On Monday, October 31, 2016 at 5:58:51 PM UTC-4, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2016-10-31 5:41 PM, graham wrote:
> > On 10/31/2016 3:24 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
> >> On 2016-10-31 4:59 PM, graham wrote:
> >>> On 10/31/2016 2:46 PM, Janet wrote:
> >>>> In article >,
> >>>> says...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 2016-10-31 1:54 PM, Janet wrote:
> >>>>>> In article >,
> >>>>>> says...
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> If heating destroyed all the harmful bacteria, then it would also
> >>>>>>> destroy
> >>>>>>> botulism...but it doesn't
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It does.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> ...explain that.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs270/en/
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Apparently is doesn't. From the article you linked:
> >>>>> Though spores of Clostridium botulinum are heat-resistant, the toxin
> >>>>> produced by bacteria growing out of the spores under anaerobic
> >>>>> conditions is destroyed by boiling (for example, at internal
> >>>>> temperature
> >>>>> >85°C for five minutes or longer). Therefore, ready-to-eat foods in
> >>>>> low
> >>>>> oxygen-packaging are more frequently involved in botulism."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Heat destroys the toxin but not the spores that produce it.
> >>>>
> >>>> http://food.unl.edu/clostridium-botulinum
> >>>>
> >>>> " Clostridium botulinum is an anaerobic, sporeforming bacteria that
> >>>> produces a neurotoxin. The bacteria can exist as a vegetative cell or a
> >>>> spore. The spore is the dormant state of the bacteria and can exist
> >>>> under conditions where the vegetative cell cannot. When conditions are
> >>>> right, the spore will grow into the vegetative cell. When the
> >>>> vegetative
> >>>> cells grow to high numbers, this bacteria produces the toxin. The
> >>>> vegetative cells of Clostridium botulinum are destroyed by heat but the
> >>>> spore is very resistant to heat. Temperatures well above 100°C (212°F)
> >>>> are needed to destroy the spore. "
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> I see that those in a university are unaware of the correct word:
> >>> "bacterium"
> >>>
> >> Those in a university probably don't often see a single bacterium. They
> >> tend of be present in large numbers, and in different strains. Hence the
> >> use of the plural.
> >
> > But here they write of a single species.
>
>
> But not a single bacterium.

Just wait for the poofter Nurse/Scientist/Engineer to reply and do the opposite of what he says. I've been able to verify that he is in fact highly educated and an RN. He's also extremely poor from his inability to hold ANY job and a borderline retard. Hey, Kuthe - what do you call bacon?