Community Chat

[scotttie]

On 7/7/2014 dooBdoo said:

On 7/7/2014 scotttie said:

On 7/7/2014 dooBdoo said:

1 - washing/rinsing raw chicken doesn’t remove the dangerous bacteria<br /> 2 - washing/rinsing raw chicken <em>does</em> splatter tiny droplets in the surrounding area, including the clothing, the person’s face/arms, etc.<br /> 3 - no one can always know where the droplets went, so they can’t always apply bleach in all those areas<br /> 4 - and the raw chicken, meanwhile, still has the bacteria on it<br /> <br /> As I said before, I’ve talked about this with professionals at various hospitals, watched their presentations. A couple of my friends (the husband is the chief M.D. in the ER at our largest hospital, his wife is a scrub nurse there) are gourmet chefs, and they cringe at the old ideas about “washing” raw chicken. I’ll go with that, and with the recommendations of those wacky scientists and researchers at places like the CDC rather than the opinion pieces on various blogs.

I have no idea why anyone would do otherwise, but I do feel it’s a part of the odd trend to reject science. However, in this case, since this extra step in handling the raw meat doesn’t even rid it of bacteria… I really don’t comprehend the determination to follow old ideas.

Lumming's article was from the CDC.

Hi, Scottie! Actually it's an opinion piece on a coupon website. Someone's interpretation of what they read from sources like the CDC and others.

I see that now. However, it agrees with much of what you are saying.

I hope you read it.

[dooBdoo]

On 7/7/2014 scotttie said:

On 7/7/2014 dooBdoo said:

On 7/7/2014 scotttie said:

On 7/7/2014 dooBdoo said:

1 - washing/rinsing raw chicken doesn’t remove the dangerous bacteria

2 - washing/rinsing raw chicken <em>does</em> splatter tiny droplets in the surrounding area, including the clothing, the person’s face/arms, etc.

3 - no one can always know where the droplets went, so they can’t always apply bleach in all those areas

4 - and the raw chicken, meanwhile, still has the bacteria on it

As I said before, I’ve talked about this with professionals at various hospitals, watched their presentations. A couple of my friends (the husband is the chief M.D. in the ER at our largest hospital, his wife is a scrub nurse there) are gourmet chefs, and they cringe at the old ideas about “washing” raw chicken. I’ll go with that, and with the recommendations of those wacky scientists and researchers at places like the CDC rather than the opinion pieces on various blogs.

I have no idea why anyone would do otherwise, but I do feel it’s a part of the odd trend to reject science. However, in this case, since this extra step in handling the raw meat doesn’t even rid it of bacteria… I really don’t comprehend the determination to follow old ideas.

Lumming's article was from the CDC.

Hi, Scottie! Actually it's an opinion piece on a coupon website. Someone's interpretation of what they read from sources like the CDC and others.

I see that now. However, it agrees with much of what you are saying.

I hope you read it.

I did read it. Otherwise, I wouldn't have commented on it.

[scotttie]

On 7/7/2014 dooBdoo said:

On 7/7/2014 scotttie said:

On 7/7/2014 dooBdoo said:

On 7/7/2014 scotttie said:

On 7/7/2014 dooBdoo said:

1 - washing/rinsing raw chicken doesn’t remove the dangerous bacteria

2 - washing/rinsing raw chicken <em>does</em> splatter tiny droplets in the surrounding area, including the clothing, the person’s face/arms, etc.

3 - no one can always know where the droplets went, so they can’t always apply bleach in all those areas

4 - and the raw chicken, meanwhile, still has the bacteria on it

As I said before, I’ve talked about this with professionals at various hospitals, watched their presentations. A couple of my friends (the husband is the chief M.D. in the ER at our largest hospital, his wife is a scrub nurse there) are gourmet chefs, and they cringe at the old ideas about “washing” raw chicken. I’ll go with that, and with the recommendations of those wacky scientists and researchers at places like the CDC rather than the opinion pieces on various blogs.

I have no idea why anyone would do otherwise, but I do feel it’s a part of the odd trend to reject science. However, in this case, since this extra step in handling the raw meat doesn’t even rid it of bacteria… I really don’t comprehend the determination to follow old ideas.

Lumming's article was from the CDC.

Hi, Scottie! Actually it's an opinion piece on a coupon website. Someone's interpretation of what they read from sources like the CDC and others.

I see that now. However, it agrees with much of what you are saying.

I hope you read it.

I did read it. Otherwise, I wouldn't have commented on it.

Well your "dismissive" tone in this comment from your post above

QUOTE I’ll go with that, and with the recommendations of those wacky scientists and researchers at places like the CDC rather than the opinion pieces on various blogs. END QUOTE

Led me to believe you hadn't read it. Since it pretty much was agreeing with your points.

No probs!

I appreciate Noel posting the info about the recall.

As for whether or not to wash raw chicken. To each his own.

[raven-blackbird]

On 7/7/2014 dooBdoo said:

On 7/7/2014 scotttie said:

<br /> Lumming's article was from the CDC.

Hi, Scottie! Actually it's an opinion piece on a coupon website. Someone's interpretation of what they read from sources like the CDC and others.

ummmmmmmm not it's not, it's an article from Medical News Today.......now that other site may have copied and pasted it to their site............gee where have we seen that done..................by the way I put "opinion piece right along there next to troll................................................raven

[dooBdoo]

On 7/7/2014 scotttie said:

On 7/7/2014 dooBdoo said:

On 7/7/2014 scotttie said:

On 7/7/2014 dooBdoo said:

On 7/7/2014 scotttie said:

On 7/7/2014 dooBdoo said:

1 - washing/rinsing raw chicken doesn’t remove the dangerous bacteria

2 - washing/rinsing raw chicken <em>does</em> splatter tiny droplets in the surrounding area, including the clothing, the person’s face/arms, etc.

3 - no one can always know where the droplets went, so they can’t always apply bleach in all those areas

4 - and the raw chicken, meanwhile, still has the bacteria on it

As I said before, I’ve talked about this with professionals at various hospitals, watched their presentations. A couple of my friends (the husband is the chief M.D. in the ER at our largest hospital, his wife is a scrub nurse there) are gourmet chefs, and they cringe at the old ideas about “washing” raw chicken. I’ll go with that, and with the recommendations of those wacky scientists and researchers at places like the CDC rather than the opinion pieces on various blogs.

I have no idea why anyone would do otherwise, but I do feel it’s a part of the odd trend to reject science. However, in this case, since this extra step in handling the raw meat doesn’t even rid it of bacteria… I really don’t comprehend the determination to follow old ideas.

Lumming's article was from the CDC.

Hi, Scottie! Actually it's an opinion piece on a coupon website. Someone's interpretation of what they read from sources like the CDC and others.

I see that now. However, it agrees with much of what you are saying.

I hope you read it.

I did read it. Otherwise, I wouldn't have commented on it.

Well your "dismissive" tone in this comment from your post above

QUOTE I’ll go with that, and with the recommendations of those wacky scientists and researchers at places like the CDC rather than the opinion pieces on various blogs. END QUOTE

Led me to believe you hadn't read it. Since it pretty much was agreeing with your points.

No probs!

I appreciate Noel posting the info about the recall.

As for whether or not to wash raw chicken. To each his own.

Sorry you read my tone as dismissive, because that's not my posting style.

Such is the problem of the written word, however. I was just being silly about the way some people like to read (and follow) the advice of opinion pieces of various blogs.

[raven-blackbird]

On 7/7/2014 dooBdoo said:

.

Sorry you read my tone as dismissive, because that's not my posting style.

Such is the problem of the written word, however. I was just being silly about the way some people like to read (and follow) the advice of opinion pieces of various blogs.

actually you are being quite dismissive......................................raven

[dooBdoo]

On 7/7/2014 raven-blackbird said:

On 7/7/2014 dooBdoo said:

On 7/7/2014 scotttie said:

<br /> Lumming's article was from the CDC.

Hi, Scottie! Actually it's an opinion piece on a coupon website. Someone's interpretation of what they read from sources like the CDC and others.

ummmmmmmm not it's not, it's an article from Medical News Today.......now that other site may have copied and pasted it to their site............gee where have we seen that done..................by the way I put "opinion piece right along there next to troll................................................raven

I didn't see any credits for another author, just some sources cited (listed at the bottom), so perhaps they did a cut-and-paste and added their own comments also. As for opinion pieces, they can be very different from scientific or carefully researched articles. But then, I come from both an arts and a science background, so I can appreciate both. That's why we all (including moi) have to be careful when we read from the Internet.

[dooBdoo]

On 7/7/2014 raven-blackbird said:

On 7/7/2014 dooBdoo said:

Sorry you read my tone as dismissive, because that's not my posting style.

Such is the problem of the written word, however. I was just being silly about the way some people like to read (and follow) the advice of opinion piece<em>s</em> of various blog<em>s</em>.

actually you are being quite dismissive......................................raven

That's your opinion (which is wrong -- I know my intent better than you, but remember you said on the "tr*ll" thread that we can't determine another person's intent). Now, you could say you "heard it as dismissive," for example. Over that, I have no control. Anyway, it's your opinion and mine, and remember also what you said: "we know what they say about opinions."

[raven-blackbird]

On 7/7/2014 dooBdoo said:

On 7/7/2014 raven-blackbird said:

On 7/7/2014 dooBdoo said:

On 7/7/2014 scotttie said:

<br /> Lumming's article was from the CDC.

Hi, Scottie! Actually it's an opinion piece on a coupon website. Someone's interpretation of what they read from sources like the CDC and others.

ummmmmmmm not it's not, it's an article from Medical News Today.......now that other site may have copied and pasted it to their site............gee where have we seen that done..................by the way I put "opinion piece right along there next to troll................................................raven

I didn't see any credits for another author, just some sources cited (listed at the bottom), so perhaps they did a cut-and-paste and added their own comments also. As for opinion pieces, they can be very different from scientific or carefully researched articles. But then, I come from both an arts and a science background, so I can appreciate both. That's why we all (including moi) have to be careful when we read from the Internet.

then get the information from the FDA......you know those crazy bloggers.............raven

http://www.fda.gov/forconsumers/consumerupdates/ucm092815.htm

[scotttie]

The bottom line is the article in question pretty much agreed with your POV DooB. So, I don't get you disdain for it.