Pradaxa (dabigatran) degrades on removal from original packaging; do not place in a pill organizer.

Formerly Pradax in Canada, the name is now Pradaxa in both Canada and the U.S.

Note: The following is an UPDATE to a blog originally posted in early 2013. The views are of a patient taking Pradaxa and are NOT the views of a medical expert.
________________________________________________________________________

If you take Pradaxa (dabigatran) rather than coumadin, you must be aware of the following taken from the Pharmacist's Letter of October 2016:

Pradaxa must be protected from moisture.
All capsules must be used within four months of opening the original container.
Pradaxa must be dispensed in the original container. The bottle has a desiccant in lid.

Now, you know the core concerns. Please, read on.
_________________________________________________________________________

I started taking Pradaxa, originally called Pradax in Canada and Pradaxa in the States, more than four years ago. So, I am not addressing a new problem. And yet, this serious problem is still with us. Contrary to an FDA warning, some pharmacists are continuing to dispense Pradaxa capsules repackaged in standard pharmacy vials.

Why is this a problem? According to Boehringer Ingelheim, Canada, "Pradaxa is very sensitive to moisture in the air." For this reason, the drugmaker recommends keeping Pradaxa in its original foil blister pack or in its original special bottle with a drying agent in the lid. The company warns, "Do not put the capsules in pill boxes or pill organizers . . . " The FDA also adds a warning about storing the drug in areas which are subject to temperature extemes, either hot or cold.

Pradaxa is an anticoagulant replacement for Coumadin (warfarin). Both drugs are taken by those in danger of suffering a stroke. Compared to aspiring, Pradaxa poses less danger of causing serious intracranial bleeding. After an MRI, I was diagnosed with micro-bleeding in the brain. I also suffer from TIAs or small strokes. Small strokes can lead to large strokes if an anticoagulant is not taken regularly. I take Pradaxa twice a day.

Without my anti-clotting medication I have a six percent chance of suffering a serious stroke in any given year. That's six strokes in a hundred at risk patients. One of the six will die and the other five will suffer strokes causing differing degrees of debilitation. Strokes are the fourth leading cause of death in the U.S.

If you take Pradaxa, check your prescription bottle. My last one was a palm-and-turn plastic bottle with a lid riddled with holes. Pradaxa is only good for four months after its original bottle with the special desiccant-containing lid has been opened.

How long my three month supply of Pradaxa, dispensed in a bottle with holes in the lid, retained its potency is anyone's guess. There is no question the last capsules would be markedly degraded. That much is certain.

Atrial fibrillation (AF) affects a great many people and according to the Mayo Clinic is increasingly common in seniors. AF is a type of irregular, often rapid, heartbeat that can lead to the formation of blood clots in the heart. These clots can migrate to the brain where they cause a cerebral infarction, a cerebrovascular incident — a stroke in simple terms.

My heart is in constant atrial flutter, similar to, but not quite the same as, atrial fibrillation. My daily low-dose Aspirin is not strong enough to protect me from the increased threat of stroke. My doctors discussed my situation and settled on Pradaxa 110mg as the best option. Pradaxa also comes in two other strengths: 75mg and 150 mg.

Black marker dates Pradaxa still in foil.

Transferring Pradaxa to a pill organizer is a common mistake. Lots of people do it. There is an "Important" instruction on the side of the box but it is at the bottom of a list and in the same type style as the other notes. For a truly important instruction, it does not jump off the package as one might expect it would.

I confess, when I first started taking Pradaxa I missed the warning. I'm an old geezer. My making a mistake is not surprising. It is to be expected. But clearly my pharmacist has also missed the warning. How common is the mistake? Like so many today, pharmacists are overworked. The staffing at my drugstore has been cut and this, I believe, can lead to errors.

I have now had Pradaxa dispensed in both the original bottle and the blister packs. I prefer the blister pack. I'm old. My memory is not good. Unable to continue using a weekly organizer for my Pradaxa, I take a Sharpie permanent marker and write the day and time of day, AM or PM, that each pill must be taken on the blister pack itself.

I believe this is very important. Pradaxa has an extremely short half-life. The concentration in your body drops drastically in just 24 hours. For this reason taking a dose quite late, or completely forgetting a capsule, increases the risk of stroke.

I find it strange that if grapefruit should not be consumed while taking a drug my pharmacist has a sticker for this. The sticker is slapped on the pill bottle at the time the prescription is filled. Pradaxa needs a similar day-glow sticker to warn folk not to expose the capsules to air, to keep the medication in its original container until it is taken.

If a druggist dispenses Pradaxa in anything other than the original packaging, one pharmacist told me the capsules should be immediately returned to the drugstore to be safely discarded. The pharmacist should replace those capsules with new as it is difficult to know how much humidity such capsules have encountered. Were they kept in a bathroom with a steamy shower, or stored in a kitchen near pots of boiling water? The druggist told me not to take a chance. Return the capsules.

One last thing about Pradaxa. There is now a reversal agent available. In an emergency situation where there is a need to reverse Pradaxa’s blood-thinning effect, Praxbind (idarucizumab) is now available. I personally know how important this can be. I had to have emergency bowel surgery a little more than 12 hours after taking my last dose of Pradaxa.

For more info on Pradaxa, check out the Pradaxa website or follow this link to a story in The Globe and Mail: Questions raised about new class of blood thinners.

Read the Globe story and you will realize that Pradaxa has had mixed reviews, especially in the media. A word to the wise, don't rely too heavily on media reports when it comes to medicine. Yes, Pradaxa is a dangerous new drug, but then weakening the blood's ability to clot is clearly a dangerous practice. Warfarin, formerly the drug of choice, is also a dangerous drug.

As I said earlier, I was once on warfarin. I had to have my blood regularly tested to be certain I was getting the maximum benefit from the drug. Warfarin, in some people, can be notoriously difficult to regulate.

It must be noted that the maker of Pradaxa has claimed no regular blood testing was required with the new anticoagulant. MedPage Today and others are reporting that monitoring drug plasma levels could improve the safety of Pradaxa. I have had my blood tested twice and so far Pradaxa is working as promised.

According to the Mayo Clinic, warfarin reduces the risk of stroke by about 64 percent. Unfortunately, ". . . only 50% of patients with atrial fibrillation who would benefit from warfarin therapy receive it, and the discontinuation rates are high. At 1 year, more than 25% of patients stop warfarin . . . " For these reasons, drugs like Pradaxa are very attractive.

My doctors believed Pradaxa to be better at stroke prevention than warfarin and with a lessened chance of major bleeding. Some time ago, I had an MRI that revealed micro-bleeding in my brain. Not enough is known about micro-bleeding for my doctors to feel confident putting me on warfarin. The rate of intracranial bleeding with Pradaxa has been shown to be less than that of warfarin. To lessen my risk of suffering a major bleeding event in my brain, and after consulting with the neurology department, my doctors decided the best alternative for me was Pradaxa110 mg taken twice daily. I continue to take an aspirin daily, the 81mg kind.

There's a lot of which to be aware when taking a drug like Pradaxa. Read the warnings that come with all your meds carefully. Check out the Pradaxa info online. Click on the links that I have supplied. If your doctor advises a drug like Pradaxa don't be too quick to dismiss the suggestion. Doctors go with the best odds. I liked one comment made on another site discussing Pradaxa: "You can transfuse blood, but you can't transfuse brain".

Lastly, here are a couple of websites you might find interesting. The first is a website run by the Harvard Medical School. The article is titled: Is the alternative to warfarin safe and effective? The second is a site dedicated to AF: StopAfib.

Good luck with your meds.

And if you are interested in knowing more about my emergency operation, done before the release of the reversal agent Praxbind, here is a link: 16 hours in the ER; 16 hours well spent.

Film: Humbug.

Digital has eliminated neither art nor craft from photography.

The New York Times has published another in a seemingly unending parade of eulogies to the passing of film: Picturing the End of Analog.

I don't miss film. If I had to use just one word to describe film, I'd say expensive. It was expensive to buy, expensive to use, expensive to process and expensive to store.

And, if you will allow me the luxury of adding just one more word to my description, I'd say difficult. It could be difficult to find when needed, difficult to process and difficult to store.

Close-up, wide angle, telephoto: One digital camera.

One reads all sorts of stories about the artsy qualities of film. Some of the stories are true. But some of the art was the result, not of craft, but of ignorance.

I knew a rather famous photojournalist who was well known for his contrasty colour images. He captured the grittiness of the news, the harshness of those moments with a style unmatched by other shooters. All his pictures weren't rendered with bald, stark highlights, that would have made his approach simply a style gimmick.

Then I met the great man. Working outside the country on assignment for the local paper, I had to have some colour film processed by this famous photojournalist artist. He processed the film by hand, dunking it in stainless steel tanks immersed in a water bath to stabilize the temperature of the processing chemicals.

When the film was dry, I picked an image and stuck the negative into a portable Leaf scanner to transmit three colour separations back to the newspaper. The image I saw on the little Leaf monitor was awful; It was contrasty; The highlights were bald.

See it, shoot it. The power of small, ever-present, digital cameras.

I removed the film from the scanner and examined it under a strong light. The colour film was suffering from silver retention. There was a black and white negative hiding in the colour negative.

At that time, colour film went into a bleach bath before going into the fixing bath. The bleach bath converted metallic silver in the film back into the silver halide it had been before being dipped in the developing tank. Thanks to the bleach bath, the fix bath removed all the silver from the film. Fix only removes silver halide; It does not easily remove metallic silver.

I had learned the reason for the contrasty images this photojournalist was known for. He didn't understand the chemistry involved in processing colour negative film. Most of the time he dumped his bleach before it lost it potency. He used his chemical bath for a set length of time, regularly replacing it with fresh chemistry. But sometimes, if he processed more film than usual, his bleach grew weak and failed to convert all the metallic silver created during development back into silver halide.

At those times he produced art. Film: Humbug.

Digital encourages experimentation. No film, no expense. Just fun.

Will boomers bankrupt the medical system?

This post was knocked off far too quickly and the well-thought out comments appeared to punch holes in my position. I admit, I was far too quick out of the gate. I made the mistake that newspapers make daily. I am now in the process of taking another look at rising health care costs and the part played by the rapidly growing senior segment of the population.

In the meantime, here is an article worth a read despite being a little stale dated: What is driving health care costs? And here is anothe: The Costly Paradox of Health-Care Technology.

The problem appears complex -- this should come as no surprise -- and the media's immediate scapegoat, seniors, may be wrong. For an example of a well written but quite possibly wrong-headed take on seniors and their affect on the healthcare system, read this piece by Larry Cornies which ran in The London Free Press: Boomers duty-bound to reduce health-care footprint. Compare the Cornies article with this one from The Economist with a section titled: Money and mortality: the implications of aging on healthcare costs.
_____________________________________________

According to The London Free Press reporting on a talk by David Foot, the demand for health care in Ontario will ramp up sharply when baby boomers hit their senior years. Foot believes, "We have about a decade to get health care right before it hits the fan."

Many would agree with Foot that there is a growing problem, but many would argue that the health care issue is not driven by the increasing costs associated with health care for the elderly. The Globe and Mail, a competitor to The Free Press in their home market, carried a story with quite a different slant. Globe writer Andre Picard wrote:

"This alarmist view of our aging society is challenged in a thoughtful new report from the Institute for Research on Public Policy.

"Instead of falling prey to ageist fear-mongering, Neena Chappell, the Canada research chair in social gerontology and a professor in the Centre on Aging of the University of Victoria, takes a level-headed look at the data and offers up practical solutions for meeting the health needs of the baby boom generation."

The Globe piece goes on to argue a position that I have seen in print many times. I wondered why The Free Press reporter didn't question Prof. Foot on this point. The Globe accurately reported the following:

"There have been, of late, a number of studies debunking the notion that seniors are principally to blame for spiraling health costs. In fact, it is new technologies, new drugs and higher wages for health professionals (physicians in particular) that are pushing up costs."

 To read the two stories, here are the links:

• Baby boomers blamed for sluggish economic outlook in Ontario
• We need a health plan for boomers now

This is an issue that is very important to me. I am a senior and a baby boomer. I watched as my maternal grandparents aged and finally slipped away. Both lived into their 90s and neither was a big drain on the health care system. They lived in their own home until their mid 80s and then they moved in with my mother and me for their remaining years.

When my mother found herself on her own after the death of my grandparents, she moved in with my sister. After more than a decade living in Oakville, she packed her bags and moved in with me in London. When I got married my mother was part of the package. She lived with me and my new family until she died at 89.

Families taking care of loved ones in their final years are more common than you might think. The government should encourage families and support them in their efforts to take care of aging parents and grandparents.

In one area both The Globe and The Free Press reports agree: We, as a society, need a plan as we prepare for the dramatic growth in the number of seniors. What we don't need are scare stories.

London police did excellent job putting injured deer down

A deer was struck recently by a vehicle in London, Ontario. It was left severely injured. It's limbs smashed; Its antlers broken. When police arrived, the fatally injured animal was suffering in a parking lot, unable to walk.

It was a tough situation but the London police made the right call by ending the animal's misery quickly. But many didn't view it that way, and many people did view the shooting of the deer. A Londoner captured the incident on his cell phone and posted the video on YouTube. It has had more than 15,500 viewings.

Deer are common in the city and collisions with vehicles all too frequent.

The London Free Press quotes a police constable: "We have to consider the surroundings. If we used a round that penetrated through the deer, we would have to be prepared for ricochet." The officer used a 12-gauge shotgun to put the injured deer away with three shots in less than half a minute.

The truth is dying is tough. It is not often immediate. I did some research and found what hunters themselves have to say about their kills.

"I shot one whitetail doe there [behind the shoulder, in the heart/lung area] and she ran at least 60 yards before dropping. I shot a fallow doe last Sunday and the shot went through the lungs and out the other side of the deer. She hobbled down off the little hill she was standing on, then down a draw about 150 yards from me. By the time I got to her she was giving up the ghost, but she had lived for a minute or two."

Another hunter listed his kills, saying:

• '05 Shot a big bodied buck, 50cal muzzle loader, thru the heart. Ran 100 yards decent blood trail.
• '07 bigger bodied buck, 7RM ballistic tip center of the shoulder. Dropped dead, three men could not find a bullet hole. NO blood.
• '08 .50 cal thru the center of one shoulder, exit 4" behind other. minimal blood hard tracking approx 100 yards.

I don't hunt but I did once work for the Ministry of Natural Resources. I used to hear the hunters with whom I worked chatting. I learned a quick kill did not mean immediate death. The London police officer was armed with a good weapon for discharging in a built-up urban area. His weapon was less than ideal for killing a deer. He did a good job, weighing his options, and carrying out a difficult duty.

Urban Outfitters: myths surround successful retailer

Urban Outfitters has come to London, Ontario. According to the local paper, this is "the first store it has opened west of Toronto." It isn't. There are already outlets in Vancouver, Edmonton and Calgary, and I expect there will be a lot more both east and west of Toronto in the near future. UO is in expansion mode, opening 21 new stores in 2011 and an additional 16 in 2012.

The Philadelphia-based retailer does not "shun malls"; This is a myth. Richard Hayne, the brilliant businessman behind Urban Outfitters, realized years ago that placing stores only in downtowns or urban areas was a dead end approach. He branched out into enclosed malls and lifestyle shopping centers, ensuring that his stores attracted the target market -- those between 18 and 30.

Once ubiquitous; Now, gone.

If you don't agree that Hayne is a brilliant business man. Consider this: He has kept a retail operation going for 43 years. This is no  small feat. Selling stuff, at least selling lots and lots of stuff year after year, decade after decade, is hard. Think of all the chains that once rode the crest of popularity only to fall, fail and fade: Tabi International, Au Coton, Beaver Canoe, Cotton Ginny . . .

Hayne got into retail with his first wife Judy Wicks in 1970, opening the Free People's Store near the University of Pennsylvania campus in Philadelphia. A pair of  old-fashioned men's long johns hung on the front door and during store hours the rear flap would be unbuttoned to display a sign reading "OPEN."

Despite what one often reads, Hayne was not hippie retailer. Reporter Jonathan Valania makes this clear in a story he wrote for Philadelphia Weekly: Clothes Make the Man.  In those early years, Hayne had long hair and he was against the war in Vietnam, but at that time who didn't and who wasn't? He was simply in tune with the era.

As the era ended and the tune changed, so did Hayne and his store -- it was now his store as he and his wife had separated in '71. Free People's Store became Urban Outfitters, stocked with an eclectic mix of merchandise for the chic, young urbanite. Urban Outfitters, under the guidance of Hayne, sold more than just stuff, it sold "cool." But, sometimes selling cool buys problems.

(Zach Klein - courtesy Zach Klein, Flickr)

• The Anti-Defamation League got its dander up in 2005 over a T-shirt sold by Urban Outfitters that said "New Mexico, cleaner than regular Mexico."
• The Navajo Nation sued for trademark infringement after the company sold items labeled as “Navajo,” suggesting the merchandise was made by the tribe when it was not. Under the federal Indian Arts and Crafts Act, making such a false claim is illegal.
• At various times the company has angered the Jewish community, gays and the Ancient Order of Hibernians in America. The Irish group protested a T-shirt saying, "Kiss me. I'm drunk or Irish, or whatever."

UO even managed to offend transgendered folk with a card advertised as "charming" containing the word "tranny." A slang term considered insulting and degrading by the transgendered community.

It isn't always easy being hip. And my guess is the company has had some big failures in the area of cool because at its corporate core it is not cool. It is a business. A successful business.

But don't make the mistake Buzzfeed makes, reporting that Urban Outfitters is run by a bunch of lame old men. Richard Hayne is a senior but he is not lame. His personal politics may be far right, years ago he and his present wife donated money to Rick Santorum, but today he keep his politics and his businesses separate.  Urban Outfitters shows more interest in Twitter, Tumblr, Vimeo, Pinterest, YouTube and the UO Blog than the Republican party and right wing causes.

The London Free Press interviews one young shopper who says, "It's cool, it's trendy and I am just glad I don’t have to go into a mall." --- at least not for the moment.

Let's be honest, Urban Outfitters is not about being cool or being chic but it's about making money. Clearly, UO believes there is more money to be made locating at the far north end of Richmond Row, a location that puts them close to the university crowd.

Despite the claims of the chief executive of Downtown London, the American retailer didn't choose London's core. Nor did it choose one of London's large malls. Yet, for many retailers the malls and big box developments are where the shopping action is in London.

So let's cut to the chase: Urban Outfitters is a global, multi-brand empire encompassing not only Urban Outfitters but Anthropologie, Free People, Terrain Garden Center and BHLDN (a wedding store). It had an increase in annual sales in 2012 of nine percent over the previous year. Since taking back the reins of control in early 2012, the stock under Hayne's leadership has risen 34 percent. 

Will the London store succeed? Maybe. But Urban Outfitters, like other chains, is not adverse to closing a store if the location doesn't deliver. Roots closed their store on Richmond Row. The once popular, locally owned Muskox, selling such iconic brands as Royal Robbins, is gone. The Richmond Row mystic attracted but failed to hold on to these and other stores.

The biggest threat to the future of the London store may simply be the age of  the savvy Richard Hayne. He will not be around to work his retail magic forever.

For an interesting take on what it is like to work, more often than not part-time, for a big chain, read:
A Part-Time Life, as Hours Shrink and Shift by Steve Greenhouse in The New York Times.

How much value is Facebook?

Newspapers, like The London Free Press, see themselves as riding the crest of change. They have a Facebook page and Twitter account.

Only 16 Likes, two Comments.

Ah, the all important social media. I'll bet the department heads at the paper thought the readers would find the Facebook page indispensable. But I checked a page of pictures posted from the Knights vs. Ottawa 67s game and found only 16 likes and two comments.

I checked a few more photo groupings. The post that did best attracted 26 likes and five comments. Another got nothing, nada, zilch. It got absolutely no likes and not even one comment.

Wow! Those numbers are low. Heck, back in December I did a little shoot at a London school of Irish dance and got 201 hits, 19 likes and six comments. Of course, not being as cool as the LFP, I didn't post to Facebook.

Maybe newspapers would do better if they paid more attention to their core business: news. Maybe Quebecor and Sun Media should consider hiring a few more reporters, photographers and copy editors. (For a story on the loss of copy editors, read Copy editors laid off more than other newsroom staffers in the King's Journalism Review.)

A dedicated online copy editor might cut down on errors like this one found on the Free Press Facebook page: National Ballet School audtions (sic) in London

My photo essay attracted more than two hundred hits.

Some of my online posts have attracted nearly 8000 hits on their own and some months I get more than 5000 hits for just one blog. I've got seven blogs!

I use both Facebook and Twitter but I find Google sends me the most readers. And Google is the gift that keeps on giving.

Since the early '90s, at least, I've wondered if newspapers would profit by forming an alliance with Google. Possibly they should consider making it easier for Google to track all of a newspaper's content. Newspapers should negotiate a deal along the lines of Google Adsense. Everyone would benefit.

Maybe Google could show the papers a trick or two on how to make money on the Net.

Journalists: Frontline historians

Dan Brown, an editor at The London Free Press, recently wrote a piece entitled: Journalists are not wannabe historians.

"Every time I hear someone describe journalism as “the first draft of history,” I shudder inwardly.

It’s not a fair definition of what reporters, photographers, columnists and editors do on a daily basis.

Even worse: It’s kind of insulting to the members of my chosen profession. It suggests all we journalists are is second-rate historians."

Dan Brown is right: Journalists are not automatically historians, not even second-rate ones. Furthermore, a good argument can be made that journalism is not automatically a profession. J-Source, the Canadian Journalism Project, delved into this question last January with an article, "Can journalism be a profession?"

Media law specialist Klaus Pohle, an associate professor at Carleton University, is quoted in the J-Source article: "In our system . . . anybody can be a journalist . . . ." Therefore, he argued, journalism is not a profession.

Personally, I have never been enamored with the job titles of journalist and photojournalist. I have always preferred reporter and photographer. I came to the newspaper business straight from three years of art school. My friend, hired at the small Ontario daily at the same time as I, had recently graduated from university with a BA in English. In later years, my friend became the news editor putting out the front page of a large, important Canadian daily.

But, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe Dan Brown's is right. Maybe he is a professional journalist. I assume as a professional journalist, he must report serious infractions of his profession's code of conduct. I'm not sure to whom Mr. Brown reports, nor do I know where to find the universally accepted code of conduct, but I am sure Mr. Brown, as a professional journalist, knows these answers.

While working in the newspaper game, I was often shocked by the stuff that masqueraded as news. For instance, I was totally appalled when the Ottawa Sun hired two young models to pose topless for a news story — the young women took turns playing the topless sunbather role with their bare backs kept modestly towards the camera. I wrote about this in a post, Who's a photojournalist?, that has been hit by journalism students and others from around the globe.

Here are the Ottawa Sun cutlines that accompanied the posed photo, left, run when the paper retrieved the archived image to illustrate another story a year after running the first piece: "Last summer, Lisa Regimbal, left, bear (sic) it all while chatting with Connie Morden." (Yes, bares was spelt incorrectly. And I discovered the names of the young ladies were switched from first publication to second.)

After Mr. Brown gets this breach of journalism ethics dealt with by the profession's ruling body, I hope he gets in touch with me. I'll give him a few more iffy items to look into. He tells us, "I take this [journalism] seriously. As a journalism educator, it’s up to people like me to dispel these myths."

I liked it better when journalists, working closely with talented editors and skilled photographers, were proud to put together a rough draft of history on a daily basis. I don't imagine respected journalist Alan Barth meant to insult Mr. Brown when he used the phrase in a book review appearing in the New Republic in 1943. (Yes, the phrase was coined and popularized by journalists.)

Perhaps, Mr. Brown needs to grow a thicker skin. Maybe, just maybe, he is too easily offended. I have hunch that most in the news business would agree with Jack Shafer writing in Slate:

"What makes 'first rough draft of history' so tuneful, at least to the ears of journalists? Well, it flatters them. Journalists hope that one day a historian will uncover their dusty work and celebrate their genius."

Will those historians also sift through blogger posts?

_____________________________________________________

Addendum: If Dan Brown takes offence at this post, I'm sorry. Like Mr. Brown, I care deeply about journalism and the direction in which it is headed under the guidance of huge companies like Quebecor, owner of Sun Media and The London Free Press.

Since getting into blogging, I've learned that people working in the media have the thinnest of skins when it comes to criticism. This is not to say that Mr. Brown will take offence, but he might.

If I write a harsh piece on financial advisers, I get well thought out, well reasoned and very polite e-mails. But from reporters I get e-mails banged out using the largest of fonts in the boldest typeface. Reporters often earn their income holding others up to intense examination. Being taken to task in a small, inconsequential blog does not compare to being criticized in a daily newspaper.

The invisible Randy Richmond

London

 
Back in May, 2011, when Randy Richmond of The London Free Press was just beginning his long series examining London, Ontario, the journalist asked: "The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and an endearing baseball club aside, who wants to be the Cleveland of Canada?"

Detroit

I found the question irritating and illuminating. Cleveland, like Detroit, is a Midwest American city that has been on the decline for half a century or more. It's a sad and an all-too-common tale in the rust belt. Think: Gary, IN, or St. Louis, MO, or London, ON. London hasn't lost population like the U.S. cities but London has lost a great deal of its manufacturing.

It is now early 2013 and Richmond is still cranking out articles in his seemingly endless series examining London. Because of his interest in London and in urban planning I am always amazed when I attend a ReThink London event and notice that Richmond is not there. Heck, it was Randy Richmond who made me aware of the similarities between Cleveland and London -- but London lacks the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. I'd love to thank Randy for this insight.

Today I came across a little piece posted on The London Fog blog: The Invisible Randy Richmond. I thought of Randy and ReThink London and I smiled.

London

Mixing clip art with journalism

To see the photo and story, click link.

As a former newspaper photographer, I prefer photographer to photojournalist, I am amazed at the clip art masquerading as news photography found in papers today. Surfing the Net, I came upon this example of clip art illustrating an opinion piece published in my local paper.

Why do I prefer photographer? Well, much of my life's work was spent shooting pictures to be shims on a page. I shot visual cliches, medical researchers holding petri dishes in front of their faces.

Today, newspapers no longer even pretend that the photo running with a story actually reflects reality. At least back when I was working we tried to run pictures of real people, often those in the story, even if they were posed doing silly stuff. Now, a clip art photo of two models pretending to be students illustrates an opinion piece on journalism and correctness. The clip art agency is given credit under the photo.

You know, when you really think about it, maybe today's clearly faux news images are more honest than yesterday's.

I find this very sad. For years I ran a photojournalism seminar and brought shooters like Edie Adams to London to speak. Adams was a fine photojournalist and I always hoped that the newspaper editors and photographers attending my seminars would return to their newsrooms invigorated. They didn't. They found the seminars entertaining, not enlightening.

This not to say that all newspaper photographs are phony, they aren't, but too many are and it often makes it impossible to tell the real from the faux. A professional plumber always installs a toilet that functions, a professional electrician always installs a light switch that works but a professional photojournalist cannot make the same claims about his/her photojournalism.

And if you do not find anything wrong with using clip art to illustrate news, using pictures shot well before a story was even a glimmer in an assignment editor's eye. Think about this: the same attitude often colours news stories. Reporters bring back stories from the field that confirm the beliefs that they held long before they were given the assignment. Think "crack babies."

Rethink London: Concrete towers an international style

Cherryhill: a mix of apartment towers, an indoor mall and a commercial complex.

Recently I saw the following Twitter tweet: "A new arrival from Australia points out how much Cherryhill looks like Chernobyl." I was shocked. Cherryhill is a successful residential development in London while Chernobyl is the name of the Soviet era nuclear power plant closed in 1986 after fire followed by an explosion damaged the plant, killed two workers and blew a massive cloud of radioactive debris high into the atmosphere.

Contrary to popular mythology, Pripyat and Chernobyl are completely different cities. (I first learned this while taking pictures for the local paper of children from the region who were visiting London.) Chernobyl is NOT the city built some two to three kilometers from the plant in the late '60s and early '70s to house plant workers. That place is Pripyat. Pripyat is the city that was emptied completely of residents immediately after the nuclear disaster. The place has sat abandoned for 26 years.

While there is a town of Chernobyl, it is about 14km from the nuclear power plant. It had no commercial links to the Soviet power station. The actual town of Chernobyl attracts very little attention. It is just one more little, regional town left almost deserted after the nuclear disaster contaminated the entire region.

Today, a few hundred inhabitants still live in Chernobyl. They post signs in front of their homes saying: "Owner of this house lives here." Finding pictures of the little town, with a recorded history going back to 1193, is almost impossible. I'd post a picture if I could. This link may show an abandoned Chernobyl home. Or go to the bottom of this post. I've posted a link to a few seconds of video shot driving through Chernobyl on the way to Pripyat.

Straight street, overgrown from lack of use, in Pripyat.

The roads in Pripyat grow narrower and narrower every year as grass and weeds encroach on the long straight expanses of pavement. Abandoned for decades, the apartments of the Soviet planned community are now missing windows and doors. Pripyat is often compared to cities in the American rustbelt: Detroit, Buffalo, Cleveland . . . Talk about the residential area carelessly known as Chernobyl and you are talking about post-nuclear-disaster Pripyat.

When I objected to the comparison of Chernobyl to Cherryhill, the writer tweeted that he found "the physical resemblance was uncanny." I finally understood. The fellow was talking about the architectural style of the Pripyat buildings. He was confusing the name of the power station with the name of the community.

Photo of Pripyat swimming pool structure by Timm Suess

The writer voiced surprise that buildings almost on opposite sides of the world would resemble each other. "Uncanny," the writer wrote.

I agree with the writer, except for the uncanny bit. The apartment towers in Pripyat do share a look with the apartment towers in London, Ontario — as well as with towers in Paris, New York, Vancouver, Calgary, Tokyo, Nairobi and thousands of other cities and towns around the globe.

The resemblance isn't uncanny, it's expected. The large, concrete slab towers, built all over the world, all exhibit some adherence to the international modernist style.

What is the international modernist style. This is what Emily Tyrer of Wesleyan University wrote:

The International Modernist Style developed out of a search for a building style unique to and expressive of the modern world. Modernist architects’ work expressed the technology, materials and functions that were new to the twentieth century. The resulting architecture was thought to be inevitable: based on function, technology and the spirit of the times. 

It adhered to the American architect, Louis Sullivan’s dictum, “Form follows function.” The style is characterized by architecture stripped of extraneous ornament, historical references and traditional symbolism. It demanded amnesia relative to history. 

The Modernist style was considered a mark of high morality; historical types and styles were “a lie,” in Le Corbusier’s words, and ornament was a “crime,” according to Adolf Loos. Instead of incorporating ornament or using historical typologies, they attempted to give aesthetic value to functionalism. The naked function and bones of its structure would be the final form. 

Mies van der Rohe’s famous phrase, “Less is more” represented the minimal ideal of Modernist architects and their buildings. They aimed for purity: sheerness, flatness, and smoothness. They aimed for a new style that could be relevant universally, based on inevitable, scientific facts of construction and human behavior.

If you got here because of an interest in ReThink London, you should follow the following link and read: tower renewal project: plasticity revisited by Graeme Stewart. Stewart writes:

The modernist concrete slab or tower in the park type apartment building, “is perhaps the most successful typology of the modern movement”. . . . this opinion reflects the remarkably global scope of the implementation of the ubiquitous modern tower. From Soviet mass housing, European post-war reconstruction, North American urban renewal, the utopias of Brasilia and Chandigarh, and Hong Kong’s super-blocks, this modernist machine for living is truly a global type, and has largely filled its mandate of providing well serviced and equitable housing for tens of millions of people.

One last thought: the 140 character limit imposed by Twitter, can limit thoughtful discussion.

Looking for a Chernobyl (Pripyat) look-a-like, look to the American rust belt.

Known as the Brewster-Douglass Project in Detroit, the straight roads, overgrown vegetation and abandoned apartment towers really do resemble the look of neighbourhoods in the former Chernobyl Territory of the old Soviet Union.

Why the projects in so many American cities failed while developments like Cherryhill in London, Ontario, succeeded is the really important question urban planners must answer. (If you are going to try finding the answer, google Sam Katz as a start. Sam Katz is a big reason for the success of Cherryhill and I may post more on Sam Katz soon.)

If you'd like to see a very short video shot in the Town of Chernobyl, check out the following:

In 2008, every three hours a child or teen killed by gunfire

I haven't followed the Connecticut school shooting story. Too difficult. Too sad. And all too common. Yes common. The shooting of 20 children is almost a daily occurrence in the States. Reportedly, in 2008 it took only two and a half days on average for gunfire to kill 20 children and teens.

That's right: Every two and a half days there were 20 more children and teens murdered by guns. A total of 2947 died from gunfire in 2008 and another 2793 in 2009.

In 2008, 88 preschoolers were killed with guns and in 2009 another 85 died. These numbers are nearly double the number of law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty in that time.

According to the Children's Defense Fund:

• Recent data from 23 industrialized nations shows 87 percent of the children under 15 killed by guns in these nations lived in the United States. 
• The gun homicide rate in the United States for teens and young adults ages 15 to 24 was 42.7 times higher than the combined rate for the other nations.
• Of the 116,385 children and teens killed by a gun since 1979, when gun data by age were first collected, 44,038 were Black — even so, more White than Black children and teens have died from gun violence. 

What can be done? Banning weapons more suitable for war zones than American homes would be a start. Getting handguns out of circulation might be another. But a dialogue must be opened and answers must be found. 

Of course, it would help if the media would stop, do some research, and report the story, the arguments for and against gun ownership, with accuracy. Sadly accuracy is one of the first victims in a story like this. 

At first, it was reported that the school principal had buzzed Adam Lanza in (past school security) because she recognized him as the son of a colleague, Nancy Lanza, the shooter's mother, who worked at the school.

Later, we learned the gunman forced his way into the school by shooting through glass, breaching school's security system. The principal was shot, along with the school psychologist, trying to tackle the gunman and protect their students, according to later reports. And there was no connection between Adam Lanza’s mother and the school.

And what did the gunman use to kill the children. First reports said a rifle. Corrections then appeared, such as this one from The New York times claiming "the guns used in the school shooting were both handguns." Today the BBC is reporting, "The gunman shot all the victims at the school with a semiautomatic rifle . . . "

That facts surrounding this event should change, be corrected and then be corrected again, is not surprising. What is surprising is that the media have not learned this and learned to be more careful in their reporting. The media shows no restraint. In the end beating the competition is the biggest driving force behind the reporting of events such as this. Speed trumps all.

Consider the error-filled, fast-off-the-mark response of syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer:

"Think about the details of the crime, he (Adam Lanza) began by shooting his mother . . . and then destroying everything precious to her, her colleagues and her children, and then killing himself."

If I could advise my American friends how to approach this tragedy, I say approach this carefully, thoughtfully, try to find answers that are not steeped in ideology. Refuse to be rushed. Do not follow the path blazed by your media.

If you do step back, using reason and not emotion, you might (underlined) discover the truth surrounding gun control laws. You might, as a nation, shed light on a pressing global issue. You might discover how to prevent the senseless deaths of your young people who are dying a the rate of about one every three hours from gunfire.

Alcohol based hand sanitizer: Good or bad?

I took a friend to the doctor today. On entering the medical office my friend immediately sanitized his hands. He rubbed both hands together for a few seconds with a squirt of an alcohol based hand sanitizer found on the counter at the reception area. I didn't follow his lead. I could see no need. My hands were, I believed, clean. A half hour before, my hands had been deep in hot, soapy dishwater.

My friend gently chastised me for not using the supplied sanitizer. He told me a story about being at a facility hard hit by the Norwalk virus and how he escaped coming down with the gastrointestinal illness by wiping his hands and arms frequently with hand sanitizer gel.

Maybe it was a good idea there and then but here and now? I wasn't convinced. He assured me that health departments promote the use of these gels and that one had to follow the guidance of the health officials. I still wasn't convinced.

The queasiness in my gut was not from a gastrointestinal illness but out of concern that sanitizer gels may be rather inefficient killers of bacteria. I was worried the wide spread use of these gels might be contributing to the development of another strain of super bugs. The result being increasing rather than decreasing the incidence of illness.

Turning to Google, I quickly learned the Norwalk virus exhibits strong resistance to alcohol-based hand sanitizer (ABHS). A full minute of contact time with 70% ethanol is required to inactive a norovirus. If an 85% ethanol gel is used, stronger than that commonly available, the contact time need only be 30 seconds.

In some studies, twenty seconds spent washing the hands with soap and water has been found to be superior to ABHS. The use of an ABHS alone may increase the risk of infection during an outbreak.

While most soaps and sanitizers are considered antibacterial, Norwalk infection is caused by a virus. With soap and water, the infectious agent is rinsed off; With an ABHS, the microbes remain on the hands and are possibly spread over a greater area of skin.

On the positive side, my friend was correct. Many health professionals do advocate the use of ABHS gels — not as a replacement for soap and water but as a supplement when soap and water are not handy.

There are three important considerations when using an ABHS:

• Is the concentration of alcohol greater than 60%? If it isn't, go wash your hands.
• Are you applying enough?
• Are you using it long enough?

So, how much gel should you use and for how long? According to The New York Times, one should vigorously rub all sides of one's hands with enough gel or foam to get them wet, and rub them together until they are dry. If one's hands are dry within 10 or 15 seconds, you haven't used enough.

One last thought, some hand gels/foams contain triclosan — and to be completely honest, so do some hand soaps. Many believe triclosan is contributing to the problem of antibiotic-resistance bacteria. If you'd like to read about superbugs, use this link to a CBC article.

Other sources: Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs

ReThink London must address urban myths

In early September my wife and I spent the better part of a week in Montreal, Quebec. Wonderful city. It is one of my favourites. I spent a lot of  time walking about the Côte des Neiges neighbourhood where my wife and I were staying with friends.

I have been following the oh-so-long London Free Press series examining London and I have been involved with ReThink London, a year-long review of the city's official master plan. The goal of ReThink is a new urban plan good for the next 20 years.

London is not Montreal. That said, there is a lot that London can learn from La Métropole. Let's begin.

Myth: Cars or people. One must make a choice.

Côte des Neiges is filled with people and cars. The area is alive.

All too often one reads stuff on how to make better people places. Add trees and flower beds while subtracting car traffic — is a good start, or so we often are told. Bunkum!

I've seen this done in Paris, France, too.

I was raised in a walkable neighbourhood. No car was needed but that did not mean there were no cars. It was the early '50s and every passing year brought more and more traffic. I lived near King's highway 39, a truck route through Windsor, Ontario, but even a busy highway did not hinder walking.

The Côte des Neiges neighbourhood continues that tradition. It is very walkable but filled with cars: cars on the roads, cars parked on both sides of surrounding side streets, and cars beside homes and even under them.

But, unlike the neighbourhood of my youth, Côte des Neiges has retained its rich mix of businesses. One reason might be the high residential density — approximately 20,000 residents per sq. km. There are lots of customers within walking distance and there is adequate parking for those who choose to drive.

What can London learn?

We must increase the density of our city. London has a published density of about 871 per sq. km. This number is probably low because a great amount of London is still undeveloped. Compared to Côte des Neiges we are very thinly populated.

Myth: London cares about increasing urban density

What's missing? Answer: Apartments above these box stores on Wonderland Rd.

London talks the talk but fails to deliver. When it comes to use of land, London is a pig. We come no where near maximizing our use of land. Increasing residential density is very important. It enables public transportation to become competitive and it makes the development of walkable commercial areas possible.

Not London: Note apartments above stores.

The planning committee rejected staff recommendations when they extended the "community enterprise corridor" on Wonderland Rd. The committee also loosened the grid patterns for residential development.

The Free Press reports that city planner John Fleming warned members the innovative nature of the original plan could be killed.
“You either have a plan or you don’t have a plan,” Fleming said.

What can London learn?

London has to spend some time looking at what other communities are doing to bring residents into commercial areas. The people making the decisions have to look to both older communities like Montreal and newer developments. Moving too fast may well saddle London with poor, low density developments that will be a blight to the community for years.

Myth: London has too many railroad level crossings

London does have a lot of streets intersected by railroad tracks. This is true. Still, everywhere there is a level crossing there is at least a crossing. The Montreal folk I talked to said they had too many cul-de-sacs, the result of street closures where a railroad cut through the neighbourhood.

Not the best example, an underpass is nearby, but the cul-de-sac results from tracks.

Depending on where you live in Montreal and how far you must walk or drive to get across a set of railroad tracks, you may think Londoners are lucky to have so many level crossings.

I worked for more thirty years as a news photographer for the local paper. I was inconvenienced by slow moving freight trains now and then but generally level crossings were not a huge problem. In fact, I saw them as a benefit.

Which is better: A street blocked by a passing train occasionally or a street blocked 24 hours a day by a fence-lined railroad track?

What can London learn?

There are some level crossings that should be eliminated. Let's focus on the problem spots, while taking pride in the fact that London has fewer cul-de-sacs thanks to our abundant use of level crossings. All level crossings should be controlled by gates with flashing warning lights.

Myth: Industrial areas in residential areas should be eliminated

Residential, commercial, industrial and religious uses mix on this Montreal St.

If the industry is loud, dirty, or smelly, it doesn't belong in the middle of a residential neighbourhood. But we should not be too quick to prevent industry and commercial areas from bordering on, or even mixing with, residential areas.

It was done with success in the past and is being done again in some large urban centres in the United States. London has an old, mixed use area in east London. Think of the abandoned McCormick's plant. McCormick Boulevard, behind the plant, has a number of manufacturing operations.

If the city has its way, the beautiful, historic terra cotta biscuit factory will be demolished and the land behind it redeveloped for housing. What a shame.

Why not allow the small industrial area to remain? If someone wants to walk to work, they can. Isn't that one of the goals of new urbanism?

The Montreal street shown is but a short walk from Côte des Neiges. It has residential units, commercial businesses and some industry.

It even has a rich mix of buildings devoted to religious activities. A resident assured me there is no move being made at this time to "clean up the area."

What can London learn?

Mixed use works in other communities. Maybe we can do it better in London. When I was a boy there numerous manufacturing plants in my neighbourhood. These businesses made an effort to blend in with the neighbourhood. I recall one plant that had a flower garden out front filled with colourful snap dragons. I used to see workers walking to work, a lunch bucket swinging at their side.

Myth: A simple grid pattern yields the greatest resident density

This just isn't true. It is easy to get from A to B when streets are arranged in a simple grid, but CMHC has devised a better approach when high density is the goal: The fused grid.

To learn more about the fused grid approach please read my blog: ReThink London: The answer is "fused grid".

What can London learn?

Having spoken with the city planning staff, I know that some planning officials in London are well aware of the fused grid. Yet, I went to a ReThink London meeting where city planning staff left mention of the fused grid out of an answer given a woman interested in knowing what urban street pattern was best at maximizing density.

London planners have to boldly step up and share their rich, urban planning knowledge with interested Londoners. ReThink London must be willing not only to be challenged but to do the challenging at times. London planners must not be timid when it comes to leading.
 

Myth: Cookie cutter homes unique to suburbia, especially '50s suburbs

 

A row of homes in North London.

Cookie cutter homes have been around literally forever. They are not unique to suburbia. The Côte des Neiges neighbourhood has a lot of houses of a similar design — mostly duplexes. But it is still an interesting area for a stroll.

Why is it interesting? The homes have nice touches. One home has a gorgeous wooden door in a beautiful stone enclosure. Another home has an interesting decorative treatment above a featured window.

Truth is that many of the duplexes in this Montreal neighbourhood seem to be little more than tract housing for the masses. Yet the years have been kind to the neighbourhood. Upkeep is important and many of these homes have been maintained with money, and more importantly, with respect.

What can London learn?

Insulting descriptions of neighbourhoods can often be the sign of a weak argument. When you hear the argument that a suburban neighbourhood is merely a collection of cookie cutter homes, feel free to ask: "And your point is?"

Add your own myths to my list.

There is a ReThink London meeting tonight and I want to get this posted. I encourage you to think about what you believe about cities, what you have been told, and to ask yourself, "Is this true?"

Think about the stories you may have read in The London Free Press about heritage buildings being demolished because they were impossible to save. The paper is often quite willing to simply report the words of those destroying the old structures; The paper rarely gives the other side of the argument.

Let me give an example from Montreal.

I understand this old home Victorian home was threatened with demolition. It was saved after the local community protested its planned destruction.

The home sits behind a Petro-Canada station. It appears to sit sideways on its lot — the front yard has been taken, or sold or something. Still the home has presence. It may be hidden but it cannot be missed. It may be white but it adds colour to the neighbourhood.

What can London learn?

Older neighbourhoods should be respected. And heritage buildings should be retained. If you want to create a people place, respect the history of the area.

I look forward to seeing many of you at the ReThink London meeting tonight.