For thousands of years we shit and drank from the same rivers. That wasn’t the most dangerous thing around either, but I’m kinda glad we stopped that too.
You can order a steak rare at a restaurant, no worries. They won’t serve you a hamburger that hasn’t reached temperature. There’s only one real difference; your steak has a miniscule chance the cow it came from was sick, while that hamburger has the bacteria of every cow that went into the meat grinder.
As per the other comments, we have thousands of cows per bottle of milk. 1000x the risk that someone drinking raw milk from their family farm has.
Cow muscle tissue is dense and difficult for bacteria to penetrate, with a single surface area (the outside) assuming safe handling and “edible freshness”. So cooking the outside to “rare” offers protection by cooking off surface or lightly penetrated bacteria.
Ground beef is soft and porous, with a massive surface area, much easier for bacteria to penetrate completely.
However, that aside, your analogy has a sound basis: more input sources = higher opportunity for corruption.
It’s not that there was even more information. It’s that yours is completely incorrect. There is zero to do with how many cows the meat came from. It is exclusively because the bacteria on the outside of the meat gets blended into the inside when it’s turned to hamburger, and that hamburger is more porous and bacteria can more easily travel through it.
I thought this was extremely common knowledge. To see that the other person had been getting up voted for his comment at all was really surprising to me.
Steak only has bacteria on the surface and only needs the surface to be seared, while hamburger, even from a single cow, has been mixed so that any bacteria is present throughout.
“Minor risks” being whole families dying or key family members getting poisoned as we transitioned to a society where most folks don’t own their own cow/source of milk.
It’s dangerous to assume all those years of use were a utopia. We used leaded gas for how long and are only just now getting to understand the ramifications?
By your mindset poisoning a future generation with lead is a “minor risk” we dealt with back then…
Nah, that’s wrong. Traditional methods could only reach a maximum of about 8 to 15% alcohol before the yeast kills itself and becomes safe to drink, or by brewing in the literal sense of heating the liquid. Diluting with riverwater would either keep the ale unfinished or the riverwater unsafe as the alcohol content gets diluted.
In the old days, the knowledge that boiling water made it safe was not widespread, many cultures got their fluid content completely from potable rainwaters, brews, and soups or stews.
Those who relied on drinking untreated riverwater were doomed to low population and constant sickness related mortality.
Uhhhh what? Milk was rearly drank and was processed into other things. That processing made it safer to eat. Also, massive industrial farming ensures one sick cow leads to hundreds of other sick cows. So now one gallon of milk is a mix from hundreds of cows and could come from hundreds of miles away.
It isn’t even realistic medieval logic. They drank beer back then because the low alcohol content would kill some of the nasty shit making it safer than water or milk. I imagine if an adult asked for some milk back then, they’d be asked to see the baby.
The average life expectancy wasn’t all to different from today, infant mortality was crazy high though. But if you survived childhood you were pretty set.
Yes it was. We can argue about why it was which is what you’re doing, but it was less than 30. There was a spike in deaths before 30 and after 55. Even still 55 is a much lower number than 80.
The exact cause of the statistic isn’t really the point though, the point is that just because humanity did something for thousands of years does not mean it was ok. Being a human was pretty damn awful for a very long time for a number of reasons including disease which is the point of this thread, that raw milk carries disease.
Nobody would claim it’s the most dangerous thing to do I hope, that would be a difficult claim to defend.
My point was that I disagree with your assessment that we survived “just fine”. There are many things far less than fine about human existence particularly going back thousands of years.
Although I have to wonder what the point is if you agree it’s not a good thing to do, why assert that humanity was just fine alongside the practice? It gives the impression that you’re at the very least dismissing the concerns even if you’re not advocating for it directly.
It was also drank for thousands and thousands of years, not the most dangerous thing around.
But we don’t have to take those minor risks in this day and age.
For thousands of years we shit and drank from the same rivers. That wasn’t the most dangerous thing around either, but I’m kinda glad we stopped that too.
Of course, we’re better off today no doubt.
But let’s not act like this is ridiculously dangerous for humans to engage in.
It is though. It’s the mixing thing.
You can order a steak rare at a restaurant, no worries. They won’t serve you a hamburger that hasn’t reached temperature. There’s only one real difference; your steak has a miniscule chance the cow it came from was sick, while that hamburger has the bacteria of every cow that went into the meat grinder.
As per the other comments, we have thousands of cows per bottle of milk. 1000x the risk that someone drinking raw milk from their family farm has.
(Pedantic, but informative incoming)
That’s not the reason.
Cow muscle tissue is dense and difficult for bacteria to penetrate, with a single surface area (the outside) assuming safe handling and “edible freshness”. So cooking the outside to “rare” offers protection by cooking off surface or lightly penetrated bacteria.
Ground beef is soft and porous, with a massive surface area, much easier for bacteria to penetrate completely.
However, that aside, your analogy has a sound basis: more input sources = higher opportunity for corruption.
Well hey I appreciate it, I genuinely thought what i wrote was the whole thing, I’m glad to know that there’s more, and the details behind it.
It’s not that there was even more information. It’s that yours is completely incorrect. There is zero to do with how many cows the meat came from. It is exclusively because the bacteria on the outside of the meat gets blended into the inside when it’s turned to hamburger, and that hamburger is more porous and bacteria can more easily travel through it.
I thought this was extremely common knowledge. To see that the other person had been getting up voted for his comment at all was really surprising to me.
knowledge is never common any more.
So you’re saying the steak tartare is off the menu?
Steak only has bacteria on the surface and only needs the surface to be seared, while hamburger, even from a single cow, has been mixed so that any bacteria is present throughout.
Except it literally is. It’s literally why you’re here right now commenting. Scroll up and read the headline again.
“Minor risks” being whole families dying or key family members getting poisoned as we transitioned to a society where most folks don’t own their own cow/source of milk.
It’s dangerous to assume all those years of use were a utopia. We used leaded gas for how long and are only just now getting to understand the ramifications?
By your mindset poisoning a future generation with lead is a “minor risk” we dealt with back then…
If that bro above you knew anything about drinks historically he’d know the most popular drink was beer, because it was safer than milk or water.
And iirc, the beer was diluted with the local water from the river, to increase its mass while still also making the river water safe(r) to drink.
Nah, that’s wrong. Traditional methods could only reach a maximum of about 8 to 15% alcohol before the yeast kills itself and becomes safe to drink, or by brewing in the literal sense of heating the liquid. Diluting with riverwater would either keep the ale unfinished or the riverwater unsafe as the alcohol content gets diluted.
In the old days, the knowledge that boiling water made it safe was not widespread, many cultures got their fluid content completely from potable rainwaters, brews, and soups or stews.
Those who relied on drinking untreated riverwater were doomed to low population and constant sickness related mortality.
ok good to know
Uhhhh what? Milk was rearly drank and was processed into other things. That processing made it safer to eat. Also, massive industrial farming ensures one sick cow leads to hundreds of other sick cows. So now one gallon of milk is a mix from hundreds of cows and could come from hundreds of miles away.
26000L is transported at time so thousands.
Medieval logic applied to modern life
It isn’t even realistic medieval logic. They drank beer back then because the low alcohol content would kill some of the nasty shit making it safer than water or milk. I imagine if an adult asked for some milk back then, they’d be asked to see the baby.
The average life expectancy for a human was also less than 30 for thousands and thousands of years.
Not it wasn’t.
The average life expectancy wasn’t all to different from today, infant mortality was crazy high though. But if you survived childhood you were pretty set.
Yes it was. We can argue about why it was which is what you’re doing, but it was less than 30. There was a spike in deaths before 30 and after 55. Even still 55 is a much lower number than 80.
The exact cause of the statistic isn’t really the point though, the point is that just because humanity did something for thousands of years does not mean it was ok. Being a human was pretty damn awful for a very long time for a number of reasons including disease which is the point of this thread, that raw milk carries disease.
I’m not saying it’s okay, only an idiot would willingly do it today when we have access to better methods.
I’m saying it’s not the most dangerous thing to do, humans have survived just fine alongside the practice.
Nobody would claim it’s the most dangerous thing to do I hope, that would be a difficult claim to defend.
My point was that I disagree with your assessment that we survived “just fine”. There are many things far less than fine about human existence particularly going back thousands of years.
Although I have to wonder what the point is if you agree it’s not a good thing to do, why assert that humanity was just fine alongside the practice? It gives the impression that you’re at the very least dismissing the concerns even if you’re not advocating for it directly.