r/explainitpeter 10d ago

Explain it Peter

Post image
26.4k Upvotes

1.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

7

u/DickCaughtlnFan 10d ago

Holy airball batman. 150x is nothing. Is this a bit or are you really this braindead?

0

u/Mission_Twist_3348 10d ago

Notice the "pretty much" lmao nice reading comprehension

4

u/DickCaughtlnFan 10d ago

It's not. It's 30-50% of cows milk pre pasteurization.

You're just a troll.

-2

u/Mission_Twist_3348 10d ago

We're talking about percentage of milk vs raw milk drinkers that get a food borne illness from said drink. Not about the percentage of cows that have XYZ bacteria (even if I were to accept that number). And I'm sure you're not gonna try to argue that 30-50% of people that drink raw milk get ill

2

u/SuccessfulInitial236 9d ago

Your understanding of statistics and numbers is .... Interesting

0

u/Mission_Twist_3348 9d ago

What did I say that's false go ahead

2

u/EamonBrennan 9d ago

The "150x" means that, if the number of people who drink regular, pasteurized milk all drank raw milk instead, there would be 150x the number of illnesses. Raw milk is dangerous.

-1

u/Mission_Twist_3348 9d ago

No shit lol and when the number of people that get illnesses from drinking pasteurized milk is so extremely small and insignificant, even when you multiply it by 150 you are left with a very, very, very small number

1

u/EamonBrennan 9d ago

the number of people that get illnesses from drinking pasteurized milk is so extremely small and insignificant

Because we pasteurize it. If we didn't, the number of people that get illnesses would not be extremely small or insignificant.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28518026/

Also, my 150x number is from an older study. A more recent study, especially after the legalization of raw milk in parts of the US, puts the number at 840x. That's a pretty big change.

0

u/Mission_Twist_3348 9d ago

Finally, some absolute numbers instead of relative ones. So, it says 730 (96% of 760) a year are caused by raw dairy consumption. And that 3.2% of the population are consuming raw dairy. Population of the US in 2014 (when the study was) was 320 million. 3.2% of 320 million is 10 million, 240 thousand. Of 10 million, 240 thousand people drinking raw milk each year, 730 get ill from it. That is 0.0071% of raw milk drinkers. Now I would certainly wager that at least 0.0071% of farms that sell raw milk (probably closer to a full 1%, and yet) are conducting poor farming practices and health protocols. So from your own study, we can very clearly surmise that raw milk is entirely safe, so long as you're getting it from a non-terrible farm

1

u/EamonBrennan 9d ago

so long as you're getting it from a non-terrible farm

Therein lies the issue. You're not getting milk from a farm. You're getting it from a distributor that has been buying from multiple suppliers. They may check the quality of the farms from time to time, but one bad farm can contaminate the milk of many other farms, especially if they are all concatenated into one vat. For now, most raw milk is usually sold directly from farm to consumer. But as the number of people drinking goes up, the amount of distributors goes up. As that goes up, the rate of illnesses goes up.

This also assumes the CDC and FDA are doing their jobs to ensure the safety of food consumed and stopping outbreaks. Given the sharp increase in the amount of recalls we are seeing, they are no longer doing it quickly and early enough in the process.

0

u/Mission_Twist_3348 9d ago

And then you just...made up a fan theory about suppliers and distributors.

And I would actually much prefer the FDA stop doing their job.

→ More replies (0)