Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lamplighter
Clod, I hope your remark above was exaggeration only for impact... otherwise I call BS.
|
I was specifically referencing this part from Griff's link:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Griff
I didn't over look that a single dairy plant had 16,000 proven and between 168,791 and 197,581 actual cases, much as you didn't overlook that this single farm caused 40+cases.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lamplighter
There is risk in discussing
the numbers of illness cases because cases depend on the size of each dairy's clientele.
|
This is what I was already saying, when I referred to the "missing data point." The other problem with any debate of this nature is how to factor in the additional effects of pasteurizing products, beyond pathogenic infection.
The human species is dependent on symbiotic relationships with "good" species of bacteria for a number of biological functions, and it may turn out that indiscrimately wiping out bacteria in our lives will eventually cause a species-wide health crisis (say, for example, the skyrocketing rate of autoimmune diseases.)
No one can say for sure what the overall impact of such a policy will be--it may be that we're not as good at killing things as we'd like to believe, and our efforts won't really matter, or it may be that those individuals who depend more on this symbiosis will die out, and the species will evolve to match the new environment we've created.
Regardless, if your argument is really that people should be forcibly protected from making themselves sick, can I assume that you are also in favor of outlawing tobacco, and enforcing government-mandated dietary guidelines for all obese citizens?