On 10/28/2016 6:39 PM, Roy wrote:
> On Friday, October 28, 2016 at 3:53:00 PM UTC-6, Dave Smith wrote:
>> On 2016-10-28 4:07 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>>
>>> Cast iron is probably the LEAST durable cookware made.
>>
>> Oh bullshit.... enough said.
>
> Good Khrist, I am using cast iron frying pans and a waffle iron my great grandmother used back in the 19th century. Certainly durable compared to the NO-Stick crap produced today most of which lasts a year at best.
> =====
>
The difference is in the cooking styles, though. I must say, cast iron
was quite nice to have on a charcoal grill after Hurricane Matthew. You
can't use most modern cookware on a charcoal grill. Especially not
anything with non-stick coatings.

As for the bacteria, I've always cleaned the cast iron. No Brillo pads,
yikes! But very hot water and wiping with a clean rag, yes. If
something was particularly stuck on I'd scrape it with a metal spatula
first.

I cannot recall ever worrying about getting sick because of cast iron
cookware.

Jill

On 10/28/2016 10:10 AM, Sqwertz wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Oct 2016 00:16:39 -0400, wrote:
>
>> All my life I have heard that with cast iron frying pans,...
>
> That's the longest troll this guy has ever typed. Usually they're
> short like "How do they Milk Magnesia" or "My Sausage is so hard
>
> Not worth replying to, folks.
>
> -sw
>
Why not just just see how long it plays out. At least it's about
cookware. Nasty rancid cast iron cookware. Hmmmm. I made good use of
it recently.

Jill

On Friday, October 28, 2016 at 9:10:05 AM UTC-5, tert in seattle wrote:
>
> you took a wrong turn on your way to alt.support.ocd
>
>
You took the words right off the tips of my fingers.

Spare us. Seems like the simple thing for you to do is to not use cast
iron, dispite the fact that you claim to have used it in the past,
observed that it "worked" and did not suffer terrible consequences.
That makes you feel better/safer and saves us the blather unsupported
by any evidence other than your phobias.

Unless you are eating out of an autoclave or irradiation chamber, my
bet is that something could be cultured from any pot, pan, dish or
utensil in your kitchen. The little beggars are everywhere.

On Fri, 28 Oct 2016 00:16:39 -0400, wrote:

>All my life I have heard that with cast iron frying pans, you never
>wash them with soap, you just wipe them with a paper towel, and put them
>away until they are needed. I personally find that absolutely repulsive.
>In fact thats worse than a bachelor I once met who never washed his
>dinner plate, he just wiped off any solids, and stuck it in the fridge
>till his next meal.
>
>The oils, animal fats, and who knows what else is on that cast iron pan
>is a breeding ground for bacteria, and God only knows what else. On top
>of that, the greasyness attracts mice, insects, and dust from the air
>will stick to it. Absolutely repulsive!!!!
>
>Hey, I listened to the so called "experts" on this subject. I gave it a
>try some 40+ years ago, and I will admit that food did not stick to it
>(most of the time), but I always felt like I was eating food
>contaminated with filth. Even if I heated the pan prior to placing food
>in it, and heating to a temperature which will kill any bacteria, the
>thought of eating dead bacteria, minute bits and pieces of old meals
>from weeks ago, possible insect and rodent droppings, and if nothing
>else, rancid oil, was enough to ruin every meal I cooked on it.
>
>I began washing these pans with soap, water, and brillo pads. That's
>when I found the food sticking terribly, and sometimes even some rust. I
>finally gave them to a friend who goes camping regularly and said they
>work best on a campfire. Then I bought myself some teflon coated pans,
>which have since been replaced by enamel coated cookware like those
>often advertised on tv.
>
>While cast iron is probably the most durable cookware made, it requires
>far too much work to keep it seasoned, but even putting aside the work,
>it's disgusting and repulsive. It may have worked well for cooks in the
>19th century, we have since learned a lot about health, disease, and
>bacteria, and cast iron is not a healty type of cookware.
>
>

On 2016-10-28 7:54 PM, wrote:
> On Friday, October 28, 2016 at 9:10:05 AM UTC-5, tert in seattle wrote:
>>
>> you took a wrong turn on your way to alt.support.ocd
>>
>>
> You took the words right off the tips of my fingers.
>


Or alt.troll

On 10/28/2016 8:01 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2016-10-28 7:54 PM, wrote:
>> On Friday, October 28, 2016 at 9:10:05 AM UTC-5, tert in seattle wrote:
>>>
>>> you took a wrong turn on your way to alt.support.ocd
>>>
>> You took the words right off the tips of my fingers.
>>
> Or alt.troll
>

This is funny - eh - for a good giggle! It's amazing to think some/many
folks truly believe they can live in a 'sterile' world where no little
beasties exist - NOT! Beware, beware, there are beasties everywhere !!!
LOL!!!

Well, there are a few . . . . but I won't go there ;>

Sky

================================
Kitchen Rule #1 - Use the timer!
Kitchen Rule #2 - Cook's choice!
================================

On Fri, 28 Oct 2016, Cindy Hamilton wrote:

> On Friday, October 28, 2016 at 1:22:48 AM UTC-4, wrote:
>> All my life I have heard that with cast iron frying pans, you never
>> wash them with soap, you just wipe them with a paper towel, and put them
>> away until they are needed. I personally find that absolutely repulsive.
>> In fact thats worse than a bachelor I once met who never washed his
>> dinner plate, he just wiped off any solids, and stuck it in the fridge
>> till his next meal.
>>
>> The oils, animal fats, and who knows what else is on that cast iron pan
>> is a breeding ground for bacteria, and God only knows what else. On top
>> of that, the greasyness attracts mice, insects, and dust from the air
>> will stick to it. Absolutely repulsive!!!!
>>
>> Hey, I listened to the so called "experts" on this subject. I gave it a
>> try some 40+ years ago, and I will admit that food did not stick to it
>> (most of the time), but I always felt like I was eating food
>> contaminated with filth. Even if I heated the pan prior to placing food
>> in it, and heating to a temperature which will kill any bacteria, the
>> thought of eating dead bacteria, minute bits and pieces of old meals
>> from weeks ago, possible insect and rodent droppings, and if nothing
>> else, rancid oil, was enough to ruin every meal I cooked on it.
>>
>> I began washing these pans with soap, water, and brillo pads. That's
>> when I found the food sticking terribly, and sometimes even some rust. I
>> finally gave them to a friend who goes camping regularly and said they
>> work best on a campfire. Then I bought myself some teflon coated pans,
>> which have since been replaced by enamel coated cookware like those
>> often advertised on tv.
>>
>> While cast iron is probably the most durable cookware made, it requires
>> far too much work to keep it seasoned, but even putting aside the work,
>> it's disgusting and repulsive. It may have worked well for cooks in the
>> 19th century, we have since learned a lot about health, disease, and
>> bacteria, and cast iron is not a healty type of cookware.
>
> Heat up the pan before using. Bacteria gone.

exactly.

If heating destroyed all the harmful bacteria, then it would also destroy
botulism...but it doesn't...explain that.

N.

In article >,
Nancy2 says...
>
> If heating destroyed all the harmful bacteria, then it would also destroy
> botulism...but it doesn't...explain that.

Not all bacteria are the same.

Heating to more than 185F, for more than 5 minutes, kills botulism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botulism

Heating to more than 131F for more than 90 minutes or to more than 140F
for more than 12 minutes kills salmonella.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salmonella

On 2016-10-30 6:05 PM, Bruce wrote:
> In article >,
> Nancy2 says...
>>
>> If heating destroyed all the harmful bacteria, then it would also destroy
>> botulism...but it doesn't...explain that.
>
> Not all bacteria are the same.
>
> Heating to more than 185F, for more than 5 minutes, kills botulism.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botulism

Read it again. Heating it to 185 for 5 minutes destroys the toxin that
is produced by the spore but not the organism itself. It is still there
so if conditions are right (or wrong?) it can produce more toxin.

In article >, Dave Smith says...
>
> On 2016-10-30 6:05 PM, Bruce wrote:
> > In article >,
> > Nancy2 says...
> >>
> >> If heating destroyed all the harmful bacteria, then it would also destroy
> >> botulism...but it doesn't...explain that.
> >
> > Not all bacteria are the same.
> >
> > Heating to more than 185F, for more than 5 minutes, kills botulism.
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botulism
>
> Read it again. Heating it to 185 for 5 minutes destroys the toxin that
> is produced by the spore but not the organism itself. It is still there
> so if conditions are right (or wrong?) it can produce more toxin.

I guess you'd have to eat it real fast!

On Sun, 30 Oct 2016 21:01:37 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>On 2016-10-30 6:05 PM, Bruce wrote:
>> In article >,
>> Nancy2 says...
>>>
>>> If heating destroyed all the harmful bacteria, then it would also destroy
>>> botulism...but it doesn't...explain that.
>>
>> Not all bacteria are the same.
>>
>> Heating to more than 185F, for more than 5 minutes, kills botulism.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botulism
>
>Read it again. Heating it to 185 for 5 minutes destroys the toxin that
>is produced by the spore but not the organism itself. It is still there
>so if conditions are right (or wrong?) it can produce more toxin.

One of the best and easiest ways to sanitize cooking/food prep
surfaces is to place items outdoors on a sunny day and let the sun's
UV rays do their thing... excellent for sanitizing cutting boards. I
have UV lamps inside my AC duct work, all the air in my house gets
sanitized 24/7, we very rarely get colds and then they're mild and
don't last long. I also use a UV lamp to sanitize all my domestic
water, excellent for preventing all sorts of infections, internal and
external... why make the OB-GYN and Dermatologist rich... the most
bacterial/viral laden source in your home is your hot water heater...
may as well bathe in a sceptic tank, may as well be drinking gutter
water. The bottled water yoose buy at the corner store is actually the
filthist water you can drink, even polluted from those fercoctah
plastic containers.

Brooklyn1 wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Oct 2016 21:01:37 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:
>
>>On 2016-10-30 6:05 PM, Bruce wrote:
>>> In article >,
>>> Nancy2 says...
>>>>
>>>> If heating destroyed all the harmful bacteria, then it would also destroy
>>>> botulism...but it doesn't...explain that.
>>>
>>> Not all bacteria are the same.
>>>
>>> Heating to more than 185F, for more than 5 minutes, kills botulism.
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botulism
>>
>>Read it again. Heating it to 185 for 5 minutes destroys the toxin that
>>is produced by the spore but not the organism itself. It is still there
>>so if conditions are right (or wrong?) it can produce more toxin.
>
> One of the best and easiest ways to sanitize cooking/food prep
> surfaces is to place items outdoors on a sunny day and let the sun's
> UV rays do their thing... excellent for sanitizing cutting boards. I
> have UV lamps inside my AC duct work, all the air in my house gets
> sanitized 24/7, we very rarely get colds and then they're mild and
> don't last long. I also use a UV lamp to sanitize all my domestic
> water, excellent for preventing all sorts of infections, internal and
> external... why make the OB-GYN and Dermatologist rich... the most
> bacterial/viral laden source in your home is your hot water heater...
> may as well bathe in a sceptic tank, may as well be drinking gutter
> water. The bottled water yoose buy at the corner store is actually the
> filthist water you can drink, even polluted from those fercoctah
> plastic containers.

do you deny women your essence?

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/

Janet

On 2016-10-31, Janet > wrote:

> says...

>> If heating destroyed all the harmful bacteria, then it would also destroy
>> botulism...but it doesn't

> It does.

Thnx Janet. It's amazing how many folks post on this newsgroup who
have no clue of WTF they're talking about!

Not only does heat destroy botulism, canneries routinely put live
botulism bacterium (and others) in specially marked cans, run 'em thru
the cook cycle, then check to see if all bacterium is COMPLETELY DEAD!
It's what determines cook temps/times are necessary to safely can food
products. Also note, "under low-oxygen conditions", like in canned
foods. And yes, having worked in a cannery, I've actually done this
test.

This is a non issue with a cast iron skillet, unless N2 wants to cook
on cast iron in a spaceship that's losing its life support.

nb

notbob wrote in rec.food.cooking:

> On 2016-10-31, Janet > wrote:
>
> > says...
>
> >> If heating destroyed all the harmful bacteria, then it would also
> destroy >> botulism...but it doesn't
>
> > It does.
>
> Thnx Janet. It's amazing how many folks post on this newsgroup who
> have no clue of WTF they're talking about!
>
> Not only does heat destroy botulism, canneries routinely put live
> botulism bacterium (and others) in specially marked cans, run 'em thru
> the cook cycle, then check to see if all bacterium is COMPLETELY DEAD!
> It's what determines cook temps/times are necessary to safely can food
> products. Also note, "under low-oxygen conditions", like in canned
> foods. And yes, having worked in a cannery, I've actually done this
> test.
>
> This is a non issue with a cast iron skillet, unless N2 wants to cook
> on cast iron in a spaceship that's losing its life support.
>
> nb

I found it rather amusing as well, and kinda sad but back when many of
us went to school, they didnt really teach the same things and some
didn't know to produce the toxins, the item has to be in a largely
anerobic situation (such as a can). Although the bacteria can
technically be on a cast iron skillet, they won't produce toxins
because the O2 exposure is like 500X the amount for that to happen.

--

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.

On Sun, 30 Oct 2016, Dave Smith wrote:

> On 2016-10-30 6:05 PM, Bruce wrote:
>> In article >,
>> Nancy2 says...
>>>
>>> If heating destroyed all the harmful bacteria, then it would also destroy
>>> botulism...but it doesn't...explain that.
>>
>> Not all bacteria are the same.
>>
>> Heating to more than 185F, for more than 5 minutes, kills botulism.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botulism
>
> Read it again. Heating it to 185 for 5 minutes destroys the toxin that is
> produced by the spore but not the organism itself. It is still there so if
> conditions are right (or wrong?) it can produce more toxin.
>

but a cast iron pan, with maybe some grease "seasoned" into it, isn't a
really hospitable place for much to grow on/in, in the first place.

On Mon, 31 Oct 2016, 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/

there's the bacterium, and then there's the toxin it produces, and of
note, if someone doesn't want to go to the factsheet, the bacteria grow in
low oxygen conditions as they are "anaerobes".

On 2016-10-31, cshenk > wrote:

> Although the bacteria can technically be on a cast iron skillet,
> they won't produce toxins because the O2 exposure is like 500X the
> amount for that to happen.

Hence, my silly spaceship scenario.

nb

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. "


https://www.fsai.ie/faqs/botulism.html#botulism6

"Does cooking kill Cl. botulinum and its toxin?
Normal thorough cooking (pasteurisation: 70°C 2min or equivalent) will
kill Cl.botulinum bacteria but not its spores. To kill the spores of
Cl.botulinum a sterilisation process equivalent to 121°C for 3 min is
required. The botulinum toxin itself is inactivated (denatured) rapidly
at temperatures greater than 80°C . "

Heat DOES destroy the bacteria, the toxin, and the spore.

In any case ,cooking fresh raw food in an open cast iron pan is never
going to create the conditions required to produce botulism.

Janet UK

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"

On 10/31/2016 1:50 PM, barbie gee wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 30 Oct 2016, Dave Smith wrote:
>
>> On 2016-10-30 6:05 PM, Bruce wrote:
>>> In article >,
>>> Nancy2 says...
>>>>
>>>> If heating destroyed all the harmful bacteria, then it would also
>>>> destroy
>>>> botulism...but it doesn't...explain that.
>>>
>>> Not all bacteria are the same.
>>>
>>> Heating to more than 185F, for more than 5 minutes, kills botulism.
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botulism
>>
>> Read it again. Heating it to 185 for 5 minutes destroys the toxin that
>> is produced by the spore but not the organism itself. It is still
>> there so if conditions are right (or wrong?) it can produce more toxin.
>>
>
> but a cast iron pan, with maybe some grease "seasoned" into it, isn't a
> really hospitable place for much to grow on/in, in the first place.

... except, perhaps, for a few carcinogens.

On 2016-10-31 3:50 PM, barbie gee wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 30 Oct 2016, Dave Smith wrote:
>
>> On 2016-10-30 6:05 PM, Bruce wrote:
>>> In article >,
>>> Nancy2 says...
>>>>
>>>> If heating destroyed all the harmful bacteria, then it would also
>>>> destroy
>>>> botulism...but it doesn't...explain that.
>>>
>>> Not all bacteria are the same.
>>>
>>> Heating to more than 185F, for more than 5 minutes, kills botulism.
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botulism
>>
>> Read it again. Heating it to 185 for 5 minutes destroys the toxin that
>> is produced by the spore but not the organism itself. It is still
>> there so if conditions are right (or wrong?) it can produce more toxin.
>>
>
> but a cast iron pan, with maybe some grease "seasoned" into it, isn't a
> really hospitable place for much to grow on/in, in the first place.


The spores are pretty small, so don't need much to live on. The spores
themselves are not toxic but heat destroys the toxins.

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.

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.

On 2016-10-31, graham > wrote:

> I see that those in a university are unaware of the correct word:
> "bacterium"

UNL. Nebraska? Whaja expect?

nb

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.

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?

On 10/31/2016 5:24 PM, Dave Smith wrote:

>>>
>> 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.

Would a single one make a good pet?

On 2016-10-31, Dave Smith > wrote:

> On 2016-10-31 5:41 PM, graham wrote:

>> But here they write of a single species.

> But not a single bacterium.

As I understand it, "bacterium" is a SINGLE species (singular). The
term "bacteria" (plural) refers to all them lil' squiggly "bacterium"
bastids.

Yes? No? Maybe?

Nevermind. Fight it out amongst yerselves:

http://hosbeg.com/bacteria-and-bacterium/

nb

On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 18:26:49 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

>On 10/31/2016 5:24 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
>
>>>>
>>> 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.
>
>Would a single one make a good pet?

Better than one that was married with kids.

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 10/31/2016 5:24 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
>
>>>>
>>> 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.
>
> Would a single one make a good pet?

I don't know why not - but tardigrades seem more cuddly

In article >,
says...
>
> On 10/31/2016 5:24 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
>
> >>>
> >> 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.
>
> Would a single one make a good pet?

Ideal for people living in a city high rise, like Trump Tower. I
recommend getting your pet tagged with a teensy GPS nanolocator so it
doesn't get lost when you're playing with it.

Janet UK

barbie gee wrote in rec.food.cooking:

>
>
> On Sun, 30 Oct 2016, Dave Smith wrote:
>
> > On 2016-10-30 6:05 PM, Bruce wrote:
> > > In article
> > > >, Nancy2
> > > says...
> > > >
> > > > If heating destroyed all the harmful bacteria, then it would
> > > > also destroy botulism...but it doesn't...explain that.
> > >
> > > Not all bacteria are the same.
> > >
> > > Heating to more than 185F, for more than 5 minutes, kills
> > > botulism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botulism
> >
> > Read it again. Heating it to 185 for 5 minutes destroys the toxin
> > that is produced by the spore but not the organism itself. It is
> > still there so if conditions are right (or wrong?) it can produce
> > more toxin.
> >
>
> but a cast iron pan, with maybe some grease "seasoned" into it, isn't
> a really hospitable place for much to grow on/in, in the first place.

Correct

--

tert in seattle wrote:
>
> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> > On 10/31/2016 5:24 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
> >
> >>>>
> >>> 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.
> >
> > Would a single one make a good pet?
>
> I don't know why not - but tardigrades seem more cuddly

Very interesting, tert-head. I had never heard of those but
looking them up was very interesting. I will read more about these
creatures.