But Egypt air wasn't negligence, it was suicide, the same as that fed air incident. As for refering matters to the FBI they do that when it was a delibrate act, ie hijackings, bombs. Not when its systematic failures. It used to be a blame culture until they realised this was costing lives because in responce a culture of silence emerged. You seriously think that 33 lives lost is somehow massive? A plane going down could kill a few hundred but even if the engenieer falied to follow a dozen steps in the manual he\she doesn't face criminal santions. Civil compensation again the airline is a completely different matter but the crash investigation which starts with the FBI becomes "how can we stop this happening again as soon as deliberate acts are ruled out
E Coli outbreak in Germany - crime and punishment
- Thread starter Read-Only
- Start date
But Egypt air wasn't negligence, it was suicide, the same as that fed air incident. As for refering matters to the FBI they do that when it was a delibrate act, ie hijackings, bombs. Not when its systematic failures. It used to be a blame culture until they realised this was costing lives because in responce a culture of silence emerged. You seriously think that 33 lives lost is somehow massive? A plane going down could kill a few hundred but even if the engenieer falied to follow a dozen steps in the manual he\she doesn't face criminal santions. Civil compensation again the airline is a completely different matter but the crash investigation which starts with the FBI becomes "how can we stop this happening again as soon as deliberate acts are ruled out
Bells a question for you, there was an incident a couple of weeks ago in Australia that had the potential to kill hundreds including my father in law. a QANTAS jet ran out of fuel on its was to Melbourne and had to make an emergency landing at Adelaide. Why are you not screaming for blood, or a someone DID fuck that up, someone's maths was off or someone was working in the wrong measurements or whatever but someone is "to blame" for that incident
The standard examination of water and wastewater DO NOT distinguish between harmful and non-harmful E. coli. The approved EPA method (using Colilert-18) can only show how many E. coli and coliform bacteria there are in the water, it does not tell you which strain of E. coli, simply because it's too expensive. And I repeat again, a certain level of E. coli in irrigation water is allowed and not dangerous. And your calculation is completely misleading. In the first few hours E. coli do multiply (go look for E. coli growth curve), but after 24 hours, they stop multiplying and died, unless you separate the fit ones and give them more fresh nutrient to grow in favorable condition.
I hope everybody understand what is a gross negligence? It is when people ignore safety instruction to the point of endangering other people' lives. If the pilot, for example, chatting or listening to music or sleeping or whatever it takes to cause accident, then yes, he should take some responsibility. You don't say, 'oh you listened to music so you crash the plane... that's ok, don't do it next time'. Depends on the type of negligence and the magnitude of accident, people lose their license. In the case of Bhopal disaster, some really went to jail, because it happens that they knew what they were doing, and they intentionally do it because they want to make the process more economic even though they know it risks the safety. In any types of job, at least the one where I have worked before, the priority is the same: safety first.
And yes, in adult world, people are taking their responsibilities for their action, because that's the meaning of being responsible. If it was me (the pilot who ignored safety instruction and causing lost of lives), as a decent human being, I will take responsibility for my action, I am not a criminal. I can't, for the gross lost of lives which I caused, go the next day to work and act as if nothing happened. I would probably at least give up my license and look some other jobs.
You guys are too naive. Let me ask you, Pete and Asguard, what happen do you think if you go to a park with your laptop, wallet, and mobile phones, and work there, and then leave everything in the park for a while without supervision to have lunch somewhere? When everything is gone when you come back, would you be surprised??? and say to yourself... "oh, it's a bad luck, somebody must be mentally ill and need treatment... I will not let police involved, nobody should be punished for stealing my wallet, I will call a mental doctor to analyse the situation in case someone come to confess for stealing my things" or something like that??
I think we could agree that not everybody in this world is honest and care about your belongings or well-being. Some people are mentally ill (and yes, need treatment), some other do what they do because there are chance, opportunity, motivation, or even too careless to be given a serious responsibility. When you get into the plane, you do it because you trust your lives to the pilot and the crew; when you buy foods, you eat them because you trust that others providing them for you properly. You are working now, and people also trust you for what you are doing and hope that you will not betray their trust. If you agree to do it, it means you agree to respect the trust. If other people go to jail, I do not get any satisfaction or benefit, but when the jail term or other type of penalty is appropriate, it should be applied, so everybody would be more responsible in maintaining safety, law, and order. At the time we are arguing here, just remember, that some 30 something people died, others need long-life kidney treatment, some thousand others are ill. IF it is caused by deliberate intent like using poorer quality water to irrigate crops or eliminating gloves to save some money knowing fully that it can cause contamination, then yes, these type of people are better go out of business, I do not want to trust my life on them.
Grossly negligent behaviour should be identified and managed before an incident happens. If it isn't then there is a deeper problem that will not be fixed by just punishing the person responsible at that time.
Yes, taking responsibility is an adult thing to do.
No, imposing punishment is not equivalent.
That's your choice to make. Why should anyone impose that choice on you? Would it also be an honorable choice to return to work and do what you can to improve safety to prevent future incidents?
I'd learn that leaving my stuff in the park is a bad idea, and I wouldn't do it again. I'd get on to the police to see if my stuff could be recovered.
What's your point? That some people are dishonest?
Well, duh. No one is saying otherwise.
Again, no one disagrees.
Bells
Staff member
You don't seem to think actions leading to dozens of deaths and hundreds ill, some gravely ill is even worthy of legal action if it is found that it was caused by a person...
Children are selfish. It is my role as a parent to teach them to not be selfish and take responsibility for their actions.
This is astounding really.. We've gone from Asguard asking me what stops me raping and murdering children to you questioning how I parent because I believe that if someone is responsible for this then they should be made to answer for it.
Not at all. We denied any responsibility and any responsibility to even act.
And we continue to do so. Consider it to be the E.coli outbreak on a grand scale.
The word "if" keeps passing you by?
You'd be surprised..
Tobacco companies for one, just off the top of my head.
What do you think I have been saying these last pages Pete?
What I have stated from the start is that if the investigation finds that there was wrongdoing, then there should be repercussions.
I have been consistently misrepresented in this thread and it is getting tiring. I have had disgusting questions asked of me, such as what stops me raping children and murdering children and I have also had you question how I raise my children. I have had Asguard take continuous and repeated pot shots at my bank accounts and my profession, only for him to actually become insulted when I lowered myself to his level to question his demand and motives behind his demand that we never apportion blame at all.
If you wish to discuss this issue with me, then please, for the love of all that is holy, actually read what I have said and stop misrepresenting my argument to suit your own.
People only care about how things will affect them.
It is why we have whistle blower laws in place Pete. Because people are only interested in protecting their own hides.
Bells
Staff member
What in the hell are you blathering about now?
Over-react much?
Here is a breakdown about what happened with that plane.. And it is vastly different to your interpretation and rant..
Flight QF10 from Singapore to Melbourne struck stronger than forecast winds associated with the unseasonal cold snap hitting the Eastern States, which forced to crew to divert to Adelaide.
Typically, aircraft carry sufficient fuel for the forecast winds plus hold over the destination city and diversion fuel to an alternate.
But upper level winds can change dramatically and jet streams can have winds of more than 300km/h.
QF10 with 249 passengers was due to land in Melbourne about 5 a.m. but landed in Adelaide at 4:15 a.m. during that city's curfew after an emergency was declared.
A Qantas spokesman said that the likely reason for the fuel issue was "a changed flight conditions en route."
The A380 departed for Melbourne at 5:45 a.m. where it arrived at 7:40 a.m..
(source)
Typically, aircraft carry sufficient fuel for the forecast winds plus hold over the destination city and diversion fuel to an alternate.
But upper level winds can change dramatically and jet streams can have winds of more than 300km/h.
QF10 with 249 passengers was due to land in Melbourne about 5 a.m. but landed in Adelaide at 4:15 a.m. during that city's curfew after an emergency was declared.
A Qantas spokesman said that the likely reason for the fuel issue was "a changed flight conditions en route."
The A380 departed for Melbourne at 5:45 a.m. where it arrived at 7:40 a.m..
(source)
Now, you have been making hysterical claims and rants in this thread and the other one without being able to back anything up. You have repeatedly misrepresented people's arguments because you either can't read and comprehend or because you're a bit of an attention whore trying to troll and flame. Either provide sources or shut the hell up. I am sick and tired of having to pander to your hysterics and insults on this forum Asguard. Enough is enough. It stops here.
Last edited:
A QANTAS plane ran out of fuel a couple of weeks ago and had to make an emergency landing. If that plane had crashed 33 deaths would have been a blessing because there are hundreds of people on the plane. So if your so interested in criminal charges for negligence why are you not screaming for the pilots, and fuel guys to be locked up over that? Fact that it managed to land safely was luck not good management so where's the blood lust for vengeance bells?
Bells
Staff member
Listen here you pathetic little ghoul, the issue with that plane is vastly different to what we are discussing. It is also off-topic and trolling by you.
You have misrepresented what happened with that plane - stop trolling and stop lying. It didn't make an emergency landing. It's fuel was low after flight conditions caused the plane to use up way more fuel then they had envisioned and they declared an emergency to allow them to land and refuel during Adelaide's curfew.
You know its amusing watching you and read go nuts because someone doesn't agree with you. I gave you a simple example, wouldn't take much to find "the person" responcible in that one and it had the potential to kill hundreds. Unlike a bacterial investgations, air crash investigations are simple, (for the most part) an aircraft crash can't blow in, crawl in ect. Hell the health department has enough trouble tracking manicocle outbreaks and they are fast, food contamination is slow (in how long it takes to show up). It can come in on clothing, the wind, in the water, in the soil ect.
Bells
Staff member
Dear lord this just keeps on giving. I cited you one example where systematic failures resulted in criminal charges and where human error would have resulted in charges had the train driver actually survived the accident he caused while texting and failing to see a stop signal.
The NTSB can and will call in the FBI if they feel that the crash was caused by people or the actions of persons (individual or organisation).
Here is what I had linked earlier:
The NTSB investigation eventually determined that the fire that downed Flight 592 began in a cargo compartment below the passenger cabin. The cargo compartment was of a Class D design, in which fire suppression is accomplished by sealing off the hold from outside air. Any fire in such an airtight compartment will in theory quickly exhaust all available oxygen and then burn itself out. As the fire suppression is accomplished without any intervention by the crew, such holds are not equipped with smoke detectors. However, the NTSB determined that just before takeoff, expired chemical oxygen generators were placed in the cargo compartment in five boxes marked COMAT (Company-owned material) by ValuJet's maintenance contractor, SabreTech, in contravention of FAA regulations forbidding the transport of hazardous materials in aircraft cargo holds. Failure to cover the firing pins for the generators with the prescribed plastic caps made an accidental activation much more likely. Rather than covering the firing pins, the SabreTech workers simply duct taped the cords around the cans, or cut them, and used tape to stick the ends down. It is also possible that the cylindrical, tennis ball can-sized generators were loaded onboard in the mistaken belief that they were just empty canisters, thus being certified as safe to transport in an aircraft cargo compartment. SabreTech employees indicated on the cargo manifest that the "canisters" were empty, when in fact they were not.
Chemical oxygen generators, when activated, produce oxygen. As a byproduct of the exothermic chemical reaction, they also produce a great quantity of heat. These two together were sufficient not only to start an accidental fire, but also to produce enough oxygen to keep the fire burning. The fire risk was made much worse by the presence of combustible aircraft wheels in the hold. Two main tires and wheels and a nose tire and wheel were also included in the COMAT. NTSB investigators theorized that when the plane experienced a slight jolt while taxiing on the runway, an oxygen generator unintentionally activated, producing oxygen and heat. Laboratory testing showed that canisters of the same type could heat nearby materials up to 500 °F (260 °C), enough to ignite a smouldering fire. The oxygen from the generators fed the resulting fire in the cargo hold. A pop and jolt heard on the cockpit voice recording and correlated with a brief and dramatic spike in the altimeter reading in the flight data recording were attributed to the sudden cabin pressure change caused by a semi-inflated aircraft wheel in the cargo hold exploding in the fire.
--------------------------------------------------------
The NTSB report split blame for the crash among three parties:
SabreTech, for improperly packaging and storing hazardous materials,
ValuJet, for not supervising SabreTech, and
the FAA, for not mandating smoke detection and fire suppression systems in cargo holds.
---------------------------------------------------------
Just before the federal trial, a Florida grand jury indicted SabreTech on 110 counts of manslaughter and 110 counts of third-degree murder: one for each person who died in the crash. SabreTech settled the state charges by agreeing to plead no contest to a state charge of mishandling hazardous waste and to donate $500,000 to an aviation safety group and a Miami-Dade County charity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ValuJet_Flight_592
Chemical oxygen generators, when activated, produce oxygen. As a byproduct of the exothermic chemical reaction, they also produce a great quantity of heat. These two together were sufficient not only to start an accidental fire, but also to produce enough oxygen to keep the fire burning. The fire risk was made much worse by the presence of combustible aircraft wheels in the hold. Two main tires and wheels and a nose tire and wheel were also included in the COMAT. NTSB investigators theorized that when the plane experienced a slight jolt while taxiing on the runway, an oxygen generator unintentionally activated, producing oxygen and heat. Laboratory testing showed that canisters of the same type could heat nearby materials up to 500 °F (260 °C), enough to ignite a smouldering fire. The oxygen from the generators fed the resulting fire in the cargo hold. A pop and jolt heard on the cockpit voice recording and correlated with a brief and dramatic spike in the altimeter reading in the flight data recording were attributed to the sudden cabin pressure change caused by a semi-inflated aircraft wheel in the cargo hold exploding in the fire.
--------------------------------------------------------
The NTSB report split blame for the crash among three parties:
SabreTech, for improperly packaging and storing hazardous materials,
ValuJet, for not supervising SabreTech, and
the FAA, for not mandating smoke detection and fire suppression systems in cargo holds.
---------------------------------------------------------
Just before the federal trial, a Florida grand jury indicted SabreTech on 110 counts of manslaughter and 110 counts of third-degree murder: one for each person who died in the crash. SabreTech settled the state charges by agreeing to plead no contest to a state charge of mishandling hazardous waste and to donate $500,000 to an aviation safety group and a Miami-Dade County charity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ValuJet_Flight_592
And that was on top of a Federal trial Asguard.
So please, stop trolling and stop lying.
Bells
Staff member
Because you gave me an example where no one was responsible?
Possibly?
Could it be?
You know, acts of nature are not caused by humans - ie weather and wind conditions caused that plane to burn through more fuel...? Come on Asguard, use what little there is left between your ears and read the words written. Try for me.
Vastly different to if say, someone being directly responsible for this bacteria contaminating the sprouts, wouldn't you say?
Care to tell me how a bacteria that exists in the guts of sheeps and cows manage to get into sprouts? Or are you going to claim cows in a neighboring paddock farted in the farm's general direction?
It don't think it necessarily follows from those guidelines that it implies that all forms of E.coli are safe at those levels. We'd need to check out the guidelines and their devlopment in more depth.
In a number of ways, the pathogen in this outbreak (EHEC O104) is more similar to Shigella dysenteriae than human commensal E.coli. In fact, it is thought that EHEC is actually a Shigella species. O1O4 has more virulence factors again, which seem to have come from other E.coli strains.
Packaged together, that makes EHEC O104 very virulent indeed.
As best as I can discover on Google, the infectious doses are:
Commensal E.coli : 1-100 million organisms
EHEC O157 : 10-100 organisms
EHEC O104 : <100
The EHEC O104 dose hasn't been well determined yet, but it is showing itself to be more virulent that EHEC O157, as it seems to be infecting healthy adults as easily as the very young and very old.
The reason why the standard for water quality for irrigation is lenient is because there is a huge needs of water for irrigation, some 70% usage of the worldwide water usage is for irrigation, otherwise we don't have enough food supply. There is no enough clean water, no enough rainfall in arid semi-arid area (note for example, Chile is among the biggest fruits producers, but they have no enough rain to irrigate the crops), and so on. If you google "reuse of wastewater in agriculture", you can find a lot of links described these, for example (note: this is pdf document):
http://www-esd.worldbank.org/esd/ard/groundwater/pdfreports/WasteWater_reuse_for_agriculture.pdf
That's from the worldbank website, there are many in FAO websites. Wait, here is a link (note: this is also pdf):
http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/wastewater/fao_wastewaterinagriculture.pdf
I will look for a table showing an example of guidelines of the allowable level of bacteria in the water and take a screenshot here (by editing this post later, I'll give a blue text for indication). Edit: I tried to put the screenshot of the water quality guidelines here, but it makes this post too long, so I'll put it in the next post
Meanwhile, guys, here are some articles, so I don't think that we need to argue much over whether sentences are applied in case of food contamination or not:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobile/uk-wales-north-east-wales-12403279
Takeaway manager jailed over Wrexham E.coli cases
09 February 11 20:26 GMT
A former Wrexham takeaway operator has been jailed for eight months and banned from running food businesses after admitting hygiene offences which led to an E. coli outbreak.
Ramazan Aslan, 35, of Ellesmere Port, Cheshire, former operator of Llay Fish Bar, will be released on licence after serving half his sentence.
Aslan was told by a judge at Mold Crown Court he chose to ignore hygiene risks.
More than five people became ill in the outbreak in 2009.
Librarian Karen Morrisroe, 33, spent three months in hospital, where she also picked up the super bug MRSA.
In a victim statement, Ms Morrisroe said her illness had resulted in "unbearable stomach pains", being severely dehydrated, suffering kidney failure and a small seizure.
Judge Mr Justice Griffith Williams told Aslan: "While I accept there was no malicious intent, the only explanation is that you were wholly indifferent to the need for thorough food hygiene and for the health and safety of your customers.
"You knew of, and were given ample warnings, of the need to take all necessary steps to avoid the clear and foreseeable risk of contamination from raw meat and so you knew the risks; you chose to ignore them."
The court heard Aslan had ignored previous warnings, which would have cost little to put right.
The judge said serious concerns had been raised by Wrexham council in August 2008 and again in November 2008 when a customer complained of food poisoning.
The same month another customer complained of a moth on kebab meat and again further advice was given.
However, the evidence "demonstrates that you ignored all these concerns. I regard that as a seriously aggravating factor," said the judge.
"Had you addressed them there would not have been the conditions which led to this outbreak of E. coli."
Aslan admitted six food hygiene offences at an earlier hearing.
Prosecutor Anthony Vines said there were five primary cases of E. coli which could be linked to the takeaway, although some victims had gone on to contaminate members of their families in so-called secondary infections.
Council officers discovered pizza toppings at the takeaway with flies on, a lack of hand-washing materials, and cloths in hand basins which were also put over frozen kebabs.
The court heard that after the outbreak, council officials soon discovered the common link in all the cases was Llay Fish Bar - now under new management - although Mr Aslan was "sceptical" the takeaway was at fault.
He admitted that in July 2009 he failed to protect food in that cooked and ready-to-eat food was not protected at all stages of production, processing and distribution, against contamination, likely to render the food unfit for human consumption.
He failed to notify the council that he had become the food business operator at the fish bar in Llay, and failed to put in place permanent procedures to identify hazards or corrective actions, failed to ensure that his food management procedures were up to date, and failed to have adequate pest control procedures.
He also admitted that being responsible for the development of a food safety management procedure at the premises, he had received inadequate training.
Wrexham council, which assisted in the investigation, welcomed the sentence.
Chief housing and public protection officer Andy Lewis said: "Those businesses that choose to operate in the food industry have a duty to maintain acceptable standards."
09 February 11 20:26 GMT
A former Wrexham takeaway operator has been jailed for eight months and banned from running food businesses after admitting hygiene offences which led to an E. coli outbreak.
Ramazan Aslan, 35, of Ellesmere Port, Cheshire, former operator of Llay Fish Bar, will be released on licence after serving half his sentence.
Aslan was told by a judge at Mold Crown Court he chose to ignore hygiene risks.
More than five people became ill in the outbreak in 2009.
Librarian Karen Morrisroe, 33, spent three months in hospital, where she also picked up the super bug MRSA.
In a victim statement, Ms Morrisroe said her illness had resulted in "unbearable stomach pains", being severely dehydrated, suffering kidney failure and a small seizure.
Judge Mr Justice Griffith Williams told Aslan: "While I accept there was no malicious intent, the only explanation is that you were wholly indifferent to the need for thorough food hygiene and for the health and safety of your customers.
"You knew of, and were given ample warnings, of the need to take all necessary steps to avoid the clear and foreseeable risk of contamination from raw meat and so you knew the risks; you chose to ignore them."
The court heard Aslan had ignored previous warnings, which would have cost little to put right.
The judge said serious concerns had been raised by Wrexham council in August 2008 and again in November 2008 when a customer complained of food poisoning.
The same month another customer complained of a moth on kebab meat and again further advice was given.
However, the evidence "demonstrates that you ignored all these concerns. I regard that as a seriously aggravating factor," said the judge.
"Had you addressed them there would not have been the conditions which led to this outbreak of E. coli."
Aslan admitted six food hygiene offences at an earlier hearing.
Prosecutor Anthony Vines said there were five primary cases of E. coli which could be linked to the takeaway, although some victims had gone on to contaminate members of their families in so-called secondary infections.
Council officers discovered pizza toppings at the takeaway with flies on, a lack of hand-washing materials, and cloths in hand basins which were also put over frozen kebabs.
The court heard that after the outbreak, council officials soon discovered the common link in all the cases was Llay Fish Bar - now under new management - although Mr Aslan was "sceptical" the takeaway was at fault.
He admitted that in July 2009 he failed to protect food in that cooked and ready-to-eat food was not protected at all stages of production, processing and distribution, against contamination, likely to render the food unfit for human consumption.
He failed to notify the council that he had become the food business operator at the fish bar in Llay, and failed to put in place permanent procedures to identify hazards or corrective actions, failed to ensure that his food management procedures were up to date, and failed to have adequate pest control procedures.
He also admitted that being responsible for the development of a food safety management procedure at the premises, he had received inadequate training.
Wrexham council, which assisted in the investigation, welcomed the sentence.
Chief housing and public protection officer Andy Lewis said: "Those businesses that choose to operate in the food industry have a duty to maintain acceptable standards."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/food_and_drink/article2409801.ece
From The Times
September 8, 2007
Butcher jailed over food poisoning epidemic that killed five-year-old pupil
Simon de Bruxelles
A long-established family butcher who was responsible for food poisoning that killed a five-year-old boy and infected more than 100 other children was yesterday jailed for 12 months.
William Tudor, managing director of the firm that supplied school lunches across South Wales, had failed to observe basic food hygiene precautions.
Cardiff Crown Court was told that meat sent out by the firm was contaminated with E. coli 0157 bacteria, causing Britain’s second-largest food-poisoning epidemic.
Lax hygiene at the firm’s premises allowed raw meat to come into contact with cooked ham, turkey and lamb. Mason Jones ate the food in his school canteen. For two weeks he was critically ill, suffering fits, high temperatures, diarrhoea and kidney failure before dying in hospital.
Judge Neil Bidder, QC, told Tudor: “You failed to adopt safe procedures. Your staff were inadequately trained and poorly supervised.
“Cleaning at the premises was sub-standard and an inspection found blood splashes, cobwebs, dead insects and congealed dirt on your machinery. You put the health of the public at risk for the sake of saving money.”
The court was told that Tudor, 56, had cut corners in hygiene, telling staff to clean machinery only when health inspectors were expected. An uncleaned vacuum-packing machine was at the centre of the outbreak.
Graham Walters, prosecuting, said that within days of Tudor’s firm supplying cooked turkey, ham and lamb to schools in September 2005 a number of pupils fell ill with symptoms of diahorrea. Environmental health officers were called in, an outbreak control team was set up and the poisoning was confirmed as E. coli 0157. The outbreak led to 157 cases of food poisoning being investigated - with 109 cases at 44 schools traced back to Tudor’s business, John Tudor and Son.
Mr Walters said that the plant had only one vacuum-packing machine, which was used for both raw and cooked meats. He said: “It was not uncommon for juices from raw meat to get into the vacpacker. There was blood on the trays, and workers were having to wipe it off while they were packing cooked meat. The health inspectors found fundamental failures in cleaning and there was general concern over hygiene.
“There was evidence the vacpacker was covered in congealed debris and dirt. Tudor was fully aware of the dangers because he had taken his advanced food hygiene standards certificate in 2004, which was a matter of law.” A legally required log of the cleaning records for the machinery had not been completed daily or weekly.
Tudor pleaded guilty to charges under the General Food Regulations of selling “unsafe food” to six schools, including Deri Primary School in Bargoed, where Mason was a pupil. Other charges related to five other junior and primary schools. He also admitted failing to protect food against the risk of contamination at his factory.
Huw Davies, QC, defending, said: “Mr Tudor blames himself for poor Mason’s death - he is devastated.” The court was told that the once-thriving “family butchers”, in Bridgend, had now “collapsed in debt”. Tudor was also banned from working in the management of the food industry for the rest of his life.
Mason’s mother, Sharon Jones, 32, said after the hearing: “We were shocked and appalled by the state of William Tudor’s premises which came out in court.”
A public inquiry is due to be held by expert Professor Hugh Pennington into the outbreak, which left some victims with long-term kidney problems.
September 8, 2007
Butcher jailed over food poisoning epidemic that killed five-year-old pupil
Simon de Bruxelles
A long-established family butcher who was responsible for food poisoning that killed a five-year-old boy and infected more than 100 other children was yesterday jailed for 12 months.
William Tudor, managing director of the firm that supplied school lunches across South Wales, had failed to observe basic food hygiene precautions.
Cardiff Crown Court was told that meat sent out by the firm was contaminated with E. coli 0157 bacteria, causing Britain’s second-largest food-poisoning epidemic.
Lax hygiene at the firm’s premises allowed raw meat to come into contact with cooked ham, turkey and lamb. Mason Jones ate the food in his school canteen. For two weeks he was critically ill, suffering fits, high temperatures, diarrhoea and kidney failure before dying in hospital.
Judge Neil Bidder, QC, told Tudor: “You failed to adopt safe procedures. Your staff were inadequately trained and poorly supervised.
“Cleaning at the premises was sub-standard and an inspection found blood splashes, cobwebs, dead insects and congealed dirt on your machinery. You put the health of the public at risk for the sake of saving money.”
The court was told that Tudor, 56, had cut corners in hygiene, telling staff to clean machinery only when health inspectors were expected. An uncleaned vacuum-packing machine was at the centre of the outbreak.
Graham Walters, prosecuting, said that within days of Tudor’s firm supplying cooked turkey, ham and lamb to schools in September 2005 a number of pupils fell ill with symptoms of diahorrea. Environmental health officers were called in, an outbreak control team was set up and the poisoning was confirmed as E. coli 0157. The outbreak led to 157 cases of food poisoning being investigated - with 109 cases at 44 schools traced back to Tudor’s business, John Tudor and Son.
Mr Walters said that the plant had only one vacuum-packing machine, which was used for both raw and cooked meats. He said: “It was not uncommon for juices from raw meat to get into the vacpacker. There was blood on the trays, and workers were having to wipe it off while they were packing cooked meat. The health inspectors found fundamental failures in cleaning and there was general concern over hygiene.
“There was evidence the vacpacker was covered in congealed debris and dirt. Tudor was fully aware of the dangers because he had taken his advanced food hygiene standards certificate in 2004, which was a matter of law.” A legally required log of the cleaning records for the machinery had not been completed daily or weekly.
Tudor pleaded guilty to charges under the General Food Regulations of selling “unsafe food” to six schools, including Deri Primary School in Bargoed, where Mason was a pupil. Other charges related to five other junior and primary schools. He also admitted failing to protect food against the risk of contamination at his factory.
Huw Davies, QC, defending, said: “Mr Tudor blames himself for poor Mason’s death - he is devastated.” The court was told that the once-thriving “family butchers”, in Bridgend, had now “collapsed in debt”. Tudor was also banned from working in the management of the food industry for the rest of his life.
Mason’s mother, Sharon Jones, 32, said after the hearing: “We were shocked and appalled by the state of William Tudor’s premises which came out in court.”
A public inquiry is due to be held by expert Professor Hugh Pennington into the outbreak, which left some victims with long-term kidney problems.
Edit: I tried to put the screenshot of the water quality guidelines here, but it makes this post too long, so I'll put it in the next post
Last edited:
Some examples of the guidelines for agricultural reuse of wastewater indicating that a certain level of E. coli in water is allowed:
Remarks: for those who probably not familiar yet, E. coli is a part of coliform bacteria, too.
http://www.lboro.ac.uk/well/resources/well-studies/full-reports-pdf/task0068i.pdf
Edit: supporting link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_resources#Uses_of_fresh_water
It is estimated that 69% of worldwide water use is for irrigation, with 15-35% of irrigation withdrawals being unsustainable.[6] It takes around 3,000 litres of water, converted from liquid to vapour, to produce enough food to satisfy one person's daily dietary need. This is a considerable amount, when compared to that required for drinking, which is between two and five litres. To produce food for the 6.5 billion or so people who inhabit the planet today requires the water that would fill a canal ten metres deep, 100 metres wide and 7.1 million kilometres long – that's enough to circle the globe 180 times.
Remarks: for those who probably not familiar yet, E. coli is a part of coliform bacteria, too.
http://www.lboro.ac.uk/well/resources/well-studies/full-reports-pdf/task0068i.pdf
Edit: supporting link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_resources#Uses_of_fresh_water
It is estimated that 69% of worldwide water use is for irrigation, with 15-35% of irrigation withdrawals being unsustainable.[6] It takes around 3,000 litres of water, converted from liquid to vapour, to produce enough food to satisfy one person's daily dietary need. This is a considerable amount, when compared to that required for drinking, which is between two and five litres. To produce food for the 6.5 billion or so people who inhabit the planet today requires the water that would fill a canal ten metres deep, 100 metres wide and 7.1 million kilometres long – that's enough to circle the globe 180 times.
Last edited:
NO
See Table 2 of your US EPA post.
For foods eaten raw the limit is NO DETECTABLE fecal coli.
As to your second point, yes without nutrients they die off, but the tanks that bean sprouts are grown in are full of nutrients, and just about perfect temps and conditions for the bacteria to multiply, which is why the contamination doesn't have to require more than an invisible spec of fecal matter that is lodged under a fingernail and isn't washed off even though the person might have been rigourous in their after toilet washing.
Want to see what it actually takes?
Watch a surgeon prepare for surgery.
But even then he will wear gloves and a mask and gown and something to keep hair/dandruf from shedding.
That's what it really takes.
To think that just normal hand washing is sufficient to rid yourself of E. coli is frankly silly.
http://discovermagazine.com/1999/dec/feathand
I do, and what I've been saying is the beans could get contaminated without anyone's gross negligence. Not saying there wasn't gross negligence, there could have been, but so far none has been shown and indeed, none is actually required for this to happen.
I don't think anyone has an issue with punishment if the cause was shown to be deliberate.
Arthur
No one disagrees with any of that.
Nope, the NTSB still tries to figure out, like they always have, who or what is to blame for every accident. I'm a pilot and have been studying aircraft accidents for well over 30 years and the investigations have simply gotten much better, but the thrust has never changed. Pinpoint as best we can based on all the available evidence, exactly who or what caused the crash.
I think 33 people dying because they ate bean sprouts (and 100 more with life long disabilites) is pretty horrendous.
And where have I said he should? But I do think that if the engineer survives they should lose their license, and if it turns out that they were grossly negligent, for say drinking on the job and that was the reason they didn't follow those steps, then yes I do think they should face criminal charges.
So, to be clear, they DO assign blame based on the NTSB investigation.
What they don't do is then use that blame, assuming it wasn't gross negligence like drinking on the job, to charge the pilot with a crime.
But the pilot is indeed blamed for the crash if their actions caused it.
See the cases of AA 587 that I posted, or Eastern 401 for example.
Arthur
And you ignore the Table 1 (the WHO guidelines, which is more universal than the US-EPA guideline) because....?
And the incident IS being investigated by the Australian Transport Safety Board, because the situation could have ended very badly.
An aircraft is never expected to run that short of fuel such that they have declare an Emergency so they can land at a closed airport.
And IF someone is found to be directly responsible because of their actions, then depending on what those were, then some punishment might be in order.
The problem with that example is simple though. At this point we don't know what caused them to be that low on fuel. Indeed the fuel was so low that far from its destination that Quantas checked the plane for a fuel leak (which it could still have, it might be intermittent).
But as Bells pointed out in the Value Jet flight, A company (Sabre Tech) was indeed charged with murder for knowingly putting hazardous cargo on the jet which caused it to crash in the Everglades killing all on board.
Arthur
Because WHO has to deal with the World and that reality includes much less developed lands and so there are trade offs between needing to use less clean water so you can grow food and the low risk of problems since MOST E. coli are NOT like the ones that caused this outbreak.
You live in Germany, so what are their standards on water used on foods eaten raw?
Arthur
The quality requirements for irrigation water in Germany are regulated by the DIN 19650:
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q...KacJLJ&sig=AHIEtbSgli4kGILNICXNwRa3KfRHguiIuQ
(Remarks: although the subject in the link above is about Austria, in the Result and Discussion section where I took the following screenshot you can read that the DIN 19650 is the German regulation)
Other source: http://www.fbr.de/fileadmin/user_up...Information_Sheet_Greywater-Recycling_neu.pdf
About DIN: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsches_Institut_für_Normung
A relevant FAO review: http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/003/T0234E/T0234E09.htm
p.s.: I am only a student here and my current PhD is related with chemical sensing of E. coli.
Last edited: