Court rules that a non-chemist can be a chemist
Some may remember the “reportage choc” in the Journal a few summers ago that alleged that some of the city’s swimming pools were veritable plague spots, bringing about early and, in some cases, lengthy closures.
Later, the man who had carried out the tests was shown not to be an accredited chemist at all and he was sued by the Order of Chemists. But now he’s won as a court has ruled that even though he isn’t a chemist, he can legally do a chemist’s work – including returning to the inspection of swimming pools.
Feels like something’s missing in this report, but I’m not sure what it is.
Raoul 07:06 on 2012/05/20 Permalink
The worst ive heard/seen is a pic on failqc from a public pool that had a sign saying “closed because of fecal incident” (roughly translated from french) – even in places like candiac where you expect people and their kids to know better – they still took the pool/showers for a giant toilet.
Filling a peice of tarp with water might be very “Red & Green show” but at least you know its just water :P
Kate 10:40 on 2012/05/20 Permalink
Raoul, that has nothing to do with this story. In 2006 claims were made that the city’s outdoor pools were dangerously contaminated and there was a big scare, but doubts were later cast on the credibility of the guy who did the study. This present story is about the resulting court case being decided in his favour. The actual state of the pools was later declared safe (and no story ever came out about illnesses caused by pool water) so I suspect this was a Journal scare story that blew up out of proportion.
Raoul 15:48 on 2012/05/20 Permalink
all right whatever, go on debating with yourself then.
Kate 17:23 on 2012/05/20 Permalink
Raoul, if you make irrelevant comments, what do you expect?
Jean-Francois 14:00 on 2012/05/21 Permalink
Petite nuance. L’Ordre des chimistes du Québec tente de faire croire que pour être chimiste, il faut être membre de leur ordre. C’est faux.
Selon l’Ordre, on peut très bien avoir un Ph.D. en chimie et ne pas être un chimiste simplement parce qu’on ne paie pas sa cotisation annuelle. Tout ça pour dire qu’il ne faut pas conclure que M. Pekovic (ou ses employés) n’est pas un chimiste – et donc n’avait pas les qualifications requises – simplement parce qu’il n’est pas membre de l’Ordre. Tout ce qu’on peut conclure c’est qu’il ne paie pas de cotisation.
Kate 16:25 on 2012/05/21 Permalink
OK, merci pour la clarification.