On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 17:57:56 GMT, David Friedman
> wrote:

>In article >,
> Frogleg > wrote:
>
>> much
>> foodborne illness doesn't strke immediately, but after a delay that
>> may be days or even weeks, it would take a very clever Old One to
>> associate, say, hemorrhagic colitis with food eaten 3-4 days
>> previously.
>
>I'm curious about this. My impression was that the overwhelming bulk of
>problems from spoiled food involved food poisoning, with results
>observable in hours, not weeks. How common and serious a problem is the
>sort of long term effect you describe? How likely is it that techniques
>which didn't risk food poisoning would result in a serious risk of such
>effects?

You're asking 2 questions. According to:

http://www.vdacs.state.va.us/foodsafety/poisoning.html

the onset of different types of foodborne illnesses can range from
hours to weeks.

Or rather 1 (above) plus 2a and 2b. 2a: estimates of *mild*
food-related illness vary considerably. That is, thousands (millions,
by some estimates) of cases of "stomach 'flu" or other home-treated
digestive upsets are probably due to food contamination of some sort.
When they're not serious enough to warrant a vist to Dr. or hospital,
they go undiagnosed and do not generally become part of reliable
statistics. 2b: serious and life-threatening cases of e. coli
O157:H7, botulism, salmonella, etc. are rather rare. You're at least
ten thousand times more likely to be killed on the road -- driving,
walking, or cycling.

The real question isn't really "will it kill you?" (answer: only
occasionally), but wouldn't it be nice to reduce the hours and
discomfort of midnight bathroom visits? Not to mention dealing with
others suffering from "nausea, fever, headache, abdominal cramps,
diarrhea, and vomiting"?