[HN Gopher] The World's Deadliest Thing
___________________________________________________________________
The World's Deadliest Thing
Author : mkeeter
Score : 501 points
Date : 2021-11-22 12:58 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.the-angry-chef.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.the-angry-chef.com)
| flipbrad wrote:
| Surprised the article doesn't mention honey, which if you're a
| new parent, is an important thing to know about, on this topic.
| To quote the US CDC: "Honey can contain the bacteria that causes
| infant botulism, so do not feed honey to children younger than 12
| months. Honey is safe for people 1 year of age and older."
|
| Despite this being reasonably well-known, usually, you still get
| idiocy like this: https://www.fda.gov/food/alerts-advisories-
| safety-informatio...
| awild wrote:
| On top of that, people should remember that while honey is
| naturally microbially stable. It is not actively anti
| microbial. Mixing it into your dish will not make it more shelf
| stable. The stability is simply because it's too dry for
| microbial activity.
|
| I'm mentioning this because it's a common misconception in
| fermentation communities.
| chronogram wrote:
| You'd imagine the fermentation communities have heard of
| mead!
| moring wrote:
| I remember at least one mead recipe that claims honey is
| anti-microbial and instructs you to boil the mixture before
| fermentation. But I can confirm it works without boiling.
| jandrese wrote:
| Doesn't mead production start off by introducing water to
| the honey?
| sva_ wrote:
| > To combat botulism in canned foods, it is necessary for all
| parts of the sealed can to reach an internal temperature of 121C,
| as this is sufficient to destroy botulinum spores, leaving the
| contents of the can free from the potential for bacterial
| growth*. [...]
|
| > In this way, Clostridium Botulinum shapes our modern food
| system. It is why canned foods have a burnt, metallic taste [...]
|
| This seems to suggest that canned foods are heated inside of the
| can. But cans are usually lined with BPA or similar chemicals on
| the inside. Wouldn't those melt at such temperatures?
| ben_w wrote:
| Wikipedia says BPA has a melting point of 158-159 C, though I
| don't anything (not even the name) about whatever chemical will
| replace BPA now BPA is regarded as an endocrine disruptor.
| DoItToMe81 wrote:
| This is one of the worst colour schemes I've seen in waking
| memory. I can't read it.
| enlyth wrote:
| document.querySelectorAll('.section-background').forEach(x =>
| x.style.backgroundColor = 'black')
| gnulinux wrote:
| Just click reader mode in Firefox.
| [deleted]
| enlyth wrote:
| I'm not going to install a different browser to read one
| article
| funnyflamigo wrote:
| outline.com is good too
|
| https://outline.com/U6wfgV
|
| Protip: They also bypass certain paywalls
| jraph wrote:
| Install it to read everything then :-]
| bambax wrote:
| It's available for Chrome also.
| [deleted]
| sdflhasjd wrote:
| Is there a theory for what purpose the Botulinum Toxin evolved
| for? I don't see that paralyzing your host is particularly useful
| for a bacterium.
| Borrible wrote:
| It comes in handy for organisms that happen to like feasting on
| decaying bodies through saprophytic nutrition.
|
| Paralysis enhances the chance of dying.
|
| Being anaerobic limits their expansion.
|
| Thanks to the Great Oxidation Event, cyanobacteria caused.
|
| By the way, often humans and other multicellular Organisms are
| just battleground or collateral damage in billion year old wars
| between bacteria and/or viruses.
| gostsamo wrote:
| The bacteria thrives in rotting meat, so killing the host might
| be exactly what it needs. It produces lots of spores present
| everywhere, so transmission from host to host is not an issue.
|
| Edit: what's -> lots
| Nextgrid wrote:
| Can it be randomness? Unless paralyzing/killing the host is
| actively _harmful_ , it might evolve by chance and remain as-
| is.
| swagasaurus-rex wrote:
| Being an anaerobic bacteria and one that can lie dormant for
| long periods of time, I don't think it needs the host to be
| alive.
| sacred_numbers wrote:
| Clostridium botulinum is anaerobic, and live in soil, so living
| humans are not a particularly good host. Dead humans could be,
| though, so natural selection would favor strains that
| efficiently returned themselves and their descendants back to
| the soil.
| croes wrote:
| Evolution doesn't need purpose. As long as a feature doesn't
| reduce the survival rate, it remains in place. The toxicity
| could just be a side effect of the spores durability and
| longevity.
| aerostable_slug wrote:
| Exactly. See also, cats & sweet flavors:
|
| https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=476655.
| ..
|
| A defective gene resulted in No Big Deal to a very successful
| class of animals.
| AlotOfReading wrote:
| C. Botulinum has a complicated life cycle that involves
| infecting vertebrates, killing them, and then infecting the
| invertebrates that feed on the body during decomposition. The
| bacteria don't particularly care about the host and just want
| it dead as quickly as possible so they can get on with their
| _real_ hosts.
|
| [1] https://doi.org/10.1093/femspd/fty040
| noisy_boy wrote:
| Might be interesting to know how vultures deal with this.
| Igelau wrote:
| Nature's beautiful garbage disposal. Botulism. Anthrax.
| Vultures don't care.
| skywal_l wrote:
| https://www.npr.org/sections/health-
| shots/2014/11/25/3665455...
|
| They are not sure as there are various hypotheses
| apparently:
|
| > He says vulture stomach acid is 10 to 100 times stronger
| than human stomach acid, "so it seems like the stomach
| itself is a very harsh environment."
|
| > "Another hypothesis could be that they're actually using
| the bacteria in the stomach as some sort of probiotics,"
| Hansen says. By having a gut full of a few tolerable
| species of bacteria, it's possible that those would crowd
| out other deadly microbes.
| linspace wrote:
| What would be the role of the bacteria in a zombie invasion?
| Would it eat the zombies away or would it give them natural
| protection from predators? Both?
| AlotOfReading wrote:
| Botulinum toxins are paralytic, so they'd make very tame
| zombies. Fungi would take care of the rest pretty quickly.
| jimworm wrote:
| Its very close cousin tetanus toxin has the opposite
| effect, but would also cause zombies to be immobile all
| the same.
| CobrastanJorji wrote:
| I'm in no way a scientist, but it sounds like the bacteria
| grows best in oxygen-free, low acidity environments with a lot
| of protein: that's dead things. Paralyzing your host is a bad
| idea for diseases that will be permanently destroyed shortly
| after their host dies, but it's a pretty great plan if it
| creates a wonderful ecosystem free of pesky immune cells and
| oxygen for you to grow and produce spores that can happily sit
| around forever waiting for something to eat them.
| lkrubner wrote:
| A pathogen's needs will, over time, converge with the needs of
| its host, but only if the pathogen is only able to survive in
| one species. When a pathogen is able to feed off of many
| species, its needs never converge with the needs of any
| particular host.
| kragen wrote:
| Do you mean its needs for reproductive fitness? Only if it's
| transmitted only from parents to offspring.
| catlikesshrimp wrote:
| I can't answer your question for C Botulinum. But many times we
| are just in the middle of warfare. That is, it is an accident
| we are harmed.
|
| For instance, Corynebacterium Diphtheriae is not lethal per se,
| but then comes a virus that infects the bacteria, and kills the
| bacteria, and a byproduct of the virus causes the bacteria to
| cause diphteria. The phage (the bacteria virus) provides no
| advantage to C diphteriae.
|
| My hypothesis for clostridiums, that includes C botulinum, is
| that they do want to kill their host, however. They kind of
| kill the planet they live in as they can thrive in the carcass
| while it lasts. So, deathly clostridiums have this at least
| short term advantage over non deathly ones.
|
| C. tetani, perfrigens, botulinum and difficile can all kill
| you. However, C. perfrigens does it differently, by diggesting
| you before killing you, "on the fly" or "just in time"
| cs702 wrote:
| What a fantastic find of an article!
|
| It's not every day that I get to read about a microbe so deadly
| that a small jar would be enough to kill _all of humanity_ , so
| difficult to weaponize that no nation or group has ever been able
| to build weapons with it, so important to our modern food system
| that it has altered the taste of almost every packaged food we
| eat, and so widely used for cosmetic facial procedures that
| everyone everywhere knows its commercial name (Botox).
|
| The title doesn't do justice to the article.
| Chris2048 wrote:
| It'd be interesting to know _why_ it 's so difficult to
| weaponize. Is the caveat that the toxin is only so deadly once
| in the bloodstream, but is otherwise hard to get there?
| ddek wrote:
| > Doomsday cult Aum Shinrikyo made a few attempts to deploy it
| at US military bases in the 1980s, but were so shambolically
| unsuccessful that their attacks went unnoticed by authorities.
|
| Is a wonderful sentence.
| brutusborn wrote:
| My favourite is the last line of this passage:
|
| > It is of course deeply ironic that many celebrities who
| publicly advocated a clean living, chemical-free lifestyle,
| were also early adopters of a treatment that involves
| injecting the deadliest substance on earth into your face
| (looking at you, Paltrow). If any of them were surprised at
| this seeming paradox, they certainly didn't show it.
| stavros wrote:
| I love him for that sentence.
| [deleted]
| bambax wrote:
| > _In this way, Clostridium Botulinum shapes our modern food
| system. It is why (...) jarred sauces can sometimes have a harsh
| acidic note, particularly creamy sauces that are not naturally
| acidic._
|
| Yes, I have noticed this many times. Tomato sauce is naturally
| acidic, but ready-made, bottled tomato sauce is much more acidic
| than what you can make from scratch.
|
| Acidity can be fought by adding just a little baking soda.
| awild wrote:
| I've once gotten the advice of boiling it for at least fifteen
| minutes since the citric acid commonly used will break down at
| normal cooking temperatures.
|
| Wikipedia lists its breakdown temperature at 175C so it's
| plausible but I don't know the temperatures at which tomato
| sauce boils.
|
| Baking soda is fine too, but it can bring its own minerally
| flavor into your foods. So I'd use it sparingly.
| bambax wrote:
| Tomato sauce being mostly water it probably boils at around
| 100degC? I don't think you can have tomato sauce reach
| 175degC in a normal kitchen (the inside of a pressure cooker
| is about 120degC). In a deep fryer the oil goes to much
| higher temps but you can't keep anything watery inside
| (that's one of the points of deep frying: to remove water).
|
| Or is it 175degF, which would be ~80degC?
|
| In my experience just boiling a sauce doesn't reduce its
| acidity much; letting it simmer for hours can work wonders
| but it's a whole different approach.
|
| Yes baking soda is very effective at small doses so just a
| pinch in a big pan of sauce is usually enough.
| loeg wrote:
| If boiling for a few minutes broke down the acid, wouldn't it
| be pretty ineffective for use in canning? They boil it during
| canning.
| Stratoscope wrote:
| Pop quiz!
|
| Do you ever buy frozen vacuum-sealed fish? The kind where each
| piece is sealed in its own plastic pouch? It is convenient and
| delicious. To me it can taste fresher than some "fresh" fish. One
| reason is that the sealed pouch keeps oxygen out.
|
| Have you wondered why it says "remove all packaging before
| defrosting"? And ignored that advice like I did for many years?
|
| After all, the fish seems to defrost just fine in its original
| vacuum-sealed packaging, whether you defrost it in the
| refrigerator or in a cold water bath. And it is so convenient to
| leave it in the pouch while defrosting.
|
| Well, there is a reason to take those instructions seriously. The
| vacuum-sealed package is an anerobic environment, just right for
| botulinum and listeria.
|
| So unwrap the fish, let it have that little kiss of oxygen, and
| then rewrap it for defrosting.
|
| https://www.google.com/search?q=remove+frozen+fish+from+pack...
| traceroute66 wrote:
| > Do you ever buy frozen vacuum-sealed fish? The kind where
| each piece is sealed in its own plastic pouch? It is convenient
| and delicious. To me it can taste fresher than some "fresh"
| fish.
|
| Eeew. No.
|
| Call me old-fashioned but I believe in this thing called
| seasonality.
|
| I only buy fish that is in season, not farmed, and that is
| genuinely fresh from reputable suppliers, not supermarket
| "fresh".
|
| Nice clear bright eyes, clean gills and all that jazz.
|
| There is no substitute for fresh fresh fish. Well, maybe one
| ... high-quality smoked fish.
| the_af wrote:
| > _I only buy fish that is in season, not farmed, and that is
| genuinely fresh from reputable suppliers, not supermarket
| "fresh"._
|
| I think everyone wants this, but it's not always practical.
| Not everyone lives in a coastal area with access to fresh
| fish of the kind they would like to eat. If you do, more
| power to you! But if you don't...
|
| Freezing fish also has the benefit that it kills parasites.
| munificent wrote:
| The fish you buy even from reputable suppliers was very
| likely flash frozen on the boat before it ever reached land.
| Many fishing boats are out for several days or weeks at a
| time. So just because it's only been on land a short time,
| that doesn't mean it's recently caught.
|
| This is a good thing because many fish harbor parasites that
| are killed when flash frozen. Your home freezer doesn't
| reliably get cold enough to take them out. You can reliably
| kill them by cooking very thoroughly, but since fish is such
| a delicate meat, the line between "may still have wriggling
| worms" and "overcooked, dry, and unpalatable" can be quite
| fine.
| nkrisc wrote:
| Unless you're buying your fish every morning in the fish
| market at the harbor, it's probably been frozen. Even wild
| caught is typically frozen as soon as it's hauled aboard.
|
| This will vary around the world, of course.
| ckastner wrote:
| Supposedly, flash freezing (which is distinct from your
| average home freezer unit) preserves quality such that even
| trained sushi chefs can't tell the difference between fresh
| and previously flash-frozen fish.
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/08/nyregion/sushi-fresh-
| from...
| el_benhameen wrote:
| Indeed, there are some types of fish that are safe for
| "raw" consumption only after being flash frozen, due to
| parasites that live in the fish.
| BoxOfRain wrote:
| >There is no substitute for fresh fresh fish. Well, maybe one
| ... high-quality smoked fish.
|
| While I take a bit less of a strong stance on this, I
| definitely agree there's nothing like properly fresh fish. I
| used to think I didn't really like mackerel but the truth is
| that supermarket mackerel can be a bit nasty even off the
| fish counter, mackerel straight out of the sea and cooked
| right away is absolutely fantastic.
| traceroute66 wrote:
| > I used to think I didn't really like mackerel but the
| truth is that supermarket mackerel can be a bit nasty even
| off the fish counter
|
| Yes. Oily fish (e.g. mackerel) really doesn't keep well, as
| you say it has to be eaten as close to "straight out of the
| sea" as possible. Oily fish certainly is not well suited to
| supermarket supply chains.
| nradov wrote:
| For those in the Bay Area, the Hankook Korean supermarket
| in Sunnyvale always has good fresh mackerel.
|
| http://www.hankooksupermarket.com/products.htm
| bjackman wrote:
| I don't eat fish, but I have heard that when modern flash
| freezing is done properly, you cannot tell the difference
| from actual fresh.
| koheripbal wrote:
| Many of those frozen like that were flash frozen on the boat
| and are fresher than even what you buy at the fish market
| direct from the boats that landed that night.
| MrDresden wrote:
| It really does depend on your location. Here in Iceland I
| can get fresh fish that was caught the same day in my local
| fish store (mind you not all their fish is caught that day,
| but most if not all inside 2).
|
| Though with the globalized world we live in, I was even
| able to get fish from Iceland no older than 2 days in
| Edmonton Canada when I lived there some years ago.
|
| edit; I'll add that there is a massive texture difference
| in white fish depending on if it has ever been frozen.
| Flaky fresh never frozen cod becomes like chewing gum after
| having been frozen.
| Stratoscope wrote:
| Photographers have a saying: The best camera is the one you
| have with you.
|
| I have a really nice camera with some excellent lenses, but
| my recent photos that I'm most proud of and enjoy the most
| were taken with my Galaxy Note 8, a several-year-old
| smartphone.
|
| Of course the kind of fresh fish you're talking about is far
| superior to the Costco bag of sockeye salmon I have in the
| freezer. But sometimes, it's getting near dinner time, and I
| don't have time to go shopping and just want some fish. Under
| those circumstances, the frozen fish hits the spot, and it is
| much better than the "supermarket fresh".
|
| But what do I know? If I'm near a McDonald's and craving a
| fish sandwich and there isn't a better option nearby, I just
| might stop in and get a Filet-O-Fish. It's nothing
| spectacular, but it is line-caught wild Alaskan pollock.
|
| Just be sure to order it without cheese. Because number one,
| American cheese on fish is gross. And number two, it means
| they have to make you a fresh sandwich and not give you a
| premade one.
|
| (Disclosure: I work for McDonald's, at least until the end of
| this month.)
| urthor wrote:
| Isn't practically everything you see in a fish market flash
| frozen anyway?
|
| Afaik there's very little fresh fish going around, period.
| It's all frozen on the boat.
| FishGuy wrote:
| At least in the US, a significant amount of the fish you
| eat in high end restaurants, sushi restaurants and fish
| markets is never frozen.
|
| It is packed in ice and kept very cold, but not frozen.
|
| Supermarkets are more likely to stock frozen/previously
| frozen. Lots of commodity seafood is frozen when caught.
|
| Source: Spent a season offshore fishing for
| swordfish/tuna. Worked in the warehouses that unloaded
| and shipped the same. Drove the truck that delivered the
| fish.
| Stratoscope wrote:
| A friend told me that he never, ever eats frozen fish,
| but he does enjoy all varieties of sushi and sashimi, and
| he explained to me that those are never frozen.
|
| I tried to convince him otherwise, but never got
| anywhere.
|
| https://www.seriouseats.com/how-to-prepare-raw-fish-at-
| home-...
| mejutoco wrote:
| In some places it is illegal _not_ to freeze the fish for
| sushi, to avoid anisakis (I don't know how it is
| enforced, though).
|
| source: https://elpais.com/sociedad/2006/12/20/actualidad
| /1166569202...
| raverbashing wrote:
| We hope so! Flash freezing kills parasites
|
| (Sure, it's not an issue if you cook it thoroughly before
| consumption, but still)
| traceroute66 wrote:
| > We hope so! Flash freezing kills parasites
|
| It depends where you are.
|
| If you are in a Western country, then yes, "sashimi grade
| fish" equals "frozen".
|
| If you are in Japan, then no.
|
| Its all to do with the understanding of fish and its
| handling.
|
| In the West its all commoditised, quantity over quality.
|
| In Japan, they have a deeply rooted fish culture, a focus
| on quality and are obsessive over food hygiene.
|
| So in Japan your sushi won't be pre-frozen, but it will
| have been meticulously inspected and prepared.
|
| Fun fact, salmon sushi/sashimi is a Western thing. The
| Japanese don't eat it because the parasite risk in Salmon
| is so much higher than any other fish.
|
| Personally, having visited Japan a number of times, I
| will not eat sushi or sashimi outside of Japan any more.
| bluediscussy22 wrote:
| I live in Japan and some of this is a bit wrong.
|
| 1. All Tuna is frozen immediately after being caught on
| the boat - go to tsukiji (well now toyosu) at the tuna
| market. They are frozen and they taste better because of
| it.
|
| 2. There is no sushi / sashimi grade in Japan. High
| quality fish that you can eat safely is just the default
|
| 3. It's true that traditional sushi did not include
| salmon because of the parasites. If you go to a
| traditional sushi restaurant (3 star Michelin etc) you
| won't find salmon nigiri. Other than that salmon sushi is
| everywhere at sushi restaurants in Japan and tons of
| Japanese eat salmon nigiri and sushi.
| traceroute66 wrote:
| 1. Noted, although I would say I didn't say all fish was
| not frozen.
|
| 2. That was kind of the point I was making. ;-)
|
| 3. I guess we must frequent different places, because the
| only places I've seen Salmon is Narita airport and at
| combinis. I don't go to 3 star Michelin, but I do admit I
| go to more traditional sushi restaurants when I want
| sushi in Japan. That said, even when I have had sushi at
| isakaya and small local restaurants, sashimi omakase
| rarely contains Salmon.
| themaninthedark wrote:
| There are many restaurants in Hokkaido that have the
| seafood version of oyakodon, Salmon and roe.
|
| https://hokkaido-labo.com/en/otaru-seafood-donburi-14255
| NikolaeVarius wrote:
| The hell? Have you been to Tsukiji Fish Market? Its
| immediately obvious that everything is flash frozen
|
| This reads like some old school weeb shit
| traceroute66 wrote:
| > Its immediately obvious that everything is flash frozen
|
| "Everything" is a bit of an exaggeration.
|
| I'm sure like at all fish markets, there is frozen fish
| available, either because it was imported or because
| that's the way it was pre-processed on the local boat.
|
| But to say "everything is flash frozen". That's pushing
| it. You fall flat at shellfish at a start. ;-)
| the_af wrote:
| > _Personally, having visited Japan a number of times, I
| will not eat sushi or sashimi outside of Japan any more._
|
| Most of us cannot travel to Japan every time we want to
| eat sushi, so that's simply not practical.
| traceroute66 wrote:
| > Most of us cannot travel to Japan every time we want to
| eat sushi, so that's simply not practical.
|
| FFS !
|
| Did I ever say I travelled, or that anyone should travel
| to Japan every time ?
|
| No.
|
| Incase you had not seen, Japanese cuisine goes beyond
| sushi and sashimi.
|
| The quality of sushi and sahimi in the West is simply so
| poor compared to Japan I won't waste my money. That is
| what I am saying.
|
| I simply said I do not eat sushi and sashimi. I can fill
| my Japanese desires with other culinary aspects and save
| myself for as and when I might visit Japan.
| the_af wrote:
| > _Incase you had not seen, Japanese cuisine goes beyond
| sushi and sashimi._
|
| Well, yes, some of us _have_ visited Japan and tried
| their cuisine, both in their own country and in Japanese
| restaurants in other countries.
|
| There are also authentic Japanese sushi bars _outside_
| Japan, run by Japanese chefs, and making superb sushi.
|
| I really don't understand what you're trying to say here.
| quartesixte wrote:
| > Fun fact, salmon sushi/sashimi is a Western thing. The
| Japanese don't eat it because the parasite risk in Salmon
| is so much higher than any other fish.
|
| All the conveyor belt sushi chains I've eaten at
| definitely had salmon nigiri on the menu. In fact, they
| had a wider variety of salmon than what is commonly found
| in the US. It is most definitely a thing Japanese people
| eat because otherwise there wouldn't be five menu items
| dedicated to just salmon at every major conveyorbelt
| sushi chain.
| traceroute66 wrote:
| > American cheese on fish is gross
|
| American cheese is gross full stop. ;-)
|
| As is American chocolate.
| letitbeirie wrote:
| My European friends: "Hersheys tastes like vomit."
|
| The same people: "So I know it's Halloween over there and
| um... can you send us some Reese's cups?"
| Karunamon wrote:
| European chocolate tastes dull.
|
| Snark aside, it's about what you grew up with.
| Fascinating video:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J44svaQc5WY
| [deleted]
| technothrasher wrote:
| > As is American chocolate.
|
| You've been eating the wrong American chocolate.
| Hershey's isn't the end all and be all. There are plenty
| of good chocolate makers and even more good chocolatiers
| in the US, you just need to explore a bit. L.A. Burdick
| in New Hampshire, for example, makes really great
| chocolates, and has a nice wide range of single source
| bars made with beans from plantations all over the world.
| turbinerneiter wrote:
| I defrost my fish in the package by putting it in hot tap
| water.
|
| You, sire, drastically reduced my chance of dying. Thank you
| very much.
| bambax wrote:
| Do not do that. Defrosting should be done slowly in the
| fridge. Or you can cook frozen food directly. But do not
| defrost at or about room temperature, this will breed
| bacteria like crazy.
| 2-718-281-828 wrote:
| defrosting in cold tap water also works just fine. I
| noticed that this keeps the fibres and cells intact which
| is advantageous for frying afterwards as the filet won't
| fall apart so easily.
| Lhiw wrote:
| Ya'll never heard of a microwave?
| namdnay wrote:
| defrosting under warm water takes about 5 minutes, if you
| cook it immediately it's perfectly safe
| bambax wrote:
| Very much depends on what you're defrosting. A piece of
| meat frozeon at -20C will not defrost in 5 minutes under
| warm water.
| mnw21cam wrote:
| It mostly depends on how large (or rather how thick) the
| chunk is. If you're talking about wafer-thin slices of
| salmon, then it'll defrost in about 30 seconds in cold
| water, even if it was frozen at -20C. If you're talking
| about a whole large turkey, then it'll probably take more
| than a day.
| baobabKoodaa wrote:
| Wouldn't the food need to warm up to room temperature
| before bacteria would breed like crazy? If you defrost it
| from frozen to cold-but-defrosted, shouldn't you be ok,
| even if the surrounding air is room temperature?
| sbierwagen wrote:
| The bacteria on the _surface_ of the meat will hit room
| temperature in a few minutes, long before the entire
| piece is thawed all the way through. So it gets an hour
| head start.
| gambiting wrote:
| By that logic no one could ever safely eat steak tartare,
| which obviously you can without any issue. There will be
| bacteria growing in the surface, but unless someone
| fucked up somewhere along the way, they won't be harmful.
| nelgaard wrote:
| No, it will not. But it depends on the shape of the meat.
| So if you are not monitoring the surface temperature, go
| with cold water or the fridge.
| [deleted]
| dustintrex wrote:
| The issue is the timing. If you defrost in the fridge, it
| will eventually reach ambient temperature, but that's
| still safe. If you defrost on the counter, it will
| briefly be cold-but-defrosted, but rapidly progress to
| room-temperature-petri-dish.
| bambax wrote:
| > _If you defrost it from frozen to cold-but-defrosted,
| shouldn 't you be ok, even if the surrounding air is room
| temperature_
|
| Yes, that's my point. If you defrost in the fridge it's
| ok. If you defrost at room temperature then it's
| dangerous.
|
| It's not extremely dangerous. Many people do it every day
| and don't die. But it's better not to.
| baobabKoodaa wrote:
| No, what I meant was, if you defrost it at room
| temperature, it will not instantly warm up to room
| temperature - it will slowly warm up. You're not forced
| to leave it on the counter until it reaches room
| temperature, you can choose to use it before that point
| (even though it is surrounded by room-temperature air).
| It's possible to have a less-than-room-temperature fish
| inside a room that is in room temperature.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| eep, my girlfriend insists on leaving meat out on the
| counter top for most of the day to defrost. I mean it feels
| cold to the touch still when we're ready to cook, and
| everything is cooked thoroughly, and we've never gotten
| sick yet but. Still dubious.
|
| Putting it in the fridge to defrost takes 24 hours or so
| though.
| hamstercat wrote:
| Put it in cold water in the fridge, it goes pretty fast
| that way. It has saved my bacon a few times (both
| literally and figuratively).
| lm28469 wrote:
| > drastically
|
| If it was that dangerous you'd have heard of dozens of deaths
| and it would have been banned a while ago. People don't read
| instructions
| seszett wrote:
| Put it in cold tap water in the fridge and it will also
| defrost much faster than in the air, while staying at a safe
| temperature the whole time and it also won't be partly cooked
| already.
| Arch-TK wrote:
| Okay, so in the past we've used a sous-vide recirculator set to
| 30degC to quickly defrost fish which had been vacuum sealed
| (dodged a bullet apparently). I looked into it and the
| temperature at which it is safe to hold food without risk of
| toxin production is 3degC and less.
|
| What high-speed defrosting methods are there to replace this?
| is it okay to just open the fish for 30 minutes, re-seal it and
| then put it in the recirculator?
|
| Really I'm just concerned about a reliable method of defrosting
| which doesn't take a week. Putting food from the freezer into
| the fridge has been a hit-and-miss endeavour sometimes taking
| up to a week.
| toomanybeersies wrote:
| Back when I used to work in hospitality, we'd defrost fish
| (both vac sealed and loose) in cold running water.
|
| Defrosting vac sealed fish in cold water over 20 minutes and
| immediately cooking it carries roughly zero risk of botulism,
| for 2 reasons:
|
| 1. The optimal growth temperature for C. botulinum is between
| 20-45 C [1], exponentially dropping off outside that range.
| That's why improperly canned food is risky, as it's usually
| stored in that range for weeks or months.
|
| 2. The bacteria is slow growing and doesn't cause illness
| itself, it also can't grow in the acidic conditions of the
| adult human gut. Rather, it's the excreted toxin that's
| dangerous, which takes several days to form [2].
|
| [1] https://www.publish.csiro.au/bi/pdf/bi9530178 (p.p. 182)
|
| [2] https://journals.asm.org/doi/pdf/10.1128/aem.62.8.3069-30
| 72.... (p.p. 3071)
| gambiting wrote:
| >>I looked into it and the temperature at which it is safe to
| hold food without risk of toxin production is 3degC and less.
|
| The what now? My fridge at home is uniformly at 4C, surely
| that can't be dangerous.
| weaksauce wrote:
| quickly defrosting like that is fine wrt botulism but i'm not
| sure it's great to do that for other bacteria. but you can
| also just quickly defrost it in a bowl of cool water and use
| it within a few hours.
| antognini wrote:
| I have wondered about this, but even if botulinum or listeria
| are present, won't they grow very slowly in the refrigerator? I
| would think that defrosting for 12 hours or so at refrigerator
| temperatures would still be fairly safe. Or is the quantity
| that can be dangerous so minute that it doesn't matter?
| froh wrote:
| Yes, defrosting vacuum sealed fish _in the fridge_ is safe,
| also in the package, for the next day as well, but not
| beyond. Defrosting on the countertop (or on the heating) is
| not, for the reasons GP stated.
| foobarian wrote:
| I cold smoke meat so I need to be especially careful about
| this. The good news is, even though the spores are very hardy
| and can survive boiling at sea level atmospheric pressure,
| the botulism toxin (i.e. the chemical produced by the germs
| that does the actual damage) is easy to destroy by cooking
| over 85 degrees C.
| raisedbyninjas wrote:
| Are botulism spores found inside meat or just the surface?
| 85C in the center will overcook the meats I cook.
| foobarian wrote:
| Not inside meat, no. I don't think it's a problem for run
| of the mill hot-smoking or BBQ. For cold-smoked stuff I
| don't dare eat it raw yet but use the meat in stews. Cold
| smoked pork ribs add a 3rd dimension to thick soups like
| pasta fagioli or split pea soup, while sausages are great
| fried. I don't know how to safely attempt a prosciutto or
| lox though :-)
| Uehreka wrote:
| Perhaps its one of those things where "95% of the time you'll
| be fine, but be careful if you do it 20 times, because
| botulism only needs to happen once."
| mdp2021 wrote:
| > _be careful if you do it 20 times_
|
| Probably just a locution, but be careful with that idea
| about numbers:
|
| The probability of remaining in a safe zone of 95% for 20
| consecutive times is ~36%. It ( (1-(1/n))^n ) approximates
| to 1/e.
|
| The number of tries to reduce that 95% to a 50% coin toss
| is 13. It is not fully intuitive. One will put his
| threshold wherever one may think appropriate, but. A chance
| of tenth, a hundredth, a thousandth etc. for ten, a
| hundred, thousand etc. times approximates to 63.2%.
|
| ...Maybe a locution like 'Maybe 9 out of 10 times you'll be
| fine, but be careful about doing it 7 times' could work
| well (as 6.931 approximates the risk to a coin toss).
| cseleborg wrote:
| So that explains the seven lives of cats, who 9 times out
| of 10 land on their feet. (Also, 85% of statistics are
| made up on the spot.)
| dredmorbius wrote:
| NB: This failure of statistical logic also shows up in
| "100 year storm" statistics.
|
| The actual measurement is "storm with a 1% likelihood of
| occurring in any one year". The odds of that storm
| occurring in a century is actually about 63%, and of
| occurring in any _ten_ year period, about 10%.
|
| Add to that the fact that the measurement is based on a
| storm of a given _magnitude_ (usually total rainfall /
| precipitation, wind speed, storm surge, etc.) occurring,
| and small changes in the likelihood of such events can
| dramatically change the rate at which a storm of a given
| magnitude is observed. If you live in/near flood-prone
| areas, keep an eye on, e.g., changes in what are
| considered flood stages (say, as flood control structures
| are added or removed), or to likelihoods of events of a
| given precipitation level or stream height.
| jandrese wrote:
| The fact that most people don't know to remove the plastic
| and yet there are virtually no reported cases of people
| being poisoned by wrapped fish suggests that the danger is
| remote. It probably helps that if you fish get to the point
| where the bactera become active again it tends to smell bad
| and discolour.
| foobarian wrote:
| I think if the fish was consumed raw there would be a lot
| more cases. But the toxin is destroyed by cooking even if
| the spores do grow.
| rainbowzootsuit wrote:
| I think Douglas Baldwin's sous vide guide is a relevant aside
| to this discussion of pathogens on food.
|
| https://douglasbaldwin.com/sous-vide.html
| Chris2048 wrote:
| > just right for botulinum and listeria
|
| But if it was frozen, wouldn't that kill off any bacteria?
| Then, as a sealed environment, there wouldn't be anything to
| grow, even if the environment is just right.
|
| edit: ignore this comment, I just read how the spores are
| resistant to boiling/freezing...
| phonypc wrote:
| Freezing doesn't kill bacteria. Reliably, anyway.
| superzamp wrote:
| So basically, is sous-vide cooking is a very bad idea?
| currency wrote:
| Sous-vide relies on longer time durations instead of higher
| temperatures. In most cases, a longer time at a lower
| temperature is equivalent to a shorter time at a higher
| temperature in the reduction of pathogenic organisms [0]
|
| [0]https://douglasbaldwin.com/sous-vide.html#Safety
| ReptileMan wrote:
| No. Because you are in pasteurized temperatures. Practically
| always on the outside of the protein. And there are usually
| no spores inside the muscles
| dustintrex wrote:
| Is this _really_ a risk in practice though? I can 't find any
| cases of this actually happening on the CDC's botulism site:
| https://www.cdc.gov/botulism/surveillance.html
| weaksauce wrote:
| it's a risk for certain fish and if you defrost the fish in
| the fridge for days... but as it stands botulism is not a
| very common thing to worry about in modern society. there are
| about 200 poisonings per year in the us. a lot are junkies
| using shared and dirty needles... babies eating honey is
| another large one. maybe about 20-50 per year in the us is an
| adult getting food borne botulism.
|
| in any event yes it is risky to defrost the fish in a vacuum
| sealed bag but only if you thaw it for a few days or more
| like that. 50F fridge is about 2 days and 45F fridge is a few
| more days before there is growth:
| https://www.riskyornot.co/episodes/34-thawing-frozen-fish-
| in...
|
| Fwiw i just thaw it the day i use it in cold water for < 1hr
| and it's almost certainly fine to use that day.
| 2-718-281-828 wrote:
| might become a risk if it lies around defrosted for many
| hours.
| ckastner wrote:
| I am somewhat skeptical of this as well. It's not uncommon to
| hear of someone having eaten something "bad", but that can be
| the result of many pathogens and with regards to botulinum,
| the article gives a data point:
|
| > _In the UK, between 1990 and 2005, there were 5 reported
| cases affecting 6 people and causing 2 deaths, meaning that
| you were 15 times more likely to be hit by lightning._
| koheripbal wrote:
| That data is clearly only reporting very serious cases
| though, since one third of them died.
|
| Food poisoning is much more common than lightning.
| ckastner wrote:
| > _Food poisoning is much more common than lightning._
|
| I said as much. The question is whether _botulism_ is
| more common than lightning.
|
| Food poisoning is not uncommon, but can be caused by many
| pathogens, for example _E. coli_.
|
| Given the fact that we have a common illness but very few
| confirmations of _C. botulinum_ as the cause, the
| question stands whether this is really a risk in
| practice.
| AussieWog93 wrote:
| Any people from developing countries reading this thread?
|
| What are your thoughts when you hear Westerners talking about
| the danger of leaving a meat out of the fridge for a couple of
| hours and stuff like that?
| swiftcoder wrote:
| As long as it's not vacuum sealed, you can leave it on the
| counter all day. Even in the west we defrost meat this way :)
| IntrepidWorm wrote:
| Ahhh... Don't tell the health department. :)
| astura wrote:
| No "we" don't.
|
| That is expressly against USDA guidelines that say meat
| left in the danger zone[1] for more than 2 hours should not
| be consumed.
|
| I don't eat meat, but my husband does, and he defrosts his
| meat in the fridge.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danger_zone_(food_safety)
| martopix wrote:
| We are talking about leaving meat out of the fridge _in a
| sealed anaerobic environment_ , which is quite different.
| kaetemi wrote:
| My wife leaves meat out of the fridge for the practically the
| whole day...
| rmbyrro wrote:
| There are western developing countries.
|
| And those who live there and read HN probably never faced the
| issues you have in mind for "developing countries".
| soneca wrote:
| No thoughts about the fish, but I was recently very surprised
| to learn that some people exclude my country, Brazil, from
| "western" culture. Like you did opposing "developing" and
| "westerners".
|
| Aside from geographical position, I certainly feel closer in
| culture to North America and Europe than to Middle-East or
| East-Asia cultures.
|
| Every time I hear a statement with _"in the western
| culture..."_ I always identify myself with it.
| anonnyj wrote:
| So what do you, in your western culture, do with meat?
| gibolt wrote:
| This is similar for red meat. Vacuum sealed at the source will
| keep it fresh longer.
|
| Here is a great video on what color meat should be to be
| considered 'fresh' and how to handle it from there:
| https://youtu.be/82KT_nb26-4
|
| The rest of the channel is great if you are at all into
| cooking.
| Helmut10001 wrote:
| If you put your sealed fish in cold tap water, it will thaw in
| less than 15 Minutes. 15 Minutes is not enough for the bacteria
| to produce these toxins.
| glenstein wrote:
| Right, that was going to be my question. Wouldn't botulism
| etc need a certain amount of time to grow? Is any normal use
| case of defrosting in a microwave long enough for that to
| happen? Is there a safe zone of X minutes, and then an unsafe
| zone of Y minutes where it gets dangerous?
| weaksauce wrote:
| it takes days for the botulism to grow under a vacuum in
| your fridge depending on temp.(a proper fridge should be
| 35-40F but many are much higher than that. 50F takes 2 days
| or so to form)
|
| https://www.riskyornot.co/episodes/34-thawing-frozen-fish-
| in...
| Helmut10001 wrote:
| Fast defrosting in Microwave or sealed, in cold water, is
| at least better than some of the other suggestions, like
| poking the seal and slow defrosting over 24 hours in the
| fridge. In the fridge and without a seal, the effects of
| exposing fish to other bacteria are really difficult to
| control.
| PebblesRox wrote:
| "The only case linked to a commercially produced food product in
| that time was non-fatal, involving a man who ate some hummus that
| had been left out of the fridge for several weeks and smelt so
| bad that other members of his family refused to go near it."
|
| Reminds me of a conversation between my brothers after some food
| fell on the floor:
|
| "You're going to eat that?"
|
| "Yeah, I have an immune system."
|
| "So do I -- and mine includes the part of me that goes 'Ewww,
| don't stick that in your mouth.'"
| giantg2 wrote:
| One thing not mentioned is cooking destroys the bacteria and it's
| toxin. I forget the exact times for temperatures, but it's
| something like 212F for 5 minutes or 180F for 10 minutes.
|
| Also, why is infant botulism an issue with honey but not other
| other things? The spores are everywhere and cooking does not kill
| the spores.
| loeg wrote:
| > One thing not mentioned is cooking destroys the bacteria and
| it's toxin. I forget the exact times for temperatures, but it's
| something like 212F for 5 minutes or 180F for 10 minutes.
|
| The article mentions this explicitly:
|
| > To combat botulism in canned foods, it is necessary for all
| parts of the sealed can to reach an internal temperature of
| 121C, as this is sufficient to destroy botulinum spores ...
|
| > An alternative approach is to acidify the contents to a pH
| below 4.5 (although the effective upper limit is 4.2-4.3 in
| most production, just to be sure), and then apply heat up to
| about 91C to kill any bacteria... Although the spores remain
| intact at this temperature, the low acidity means that they
| will not grow into bacteria or produce their deadly toxin.
|
| The latter approach is what is commonly used in "water bath"
| home canning. The former is also doable at home, but you need a
| pressure canner to get the water well above boiling.
| giantg2 wrote:
| That's the pasteurization part. What I'm saying, is that if
| you had a jar of food that wasn't processed correctly but
| looked fine (botulism doesn't typically change the
| appearance), subsequently cooking it will destroy the
| bacteria _and toxin_. There 's no mention in the article of
| the toxin being heat sensitive.
|
| So if you can some spaghetti sauce and simmer it for 10
| minutes before adding to the pasta, then you should have no
| risk of botulism. Think of it as defense in depth - a second
| safeguard against botulism.
| loeg wrote:
| CDC says 85C internal temperature for 5 minutes, but better
| to just throw it out - botulism isn't the only thing that
| will grow in food that hasn't been prepared or stored
| safely.
|
| https://emergency.cdc.gov/agent/Botulism/clinicians/control
| ....
| giantg2 wrote:
| Well sure, if you have reason to believe it spoiled (you
| can't tell by looking at it). I'm just saying, botulism
| isn't as much of a threat as some people make it out to
| be. If the article was to mention that it is easily
| destroyed by cooking, then readers could take the extra
| step of cooking it before eating to put their minds at
| ease.
| loeg wrote:
| If you don't have reason to believe it's spoiled, there's
| no reason to follow the botulism toxin procedure. As the
| article mentions, botulism in canned foods is practically
| non-existent with modern safety procedures.
| giantg2 wrote:
| I'll reiterate, defense in depth. This is alo geared
| towards home canning.
| dynamite-ready wrote:
| That was awesome to read.
| asguy wrote:
| Only two mentions of 'nitrites'? Botulism is the reason we
| started curing meats with nitrite and nitrate in the first place.
| Canning is fine, but being able to keep meat at room temperature
| by just adding common (e.g. available in urine, and celery)
| chemicals is far more interesting.
| chadcmulligan wrote:
| so does ham cured with celery also contain nitrites? I've been
| buying free range ham cured with celery because I thought it
| was free of nitrites.
| chongli wrote:
| Celery extract contains a lot of nitrates and can be treated
| to produce nitrites as well [1]. The reason they use celery
| is to exploit a loophole in food labelling laws and avoid
| usage of the word nitrates due to their association with
| health risks.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celery_powder
| d136o wrote:
| I just listened to a podcast episode about this, basically
| celery cured just means "naturally found" nitrites... which
| are the same thing as artificial nitrites... they're just
| nitrites. (Disclaimer: not a chemist)
|
| https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/stuff-you-should-
| know/...
| chadcmulligan wrote:
| Well thats disappointing
| sdfghderwg wrote:
| I always found it intriguing that some people can have
| the discipline to make big changes to their day to day
| routine based on some learned trivia, but don't have the
| discipline to actually learn the subject.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| That's pretty uncharitable. Celery juice is used
| specifically because it's confusing and misleading - you
| shouldn't have to have a scientific degree to decode a
| nutrition label, but here we are.
| sdfghderwg wrote:
| You missed the point.
| dkarl wrote:
| Ah, the old, "I've sworn off carbs. I might give up sugar
| too at some point, but one thing at a time," said while
| eating falafel.
|
| "Beans can't have protein. That doesn't make any sense.
| Protein is what meat has."
|
| I have spoken to two different people with no connection
| between them who thought that beans had no carbs and no
| protein, they were "different," because carbs were grain
| things and protein was meat. I wouldn't normally judge
| people for ignorance, but both of those people used the
| terms "carb" and "protein" while expressing extensive and
| very strongly held beliefs about nutrition. They are not
| much different from anti-vaxxers in my book.
| sdfghderwg wrote:
| You got the point.
| namdnay wrote:
| some dired hams don't contain any nitrites. I know parma
| ham doesn't, for example
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Yeah, genuine prosciutto is just salt and time.
| namdnay wrote:
| And piggy
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Well, yes. Heh.
| MertsA wrote:
| If you read closely the ingredients don't list celery, they
| list "celery seed extract". They're extracting the nitrates,
| it's just a ploy to avoid having to list nitrates in the
| ingredients but still use it. Next to the statement saying
| "No added nitrates!" there will be a tiny asterisk adding
| "except those naturally present (and extracted and
| concentrated) in celery seeds."
| athenot wrote:
| Similar trick with "no sugar added" in juices, but you can
| take grape or apple juice, evaporate a lot of the water
| till it forms a syrup, then add that syrup to juices and
| still be able to sell the result as "100% pure fruit juice,
| no sugar added".
| phonypc wrote:
| No, adding concentrated juice definitely violates "no
| added sugar" labelling standards, at least as far as the
| FDA and Health Canada are concerned for sure. I assume in
| Europe as well.
|
| Some juices are just naturally very high in sugar.
| guerrilla wrote:
| This was a surprisingly fun read with some really funny points...
|
| > with the only side effects being an inability to express
| emotion using your face
|
| > The entire global face paralysing industry
| soneca wrote:
| I laughed at this one:
|
| _" If any of them were surprised at this seeming paradox, they
| certainly didn't show it."_
| TeeMassive wrote:
| Pro-tip to save your eyes: activate reader mode in Firefox by
| pressing F9
| jwilk wrote:
| I think it's F9 only on Windows; it's Ctrl+Alt+R elsewhere.
| shmerl wrote:
| Interested article, but what's with the overly intense site color
| scheme? It's hard to read becasue of it.
| belter wrote:
| Just updated my SQLite table of "Things_Wont_Work_With.txt"
|
| ..."It has been estimated that in its pure crystalline form, six
| grams of botulism toxin, about one teaspoon full, would be enough
| to kill 200 million people. The lethal dose when consumed orally
| is around 30 billionths of a gram..."
| DeathArrow wrote:
| >it is likely that the pure crystalline form of Botulinum toxin
| is now also the most valuable, with an estimated street value of
| $100 trillion per kilogram
|
| So next time when you forget some cooked food out of the fridge
| and are disposing it, you can think how you are literally
| throwing a fortune away.
| default-kramer wrote:
| > Karl Friedrich Meyer [...] is a largely unheralded hero of
| global public health. Many consider him the twentieth century's
| Pasteur, and his work doubtless saved millions of lives.
|
| Unheralded indeed. His Wikipedia entry isn't very well-sourced,
| but assuming it's mostly accurate this guy could be a great
| subject for a motivated long-form journalist willing to do a bit
| of research. At the very least I'd want to read it.
| newsbinator wrote:
| I'd want to read about his path to discovery and challenges
| while changing the status quo for sure.
|
| I wouldn't want to read about his grandfather's antique clock
| or his childhood pets. Long-form journalism in 2021 isn't for
| me.
| rzwitserloot wrote:
| > If any of them were surprised at this seeming paradox, they
| certainly didn't show it.
|
| I wonder how long the author chuckled at this turn of phrase.
| margofx wrote:
| There's a lot of things at stake, especially if you're dealing
| with foods that are processed. Some might even last than our
| lifespan.
| causi wrote:
| _The entire global face paralysing industry is supported by an
| annual production of just a few milligrams._
|
| A writeup of the production methods would be interesting. I
| wonder if it is produced in highly concentrated or even pure form
| and then diluted, or produced in diluted form. The former may be
| more efficient but I suspect it would be difficult to control
| tiny volumes of toxin that just happen to get lost in the mixing
| process. If you're diluting red paint into white paint it may not
| matter if a microgram of pure red hides in a crevice and get
| deposited into a gallon sometime later but it would sure matter
| if it was botulinum toxin.
| Tomte wrote:
| A few hints:
|
| "A baby-aspirin-size amount of powdered toxin is enough to make
| the global supply of Botox for a year. That little bit is
| derived from a larger primary source, which is locked down
| somewhere in the continental U.S.--no one who isn't on a
| carefully guarded list of government and company officials
| knows exactly where. Occasionally (the company won't say how
| frequently), some of the toxin (the company won't say how much)
| is shipped in secrecy to the lab in Irvine for research. Even
| less frequently, a bit of the toxin is transported by private
| jet, with guards aboard, to the plant in Ireland."
|
| https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-10-26/inside-fo...
| YeBanKo wrote:
| After reading this article and some googling I am still confused
| if salt is as efficient against it as vinegar?
| [deleted]
| pomian wrote:
| very nicely written history of the toxin, the drug botox, and the
| principles of canning. related see the article on HN regarding
| Campbell's soups.
| amai wrote:
| Are vaccines or antibiotics available against Clostridium
| Botulinum? Would it help e.g. to vaccinate lifestock?
| kavalg wrote:
| Hmm, I guess then it is not safe to store walnuts in a vacuum
| package if they are not dry enough. Initially I thought it only
| affected meat/fish.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| That was a fascinating story!
|
| _" I'm looking you, Paltrow."_ was a chuckle.
| wink wrote:
| > An alternative approach is to acidify the contents to a pH
| below 4.5 (although the effective upper limit is 4.2-4.3 in most
| production, just to be sure), and then apply heat up to about 91C
| to kill any bacteria, in a processed known as Pasteurisation.
| Although the spores remain intact at this temperature, the __low
| acidity__ means that they will not grow into bacteria or produce
| their deadly toxin
|
| This paragraph highly confuses me. Shouldn't that be "high
| acidity, as in low pH"?
| loeg wrote:
| > Shouldn't that be "high acidity, as in low pH"?
|
| Yes.
|
| Maybe sibling comment is right that the author was trying to
| suggest 4.5 isn't especially acidic, but it is somewhat
| confusing to read.
| ohmahjong wrote:
| It might mean that it is acidic, but not strongly acidic?
| "Lightly acidic", maybe? A pH of 4.5 is less acidic than soda
| water.
| wink wrote:
| "low as in not neutral" and not "low as in not a lot", yeah
| maybe, thanks.
| bambax wrote:
| > _a disease that had been coined Botulism, after bolutus, the
| Latin for sausage_
|
| [typo] If the author is reading, sausage in Latin is botellus, or
| sometimes botulus, but not bolutus.
| dredmorbius wrote:
| From the Online Etymological Dictionary:
|
| _" poisoning caused by eating imperfectly preserved food,"
| 1878, from German Botulismus (1878), coined in German from
| Medieval Latin botulus "sausage" (see bowel) + -ismus suffix of
| action or state (see -ism). The sickness first was traced to
| eating tainted sausage (sausage poisoning was an old name for
| it)._
|
| https://www.etymonline.com/word/botulism
| sho wrote:
| > The lethal dose when consumed orally is around 30 billionths of
| a gram, which if you want a relatable comparison, is about the
| same as if you cut a single poppy seed into ten thousand equal
| pieces and ate one of them. It is an amount so tiny, it really
| doesn't make sense.
|
| That's right - it makes no sense. How could such a small amount
| of anything do enough damage to shut down your entire body?
| According to wikipedia, it works by "cleaving key proteins
| required for nerve activation". Unless there's some self-
| replication mechanism, how does that even work?
|
| edit: I went and did the math. At an LD of 30 nanograms, that's
| about 1.2 billion actual molecules of this stuff to die. I guess
| that's enough to shut down a sufficient number of nerves that you
| just can't function anymore.
|
| The math: lethal dose / per molecule weight (molar mass /
| avogadro)
|
| (3.0e-10) / (149323.05 / 6.0221409e+23) = 1209888406.377984
| tgv wrote:
| The thing that surprises me is: how does it get distributed
| widely enough? I would imagine that 30pg would lump together
| somewhere and damage a handful of neurons, not that it would
| spread and reach all essential parts of the nerve system.
| sbierwagen wrote:
| Extracellular fluid is actively transported-- after all, it's
| where all gas exchange happens, and if you get a hypoxic spot
| in your body then those cells are going to die. The wikipedia
| article claims, without citation: "The extracellular fluid is
| constantly "stirred" by the circulatory system, which ensures
| that the watery environment which bathes the body's cells is
| virtually identical throughout the body. This means that
| nutrients can be secreted into the ECF in one place (e.g. the
| gut, liver, or fat cells) and will, within about a minute, be
| evenly distributed throughout the body."
| tasty_freeze wrote:
| Wikipedia says "The estimated human lethal dose of type A toxin
| is 1.3-2.1 ng/kg intravenously or intramuscularly, 10-13 ng/kg
| when inhaled, or 1000 ng/kg when taken by mouth."
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botulinum_toxin
| vanderZwan wrote:
| > 10-13 ng/kg when inhaled
|
| Well, that answers the poor _" how would Saddam have gotten
| us to eat it?"_ joke in the article - disperse it as a cloud
| instead
| linspace wrote:
| I guess that we must therefore make a separate category for
| self replicating, otherwise prions would be probably the
| winners. It's like code golf but with chemistry. Great article
| BTW.
| fullstackchris wrote:
| Terrifying, really
| pjc50 wrote:
| It's a protease which matches key neural proteins. The key to
| recognise is that it's reusable: one molecule can keep breaking
| proteins, and as soon as it does that faster than homeostatic
| processes can replace them you're in trouble.
|
| Just how "rm -rf /" can destroy your whole system: it's a small
| character but it matches and destroys everything.
| flobosg wrote:
| > According to wikipedia, it works by "cleaving key proteins
| required for nerve activation". Unless there's some self-
| replication mechanism, how does that even work?
|
| The toxin is an enzyme and as such is not consumed during the
| cleavage reaction. A molecule of the botulinum toxin breaks
| down one protein molecule and then moves on to the next one
| until the toxin itself is degraded by the organism.
| cgio wrote:
| _The rapid, long-lasting and highly noticeable cosmetic effects
| made Botox a near instant success. In small doses, the same nerve
| damage that causes fatal paralysis in poisoning cases, helps to
| remove forehead creases and crow's feet, with the only side
| effects being an inability to express emotion using your face,_
|
| ...
|
| _ironic that many celebrities who publicly advocated a clean
| living, chemical-free lifestyle, were also early adopters of a
| treatment that involves injecting the deadliest substance on
| earth into your face (looking at you, Paltrow). If any of them
| were surprised at this seeming paradox, they certainly didn't
| show it._
|
| Loved the subtle irony here.
| jandrese wrote:
| Technically Botox is all natural. It's even vegan.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| See also: apple seed extract (cyanide), ricin...
| forty wrote:
| Is it? It feels like it exploit the hard work of those poor
| bacterias ;)
| go_elmo wrote:
| only eukaryotic species are defined as "animal" afaik, so
| this is another league. Not getting pregnant every month is
| also not considered abortion in regions where this is
| banned, right?
| forty wrote:
| In French, the translation for vegan sounds something
| like "vegetalist". I agree bacteria are not animals, but
| they are not vegetal either. But I guess this would
| exclude muchrooms too :D
| ermir wrote:
| Botulism is why you cannot make and keep garlic oil, every time
| you want to use it you must make a fresh batch.
| swiftcoder wrote:
| This is the main danger of homemade mayonnaise as well - it's
| not the raw egg that gets you.
|
| If you don't add sufficient acid to the mayo, then your potato
| salad ends up in a perfect oxygen-free environment for
| botulism...
| nfin wrote:
| how do you know that garlic+oil could produce botulism?
|
| I think I haven't understood what kind of food + low oxygen/low
| acid + room temperature might create botulism... could you help
| me understand?
|
| I derived that most of those things are animal related, but
| garlic+oil is not.
|
| Thanks!!
| ermir wrote:
| The botulism spores are abundant in soil, but they don't get
| activated unless the conditions are met. The main condition
| is an environment without oxygen and the presence of
| proteins, which happen both in sealed oil-garlic containers.
| sdfghderwg wrote:
| I guess I'm having the same struggle as nfin.
|
| > The main condition is an environment without oxygen and
| the presence of proteins, which happen both in sealed oil-
| garlic containers.
|
| This seems such a general condition... in first
| approximation, sealed containers with anything at home are
| sealed containers with proteins...
| loeg wrote:
| In general, canning oils at home is unsafe (unless you have a
| pressure canner and take it up to 121C). Canning water-based
| stuff with high acidity (pH < 4.3 or whatever) is pretty safe,
| as long as you follow a safe procedure and the seals are
| intact.
| yboris wrote:
| Related: _America's Food Safety System Failed to Stop a
| Salmonella Epidemic. It's Still Making People Sick_
|
| https://www.propublica.org/article/salmonella-chicken-usda-f...
| zamfi wrote:
| tl;dr: botulinum toxin. From TFA:
|
| It is perhaps strange that such a rare poisoning event shapes our
| modern food system so profoundly, but this is perhaps because the
| toxin produced is one of, if not the, deadliest on earth. It has
| been estimated that in its pure crystalline form, six grams of
| botulism toxin, about one teaspoon full, would be enough to kill
| 200 million people. The lethal dose when consumed orally is
| around 30 billionths of a gram, which if you want a relatable
| comparison, is about the same as if you cut a single poppy seed
| into ten thousand equal pieces and ate one of them. It is an
| amount so tiny, it really doesn't make sense.
| paxys wrote:
| That contrast makes the page unreadable for me.
| kcplate wrote:
| Reader view used to irritate me but I have gown to appreciate
| it for just this reason
| dredmorbius wrote:
| You can modify the appearance of Reader View on Firefox using
| a userContent.css file.
|
| I've modified fonts, margins, and a few other bits.
|
| Unfortunately, borken semantic page struture still persists,
| but the net result is an improvement in many cases.
| lr4444lr wrote:
| Great article. Do we have any idea how or why this microbe
| evolved to be so lethal, widespread, and tough? How old it is?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-11-23 23:02 UTC)