2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

I understand that a dynamic radio show needs some disagreement and tension. Still, I am disappointed at the way you have fashioned today's debate beginning with your title, opening sentences, and insistence on talking about the politics of to-dam-or-not-to-dam with the authors of the study.

The study's results are interesting, but even its authors repeatedly claimed that they were not out to study the effects of dams on the salmon population. You do a disservice to the scientific process and to the debate by stretching the study to try and fit into your topic.

posted 4 years, 6 months ago
view in context