Talk:Walkerton E. coli outbreak

Untitled

How can a documentary be loosely based? Would not docu-drama be a better term, in this case? --Dalar 17:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually it officially it actually had nothing to due with Walkerton in any way shape or form, though it is obvious if you watch it. Also should the article not be at Walkerton Water Tragedy? That is the name used every time I see/hear anything about it (and as I live in Walkerton I often hear about it).say1988 21:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Books, links, references

The two books mentioned would be more useful if used as references instead of just links. i.e., someone familiar with the book should add pertinent info from the book to the article and cite the book as a reference. - Special-T 14:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was to merge Stan & Frank Koebel into Walkerton Tragedy. -- Saaga (talk) 06:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Stan & Frank Koebel's notability is solely for their role in this event. I propose that their article be merged and incorporated into this one. There is ample room for it and they are central to the event. Please comment. Canuckle 20:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I am fine with it since the two haven't been in the news since. 24.77.37.48 (talk) 15:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Inspectors

There is no mention in the article about the cut to inspection services in this article. Ok the Koebels were lazy SOB's who really did not care about water quality, but the lack of inspectors was a factor in that it allowed the Koebels incompetence/negligence go undetected for longer than it should be. 15:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)~

Allergic Reaction to e.coli

Also, shouldn't there be something about what factors makes one more susceptible to an allergic reaction to e.coli since not everyone got sick and most of those who got sick recovered - though some died and some were permanently injured. I am very allergic to bleach, always have been, though its gotten worse over time. I remember watching the coverage as I was trying to perk up for my next shift at work (BeeKleen had just taken over the building and I came home very sick and the room used to spin when I lay down) and every time they mentioned bleach my stomach got queazy.

There has to be a way of getting both e.coli and bleach out of the water. I can understand the use of contaminants to kill e.coli, but there has to be some way to rid the water of the contaminants after. Ok, there are worse things than Bleach out there, but we are talking about a substance that shouldn't be used in front of children being put in our water supply to kill other substances taht shouldn't be in our water supply.

I am not justifying eugenics with looking into what factors make one more susceptible to an allergic reaction to e.coli since a person has the right to live no matter what they are allergy to. But differential susceptibility to this allergon is an important part of the story since if we all had the same susceptibility to this allergon, the problem would not have gone undetected for so long. No one looked into the water until all other factors, such as food poisoning and the flu were ruled out as potential causes. 24.77.37.48 (talk) 15:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

claiming the residents?

Does anyone know how this sentence is supposed to read? "Over $70 million dollars was invested in claiming the residents, but also fixing the water sources." My best guess would be either "calming the residents and fixing the water sources." or "settling residents' claims and fixing the water sources." Meters (talk) 18:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Removed line for now since I don't see obvious reference to that number in the refs. Feel free to put is back if you can make sense of it. Meters (talk) 19:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Correct population

Ok I fixed it. Was: "town of about 100,000"
Now reads: "community of about 5,000 people"

No need for a reference to StatsCan since this is a rounded number for a geographic area that is no longer officially incorporated. Walkerton is legally now part of the town of Brockton, which has around 10,000 people, and includes several other communities. Of that number, around 5,000 live in what used to be the "town" of Walkerton.

Regardless of the approximate number I use, it is considerably more accurate than saying "100,000" which is an exageration on the order of 20x the true number.

Also, I added the term 'people'; the 100,000 didn't refer to any entity (100,000 cows? we don't know; must assume it was population).

Finally, I called it a 'community'; this is a more inclusive term, whereas the word 'town' has a specific legal definition in Ontario.
--Atikokan (talk) 03:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Manager of what?

The article states that Stan was "manager". Manager of what? Of the whole town? Of the water supply company? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachel Pearce (talk • contribs) 16:35, September 8, 2014‎

Utilities manager. fixed. Meters (talk) 16:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Citations for the cited articles

http://www.diemer.ca/Docs/Diemer-Contamination.htm

Written June 2000. This article first appeared in the July-August 2000 issue of Canadian Dimension and was reprinted and reproduced in a number of formats and publications, including Alien Invasion: How the Harris Tories Mismanaged Ontario, edited by Ruth Cohen, published by Insomniac Press. Davecb (talk) 23:18, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

The credibility tag on this external link probably had to do with whether or not a self-published webpage by a local land owner is a reliable source. Normally this tag would be used with a ref, not an external link, but I think the question raised is valid. If the source would not be acceptable as a WP:RS for a statement, I don't think it should be used as an external link either. We have solid refs and external links for this article already (CBC coverage and the Government report) so I don't see the need to include a self-published webpage by a local landowner who describes himself here as "a libertarian socialist [whose] goal is the end of capitalism and its replacement by socialism..." We don't lose any content by sticking with more mainstream and arguably less biased sources. I think this external link should be removed. Meters (talk) 21:11, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Don't not call an outbreak of a disease a "tragedy"

This article persistently calls an outbreak of E.col 0157:H7 a "tragedy" which is a highly emotional and extremely subjective term used by the press. It is a completely inaccurate way of describing what was in medical terms an epidemic/outbreak of a bacterial disease. To use the word "tragedy" as a substitute for outbreak implies that Wikipedia editors do not understand public health or medical terminology and also have a definite point of view (ax to grind). The disease the organism subsequently caused may have been "tragic" for certain people but should not be peppered throughout the article. In fact it shouldn't be used at all. There have been several outbreaks of E.coli 0157:H7 throughout the United States and I have never heard of one called a "tragedy" with such ridiculous persistence. Heather Smith, MPH, MLS (ASCP), CLS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.138.89.132 (talk) 07:05, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

While I agree that the repeated use of "tragedy" is over the top and can be toned down, there is some justification for using the term in a some places. We have multiple references that use the term. An entire town's water supply was contaminated. Thousands were sickened, and several died, in part because the people in charge of the water system criminally efused to admit that water testing had shown contamination. This was not just a run of the mill outbreak. Meters (talk) 07:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

The usage of "tragedy" in the current article is reflective of an earlier draft of the article title (renamed on 2015-03-27). The term is supported by one newspapers reference. I'd support removing most other "tragedy" mentions, where appropriate. +mt 23:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I was thinking. I suggest referencing the "also known as the Walkerton tragedy" and rewording the rest of the occurences appropriately. Meters (talk) 06:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

user:Mwtoews No-one has objected to this change. While many news sources that refer to the "Walkerton Tragedy" do so in headlines (making it impossible to tell if the term is being used as proper name) the Canadian Encyclopedia entry on the outbreak is entitled "Walkerton Tragedy" http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/walkerton-tragedy/ I'll use that as a source for the also known as, and remove the rest of the mentions. Meters (talk) 05:57, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I also added a CELA publication http://www.cela.ca/sites/cela.ca/files/uploads/440walkerton.pdf Meters (talk) 06:08, 24 February 2018 (UTC)