Drinking water contamination in Walkerton, Ontario: positive resolutions from a tragic event
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
In May 2000, Escherichia coli O157:H7 and Campylobacter jejuni contaminated the drinking water supply in Walkerton, Ontario. Seven people died and over 2,000 were ill as a result. The Ontario Provincial Government set up a judicial Inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the outbreak and also moved quickly to introduce a new Drinking Water Regulation that incorporated some significant requirements for drinking water providers. The Inquiry itself was in three parts: (a) part 1 related to the events that occurred in Walkerton and why the water contamination occurred; (b) part 1A related specifically to the role of the Provincial Government in the event; and (c) part 2 related to the future of drinking water safety in Ontario with potential to influence regulation on a wider basis. A number of other actions were taken after Walkerton. In August 2000, the Ontario Government, through the Regulatory body, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE) (a) re-issued and revised the Ontario Drinking Water Objectives (ODWO) as the Ontario Drinking Water Standards (ODWS) and (b) introduced new regulations governing drinking water in Ontario--the Ontario Drinking Water Protection Regulation. One of the key features of the Drinking Water Protection Regulation was the requirement to produce an independent Engineers' Report on all water systems. This paper provides a unique perspective on the Walkerton tragedy and its aftermath. The author was active in many aspects of the resulting activity (Chair of the Ontario Water Works Association's (a section of the AWWA) Special Committee involved in Part 2 of the Walkerton Inquiry; author of several of the Engineers' Reports mandated by Regulation; reviewer on behalf of the Regulator of Engineers' Reports submitted by others). The Engineers' Reports were of interest because (1) the drinking water providers (mostly municipalities) were mandated by regulation to complete the Reports by specific dates and are paying for the Reports, (2) the work had to be done by a registered professional engineer who is not an employee of the owner or the operator if a different entity and (3) the engineer had to sign a declaration that the Regulator could rely on the accuracy of the Report. In other words, the Municipality retained the Engineer and paid them to produce the Report--the Engineer essentially carried the liability while the Regulator had the final say in the acceptability of the Report, a sort of eternal triangle of responsibilities. The paper will outline how the drinking water profession in North America worked together to provide the Walkerton Inquiry with the benefit of its experience and knowledge of best practices to the benefit of consumers and the drinking water providers. It will also outline the procedures adopted to produce the independent Engineers' Reports and how the findings are being applied to further improve drinking water safety in Ontario, across Canada and in similar situations around the world.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,027 | 0,006 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,007 | 0,006 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».