Speaker 1: Good evening, viewers, and thank you for joining us. On
Speaker 1: this week's last segment, we are going to go over
Speaker 1: to Ukraine and talk about the Chernobyl nuclear reactor, once
Speaker 1: destroyed in the nineteen eighties, again apparently destroyed, and some
Speaker 1: of our panel members have different opinions about how dangerous
Speaker 1: it really is. But to take us away our very
Speaker 1: own Tracy Wilbert.
Speaker 2: On April twenty sixth, nineteen eighty six, at one twenty
Speaker 2: three am local time, the number four reactor in Chernobyl, Ukraine,
Speaker 2: which was at the time in the USSR, exploded. There
Speaker 2: have been a number of documentaries and books and series
Speaker 2: on the event, which I encourage you all to look
Speaker 2: into if you're interested. In December of the same year,
Speaker 2: work was completed on a sarcophagus of sorts intended to
Speaker 2: contain the spread of radioactive contamination from the site, and
Speaker 2: from twenty sixteen to twenty eighteen construction began and was
Speaker 2: completed on a massive Quanzit shaped containment vessel over reactor four,
Speaker 2: and on February fourteenth of this year, a Russia controlled
Speaker 2: drone struck that containment vessel with explosives, damaging the vessel
Speaker 2: and potentially endangering all of us.
Speaker 3: This story is from.
Speaker 2: Routers by Yuri Kovalenko on April thirteenth to twenty twenty five.
Speaker 2: I don't know how to say that word, right, That's
Speaker 2: why I said it.
Speaker 3: Weird, ruders, rutiers, ruters. We got one of those, is right?
Speaker 1: Yeah? Yeah, well we should just say it every way
Speaker 1: we can imagine, and then find out which one is
Speaker 1: right and clip that one and just play it with
Speaker 1: the video.
Speaker 3: Nobody will beat, nobody will find out.
Speaker 1: Yeah, nonethewise, anyway, thank you for that wonderful and insightful introduction.
Speaker 1: You know, I want to know how important is this really, Tracy?
Speaker 1: What are your thoughts on why this was struck on
Speaker 1: Valentine's Day of all places, of all days, by the way,
Speaker 1: but this being struck particularly, I think it's got I
Speaker 1: think it's got more impacts than just maybe a functional one.
Speaker 1: You know, what are your thoughts on why it was hit?
Speaker 3: It's really hard to say.
Speaker 2: It's really hard to say because I don't see any communication.
Speaker 2: I read the article, and I really didn't see any
Speaker 2: communication except for from you know, Mariah Zakaroka. She called
Speaker 2: the incident a provocation. I don't know what are they
Speaker 2: trying to do. They trying to you know, let out
Speaker 2: the radiation because if they breach that, if they breach
Speaker 2: the inner sarcophagus, then there is a threat of radioactive
Speaker 2: material being spread. Right now, just the damage to the
Speaker 2: to the overarching container, it were really okay. But if
Speaker 2: they breached the inner sarcophagus that is basically just a
Speaker 2: whole bunch of plates on the actual reactor building itself,
Speaker 2: then then.
Speaker 3: There's a there's a there's a threat.
Speaker 2: There's you know, birds could come down and pick up
Speaker 2: some radioactive material, fly it somewhere, it could be blown
Speaker 2: away by the wind, it could be and then get
Speaker 2: into the rained on and get into the groundwater like that.
Speaker 2: I mean, there are subterranean defenses against that, but it
Speaker 2: is a provocation. It sort of shows to me that
Speaker 2: then they're gonna stop at nothing and get to get
Speaker 2: their way and to get what they want. If that
Speaker 2: means they have to you know, spread radioactive material, then
Speaker 2: that's what they're gonna do.
Speaker 1: And just to clarify for all of our viewers, Mariyah
Speaker 1: Zakarovka is a Russian politician serves as the director of
Speaker 1: Information and Press Department, So probably like our press secretary is,
Speaker 1: but the press secretary for the Ministry of Foreign to
Speaker 1: Foreign Affairs in Russia and so on that note. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I would say at first glance, this looks hazardous to me.
Speaker 1: Chernobyl has been closed off since the nineteen eighties, regardless
Speaker 1: of the fact that the Minister of Environmental Protection and
Speaker 1: Natural Resources in Ukraine by the name of Svitlana Krinchuk,
Speaker 1: says that you know, for many years the exclusion zone
Speaker 1: has needed to be transform formed into a zone of
Speaker 1: renewal and that this territory is like no other in
Speaker 1: Ukraine and is suitable for developing renewable energy projects. I am,
Speaker 1: I having not that much background on nuclear energy and
Speaker 1: maybe the engineering that goes into a facility like this,
Speaker 1: is a little bit surprised to hear about this. And
Speaker 1: I know EJ wants to talk about it so bad,
Speaker 1: which is why I'm gonna go to Rob next, because
Speaker 1: I can see EJ squirming in his seat, cracking his neck,
Speaker 1: and I know that he's got a lot to say.
Speaker 1: So Rob, what what is the significance of this? Maybe
Speaker 1: you know some of the details about it. They use
Speaker 1: the high explosive warhead was it necessary to hit this.
Speaker 4: Who's right?
Speaker 1: Is it Russia? Is it Ukraine? And what are your
Speaker 1: thoughts on this whole ordeal?
Speaker 4: So I like, I like tangents, and then I'll loop
Speaker 4: back around, I promise, because it kind of reminds me
Speaker 4: of like anytime my dad and I would watch something
Speaker 4: and it's like finding Bigfoot, and they never do and
Speaker 4: because if they did, we'd hear about it in the news.
Speaker 4: We are not being bombarded by constant warnings of imminent
Speaker 4: global destruction, so it's probably okay, but that's kind of
Speaker 4: not the point because it makes it honestly makes me
Speaker 4: think of domestic violence, where it's like if you punch
Speaker 4: a wall, what you're doing is you're demonstrating, not necessarily,
Speaker 4: you're demonstrating that you can be violent. It's kind of
Speaker 4: like putting your finger out and being like, I'm not
Speaker 4: touching you. Well, in this case, I did touch you,
Speaker 4: but it was just for a second. Like it's the
Speaker 4: attack was intentional. I was actually really curious about that.
Speaker 4: The article didn't say, so I went out looking for
Speaker 4: another one and the New York Times said, quote the
Speaker 4: breach was also deliberate. They said that it punched right
Speaker 4: through at one fifty nine am on Friday by a
Speaker 4: Russian drone with a high explosive warhead. So it's just
Speaker 4: the attack was a message. They meant, They meant to
Speaker 4: say something. It's the only thing this could mean, because
Speaker 4: otherwise they were, you know, hoping to actually cause Hadas
Speaker 4: traffic danger, which I really doubt they're trying to do
Speaker 4: because they're right next to the problem. So this is
Speaker 4: just uh, this is uh posturing and it's dangerous.
Speaker 1: Yep, yep. I agree, And I think that you know,
Speaker 1: Russia in this conflict is trying to tell people, look,
Speaker 1: take us seriously, we will enact more dangerous attacks. This
Speaker 1: is just an example of one. And the reason why
Speaker 1: it can be perceived as dangerous is because so many
Speaker 1: of us who are used to hearing the age age
Speaker 1: old adage I guess, or the example of Chernobyl being
Speaker 1: a really dangerous place think automatically, WHOA, there was an
Speaker 1: attack on it, we must be in grave danger. And
Speaker 1: I think most of the world thinks that, and Russia
Speaker 1: wants to be taken seriously. EJ. Without further ado, please
Speaker 1: talk to us about the attack on Chernobyl. He couldn't
Speaker 1: take it anymore. His head would explore.
Speaker 5: You're not wrong that, so I want to say, don't panic.
Speaker 5: The new safe Containment Zone, the big arch that is
Speaker 5: over the sarcophagus and react of four was breached. However,
Speaker 5: it's not as bad as a lot of sites make
Speaker 5: out to be. As mentioned, the new safe Confinement Zone
Speaker 5: houses the sarcophagus, a heaping the hemuth of concrete and
Speaker 5: steel to shield the unit number four, which had unfortunately
Speaker 5: the biggest meltdown of a single nuclear reactor ever recorded.
Speaker 5: Many would leave you to believe this is an unforeseen disaster,
Speaker 5: but it isn't. The NSSE has had protocols for a
Speaker 5: breach ever since it was constructed and even before. It's
Speaker 5: held under a negative pressure inside to avoid any particles
Speaker 5: leaving in case of a breach, and to further the issue,
Speaker 5: the inner containment so the NSC has two layers. Out
Speaker 5: of one was breached in a one wasn't, so there
Speaker 5: is no threat of anything leaving as of yet. And
Speaker 5: the IEA, the Atomic the International Atomic Energy Agency, has
Speaker 5: continued to monitor both inside and outside and there's no
Speaker 5: spikes even minor in radiation levels beyond what is expected.
Speaker 5: At Chernobyl and the scientists who work inside the new
Speaker 5: Safe Containment Zone and the IE are supremely confident that
Speaker 5: it won't fail. I feel we should be too, because
Speaker 5: as members of the public, we tend to freak out
Speaker 5: with nuclear energy a lot because of things like Chernobyl,
Speaker 5: Three Mile Island, and Fukushuma. In this case, I feel
Speaker 5: that the anxiety will do more than the attack did,
Speaker 5: because it was most likely posturing. However, I would like
Speaker 5: to point out what you were saying about turning Chernobyl
Speaker 5: into a renewable energy site can be done and hopefully
Speaker 5: will once the war is over, so Chernobyl might be
Speaker 5: some hope for the future.
Speaker 1: Well, I think that that statement is probably meant as
Speaker 1: a bit of a reassurance to people who are concerned
Speaker 1: over the attack on Chernobyl. Right for a leader to
Speaker 1: come out and say, hey, look, we can actually develop
Speaker 1: this land, like we are not concerned. The thing is, though, EJ,
Speaker 1: what you basically just laid out also states or gives
Speaker 1: the idea that there could be potential for a worse fallout. Right,
Speaker 1: this attack didn't do anything, but a further attack, we
Speaker 1: don't know what the fallout for that could be, Right,
Speaker 1: And I think that Russia used the high explosive warhead
Speaker 1: because it sounds a hell of a lot more dangerous
Speaker 1: than let's say, a penetrator warhead, right, something that could
Speaker 1: have gone through the second layer and really done some damage,
Speaker 1: made a crater and really spread that nuclear material into
Speaker 1: the atmosphere and deeper underground, affecting water sources, things like that.
Speaker 1: So I think Russia probably knew what it was doing,
Speaker 1: probably had ideas about the design of that facility, and said, hey,
Speaker 1: what can we do to put anxiety put fear into
Speaker 1: the global population, particularly the Ukrainians themselves, with out actually
Speaker 1: doing anything. I know, a high explosive warhead. I remember,
Speaker 1: you know, being the former intelligence analyst that I am,
Speaker 1: being a young intelligence analyst in school and coming up
Speaker 1: with these concepts and then briefing them to my instructors
Speaker 1: and saying, hey, they used a high explosive warhead, thinking
Speaker 1: that that was so bad, and then my instructor saying, Okay,
Speaker 1: what's that mean, And I'd have to go, I don't know.
Speaker 1: I think that most of the world is probably in
Speaker 1: an I don't know phase, and we're not really sure
Speaker 1: how to take this. We just think that we're supposed
Speaker 1: to take it really seriously, and I think that Russia
Speaker 1: succeeded there, and so on that note, I want to
Speaker 1: go back, you know, Tracy, I want to talk to
Speaker 1: you about, let's putting aside all of this messaging, maybe
Speaker 1: the psychological operations that the Russians are carrying out. What
Speaker 1: do you think is happening here? I mean, according to
Speaker 1: what you discussed leading up to tonight's show, I see
Speaker 1: some thoughts that you have about it, and i'd like
Speaker 1: to know you know where you're at.
Speaker 2: So we've been in there's this concept that everybody knows,
Speaker 2: not everybody, but you know, generally everybody knows about.
Speaker 3: Called mutually assured destruction.
Speaker 2: That's what keeps, you know, every the big countries from
Speaker 2: launching their their nuclear warheads, which is the idea that
Speaker 2: if one of us fires were all screwed, and that's
Speaker 2: kind of what I see is with with Ukraine, with
Speaker 2: the with Chernobyl, if they damage it significantly enough for
Speaker 2: it to matter, it's going to affect everybody within thousands
Speaker 2: of miles.
Speaker 3: It's not just gonna affect them.
Speaker 2: And so I find this to be a threat on
Speaker 2: par with threatening with sending an empty ICBM to just impact.
Speaker 2: You know, it's it's saying, hey, we didn't do anything
Speaker 2: this time, but I'm just showing you how willing I
Speaker 2: am to just screw everyone over to get my way.
Speaker 2: If I if I had my way, I would have
Speaker 2: called it a war crime. But I wasn't there for
Speaker 2: the Geneva Convention.
Speaker 1: So Rob, on that note, please feel free to lay
Speaker 1: out any opinion you have thus far. But I would
Speaker 1: like to know, you know, being that we are the nonprofits,
Speaker 1: how does this relate to our mission here? Do you
Speaker 1: think that there could be a religious factor or maybe
Speaker 1: just a political one, or is it just a messaging factor?
Speaker 1: How do you think this falls into what we do here?
Speaker 4: Well, I think like in the notes that I took
Speaker 4: for this, I talked about asaulting the earth, which is,
Speaker 4: you know, invading another land and then destroying it so
Speaker 4: thoroughly that if you don't annex it back then no
Speaker 4: one else can live there. And we live in a
Speaker 4: nuclear age, so it just seems like an extremely efficient
Speaker 4: way to salt the earth and utterly destroy your enemies
Speaker 4: if you wish. However, it's kind of like a lame answer,
Speaker 4: but yes, there's religion attached to this just because most
Speaker 4: people are religious, and one of the primary conflicts that
Speaker 4: we ever had with Russia was ideologically capitalists versus communism,
Speaker 4: and thus fueled through the Christianity versus the Athesism, as
Speaker 4: we had talked about previously. So it's not really possible
Speaker 4: to talk about it without religion talking to informing that
Speaker 4: discussion a little bit, But it's primarily political. We don't
Speaker 4: like what is happening. Is bad. War bad, I think
Speaker 4: is a pretty safe thing to say in general. So
Speaker 4: I think most people would say that violence in any
Speaker 4: circumstance can be justified given the circumstances that surround it.
Speaker 4: This doesn't exclude wars. There are wars for just reasons.
Speaker 4: This isn't necessarily one of them, or so clearly they'd
Speaker 4: need to do something. So using attacks as purely demonstrative
Speaker 4: ways of hey, look what we could do to you,
Speaker 4: as Tracy said, is in some ways to me, it's worse.
Speaker 4: It's horrifying. Like it's not it's not just we're trying
Speaker 4: to achieve our goal of whatever the war is about.
Speaker 4: It's so much more insidious because there's messaging, and that's
Speaker 4: the thing that gets to me.
Speaker 1: Yes, terrorism absolutely, So I want to I want to
Speaker 1: harp or harp on both of those things. So first
Speaker 1: of all, I want to give a tidbit of information
Speaker 1: about the religious aspect of how this conflict started. So
Speaker 1: the Russian Orthodox Church kind of has its I'm not
Speaker 1: an expert on it, so the terminology is going to
Speaker 1: be a little bit vague. But let's say is headquartered
Speaker 1: in Moscow, which it is. I don't know if they
Speaker 1: have exactly a pope or they have some kind of
Speaker 1: higher person, right, but in the Russian Orthodox Church they
Speaker 1: have got they are the top of the hierarchy for
Speaker 1: their religion. Ukraine has its own Ukrainian Orthodox Church, but
Speaker 1: it used to prior to this war, next to the
Speaker 1: church in Moscow through a hierarchy, right, So it was
Speaker 1: Moscow and then.
Speaker 3: It was Kiev.
Speaker 1: The Ukrainian Orthodox Church leading up to the war decided
Speaker 1: that they were no longer going to be aligned with
Speaker 1: the Russian Orthodox Church. So there was a schism and
Speaker 1: they separated. And that was a way of kind of
Speaker 1: discrediting Russia, discrediting the culture, the the overall society by
Speaker 1: pulling away and separating from it. And I think that
Speaker 1: that was a way of a justification for Russia to
Speaker 1: kind of come in and do what they did. And
Speaker 1: so I not a lot of people know that. I
Speaker 1: think that's interesting. I don't know how impactful it actually was,
Speaker 1: but I think in this case, the Church did in
Speaker 1: Ukraine all that they could, and basically it was to
Speaker 1: pull away and then a war resulted. So you could
Speaker 1: tell the story certainly that way, but rob to your
Speaker 1: point and to the point that all I think all
Speaker 1: of us have made, you know, showing what they could do,
Speaker 1: what they'd be willing to do. You know, this also
Speaker 1: leads to a desensitization, if you will, Like, if we
Speaker 1: see them attack a nuclear facility and nothing happens, maybe
Speaker 1: we'll think less of the next time they try to
Speaker 1: do that or carry out something a little bit more
Speaker 1: egregious or more dangerous, and we will be slower to act.
Speaker 1: For example, the Zapharisia nuclear facility that has been a
Speaker 1: hotbed for conflict throughout this war, except the Russians have
Speaker 1: actually taken great steps to protect that facility and not
Speaker 1: damage it. And the sources for that are the BBC
Speaker 1: and the the the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Speaker 1: If anybody wants to go look up that information. So
Speaker 1: on that note, and and EJ. With your love for
Speaker 1: all things nuclear. You know, what do you think about
Speaker 1: Russia's position moving forward? You know, is this just an
Speaker 1: example of what they're willing to do? Uh? Can we expect?
Speaker 1: Do you think more of the same or worse?
Speaker 5: So? Not particularly earlier nor a year and there was
Speaker 5: attacks on active nuclear power plants, and part of that
Speaker 5: was Ukraine was very good at taking out mid level
Speaker 5: leadership people like lieutenants and few officer ranks up from there.
Speaker 5: And because of that, we were seeing a lot of
Speaker 5: captured Russian orders. We were seeing a lot of things like, hey,
Speaker 5: disrupt the power, but no specific plan of how to
Speaker 5: do that, so people were attacking plants. The thing people
Speaker 5: need to know about nuclear power plants is that they
Speaker 5: are designed for the worst case scenario. They are designed
Speaker 5: to contain explosions which we would struggle, we would struggle
Speaker 5: to replicate with conventional explosives. So even conventional missiles like
Speaker 5: health fires don't do anything to containment buildings. We've seen
Speaker 5: that in the war while one was being bombarded. So
Speaker 5: Russia going after Chernobyl. I feel as in part structuring
Speaker 5: but also it may be them trying to say that, well,
Speaker 5: if we can't get your active ones, we'll get one
Speaker 5: that was that was disabled. However, they are also in
Speaker 5: their eagerness to show off how destructive they can be.
Speaker 5: They're also very much underestimating the staff at the nc
Speaker 5: NSC because the staff since the start of the war
Speaker 5: have prepared for something like this, and they have multiple
Speaker 5: stages in p place for breaches so that nothing is leaked.
Speaker 5: And having seen interviews with them, they are more than
Speaker 5: willing to get dosed with radiation if it means protecting
Speaker 5: the environment and the locals who live near the the.
Speaker 1: Well, EJ froze, but Tracy, you can go ahead and
Speaker 1: take over.
Speaker 2: Well, I had a question for EJ. But or maybe
Speaker 2: it was just a comment. But I don't I don't
Speaker 2: know how good that's gonna do. If they just you know,
Speaker 2: boom the entire site, who's there to help?
Speaker 3: If everybody is you.
Speaker 2: Know ash like like that, that that that's my biggest concern.
Speaker 2: Because they're they're a very wealthy the company country. They
Speaker 2: can they can make the whole place a parking lot
Speaker 2: if they really wanted to.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and that would that would uh that would require
Speaker 1: an escalation of force uh, an escalation of weapons weapons
Speaker 1: that they haven't demonstrated a use of yet in this conflict,
Speaker 1: and and that would change the game. I think that
Speaker 1: attacking Chernobyl, at least again in the minds of people,
Speaker 1: is probably an escalation for most of us, right or
Speaker 1: most of the societies in the world. When they see
Speaker 1: Chernobyl being attacked, I think they say, Wow, this is
Speaker 1: an escalation, while while the Russians probably know this isn't
Speaker 1: quite an escalation, but it is a successful message. But yeah,
Speaker 1: I do think that they have the ability to definitely
Speaker 1: inflict more damage. And that's what's scary.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 1: I don't know if this Chernobyl attack UH is a
Speaker 1: warning or if it's some kind of other play. I
Speaker 1: don't want to find out though. On that note, Rob,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna go ahead and and leave it to you
Speaker 1: to take us away before we wrap up.
Speaker 4: No, that's that's definitely just kind of I'm at because,
Speaker 4: like we've talked about how it's posturing, how it's clearly
Speaker 4: a message, and that's it's that's the part where I
Speaker 4: just struggle for words, because it's they clearly did not
Speaker 4: mean to do more damage. So what did they mean? Yeah,
Speaker 4: it's just there's it's just questions. I genuinely wonder. I'm
Speaker 4: curious about what Ukraine and their people are being told
Speaker 4: and how they're handling it themselves, because they clearly are
Speaker 4: far closer to it than we are. It's just it
Speaker 4: feels like it's left us with questions, which is the point.
Speaker 4: I guess sure here I am questioning.
Speaker 1: Yeah, absolutely, you know EJ. While you were gone, Tracy
Speaker 1: had maybe a comment or a question for you, and Tracy,
Speaker 1: if you want real Wick to just kind of relay
Speaker 1: that to him.
Speaker 3: Yeah, what what? What good are these measures?
Speaker 1: Uh?
Speaker 3: If everybody there gets suddenly turned.
Speaker 5: To ash, So if it would take a hell of
Speaker 5: a strike to do that, we.
Speaker 1: Talked about the need for a significant escalation of force
Speaker 1: in order to do that. So on that.
Speaker 5: If somehow, let's say, a series of unfortunate events happened,
Speaker 5: and something happened in which all the workers inside the
Speaker 5: NSC were to perish in an attack, there is emergency
Speaker 5: fire crews who are trained to deal with breaches. In fact,
Speaker 5: they responded to the initial breach. They are stationed on
Speaker 5: site and they have not only learned from what we
Speaker 5: do today with nuclear power plants, but they also learned
Speaker 5: from the initial nineteen eighty six tragedy, in which multiple
Speaker 5: fire crews, due to a lack of training and proper equipment,
Speaker 5: were a bit ineffective.
Speaker 2: I just I guess my only concern is that I
Speaker 2: feel and maybe maybe I'm just coming from a position
Speaker 2: of emotion, which is entirely possible, but I just think
Speaker 2: that you're we're not dealing with a chimpanzee with an
Speaker 2: assault rifle. We're dealing with a Planet of the Apes
Speaker 2: chimpanzee with an assault rifle, like with a.
Speaker 1: Nuclear weapon, with nuclear weapons.
Speaker 2: Yeah, like like we're you saw how mean those chimpanzees
Speaker 2: and Planet of the Apes were, Like, come on.
Speaker 3: We gotta we got to head this off. These people
Speaker 3: are dangerous and I'm not ready to deal with it.
Speaker 5: I should say there should absolutely be more defenses around
Speaker 5: cher Nobyl MPP. I just do also want to re
Speaker 5: ensure people that it would take a lot of things
Speaker 5: going wrong at the same time for anything to pose
Speaker 5: a danger to the outside world. That's good, which hopefully
Speaker 5: doesn't happen.
Speaker 1: So, speaking of defenses, I just want to leave our
Speaker 1: viewers with this, you know, if you were to and
Speaker 1: I have a military background, so I kind of know
Speaker 1: some of the key phrases to look for. But if
Speaker 1: you wanted to look up something called a disposition of
Speaker 1: forces on Google, the set the like I said, the CSIS,
Speaker 1: the Council of Foreign Relations is a good source. They
Speaker 1: have a global conflict tracker that tells you all about uh,
Speaker 1: you know, kind of the status of forces to the
Speaker 1: max extent possible that they can. They can provide information. Uh.
Speaker 1: They they can show you maybe where some missile systems
Speaker 1: defensive systems are between the two countries, if you're interested
Speaker 1: in looking into maybe the status of the war. But yeah,
Speaker 1: the the CSI SU and the cf CFR dot org
Speaker 1: are also good sources. And with that, you know, I
Speaker 1: would just say, on the on the the little factoid
Speaker 1: that I gave earlier about the schism between the Ukrainian
Speaker 1: Orthodox and the Russian Orthodox churches, I almost wonder if
Speaker 1: that schism never took place, you know, could they more
Speaker 1: successfully negotiate with each other. Could the soft power between
Speaker 1: these two diplomatic tools that the churches help quell this situation.
Speaker 1: I'm not so sure, but it's interesting to think about
Speaker 1: and maybe worth some research. So I want to say
Speaker 1: thank you to everybody for joining us this week. We
Speaker 1: had a really eclectic mixture of topics and a lot
Speaker 1: of good discussions. I hope everybody enjoyed it. You enjoy
Speaker 1: the rest of your weekend, and make sure you keep
Speaker 1: tuning in to the nonprofits