E-coli is a type of bacteria that can cause disease and can be found in almost any food. Although more common in meat products, e-coli can be transferred to any other food product. The market is still recovering from a recent outbreak of E-coli in cucumber, however, a new outbreak has begun. Romaine lettuce is the latest victim of e-coli. There is good news though, you can get rid of e-coli on your vegetables by simply thoroughly washing them. Stay safe!
-Elise & Liette
From October 22 to November 30th, BC is going to hold a referendum about changing the voting system used. Currently we use First Past the Post, which is basically winner takes all, whoever gets the most votes wins. While this system might seem the fastest and most effective way to elect members of legislative assembly (MLAs). I would argue that it is not. I am personally in favor of proportional representation, the new way, because it allows for better representation of different groups in government.( There is a Youtube link at the end that explains proportional representation really well.) Proportional representation is just like what it sounds, having better and more accurate representation in the people we elect. For example, a riding may elect a Conservative MLA because they got the most votes right? While he may have gotten the most votes, simply because he has more voters in that riding, We are neglecting the other half of the population that didn't vote for him, thus not being proportionally representative. In addition to voting on whether or not you want proportional representation in the referendum, you have to choose which type of proportional representation. there are three options: Dual Member, Mixed Member and Rural-Urban.
I personally prefer the Rural- Urban option. It uses the mixed member method with the addition of the single transferable vote. I prefer it because it eliminates voter bias by using a ranking system, In the end, you get more MLAs, for one area, that have different backgrounds and affiliations, It would make it easier for people to get their ideas heard because there are more people to represent them that understand their needs and wants, instead of one MLA that may or may not represent your ideologies. It makes more sense to me than just choosing one MLA that may or may not accurately represent the vast variety of ideologies in a riding. Some might say that it is complicated and too mathematical to tabulate the results, but it's not like the general population is having to do the math and its really quite simple. They use a quota system to elect multiple MLAs. All that happens is that we combine smaller ridings to form bigger ridings where we elect multiple people in the one riding versus one in each small riding.
While I may prefer the Rural-Urban system, the MMP & DMP are also systems that allow for more MLAs to better represent the people. In the end what's the worst that could happen? If we end up really disliking it we can easily just go back to the FPTP, so why not give it a shot and potentially make history? I may not actually be able to vote in this referendum but, I sincerely hope that we get the opportunity to try this new way of voting.
Note: This is just my opinion and you are free to make your own. Here are some links showcasing the different sides of the story.
Ben J.N. Harrison
The anti-vaccination movement is not only one of the most foolish movements of late; it is also one of the most dangerous. Skepticism is important and should be encouraged, but when it is at the expense of public health and rejects science, then it metamorphoses into pseudo-skepticism promoting selfishness and ignorance. In the following paper, the history of the anti-vaccination movement will be proffered, its main arguments will be put under scrutiny, and the role of the intellectual and the academic in the fight against the prevalence of misinformation and pseudoscience will be suggested.
How did we get here?
On the 28th of February 1998, British gastroenterologist Andrew Wakefield published a study he head-authored in revered medical journal The Lancet suggesting correlation between the Measles, Mumps, Rubella (MMR) vaccine and infantile autism . This conclusion was constructed based on the observation that certain children demonstrated early behavioral symptoms of autism approximately two weeks after receiving the MMR vaccine. Wakefield postulated that the MMR vaccine caused intestinal inflammation, which led to translocation of non-permeable peptides to the bloodstream, and as a result, to the brain, where they affected cognitive and behavioral development. The first red flag of this paper should be its sample size, which consisted of a mere twelve children. To anyone with even the most elementary understanding of experimental design, this should evoke dubiety; especially considering all twelve children were not control subjects and entered the experiment with symptoms suggestive of poor gastrointestinal health and lymphoid nodular hyperplasia, revealed on endoscopy. Shortly after its publication, Wakefield’s paper was retracted and his medical license was revoked.
Numerous follow-up studies done by other academics completely nullified Wakefield’s paper, finding absolutely no evidence in support of his ludicrous claims. A superb article written by Jeffery Gerber and Paul Offit examines numerous studies conducted worldwide searching for a link between MMR vaccines and autism . Its conclusion was unequivocal and lucid: no data supports the hypothesis that MMR vaccines cause autism.
Another study - an ecological study published in 2001 - evaluated four hundred and ninety-eight autistic children born in the United Kingdom between the years 1979 and 1992. From this study, it was observed that no change existed in the rates of autism diagnoses after the 1987 introduction of the triple MMR vaccine. Moreover, this study finds no difference in autism rates amongst vaccinated children and unvaccinated children .
Despite Wakefield’s study proving fraudulent, misrepresentative, and erroneous, the anti-vaccination movement still persists. Why?
Arguments Against Vaccination:
To understand the anti-vaxx movement, its arguments must be examined. Many exist, and unfortunately, not all will be examined, but it would at least suffice to examine a few.
Firstly, what is perhaps the most common argument against vaccination is as follows: ‘my child got his/her MMR shot and was shortly after diagnosed with autism; therefore the MMR shot caused his/her autism’. While this argument may sound cogent, it is anecdotal and relies on the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, which states that A came before B, therefore A caused B. This type of thinking is flawed and denies the basic principle of experimental procedure that correlation does not equal causation. It is a commonly accepted fact that ages one and two – the ages when children usually receive the MMR vaccine – also happen to be the ages when children begin to show signs of autism. There is yet to be any kind of study demonstrating causation between these two events.
Secondly, another argument against vaccines claims that because thimerosal – an organic 50% ethylmercury antibacterial compound – is found in certain vaccines, they are thus harmful and can cause autism. Now, first of all, it should be noted that symptoms of autism and symptoms of mercury poisoning are wildly different, and the notion that mercury can cause autism is biologically implausible . In accordance with this thinking, a study conducted in 2015 examining the exposure of thimerosal-containing vaccines to infant rhesus macaques observed no behavioral changes in the vaccinated animals, nor any neuropathological changes in the cerebellum, hippocampus, or amygdala, thus refuting the hypothesis that thimerosal causes autism or related behavioral and cognitive conditions . Moreover, a study performed at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention demonstrated that mercury in vaccines caused not even subtle signs or symptoms of mercury poisoning .
When studies on thimerosal and the MMR vaccine failed to proffer any support for the hypothesis that they cause autism or are dangerous, new conspiracies began to formulate. Out of these, one of the most prominent suggests that the simultaneous exposure to multiple vaccines overwhelms or damages one’s immune system and creates an interaction with the central nervous system, thus triggering symptoms of autism. This speculative claim can be falsified by a few mere facts: (1) autism is not an immune-mediated disease, (2) vaccines do not overwhelm the immune system, as from a young age it is capable of generating a multitude of protective responses; some estimates even suggest the immune system could respond to thousands of vaccines simultaneously , and (3) multiple vaccinations have not proven to weaken or damage the immune system, as vaccinated and unvaccinated children show no difference in their vulnerability to infections not prevented by vaccines.
Finally, one of the most despicable arguments against vaccination is the assertion that mandatory inoculation impinges upon one’s personal freedom. In the rare instance of someone medically not able to get vaccinated, their health depends wholly on the health of those in their environment. This is called herd immunity, when spread of a disease is dulled because a high number of individuals within a population are immune to that disease. When herd immunity is created, the vaccinated individuals will provide protection for those not vaccinated. To intentionally deny vaccines because freedom is valued over public health is selfish and potentially lethal. In 2017, a measles outbreak occurred in Minnesota and seventy-three people were diagnosed with the disease, which are three more people than the total number of measles cases in 2016 in the United States nationwide . This should be a wake-up call to the anti-vaccine community at large, but unfortunately, it continues to persist and thrive.
In the Internet age, it is difficult to know whom to trust. Along with recent tech innovations has come a scary amount of misinformation. Luckily, it seems as if we’re headed in the right direction, with InfoWars’ far-right conspiracy theorist Alex Jones being deplatformed from YouTube, Twitter and Facebook, and Wikipedia banning Breitbart and InfoWars as information sources. However, this does not mean pseudoscience is not still prevalent. President Trump himself has propagated numerous conspiracy theories throughout his political career, such as Barack Obama being born in Kenya , climate change being politically charged and not manmade , and vaccines causing autism . Despite the alarming pervasiveness of pseudoscience, there still exists a way to fight it, and that responsibility lay in the hands of the world's academics. It is the duty of the academic to combat lies and speak the truth, above all else. The academic ought to thoroughly analyze claims for motives and hidden intentions, misrepresentation and distortion, bias and ideology, politics and religiosity. With the accrued information, the academic must publicize it, whether that is sought by writing, by visual means, by auditory means, et cetera. While critique and scrutiny are certainly repressed, they are needed now more than ever to assure that fraudulent and potentially dangerous theories and unscientific postulates do not gain authority.
The breakthrough of vaccination is indubitably one of the most important medical advancements of the last century; it has been sufficient in eradicating smallpox, one of the world’s deadliest diseases, once generally feared, now completely nonexistent. Immunization is every individual’s right, and if that right is not used, not only is individual health at risk, but so is public health. In cases such as these, we must trust science and fight quasi-scientific pontifications and crackpot hypothesizing by approaching new claims with investigative eyes and identifying fraudulence when found.
As everyone's heard, we've introduced Flex Time into our curriculum for the next year, and opinions are ranging all over the spectrum. Basically, if you're not up to date, we're shortening our classes daily and adding in a 40 minute block in between the first two. It's available for studying, working on projects, schoolwork, etc. and will be monitored by a teacher. You choose one of your classes or a learning area (ex. the cafeteria or library) and you must stay there for the entirety of the block. Students, again, have varying opinions; on one side, you get more productive time for schoolwork which in turn takes off some homework stress. On the downside, the rules and supervision may be a little tight for some people's preferences, we have no clue how attendance is going to work and some people may misuse the time we're given. Please tweet us @sdnewspaper or comment below to tell us your opinions!
Feminism gets a bad name.
For stereotypical feminists, the kind you're thinking of, the term itself has no meaning. It is used as a tool for them - a simple way to get what they want, to bash on men, to play a victim. Here, honour is lost and ethics have been robbed. By bashing men, a disgrace is being made of the point of feminism, and that is a movement to create equality for both genders; to assert an equal, fair male and female space. If done right, feminism has the power to embrace people around the world. If done wrong, women are lowering themselves further, quite to the contrary of empowerment they love to credit themselves for.
Feminism is important and necessary.
Only 6 weeks are given off work to women after they have a baby in the United States.
In Afghanistan, girls can be sold for money for food.
Should social injustice occur, advocates are bound to be present - and they are. Concerning this, they are called feminists. Feminists are advocates for women around the world. They are the ones who demand not only equal, but fair rights for men and women. In Canada, most displeasure concerning women's rights have been addressed, but around the world there is still concern as to whether women's rights have been reevaluated to the proper extent. Unfortunately, they most definitely have not. Still there are women work more and are paid less than men. Still there are women have no say in who they marry. Still there are women who cannot vote. Of course, while celebrating progress is both exiting and important, there will always be criticism where something is challenged. Moreover, if nothing is challenged, progress will not be made. Feminism will not stop until it's goal has been reached. It is important and necessary.
Your opinion is your right as an individual. What you chose to believe is up to you.
- Gabriella Hall
Because your parents reign supreme, because they are superior, they will always win. Their age is their unique benefit. Obviously your parents cannot simply explain their life experience and wisdom to you, however you don't have to be old to be wise (plain and simple). Explaining this to your parents definitely won't work. When asking for a big change in your life to your parents, or when your parents aren't trusting you, try and think of it from their point of view: they probably knew someone in high school who partied a lot and skipped school a lot yet whose parents claimed was their golden child who never got in to any trouble. Or, maybe you have an older sibling who was somewhat of a troublesome burnout and are comparing you to them. All their opinions will be based on their own experiences, whether it be themselves who was irresponsible or they knew someone else who was irresponsible. How unfortunate then, for the typical irresponsible know-it-all teenager is now the representative of all youths as a whole. When in an argument with your parents, your age will always be your disadvantage and will always be the target of your parents to shut you down. Your parents will always have trouble taking you seriously because you are, in fact, a child (to them). If you are attempting to convince your parents of something, they are going to know you are trying to manipulate them. It's no secret, you aren't fooling them, they are smart enough to figure it out. I suggest, if you are in a tough situation and are sick of your parents not trusting you, write them a honest and respectful letter. That way, you can get your point across without the risk out blurting out any mad thought that comes across in your mind in a heated discussion. Try to understand that in your parents not trusting you, by doing so they are limiting themselves to a confined mindset simply because they don't understand. They don't understand that they can indeed trust you and that you are not included in the stupid-irresponsible-know-it-all teenager stereotype. It's your job to prove to them that by you committing to being responsible you are being legitimate and shouldn't be categorized by any teenager stereotypes. Yes, parents can be very annoying but they are always thinking of your benefit, even if they are wrong. Use your voice and never let your parents abuse their privilege of, essentially, bossing you around. Parents will always use big words as a disguise to saying something very simple, so listen to what they are saying and present your argument with confidence!
It's that time of year again, when all the Salvation Army bells are ringing, and the school is hosting Angels Anonymous (a gift drive that supports the Salvation Army in our community)... But should you be putting your money in their donation bin?
The Salvation Army is known for their bells, their homeless shelters and their thrift stores - but what most people choose to turn a blind eye to, or simply just don't know about - is their aggressive right-wing Christian beliefs.
Last year, an Australian Salvation Army director, Andrew Craibe, was interviewed and implied that gay people should be put to death -
Interviewer: According to the Salvation Army, [gay people] deserve death. How do you respond to that, as part of your doctrine?
Craibe: Well, that's a part of our belief system.
Interviewer: So we should die.
Craibe: You know, we have an alignment to the Scriptures, but that's our belief.
On the Salvation Army website it says that "The Salvation Army affirms the New Testament standard of marriage, that is, the voluntary and loving union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, this union being established by an authorised ceremony [...] 'One man and one woman' means that marriage is possible only between members of the opposite sex."
Since 1986, the Salvation Army has actively discriminated against the LGBTQ* community, and has been lobbying governments all around the world with their anti-gay policies (one of which was an effort to make consensual gay sex illegal). So, when you put the money in that red bucket, or when you support the school's Angels Anonymous - think about who you're supporting, and what you're supporting - and maybe think twice before you do.
Be conscious of the world around you, SDSS.
Ever noticed these days how people have stopped saying 'I'm sorry'; instead shortening the words to' Sorry'? It's only a one word difference, but that one word could mean a lot. By putting the 'I' before the 'Sorry', the person is essentially taking credit for the misdemeanor, allowing their name to be associated with the fault. Ditching the 'I' allows us to live in denial; other forces around us are causing the problems, right? All we're doing is apologizing to make people feel better. Perhaps that's why people turn to drugs and alcohol - they're able to forget the issues around them. This inability to face consequences could come from the idea that humans must be perfect to be the best and in result, mistakes and misdemeanors taint that. The truth is, as well-known as it is, it's okay to make mistakes - in the end, the lessons learnt from them will really shape your character and personality. Therefore, instead of trying to escape the repercussions, let's all take credit for our faults, not secretly think we're #SorryNotSorry.
Right on? Completely off? Let me know in the comments below!
*** DISCLAIMER *** Rachel Garrett wrote a way more in depth article on this same topic under Music Reviews a day before I posted this. This was unintentional. Oops.
If you're reading this then you have access to the internet, and if you have access to the internet there's a good chance you've heard about British pop-star Lily Allen's newest music video, Hard Out Here (and more specifically the controversy that has come along with it). Hard Out Here hit over 2 million views on YouTube in 2 days and since it is Lily's first single since 2009, her devoted fans were elated to hear about its release. Adversely, many critics certainly took it with a grain (or seven) of salt.
The video begins with Allen on an operating table undergoing liposuction while her agent and surgeons discuss how many women "let themselves go" after having children. The lyrics comment on body image; "You're not a size six, and you're not good looking/Well, you better be rich, or be real good at cooking/You should probably lose some weight/'Cause we can't see your bones" and also how society glorifies men who have many sexual partners, but shuns women with the exact same levels of promiscuity. The lyrics and video even mirror those of the notoriously degrading song Blurred Lines by Robin Thicke. While the video is supposed to be a satirical look at the music industry from a feminist perspective, it instead provoked a plethora of accusations saying that the video was undeniably racist and (ironically) sexist. The background dancers in the video can be seen 'twerking' in scantily-clad attire, dousing their bodies with bottles of champagne, and draping themselves over fancy cars. While this was intended to be a remark on the objectification of women in music videos and in the entertainment industry as a whole, it conversely was interpreted as racist as a majority of the dancers were of African-American descent and the dancers and choreography would not look completely out of place in a stereotypical rap music video. While this interpretation is not far-fetched, Lily was not afraid to respond bluntly and honestly to the criticism, tweeting: "If anyone thinks for a second that I requested specific ethnicities for the video, they're wrong... If anyone thinks that after asking the girls to audition, I was going to send any of them away because of their skin colour, they're wrong... The video is meant to be a lighthearted satirical video that deals with objectification women within modern pop-culture. It has nothing to do with race, at all." The lyrics even read; "If you can't detect the sarcasm, you've misunderstood."
No matter what your take on it is, one thing Lily Allen undoubtedly succeeded in was provoking thought and conversation. I challenge you to try and find something that has done the same thing that hasn't come with a steaming side of controversy.
Although this is a school newspaper and I can't condone the profane language, I encourage you to check out the video. Love it or hate it, at least it gets those feminist wheels turning.