Good morning everybody, it's Wednesday morning, March 24th, and this is the Senate Agricultural Committee. We're going to get started on a proposal this morning dealing with hemp and cannabis, and we have Michelle Childs with us, our legislative address person. Good morning, Michelle. And Kevin Ellis and Pedro Lin and all the committee members, and I think we've all met a week or so ago, and so I'll skip by the introductions of everyone, and we'll get right to the draft that, Michelle, would you like to run through that draft that you sent us and go for it? Okay to share my screen. Are you guys okay with me sharing the screen? Some chairs don't like it because they don't, because you can't see everybody. Is this okay? Sure, as long as you don't take any more than that. No, go ahead. Okay, so great. So what I have here is an amendment for discussion that addresses the issue of cannabis establishments and dispensaries being able to purchase and process hemp under their cannabis establishment license or their dispensary license. So I know I don't have to give you all the backstory. You know that all the hemp stuff is completely separate from the cannabis regulation. So hemp is controlled by a chapter in title six and the cannabis in title seven. It's a completely separate process for licensing that we're in the midst of setting up. And so the first licenses are supposed to be issued next spring. And then the witnesses had brought an issue to you around concern whether or not if someone is licensed under the new cannabis system, could they purchase hemp products for processing and inclusion in any cannabis products that they might be either manufacturing or selling. And so I know the witnesses have suggested an amendment in the cannabis chapters that would change the definition of cannabis. The definition of cannabis excludes hemp and they were looking for kind of to kind of build on that exception and say, well, it doesn't include hemp except under certain conditions. And I have a reluctance to changing the definition of cannabis to include hemp because we've gone to great lengths to date to kind of keep them clearly separate and make sure that we're not jeopardizing anything in terms of our hemp program, our hemp pilot program. And so I talked it over with Grady because he's the expert on hemp and and so I think we decided that the best approach to address this would be just to make an amendment within the cannabis chapter specifically authorizing those licensees to be able to handle hemp. And so what I drafted it as a potential amendment to S25 because that is on the floor this week, but you know, I just wasn't sure where it might go. So I just drafted it as an amendment, individual amendment. There's two sections. The first section, section 20, starting on line six. This is just adding an exception there because there is already something in current law that says clearly that the cannabis chapters don't apply to the regulation of hemp. So I just did a little carve out there on line nine. And then you have a new section on 21. And so this is adding section 870 to title seven. And this is within the cannabis establishment chapter to say that hemp flour and biomass may be purchased and extracted by a cannabis a cannabis establishment licensed pursuant to this chapter. And so those are the the adult use licensees and then or a dispensary license pursuant to chapter 37. So the dispensaries are currently regulated in title 18 chapter 86 and are regulated by the Department of Public Safety. But one thing that's happening is that they're to move over to the cannabis control board from DPS. Last year in Act 164, they had them moving over in March, but S25 moves them over earlier moves them over July 1. They will continue to operate under the title 18 provisions till they switch over in March. So that doesn't change. But under the current scheme under 18 dispensaries can purchase hemp and handle hemp under their existing statutory scheme. And so this is just that when the new one drops down in March, they would be able to do it similarly. And so they can purchase and extract the flour and biomass as long as it was obtained from a hemp grower that's registered under our program, or if they are registered or licensed in a state authorized to produce and sell hemp under federal law. And so my understanding in talking with Mike was that that's possible currently under our existing scheme for the hemp. And what about the testing, Michelle? Y'all, have you built in regulations of the testing to make sure that we aren't running over any limits for THC or any of that? Well, the thing we hear is that when you're talking about we're talking just regulating here the cannabis establishment. So they're already authorized. Okay. Mike and I are trying to silo it, right? So it's like it's not changing anything with regard to who is registered under title six to grow hemp. This is just saying that if you are licensed under the new cannabis law, you can also work with hemp. And so I think it's permissible under the current law, but the witnesses would like some better clarity about that rather than leaving it up to the board. There is a provision in current law that requires the board to adopt rules regarding additives to cannabis products. There's not much discussion of hemp in the existing cannabis laws other than if you're a retailer that's going to be selling cannabis products and you also sell hemp products, you're supposed to clearly label those as such in your retail store. Consumers aren't confused about which product they're and you have to kind of keep them separate, but that's really all that's addressed currently with regard to the hemp. So I think it's permissible under current law, but the witnesses and they can speak for themselves, but they I think they're looking for for clarity on this at this point through legislation. So it's really this is clarifying the law to make it very clear that it is an allowable use. Yes. Yep. But it's not changing anything with regard to your hemp program. Again, we didn't want to mess with that or jeopardize that by injecting the cannabis issue into the hemp program. It's not changing the cannabis rags either, right? Only it's clarifying the language that you can use hemp as an additive to cannabis. Yes, it's specifically authorizing that it's silent on the matter in the current law but has the board adopting rules with with respect to additives. So it's totally permissible for it under the current scheme. But, you know, I guess there is the possibility that the board could put forth something and say they don't, you know, the cannabis establishment couldn't be working with them. But I mean, I think that would be arguably tough for them to put forward because there are some specific do not combine cannabis with certain ingredients under the cannabis license scheme. So there's a specific prohibition against combining cannabis and alcohol or cannabis and nicotine. And that's in statute. So I think if there was if the board was going to interpret it that they could say you can't combine it with hemp, I think there's a strong argument to say, well, we would have said that in the legislation. But you know, there's there's no harm in articulating this specifically in statute. I'm just saying that if you didn't, I personally don't have a lot of concern. It wouldn't be addressed by the board, but I understand the industry, you know, wants more certainty about that. Yeah. So page two subsection B is that the cannabis establishments and dispensaries can obtain and process the hemp in the form of distillate or isolate and all process hemp derivative shall be accompanied by certificate of analysis showing potency levels for all those chemical compounds that I can't pronounce. And that's modeled after Illinois. And subsection C is just kind of a cross reference about the provision I spoke about about the adoption of rules with regard to additives. And that's it. So it's pretty pretty straightforward. I'm hopeful that the that Pietro and Kevin might think that this will address their concerns if you're interested in moving forward. Yeah. And are there any questions from committee members of Michelle at this point? Yeah, I have a question. Yeah. Good morning, everybody. Michelle, I'm trying to get my head around this because I and I heard you say that this is sort of already handled. And I, you know, there's a lot of investment and energy that's gone into the hemp and the CBD business world today in Vermont for the last several years. There's a lot of sort of pent up energy to go into the cannabis THC world and this explicit blending of them. I can't give you a good reason, but it does make me a little bit uneasy because I don't pretend I understand all of the ramifications. And I'm not convinced there's a rush, but I want to just explore. You sort of said, I don't think this is necessary. And that's kind of my assumption. I mean, if somebody is growing or processing under the cannabis scheme, there's no part of the state that is checking up on what kind of cannabis plant you have, right? So cannabis producer could grow some CBD cannabis. Nobody cares about that, right? I mean, help me understand. I get that maybe it's a little not clear, but is there a problem? What problem are we really aiming at? And the reason I ask is every time we talk about this on the floor and bring floor amendments especially, it's just there's an unease. And I got to be convinced that it's really worth it before we take that on because everything was just complicated. So Michelle, can you help me understand? You sort of said, I'm not sure this is necessary. Everybody wouldn't mind a little extra clarity maybe.  Does it make a real change or is it just simply a little belt and suspenders? I think that what the witnesses are looking to do I think is totally permissible under the existing statutory scheme and the way that I view how this would be worked with the board and the adoption of rules. I would anticipate that this is all going to be a part of that and it would be a board decision. But if you want to be absolutely sure that it's clear to the board that a cannabis establishment or dispensary can be handling PEMP separate and apart, but do it under there. But it's not any kind of violation of their license under Title VII. It's fine to certainly be very direct in that and include that in there. So this was not a discussion as part of Act 164 last biennium around these two. And as you know, because you're always dealing with Mike and in your committee on the hemp issue, you know, they very, very separate issues intentionally. And so, you know, we're probably going to see obviously as the industry grows more and more of a blending of the two, you're right. So people who are currently growing hemp are probably many of them are interested in converting to cannabis and obtaining a cannabis license. And maybe they would want to be registered under the hemp program and have a cannabis establishment license. But, you know, I don't know that would be a question for Mike about whether or not that would jeopardize something under the hemp program. That's where the real, I think concern is. But this is just talking about cannabis establishments. See, this is and again, nobody is nailing this. But this is my concern that there clearly are people in the hemp world that are warming up to get into the cannabis world that that is everybody understands that. But there are also people in the hemp world that are happy in the hemp world and don't don't have any desire, I believe to go into cannabis. And I'm a little bit worried that this shift may be undermining them, those people without us fully understanding it. So to the extent I'm expressing hesitancy, that's part of it. Anyway, thank you. Brian. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, Senator Pearson's question prompted me to think about this as well. And I'm probably not going to say this the right way, but this seems like a one-way street to me. In other words, if you are already having a cannabis license, you're asking for an additional ability to grow hemp. But those who only have a hemp license aren't going to get that same sort of flexibility in their world. And I'm wondering how many people are we talking about that need both licenses, if you will? Right. Is there something in the law that says you can't have both licenses? There, I don't think there's anything in, there isn't anything in this bill or this draft that would prohibit going either way. I can't see. Maybe I'm missing it, but. There isn't. I guess the question I would have, and it would be for Mike, unfortunately, I'm sorry, I can't answer it, but is about the practical implications if you had someone who was growing both. Is that a concern in terms of the hemp program because of the federal rules around that and what's required to be a part of that project? I don't think that anything in amendment or the statutory scheme jeopardizes that. And so that's one of the things we wanted to be very clear about is we didn't want to mess with the hemp statutes because they're, you know, they're created in a way to make sure that you're in compliance with federal law. And so, but I don't, I don't know the answer to the question. If somebody was growing hemp and then decided to apply for a cultivation license and then they were doing both what their liability is with regard to the hemp and the federal program. I do. Did you have a question? I see a hand go up. You did. And I was hoping if the committee would allow it or you, Mr. Chairman, would allow it that that I would be permitted to speak to the the issue that Michelle rightly raised. And so, so look, the concern here, and I think as again, remember, I'm a lawyer and I work with courts in statutes in terms of statutory construction and application. And this is my fear. If we were adding vitamin C to cannabis, it would be an additive. And we wouldn't need to worry about any changes to the current statutory scheme. It's fine. What is different here is we are changing the nature of the CBD oil through the process in turning it into as part of this combination with cannabis into THC. And so it's quite literally a court could easily conclude that is not an additive. That is a transformation of the CBD oil into something else. And so the distinction for me is if we were just putting CBD oil into a cannabis product and say, look, CBD oil is healthy for you. So when you use the cannabis, you get these other health benefits. That would be one thing. But what we are proposing and the technology that exists allow us to use cannabis and CBD oil in combination and turn it into relatively pure THC. That's the that's the gap that that we're concerned about. And let me transition for a moment to Michelle's draft, which I thought was excellent. And I think it does two things. It creates certainty around processing the CBD oil into THC and then puts it under the umbrella of the cannabis statutory scheme and the cannabis board. And I think that's all for the positive. But it does something else that I'm not sure I had considered. What it does is it expands the marketplace for hemp farmers because it grants an ability to process the hemp into THC, first making isolator distillate and then later into THC. So hemp farmers in Vermont have a broader marketplace for their product. So that was Chairman Starr. That's what I wanted to raise. Yeah. So Chris, do you have an issue with timing? Because that bill that that bill's up this week and today's Wednesday. So I don't it's tomorrow. I think that bill comes up today. It's today. And so yeah. And so I mean, I'm not enthusiastic. I can't articulate myself well because I'm not understanding this. And I guess if it were left to me, I would encourage our friends here to to work on this on the second half. This bill goes, you know, is only just getting started in our process. Yeah. So but, you know, I'm not going to I'm not going to throw down over this if the committee is interested. I'm just be honest and say I'm not understanding all the ramifications. This is a brand new industry. I think frankly, it's why we set up a board to handle some of these more nuanced considerations. And I'm not sure of the harm if this gets sorted out in year two of our markets. I mean, you talk over over the years, we talk about having a mature market and it will take many years. You don't even see that a Massachusetts and other states that have been four or five years under under a tax and regulate scheme. So I'm not seeing the urgency and I'm a little uncomfortable acting quick. But that's just me. You know, if committee is this is a Senate bill, right? And so it's got to go to the house. I don't, Kevin, have you talked with any any House members at all to see, you know, what they're feeling is like, I don't know if this should be, you know, we haven't an egg. We haven't dealt with cannabis really hardly at all. But we've dealt with a hemp. So I'm wondering, have you talked with, so I would expect this bill will go to judiciary on the House side. And I, I really haven't talked with any of them to see if they would take this proposal that we could, you know, I think we could send them a letter or whatever asking if they would please consider this because of its timeliness coming to us kind of late. But, you know, it all makes sense to me. I, you know, about putting being able to combine the products without having a lot of problems with the regulators and clarifying the language. So you could do that. But if I mean, we, this is only the second day, I guess, that we really worked on this. What do you think about something like that, Kevin, politically working? Mr. Chairman, I think that's great. I don't want to put the Senator Pearson in a difficult position and I see Why not? He gets a big box. And, and we're, you know, a letter to the House judiciary would be great. Our goal here was to get this issue on the table so it could be discussed. And we're happy to go over to the House Judiciary Committee and introduce the issue with a little more deliberation and see, and see what happens. You know, I think that that works fine. And I'm grateful to Michelle for putting, you know, putting her head on this and making, putting pen to paper. So it would also give us an opportunity to talk with Senator Sears and our Judiciary Committee asking them, you know, to think about this. And Michelle, of course, is in there probably about every day. And, you know, it would give our whole side more opportunity to get used to this. And if we could support it over on the other side to some degree, you know, I'm, I'm sure we could talk with Carolyn and the Ag Committee about where we are, you know, on this or late getting started and, but would ask that they would consider it and, and Sears, Senator Sears, if, if we can get him to buy into this, he could talk with the House Judiciary Committee as well. Yeah, it was Senator Sears that sent us over to you because he was, he was busy with racial equity and a lot of other issues. So that's what led us to you. And I would, I'd love to get some advice about whether we should go talk to House Judiciary or House Ag first. We'll do both, whatever you want. Well, it's actually not House, it's House Government Operations. So Judiciary, now that cannabis, cannabis in Title VII, Judiciary doesn't work on it all in the House. And I think that's probably going to shift over in the Senate as well to be gov ops, because they're dealing with the criminal and civil violation, you know, cannabis stuff. And so now that it's really just regulating an industry and setting up the agency, it's the gov ops committee. So it would be Representative Copeland-Hanses, and, and then if you wanted Ag, you know, to, to take a look at it, I decided to make a recommendation to House Government Operations on the issue. We'll do that. Yeah. So what's the committee, committee agreeable with that, that, that we would, I don't know, punt this over to the House. And, and, you know, it, to me, it sounds like it's clarifying language. And if it would allow our hemp guys a little one more sales outlet, you know, their sales haven't been, to this point, haven't been that great. If it would allow an additional market for them, I think it would be, it would be good. I don't think cannabis growers are going to want to grow hemp unless they've got plots of land lots, lots of miles apart because of cross pollination and stuff. I think they'd probably just as soon let the farm, hemp farmers grow the hemp and buy what they want to buy from them rather than, than pooling around, you know, growing hemp and growing cannabis. So, so Brian. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm fully in support of your suggestion that we allow the other body to well consider this. Yeah.  I think, I think you've got a pretty good crew to work with there on in government ops on the other side. So that should, should move along and Michelle's already done the heavy lifting. So that's good. So that's, that's what we will do and, and wish you well and, and hopefully we can get this done for you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the, to the committee. Thank you, everybody. Have a great day. Yeah. And thank you. So, Linda, what do we got up next? 10 o'clock.  So we, we haven't got anything until 10. And what about our, our bills that we've got 100 coming up today. And 102. So is Brian, Brian, champions going to offer the, the amendment from education and we're all on board with that. I know Brian, you had a question on the process. Yeah. And actually, I've just received emails that indicate that s 100 is going to be asked to be passed over today. We have apparently some folks that are getting real nervous about the impact on local school budget. So I just got that from, from one of the other senators. It says, Senator Campion agrees this is a big issue and the bill will be passed over today. Oh, yeah. That, that's really bad. Yeah. I was talking with Brian earlier before you guys all got on and we're still on YouTube, by the way, Senator. Yeah, that's fine. I hope it's wired into every superintendent's office in the state. But you know, we spend, if you think about 1600 million dollar bills on education and we can't afford to take 25 of those, those and feed the kids. I mean, it's like having if one of us had $1600 in our pockets and we're at the grocery store quivering over whether we should spend $25 on food. I mean, it's ridiculous that that's even an issue and in the system. And my own little district is getting over $10 million new dollars on top of that to spend on something in the next three or four years. I mean, the whole issue is, is baloney as far as I'm concerned, it's, and I think it's time that we get our, we get a shot in the spine and stand up and take that crew on anytime they run short of money. They certainly know where to come and ask for more. And what we have two school budgets that didn't pass this last year at Cal meeting. So what they're doing is blowing smoke and I don't think school board members or the superintendents have even read the bill. You know, we've got, if it puts them over the spending limits, that's in there to protect them.  Yeah. So from what I'm gathering, it's one line in the bill that's creating most of the issue. And I think it's in Chris's part of the bill. And the line says to the extent that costs are not reimbursed through federal or state funds or other sources, the cost of making available school lunches and breakfasts shall be born by school districts. So that's where they're going down and saying, you know, if the state doesn't want to pony up the money and the feds don't want to pony up the money, it's going to fall in the local school districts to do that. And I think that's the one that's causing the most heartache. Yeah, the other thing, you know, so do we agree that we have about 280 schools, something like that? Now what we've heard and 70 of them. So we really have 210 schools left. And if you take 70 to 80, Chris, sure. But let's, let's say there's 210 schools and they've got us, they've got to come up with the $25 million and there's 210 of them. It's, it's $120,000.  It's in five years after, I mean, it really, I think you're right, Mr. Chair, that, that, you know, somebody's sent out provocative emails. Well, you know, it came from the executive director of the three groups last week, we got that nasty letter saying that we were all messed up. Well, then that got sent to all the school districts. And, and of course the school districts, I doubt if they saw the bill, but they got that letter pushing them to push us. Well, tough luck as far as I'm concerned. Well, and, and, you know, we're not oblivious to the pressure this means. We, we, we just haven't pinned it down exactly how we do it, but we've talked about helping them make the transition. We've talked about the federal dollars. We know the, the sales tax is performing well. So the ed fund, you know, there's no reason to think this is a direct hit to property tax. There are a lot of variables here. Well, anyway, we aren't, we aren't completely broke. And I would expect when, when the committee starts dealing with the 22 budget that some of that, some of that cost will get picked up by us. But, you know, hell, we got to work through the system and work, work with the system.  I, I hope that we stick to our guns and, and move forward. You know, three, three committees voted the bill out the unanimous. And, and that, that says quite a bit. So anyways, so we're going to, we're going to pass over that, I guess, today. That's the word. Yeah. Can we talk about some other scheduling things just? Yeah. So maybe Linda could take us offline.


South Atlantic Anomaly What if we were to tell you that the South Atlantic anomaly is growing? And according to NASA, this has caused Earth's magnetic influence to shrink by 10% in just 10 years. And the weakness in this anomaly just happens to be where Earth's surface comes closest to the Van Allen radiation belt. At a distance of just 120 miles, the South Atlantic anomaly comes very close to exposure from the Van Allen radiation belt. And this leads to an increased flux of energetic particles in this region and exposes orbiting satellites to higher than usual levels of radiation. This has forced scientists from around the world to collaborate in an understanding of what is taking place and how they could possibly reverse the effects of such damage to the Earth's magnetic field. The mysterious patch of magnetic weakness known as the South Atlantic anomaly stretches from South America to Africa and has baffled scientists for decades. Particle radiation in this region has been known to knock out onboard computers and interfere with the data collection of satellites that pass through it. And for these reasons, scientists have been forced to track the anomaly. Most scientists monitor the changes in magnetic field strength, both for how such changes affect Earth's atmosphere and as an indicator of what's happening to Earth's magnetic field deep inside the globe, which is not very well understood at all and they say that. Currently, the South Atlantic anomaly creates no visible impacts on daily life on the surface. However, recent observations and forecast shows that the region is expanding westward and continuing to weaken in intensity and it is also splitting and recent data shows the anomalies Valley or region of minimum field strength has split into two lobes creating additional challenges for satellite missions. If a satellite is hit by a high energy proton, it can short circuit and cause an event called single event upset or SEU and this can cause the satellite's function to glitch temporarily or can cause permanent damage if a key component is hit. In order to avoid losing instruments or an entire satellite, operators commonly shut down non-essential components as they pass through the anomaly. Geophysicists at NASA are observing using the European Space Agency SWARM satellites to investigate how the South Atlantic anomaly is changing. They say that even though the anomaly is slow moving, it is going through some changes in morphology. So it's also important that we keep observing it by having continued missions because that's what helps us make models and predictions. This anomaly is caused by processes inside of the Earth where the magnetic field originates in the outer core where molten metal, rich in iron churns, 1800 miles below the surface and this arises from two features of Earth's core, the tilt of its magnetic axis and the flow of molten metals within its outer core. Earth is a bit like a bar magnet with north and south poles that represent opposing magnetic polarities and invisible magnetic field lines encircling the planet between them. But unlike a bar magnet, the core magnet field is not perfectly aligned through the globe nor is it perfectly stable and this is because the field originates from Earth's outer core, molten, iron rich and invigorous motion 1800 miles below the surface, churning metals which act like a massive generator called the geodynamo creating electric currents that produce the magnetic field. As the core motion changes over time due to complex geodynamic conditions within the core and at the boundary with the solid mantle up above, the magnetic field fluctuates in space and time too. These dynamical processes in the core ripple outward to the magnetic field surrounding the planet, generating the SAA and other features in the near Earth environment including the tilt and drift of the magnetic poles which are moving over time. These evolutions in the field which happen on a similar scale to the convection of metals in the outer core provide scientists with new clues to help them unravel the core dynamics that drive the geodynamo. These forces in the core and the tilt of the magnetic axis together produce the anomaly, the area of weaker magnetism allowing charged particles trapped in Earth's magnetic field to dip closer to the surface. Imagine a sun which expels a constant outflow of particles and magnetic fields known as the solar wind and vast clouds of hot plasma and radiation called coronal mass ejection and when this solar material streams across space and strikes Earth's magnetosphere, the space occupied by Earth's magnetic field, it can become trapped and held in two donut shaped belts around the planet called the Van Allen belts. These belts restrain the particles to travel along Earth's magnetic field lines, continually bouncing back and forth from pole to pole. The innermost belt begins around 400 miles from the surface of Earth which keeps its particle radiation a healthy distance from Earth and its orbiting satellites. However, when a particularly strong storm of particles from the sun reaches Earth, the Van Allen belts can become highly energized and the magnetic field can be deformed, allowing the charged particles to penetrate the atmosphere, leading a leading NASA mathematician to say that the observed anomaly can be also interpreted as a consequence of weakening dominance of the diapole field in the region. More specifically, a localized field with reversed polarity grows strongly in the South Atlantic Anomaly region, thus making the field intensity very weak, weaker than that of the surrounding regions. One outcome for the happening is that the weakening of the field is a sign that the Earth is heading for a pole reversal in which the North and South magnetic poles flip. This flip doesn't happen immediately, but instead would occur over the course of a couple of centuries, during which there would be multiple North and South magnetic poles all around the globe. Such events have occurred many times throughout the planet's history. Some might say we are long overdue by the average rate at which these reversals take place, roughly every 250,000 years. If geologic history repeats itself, Earth's magnetic poles should eventually swap places and this much is undeniable. Based on the magnetic fingerprints locked into ancient rocks, we know that over the last 20 million years, magnetic North and South have flipped roughly every 200,000 to 300,000 years. However, this rate has not been constant over the planet's lifetime, though the last of these major reversals occurred around 780,000 years ago, although the poles do wander around in between these larger flips. That means we're a bit overdue for a total reversal and some research does suggest that a geomagnetic reversal is geologically imminent, but this does not mean that a polar flip-flop is going to happen tomorrow or even anytime soon. But if this anomaly is a sign of that formidable event, then don't expect a catastrophe again. Research suggests this will be a slow process over thousands of years, allowing for the proper migrations to naturally take place with some predictions that we would be minimally affected by such a shift in the pole. But what do you guys think of this anyway? Comments below and as always, thank you for watching.


We had been discussing about analyzing the earth pressures and in the previous lecture I had talked about the theory which is proposed by Rankine. I will continue with this discussion and the discussion topic would be earth pressure analysis and by employing Rankine's theory which has already been completed. The second part of the analysis or second type of analysis which is normally done to solve most of the issues which occur in day-to-day life is the trial wedge. And this is what I will be discussing today and the third way or the tool for analyzing the earth pressures is the Coulomb's theory which I will be doing slightly later on. So as far as the trial wedge is concerned as the name suggests, suppose if I have a retaining wall which is sitting on the ground, this is the backfill and in Rankine's theory we have assumed that this is a frictional material and C is 0 and we have assumed that the state of stress in the soil mass exists because of the gravity. So gravity is nothing but the unit weight alright and of course the backfill happens to be dry and another assumption is that this wall is at 90 degree. We call this as a Rankine wall provided there is no friction between. So if I draw a shear stress component over here alright, so this is the shear stress component between the soil and the wall this is equal to 0 smooth condition no friction between the wall and the backfill material. Smooth wall vertical wall containing the backfill which is only frictional in nature no cohesion unit weight prevails dry condition and the backfill is horizontal. So inclination angle is equal to 0 alright. So this is a typical Rankine wall and we have analyzed this. Now in most of the cases what happens is I would like to analyze what is the inclination of the slip surface alright. So AB happens to be the slip surface and what we want to do is we want to optimize value of theta though we know this value. So I have written here theta critical alright. So I want to find out what is the value of theta critical for the height of the wall H there is no friction on the base also there is no friction between the wall and this this is the horizontal surface and how to analyze this. So this is where people consider trial wedge AB and C. Now this is a beautiful application of rigid body mechanics which you have already done where if I want to understand what are the pressures which are going to come on the block because of the wall is a action reaction. So the soil is pressurizing the wall and wall is trying to contain the pressures coming from the backfill alright. So the best way to deal this type of situation would be if I isolate this block which is in local plastic equilibrium you remember we have differentiated between global and local plastic equilibrium global is the phenomena which happens because of the natural activity tectonic motions. Now this is a local phenomena which is mostly prevailing in the manmade structures where the dimensions are finite. So if I isolate the block which is in either active or passive state of equilibrium plastic equilibrium. So what we do is we consider this as the block. So this is the AB and C and this is theta angle. So the statement of the problem is what is theta when there is a weight of the block acting is this determinate or indeterminate parameter determinate is it not. So if I know the value of theta this angle is going to be theta this is going to be h cot theta this is going to be h. So weight is equal to half into gamma intentionally I am writing gamma because I am not sure about the condition of the unit weight which is going to prevail in the backfill clear. I can always alter the situation by creating this is water up to this limit or the whole soil mass is dry or there is a partial submersion and whatever clear. So let it be gamma multiplied by h into h cot theta multiplied by 1 is this okay. So 1 happens to be the third dimension perpendicular to the board. So this is the total weight of the system that means this is half gamma h square cot theta as simple as this. What this indicates is that the weight of the block which is under active or passive conditions of failure would depend primarily on the height of the confinement or the walls multiplied by the critical theta angle which is slip surface fine. Now if I ask you to find out or to complete the free body diagram first of all. So what we will do is if I show p is this correct basically what is happening is if this is the wall and this is the backfill under active earth pressure conditions what is going to happen active earth pressure condition is the condition in which the wall is going to be pushed out by the backfill. If I see the interface C A and if I detach the wall with the backfill material this is how it will look like. This is the wall and this is the block a wedge. Now wedge is trying to push the wall outside clear. So that means the wall is pushing the wedge inside. So this is the pressure which is coming from the wall onto the wedge. Is this part clear? So what we have done is we have isolated two forces W and P. Now what we cannot remain in equilibrium because of the two forces there has to be a third force also. So imagine if this block has a tendency to attain active earth pressure condition this block is trying to slide down on the surface AB. So when it is sliding down the direction of the friction would be upwards. This is the shear strength which is getting mobilized in the system. Is this part clear? So if I show a resultant force which is going to act on this surface slip surface as R. Now this resultant force is going to have two components. One is the shear force and the normal stress clear. So this is the net resultant force fine. So I can exhibit the components of the R over here. So this is your T the force which is getting mobilized on the plane or the slip surface having the components of the shear strength and this is a normal stress. Is this part clear? Now the body is going to be in equilibrium because we have three forces and these three forces are P, W and R. Now this is a typical state of equilibrium which we draw for active earth pressure condition. What is going to happen in the case of the passive earth pressures? So in case of passive earth pressure nothing much is going to change. This is the wedge. This remains theta and you know the values of theta are going to be different. I will write this as now PA and this as PP. Is this correct? The weight is acting the way I have shown. What about the reaction which is acting on the slip surface? Imagine close your eyes and imagine how it is going to happen. Now that visualization is very important. So first of all let us go in steps. If I have to draw this type of diagram over here by definition the passive earth pressure is a situation where the wall has a tendency to get moved into the backfill, clear? When it is happening this block with respect to the parent block you remember this is the parent block or the parent backfill which is in elastic condition. Now when this block is moving up the friction is going to get mobilized in the downward direction. Is this correct? The shear strength somewhere here you have the normal stress. So this is where I was showing let us say R and this is what is going to be the normal stress and is this clear conceptually? So we consider the pressure which is going to come on the backfill or on the wedge. So in that case what you are observing is this is the direction of mobilization of the shear stress. This is going to be the normal component and the way the R is going to act is slightly trivial. Have you come across this problem anywhere in mechanics? You have suppose I lift a block it is kept like this alright where it is acting downwards. Now if I have to scoop it out this is a scooping out action. You know what wall is doing? Wall is trying to push the system in clear? So the whole block is going to get scooped out fine. So if I hold it like this you must have done these problems in mechanics where you are analyzing the weight of the block which can be held by a calipers or a forciple like this. So what I am doing is I am just trying to detach this block from the parent body. So look at the motion. The motion of the block is inside and upwards and hence the friction is getting mobilized downwards. So as per the thumb rules when the soil mass gets moved inside there will be a hump formation clear? And what is going to happen over here? Because the material is moving out there is going to be a depression. So wherever you find depression in the humps getting formed in the natural systems you can make out whether these systems are under active or passive state of equilibrium fine. Now this part is simple. Now what we have ignored very conveniently in Rankine's theory is that this wall is smooth. In most of situations not going to happen. Now we call this as the effect of wall friction on the stability of the block. That means there is a friction component which is acting between the interface of the wall and the backfill block or the wedge. So now can you draw the free body diagram of the block when the friction gets mobilized? So suppose if I assume that this was the case of let us say tau equal to 0 at the interface. But suppose if I say tau is not equal to 0 and this is a rough wall. So now what we are doing is you must have noticed that we have started manipulating the theories alright. It is a deviation from the Rankine's theory. So the moment you introduce the wall friction over here what is going to happen? The tendency of the block is to slide down. That means the wall is trying to lift it up clear. So there is a component of friction which is going to come over here. The PA is acting over. It will not act as it is the way it has been shown. And what is going to happen is if this is the normal from the surface now this will be the direction of the PA and what we define this as a value delta and this delta is known as roughness of the wall clear. So the two components of the PA will be one is the normal stress. Another one is going to be the shear component which is acting at the interface of the block and the wall. And I think now you can do the free body diagram very easily if the block is trying to slip down this wall tends to push it up. This is how the friction gets mobilized. Rest of the things remain same alright. Have you understood this part? So this is the effect of the roughness of the wall. Now the question is what roughness is going to do? Whether it is going to enhance the active earth pressure which is acting on the wall or it is going to decrease the active earth pressure on the wall. So in most of these situations ultimately the objective is to optimize theta obtain theta critical. And once you know the obtain once you know the theta critical value I can substitute and I can get the value of PA. So the principle objective is PA which is a function of theta and W and H and unit weight. Similarly what we will try to do is we will try to find out Pp as a function of all this. And because I have talked about the roughness in the wall also delta term. So delta term will also get included. Normally this delta is taken as 2 thirds of phi or the limiting value could be about 10 degrees alright. So these are the values of theta delta. So these are the concepts which are involved and ultimately what we will do from the next class onwards is we will try to utilize these simple mechanistic models and first of all optimize theta value and get the values of PA and Pp which is most critical. And incidentally this theta critical is going to be the slip surface along which the failure is going to take place and we will try to prove that this is theta equal to 45 plus phi by 2 or 45 minus phi by 2 for what cases. So this is going to be for active earth pressure condition and this is going to be for passive earth pressure condition. Now I can include as many as complications as possible. I will include a surcharge over here no issues. I may include a lateral pressure also which is coming because of let us say earthquake or which is coming because of some other activity which is going on the site. So what I can do is certain fraction of W I can include in this direction also which is because of let us say earthquake acceleration. So once you have done the free body diagram later on nothing much is required.


There's so many parallels between the gay rights movement and the trans right movement in particular. There's parallels between the tactics used by the opposition to demonize these LGBTQ plus people and You would think that because there's so many similarities because this is all part of the same community The people who were wrong about gay rights who have changed their minds Would realize that oh my god This is headed in the same direction where I'm gonna be on the wrong side of history And maybe I should stop fighting and just learn to embrace people's dignity and human rights But no because what we've learned throughout the course of the last couple of decades is history repeats itself and Even if we kind of just heard these same arguments a mere 10 15 years ago We're hearing them once again because history sometimes repeats itself right after it just said what it said not too long ago so one parallel certainly is the Ex gay and the detrans movement So what the right is trying to do is de-legitimize trans people in the same way that they tried to de-legitimize gay people You de-legitimize gay people by claiming that this is a choice Really, you're not born gay you chose to be gay and we can de-convert you by giving you conversion therapy Now this is happening with trans people and a lot of people don't know about this A lot of cis people don't know about this But there is a de-transition movement where people who were formerly trans like ex-gays come out and say I'm no longer trans, but one of the darlings of the de-transition movement has come out and said Actually, all that stuff that I said about de-transitioning I take it all back. I'm actually trans as ABC News explains Kai Shevers is fighting back against the anti-trans movement She once took pardon Shevers was assigned the sex of female at birth and later chose to start gender-forming care by taking testosterone to transition from female to male in Her mid-twenties. She stopped taking testosterone though in the years that followed while she continued to explore and question her gender Later falling into an online anti-trans group of de-transitioners people who once did but no longer identify as transgender Now Shevers says she has re-transitioned Identifying as trans masculine and gender queer which means she identifies with both genders Shevers uses she and her pronouns, but heavily identifies with masculinity as defined by the LGBTQIA plus health education center states She says she considers herself to be part of the transgender community when Shevers initially stopped taking testosterone She sought out advice and companionship in online forums about de-transitioning in this virtual community Is where she began to adopt anti-trans beliefs that misogyny and a patriarchal society caused her to initially Transition from female to male in blog posts YouTube videos interviews and workshops She spread and promoted these beliefs these posts became a popular tool for anti-trans activists looking to discredit the trans community in the name of feminism and Similarly, we've seen a lot of ex-gays come out and say Actually, I'm gay. I Mean this is something that continues to happen Because believe it or not I know that Republicans don't like to think about this But it's really hard to exist as an LGBTQ plus person in the United States. You are constantly force-fed Self-hate you're taught to hate yourself from the second you realize you are who you are You know when I was a young gay man I immediately hated myself the second that I realized that I might be a little bit different So this is what they teach you and usually once you come to love and accept yourself It's hard to go back but propaganda and getting involved in this weird community that Kai found herself in Sometimes that's all it takes and you end up getting radicalized and you go back to hating yourself But ultimately what matters is you arrive at the correct conclusion and that is love and acceptance of yourself Now this whole detransition movement is something that is being used by the right to delegitimize trans people But as we're gonna learn here It's not actually that big LGBTQ nation explains the number of people reporting detransition is small According to a study this year from UCLA's Williams Institute 1.3 million adults in the United States identify as transgender or 0.05% of the population another 300,000 youth ages 13 to 17 do as well of those who transition about 8% report Detransitioning according to a 2015 survey by the National Center for Transgender Equality and most 62% of that 8% said detransition was temporary a 50-year survey in Sweden revealed about 2% of the trans population regretted undergoing gender-affirming surgery in other words 92% of trans people do not detransition So this is not one of those things where oh Everyone's just identifying as trans because it's a fad no when they are diagnosed with gender dysphoria and they transition doctors by and large are getting this correct now of the majority of people who Do detransition? It's temporary But why is that why come out as trans? Go back into the closet detransition and then come out as trans again Well, there's a number of factors a 2021 study by lgbt health finds that 82.5% Of those who detransitioned did so not because they regretted their decision But due to external factors such as pressure from family discriminatory school environments and increased vulnerability to violence and sexual assault in other words if society Accepted them and didn't treat them poorly. They wouldn't have been pressured into detransitioning But for the individuals that do detransition The right uses those anecdotes to push this idea that being trans is a choice or it's a fad and really Young people are being radicalized into this gender ideology and they're being taught to be trans because that's what's cool When in actuality that's not happening a long-term study which followed 317 trans children between the ages of 3 and 12 found that the overwhelming majority of them Still identified as transgender after five years and only 2.5 of them reverted to the gender that they were assigned at birth So in conclusion, this is not something that's being pushed On your children. This is not something that's a fad for your teenager or adults They're not just coming out as a trans because they see it as a trend And they want to be cool or special They're coming out as trans and non-binary because that's who they are And if some of them the small number of them to transition, it's usually temporary because they're not in a space Well, they're safe enough. I mean a lot of queer people gays included They aren't able to come out and be themselves because they're in a predicament where that could endanger their lives For example, I didn't come out until I was in my 20s because I was afraid that living with my parents I would be kicked out. Thankfully that was not the case when I came out But some people are not in predicaments where they can come out or if they do come out They have to hide who they are and the same is true for trans people So when you hear about this detrans movement, don't let the right use this as a justification to delegitimize and demonize trans people It is not a trend. It is a real thing And the best that we can do for all of humanity is just be respectful And accept when people tell us who they are. That's it. It's not that difficult to use the proper pronouns It's not that difficult to just accept Who these people are just embrace them and love them because like you and I They're just human beings that want to live period end of story


Hello and welcome to NewsClick. I am Paranjoy Guha Thakurtha in New Delhi. On the 11th of June, journalist Jyotirmoy Day was brutally murdered outside the residential complex he lived in, in Mumbai, in broad daylight. They was one of the finest crime reporters in this country. He was known for his investigative reporting and two weeks after his death there is considerable speculation as to who were responsible for his death. I have with me here Sachin Kalbag. He is the executive editor of Midday Mumbai, the newspaper for which they used to work. Sachin, thank you so much for coming here. You know, when you look at the circumstances under which they was brutally murdered, what was your reaction when you heard that something like this has happened and what were the thoughts that went through your head and why do you think he was targeted? These are the first few questions I want to ask you. Yeah, first of all, I was shocked. I mean, as any editor would be, any colleague of J-Day was, it was completely unbelievable that in a city like Mumbai an investigative reporter of the stature of J-Day would be murdered. My first reaction was, oh my God, with story has he done, that culminated in his murder. And the more I think about this, about what stories he has done, what investigative reporting he has done, the more I think about it and I think that there could be hundreds of people who could be responsible for this. I mean, he had done various stories on the underworld, police corruption, bureaucratic corruption, the mafias. The Mumbai, apart from being the commercial capital of India, is also possibly the mafia capital of India because there are all kinds of mafias. There is a water mafia, there is a sand mafia, there is the oil mafia, there is the adulteration mafia. Tell us a little bit of some of these investigative reports that J-Day did, which perhaps would certainly have antagonized very, very powerful and influential elements within the underworld. That is my point. It is not just the underworld who may have been responsible. There are elements in society in Mumbai, whether they are builders, whether they are people who are engaged in the water trade, whether they are people engaged in the oil trade. They are not necessarily the underworld in the classical sense of the underworld, but these sectors have become so criminalized and the organized crime in these sectors is so rampant that it could be anybody. Recently, he had done several stories on builders, inconsistencies in the legalities of certain buildings. So, clearly there are people that he spoke about openly. There has been a lot of speculation as to whether it could have been a job which was done even by certain rogue elements within the Mumbai police. We keep hearing the names of certain individuals. One police person who is named cropped up in this case was that of his assistant commissioner of police Anil Mahawali, but he himself denies that he has nothing to do with it. What are the possibilities that it could be not just the mafia, but elements, corrupt elements within the police department of Mumbai who were unhappy with the kind of investigative reports that J-Day was putting out in your newspaper. The case of Anil Mahawali is very intriguing. He is intriguing because since 2007, Anil Mahawali was under the scanner of the Anti-Corruption Bureau of the Mumbai Police and there has been a report which was submitted to the Mumbai Police Commissioner as well as to the state government on his links with the underworld. I mean he used to dine and drink and dine with Hasina Parker who is the direct sister of Dawud Ibrahim, the underworld don who is now allegedly in Pakistan. Now when the Anti-Corruption Bureau of the Mumbai Police has indicted a certain officer, it is incumbent on the senior officers to take action against him or at least investigate him further and look into the links. But for four years, nothing of this sort happened and ACP Mahawali continued in the most encodes lucrative zone of South Mumbai. So that created a bit of a problem, especially when our other reporter, Tarakan Diweli was arrested under the official secret side. It is important for you to talk about what happened to Tarakan Diweli also known as a Kela. I understand that he wrote reports even before he joined midday about how various kinds of equipment and ammunition that had been purchased by the law enforcement authorities, by the police and by the railway police and the Bombay police had been literally kept in the open where it would rain and by writing this investigative report he ended up being arrested and that too under the official secrets act. How did this happen? Akela had written a story in 2010 about the RPF Armory where you know expensive equipment was bought for the protection of the railway premises by the RPF and they were rotting in the rain because you know there was a leakage in the roof and where the armory was and Akela had gone along with the photographer to do the story. He wrote that story, the photographer published a story, published a picture of the armory being where the equipment was rotting and surprisingly 9 months or 10 months later he was arrested under the official secrets act. Now the letter the FIR was lodged under section 447 of the Indian Penal Code which talks about unlawful entry but the when Akela went to give the statement to the his statement to the police suddenly and mysteriously this official secrets act was invoked by a senior officer and he was arrested and as you know the official secrets act is so draconian that it's very difficult to get bail in in the lower courts. And imagine if this is happening in the heart of Mumbai what kind of message does the rest of the journalistic fraternity get in different parts of the country. You made a right point I mean the whole idea of intimidating Akela was not to intimidate Akela alone the whole idea was to intimidate the media fraternity in general that if you go if you fall foul of our interests then we'll get after you and this is my fear is that this is the same thing that happened with JD. I mean JD had been an investigative reporter for more than two decades nearly two and a half decades and it could be that you know he's written so many stories against so many people that any of those people would have you know have a grudge against him. You know tell me a little bit more about the you know he was in his mid 50s when he was brutally assassinated I was told he was a tall person six feet four inches but a very very gentle and a very very person who had a lot of warmth towards his colleagues tell us a little bit more about the kind of person they were not only as a human being but also as a professional. I worked very briefly with him in the first in the early 90s when we actually started our careers together I was only 21 and he was in his mid 30s at that time and you know even at that time he was very quiet he was this huge six foot four inch guy and our office was very small and he would intimidate everyone you know with his with his stature and you know but he would his personality was exactly the opposite of his crime writing. I mean he would expose people with the arrogance and the aggression of a heavyweight boxer but in the office while dealing with people while talking to editors or even copy editors on the news desk he would be extremely polite and you know refer to them as sir or madam and he would not do this in jest he would do this very genuinely I mean he would call me I am I was 20 years younger to him and he would call me sir and you know so much he was so quiet about various things that people working with him in his next cubicle for four years and five years would not know you know who his wife was or you know what he was doing during the day in fact several people realized after he died that his wife was a former colleague of ours at midday he was so secretive about even his personal life so you know he would keep quiet he would you know give you know keep to his own counsel unless there was a breaking story and there was a big story in which case you know both of us used to talk at length because there were legal implications involved there were documentary evidence that we needed so but he was very thorough in that I mean he would not come to my office and say I am doing a story but I have no leads I have no sources he would come in the office and say this is the 55 page document that I have got against this guy and let's do this story so I had the courage of going ahead with the story because he gave me the courage that he's got the documentary evidence to back it up if jay day's death is not to be in vain if at the end of the day despite the fact that here was an honest upright investigative journalist who sought to expose corruption in high places who sought to report about the links between the underworld and the police department about important politicians about influential business people builders and so if his death is not to be in vain if there are some important lessons that all of us as journalists that the media fraternity in India and the world has to learn what according to you are those important lessons that we all need to learn I think first we need to the media fraternity in India needs to be closing it and fight this menace together because right now you know with with the economic boom in the country the interest the economic interests of certain sectors has grown so wide and so big that it's you know it's actually difficult for a newspaper like midday a mid-sized newspaper like midday to to fight it alone or in the case of I be and look much we know where when its offices were attacked two years ago or any of the individual journalists and the rural areas or the the so-called be towns are attacked what happens is that you know those cases go unnoticed or if they are noticed then after five or six days because of our short attention spans they're off the pages of our own newspaper or at our television channels so this should not happen that you know if there are attacks on journalists it should be a concerted continuous effort on part of the journalist organization as well as media houses to continue the fight point number two is that crime reporters and investigative journalists should be aware of the dangers that they are they are they they face I'm glad you're mentioning the what you know if journalists indeed have to face certain dangers if there are certain occupational hazards how do they ensure that you know there is at least some sort of a protection well firstly understand the signs I mean in the case of JD I you know he's he did not speak to me about any of the threat calls that he may have got or he did not speak to them about about the calls with his colleagues in the immediate crime department but if if he had received any calls from an interested party a threat call maybe threaten his family threaten him or you know threaten him with you know whatever consequences those signs need to be taken very very seriously now I mean until now journalists had a very nauseous attitude about you know threats especially crime reporters when I think that the more you know threats they get the more important they are that is not the case anymore JD's case should be a wake up call not only to the authorities but also to the media fraternity that there is a clear and present danger on on our lives especially if we do in so-called inconvenient stories and the the more we continue you know this solidarity the more we are aware of the dangers and we are aware of those dangers in time quickly then we can approach the correct or the right authorities in in the case of JD if he was doing a story an investigative story that I knew would have resulted in his death I have told him don't do that story because for me you are more or take a number of precautions you know because for me your life is more important because you know there are than a story because you know there are 100 other stories to be done thank you very much Sachin for talking to you thank you