An interview with Gary Dietrich from the non-partisan group CitizenVoice.org discussing the propositions on the California ballot.
A very helpful discussion if you would rather not read the several hundred pages provided for you by the state. Of course, nothing can replace reading the original text, but this interview allows for a comprehensive understanding.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (54.3MB)
Related posts:
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
So “Trains give you cancer!” is what you call a comprehensive understanding? For the record: no, the Prop 1A trains will not be maglevs. They will be ordinary electric trains drawing power from overhead wires connected to the commercial grid. In any case, the amount of energy they will use is such a tiny fraction of the state’s power consumption that your question of “where they will get their power” was preposterous.
See:
http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/images/chsr/20080123171537_ImplementationPlan.pdf
Also for the record, there is absolutely no reason to suggest that maglev trains might give you cancer. First of all, it’s *ionizing* radiation that is known to give you cancer. There has never been any good evidence that non-ionizing radiation (visible through radio frequencies) can do so. And even if large doses of radio frequency waves might be harmful in extreme cases (e.g. the cell-phone scare), maglev trains radiate at the same 60Hz frequency as all appliances, and at no particularly greater levels, from what I’ve read.
Do you just make this stuff up? Do you care if someone actually believes you?
You’re based in a University. Can’t you find someone informed to interview?
Thanks for the response.
I was not aware that they were not maglevs, I appreciate the heads up, as well as the link, and after further reading, now understand that it is a high speed rail, not a maglev. Thanks…
Noting the maglev radiation..there have been concerns regarding the possible long term effects that a maglev system may have on the people working closely with it, or living within close proximity. I had done a report on it in the past, and that was where I had remembered the claim of cancer being tied to the operation of mag lev trains.
Long term exposure has been a concern of many people around the world on multiple occasions:
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/05/26/asia/AS-GEN-China-Maglev-Train.php
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSPEK32757920080112
The information regarding non-ionizing radiation suggests that there may be a connection between that, and cancer, the jury is still out on the issue. Specifically regarding cellphones, you can view the articles noted…
Cancer institute warns of negative effects of cell phone use:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7523109.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7250372.stm
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9584_22-195865.html?tag=zdfd.newsfeed
Ionizing radiation basically explained:
http://www.who.int/peh-emf/about/WhatisEMF/en/index1.html
Concerning energy use, while it may just be a tiny fraction, all projects that result in a large amount of power being consumed need to be considered. In different parts of the state, the power is allocated from different sources, and I was curious as to which one this power would be drawn from.
And no sir, I don’t “just make this stuff up,” and I find your comments very rude. I comment once I feel that I have reached some sort of understanding regarding the issue after discussions, as well as reading literature, or any information I can get my hands on. I am absolutely, always, completely open to new information, as well as community and student comments concerning the issues discussed, as well as topics mentioned on the show. I try my best to comprehensively understand everything I mention.
Although, every part of the show is very important to me, and once I find sufficient evidence, or lack there of, I will address the issue accordingly, on the show, as well as on this website. Your passive aggressive comments/way of approaching the issue is not appreciated, and I would prefer you to consider all of the facts before writing statements as thus.