OT: unpasteurized raw milk health benefits partly explained in new study

More features of raw milk:

That contains a lot of nonsense. For example, quote "Is raw milk a good source of beneficial bacteria? --- No. Raw milk contains bacteria, and some of them can be harmful".

Anyone who has ever made good vla, yoghurt or fine cheeses out of truly fresh milk knows better.

This craze to pasteurize just about everything is the main reason why there does not exist really good American Camembert or Brie at regular stores. Must buy imported, which we always do when we can.

If we as a country continue to promote helicopter governing and helicopter parenting the number of people with serious or even life-threatening allergies will continue to climb. Fast.

When I grew up I knew a lot of kids. Even as a teenager because I helped as a volunteer to build playgrounds. The number of kids with a peanut allergy was ... zero.

Ah, the famous "appeal to the 'good ol' days' by way of 'I don't remember a single person on my block who had anything bad happen to them from XXX in 1963'"-argument.

Right. The CDC doesn't know anything about illness. You know more.

No, it is also proven beyond any reasonable doubt.

Cookies required. Sheeeesh! ...Jim Thompson

Usually not but at a very young age I have stopped blindly believing everything a government entity proclaimed.

You are old enough. Have you already forgotten when various government agencies proclaimed a manmade global ice age, to be coming very quickly? Then, oops, it didn't happen, so they proclaimed manmade global warming. Now that that doesn't quite stick anymore they proclaim "global change". Phhht.

The study says peanut allergies appear to be increasing in the US population since the late 1990s according to a telephone survey.

What peanuts have to do with building playgrounds I couldn't possibly tell you. The researchers probably couldn't either, as allergies are likely a combination of genetic and environmental factors.

My college girlfriend had a severe, potentially life-threatening allergy to peanuts, which was discovered only upon he parents first attempt to give her solid food with peanuts in it when she was 10 months old or something. Not sure exactly how they could've raised her differently to avoid that.

You can set them so they expire right after the session. Anyhow, it has long been know that being overly protective WRT germs and bacteria breeds sensitivity later in life. Like the old folks used to say, strong timber does not grow in idle places.

Just walk into a large nursing home and ask the staff how many there have peanut or other allergies. Usually none. Then visit a school and ask the same question.

I can't even count how many times I drank raw milk, right from the collection tank at the farm or behind the tractor. Many of my ancestors never drank anything else because there wasn't a grocery store in the village. People ate and drank what came off their land. They grew to old age unless a war dashed that hope and they were rarely sick. AFAIK a great grandpa of mine who lived to almost 103 has never set foot into a doctor's office, let alone a hospital. He thought they were all quacks.

While living in Europe for decades I ate lots of Camembert and Brie from France. The kind where a mold explosion happens in your mouth and it literally takes your breath away for a second or two. I really miss those cheeses. So whenever I visit Europe and someone asks me what I want to eat: French cheese!

The US government didn't say shit about a global ice age in the 1970s; it was almost entirely the claim of the BS-ing media to sell copy, and there were some studies produced by NGOs where they noted some short-term temperature decreases and the conclusion essentially was "idk maybe keep an eye on this" (where NG stands for non-governmental)

Yes, and we must ask ourselves why.

I knew a lot of kids and parents because of the playgrounds. They don't have much to do with allergies. Well, actually they do a little. They were all "adventure playgounds", else I would not have volunteered. Meaning lots of exposure to dirt and stuff. Things that would make "modern" helicopter parents cringe.

Early exposure. Yes, before they are 10 months old.

There are many other factors. For example, if one or both parents were living overly protected and developed allergies the chance that they babies develop allergies increases. It also depends where the babies spend most of their time. Indoors and in cars with HEPA filters and all? Or out on hikes in the wilderness, strapped to a parent? I strongly believe in the latter.

Remember the old days or even today in less rich countries? Mothers strap their newborn onto their backs and then go back working the field. No paid time off or any of that. If she doesn't do it the harvest will be bleak. Wind howling, dust clouds wafting through, a little drizzel here and there, all considered normal there.

Meanwhile an acquaintance of mine from college died at age 32 of small-cell lung cancer; she was a Quaker and never touched cigarettes or alcohol in her life as far as I know. Sucks, huh?

Hit the lottery and then wonder why all those other people worry about money kind of mentality, I'd say.

Since when is NOAA "non-governmental"?

I heard this while living in Europe but also on US stations. The only ones we could receive there were VOA and AFN, both operated by the government.

That can happen. Either for a reason such as being in polluted areas for too long or just bad luck.

In the old days lots of people lived that way, successfully. In the US they often had to because the trip to the next town was simply too far.

It's a long trip from "everything" from "_some_thing the doctors are paid to know". Again, an EE knows better.

See above.

As always. You're wrong. Lefties always are.

Legally, cheese imported into the US must be made from pasteurized milk, or aged for at least 60 days.

Raw milk cheese illegally imported from Mexico kills a few people now and then.

Nobody ever did. The idea was floated by some academics, but there wasn't r emotely enough evidence to make it a plausible hypothesis. We did inject en ough SO2 into the atmosphere to cause some cooling, as well as acidic rain. Mount Pinatuba's eruption in 1991 injected 22 million tones of SO2 and cau sed half a degree of cooling, after we'd put sulphur scubbers on most gener ator smoke stacks, and gave us a chance to calibrate how effective they had been.

The scientific case for anthropogenic global warming took quite while to bu ild up. Keeling statted measuring atmospheric CO2 in 1958 (when it was 315p pm) and by roughly 1990 (when it was closer to 355ppm), there was enough gl obal warming to look statistically significant.

The case was strong enough in 1990 for Al Gore to write his book

which was more a popularisation of the science than any kind of proclamatio n.

Global Warming is going on, and getting worse. It doesn't mean uniform warm ing at a every point - if the Barents and Kara Seas are ice-free you get sn ow further south in Europe in winter

so "climate change" works better for the scientifically illiterate.

y?

g.

".

Krw can't find any example of a government agency predicting a new global i ce age in the 1970's, because there weren't any, but that doesn't stop him claiming that it did happen - once a chunk of misinformation gets lodged in his brain it's absolutely true (to him) and anybody who contradicts him ha s to be deliberately lying.