advertisement
Forums

The Forum is sponsored by 
 

AAPL stock: Click Here

You are currently viewing the Tips and Deals forum
Milk is more dangerous than second hand smoke
Posted by: Jp!
Date: July 07, 2007 11:15PM
It always amazes me how many commercials ONLY run on 'cable' TV (non OTA).

Today I caught the tail-end of this commercial, while at someone's house that has cable tv. I won't view cable tv again for another couple months probably.

Problem is, I did NOT see the first part, until just now looking it up on the web.

The first part is vital. Until just NOW, I've been spreading the word of this commercial's odd claim.

[adgabber.com]
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Milk is more dangerous than second hand smoke
Posted by: BigGuynRusty
Date: July 08, 2007 12:22AM
Quote
Jp!
It always amazes me how many commercials ONLY run on 'cable' TV (non OTA).

Today I caught the tail-end of this commercial, while at someone's house that has cable tv. I won't view cable tv again for another couple months probably.

Problem is, I did NOT see the first part, until just now looking it up on the web.

The first part is vital. Until just NOW, I've been spreading the word of this commercial's odd claim.

[adgabber.com]

"The Truth" commercials are the worst chunks of garbage on the planet.
Run ad infinitum in California, where tons of our tax dollars go into making them and running them.
Why should I pay for a national spot for regional ads?

BGnR
Do you always go off half-cocked?



"Good heavens, Miss Sakamoto! You're beautiful!"
"If we dig precious things from the land, we will invite disaster."
"Near the day of Purification, there will be cobwebs spun back and forth in the sky."
"A container of ashes might one day be thrown from the sky, which could burn the land and boil the oceans."
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Milk is more dangerous than second hand smoke
Posted by: Seacrest
Date: July 08, 2007 12:28AM
You hadn't noticed the slight upwards inflection at the end?
Or maybe since the ad originates in Cali, you just assumed that people here making declarative sentences always sound like they're asking a question?
That is so annoying when we do that?
Seriously, it really is?
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Milk is more dangerous than second hand smoke
Posted by: MacMagus
Date: July 08, 2007 12:49AM
> Milk is more dangerous than second hand smoke

I've read that there's some truth to that.

Breast milk from women who smoke supposedly contains many of the toxins from their cigarettes, potentially causing behavioral problems, vomiting, diarrhea, and arrhythmias.

They did mean breast milk, right?
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Milk is more dangerous than second hand smoke
Posted by: RgrF
Date: July 08, 2007 01:34AM
Quote
MacMagus
> Milk is more dangerous than second hand smoke

I've read that there's some truth to that.

Breast milk from women who smoke supposedly contains many of the toxins from their cigarettes, potentially causing behavioral problems, vomiting, diarrhea, and arrhythmias.

They did mean breast milk, right?

I thought it was about goats milk, goats that smoke are just so fuc.ed.............



"Who's more foolish - the fool or the fool that follows him?" - Obi Wan Kenobi
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Milk is more dangerous than second hand smoke
Posted by: Baby Tats
Date: July 08, 2007 02:26AM
Quote
BigGuynRusty
"The Truth" commercials are the worst chunks of garbage on the planet.
Run ad infinitum in California, where tons of our tax dollars go into making them and running them.
Why should I pay for a national spot for regional ads?

BGnR
Do you always go off half-cocked?

"The Truth" ads are not funded by tax dollars. They are produced by the American Legacy Foundation which is funded by the tobacco industry as part of the master settlement. Ultimately, smokers are paying for the ads.

Do you always go off half-cocked?



BT


Signed parental releases are on file for all tattooed minors.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/08/2007 02:35AM by Baby Tats.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Milk is more dangerous than second hand smoke
Posted by: incognegro
Date: July 08, 2007 02:32AM
i prefer tiger milk, but the mother tiger must be addicted to crack cocaine.

talk about an energy drink!



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Milk is more dangerous than second hand smoke
Posted by: Grateful11
Date: July 08, 2007 06:12AM
My wife and her dad ran a dairy until a few years back. Their cows didn't get growth hormones,
steroids or any of that crap. If a cow got sick and required antibiotics those cows were kept
back until last in the milking order and their milk was dumped for I believe 7 days after the
antibiotic treatment stopped. Every tank of milk that was picked up was tested for a
multitude of things, at the farmers expense. If anything like an antibiotic or bacteria count
was too high the farmer that allowed that milk to get into the tanker truck had to pay for the
entire tanker load of milk, at that time that amounted to $6-8K.

Speaking of milk, a newspaper article:

Got milk? Drive 128 miles for it?

[www.charlotte.com]

BTW: Baby Tats winking smiley



Grateful11




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/08/2007 06:14AM by Grateful11.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Milk is more dangerous than second hand smoke
Posted by: yeoman
Date: July 08, 2007 06:18AM
Homogenized milk is BAD [www.consumerhealthdigest.com]
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Milk is more dangerous than second hand smoke
Posted by: Grateful11
Date: July 08, 2007 06:28AM
Unhomogenized milk will seperate, cream to the top and basically skim milk to the bottom, you
have to shake it up before you drink it. I can't imagine very many people going back to that
these days cholesterol or not.

[www.howstuffworks.com]



Grateful11
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Milk is more dangerous than second hand smoke
Posted by: cbelt3
Date: July 08, 2007 07:45AM
Hmmm....
My mom was raised on a Dairy farm in CT, and went to a lot of trouble to find raw milk for us as kids in the Suburbs (She found a small family farm that would sell her the milk.) And no, you don't need to shake the milk (sheesh- city folk). You separate off the cream and keep it for .. ice cream ! Butter ! Coffee !


Unfortunately if you're that insistent about avoiding homogenization and pasteruization, you're going to have to get your own cow or join in a 'milk cooperative'. Unfortunately such cooperatives are always under attack from the local laws which are 'in place to protect you'.

That said, I will point out what should be obvious to all of us:

(ahem)


"It is a scientifically proven fact that life causes death. Life is the only disease that is 100% fatal, the only variable being the lifespan."
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Milk is more dangerous than second hand smoke
Posted by: Baby Tats
Date: July 08, 2007 08:58AM
When I was a kid my mother bought our milk (and cream) from a small dairy farm down the road. It was a self-serve system so we rarely saw the dairy farmer. We would bring our own jugs and fill them out of large (5 gallon?) milk cans that were kept cold in a spring water fed cooler. We would leave money in a coffee can on the honor system to pay for whatever we took. The milk was fresh, raw, whole, and unhomogenized. "Straight from the cows teet" as my dad used to say. Three months before I moved away from there the county health department shut him down, and as cbelt3 said it was to "protect us" from the dangers of raw milk. Sure, whatever.

Unlike cbelt3 though we did shake the milk. The cream had only been poured off the top of the milk so there was always some butterfat at the top unless you shook the milk just before pouring it. Although, you didn't have to shake it if you wanted to steal a little extra cream for yourself.

I have family in PA that own a dairy farm with about 120 head of cattle. Last time I was there, they had store bought milk in the refrigerator. The way the milking system is set up, it is apparently a pain to withdraw milk since the milk can never touch un-sanitized surfaces or air. As grateful11 said, any contaminated milk that got into the tanker could cost them several thousand dollars so the cost of buying their milk at the store was worth the reduced risk of damaging the integrity of the sealed milking system. In order to get fresh milk when we were there, we had to milk the cows by hand.



BT


Signed parental releases are on file for all tattooed minors.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Milk is more dangerous than second hand smoke
Posted by: lafinfil
Date: July 08, 2007 09:45AM
Now I'm wondering how dangerous second hand milk is

: - /



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Milk is more dangerous than second hand smoke
Posted by: Grateful11
Date: July 08, 2007 09:59AM
Maybe I shouldn't have said you have to shake it but 99.9% of the population isn't going skim the cream off and save it for ice cream.



Grateful11
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Milk is more dangerous than second hand smoke
Posted by: Jp!
Date: July 08, 2007 10:16AM
Quote
Seacrest
You hadn't noticed the slight upwards inflection at the end?
Or maybe since the ad originates in Cali, you just assumed that people here making declarative sentences always sound like they're asking a question?
That is so annoying when we do that?
Seriously, it really is?

Nope. First/only time I saw the part of it, I did NOT catch it. They need a smiley smiling smiley at the end of the commercial or TIC.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Milk is more dangerous than second hand smoke
Posted by: shadow
Date: July 08, 2007 12:19PM
Quote
BigGuynRusty
"The Truth" commercials are the worst chunks of garbage on the planet.

You simply don't understand. It is all the big bad tobacco companies' fault ... otherwise, people might have to accept some personal responsibility for their choices.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Milk is more dangerous than second hand smoke
Posted by: Ted King
Date: July 08, 2007 01:04PM
Quote
yeoman
Homogenized milk is BAD [www.consumerhealthdigest.com]

I don't wish to be contentious, but I think that a great deal of skepticism is justified with respect to that article. The author does not cite any published research. She does say that it is more involved than she wants to get into for that particular article, but it would have been easy and desirable for her to have linked to other articles that do lay out the scientific evidence for her claim - especially since it runs counter to a basic understanding of how the body digests fats. Bile salts in the duodenum, in conjunction with enzymes, are very effective in breaking down fats into small enough bits to be absorbed in the small intestine. It strikes me as doubtful that homogenization significantly adds to the amount of fat ultimately absorbed when one drinks whole milk. If the digestive system were not very adept at absorbing fats we would have much more fats coming out the other end with not particularly pleasant results.

This is what the author of the article claims as credentials:

"Deb Bromley is a former science and technology researcher and the President of NatureGem Nontoxic Living(http://www.naturegem.com), an organization devoted to promoting awareness of toxins in our food and environment that can cause disease, and providing access to nutrition information, natural remedies, and alternative health resources. She was formerly a researcher at the NASA Lewis Research Center, a professional staff member of Cleveland State University, and a Corning research contractor. Additionally, she was the operations manager for the Battelle Memorial
Institute Midwest Technology Transfer Center, and an editor for a major Cleveland-area regional newspaper. Ms. Bromley studied environmental health and behavioral science at the New York Institute of Technology"

Initially this sounds at least moderately impressive. But notice some of the details - she "studied" at the New York Institute of Technology; no mention of any degree or advanced degree (especially as one would expect from someone who does scientific research). A Google search shows no mention of her in connection with the NASA Lewis Research Center (which is not normally an institution that does research on nutrition), and no mention of her with respect to Battelle Memorial Institute or Cleveland State University. Now, that does not mean that she didn't do something at those places, but one would think if she did some research of merit there would be at least some mention of her. In fact, I could find no instances of her doing any published research at all. All of her contributions seem to come under the auspices of "NatureGem Nontoxic Living" (of which she is the "President", and as far as one can tell, the only member). If you look at the disclaimer in tiny letters at the very bottom of the "About us" web page you see this: "Much of the information presented on the NatureGem web site is based on personal research, experience, and resulting opinion."

I don't hold anything inherently against "alternative" views of medicine - my future daughter-in-law is studying to become a Naturopathic Physician - but I do think we need to be cautious about just taking information from someone just because they make it sound somewhat plausible by using certain kinds of terminology.

If you don't put much weight in what leads me to be skeptical, even taking the article at full value it would be a simple matter to just drink low-fat or non-fat milk to avoid the SUPPOSED problem of high cholesterol from drinking homogenized whole milk that the author posits. That's a long way from "homogenized milk is dangerous".

I definitely got carried away here - some extra time to delve into something not all that significant just for fun on this Sunday morning (after taking the dog on a three mile walk and vacuuming the house). :-)
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Milk is more dangerous than second hand smoke
Posted by: ka jowct
Date: July 08, 2007 02:19PM
I grew up on a dairy farm, drinking the milk we produced. Some of the glass milk bottles we used were designed with a particular shape that made it easier to get the cream out of the top. The cream was used to make incredibly good whipped cream. What was left in the bottle was still pretty rich: we had a herd of Guernseys, producing milk that was about 5% butterfat. Milk from Jerseys is even richer.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Milk is more dangerous than second hand smoke
Posted by: Grateful11
Date: July 08, 2007 05:24PM
We still have an old cream separator stored away in an old shed. Looks a lot like this one:





Grateful11
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Milk is more dangerous than second hand smoke
Posted by: RgrF
Date: July 08, 2007 06:22PM
I can recall getting milk deliver at home in bottles like this.





"Who's more foolish - the fool or the fool that follows him?" - Obi Wan Kenobi
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Milk is more dangerous than second hand smoke
Posted by: ka jowct
Date: July 08, 2007 09:39PM
RgrF, those are similar to some of the ones we had.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Milk is more dangerous than second hand smoke
Posted by: Jp!
Date: July 09, 2007 08:46AM
when I left Chicago a few years back, I remember some dairy farm trying to reintroduce home-delivery of milk. Don't know what became of it.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Milk is more dangerous than second hand smoke
Posted by: btfc
Date: July 09, 2007 09:19AM
"where tons of our tax dollars go into making them and running them. "


Most people that ignorant don't advertize it so blatantly.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login

Online Users

Guests: 66
Record Number of Users: 186 on February 20, 2020
Record Number of Guests: 5122 on October 03, 2020