It was lunchtime on a Monday at the University of Western Ontario.
Akosh Kazinczi did what hundreds of his fellow students do on any given day. He headed to the cafeteria and bought a chicken breast pita with lettuce, tomato, and onions.
At 7 o’clock the next morning, he woke up vomiting.
“It was really terrible,” said Kazinczi, 20. “I was dehydrated, had the sweats, chills, all the gross (symptoms) too.”
Kazinczi was one of at least 85 students who got salmonella poisoning after eating at the Centre Spot cafeteria in Western’s University Community Centre in the week following Nov. 8.
Many others showed similar symptoms but have not been diagnosed with salmonella.
Kazinczi was in bed for the rest of the week, throwing up every half hour.
He lost 15 pounds in four days.
“Nobody wants to be vomiting furiously constantly,” said the third-year biology student. “I was emotionally distraught.”
Kazinczi said his best friend’s father is a lawyer. When he heard about Kazinczi getting salmonella, he offered to write a letter to Pita Pit’s head office in Kingston to ask for compensation.
“I jumped all over it,” said Kazinczi. “I was pissed.”
He’s not the only one who blamed Pita Pit for the tainted food.
The media published many stories early in the outbreak, all of them stating that the students who got sick had all eaten at the Pita Pit outlet in Centre Spot.
Their information was based on early lab results from the Middlesex London Health Unit. Wally Adams, the unit’s manager of environmental health, said inspectors closed Pita Pit and after a primary inspection, concluded that everything was normal.
But after more and more cases appeared, all of them UWO students, Adams said the health unit took a more in-depth approach called HACCP, or hazard analysis critical control points.
“It’s the approach we take when we want to get in there with a fine tooth comb,” said Adams.
He said there were positive cases that originated from food retailers in Centre Spot other than Pita Pit. The inspection broadened to include the entire cafeteria, which uses shared dishwashers and employees.
After nine inspections, the health unit was unable to pinpoint the cause of the tainted food. Inspectors examined each stage of the food preparation process, from looking at invoices to checking freezer temperatures.
Adams said the problem is in going back a week or two and trying to figure out what went wrong.
“They’re humans doing it, and somebody made a mistake.”
Not everyone agrees. Western’s daily student newspaper, The Gazette, posted a poll on their website asking whether those who’d been “poisoned by salmonella from Centre Spot” are entitled to monetary compensation.
By Nov. 28, about 57 per cent of those who participated had voted “Yes, the university owes those whose health was compromised by its negligence.”
About 42 per cent of voters said “No. Suck it up.”
Some members of the university community responded more eloquently in letters to the newspaper.
Mark Lepore, a third-year student, was supportive of the efforts of cafeteria staff to keep things clean.
“As with every food operation, there is always a risk of contamination,” he wrote.
“While measures are taken to prevent this — and Western is pretty strict — it is bound to happen eventually.”
Susan Varills, a fourth-year student and a former cook, disagreed.
“If a regular restaurant had such a contamination with so many confirmed cases, they would not only face closure, but I’m sure such a restaurant would face a number of lawsuits,” she wrote.
Whether or not the university is liable for the salmonella outbreak is a complicated question, said Stephen Pitel, an associate professor at Western’s faculty of law.
He said unless there was serious damage done to the victims, with debilitating or long-term repercussions, a few days’ sickness would not incur large compensation.
“There’s also the cost of pursuing legal action,” said Pitel, pointing out that for students, it might not be worthwhile.
Legal fees were on Kazinczi’s mind when he got a call from a Windsor law firm on Nov. 23. He said the firm is starting a class action suit with other students who had been sick.
“But that would have been time consuming, and I didn’t really want to pay for lawyer fees with them,” he said.
Kazinczi said the letter to Pita Pit is “basically like a bluff in poker,” saying they have evidence against Pita Pit and are willing to sue them for compensation. But he is also willing to settle out of court.
“If they don’t want to settle out of court, I’m just going to drop the whole thing,” he said, citing time and money as reasons not to sue them.
Though Kazinczi said he is not a greedy person and isn’t out to get anybody, he admitted he wouldn’t say no to compensation.
He said he was “one of the fortunate ones” since he had just finished his midterms before getting sick. He missed about 20 hours of class, but did not lose any marks for labs.
But he also works at three part-time jobs and said he lost a few hundred dollars from missing four days of shifts.
Peter Panopoulos, a lawyer for Pita Pit Ltd, said the company is not directly responsible for the Centre Spot location, which is a “non-customary franchise.”
“The University of Western Ontario basically runs the show,” he said from Kingston. “It would make little sense for someone to sue us.”
That being said, Panopoulos said Pita Pit is not happy about some of the speculation made in the media about them.
“We’re the only ones who’ve been named, and there were 13 other cases that we were not involved in,” he said.
“Once that image is out there, it’s difficult for people to get past it.”
Panopoulos declined to say whether Pita Pit has lost business as a result of the outbreak.
He said the pattern that came out of the initial data was misinterpreted. He added the London health unit confirmed to him and Pita Pit’s CEO on a conference call last week that they do not know what caused the outbreak.
Adams said the infectious disease experts at the health unit are still sifting through data to find a common thread in what the victims ate and when they ate it.
“Statistically, nothing stood out,” he said. “The best we could do is speculate.”
He said inspectors were on location to make sure the Centre Spot staff implemented the recommendations made by the health unit to prevent further outbreaks in the future.
The university issued an apology to students on Nov. 27, stating it has made the necessary changes, including hands-free sanitization stations, hiring an independent health inspector, and other measures to avoid cross-contamination.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Six hours in a courtroom
The London fire department was called to a house on fire at about 11:11 p.m. on June 1, 2006.
The first crew arrived about three minutes later. By the time firefighters entered the house and got upstairs, there was a dead body in one of the bedrooms.
Six firefighters who had helped put out the fire that night testified in court today with Superior Court Judge Helen Rady presiding.
Loranzo Kimpe, 39, is charged with arson and the second-degree murder of his common-law spouse, 33-year-old Deborah Devine. He is accused of strangling her, then setting on fire the house they shared for 11 years.
The firefighters each recalled their observations from the night of June 1. The witnesses included firefighters Aaron McCutcheon and Thomas Salmoni, of Fire Station 5, and Brent Taylor, Captain Timothy Askin, Daniel Glanville, and Terri Taylor, all from Fire Station 9.
McCutcheon, Salmoni and their captain, Don Harrington, were first on the scene. They both testified that when they arrived at 609 Deveron Cres., there were people around the front yard waving them down.
McCutcheon testified he had to hit the door “more than 12 times” with a sledgehammer before getting in.
Upon entering the house, McCutcheon said he saw an orange gas can on the front landing.
Salmoni testified he and Harrington proceeded up the stairs to the main floor. At the top of the stairs there was another gas can—“a red jerry can,” he said.
Both McCutcheon and Salmoni said the main floor and stairs were filled with smoke. When Salmoni felt his knees grow hot, he told his captain he thought the fire was in the basement.
The three men went downstairs and put out a flame in a basement living area.
By that point, the second crew had arrived. Askin and Glanville went upstairs to the kitchen and living room. They each testified to seeing another gas can in the kitchen, lying on its side. After searching the rest of the floor, Askin entered the bedroom at the back of the house and found strong flames and thick smoke coming from underneath a bed.
He testified he told Glanville to bring a water hose to put out the fire. Upon reentering the bedroom, Askin saw a body lying on the bed. He said he grabbed a leg but was unable to move the body off the bed.
Glanville and Taylor testified that when they returned to put out the flames, the bedroom ceiling collapsed on them. They removed some of the debris and approached the body.
Assistant Crown attorney Melody Martin asked Taylor how he knew it was a body under the debris.
He replied, “I just knew by the feel of it.”
Taylor testified the facial features were severely burned and he could not tell whether it was a male or a female. He found no signs of life in the victim.
Kimpe’s son Robert, 14, was living at the house until a week prior to the fire. The firefighters did not see him when they were there.
The trial resumes Thursday morning.
The first crew arrived about three minutes later. By the time firefighters entered the house and got upstairs, there was a dead body in one of the bedrooms.
Six firefighters who had helped put out the fire that night testified in court today with Superior Court Judge Helen Rady presiding.
Loranzo Kimpe, 39, is charged with arson and the second-degree murder of his common-law spouse, 33-year-old Deborah Devine. He is accused of strangling her, then setting on fire the house they shared for 11 years.
The firefighters each recalled their observations from the night of June 1. The witnesses included firefighters Aaron McCutcheon and Thomas Salmoni, of Fire Station 5, and Brent Taylor, Captain Timothy Askin, Daniel Glanville, and Terri Taylor, all from Fire Station 9.
McCutcheon, Salmoni and their captain, Don Harrington, were first on the scene. They both testified that when they arrived at 609 Deveron Cres., there were people around the front yard waving them down.
McCutcheon testified he had to hit the door “more than 12 times” with a sledgehammer before getting in.
Upon entering the house, McCutcheon said he saw an orange gas can on the front landing.
Salmoni testified he and Harrington proceeded up the stairs to the main floor. At the top of the stairs there was another gas can—“a red jerry can,” he said.
Both McCutcheon and Salmoni said the main floor and stairs were filled with smoke. When Salmoni felt his knees grow hot, he told his captain he thought the fire was in the basement.
The three men went downstairs and put out a flame in a basement living area.
By that point, the second crew had arrived. Askin and Glanville went upstairs to the kitchen and living room. They each testified to seeing another gas can in the kitchen, lying on its side. After searching the rest of the floor, Askin entered the bedroom at the back of the house and found strong flames and thick smoke coming from underneath a bed.
He testified he told Glanville to bring a water hose to put out the fire. Upon reentering the bedroom, Askin saw a body lying on the bed. He said he grabbed a leg but was unable to move the body off the bed.
Glanville and Taylor testified that when they returned to put out the flames, the bedroom ceiling collapsed on them. They removed some of the debris and approached the body.
Assistant Crown attorney Melody Martin asked Taylor how he knew it was a body under the debris.
He replied, “I just knew by the feel of it.”
Taylor testified the facial features were severely burned and he could not tell whether it was a male or a female. He found no signs of life in the victim.
Kimpe’s son Robert, 14, was living at the house until a week prior to the fire. The firefighters did not see him when they were there.
The trial resumes Thursday morning.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Another clipping in the London Free Press
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
London Free Press B2
WORK WITH SPECIAL-NEEDS KIDS HONOURED
By Meghan Moloney
Special to The Free Press
David Gosset doesn't usually seek the limelight.
But last night, he stood in front of a crown applauding him for his work with special-needs students.
Gosset was honoured as educator of the year for Special Olympics at the Thames Valley District school board meeting.
An athletics program services officer with the board, Gosset also is chair of the region's Special Olympics organization committee. He's been involved with the event since 2002.
"It's very humbling to be recognized," Gosset said. "We are passionate about kids and that's why we're in this role."
Gosset works with special education teachers, parents, volunteers, and members of Special Olympics Ontario to co-ordinate the three-day track and field meet at TD Waterhouse Stadium.
Investing In Children is a London organization that has provided funding and support to Special Olympics Ontario for six years.
Anita Gilvesy, the executive director, praised Gosset's organizational skills. "(He) has done an amazing job," she said.
London Free Press B2
WORK WITH SPECIAL-NEEDS KIDS HONOURED
By Meghan Moloney
Special to The Free Press
David Gosset doesn't usually seek the limelight.
But last night, he stood in front of a crown applauding him for his work with special-needs students.
Gosset was honoured as educator of the year for Special Olympics at the Thames Valley District school board meeting.
An athletics program services officer with the board, Gosset also is chair of the region's Special Olympics organization committee. He's been involved with the event since 2002.
"It's very humbling to be recognized," Gosset said. "We are passionate about kids and that's why we're in this role."
Gosset works with special education teachers, parents, volunteers, and members of Special Olympics Ontario to co-ordinate the three-day track and field meet at TD Waterhouse Stadium.
Investing In Children is a London organization that has provided funding and support to Special Olympics Ontario for six years.
Anita Gilvesy, the executive director, praised Gosset's organizational skills. "(He) has done an amazing job," she said.
Monday, November 12, 2007
Lions for Lambs
Anyone who's ever had a passing interest in media and the ethical politics that come with it, should see this movie. I'm not sure I agree with all the decisions the director made for Meryl Streep's character, but it was extremely well written and very timely.
Even though I should know better by now, I still tend to fall back into that assumption that when a newspaper or TV newscast releases a story, it's a) true, and b) the whole story. I know that's naive, but even when I'm writing my own news stories, I never consciously think about the fact that someone else might look at my story and point out that I left out pertinent information that might have changed the shape of the story. Everyone leaves out details when they write up an article. You have to. How many times have our profs reminded us -- if your editor asks for 12 inches and you write 20, they won't read the rest of the story just to see what else was going on. They'll chop it off the end. So it's in your best interest to get all the important info into the first 12 inches, and being concise is just a skill you need to develop.
Clearly not one I excel at.
The point is, in the interest of saving space, all news stories are limited. The problem arises when individual humans make the decision to include or exclude particular details of each story. Every reporter would write the same story differently, based on the facts and viewpoints he or she thinks matter the most.
But what about when the decision isn't just which facts to include, but whether to run a story at all? This movie looked at the role the media played in "selling" the Iraq war to the American public. The director's argument, if I got it right, was that the media simply took any and all information the government gave them and published or broadcast it to the public -- and that a good chunk of that information was in fact propaganda. The argument was made that the media should have stepped back and been more critical of what they were hearing, and perhaps covered those stories in 2001 from a different angle.
But the argument was also made that in a time of war, or for that matter any important political situation, any information given out by the government must be made public. Even if a reporter (like Meryl Streep's character) thinks something is bull, without solid proof or a second opinion that reporter can't justify withholding the information. Yet how much more damage could be caused by publishing something that is almost certainly military propaganda?
I think one of the most valuable aspects of this movie was its 'moral', for lack of a better term: that there are often no right answers. It's great that Hollywood is addressing the issue of ethics and transparency in media coverage of the war, but at the same time, it scares me to realize I'll be dealing with this if I enter into this career.
Even though I should know better by now, I still tend to fall back into that assumption that when a newspaper or TV newscast releases a story, it's a) true, and b) the whole story. I know that's naive, but even when I'm writing my own news stories, I never consciously think about the fact that someone else might look at my story and point out that I left out pertinent information that might have changed the shape of the story. Everyone leaves out details when they write up an article. You have to. How many times have our profs reminded us -- if your editor asks for 12 inches and you write 20, they won't read the rest of the story just to see what else was going on. They'll chop it off the end. So it's in your best interest to get all the important info into the first 12 inches, and being concise is just a skill you need to develop.
Clearly not one I excel at.
The point is, in the interest of saving space, all news stories are limited. The problem arises when individual humans make the decision to include or exclude particular details of each story. Every reporter would write the same story differently, based on the facts and viewpoints he or she thinks matter the most.
But what about when the decision isn't just which facts to include, but whether to run a story at all? This movie looked at the role the media played in "selling" the Iraq war to the American public. The director's argument, if I got it right, was that the media simply took any and all information the government gave them and published or broadcast it to the public -- and that a good chunk of that information was in fact propaganda. The argument was made that the media should have stepped back and been more critical of what they were hearing, and perhaps covered those stories in 2001 from a different angle.
But the argument was also made that in a time of war, or for that matter any important political situation, any information given out by the government must be made public. Even if a reporter (like Meryl Streep's character) thinks something is bull, without solid proof or a second opinion that reporter can't justify withholding the information. Yet how much more damage could be caused by publishing something that is almost certainly military propaganda?
I think one of the most valuable aspects of this movie was its 'moral', for lack of a better term: that there are often no right answers. It's great that Hollywood is addressing the issue of ethics and transparency in media coverage of the war, but at the same time, it scares me to realize I'll be dealing with this if I enter into this career.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
I used to be an academic
I recently had a paper published in an independent student journal, Anthropolitique. It's run by the Anthropological Issues Group (AIG) at Guelph. I originally wrote the paper for my final assignment in one of my anthropology courses, which I absolutely loved and gave me a much wider perspective on the world than I would have otherwise gotten from my undergrad. My prof, Renee Sylvain, told the students running the journal about my paper, so they asked me to submit it. I was so flattered at the time, but I have to give most of the credit to the prof, since a lot of the ideas either came from her lectures or were inspired by them.
Okay, enough mush -- if you're into global indigenous rights activism, or have an assignment to do and would really like to procrastinate instead, go to http://www.uoguelph.ca/~anthro/anthropolitique.htm and click on the Full Online Edition. My paper is first on the table of contents, after the introductory pages.
If you're too lazy to copy and paste the above URL into your browser window, you can also find it in the Links section on the right of this page.
Okay, enough mush -- if you're into global indigenous rights activism, or have an assignment to do and would really like to procrastinate instead, go to http://www.uoguelph.ca/~anthro/anthropolitique.htm and click on the Full Online Edition. My paper is first on the table of contents, after the introductory pages.
If you're too lazy to copy and paste the above URL into your browser window, you can also find it in the Links section on the right of this page.
Saturday, November 3, 2007
Intriguing, this whole Inter-Web thing
I just realized the difference between writing for newspapers, writing on a personal blog that only friends or colleagues will see, and writing on a personal blog that is also career-related and "published" in a public sphere.
I'm not so self-centred that I think a million Canadians will be reading this blog. Nor do I think it likely that a potential employer of mine -- or potential high-profile colleague, as the case may be -- will stumble upon it anytime soon.
But I was three paragraphs into a satirical rant about a certain columnist whose piece I read in today's Globe (or rather, stopped reading halfway through because it was so freaking boring)... when I realized that it's probably not a good idea to post stuff like that on the internet.
Even if it's just my friends and family and maybe classmates who are reading this, so far. Even if perhaps 90 percent of Globe readers would agree with my assessment of said columnist. And even if I'm just a lowly j-school student with no current "real job" prospects.
Even so. As one of our recent online media lectures made so clear to me, the internet can be an amazing tool. It's no longer about the amount of information you can access online -- it's about the fact that you can make all kinds of information come to you, with very little effort. But that also means that anything I post on my small blog could end up in anyone's inbox, for no apparent reason other than that they have an RSS feed tagging anything with the label Journalism or Globe and Mail or Careless Ranting.
All those warnings our teachers gave us about not posting inappropriate pictures or comments on Facebook in case employers saw them are now making sense. But this time it's my own writing that made me think twice: not two days has this blog been up and running, and already I've had to stop and rethink the line between personal opinion and material that I'd feel comfortable publishing in a newspaper.
Interesting.
I'm not so self-centred that I think a million Canadians will be reading this blog. Nor do I think it likely that a potential employer of mine -- or potential high-profile colleague, as the case may be -- will stumble upon it anytime soon.
But I was three paragraphs into a satirical rant about a certain columnist whose piece I read in today's Globe (or rather, stopped reading halfway through because it was so freaking boring)... when I realized that it's probably not a good idea to post stuff like that on the internet.
Even if it's just my friends and family and maybe classmates who are reading this, so far. Even if perhaps 90 percent of Globe readers would agree with my assessment of said columnist. And even if I'm just a lowly j-school student with no current "real job" prospects.
Even so. As one of our recent online media lectures made so clear to me, the internet can be an amazing tool. It's no longer about the amount of information you can access online -- it's about the fact that you can make all kinds of information come to you, with very little effort. But that also means that anything I post on my small blog could end up in anyone's inbox, for no apparent reason other than that they have an RSS feed tagging anything with the label Journalism or Globe and Mail or Careless Ranting.
All those warnings our teachers gave us about not posting inappropriate pictures or comments on Facebook in case employers saw them are now making sense. But this time it's my own writing that made me think twice: not two days has this blog been up and running, and already I've had to stop and rethink the line between personal opinion and material that I'd feel comfortable publishing in a newspaper.
Interesting.
Friday, November 2, 2007
...What next?
So I'm starting another blog. I figure since I've recently become an officially published journalist, I should keep up with the trends and create a "presence" for myself online. (I'm sorry, Wayne MacPhail... from now on, I'll try not to be such a technologically-incompetent 20-something.)
Unlike whatever daily drivel you may see me writing on Facebook, this is going to be where I post any articles or stories I get published in the real world. I'll post the ONE newspaper story that's out there so far -- and just so that one doesn't get lonely, I'll also post my old articles from my undergraduate student paper. This will also have the purpose of allowing me to feel better about myself by seeing the progress I've made in the last two years.
So without further ado... here are the very beginnings of my career.
The London Free Press
Tue, October 30, 2007
Witches favoured over princesses:
Costume choices this year lean toward the dark side.
By MEGHAN MOLONEY, SPECIAL TO SUN MEDIA
Cute is out. Scary and sleazy are in.
The preferences are clear for this year's hottest-selling Halloween
costumes -- and you might be surprised by what girls are wearing.
Or maybe not.
Disney and kittens aren't faring too well at cash registers this year,
say clerks at costume-specialty stores.
More popular -- and likely coming tomorrow to trick-or-treat at your
door -- are the darker, more adult costumes.
At the new Party Packagers store on Southdale Road, manager Michelle
Nemeth says girls' choices have leaned toward the dark side this year.
"The cutesy stuff is not popular. It's more witchy, goth stuff -- the
monster bride, the goth maiden witch."
For adults, she said, "skimpiest sells."
Even costumes for very young girls are more risque. Nemeth points to
Bratz brand cheerleader outfits.
For boys, a big seller has been Optimus Prime of the Transformers
movie -- Nemeth has sold out of them twice -- as well as the classic,
red-outfitted Spiderman.
Men favour the black-suited, bad-guy Spiderman, she said.
Tastes run to the more traditional at Value Village and McCulloch's,
with princess and fairy costumes still favourites for girls.
Crystal Sheridan at McCulloch's said teen girls are still keen on
fairy tales, only they're considerably sexier than the ones you'll see
in the Disney movies.
Boys, influenced by recent movies, have been going for army outfits
and comic-book superheroes.
Tiny pirates also will be sailing the trick-or-treat seas.
Jen Lee, an employee at the Wellington Road Value Village, said these
boys and girls "have probably been inspired by Pirates of the
Caribbean."
Unlike whatever daily drivel you may see me writing on Facebook, this is going to be where I post any articles or stories I get published in the real world. I'll post the ONE newspaper story that's out there so far -- and just so that one doesn't get lonely, I'll also post my old articles from my undergraduate student paper. This will also have the purpose of allowing me to feel better about myself by seeing the progress I've made in the last two years.
So without further ado... here are the very beginnings of my career.
The London Free Press
Tue, October 30, 2007
Witches favoured over princesses:
Costume choices this year lean toward the dark side.
By MEGHAN MOLONEY, SPECIAL TO SUN MEDIA
Cute is out. Scary and sleazy are in.
The preferences are clear for this year's hottest-selling Halloween
costumes -- and you might be surprised by what girls are wearing.
Or maybe not.
Disney and kittens aren't faring too well at cash registers this year,
say clerks at costume-specialty stores.
More popular -- and likely coming tomorrow to trick-or-treat at your
door -- are the darker, more adult costumes.
At the new Party Packagers store on Southdale Road, manager Michelle
Nemeth says girls' choices have leaned toward the dark side this year.
"The cutesy stuff is not popular. It's more witchy, goth stuff -- the
monster bride, the goth maiden witch."
For adults, she said, "skimpiest sells."
Even costumes for very young girls are more risque. Nemeth points to
Bratz brand cheerleader outfits.
For boys, a big seller has been Optimus Prime of the Transformers
movie -- Nemeth has sold out of them twice -- as well as the classic,
red-outfitted Spiderman.
Men favour the black-suited, bad-guy Spiderman, she said.
Tastes run to the more traditional at Value Village and McCulloch's,
with princess and fairy costumes still favourites for girls.
Crystal Sheridan at McCulloch's said teen girls are still keen on
fairy tales, only they're considerably sexier than the ones you'll see
in the Disney movies.
Boys, influenced by recent movies, have been going for army outfits
and comic-book superheroes.
Tiny pirates also will be sailing the trick-or-treat seas.
Jen Lee, an employee at the Wellington Road Value Village, said these
boys and girls "have probably been inspired by Pirates of the
Caribbean."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)