wired2tech.com

Saturday, June 18, 2005

On Thursday night, California State Senator Joe Dunn held the second town hall meeting regarding a recent outbreak of leukemia in schoolchildren, at Franklin Elementary in Santa Ana, California. Representatives from the City of Santa Ana, the Santa Ana Unified School District, and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) were available to answer the community’s questions.

Senator Dunn started off the meeting by thanking the panelists and parents for showing their support by attending. “We are trying to address a very, very important issue. What’s the issue? We have high rates of cancer, leukemia, and respiratory problems in our children. Why are our kids sick? This is a very difficult question,” he said. “What’s causing the sickness in our children, and how can we avoid it? We can all agree that no one wants to see another sick child in Santa Ana.” The audience applauded. “Three weeks ago, we heard from two parents and a teacher, they told us about some deaths.”

The previous town hall meeting was held to address concerns of the community about a steel plating manufacturing plant that applied to the AQMD for a permit to expand its facilities to increase pollution emissions. Parents and teachers were concerned over the facts that the plant was located directly adjacent to Kennedy Elementary School, and that their children were experiencing high levels of lead, respiratory problems, excessive nose-bleeding, and leukemia.

“How many businesses in Santa Ana are required to obtain permits for [emissions] of hazardous pollutants?” This question Dunn posed at the last meeting was answered by the AQMD and the Orange County Sanitation District, who provided maps of Santa Ana with green flags indicating where businesses with emissions permits were located. “I can tell you one thing, at the end of the meeting, we won’t have all of the answers… but we’ll certainly have another Town Hall meeting.

Initial concerns were raised when five boys attending Franklin Elementary were diagnosed with the same type of leukemia in Spring 2002. Attempts to gain an investigation from the Center for Disease Control (CDC) into possible causes were not successful as the Center told parents that the cases “were in an acceptable range”. Parents, teachers, public officials, and doctors remain unconvinced. In the past three years, 19 mothers living in an apartment building a block away from Franklin were also diagnosed with leukemia.

Dunn then introduced a teacher at Franklin, Tammy Sanchez. Tammy said, “In December 2002, we received some very disturbing news. One of my students was diagnosed with leukemia. Then, more children at Franklin were diagnosed with leukemia. I later found out that three kids at a nearby apartment building were diagnosed with leukemia. Sanchez then explained about more cancer-related deaths near Franklin, including 19 mothers all living in he same apartment building who were diagnosed with leukemia, which took over three minutes. “To me, this is way too much,” said Sanchez.

Socorro Molina, whose son Diego, a student at Franklin, is undergoing treatment for his leukemia, had this to say: “My son has leukemia. I’m worried, because there are many kids. Children who played with my son died from leukemia. They should do some investigations of these companies.” Senator Dunn responded, “Thank you, Socorro. I know it’s difficult to share that privately, and you have shared this with us publicly on two occasions.”

Senator Dunn then said, “at the end of that [previous] meeting, we were requested by a parent for a map of all businesses releasing toxic materials. We asked the AQMD for a map that showed every single business [in Santa Ana] that releases harmful materials into our air. This is that map. The heaviest concentration of these businesses are, guess where? Near Franklin. This map is striking. The OCSD gave us a map showing all businesses that release toxic materials into our sewers. The largest concentration of these businesses are, guess where? Near Franklin and Kennedy [Elementary Schools].” Senator Dunn promised that at the next town hall meeting, he will have a panel of scientists present to determine if the substances released by these business pose a health risk to residents of the area. “We are going to keep at this until we find out what is making our kids sick,” he said.

Santa Ana City Council member Jose Solorio said that “the city has been following the media’s attention. I got to tell you, this is a very complex issue. The city has jurisdiction over land use; they can issue restrictions. We, as elected officials, need to know more.” Solorio then introduced the city’s planning director and other city officials. Solorio added, “the mayor of Santa Ana, Miguel Pulido, is a board-member for AQMD.” Miguel Pulido has not attended any of the town hall meetings, and has not spoken about this issue at any time.

Dunn then introduced the next panelist, Santa Ana Unified School District board member Rosemary Avila. She said, “the school board is looking into this. I’ve talked to some teachers on the phone I believe the federal disease organization has been contacted about this.” The Center for Disease Control was notified by parents of the leukemia cases in Santa Ana, but stated that they were “within the acceptable range”. Avila then introduced some school board officials, and said, “there has been some concern in the past, and we have looked into that. As a school district, we really have to act not out of fear, but with facts.”

Jill Whynot of the AQMD noted that “there are 515 facilities [in Santa Ana] that we issue permits to”. Barry Wallerstein, Executive Officer of the AQMD said, “we appreciate the forum. There appears to be a need for closer air quality monitoring. So, I propose that we make Santa Ana a high priority and closely monitor air quality in your community.” That statement was met with much applause from the audience.

Senator Dunn responded, “we thank the AQMD for being here and answering our questions. We will be sure to let everybody know about any updates. When I looked at the map, I was struck. There are 515 permitted businesses in Santa Ana. We will bring some scientists in at the next town hall meeting to determine which businesses are releasing carcinogenic pollutants,” he said. “When I look at the maps, there are two pockets of permitted facilities in Santa Ana. Do you [AQMD] look at the cumulative impact of facilities grouped together [when considering issuing a permit]?” Dunn posed.

Dr. Wallerstein responded, “the short answer is ‘partially'”.

Senator Dunn, responding to Dr. Wallerstein’s comments, said “if we need to give AQMD more power in terms of cumulative impact of permitted facilities, then we will introduce legislation to give them that power.” The Senator then asked City Councilman Solorio, “does the city in any way look at what type of business it is, or its cumulative impact [when approving a business]?”

Solorio responded, “one of the main things the city does is make a General Plan, and unlike Irvine or Newport Beach, we are an older city.” Solorio went on to talk about how in the future, the city could pass litigation limit permits, and said that “we all need to do our part”. Referring to concerns about the steel plating plant next to a school, he said, “Markland came into an industrial area, so they have a legal right to set up shop”.

Dunn asked Solorio if the city is now looking at regulation to limit this, and Solorio responded, “We always have opportunities to look at our General Plan, and we need to have solid facts to make those decisions”. Dunn asked Dr. Wallerstein, “what about this pocket of businesses in south Santa Ana, is that unusual?” Wallerstein responded, “Senator, I don’t think that’s an issue”.

Dunn then opened up the floor to public questions and comments. One mother of three asked, “when are we going to have answers?”, while a younger woman said, directed toward the AQMD, “your job is to know if this is going to give kids leukemia. I’m very disappointed”. One woman said, “I live in Heninger Park, where all of the kids are getting Leukemia. I’ve been trying to tell the city and Code Enforcement about illegal underground painters and mechanics who leave paint and fumes behind; which is causing residents to leave”.

There was intense debate over the public officials’ efforts to investigate health quality at the location in question. Parents expressed their concerns about water quality and illegal activities in the community; and spoke about their children’s various health problems, from high copper and lead levels in the bloodstream, to respiratory and lung problems, and cancer.

Monday, July 11, 2011

Syrian forces have raided the city of Homs, and has killed at least one civilian and injured twenty from machine gunfire and armor activity in heavily populated areas. This raid is reportedly the heaviest since troops were deployed to the city two months ago in an effort to crush dissent against the country’s President Bashar al-Assad, whose family has ruled the country for 41 years, from ongoing protests.

In Hama, which is 50 km north of Homs, Security forces made arrests, and gunshots were reported by activists in the area. No causalities were reported.

Demonstrations against the president have spread since ordered tanks into towns and cities where large numbers of protesters appeared. The campaign has been violent, and has claimed the lives of at least 1,400 people since the uprisings began in March, according to human rights groups.

The raids on activists comes at a time after the vice-president of the country, Farouq al-Shara opened “national dialogue” in a attempt to allow discussion on reforms, such as allowing other parties then the ruling Baath Party. Mostly Assad supporters attended, and opposition groups have boycotted the conference, citing that actions of the security arm of the government and Assad’s loyalists continues to operate with impunity.

Wikinews and other independent media outlets have been unable to confirm the reports, as Syria has banned international journalists from entering the country.

Saturday, July 17, 2010

Toyota Motor Company announced they have formalized an agreement to develop an electric version of the RAV4 SUV with Tesla Motors.

In May 2010, Akio Toyoda and Elon Musk, leaders of Toyota and Tesla, respectively, announced they would work together on electric vehicles. The agreement formalizes this announcement and would allow Tesla to work with Toyota at an automobile production plant in California.

The plant will open 2011, when Tesla reopens it after it bought the Fremont, California plant. The plant was previously used by Toyota and General Motors, but was shut down when Toyota said it would not produce cars in California.

Tesla currently produces only a single model, the US$109,000 Roadster, although it is currently designing a second model, the Model S, which will be produced at the Fremont factory.

Analysts supported the move; John Boesel, CEO of a green-transportation trade group, said that “Toyota’s willingness to partner with Tesla to provide an electric version of one of the Japanese automaker’s existing vehicles suggests the partnership between the two companies is going to be a meaningful one.”

Following this announcement, Tesla’s shares rose $0.75, while Toyota’s fell $1.65.

Monday, August 31, 2015

A fire in the eastern Saudi city of Alkhobar tore through a housing complex for oil workers yesterday, killing eleven, according to civil officials.

The Radium complex is rented by oil firm Aramco for their employees. According to nearby resident Mohammed Siddique the fire broke out early in the morning. Siddique says the building contains locals, as well as Westerners and Asians. The cause is unclear but the civil defence ministry tweeted “Cars and furniture caught fire in the basement of one of the towers”.

Over 200 people were injured. Firefighters scaled the burning tower on ladders, and helicopters were on-scene. Other towers in the complex were evacuated. Thick smoke from the blaze complicated rescue efforts.

Aramco CEO Amin H. Nasser said the firm is “deeply saddened to learn of the fatalities and injuries. We offer heartfelt condolences to the families. Our immediate priority is to provide full support to those affected by this tragic incident.” Aramco, which produces and exports more crude oil than any competitor worldwide, say the fire is under investigation.

Thursday, December 18, 2008

A team of eight transplant surgeons in Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, USA, led by reconstructive surgeon Dr. Maria Siemionow, age 58, have successfully performed the first almost total face transplant in the US, and the fourth globally, on a woman so horribly disfigured due to trauma, that cost her an eye. Two weeks ago Dr. Siemionow, in a 23-hour marathon surgery, replaced 80 percent of her face, by transplanting or grafting bone, nerve, blood vessels, muscles and skin harvested from a female donor’s cadaver.

The Clinic surgeons, in Wednesday’s news conference, described the details of the transplant but upon request, the team did not publish her name, age and cause of injury nor the donor’s identity. The patient’s family desired the reason for her transplant to remain confidential. The Los Angeles Times reported that the patient “had no upper jaw, nose, cheeks or lower eyelids and was unable to eat, talk, smile, smell or breathe on her own.” The clinic’s dermatology and plastic surgery chair, Francis Papay, described the nine hours phase of the procedure: “We transferred the skin, all the facial muscles in the upper face and mid-face, the upper lip, all of the nose, most of the sinuses around the nose, the upper jaw including the teeth, the facial nerve.” Thereafter, another team spent three hours sewing the woman’s blood vessels to that of the donor’s face to restore blood circulation, making the graft a success.

The New York Times reported that “three partial face transplants have been performed since 2005, two in France and one in China, all using facial tissue from a dead donor with permission from their families.” “Only the forehead, upper eyelids, lower lip, lower teeth and jaw are hers, the rest of her face comes from a cadaver; she could not eat on her own or breathe without a hole in her windpipe. About 77 square inches of tissue were transplanted from the donor,” it further described the details of the medical marvel. The patient, however, must take lifetime immunosuppressive drugs, also called antirejection drugs, which do not guarantee success. The transplant team said that in case of failure, it would replace the part with a skin graft taken from her own body.

Dr. Bohdan Pomahac, a Brigham and Women’s Hospital surgeon praised the recent medical development. “There are patients who can benefit tremendously from this. It’s great that it happened,” he said.

Leading bioethicist Arthur Caplan of the University of Pennsylvania withheld judgment on the Cleveland transplant amid grave concerns on the post-operation results. “The biggest ethical problem is dealing with failure — if your face rejects. It would be a living hell. If your face is falling off and you can’t eat and you can’t breathe and you’re suffering in a terrible manner that can’t be reversed, you need to put on the table assistance in dying. There are patients who can benefit tremendously from this. It’s great that it happened,” he said.

Dr Alex Clarke, of the Royal Free Hospital had praised the Clinic for its contribution to medicine. “It is a real step forward for people who have severe disfigurement and this operation has been done by a team who have really prepared and worked towards this for a number of years. These transplants have proven that the technical difficulties can be overcome and psychologically the patients are doing well. They have all have reacted positively and have begun to do things they were not able to before. All the things people thought were barriers to this kind of operations have been overcome,” she said.

The first partial face transplant surgery on a living human was performed on Isabelle Dinoire on November 27 2005, when she was 38, by Professor Bernard Devauchelle, assisted by Professor Jean-Michel Dubernard in Amiens, France. Her Labrador dog mauled her in May 2005. A triangle of face tissue including the nose and mouth was taken from a brain-dead female donor and grafted onto the patient. Scientists elsewhere have performed scalp and ear transplants. However, the claim is the first for a mouth and nose transplant. Experts say the mouth and nose are the most difficult parts of the face to transplant.

In 2004, the same Cleveland Clinic, became the first institution to approve this surgery and test it on cadavers. In October 2006, surgeon Peter Butler at London‘s Royal Free Hospital in the UK was given permission by the NHS ethics board to carry out a full face transplant. His team will select four adult patients (children cannot be selected due to concerns over consent), with operations being carried out at six month intervals. In March 2008, the treatment of 30-year-old neurofibromatosis victim Pascal Coler of France ended after having received what his doctors call the worlds first successful full face transplant.

Ethical concerns, psychological impact, problems relating to immunosuppression and consequences of technical failure have prevented teams from performing face transplant operations in the past, even though it has been technically possible to carry out such procedures for years.

Mr Iain Hutchison, of Barts and the London Hospital, warned of several problems with face transplants, such as blood vessels in the donated tissue clotting and immunosuppressants failing or increasing the patient’s risk of cancer. He also pointed out ethical issues with the fact that the procedure requires a “beating heart donor”. The transplant is carried out while the donor is brain dead, but still alive by use of a ventilator.

According to Stephen Wigmore, chair of British Transplantation Society’s ethics committee, it is unknown to what extent facial expressions will function in the long term. He said that it is not certain whether a patient could be left worse off in the case of a face transplant failing.

Mr Michael Earley, a member of the Royal College of Surgeon‘s facial transplantation working party, commented that if successful, the transplant would be “a major breakthrough in facial reconstruction” and “a major step forward for the facially disfigured.”

In Wednesday’s conference, Siemionow said “we know that there are so many patients there in their homes where they are hiding from society because they are afraid to walk to the grocery stores, they are afraid to go the the street.” “Our patient was called names and was humiliated. We very much hope that for this very special group of patients there is a hope that someday they will be able to go comfortably from their houses and enjoy the things we take for granted,” she added.

In response to the medical breakthrough, a British medical group led by Royal Free Hospital’s lead surgeon Dr Peter Butler, said they will finish the world’s first full face transplant within a year. “We hope to make an announcement about a full-face operation in the next 12 months. This latest operation shows how facial transplantation can help a particular group of the most severely facially injured people. These are people who would otherwise live a terrible twilight life, shut away from public gaze,” he said.

Friday, January 4, 2013

Recently, Wikinews spent time with with Australian Paralympic wheelchair basketballer Shelley Chaplin.

((Wikinews)) Interview with Shelley Chaplin. First of all, what position do you play?

Shelley Chaplin: Usually a point guard.

((WN)) Right. And whenever I go to see the basketball in Canberra, we pass by a glass case. In the case is a guernsey with number twelve on it, and a big sign that says that this was the guernsey worn by Shelley Chaplin…

Shelley Chaplin: That’s me! That’s my…

((WN)) It’s signed by the rest of the team, if you look — press your nose to the glass and look really close. How did that come to be there?

Shelley Chaplin: It’s actually the singlet that I wore in Beijing. Usually you get people to sign stuff. Anyway, the AIS just asked everybody if we would donate something […]. I wasn’t using it so, yeah, I gave them that.

((WN)) Oh okay.

Shelley Chaplin: I don’t think they have it… It’s been there for a while now. It think that was a four year loan or something like that.

((WN)) I think it’s been there for longer than that.

Shelley Chaplin: It’s been there for longer than that. Or — it must be four years around about now. Went in just after Beijing.

((WN)) So they’ll return that to you?

Shelley Chaplin: They’ll return it at some point. I mean, I like it. It’s nice to have it there. It’s good that they have some stuff from wheelchair basketball there, and I don’t need it, so, yeah.

((WN)) How did you get into playing wheelchair basketball?

Shelley Chaplin: After the Atlanta Paralympics actually. There was a welcome home parade in Melbourne. So I never knew anything about wheelchair sports before that. And I went to the parade, and I used to walk around, but that day I used a wheelchair because I was really tired, and someone just approached me and said “Hey, do you know anything about wheelchair sports? You should get involved!” And, yeah, so I did! I tried everything, and I liked basketball the most.

((WN)) And you’re a three point player?

Shelley Chaplin: Three point five.

((WN)) I’d never seen the game before. My first experience of it was when the Gliders came out on the court for that first game [in London], and I was really taken with the sport from the word go. It has a sort of grace that normal basketball lacks. But otherwise it’s very similar.

Shelley Chaplin: Yeah! I think people are often quite surprised by wheelchair basketball, what it is when they actually see it. I think the name “wheelchair” basketball means disability obviously, but when you watch it there’s nothing about disability to it at all. Just that we use wheelchairs, and that’s it. It’s just another sport.

((WN)) People in the press gallery were saying “I’ve just got to get out in a chair and…”

Shelley Chaplin: Try it! Yeah!

((WN)) So how did you get to go to Illinois?

Shelley Chaplin: After the Athens Paralympics…

((WN)) You won the bronze medal there?

Shelley Chaplin: No, we won silver in Athens…

((WN)) Silver in Athens, bronze in Beijing.

Shelley Chaplin: Yeah, while I was over there I met one of the American girls, and she was about to take up a scholarship there. And so I ended up meeting the coach, who was in Athens coaching the Canadian men’s team. So I ended up meeting him, and chatting to him about maybe going over there, and then when I got home I followed it up, and they offered me a scholarship, so I took it. So he’d already seen me play at the Paralympics, and knew who I was, so it was good.

((WN)) Which lead to what we ran on the front page of Wikipedia.

Shelley Chaplin: Oh yeah! I saw that! That was great!

((WN)) That’s why I rang up up and asked for your birth place. Somebody raised an objection, and said maybe she was born in the US.

Shelley Chaplin: Nope!

((WN)) I thought that was pretty spectacular, because there’s not a lot of athletes in any sport that have done that [been All-American without being American].

Shelley Chaplin: Cool. Definitely cool.

((WN)) How did your team go while you were there?

Shelley Chaplin: While I was there we… I was there for five years. The first three years we were national champions.

((WN)) For five years from 2004 to 2009?

Shelley Chaplin: No, I didn’t actually go until 2005. So I went in August of 2005. And I finished up in May of 2010. I went to five national championships, and we won three and came runners up in two.

((WN)) Wow!

Shelley Chaplin: Yeah! We had a good team.

((WN)) So you said you played for a club here in Melbourne as well?

Shelley Chaplin: Yeah, I play for the Dandenong Rangers here. We’ve just won two championships in a row. So… hopefully three this year.

((WN)) Wow!

Shelley Chaplin: Yeah! It’s pretty cool.

((WN)) That’s a pretty amazing record.

Shelley Chaplin: Yeah.

((WN)) And then of course there’s the Gliders as well. You’ve got the gold… no wait…

Shelley Chaplin: No, not the gold! Not yet! Two silvers and a bronze!

((WN)) I was sure you’d be saying “I’ve already got the silver and the bronze. Give me the gold!”

Shelley Chaplin: Yeah, that’s exactly what I was saying! No, I think we just had a young team and…

((WN)) Well, the team’s pretty much the same one as in Athens isn’t it?

Shelley Chaplin: No! There was probably only four players from Athens that were the same. We’ve got a lot of young players that are just sort of coming into their own in wheelchair basketball, so.

((WN)) What I noticed was when I looked over the statistics of basketball over the time you’ve been playing, the scores have been going up.

Shelley Chaplin: Yes. I think that’s partly to do with that we changed to a size six ball, so we went to a women’s ball. Until 2006 we were still playing with a size seven, which is a men’s ball. So we changed that. I think that helped with our statistics, ’cause it’s easier for women to handle the ball and stuff like that. I also think there’s been a big increase in the professionalism of wheelchair basketball internationally, so you have a lot of people who are training every day for this. Whereas I know leading into Athens not everyone was training full time. But now everyone’s a full time athlete.

((WN)) So you are a full time athlete?

Shelley Chaplin: Yep, I was. Leading into London I was. So from halfway through 2011 till the Paralympics — so, probably a year — I was a full time athlete. So we trained three times a day, five days a week. Play on the weekends.

((WN)) So you got a grant from the government?

Shelley Chaplin: Yep, the Australian Sports Commission supports us. And so does Basketball Australia obviously. […]

((WN)) That’s pretty intense though. Have you taken a break since then?

Shelley Chaplin: Yeah, since London I haven’t played any basketball. Been doing a lot of different things.

((WN)) Like what?

Shelley Chaplin: Just gotten into hand cycling actually.

((WN)) Oh okay.

Shelley Chaplin: Yeah, so myself and one of my team mates, Leanne del Toso, who was in London as well, we have decided to do a fund raiser. So we’re going to ride around the perimeter of Fiji. And so it’s 550 kilometres in ten days. So I’m going to be on a hand cycle, and Leanne, who can walk, is going to be on a real bike. She has really weak legs. So we’re going to do that. Raise some money and awareness for women in sport.

((WN)) Wow!

Shelley Chaplin: Yeah, it’s really exciting.

((WN)) When is that?

Shelley Chaplin: We go in June. But next month we’re going to launch a big fund raising campaign to get together all the money to do it all. But yeah, it’s pretty cool.

((WN)) Are you still with the basketball? Are you going to continue with that?

Shelley Chaplin: Yep! I do! So two weeks, no less than two weeks, the fourteenth of January, we go to the AIS for our first training camp of the Rio campaign.

((WN)) So I might be able to catch you guys again there.

Shelley Chaplin: From the fourteenth to the seventeenth.

((WN)) It must have been disappointing in London — Let me put it like this: I’m watching the game, and it’s “oh no, they’re losing” but you don’t look like you’re losing. You look like you’re having the time of your life.

Shelley Chaplin: Yeah! Definitely. I mean, what we play for is to play on the world stage and it is a lot of fun.

((WN)) Did you see how many people were there was?

Shelley Chaplin: Yeah, it was insane. In-sane.

((WN)) I was staring up at the top and I could not see the top rows. They were completely in darkness.

Shelley Chaplin: There was so many people there, and they were all supporting us. It was so much fun. It was the best I’ve ever done. But yeah, of course it’s disappointing, because you don’t want to win silver, or lose gold, but…

((WN)) The silver’s pretty good!

Shelley Chaplin: Yeah, being second in the world’s pretty good, definitely, but silver’s tough.

((WN)) It’s just that the Gliders have never won. They’ve never won the World Championship, they’ve never won at the Paralympics.

Shelley Chaplin: We’ve never won. Yeah, so obviously we wanted to change that. So yeah, definitely disappointing. We did what we were capable of. It wasn’t like we underperformed. We didn’t play badly. We just weren’t quite good enough.

((WN)) Yeah.

Shelley Chaplin: And the Germans were very good. They worked really hard.

((WN)) Really good.

Shelley Chaplin: They were very good, so…

((WN)) You played pretty well.

Shelley Chaplin: We had patches where we didn’t play well, but that’s basketball.

((WN)) The whole team needed to find something and lift, because like… we interviewed one of your team mates, and she we can’t expect to win if we’re shooting 39 per cent. Then of course you went ahead and won two games shooting 39 per cent, which sort of made a bit of a liar out of her…

Shelley Chaplin: Yeah, well our biggest strength was our defence, so if we can play the defence, we can.

((WN)) The defence was where you won those games. You blocked them off. Particularly Mexico, they couldn’t… Canada was even better. You kept on forcing turnovers, forcing timeouts. That was the defensive game, was the way you won it.

Shelley Chaplin: Absolutely.

((WN)) But Germany had a good defensive game as well. It must have been good, playing on your birthday.

Shelley Chaplin: It was really cool. The whole team, the whole Australian Paralympic team wished me happy birthday, the whole crowd sang me happy birthday and this sort of stuff. It was pretty special, but once you get into it, it’s just another game. I know all the people were talking about the fact that it was my birthday, but it didn’t [get to me]. It was fun. It was fun. Not a bad place to have your birthday.

((WN)) So how do you compare London with Beijing and Athens?

Shelley Chaplin: Well, I think every games gets a little bit better anyway. Like, Beijing was better than Athens and I think London was a lot better than Beijing again. But I think the special thing about London is that it was British, and so they obviously support Australians, but we were just athletes to them, I think. Whereas in Beijing we were still disabled athletes. But in London we were just athletes and they loved our sport and they understood our sport, which was really cool. The crowds… it was amazing.

((WN)) We have a lot of statistics on the response to it. Unfortunately, being in London I couldn’t see the TV coverage.

Shelley Chaplin: Back here the ABC did a fantastic job with us. Everybody knows about the Paralympics. Everybody saw something.

((WN)) Apparently there was extra requests for the Gliders. So more people wanted to see you.

Shelley Chaplin: People like basketball. Basketball is very easy to relate to. Team sports are good to watch. But I think, like I was saying earlier, if you take away the wheelchair, there’s nothing to do with disabilities. If an able bodied jumped into a wheelchair, it’s exactly the same as us. Whereas an able bodied can’t run against someone with blades. You know?

((WN)) Yes.

Shelley Chaplin: So I think that’s why; it’s very relatable, and obviously it’s fun to watch.

((WN)) It seems be be getting bigger with each set of games.

Shelley Chaplin: Definitely.

((WN)) I’ve got figures from Google. London is twice as big.

Shelley Chaplin: Yep. Absolutely. The Paralympic movement is exciting because we’re all amateur athletes, and we’re all doing it because we love the sport. I think, during Beijing, I know in the Australian media they tried to get everyone to look away from our disabilities and look at us just as athletes, but I think in London they were like, here’s their disabilities, here’s what they are doing athletically, and combining the two, which made for amazing coverage, right? Cause everyone understood our disabilities but our sport as well.

((WN)) Some of the things you were doing. The three point shot from a chair.

Shelley Chaplin: Yeah.

((WN)) And the speed at which you moved at times, in excess of what someone without a chair could do. It’s just a fabulous sport.

Shelley Chaplin: I think so!

((WN)) Are you’re definitely up for Rio as well?

Shelley Chaplin: Yep. Definitely. Obviously, it will be my fourth games and I was going to retire after London, but I’m still good enough to do it, and I’m young, I’m only only 28. So, yeah, I think I can play another games in me. The Paralympic movement as I was saying is so exciting right now. I can’t even imagine what Rio is going to be like. It’s going to be massive. Yeah, I want to be part of it. And representing your country is a big deal.

((WN)) Well I look forward to seeing you there. Thanks very much!

Shelley Chaplin: No worries!