we're very lucky to have live with us back in the studios once again tim harris jim harris is the founder and executive director of real change news homeless newspaper tim thank you very much for coming and spending time with us this  real change news how did it come about sure real change is a week early community newspaper weekly progressive community newspaper it's sold by about three earn some money our mission is to provide opportunity and a voice to homeless and low income people and to take action for economic justice so you know there's three programs one  as vendor services which helps all those folks that are selling the paper and get what they need to be successful and then there of course is the newspaper itself last year we won eleven first place journalism awards from the washington news publishers association and society of professional journalists and then there is our active as which you know is a whole thing in itself and that is about really connecting the survival issues that our vendors face and growing economic vulnerability of the broad middle class and bringing people together to  fight for the kind of economic justice that we all need and what specifically is real change homeless empowerment project is that separate real change in power almost empowerment project is just our  al five zero one c three name yeah which are and as we we pointed out last time you were here you put more than a million dollars into the hands of those who are selling the paper well actually that number is gone up rather dramatically because over this last year we had the price increase which has been really successful the vendors were paying were paying thirty five cents for their copy of the paper and selling it on the street for a dollar which let them pocket sixty five cents and this last year we raised the cover price to two dollars so now they pay sixty cents upfront for their paper and pocket a buck forty and that was a pretty dramatic raise for our vendors and it's worked out really well the overall circulation has gone down by about fifteen percent but we're finding that most of that is because the vendors are just making more money selling the paper and less time so they don't have to be out there selling quite as many papers to make the kind of money that they want to be mak bremerton and bellevue that are distributing the paper now and we're doing orientations from those places and signing up people in those locations to sell the paper and that's you know starting out slow but it's going to grow and we're going to nurture it along and and we're hoping that that is the beginning of further regional expansion so produce real change here in seattle you had started a paper in the boston area austin right started i moved here in ninety four to start real change in ninety two i was working as  basically a grassroots direct action style organizer with homeless folks and boston i'd been doing that since the late eighty's and i was really struck by you know i had this value of homeless folks  very poor people being involved in economic justice activism and building leadership there and i was really struck by how there is this long time line long uncertain horizon for social justice organizing but very very immediate and dire needs that very poor and homeless folks there are experiencing and that it was really hard for people to be and involved in the kind of organizing that i was trying to get them involved and they didn't have the stability in their lives and the street newspaper idea just struck me as a great solution because it allowed people to meet their very immediate needs  and give them the space for being involved in the longer haul economic justice organizing so that's been a really really great organizing platform i think and also because it just it builds bridges between very poor people and middle class folks and over the years have come to understand that those relationships that built between founders in readers on the street well there's some in the paper as is that the core of our effectiveness as as advocacy organization and and really about the vendors getting what they need and what inspired you to become a homeless activist in the first place that's an interesting question you know there were a few turning points you know when i was in college i went to washington d c and i got arrested in support of mitch snyder when he was doing his forty fit forty two day fast where he almost died and that was a very moving experience that stuck with me when i was younger i was a teenage runaway and i had some rough times was on the street for a little while lived in sioux falls is version of of skid road so that was was formative and you know when i first moved to boston after college i wanted going to college you mass amherst and moving to boston afterwards one of the first things i got involved in was a roving the homeless encampment that lasted about four months and was camped out on the steps of city hall for about three months and i sort of became their unofficial organize their help in these homeless folks do this protesting can manage and i think that was what was really hooked may because in doing that it sort of saw the best in the worst of what people were capable of in it was very very inspiring and made me want to really dig gannett's in homeless organize and i've always seen homeless folks is you know kind of the can the coal mine for the rest of us in terms of what's going on in the economy and and people's economic vulnerability and that being in a shoe that connects to everything else so you know it's a good starting point for organizing in these are the folks who are really in the most desperate situation then and the stakes are high for them we've got multiple events coming up this next week that are all important and one of them is the count the overnight count right can you talk a bit about that well every year there is a one night count in it is the measure by which we really see whether we're succeeding or failing and and you know homelessness and they take place throughout the nation and this last week of january the federal government has mandated that that's when the counts take place which when they first decided that's when it would happen other localities including seattle were more reasonably doing it there in the fall or the spraying and we of course  immediate reduction in the numbers of homeless people when they moved to statistically one of the coldest weeks of the year but you know this is one we've been doing it for a number of years now and last year about eight hundred people organized by this seattle king county coalition on homelessness fanned out throughout king county they're deployed through you know these these grids  and they physically go out and count the number of folks they see that are literally on the street after the shelters are filled between two and five and the morning and last year they found two thousand seven hundred thirty six folks out there after after the shelters were filled so and that was in encrease over the previous year i believe it's the highest we've we've ever seen so you know it's it's a big deal and the last year we did this for the first time we're going to do it again this year we will be a real change is setting up gong in westlake park in between ten and two we are going to organize people and to five minute shifts to ring that wants for every person counted outside we did it last year it took about four hours in we invited people like city council members governing board members in the committee to end homelessness people from the faith community homeless people to take turns ringing that gone in just to have a sort of public declaration and this  kinds of numbers are unacceptable and we need to do more to get that number down and get people inside so the numbers after the shelters have been filled how many people do the shelters accommodate about six thousand about six thousand people and you know when you look at ten year plan and homelessness the year after the plan officially began and plan officially began in two thousand and five two thousand and six was the first full year of the plan and you look at that count and we saw about six thousand people were in emergency shelter in transitional housing and in king county and there were about two thousand people that were literally counted on the street after the shelters are filled  here we are you know count was planned started in two thousand and five are coming and twenty fourteen and we still have more than six thousand people and emergency shelter in transitional housing that number really hasn't changed and the number of people that are literally on the street after the shelters are filled has gone up by nearly a thousand people so where we're clearly not ending homelessness and do you have a sense for how many people are not being counted in the during the count you know obviously can't see everybody nobody really knows that he n ow i mean the whole point when you're out there and you're vulnerable and you're trying to find a safe place to sleep is to not be visible so we of course know that we're missing people and we of course know that we're not touching the people that are doubled up  people like to say it's at least it's at least consistent in its imperfection you know they count from year to year is kind of apples to apples and it gives us a sense of whether the number outside is is growing or  declining so the local organization that scaring our ten year plan in this area is the committee dan homelessness in king county right that's right and tell us how you already supporting that many units of housing over the ten years and they are it i think fifty four percent of that go it's considered unlikely they're going to get to more than sixty percent of that gold by the and ten years they have focused mostly on chronically homeless people people who've been homeless for a long time and often have mental illness or addiction that they're dealing with that that's kept them on the street for for a while and they're the highest service utilizers been there their top priority for getting into has and because in system terms these are the people that are most expensive in drawing the most resources and you get the most cost benefit to the system by getting those folks into housing youth and families have also been a priority and they're actually like ninety percent of their goal for creating housing for those folks where they're really falling short is creating housing for non disabled homeless folks particularly those who have been staying in shelter for a while and this is a problem with the resources that are available you know once they they target their priority populations for creating housing there really isn't a lot left over for the other folks so you get people who are not disabled that have been staying in shelter for six months to you know a couple of years or more and they're not high system utilizers they're not cycling through the emergency rooms in the jails they're not particularly problematic or expensive and those folks i mean if you are a single white guy who's a former carpenter and you have bad knees now and you can't get work and you're staying in shelter you know you can languish there for years because you're just not anybody's already there at like twenty five percent of their goal for creating housing for non disabled folks and that's where they're really really falling short and the other place that they are falling unacceptably short is in creating shelter and housing for homeless families i mean right now if you're a homeless family and you call the two one one emergency line it will take three weeks for you to even get an appointment to assess your situation and if you are literally on the street you are moved to had of the line to those who you know the available spaces that open up but there are about twenty spaces for shelter and housing for homeless families that open up every month and there are about four thousand people on the way on the on the wait list so you know even when you are moved to the had that line it's going to take you at least three months as a homeless family to get into shelter and that is clearly unacceptable and  more needs to be done the good news there is that you know it's a manageable number of spots that are needed if they created another two hundred or  so shelter spots for homeless families they would need we would have a situation where we at least don't have homeless families and children that are literally on the streets and going to places like nichols vell to get to safety that they need that is a dual ball expansion of the shelter system but it's unclear whether there's the political will to do that you have a sense for just how much money terribly that would cost because it two hundred just doesn't seem like how much i don't have a sense for what that would cost but you mentioned mention nichols ville the the tent cities are still having a tough time there was one of them tent city for just in the nick of time scored some space in one of the state parks for the next twenty days it's my understanding yeah i mean it's a it's a tough situation and there are not enough churches i guess  willing to take on that commitment and you know without the additional support and resources from the city to support nontraditional solutions like tent city encampments it's a fairly daunting commitment for a lot of churches to take on you know one of the things that we tried to get pas last year was some legislation where where the city would be more supportive of nontraditional solutions that meet people where they're at like homeless encampments and we were one vote short of getting that passed and you know we would like this to see the city revisit that because it really i mean the question isn't whether people are going to be staying in tents outside people are sleeping in tents outside last year we counted two thousand seven hundred thirty six people outside after the shelters were filled that's that's incontrovertibly of the issue is whether people are going to have the relative safety and support of living in the community itself managed encampment and get additional resources  that the city just needs to to get real and recognize that you know having homeless encampments that are supported by churches and by the city is not the solution to homelessness long term  and all they ever touched on that it just isn't part of their big point on it is not part of their big plan and this is really one of the issues with the ten year plan as is what they measure and prioritize and what they don't and the big fight with them over the last year or so is what they are going to do to close the survival gap you know they have always been focused on and in homelessness through providing additional housing and services and the theory has been that in focusing resources on on housing the housing first model that they create system savings and over time reduce the stress on the shelter system so that more people can move through that and the need for shelter goes goes down and eventually you end and homelessness you know their idea was that by that and of twenty fourteen that homelessness would be virtually and did that if you did become homeless you would have immediate access to housing with supportive services that stays in shelter would be shortened and that there would be less of a need for emergency shelter and that there would be no need for homeless encampments and you can see that we are a long ways from that and over the time the plan is operated we've actually gone in the other direction so you know i think the immediate priorities are that we need to at least focus on creating the resources so that homeless families are not literally on the streets that's that should be the first thing the second thing should be focusing on those folks who are the long term stayers and shelter that just aren't a priority and creating the resources to move those people out of shelter faster into hous and then looking at nontraditional solutions such as homeless encampments reduce the damage and risk of homelessness and meet people where they're at and create more safety for them this year when we do the con of that we're launching a new campaign called outside in and establishes the goal of reducing the street cou over the next year before we do it again in two thousand and fifteen by a thousand people say if we count twenty five hundred people on the streets this year after the shelters are filled the goal would be to get that down to fifteen hundred people by next year and that's a really de sia's goal but it's also a goal that the committee to end homelessness is not going to set for itself and i think that this is really what we need to do to shift things is to create the community pressure to create the grassroots pressure that says these kinds of numbers are just simply unacceptable and we're going to lean on the elected to put the kind of resources behind these services that we really need to make a difference it just simply has to be a bigger priority than than  have a ten year plan and it's working housing is the answer to homelessness not shelter in tent cities nobody should live in a tent i mean i think that that completely discounts the reality of what's going on out there and the level of emergency that we have and you know in relative terms thirty three million dollars a year is is not that much i think the parks budget is like one hundred fifty million you know we probably are going to spend way more than thirty three million on pulling this out of my butt but i think you know a week of cost overruns in the tunnel is probably going to come to about that so you know it's about relative priorities and what matters and we've just got to put more muscle behind us so there's a new director there committee and homelessness in king county how's how does he look so far and what if if you were in that position what would you be doing if i were in that position i would be you know prone him curled up into a sort of a fetal position but fortunately i'm i'm not you know he gets great reviews mark putnam by all reports is a really smart guy who is very committed to these issues and has a great track record and is open to shaking things up you know what remains to be seen as much he's going to be able to do and how much wiggle room he's got the ten year plan is a big system and whether one individual can this sort of changing of the guard in the leadership can shift those priorities is an open question and i thing it's going to take all of pushing from the grass roots to shift the priorities around homelessness and you know if he is inclined to make a difference that's what's going to allow him to provide the leadership to make the kinds of changes that need to happen and he's not going to be able to do that on his own in the gates foundation  are going to be tough to shift and a lot of entrenched interests that would rather not see that change about two minutes left so c e h k c has a meeting coming up do they know soon or get that wrong when are you going to be pushing your outside in campaign out and we're going to be launching the outside in campaign when we do the gun running on friday at westlake can we pull will be hearing more about that in our first organizing meeting for that which i invite anybody who hears this to come to it is going to be a real change february eighteenth at six o'clock and we're going to be having monthly community meetings to involve people and grow the coalition and and create the kind of pressure that we need to see and do you see the pressure primarily being directed towards the city itself or entities like c e h k c it's both you know i mean c h k c is it's a coalition that is made up of policymakers so the mayor for instance is on the governing board and so is the county executive so when we put pressure on c h k c we're putting it on you know elected as big institutions the policy makers and that's necessary but not sufficient you know it needs to be pressure campaign on on everybody who's got the power to make a difference all right so talking with jim harris here is founder and executive director at real change news and again the events that are coming up this week the big gong saying westlake park between ten and who we'd love to see there and it will also be in bellevue or extending it to bellevue this year it's to be in front of the first congregational church there and they're at northeast eight thousand one hundred eight st ten and two on the twenty fourth on january twenty fourth all right well with that we are we're very lucky to have with us live in the studios this morning glen milner and kathy george glen milner is with the ground zero nine center for nonviolent action and kathy george is a seattle tourney working with the jeezy center and they are both have both been involved with the g s the center's lawsuit against the navy and the second explosive handling worth currently being built at the bangor trying to acquire some marine base in kits up can i just twenty miles from where we're broadcasting glenn and kathy thank you very much for coming and spending time with us this morning and thanks mike so let's start out glenn tell us about the ground zero center for non seven the groups focus is the abolition of nuclear weapons through nonviolent direct action and they're specially concerned with the trident submarine base the center is on three point eight acres of land  has its location of about twenty percent of our nation's nuclear weapons there's about a thousand nuclear warheads now deployed at banger and as we're going to say the base has eight train some arranged each some rain presently is deployed with about one hundred nuclear warheads at sea the some range on our own hair trigger alert ready to launch on command and as you mentioned a new seven hundred fifteen million dollar is being built close to the existing wharf on the waterfront a banger for loading and unloading trying missiles wharf consists of one thousand two hundred fifty pilings covers six point three acres of water in who can now and the navy while withholding information regarding explosive safety is has doubled the amount of explosives handled in who can now the next close of weight of the two wars is equal to seven point four million pounds of t n t in the form of rocket propellant in the missiles that the propellant is classified as a class one division one explosive is more volatile than t and is capable of detonating upon impact and that was a big part of our case so what is the navy's reason for needing a second explosive they claim they need four hundred operational days a year to handle to pull the missiles and to modernize the missiles to pull the warheads to actually warheads are sent back techs in their modernized so they claim that they don't have the facilities analysts i mean they have been there have been constantly upgrading the base all the late ninety's may seem like the war may have been one of their last projects that they wanted to do and they knew that for the war if they'd have to do an environmental impact statement which they didn't do for the other  projects they do what's called an environmental assessment they do their own analysis and of course they pass their their project well also one of the things that we learned in the lawsuit is that the existing war physics dreamily hohner will to an earthquake and that the navy is aware that an earthquake is likely to happen at some point in in that area so one of the concerns underlying this project for the navy was we have to hurry up and build a second war because the existing one is vulnerable and the pace of repairs continues to be very slow right so the navy did and yes for this project yeah in may two thousand and nine the navy announced it was conducting an e i asked for a second wharf in march two thousand and twelve it released the final in the record decision was filed may two thousand and twelve we filed their lawsuit and soon after that june two thousand and twelve ground zero and actually washington  physicians for social responsibility is the other plaintiff in the case so why did you file why did you was the yass not adequate or did that yes indicate something that concerned  well we knew about the supposed hazards long and during the you know during the scoping session which was you know immediately started in two thousand and nine during those sessions and review of the draft c i s people brought up the issue of explosives actually during these meetings there are over three hundred people a pretty good good turnout from this area three hundred people over three hundred spoke against the war and thirty of those people specifically talked about explosive hazards and we'd known we know quite a bit about it we know you know and it was surprising at the worse or so close together it was and plus the fact that they refused to talk about it you know the navy over and over said there's no new risk here in who can now with this second  theirs and the fact they even said there's no additional explosives in you know canal which is had to be false the environmental impact statement was a really large document several inches thick and the chapter on safety was the shortest and as glenn said it was pretty much just anecdotal there was no scientific analysis of explosive risks or any detailed analysis in the yes you know the pendant see is the was the one on explosive risk and it was it can we found later it consists of half a page of explanation and an arc map was all that's then tire thing and it looks like there is never even it there doesn't even look like there was a risk analysis done by the navy for the project to let alone we thought it should be shared by looks like they never did one and an arc map is was shows i suppose of safety quality distance arcs that shows the impact of an accident or the possible impacts of an accident at the war included in that geographically i mean does does a one of those nearly go across the water from were overhead canal from where the base is located yeah of all the largest arc is four inhabited buildings and goes that particular are goes to the property line private property of prior property on the east side and on the west side cross who can now goes on most i can't remember actually if it goes all the way across for a good portion of it and in the immediate the smaller for transportation i believe goes at least halfway across yeah it does yeah i mean i should never even been built there the navy never actually even did a safety assessment at all on this as far as we can tell well the navy's position has been that the one page analysis and me i asked was sufficient the the public analysis consisted of a statement that there's never been an accident in the last thirty years that the navy will continue to follow the same safety procedures and the e i a s did state there is no increased danger from this project about well we learned in the course of the lawsuit that seemed inconsistent with that please do can you go into that well he specifically stated that they were following department of fancy explosives safety board regulations but they didn't of course in the end the safety board wouldn't grant him a permit they seem to rely a lot on the fact that in the had even designed the d five missile yet so that it's impossible for them to know how this thing was going to fit and whether it would fit in the base i mean that in reality the basis is too small to fit these activities it's really about half the size of king's bay the base of kings bay and that one is even too small they have a secretarial exemption at that base as well when you're saying to small expand on that how do you know it's too small well the distance between the wars should be two thousand seven hundred eighty nine feet according to their own state the navy safety standards and the department of defense explosive safety board standards and depending how you measure it it's you know there are three hundred feet apart and strangely enough there used to be a fragmentation barrier between them war if that it wouldn't spread or or pieces of the submarine or a missile would cause a detonation at anything adjacent to it but for some reason in two thousand and eleven they removed it and blatant error but as far as i can tell the department of finance explosives safety board was never consulted on the fragmentation barrier as far as i can tell they have no plans to building a new on a course that would have quite a large impact on canal as well as should have been in the us if they if they do that so the d o d explosives safety board did not approve this how do they how did the navy go ahead if they didn't get the approval well you know this is in the decision from judge lane he mentioned conditionals sign approval which the department of finance explosives safety board gave them a conditional side approval i believe in two thousand and eleven but it was as it implies it meant that they would get approval if they met certain conditions and they didn't they were explicitly bar asked them to prove bank splosion one wharf would not cause an explosion at the other and there were other issues in there as well they they also were concerned about the delta here encroachment on that there s dockside handling building i think there it was too close to that but that was the main one was to prove that one explosion at one wharf wouldn't cause an explosion at the other and that  the navy really didn't know what that very well they seem to kind of wait the last minute they actually with about two days to spare they they gave themselves an exemption which is called the secretarial certification and what it means is the secretary the navy will accept all responsibility for any accident at the wharf forever for during construction and during operation so for you know in the next fifty years or so the navy will take responsibility for something that was really the explosive safety board's responsibility and we get to live with  that this is unfair but i just did it i mean i guess trying to go quickly through this i mean a list of things that came up as a result of a lawsuit and you know other ways during a lawsuit the first was may two thousand and nine when the navy came they announced the war and the end now is sick kids have county all the jobs that were going to be created and and they're supposed to be four thousand three hundred seventy direct shops and one thousand nine hundred seventy indirect jobs and it's in the finally i asked and they you know it's all through records they had hoped this would win people over in two thousand and nine the economy wasn't very good course it still is t but it came out when they awarded the construction project scan and now it's that was really just one hundred jobs on in who can now and no one could really figure out where these jobs game from where they came up with that the other thing so one hundred jobs the project is seven hundred plus million dollars seven hundred fifteen yes about seven million dollars a job i mean there's other jobs of you know we talked about you know where they've said the navy said over and over there's no new explosive ris a bunch of records were released and it shows actually the navy is moving buildings and fortifying figured i was like four point five percent of their project is to fortify and move other buildings but they can't move the existing more if you know that they don't have room for the you know the other thing which we mentioned that they comply with  explosive safety board regulations they didn't another is as far as the issue of a safety review and one hundred fifteen thousand pages that was released after the lawsuit was filed there was no evidence of a safety review they also said there's never been an accident in missile handling the last thirty years which is untrue we know into november two thousand and three the navy left ladder on a loading t and crushed the nose cone of a missile the latter was from the missile and you know we found out months later about that and that was at this facility to yeah the existing wharf go ahead and my memory was none of the local emergency entities for the county or nearby cities were notified about that the director of emergency management for a case that can read about a newspaper like three months later and she said that if it was serious she thought they would have told her ok the navy also mentions that king's bay is very much like the base of banger and they used as an example that you know they have a second war if there should be ok here but you know that like you said the distances between those wars is double the basic kings bay is twice this year well it's sixteen thousand acres compared to seven thousand six hundred at banger controlled nuclear information there is not in fact i don't know of all the records whether there weren't many if any that were exemption one or the foyer the other that i found really just responsibility for mediation i mean everyone knows that the second wharf will cause damage to hood canal and so as a remedy rather than do an on site type of mitigation they opted for this in the program which the navy very much wanted to do this where they basically their responsibility is gone once they passed a check for six point nine million dollars to the canal according council and their job then is to find projects for mitigation and there's plenty of projects on the base that should have been used for medication i mean they say there's part of a marginal war that could have been removed there is a magnetic silencing facility that's not used but a way i was disappointed to discover that earthquake risk kathy mentioned it's worse then previously known and  we came across some e mails that seem to indicate people working on the design warrant two sure seem skeptical they could build a war to meet  do stand up in an earthquake we couldn't really we couldn't really see anymore in that it is just kind of loose emails but there is some skepticism relevant law is the national environmental policy act that's what the suit was based on in under nepa the whole purpose is to fully inform the public of the likely environmental impact so that the public has a chance to participate in the decision making and it's also dual purpose is that the agency decision makers are supposed to be fully informed of the possible environmental impacts so when we went ground zero filed its motion for a preliminary injunction which was more than a year ago in the fall of two thousand and twelve  at that time ground zero had nothing the navy had yet to file any administrative record with the court so our original motion was just based on the i asked basically and the record of decision in an in a need to case typically the court rules require that the agency doing me i asked has to file every record that was considered  all by decision makers with the court within two months of filing a lawsuit we were still getting the administrative records in august of two thousand and thirteen so it took  more than a year for the navy to fully disclose all of the records that were part of the decision making process so what ground zero learned was very sad a gradual  ultimately thousands of records were released in response to this lawsuit which contained information that was not in the us and you believe should have been that that was the theme of our case and i don't know how much you can go into this but at one point wasn't the navy forthcoming with a lot of documents and then they placed a gag order that you couldn't use them in the in the in the case yeah the gag orders still on some of the record to skew was fairly confusing actually yesterday i was send you a couple of records and one of them i was spending quite a bit of time trying to figure out whether this was  part of the gag order or not and i just didn't see anything so they imposed a gag order right before the oral arguments in fact i think they imposed a gag order on a friday it was labor day weekend so we were in court on tuesday we were scheduled be on court on tuesday and they imposed a gag order right at the last minute and base what it meant was we couldn't use the records we couldn't so try to be very careful i'm very careful but it was it wasn't it was information they had released they had released it yet well what would happen is they had released it and it proved our case so we filed oh a brief we filed a brief using the records that they released to show that the explosive safety board didn't approve the project and that's when the gag order came out or that ultimately even he rereleased that in for me you know however which i think is why glenn is seeing it it's a little confusing ultimately the records were refiled with the court contained nearly all the same information with just a few redactions and it's those few redactions that are still restricted right but but proves the information is not classified information that we're seeking and that we wish to discuss through any i asked process was never classified and that seemed to be a lot of what judge layton was supporting was navy's claim that a lot of this information is classified and shouldn't be released to the public and you are saying i believe that no this information is already in the public hands while much of it was we knew a lot about trying to missiles fact they want try a missile is equal to one hundred fifty five thousand pounds of t n t we knew the arc maps and this stuff has been released through that throughout the seventies and eighties and even in play as probably two thousand and three or so a lot of this information had been released i don't know if it came up in this particular case but you have previously talked about explosive protection zones did that come up at all in this case and can you tell us real quickly what those are well it didn't that was discovered during the case it didn't come from the navy it came from department of emergency management for kids have county by the p c s or protective zones are radiological areas and basically just says if there's a radiological accident that people within the zones are supposed to i forget what it's called i keep thinking it's called some radio station is going to tell you but no one knows that exists anyway so but those are the p c s there radiological zones emergency management knows about and evidently they're too fearful about the whole situation to tell anyone well unfortunately with that we are out of time i want to thank you both for coming and spending time with us this morning thanks my