hello and welcome to "kqed newsroom." i'm thuy vu. coming up on our program, in the wake of the devastating california wildfires, another hazard remains, toxic chemicals left lingering in the ash and debris. we look at the threats they pose to residents and the environment. plus artisan filmmaker ai weiwei on his new film, human flow. ai tackles the global refugee crisis and who he thinks is responsible for solving it. but first hollywood has been forced to take a hard look at itself as news of harvey weinstein's sexual misconduct spiraled into a scandal. virtually overnight women in hollywood and else where have gone on social media to share their stories of sexual harassment and abuse using the #me too. this week women in california politics joins the fray, saying

enough. more than 140 women in state politics from staffers to lobbyists to elected officials have signed an open letter calling out what they say is the culture of sexual harassment and assault in the halls of state government. to discuss this further, i'm joined by sacramento lobbyist pamela lopez, who helped organize the letter campaign, california state senator nancy skinner of berkeley, and kqed politics and government reporter marisa lagos, who joins us from sacramento. welcome to you all. pamela, let me begin with you. why did you and other women who work in the state capitol hill community decide to issue this open letter. >> because we've had enough in the wake of the harvey weinstein scandal, i and several other friends started comparing notes and talking about our experiences working in california politics and the california political community. and started sharing some very upsetting stories about quid pro quo sexual harassment that we've faced from powerful men in the

capitol community, not only legislators but other powerful lobbyists, other appointed officials. >> you have a story that happened to you? >> i do. even stories that border on sexual assault. i was walking into a public restroom, thought i was alone, wo opened the door, felt a bod rush up behind me, slam and locked the door. by the time i turned around, i was face to face with a sitting legislator who had unzipped his pants and exposed himself and was masturbating. i backed up across the room, and he told me several times in explicit terms to touch his genitals while he was masturbating. and i remember thinking, oh, my god, what do i do? don't -- don't make a scene, but be very clear that i don't want to be here. and so i said over and over again, no. i will not touch you. no, i will not touch you. >> but did you speak out after that? did you report him? >> no, i didn't because i was afraid of not only formal but

informal repercussions that i might face to my career. we have laws in place that are intended to protect women in the workplace, and we certainly have laws in the legislature to protect legislative staff. but it's much more difficult to address all of the informal consequences that a woman faces if she speaks out against her perpetrator. everything from other lawmakers refusing to take your meetings, other lobbyists who have a tendency to protect the bad guys looking at you funny. it's overwhelming to be involved in a scandal, and our culture not only in california politics but in the nation as a whole still blames women. and so i kept my mouth shut out of -- out of fear for my career. >> senator nancy skinner, you also signed this letter. why did you decide to do that? >> well, similar. enough is enough. we know that this is pervasive. there's the #me toompt.

i think the hashtag should be who not because women experience this not only in state capitols, workplaces, campuses, every. whether you're a student, you're an employee, as expressed here, the lobbyist, and the real -- what we see is that we have some decent laws, but the consequences to the perpetrator are not enough. they haven't served as a deterrent. and until the perpetrator -- and in many cases, it's a man but not always. but until the perpetrator really experiences a consequence that's a lot of status or some legal consequence other than just a payout that's confidential, we're not going to see this change. >> and, marisa, i want to bring you in at this point because is there a culture of complicit here at the capitol, a culture of protecting the institution over the individuals? >> i think there is. i mean i think we see this again in hollywood, in sacramento, in really more places across the

nation. but i think that there is in some ways even more so in the capitol a different culture. there's a protectionism of wanting to protect the legislature. there's the fact there's so much turnover. then there's the fact that you have situations that arise that really sort of skew the lines between what's work and what's not work. a lot of political events happen in bars and restaurants with alcohol. they are raising money. they are having meetings. you know, and so i think that sometimes that culture kind of seeps into this broader problem. but i do think that, you know, as we saw in hollywood, this is not a secret. this is an open secret in a lot of ways. maybe we haven't connected all the dots, but i think in the past the legislature itself has been very wary to tackle these issues, to maybe hold itself to the same standard as it wants to hold other state and private businesses and agencies. and really, you know, to protect

it because that is what has always been done. >> and i guess the other layer that makes this even more troubling, right, is that a lot of this is taxpayer-funded. you have lawmakers who are paid for by the taxpayers. a lot of these settlements for accusers are funded through taxpayer money. so, nancy, i have to ask you about this. i mean the legislature has a history of harassment complaints. you were recently named in connection with one of the complaints involving a former legislative director, nancy finnegan who received money to settle her claim of harassment and discrimination against former assemblyman steve fox of palmdale. she says she complained to you because you were -- >> the chair at the time. >> you were chair of the assembly rules committee at the time, and you did nothing. >> so here's -- i certainly am never going to impugn any woman, and it is very not only possible, probably real that women in the capitol feel

intimidated to complain about a sexual harassment circumstance because of fear of retribution. however -- and, again, everything of her story, i'm not going to question. but as the rules chair, the complaint that she filed -- and i was chair in 2013 and not past that time. but in 2013, the complaint she filed was not a sexual harassment complaint, and it was not against mr. fox. it was against her own woman chief of staff. now, that's not to say that she didn't have the experience she did, but it's just that in what was presented to me -- and it was in her writing -- it was not a sexual harassment complaint. but let's leave that alone because i don't want to -- what i want to talk about is what caused this tipping point. so we've had many tipping points in the past. anita hill was certainly a tipping point. but then many women became silent because clarence thomas became a supreme court justice. so there was no -- it was like she wasn't believed, and what's the point of talking about it if

we're only going to be ourselves, the women, impugned. but i think right now there was another tipping point that we haven't talked about as much, which is that the sitting president was -- he talked about groping women. we heard it, and yet he was elected, and he beat a woman. so i think for many of us, while we may have turned our -- you know, turned our cheek at times or just figured, okay, we need to live with this, it's reality, i think we're finally at, like, no. no, we don't want it to be reality anymore. silence perpetuates it, and we all have to unite, and we all have to change the circumstances. >> that's right. >> coming back to the state capitol, then, what kinds of reforms would you and other women who signed this letter like to see? >> there are several things we'd like to see. part of the reform effort may be related to changing some laws or may be related to changing some policies in rules committee or the way that the legislature works with staff. but we're talking about a professional community here.

so first of all, not everybody is an employee of the legislature. i'm a lobbyist. i work in the capitol, but as the senator was saying, i do not work at the capitol. and our intent also is not to create a lightning rod by focusing on any particular case or any particular payout or identifying any particular perpetrator. we are talking about a culture that systematically devalues women and blames women for experiencing discrimination or quid pro quo sexual harassment or assault in the workplace. and so there are also informal changes that we are looking for. first and foremost, it's this kind of change. it's having this conversation. it's signing onto a letter where we all support each other. it's telling women that, i believe you. i believe your story. i will have your back. i will stand up for you. i will have a cup of coffee with you in a public place. when everyone else is whispering

about you behind your back and trying to make you feel bad about standing up and standing out, i will be there to support you. >> but may i play devil's advocate here because some might say if you don't name the accusers, aren't you also then part of the problem because you're providing that veil of secrecy that men have been able to hide behind and, therefore, perpetuate this kind of behavior, senator? >> these are very tricky because, look, women named trump. women named our former governor schwarzenegger. he became governor. anita hill named clarence thomas. he became the supreme court justice and still is. so that, to me, doesn't say, all right, women. just be quiet. rather, that we have to -- what are the conditions that we have created and set up in our institutional structures that lead to this? and until we change that, naming names alone is not enough. we've already seen that. naming names alone is not

enough. so i think that all of us in joining in on this, what we are committed to is changing those structural circumstances and conditions so that when the woman names the name and a proper investigation happens -- and you have to protect the accuser and the accused. due process must happen. but that once that naming is named and there is the real documentation, that action is taken, and there's consequences. >> marisa lagos -- >> and the woman is protected. >> that's right. >> there's no negative consequence to her for reporting and naming the name. >> i was a little girl during the anita hill/clarence thomas scandal. that's one of my earliest political memories. she was an idol of mine, an ivy league educated attorney, and i watched her at -- i was 10 years old, i think, at the time, get drug through the mud. so before we name names, we want to know about how we're going to protect women. >> let me bring marisa lagos into this conversation.

we're talking about reform, structural changes in place. marisa, the number of women lawmakers in the state legislature is at its lowest level in more than two decades. >> 22%. >> 22%, right? and so do you expect any kind of real changes will happen here? >> you know, i agree with the senator in the sense that i do think a tipping point is happening, and i think it did start last year during the presidential election. i know that when that tape came out, i myself had a sort of realization that, you know, i've been groped in college. i hadn't even really considered that sexual assault. i think that putting a name on this and talking about it is really powerful. in my industry, in journalism, this is an issue. we have sort of the same problem lobbyists do. we work in and around this, but we are not part of the same structure. so you can't go to h.r. if a lawmaker hits on you, which has happened to me multiple times, or calls you late at night and asks you to come over. what you can do, i think, is speak out and try to change

those really minor interactions and call them out in the moment because i think our everyday stuff is really what leads to the bigger problem. so if we can change the way we handle things and call people out when it happens in the moment, when it's just calling somebody honey or commenting on what they're wearing, that could actually lead to some big changes. >> this may be that tipping point for a culture of accountability, and i want to thank you all for being here. pamela lopez, senator nancy skinner and marisa lagos, thank you all. now to the north bay wildfires. as firefighters gain control of the blazes, today residents in three santa rosa neighborhoods are being allowed back for the first time. but they now face a new health risk, exposure to hazardous chemicals in the ash and debris from burned homes and properties. officials in sonoma and napa counties are warning residents to wear protective gear when sifting through rubble or getting their homes back in order. with thousands of structures destroyed in napa and sonoma, the cleanup effort will be long and challenging.

joining me are christine sassco and assistant professor of pulmonary medicine dr. robert blount. thank you for being here. christine, i wanted to begin with you. what can people expect as they're coming back to these santa rosa neighborhoods for the first time today and also tomorrow? >> we're really cautioning people as they're coming back to their properties, to view their properties, that the ash that is on their property is not the same as a general wildfire ash. it's not the same as that from just trees. because of the amount of homes burned and other items that are in that -- on those properties, they can likely -- the ash can likely contain metals, chemicals, and potentially asbestos or lead. and so we're really urging them to take caution and try not to disturb the debris as much as possible. we do understand that they've lost their homes. they're anxious. they want to get back in.

they want to search for those personal items. and so we're giving them personal protective equipment such as tie vex suits and gloves and masks and booties so that when they are there, if they are looking and they find some of their personal items, they can collect those and bring those back. but we are discouraging them from, like, really heavily sifting through and digging through that debris because of the ash. >> what should they do with those suits when they're done with them? >> when they are leaving that site, they will take all that equipment off, and they will put it back into the debris and then get in their car so they're not tracking that material back into their car and back into their homes. >> the materials you're talking about, how dangerous are they? what kinds of exact chemicals are we talking about because households have a lot in them. >> there's actually a lot of variability when we talk about that because everybody's

household has something different. so we're not really certain what there is in each of those properties. and in each plot of ash. so part of the process is actually to do a characterization of that ash and figure out what level of hazardous waste it is, and then that is part of the disposal process to make sure it goes to the right facility. >> what are some of the possibilities? pesticides? propane? what else might you be looking at? >> pesticides, propane. you can also -- your plastics. when your plastics melt, they off gas. lots of potentially hazardous chemicals. if there was asbestos on the property, cow have asbestos fibers. you can have just basic, like, lead contaminants if it was an older home. heavy metals is another one that can be there. >> so that's a long list, dr. robert blount.

so if people come into contact with these materials and they don't have the appropriate protective gear, what are the potential health risks here looking at? >> i think there are two big health risks really. one is coming into physical contact, getting those materials onto the skin and the clothing, and then bringing that back to the car or the home. that's a big risk. then it's what's inhaled actually on the site. so the skin contact certainly can cause irritation. i really am glad that the county is providing appropriate gear to suit up, and it's very important to use that because people do not want to bring that debris, that dust, really toxic dust, back into their clean homes. the biggest risk is really inhaling the particles, i think. so the most dangerous effects that we see from the fine particulate matter in the ash and in the smoke is really, once it's inhaled down into the

lungs. >> and how dangerous is that pr tick lat because some of it is actually so small that it can bypass the body's filtration system, right, and go directly into the bloodstream? >> correct. we call it fine particulate matter. less than 2.5 microns in diameter. so we're talking about the size of a bacteria or a virus, even less. and it's inhaled deeply into the lungs where it can irritate the lung itself, and then even freely diffused into the bloodstream through the lungs because it's so small. and this fine particulate, they're created at the burn site, so they -- a lot of the toxic chemicals attach onto those tiny particles and then are transported long distances and then can be inhaled deeply into the lungs, into the bloodstream. primarily causing a lot of irritation to different organs in the body, and that's the primary mechanism by which it causes problems to the lungs and heart. >> and christine, of course

cleanup is very much on the minds of people who are coming back to their homes. who is responsible for cleanup after wildfires like the ones we've seen in the north bay? should it be homeowners try to do it themselves or wait for local, state, and federal agencies to come in? >> definitely we're urging everybody to wait for federal and state agencies to come in. they're already here. they are starting that process now. the first step of that process is for them to go through and search for hazardous materials and remove all hazardous materials from the property. and then the second step would be the debris management and removal. one of the messages we're trying to get out a lot right now is about the use of like blowers and leaf blowers because we're getting lots of calls that people are cleaning up their yards and using a blower. and just like was just stated, you know, you don't want to be inhaling that. so just using that caution.

>> and, dr. blount, regarding air quality, how is air quality today? i mean it seems fairly good given that we had a little bit of rain. but over the last two weeks, there have been days where there was a thick haze. would you recommend people still wear a mask? how do you gauge when you need to wear a mask? >> the air quality has been quite fluctuant. it's been getting better in the bay area each day but we do have some bad air days as well. a good indication is if a person can smell the smoke, smell kind of like a wood smoke fire or see the haze, then that's a dangerous level of air pollution, and people should consider going inside, wearing the mask. >> christine, what are the potential long-term dangers of having these toxic chemicals? could they leach into soil and waterways? >> there is a lot of erosion control efforts that are going on right now to prevent that debris from falling into the

waterways such as closing off storm drains in those affected areas. also the debris cleanup, not only do they just clean the debris up from the site, they also go down and dig the soil and take out all that hazardous ash in the area. so the crews are working really quickly right now because of the winter coming up. they're trying to get in and get things cleaned up as quickly as possible so that we can minimize any of that potential threat. >> all right. christine sassco with sonoma county and also dr. robert blount, thank you both for being with us. >> thank you. >> thank you. we turn our attention now to the refugee crisis. chinese dissent and artist ai weiwei has long tackled politically sensitive subjects. in alleged retaliation for works criticizing the chinese government, he was arrested and beaten and had his passport confiscated. in 2014, although he could not travel, ai designed a massive groundbreaking kpbtd that was

installed on alcatraz island in the san francisco bay. it exhibited incarceration, the treatment of native americas. now his latest film human flow takes on the global refugee crisis. kqed's monica lam spoke with ai weiwei when he was in san francisco recently. >> reporter: ai weiwei, artist, activist, your film, human flow, documents massive human migration due to war, violence, disaster. what did you learn from making this film? >> what i have learned is very simple. among the 65 million refugees, there's no single one that's willing to leave their home. they all struggle not to leave. it's a very heavy price they have to pay. relatives, friends, or whole village vanished, a war, a

famine. >> united states president donald trump has cut in half, more than half, the number of refugees allowed in this country. what is your reaction to that? >> i think that the current administration, what they did is beyond belief. >> more than ever, we need the wall. we have drugs pouring through. >> i should say it's shameful. a nation like the united states, which is the most powerful not only leading in the economics but should be strongest nation in defending human rights. after all, u.s. is a nation of immigrants. just a few generations ago, we all come from somewhere. >> absolutely. >> i never met a native here. >> what do you think china should be doing to help resolve this crisis? >> china has gradually become a super economic power. even domestically, china has numerous issues to solve, like

tibetans cannot get a passport or travel. to limit somebody's rights to move is almost the same as to push someone to leave their home. >> the officials came here and told them, look, there's no way you're going to get papers to continue. either you go voluntarily, or we arrest you. >> a lot of your work takes aim right at the heart of power, the chinese government, corruption, and here at alcatraz, the prison system. do you think those in power are listening? >> i know it's very hard to make a power listening, but that's why it's so necessary. >> the children need to go to school. last five years, didn't go to school even one day. >> basically those mistakes or those tragedies are made by humans. >> there is no mosque, no showering facilities. the hygienic station is very

bad. >> so if we don't want to be part of shameful condition, then leave us no choice to make our sound to be heard. >> do you think you're encouraging those in power to change or just making them look like fools, or is it the same thing? >> i think we have to consider they're also human beings, of course. you know, we talk about the issues related to everybody. they all have families, have children. different ways of communication. so i have to believe in this kind of struggle. >> in your film, there's a scene of a man walking through a graveyard, and he's lost many of his loved ones. [ speaking foreign language ] >> he's really speaking from his heart, just as an individual person. for people watching the film,

what can they do about this? >> first, i think we often talk about the crisis without asking why those people are being such a tragic journey. there's so many wars, iraq war, afghanistan war, syrian war. and we also see we are selling extremely dangerous weapons to dangerous locations. big profit are made by united states or european leading nations. and we cannot pretend we are naive on those issues. >> you call yourself an artist, an activist. do you also see yourself as a journalist? >> i have a journalist card as a reporter because if i go to those nation to interview people, often have to have something protect me. so, yes, i'm a journalist also. i do a lot of investigations,

really tough investigations, trying to get some facts out. >> thank you very much, ai weiwei. >> thank you. >> and human flow opens in bay area theaters this weekend. that will do it for us. for more of our coverage, go to kqed.org/newsroom. i'm thuy vu. thank you for joining us.

captioning sponsored by wnet >> sreenivasan: on this edition for sunday, october 22. president trump pushes his tax plan while the rhetoric over gold star families continues the plight of the rohingya muslims fleeing myanmar. and in our signature segment: extending the lives of aging nuclear power plants in the pursuit of clean energy next on pbs newshour weekend. >> pbs newshour weekend is made possible by: bernard and irene schwartz. the cheryl and philip milstein family. sue and edgar wachenheim, iii. dr. p. roy vagelos and diana t. vagelos. the j.b.p. foundation. the anderson family fund. rosalind p. walter, in memory of abby m. o'neill.