definitive information. Not necessarily. The EPA has has a lot to say on the issue and I think there's a lot to be said for federal consistency. But the states have to play a significant role in deciding what's best for the people in this state and not necessarily listen conclusively to somebody in Washington D.C.. Well all right except that Brooks is right here. EPA has a responsibility for determining what national standards need to exist in terms of dioxin EPA has

developed criteria of designed to protect the human health and the environment. The criteria has been made available to the states and I think the difficulty that occurred recently was that we undertook a study to identify hotspots to determine if there was bio accumulation occurring for dioxin. And that information then became used for and interpreted a lot of different ways other than the way the information was was originally collected to be used for. OK. Based on the information that you did collect which the Oregonian as I said said there were 10 times the levels of dioxin as previously reported. Are you. Telling us that it's safe or unsafe to eat the fish from the Columbia River. Look at. Some of the fish in the Columbia River certainly contain non-detectable levels of dioxin and a moderate level of consumption those fish would pose no public health housing a moderate level is. It would

depend on how often how much fish people eat. But the issue that EPA data was trying to get to is is dioxin accumulating in various aquatic organisms in the river. It was never designed to determine public health effects of the dioxin and the river was looking to see if dioxin was accumulating and starting to go up the food chain in the aquatic environment. OK let me go to Representative since we have now two gentlemen who are sort of well I don't know actually does Morrison is the one who said that maybe the EPA shouldn't be the court of last resort and with respect to the most valid the most credible the most believable study. Where do you where do you. Well I think obviously it is a serious problem. I would agree with Doug that I think the state agencies have to play a very substantial role here. I for one am not prepared to rely solely on the EPA or certainly the industry here. On the other hand I think it is true that in terms of the resources that say the State

Department and the health vision have they're not going to be able to do in-depth studies with the kind of background that the scientific and technical help is needed. You really are going to have to deal with all of these pieces. Unfortunately I think in some ways since we're talking about the Columbia River which is a border between two states it is obviously sufficient for this state to deal with alone. We've got to deal with war and it's really clearly an issue that you have to have both states involved. You have to have the EPA. You have to have the industry and you have to have the environmental groups are going to have to pay. I understand they all have to play a part but to just tell us if the fish are safe to eat which is a simple question. It doesn't strike me that it should really require quite that much as to do what what to do to make the fish safe or to make the river cleaner or to not or to decide what the policy is going to be. What we want I can see were all of those people might be called in but to get the simple information. Who do we turn to to tell us about.

I think you have to rely on in great measure an EPA you know one of the comments is to question how much the state Health Division said you have to worry about it only if you are a regular eater or a fish with the same problem the same issue happens. You talk about contamination of water. I'd like to ask some of those people who were saying only eat so much. They were to eat it or I'm suspicious of the fish at this point at all. But it's not it's not a simple question with a simple answer I think because a lot of it has to do with how do you collect the fish test samples and what are you collecting those samples for. And so if you're collecting them as EPA was doing to monitor the river and to monitor what's going into the river what effect it's having in bio cumulating through the organisms you're not doing the same thing as as monitoring fish for the specific purpose of determining what the health impacts are. Why not do a study then to determine what the specific health impacts are because to me to some extent I think that there's a legitimate question to be asked if just in raising all these studies and now we've got the EPA sample we've got the pulp and paper study. We've got the two governors of two states are going to have a

study. And then it's good health division says it's seeking more studies through the EPA the federal health authorities the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality and health authorities from Washington state. We could be you know. Well let me first of all say I think we're making a mistake. It is you can only take the dioxin issue. I think we ought to be looking at the whole issue of chlorine compounds that come from the breaching process that these bottles use and the stuff does put into the river. There's a Canadian Studies for us to indicate as much as 3000 different chemical compounds are poured into the water as a result of this process. A lot of those are tough these it is not dioxin only not dioxin is I think clearly the one that I think concerns people the most but we're talking about a lot of toxics ought to be looking at the larger question of what kinds of pollution pollution is going into the river. How many different kinds of pollutions and so forth and take a look at the bleaching process which I think is the real issue which is creating the dioxins and the other

compounds to begin with. Well the study that was sponsored by Northwest polar bear Association. By all accounts is the most comprehensive fish tissue dioxide study done in any river in the world. And our expert toxicologists have informed us looking at that data in edible fish tissues that these fish are safe. The Oregon Department of Health and I believe the other agencies will be taking a very close look at that data. Their experts will be talking to our experts over the next few months and they will issue their opinion about whether that study is valid. And we encourage that type of review. Secondly I've got to say that by all accounts the information that we have today indicate that our products are safe and that the discharges that we are. Have into the Columbia River are not harmful to the environment or to human health. Do you do you understand though that because the industry put forth their study

it suspect a little bit there's got to be questions about it. Do you understand that. I didn't. So so another objective party might need to be brought in. I understand that there's good reason for skepticism and anybody who's doing any study you should take a very close look at it. And again we welcome that. We believe it's tight and we believe it will stand up to scrutiny. Secondly I have to say on the dioxin issue that all of the mills have taken substantial efforts to reduce the levels of dioxin destruction. Despite all of this debate about what is safe and what isn't safe they are reducing their discharges they have already and they're going to continue to work very hard at reducing dioxins. But what the pope industry is not doing is now producing unbleached pulp and paper products both office paper and consumer products that are made from unbleached pope and the consumers want that because consumers despite the result makes the paper less white. Right. Well it makes it that in some cases it makes it less white in Sweden as as you can see here this paper is this is non-Korean Leach pope from Sweden has to report on

dioxin from the Swedish environmental agency. All right. And that paper you cannot do for very quiet. So you're going to see that it can. But I think the issue is that consumers who are educated and it doesn't take very much to educate them want products that are made from unbleached pulp and they can't get them. The only thing that you can get in this country that's made from unbleached pope is the supposable baby diapers from Canada. And so in this country where we can buy nearly everything legal and illegal we can't get the products that we want and people want those because they want to protect the environment and their own human health right now. Let me just ask you very quickly and we're almost kind of running out of time here and we need to devote a little bit more time to this the national estuary program would bring in perhaps greater protection of the federal government and more involvement by the EPA in determining exactly what Mr. C is talking about trying to determine exactly what is in the river and how safe is it. This week you issued a letter that was very critical of the governor of Oregon and the governor of Washington. What's the problem. Well the problem is that the governors of both states really are perpetuating the

abandonment of this river that has been going on for decades by both states and and they decided not to nominate the climate to the nationalized worthy program instead Institute. And as you say one more study. It's fairly limited and it's partially paid for by the ports and the pulp industry. And what we wanted was the national estuary program which did a lot more than study things that talked about a developed development plan it would coordinate all the local state and federal agencies that are involved in the river and federal involvement is very great and it would also do studies and talk about implementing some cleanup and some changes. Do you see any change in the two governor's positions and do you understand what might have motivated them to not see all federal politics. One of the one of the problems is and I think we've got to keep working. We are both Senator Springer and I who are co-chairs of the Committee on Environment has managed to send a letter to the two governors encouraging them to go forward with the application they chose not to do that I think partly because there's a distrust of EPA. But the other

thing that is part of the politics here some work on the Columbia River is a vital resource for those of us who live down here in Oregon and the other side of the river or the Washington state legislators tend to view their life in reference to Puget Sound. And we're out of sight out of mind. We've got to figure out a way to make this river a bigger part of the to of the region because to get up these problems this is not to say that we step back and don't take the leadership to get out. We need the cooperation of the state. Right. OK. Well we're going to continue to track it. I'm sure it's going to be back in the news. And so we all agree that in the meantime we should just eat moderate amounts of fish fry Columbia whatever that is except for Doug Morrison who says I'm not sure I'm ready. And bottom fish sturgeon out of the Columbia the other night all right. I enjoyed it. My wife thought I'd give it to my children if I had. All right. OK. Doug Morrison is with us he's with The Northwest pulp and paper association need a bell with Northwest environmental advocates. Kenneth Brooks with the Oregon office of the EPA and state representative Ron C.. We

thank you all. Thank you. I. Think. A big fish dinner I had is giving me the terrible backache so I ate it on the job I think that qualifies for a pretty big settlement now. We have had some important issues tonight but we haven't said a word about something that is really bugging millions of Americans and that is which college football team is really number one. If you went bold crazy last weekend and watched all the games you know the top ranked Colorado was beaten by Notre Dame and then Miami was voted number one in the final polls and now there's just widespread anger and bitterness all over the country and we decided that real time shouldn't avoid such a major nationalist issue. So tonight David Kohn is here to

help us sort it all out. He's a longtime sportswriter and he's been keeping tabs on the college football controversy. And right now David thanks for being with us tonight and I know that this has caused a lot of high blood pressure for you. So what about it. Do we do we need the National playoff system to settle once and for all who's number one. Everybody's screaming for it. What about it. Well personally Jeff I can wake up every morning without having a real number one team I know. For some sports fans though it's an awfully difficult task. Every year this sparks some kind of debate because every year it seems there's at least two if not three teams laying claim to who should be number one. And as you pointed out this year is no exception. So what do we do do we do we institute the national playoff system night you were telling you on ESPN they said this coming weekend or next weekend would be the perfect playoff date for Miami and Notre Dame because classes are starting going week. As you said I just happen to be watching SBN And they're called football analyst a man by the name of Lee Corso. Said that next Saturday which would be the 13th of January would be the perfect time for

this game and his point was on the 15th of January. Notre Dame goes back to classes and on the 16th of January Miami goes back to classes and thus they wouldn't have to miss any class time. But what he failed to point out was that these kids from Miami and Notre Dame have already been in practice sessions for several weeks getting ready for these two ballgames and Notre Dame's case the orange Miami's case of sugar and asked them to spend another week with their coaches there's nothing more than indentured servants working for the university to get ready for yet another game that doesn't allow them to go home for a week to visit their families to visit their friends perhaps their high school sweethearts and it's really not very fair to the kids involved but that's kind of typical in sports especially called sports because too often the adults are making decisions for themselves and really not thinking much about the kids. Well I guess this year was kind of a special one here in Oregon because the bowl ripple effect actually reached all the way up to Oregon Can you believe that the Independence Bowl first time since 1963 I kind of get the sense that you might have different feelings than a

lot of people seem to have around the state about whether this was the major sports event for Oregon athletics of the 80s and a lot of the the general feeling here was this was terrific. What do you think. Well not to belabor the point but again it seems to be a decision that was made by adults for adults not really thinking about the kids the students involved. You know let's be let's be straight about this independence ball it is the Newberry's of bowl games. It's based in Shreveport Louisiana which is the Newberry's counts. Exactly. It's the 99 cent bowl game. There's there's a slew of bowl games there's got to be some at the bottom and some of the top and the Independence Bowl is right there at the bottom it's based in Shreveport Louisiana which is one of America's worst cities. Well now we did it we got it. That's the opinions expressed of course are your own. I hope knowing this signal will be skipping down to Shreveport here for all we know I'll take my chances. OK. But this is one of the worst cities in America. Not the kind of place where you can get a 18 year old college freshman real excited about going to Shreveport. It is

annually state staged there annually. Two also rans who really don't win their conference aren't at the top the independent heap and it's the kind of game that comes on at 5 p.m. on a Thursday afternoon with a B which rerun as its lead in so is this. It's a non entity. Well now I got to I got to press one thing here now a lot of people said well look this is the kids worked hard this is the reward for having a good season and they get to go to a bowl game. So what about. Well I think there is something to be said about that. But I think that maybe too much was made of that. I think it was the Oregon athletic department side did that hey if we go to this game we're going to be satisfied and a lot of our alumni a lot of our boosters who for all these years as you put out since 1963 for all these years these people have wanted us to get to a ballgame and let's forget about the fact that it's a good ballgame. It's a garbage ball game but who cares. It's bowl game and let's go to this game and just tell our people it's a bowl game and hope you like it.

Well. All right I guess in terms of what's going to happen next year. That's another thing I heard is it's going to help. Well that was one of the comments that came out is that Oregon's Oregon's point in going was at least one of its points in going Jeff was look at we've got to go to a ballgame no matter how good it is because next year when these bowl committees start sniffing around trying to find a team for next year they want to take a team with Bowl history and those who if we go this year we will have some history but the independence ball is no kind of place to gain any kind of history. If you go back in the past decade just the past decade you'll see that their roster of the teams that they've invited is littered with nobodies Mississippi's Air Force is last year for example. They had Texas El Paso and southern Mississippi. But I. Think we better we better cut it right there. But we do appreciate David Conn for giving us his gridiron expertise and we may tackle him again when the next big sports controversy erupts in a sporting life David. Thank you T.J. Holmes.

OK it's time for a feature on this program that's cause repercussions around the state. The real time dart board if you haven't seen it before I get to throw a dart. We do it at this big map and then we send a crew to wherever the dart lands. Also very important to note we've made in addition to the map this time it now includes Washington up here we got a lot of calls saying where's the other state that OPB goes into. So there it is we don't want anyone in Washington feel left out. And we're also giving ourselves a couple of weeks to follow up on the dart board because this is wintertime and travel can be tricky I got to find my mark here because this is prescribed by science. Take one shot with the dark will go wherever it lands. Let's see what happens right now. No practice. This is not a rehearsal this is real so all. Dear Heaven I don't know what I've done but I

went across the Columbia River if we hadn't had the part of Washington up there looks like big Butte but I don't really know. They may not even be any towns up there. There there's one their termination point. That's exactly where we want to go in the middle of winter. Termination point. I'm sorry I could take another throw at it but would it be hopeless so. Rita I don't know if you're going to terminate that point or not. But we're going to send somebody there. I've heard it's really beautiful there. Yeah I hope so. I think it's really maybe you'll have a great time. You can. Well OK so we're going. Well the real time pop quiz has been getting a terrific response the past few weeks last time we showed you a picture of some waterfalls and said they got their name when a train was stranded nearby. In the last century Jeff was complaining a little bit earlier in the broadcast that this was too easy but it did stop some of our callers. After a call from Norfolk County is that creek creek fall. Now to be honest we did get a virtual waterfall of correct responses. And

here's the call that put Jeff in a snit. Ran your county and your questions are harder to read here that the survey survey great part 94 in the Columbia Court. Thank you really enjoy your show. All right. Yes starvation Falls is the answer and we also got one particular response that deserves some extra attention. Chuck Williams photographs of our quick vote. The Columbia court it looks remarkably like the photograph I took of a file for my book to record about the fire. Even the caption map what do I win a free copy of my book. Maybe. Happy holidays. But now we're glad the Chuck Williams called and yes it was his book that we use for the picture. This is the library edition. Not a spectacular cover but it's still his book and we realized we should give credit to some of the other sources that we've used on these quizzes so

for our Picture of Shanika a few weeks back. Credit to the book titled Shanika by Helen Rees. And another quiz we used a picture of William Ladd and that was from the book Merchants money and power. Portland establishment 1843 to 1913 by historian Mark McCall. Thanks to all of them. Now another quiz for next week and we hope this will be tough. It's a man a man who was primarily a farmer but some of his other ventures included a butcher shop and general store. He also donated a lot of land to the city that bears his name. So who was this man and what is the name of the city. Let us call us. Call us at 2 9 3 1 9 9. And if you're the person who took this picture we'd really like to hear from you because you're probably the oldest person in Oregon right now. All right. That should give you a little bit of a clue. Thanks everyone for watching tonight. Next week Congressman Ron Wyden will be one of our guests plus more surprises more on workers comp and we'll see you then. Good night everybody. In.

Addition. To. Those who went to college on a basketball scholarship she was hit by a drunk driver. She's to blame but she doesn't have a.

This message in the blog read time made possible by BlueCross BlueShield of Oregon. The stones in this pond symbolize lungs and that is how we saw could visit here long life and good health. Hi I'm down again and next time on the collectors will be holding appraisals in the Japanese garden in Portland Oregon. Explore the beauty and mystery of Asian collectibles. When we look at rare ceremonial prints Rose medallion porcelain and Oriental furniture. Enjoy a taste of the. Next time on the collectors tomorrow night at 8:00 here on TV