It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Nothing to do with choosing what you can eat, or with Obama. They refuse to get a health permit and they got shut down, not that they apparently care about laws since they opened back up a few days later.
Originally posted by illusions
Surely you missed the following information poated by mnemeth1?
Originally posted by Unst0ppable0ne
Originally posted by illusions
Surely you missed the following information poated by mnemeth1?
No I did not miss it... I asked for proof (like both of you did) and I still haven't seen any.
Even then your arguement is non-existent, and you don't even realize how hilariously dumb it is!
Use logic!
Not all raw milk is contaminated, and not all pastuerized milk is not contaminated. All pastuerized milk is originally raw milk......... so it is completely possible for pastuerized milk to be contaminated more than raw milk.... especially when they come from different sources! This doesn't prove anything except that pastuerization of raw milk is not a end all to contamination!
OMG the stupidity!
Think of it like this, ok? Replace "raw milk" with "ocean water". Your source is basically saying that straight ocean water was less contaminated than filtered ocean water between a certain length of time. It doesn't state what area the straight ocean water and filtered ocean water was taken from, it doesn't state how contaminated the ocean water was before they tried to filter it... and it still doesn't even prove that what it says is correct!
I can't even debate with this level of stupidity, there is nothing left, you lost the debate so bad that I can't even fathom how you continue.
Originally posted by endisnighe
This is the 3rd thread today I could post a link to one of my threads.
Damn it people, YOU MAY NOT EAT WHAT YOU WANT!
You are TOO DUMB to make that decision.
Raw milk and other non pasteurized, non homogenized, non additive rich, non approved items YOU WILL NOT BE ALLOWED to have.
For your information, RAW MILK IS A CLASS 1 controlled substance and you will not be allowed to drink it!
Got milk? Is the newest question to be asked by the police of the US.
[edit on 7/26/2010 by endisnighe]
Originally posted by EinsteinLight
reply to [url= by Unst0ppable0ne[/url]
I am no milk expert but I like milk. I earn the money to buy milk. I can buy raw or pasteurized. You know why?
I will tell you why......
It is my life, not your life, and not the government's life.
Do you think it is ok for people to fill water bottles with dirty contaminated gutter water, and sell it, and market it to people like it is safe to drink?
Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Unst0ppable0ne
As the evidence shows, raw milk is safe to drink.
Originally posted by mnemeth1
It's just as safe as pasteurized milk if its handled correctly.
Originally posted by mnemeth1
It's just as dangerous as pasteurized milk if its not.
Originally posted by mnemeth1
As to your example, people would find out rather quickly that the vendor who is selling bad water is not to be trusted. Stores would cease to carry his product. People would stop buying his product. And if anyone got violently ill from his product they could sue him.
Originally posted by mnemeth1
No laws required.
Originally posted by Unst0ppable0ne
reply to post by illusions
Wow, ok you are going on ignore.
Raw milk has greater chances of being contaminated than does pastuerized milk. Just like unfiltered water has greater chances of being dirty than does filtered water.
This is getting beyond retarded!
[edit on 26-7-2010 by Unst0ppable0ne]
Originally posted by illusions
Filtered water may be less clean than unfiltered water,
depending on the original condition of the water
and the handling of the water in question.
Originally posted by Unst0ppable0ne
reply to post by mnemeth1
You can buy whatever you want.... you can buy your own death for all I care.
When you try to sell it is when you get the problems.
In California, raw dairy products are available in grocery stores,
Specifies that raw milk and half-and-half can not have more than
10 coliform bacteria per milliliter.
The statement says that OPDC and Claravale have operated successfully in 2008 with AB 1735 in place. This is untrue. We have been degraded more than once and face degrades at this time, even though we are pathogen-free with very low SPC counts.
Contrary to the “clear” conclusion, AB 1735 has not kept harmful products off the shelves. In fact, Campylobacter was found for the first time this year in CA raw cream with “less than 10 coliforms” – under the new AB 1735 standard. SB 201 standards would have provided better protection. Low coliforms do not mean low pathogens.
Pathogen free means no pathogens, and SB 201 would have required this standard.
Originally posted by Unst0ppable0ne
Originally posted by illusions
Filtered water may be less clean than unfiltered water,
depending on the original condition of the water
and the handling of the water in question.
Now you are finally getting it!
Now replace "filtered water" with "pastuerized milk". Then replace "unfiltered water" with "raw milk". Then replace "water" with "milk".
Like so;
Pastuerized milk may be less clean than raw milk,
depending on the original condition of the milk
and the handling of the milk."
This explains the quote that you repeated over and over and over and over.
When your source claims that there is no links to milk causing illness, all I can say is
There are thousands of cases of people dying from illness caused by bad milk.
Just because they didn't find links, doesn't mean there isn't any.
Once again, your source is bunk.
It's propaganda for the raw milk movement, and not even good propaganda.