AAPL stock: Click Here |
|
| Tips and Deals ---- For Sale & Free Items ---- 'Friendly' Political Ranting |
You are currently viewing the Tips and Deals forum
|
Re: Milk is more dangerous than second hand smoke 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.
|
Re: Milk is more dangerous than second hand smoke 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!
talk about an energy drink!
|
Re: Milk is more dangerous than second hand smoke 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
Grateful11
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/08/2007 06:14AM by Grateful11.
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
Grateful11
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/08/2007 06:14AM by Grateful11.
|
Re: Milk is more dangerous than second hand smoke 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
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
|
Re: Milk is more dangerous than second hand smoke 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.
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.
|
Re: Milk is more dangerous than second hand smoke Date: July 08, 2007 09:45AM |
Now I'm wondering how dangerous second hand milk is
: - /
: - /
|
Re: Milk is more dangerous than second hand smoke 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
Grateful11
|
Re: Milk is more dangerous than second hand smoke 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
at the end of the commercial or TIC.
|
Re: Milk is more dangerous than second hand smoke Date: July 08, 2007 01:04PM |
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).
|
Re: Milk is more dangerous than second hand smoke 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
Grateful11
|
Re: Milk is more dangerous than second hand smoke 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
"Who's more foolish - the fool or the fool that follows him?" - Obi Wan Kenobi
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.