JREF Homepage Swift Blog Events Calendar $1 Million Paranormal Challenge The Amaz!ng Meeting Useful Links Support Us
James Randi Educational Foundation JREF Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   JREF Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
Click Here To Donate

Notices


Welcome to the JREF Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Tags milk

Reply
Old 21st February 2012, 10:49 PM   #1
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Japan
Posts: 18,140
Raw milk 150 times more likely to cause illness than pasteurized

Raw milk causes most illnesses from dairy, study finds

Quote:
Unpasteurized milk, touted as the ultimate health food by some, is 150 times more likely to cause food-borne illness outbreaks than pasteurized milk, and such outbreaks had a hospitalization rate 13 times higher than those involving pasteurized dairy products, a study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention finds.
Quelle surprise.

Will it change any minds?

ETA: That's 1950 times more likely to cause illness requiring hospitalization if I'm not mistaken.
__________________
“Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it had been all three.”
― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

Last edited by Puppycow; 21st February 2012 at 10:55 PM.
Puppycow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st February 2012, 11:21 PM   #2
Brian-M
Daydreamer
 
Brian-M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Downunder
Posts: 6,208
What's that in raw numbers?

For example; consumers of raw milk suffer X cases of illness per million persons annually, compared to Y cases of illnesses per million persons annually among consumers of pasteurized milk.

Just saying 150 times more likely is meaningless. 150 times more likely than what?
__________________
"That is just what you feel, that isn't reality." - hamelekim
Brian-M is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2012, 12:38 AM   #3
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
Tagger
 
rjh01's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Flying around in the sky
Posts: 19,543
Originally Posted by Brian-M View Post
What's that in raw numbers?

For example; consumers of raw milk suffer X cases of illness per million persons annually, compared to Y cases of illnesses per million persons annually among consumers of pasteurized milk.

Just saying 150 times more likely is meaningless. 150 times more likely than what?
Read the link. Then you will know

Quote:
The survey found 121 outbreaks linked to dairy products in which it was known whether the milk was pasteurized or unpasteurized (also called "raw"). Of those, 60% were caused by raw milk and 39% by pasteurized milk.

"When you consider that no more than 1% of the milk consumed in the United States is raw,
rjh01 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2012, 12:40 AM   #4
Roger Ramjets
Graduate Poster
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,219
Quoting x cases per million might make it sound like your chances of getting sick are still quite low, which it probably is. But that doesn't mean it wouldn't be a problem.

Quote:
Pennsylvania is in the midst of a campylobacter outbreak linked to raw milk from a dairy in Chambersburg, Pa., that had sickened 77 people as of Tuesday.
Currently only 1% of the milk consumed in the United States is raw, but what if there were no restrictions and almost everybody switched to raw milk? Imagine those 77 cases growing to over 7000!
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.

Last edited by Roger Ramjets; 22nd February 2012 at 12:45 AM. Reason: redundancy
Roger Ramjets is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2012, 01:34 AM   #5
Information Analyst
Master Poster
 
Information Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: London, UK
Posts: 2,491
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
Quoting x cases per million might make it sound like your chances of getting sick are still quite low, which it probably is. But that doesn't mean it wouldn't be a problem.
Quote:
Pennsylvania is in the midst of a campylobacter outbreak linked to raw milk from a dairy in Chambersburg, Pa., that had sickened 77 people as of Tuesday.
Currently only 1% of the milk consumed in the United States is raw, but what if there were no restrictions and almost everybody switched to raw milk? Imagine those 77 cases growing to over 7000!
Total side-track, but is that a common use of the word "sickened" in American-English? In the UK it is now almost exclusively used to denote disgust ("I was sickened to read that...."). In the same context as this case, we'd be more likely to hear, "... that has made 77 people sick..." or "... that has made 77 people ill..."
Information Analyst is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2012, 02:34 AM   #6
Brian-M
Daydreamer
 
Brian-M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Downunder
Posts: 6,208
Originally Posted by rjh01 View Post
Read the link. Then you will know
I read the link. It mentions the review covers 121 outbreaks over 13 years. No mention of how many people affected, what areas and population covered, no mention of even what constitutes an outbreak.

When talking about the dangers of raw milk, they seem to have left out a very pertinent figure...

If you drink raw milk, what are your actual chances of getting sick from it?

ETA: Not that it directly affects me in any way. I only drink UHT milk, because I can buy half a dozen at once, and it doesn't matter if the carton sits in the fridge for a week or two before I get around to opening it.

Microorganisms can't survive the Ultra-Heat Treament. (Except possibly botulism spores and a few extremophiles, but even then only in very rare circumstances.)
__________________
"That is just what you feel, that isn't reality." - hamelekim

Last edited by Brian-M; 22nd February 2012 at 02:41 AM.
Brian-M is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2012, 02:35 AM   #7
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Japan
Posts: 18,140
It's a less common usage in the US too but I suspect that if you consult a British English dictionary you will find that literal sense of the word in there.
__________________
“Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it had been all three.”
― Joseph Heller, Catch-22
Puppycow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2012, 02:42 AM   #8
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Japan
Posts: 18,140
Originally Posted by Brian-M View Post
I read the link. It mentions the review covers 121 outbreaks over 13 years. No mention of how many people affected, what areas and population covered, no mention of even what constitutes an outbreak.

When talking about the dangers of raw milk, they seem to have left out a very pertinent figure...

If you drink raw milk, what are your actual chances of getting sick from it?

ETA: Not that it directly affects me in any way. I only drink UHT milk, because I can buy half a dozen at once, and it doesn't matter if the carton sits in the fridge for a week or two before I get around to opening it.
If you can find the original paper it probably says there.
__________________
“Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it had been all three.”
― Joseph Heller, Catch-22
Puppycow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2012, 04:49 AM   #9
Jorghnassen
Illuminator
 
Jorghnassen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: The realm of ideas
Posts: 3,934
How many of those outbreaks are from "Mexican bathtub cheese". I am all for raw milk cheeses but there's no way in hell I'd buy stuff made under unsanitary/unregulated conditions. I have no doubt that there are more risks to raw milk consumption, but the numbers are not quite fair here. I would love to see numbers for, just as an illustration, unpasteurized vs pasteurized "cider" (brown, cloudy apple juice). The former doesn't keep as long, that's for sure.
__________________
"Help control the local pet population: teach your dog abstinence." -Stephen Colbert
"My dad believed laughter is the best medicine. Which is why several of us died of tuberculosis."- Unknown source, heard from Grey Delisle on Rob Paulsen's podcast
Jorghnassen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2012, 04:53 AM   #10
JJM 777
Illuminator
 
JJM 777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Finland
Posts: 3,175
You mean that there actually is a reason why Louis Pasteur invented a bacteria-killing method? I thought it was just for the fun of it.
JJM 777 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2012, 05:59 AM   #11
Almo
Masterblazer
 
Almo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Posts: 6,555
Originally Posted by JJM 777 View Post
You mean that there actually is a reason why Louis Pasteur invented a bacteria-killing method? I thought it was just for the fun of it.
My thoughts were along these lines. Reminds me of a scene in a sci fi book where a group of teens raised in a single small spaceship decide it's a farce and open a panel to get out. The reality of the vacuum changes their minds fast. The problem with the raw milk issue is that the effects are less obvious, so the delusion is more persistent.
__________________
Almo!
My Blog
"No society ever collapsed because the poor had too much." — LeftySergeant
"It may be that there is no body really at rest, to which the places and motions of others may be referred." –Issac Newton in the Principia

Last edited by Almo; 22nd February 2012 at 06:01 AM.
Almo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2012, 06:14 AM   #12
Bikewer
Penultimate Amazing
 
Bikewer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: St. Louis, Mo.
Posts: 10,396
Pasteurization removes all the healthy.....Stuff from your milk. You gotta drink it right out of the cow!
Funny story on this on NPR some months ago. Guy who had always harbored dreams of becoming a "gentleman farmer" finally bought a small farm. Place came with a couple of dairy cows.
Almost immediately upon buying the farm, he was approached by people who wanted to see if he'd sell "shares" in the cows. It was illegal to sell raw milk in the area. However, the owner of a cow could consume it without problem...
The local farmers were selling shares in some of their cattle so that folks could have the raw milk legally...
Bikewer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2012, 06:24 AM   #13
Information Analyst
Master Poster
 
Information Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: London, UK
Posts: 2,491
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
It's a less common usage in the US too but I suspect that if you consult a British English dictionary you will find that literal sense of the word in there.
Yeah, I've seen it used in archaic sources ("he did eat some bad fish, and did sicken in the night, expiring before dawn" etc.!), so it sort of leapt of the screen. I'm aware though, that there are some words/phrases that have fallen from use here, but survive elsewhere in the English-speaking world, and so wondered if this was one of them.
Information Analyst is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2012, 09:45 AM   #14
catsmate1
Penultimate Amazing
 
catsmate1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Dublin (the one in Ireland)
Posts: 10,946
No doubt the usual suspects will be along to claim it's all an FDA/whomever conspiracy and raw milk is wonderful.
catsmate1 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2012, 09:47 AM   #15
The Central Scrutinizer
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Central Scrutinizer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: The White Zone
Posts: 46,650
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
Raw milk causes most illnesses from dairy, study finds



Quelle surprise.

Will it change any minds?

ETA: That's 1950 times more likely to cause illness requiring hospitalization if I'm not mistaken.
The CDC is controlled by Big Ag. And Big Pharma too. And the Jews.
__________________
If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

Lupus is Lupus tor central scrutineezer
The Central Scrutinizer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2012, 10:35 AM   #16
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 13,276
Originally Posted by JJM 777
You mean that there actually is a reason why Louis Pasteur invented a bacteria-killing method? I thought it was just for the fun of it.
Well, at the time the industry was quite different. As I recall, a LOT of milk being sold in the USA at the time was from cows fed nothing but swill from breweries. The fact that it was greenish in color was cause for concern; what the people did to it to make it look white was even more so. Pasteur may not have designed his process to combat that issue (as I recall, milk quality was a minor byproduct), but the regulations in question certainly were devised to do so.

As long as you're getting milk from healthy cows, and that milk is handled under sanitary conditions, I doubt there's any significant difference in rates of disease caused by milk between pasteurized and non milk today. There's SOME risk--there always is--but the differences in rates of causing diseases will be statistical noise. Tens if not hundreds of millions of people drink milk every day in the USA; it'd be extremely surprising if some DIDN'T get sick (some get sick from driking our water, and we've got the cleanest, healthiest water system in history).
__________________
GENERATION 8: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
Dinwar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2012, 11:38 AM   #17
phunk
Master Poster
 
phunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,538
Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
As long as you're getting milk from healthy cows, and that milk is handled under sanitary conditions, I doubt there's any significant difference in rates of disease caused by milk between pasteurized and non milk today.
As long as you're getting milk from farm animals, it's impossible to be completely sanitary. There will be the occasional bit of poo in the bucket.
phunk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2012, 11:45 AM   #18
Peacock
Scholar
 
Peacock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Location: Location
Posts: 85
If any of you actually ever milked a cow or worked in a dairy you wouldn't want to drink raw milk. Trust me. So gross.
Peacock is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2012, 11:54 AM   #19
Baloney
Muse
 
Baloney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: America! (F, yeah!)
Posts: 698
Originally Posted by phunk View Post
As long as you're getting milk from farm animals, it's impossible to be completely sanitary. There will be the occasional bit of poo in the bucket.
(highlighting is mine)

I guess when dealing in absolutes, your statement is accurate; but it's an equally valid argument when talking about pasteurized milk, tap water, and beer.

It's very possible to never have fecal contamination when collecting milk from farm animals if proper technique and sanitation are employed habitually.
__________________
When I think about woo, I detect myself.

Last edited by Baloney; 22nd February 2012 at 11:55 AM.
Baloney is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2012, 12:01 PM   #20
EHocking
Philosopher
 
EHocking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 5,232
Originally Posted by Peacock View Post
If any of you actually ever milked a cow or worked in a dairy you wouldn't want to drink raw milk.
I have done all three and enjoyed each of those experiences.
Quote:
Trust me.

Quote:
So gross.
__________________
"A closed mouth gathers no feet"
"Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke
Prayer: "a sophisticated way of pleading with thunderstorms." T.Pratchett
"It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite
Forum Birdwatching Webpage
EHocking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2012, 12:01 PM   #21
Jim_MDP
Illuminator
 
Jim_MDP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: N.Cal/S.Or
Posts: 3,499
Excuse me, but...

Half again as many (60% vs 40%) is not "150 times more likely".

Just sayin'.
__________________
----------------------
"Suggesting spurious explanations isn't relevant to my work." -- WTC Dust.
"Both cannot be simultaneously true, and so one may conclude neither is true, and if neither is true, then Apollo is fraudulent." -- Patrick1000.
Jim_MDP is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2012, 12:04 PM   #22
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 13,169
Originally Posted by Jim_MDP View Post
Excuse me, but...

Half again as many (60% vs 40%) is not "150 times more likely".

Just sayin'.
When 1% of the sample creates half again as many of the problems, then that IS 150 times more likely.

Just sayin.
__________________
"Baseball is a philosophy. The primordial ooze that once ruled our world has been captured in perpetual motion. Baseball is the moment. Its ever changing patterns are hypnotizing yet invigorating. Baseball is an art form. Classic and at the same time...progressive. Baseball is pre-historic and post-modern. Baseball is here to stay."

(Stolen from the side of a lava lamp box, and modified slightly)
pgwenthold is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2012, 12:07 PM   #23
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
Tagger
 
rjh01's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Flying around in the sky
Posts: 19,543
Originally Posted by Jim_MDP View Post
Excuse me, but...

Half again as many (60% vs 40%) is not "150 times more likely".

Just sayin'.
It is if 60% of the cases come from 1% of the population.
rjh01 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2012, 12:08 PM   #24
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 13,276
Originally Posted by Peacock
If any of you actually ever milked a cow or worked in a dairy you wouldn't want to drink raw milk. Trust me. So gross.
I have. I'm not a fan of milk in general (Pavlovian conditioning thanks to a faulty refrigerator and bad luck), but I honestly wouldn't have a problem drinking raw milk. Sure, there's some risk of contamination. But I used to eat my grandfather's strawberries right out of the field and I knew he used hog manuer as fertilizer. Spent a lot of time cleaning hog crap out of the barn. And then there's the fact that no granery in the history of farming was free of rats, and we still eat bread. Keep your toothbrush in the bathroom? Ever eat peanut butter?

Attempts to avoid all unhealthy stuff are futile. It's like trying to drain the Atlantic by pouring the water into the Pacific. It's about risk MANAGEMENT, not risk AVOIDANCE.

Originally Posted by phunk
As long as you're getting milk from farm animals, it's impossible to be completely sanitary. There will be the occasional bit of poo in the bucket.
I never said to shut your brain down and guzzle the milk out of any random bucket you find lying around. While I'm not overly concerned about maintaning sterility of my entire environment, if a turd is floating in the milk yeah, I'll cook the batch--or toss it out, or feed it to the dog (not like it'd be the first time my grandfather's dog ate cow byproduct), or most likely just dump it on the compost heap.

I put a number of caveats in my original post for a reason. Under certain conditions raw milk is likely to be perfectly fine. If those conditions are not met, obviously the probability of contamination increases. When that risk gets unacceptably high (and I'm of the opinion that if you're an adult you should be able to figure that out for yourself; there won't be a univeresal answer here), you stop drinking the raw milk and either cook it, or find a different source. Not sure why this is even an issue--it's what we do for quite literally every other product we consume that's not sold in stores.
__________________
GENERATION 8: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
Dinwar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2012, 12:11 PM   #25
Peacock
Scholar
 
Peacock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Location: Location
Posts: 85
I've worked in dairies that were extremely clean and sanitary, but would still never drink their milk raw. Beer and water do not come from an orifice under a cow's butt. One time I was just about to attach the milker when the cow decided to poo. It went everywhere and I just barely kept it from being sucked up into the machinery. Another things cows like to do is kick off their milkers with their filthy feet, thus contaminating the whole batch. Also diseases like mastitis or ulcers may not be showing symptoms and you end up with bacteria in the tanks. I know it seems more natural and wholesome to eat it raw, but there are a zillion ways for it to be contaminated even in the most sanitary conditions.
Peacock is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2012, 12:18 PM   #26
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 13,276
I for one never said anything about "natural and wholesome". It's a matter of taste, far as I'm concerned (remember, not a milk drinker here--I get my dairy from cheese and other processed milk products). If someone's decided that the risk is worth the reward, I'm not going to tell them no--I have no RIGHT to tell them no, as I'm not the one drinking it.

And I understand the issues involved in farming. As I've pointed out, it's inherently less than sterile. That said, while YOU may not like the idea, you simply do not get to decide for other people. It's their bodies--they get to choose whether to risk ulcers, fecal colliform, or not.

My original point was that the laws weren't designed to keep people from making bad choices--they were a response to outright fraud being committed by the dairy industry (then an arm of the brewing industry). There's a huge difference between someone voluntarily doing something fairly stupid, and poisoning orphans and school children. And there's a huge difference between the "natural and wholesome" thing that we talk about today and what it meant back then--which was "no one intentionally put Plaster of Paris into the milk" (another thing that actually happened).
__________________
GENERATION 8: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
Dinwar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2012, 12:21 PM   #27
Brian-M
Daydreamer
 
Brian-M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Downunder
Posts: 6,208
Originally Posted by Jim_MDP View Post
Excuse me, but...

Half again as many (60% vs 40%) is not "150 times more likely".

Just sayin'.
According to the article...

Quote:
The survey found 121 outbreaks linked to dairy products in which it was known whether the milk was pasteurized or unpasteurized (also called "raw"). Of those, 60% were caused by raw milk and 39% by pasteurized milk.

"When you consider that no more than 1% of the milk consumed in the United States is raw, it's pretty startling to see that more of the outbreaks were caused by raw milk than pasteurized," says Barbara Mahon, senior author on the paper and deputy director of enteric diseases at CDC.
So that's 60% of the cases come from 1% of the population, and 39% comes from 99% of the population. You have to do a bit of multiplication to get the ratio.

60 * 99 = 5940
39 * 1 = 39

5940:39 is approximately 152:1.

(5940/39 = 152.3076923)
__________________
"That is just what you feel, that isn't reality." - hamelekim

Last edited by Brian-M; 22nd February 2012 at 12:22 PM.
Brian-M is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2012, 12:23 PM   #28
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 13,276
What's the standard deviation on those numbers?
__________________
GENERATION 8: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
Dinwar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2012, 01:10 PM   #29
casebro
Philosopher
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 7,955
Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
What's the standard deviation on those numbers?
There isn't any. They are sans serif on my screen.
__________________
Please pardon me for having ideas, not facts.

Some have called me cynical, but I don't believe them.

It's not how many breaths you take. It's how many times you have been breathless that counts.
casebro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2012, 01:18 PM   #30
casebro
Philosopher
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 7,955
So, 152 times (what) = my comparative risk.

Say it's 1 : million, that would give a raw milk drinker about 1: 7,000 chance of getting "sickened".

I bet that is better than the corner taco shop. And as good as the school cafeteria when I was growing up. Or lessee, Mom's cooking, two meals a day, 700 per year, once every ten years? " I'll pass on dinner tonight Mom. Let me have a glass of raw milk instead please".
__________________
Please pardon me for having ideas, not facts.

Some have called me cynical, but I don't believe them.

It's not how many breaths you take. It's how many times you have been breathless that counts.
casebro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2012, 01:33 PM   #31
Roger Ramjets
Graduate Poster
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,219
Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
If someone's decided that the risk is worth the reward, I'm not going to tell them no--I have no RIGHT to tell them no, as I'm not the one drinking it.
Strawman? Nobody here has suggested prohibiting the consumption of raw milk.

Quote:
My original point was that the laws weren't designed to keep people from making bad choices--they were a response to outright fraud
Fraud prevention may have been the original intent of the law, but we now have a situation where raw milk is being promoted as being healthier, when in fact it isn't. This belief is probably mostly due to ignorance and wishful thinking, rather than irresponsible marketing or outright fraud, but the result is the same. People are being misled into believing the lie that raw milk is better for you, while not being properly informed of the risks.

I grew up on a farm where we milked a cow the old-fashioned way (for personal consumption only). I was made well aware of the dangers of milk contamination and we cooked it before use. But most people don't have that background, so they may be ignorant of the risks. It's all very well to say that they have the 'right' to decide whether the risk is worth the reward, but what if they don't know the nature of those risks and rewards?

The CDC isn't trying to ban people from consuming raw milk, they are just trying to keep them informed so that they can make better decisions.
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2012, 01:34 PM   #32
Kuko 4000
Graduate Poster
 
Kuko 4000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Finland
Posts: 1,586
Here's a link to the original study:

http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/ahead-of-pr...fs/11-1370.pdf

Quote:
Although pasteurization eliminates pathogens and consumption of nonpasteurized dairy products is uncommon, dairy-associated disease outbreaks continue to occur. To determine the association of outbreaks caused by nonpasteurized dairy products with state laws regarding sale of these products, we reviewed dairy-associated outbreaks during 1993–2006. We found 121 outbreaks for which the product’s pasteurization status was known; among these, 73 (60%) involved nonpasteurized products and resulted in 1,571 cases, 202 hospitalizations, and 2 deaths. A total of 55 (75%) outbreaks occurred in 21 states that permitted sale of nonpasteurized products; incidence of nonpasteurized product–associated outbreaks was higher in these states. Nonpasteurized products caused a disproportionate number (≈150× greater/unit of product consumed) of outbreaks and outbreak-associated illnesses and also disproportionately affected persons <20 years of age. States that restricted sale of nonpasteurized products had fewer outbreaks and illnesses; stronger restrictions and enforcement should be considered.
And here's the press release:

http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/20..._outbreak.html
__________________
Richard Dawkins: "We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."

Pixie of key: "HOW IS YOU NOT UNDERSTANDING WHAT I AM GIVING LECTURES ON A PROBLEM."

Last edited by Kuko 4000; 22nd February 2012 at 02:38 PM.
Kuko 4000 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2012, 02:11 PM   #33
Jim_MDP
Illuminator
 
Jim_MDP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: N.Cal/S.Or
Posts: 3,499
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
When 1% of the sample creates half again as many of the problems, then that IS 150 times more likely.

Just sayin.
Originally Posted by rjh01 View Post
It is if 60% of the cases come from 1% of the population.

Thanks, didn't read it through.

"Reading comprehension... it's good for you."

__________________
----------------------
"Suggesting spurious explanations isn't relevant to my work." -- WTC Dust.
"Both cannot be simultaneously true, and so one may conclude neither is true, and if neither is true, then Apollo is fraudulent." -- Patrick1000.
Jim_MDP is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2012, 02:41 PM   #34
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 13,276
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets
Strawman? Nobody here has suggested prohibiting the consumption of raw milk.
No. A straw-man is attacking a weaker and false version of an opponant's argument because it's easier than attacking the real one, and to make one look good. I'm attempting to emphasize my points, which are 1) the laws against selling raw milk are based on a system which is no longer in place, and 2) even if the risk was much higher, as long as this is all voluntery there's not much to be made of it other than "Huh. Interesting."

Also, the ban on selling raw milk for direct consumption is a de facto attempt to ban the consumption thereof. You can see this in counties that ban selling, but not drinking, alcohol. Sure, you can take extraordinary measures, such as driving 50 miles (like my father once did), to get the stuff, but the majority of people won't even consider the alternative.

Quote:
Fraud prevention may have been the original intent of the law, but we now have a situation where raw milk is being promoted as being healthier, when in fact it isn't.
Anyone guilty of making such claims without proper support is a liar, and should not be trusted. If they're just selling the milk because there's a market and they don't believe it's harmful (ie, they take adequate precautions--I DO believe in due dilligence), it's no different from any other product.

Quote:
It's all very well to say that they have the 'right' to decide whether the risk is worth the reward, but what if they don't know the nature of those risks and rewards?
Than they're stupid and will become ill. I'm not sure what the problem is. Again, this is exactly the same issue with EVERY food product that doesn't go through the CDC, FDA, or other government agencies. You may as well argue that because I can get sick from growing my own tomatoes, and other people get into gardening because they mistakenly think it makes you healthier without knowing the risks, we should outlaw gardening, or selling/trading garden produce.

Quote:
The CDC isn't trying to ban people from consuming raw milk, they are just trying to keep them informed so that they can make better decisions.
It's my responsibility to be informed. If I abdicate it, no government program will help me. If I don't (and they're based on legitimate concerns), they're irrelevant.

ETA: I'd be curious to know of any government ban (and a ban on selling raw milk is still a ban) has ever raised the public's awareness of any risk. Doesn't seem to work on drugs--Whitney Huston demonstrates that pretty well, as did the entire Prohibition Era. People keep telling me that Roe v. Wade was decided in part because the government ban would LOWER the public's awarness of the risks of abortion (though they put it in terms like "If we don't allow abortions people will get them in back alleys"). (I should mention, I'm not against abortions--I'm merely saying that the subject has come up, and that one of the arguments used contradicts the idea that a ban facilitates public education.) And studies have shown time and again that government-mandated safety equipment realy doesn't do much for improving safety after a certain point, as people will act even stupider than usual, in proportion to the added safety. In some cases safety measures make things worse, as in the case of boxing gloves (higher concussion rate compared with bare-knuckle boxing, because in bare-knuckle boxing your hands hurt before you damage your opponent's brain). I'm willing to be proven wrong, but the idea of banning the sale of raw milk in order to make the public aware of the risks seems silly to me, both because it removes the category entirely for most people (thus entirely removing any awareness of hte risks), and because such measures so frequently have the opposite effect that they were intended to have.
__________________
GENERATION 8: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.

Last edited by Dinwar; 22nd February 2012 at 03:36 PM. Reason: To avoid double-posting.
Dinwar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2012, 03:56 PM   #35
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Japan
Posts: 18,140
Originally Posted by Kuko 4000 View Post
OK, this is a little rough but from numbers given in the study the absolute risk seems to be something less than one illness for every 16 million pounds of unpasteurized dairy product consumed.
__________________
“Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it had been all three.”
― Joseph Heller, Catch-22
Puppycow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2012, 04:55 PM   #36
epepke
Philosopher
 
epepke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 8,301
Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
Total side-track,
One more interesting to me than the OP. Far more people die from driving to the store to pick up some milk.

Quote:
but is that a common use of the word "sickened" in American-English?
It's unusual but understandable. Probably regional.

Note also that "sick" in the US is generally used for all illness and not nausea specifically. I speculate that it's due to Dutch immigrants.
__________________
"It probably came from a sticky dark planet far, far away."
- Godzilla versus Hedora

"There's no evidence that the 9-11 attacks (whoever did them) were deliberately attacking civilians. On the contrary the targets appear to have been chosen as military."
-DavidByron
epepke is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2012, 04:59 PM   #37
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Japan
Posts: 18,140
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
OK, this is a little rough but from numbers given in the study the absolute risk seems to be something less than one illness for every 16 million pounds of unpasteurized dairy product consumed.
I'm going to round it off to one illness per 17 million pounds of unpasteurized dairy product consumed.

According to this site, Americans consume 253.8 kg of dairy products per year (wow!). That's 558 pounds. So the odds of getting an illness become about 1 in 30,000 per year or 1 in 400 over a lifetime.

ETA: The corresponding risk for pasteurized milk would be 1 in 4.5 million over a year and 1 in 60,000 over a lifetime.
__________________
“Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it had been all three.”
― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

Last edited by Puppycow; 22nd February 2012 at 05:03 PM.
Puppycow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2012, 06:18 PM   #38
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 34,644
sicken /0ˈsɪk(ə)n/ verb. ME.
[ORIGIN from sick adjective + -en⁵.]

1 verb intrans. Become affected with illness; fall ill or sick (with). ME. ▸ b Begin to pine or yearn; long eagerly to do. E19. ▸ c Of a thing: grow pale or weak; fade. M19. ▸ d Foll. by for: show or feel symptoms of a particular illness. L19.

E. Waugh Laura sickened with 'flu. C. Harman William the chow began to sicken and fail. (c) P. Wylie His brilliant eyes had sickened. (d) F. Montgomery I was sickening for the mumps.


2 verb trans. Affect with illness; make ill or sick; transf. weaken. E17.

J. Buchan His fetid breath sickened me.


3 ▸ a verb intrans. Foll. by at, with: feel nausea, loathing, or disgust. E17. ▸ b verb trans. Affect with nausea, loathing, or disgust. E19.

(a) E. Johnson He sickens at the cruelty of mass murder. (b) A. S. Neill The brick squalor that stretches for miles sickened me.


4 verb intrans. & trans. (Cause to) grow weary or tired of a person or thing. L18.

Sir W. Scott I…learned enough…to give Jekyl a hint that sickened him of his commission. O. W. Holmes Men sicken of their houses until at last they quit them.



sickener noun a nauseating or disgusting thing or experience E19. sickening adjective (a) falling ill or sick; (b) causing or liable to cause sickness or nausea; loathsome, disgusting; (c) colloq. very annoying: E18. sickeningly adverb M19.
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2012, 06:21 PM   #39
Roger Ramjets
Graduate Poster
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,219
Quote:
the ban on selling raw milk for direct consumption is a de facto attempt to ban the consumption thereof. You can see this in counties that ban selling, but not drinking, alcohol.
So if growing pot for personal use was made legal, but you weren't allow to sell it, that would be an attempt to ban its consumption?

No. Regulation is not the same as prohibition.

Quote:
Anyone guilty of making [raw milk health claims] without proper support is a liar, and should not be trusted. If they're just selling the milk because there's a market and they don't believe it's harmful (ie, they take adequate precautions--I DO believe in due dilligence), it's no different from any other product.
It doesn't take much due diligence to ascertain that raw milk is dangerous. So you agree that anybody selling raw milk is either incompetent, irresponsible or a liar?

Quote:
You may as well argue that because I can get sick from growing my own tomatoes, and other people get into gardening because they mistakenly think it makes you healthier without knowing the risks, we should outlaw gardening
Again, nobody is stopping people getting milk from their own cows. The Federal government only regulates interstate commerce, and leaves it up to individual states to decide whether they should permit the sale of raw milk (28 states allow it).

Quote:
I'd be curious to know of any government ban (and a ban on selling raw milk is still a ban) has ever raised the public's awareness of any risk.
I think you have cause and effect backwards. It was public awareness which led to bans in the first place.

And let's be clear. There is no ban on selling milk, only on disease-ridden un-pasteurized milk. Pasteurization is a simple process which dramatically reduces the incidence of milk-related sickness, but some producers would rather put the health of their customers at risk. That is why governments around the world are keeping a close eye on the situation - we do not want to go back to the bad old days of no regulation and a sick populace.
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2012, 06:30 PM   #40
Damien Evans
Up The Irons
Tagger
 
Damien Evans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 28,318
Originally Posted by Jorghnassen View Post
How many of those outbreaks are from "Mexican bathtub cheese". I am all for raw milk cheeses but there's no way in hell I'd buy stuff made under unsanitary/unregulated conditions. I have no doubt that there are more risks to raw milk consumption, but the numbers are not quite fair here. I would love to see numbers for, just as an illustration, unpasteurized vs pasteurized "cider" (brown, cloudy apple juice). The former doesn't keep as long, that's for sure.
Actually, unfiltered and unpasteurised cider should last much longer before going off than the pasteurised stuff. The living yeast left in an unpasteurised bottle is a great stabiliser, without which volatile components in beer and cider break down and produce off tastes much quicker.
__________________
WHAT CAN THE HARVEST HOPE FOR, IF NOT THE CARE OF THE REAPER MAN? - Death
Damien Evans is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

JREF Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:44 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2001-2013, James Randi Educational Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.