KCTS 9 Connects For April 24, 2009
Originally Aired: Apr 24, 2009
Back to Archive
Back to Archive
In our continuing series on investment scams, we examine the growing problem of gold coin fraud. As the stock market fluctuates and the dollar loses value, many investors are turning to gold as a safer investment for their money. But con artists are taking advantage of the new gold rush. We show you how to spot and avoid the most common gold scams, and what steps you should take to make sure your gold investments are worth their weight.
Hanford Update
In our continuing series on investment scams, we examine the growing problem of gold coin fraud. As the stock market fluctuates and the dollar loses value, many investors are turning to gold as a safer investment for their money. But con artists are taking advantage of the new gold rush. We show you how to spot and avoid the most common gold scams, and what steps you should take to make sure your gold investments are worth their weight.
The Tunnel Vote
Enrique Cerna continues his conversation with filmmakers Ken Burns and Dayton Duncan about their new documentary The National Parks: America’s Best Idea.
Interview with Ken Burns and Dayton Duncan
Before sitting down to talk with us, Ken Burns and Dayton Duncan met with a class of high school and middle school students working on their own digital video project about nature. We travel along with Ken and Dayton to the IslandWood outdoor education center on Bainbridge Island, where they inspired the next generation of filmmakers.
Ken Burns and Dayton Duncan Visit IslandWood
Enrique Cerna talks with Ken Burns and Dayton Duncan about the
Comments
Posted by erica (not verified) on Mon, 01/25/2010 - 5:00pm
I simply cannot fathom a reason why you would want to cut education and health care in lieu of a tunnel. Like... seriously? no.
Posted by Louie Bergsagel (not verified) on Thu, 05/14/2009 - 3:02pm
Teachers yes.
Tunnel no.
All people that prefer holes in the ground to educated children have holes in their heads.
Posted by Louie Bergsagel (not verified) on Mon, 04/27/2009 - 10:28pm
The City of Seattle says there is only a 5% chance of viaduct failure.
"WHEREAS, the Viaduct is seismically at risk and engineers estimate it
has a 1 in 20 chance of failure in an earthquake in the next ten
years; and..."
http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us/~scripts/nph-brs.exe?d=CBOR&s1=115720.cbn....
Posted by Guest on Wed, 04/29/2009 - 8:08pm
Mr. Bergsagel,
Thank you for replying with the stats. My original contention was the unlikelihood of the viaduct left intact after a 9.0+ earthquake. From what I saw in the provide links, they provide percentages (between 5 and 10 percent) of a viaduct collapse if in the event of an earthquake within the next number of years. Those numbers are high by any public safety standard, but the earthquake magnitude which would cause the damage is not given.
I will grant that structures are designed for lateral movement, viscosity of soil, etc. And the popular Richter Scale doesn't always translate into a "at this number things fall down" metric. But I'm still sure the percentage of a viaduct collapse at 9+ quake is far higher then 20%.
Posted by Louie Bergsagel (not verified) on Mon, 04/27/2009 - 10:20pm
"The viaduct, according to the seismic vulnerability report by Parsons Brinckerhoff last November, has a one-in-10 chance of collapsing in an earthquake in the next 10 years."
http://www.westseattleherald.com/2008/07/28/news/viaduct-state-nixes-ret...
Posted by Louie Bergsagel (not verified) on Sun, 04/26/2009 - 1:08pm
You can prove that the cost will be more than the 3 or 4 billion by requiring that the bid amount be the final amount. No overruns. No company would bid on that. You can guarantee that the cost will be closer to 12 or 14 billion.
And notice no one is talking about replacing the seawall? When are they going to ask for money for that?
My suggestion is to build a tunnel in the water next to the seawall, which would become the new seawall. They could build the pieces of tunnel on land, and assemble them underwater much cheaper than a deep bore tunnel.
If a deep bore tunnel (below sea level) is going to be safe during a 9+ earthquake, than a seawall tunnel would be also. (I'm laughing as I write this.)
Actually, the best plan would be to wait until after the 9+ earthquake destroys the viaduct (state engineers say there is only a 20 percent chance of that.) If it is destroyed, haul away the rubble, and build another.
P.S. Only allow people to drive on the viaduct who accept the risks.
Posted by Guest (not verified) on Mon, 04/27/2009 - 11:31am
Forget about the viaduct. I'm pretty sure a 9+ earthquake would completely destroy most of the city.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/10/five-us-earthqu
Could you please provide a link to where you got the 20% figure? I've been told by other Structural Engineers that only a 6.0 earthquake would take down section of the viaduct.
As a point of comparison, a 9.0 Richter magnitude is equivalent to 32 billion tons of TNT, while a 6.0 is about 1 million tons. That's a difference of 31,999,000,000 ton.
http://www.seismo.unr.edu/ftp/pub/louie/class/100/magnitude.html
Posted by Guestmark (not verified) on Sun, 04/26/2009 - 10:50am
we will spend 2.4 billion extra on a tunnel that carries less traffic while we cut basic health and education and this is the best that our so called leaders can do, and people cant understand why tim keeps putting things on the ballot
Posted by Guest (not verified) on Fri, 04/24/2009 - 10:32pm
The voters have been railroaded. Considering the input from reputable civil engineers, the viaduct can be retrofitted to become a safe transportation artery for another 50 years. A tunnel is no safer than the viaduct in a 9.0 earthquake. The tunnel has half the capacity & none of the access to downtown the viaduct has. Greg Nichols wanted a legacy & he got it - at the voters expense & by ignoring all users input. I'm disgusted with Nichols, Gregoire, Sims, et al.
Posted by ron adams (not verified) on Fri, 04/24/2009 - 8:22pm
build a tunnel YES
above ground , walk , bike or drive a planted boulevard.
Posted by ron adams (not verified) on Fri, 04/24/2009 - 8:12pm
build a tunnel yes.
above ground a world class waterfront, walk, bike and boulevard.
Posted by E.Smith (not verified) on Fri, 04/24/2009 - 7:52pm
My concern about the tunnel is that I have not seen any information related to earthquake impact on this decision. At the surface level attempts to reach victims is at least possible. What kinds of rescue issues are possible with the tunnel decision.
My own preference for the viaduct was a surface solution and redistribution of traffic. People can learn new solutions even if it takes some time.
Posted by Midge Batt (not verified) on Fri, 04/24/2009 - 7:48pm
The tunnel is a waste of money and I can't believe the state took the bait. A scewed ballot lead to a misleading vote. Rebuilding was not an option, althoug that's what I heard most people saying. The "reconnect" the City with the waterfront is a false argument. It is connected at every block with streets and parking, and of course that fabulous view. It will not be with the ensueing development that is at the heart of the matter. The waterfront will become a private park. Only a small section is damaged - from a fire decades ago. Engineers who build it agree it only needs to be reinforced. We have been sold a very expensive, bill of goods that will forever rob the citizens of their connection to Elliot Bay.
Midge Batt West Seattle
Post new comment