Holy fucking shit, as if I needed any more reasons to stay out of the US

o wutta suprize amapedo n an00bis shown y dey both bettuh off ded not even belongin 2 live in dey own chithole country dis y dey famly n frenz wishn dem wyte trash pussycuck disgr8c 2 dey own races gon die asap so peeps can b happy smdh lol :jester:
 
you are fitting a hypothesis to the data. you are arguing that a linear increase in food production causes a non-linear or exponential increase in foodborne illness. citation desperately needed.

Where? I never made any claims that there would be an exponential increase. My argument is simply that a higher output of food results in a higher rate of foodborne illness.
 
Where? I never made any claims that there would be an exponential increase. My argument is simply that a higher output of food results in a higher rate of foodborne illness.

you understand that 1 in 100 is the same as 2 in 200 right? a "higher rate" means that you are talking about going from 1 in 100 to 2 in 100, not 2 in 200. if you're arguing 2 in 200 is different from 1 in 100, your argument is nonsensical. so you're either continuing to spew nonsense, or you're arguing for a non-linear relationship, pick one.
 
I would say it is the inverse. The higher intake of food = higher amount of illness :)

also rate is the wrong term, the rate shouldn't change. If anything with mass production the defect rate should reduce due to standardization/automation etc

but I 100% agree with you anyway b/c you are a good top tier poster
 
you understand that 1 in 100 is the same as 2 in 200 right? a "higher rate" means that you are talking about going from 1 in 100 to 2 in 100, not 2 in 200. if you're arguing 2 in 200 is different from 1 in 100, your argument is nonsensical. so you're either continuing to spew nonsense, or you're arguing for a non-linear relationship, pick one.

My mistake on poor word choice then. I was never trying to claim there would be a non-linear increase. My argument was that with a higher amount of food produced, it stands to reason that you would see a linear increase to the number of foodborne illness cases reported.
 
Along with that... the trend seems to be we spread it out further now.

That glass I have in my salmonella chicken is the same glass found in yours, 2000 miles apart
 
My argument was that with a higher amount of food produced, it stands to reason that you would see a linear increase to the number of foodborne illness cases reported.

tbh I think that is an incorrect assumption. In manufacturing, if you make more vehicles you have fewer failures. the more you do something the better you get and the more resources are put into perfecting it.

Most cases of 'food poisoning' are not due to food, they are due to its end product (shit) where people eat without washing their hands (especially those who eat with their hands) and they get gastro. They always blame the food tho.
 
indeed

ppl always blaming taco bell despite that THEY r the dirty ones who got themselves infected w/ bad hygiene
 
tbh I think that is an incorrect assumption. In manufacturing, if you make more vehicles you have fewer failures. the more you do something the better you get and the more resources are put into perfecting it.

depends, yes you can get better with experience but may still have an inefficient system

read up on six sigma
 
My mistake on poor word choice then. I was never trying to claim there would be a non-linear increase. My argument was that with a higher amount of food produced, it stands to reason that you would see a linear increase to the number of foodborne illness cases reported.

there wasn't a third option (you are arguing nonsense again).

your logic here is as follows:

A) All humans need food
B) Some humans get sick from food
Therefore) The more food produced, the more humans get sick

this is logically FALSE because there is no food production in the premises. a TRUE statement is "the more humans that exist, the more humans get sick" which although true, sounds like a dumb thing to say, doesn't it?

A) Some farms are large farms
B) Large farms cause more illness than small farms
Therefore) The more food produced, the more humans get sick

this is also logically FALSE because there is no association with type of farm and the total amount of food produced and statement B) requires empirical data. cite your source. the same for any of your waffly arguments. you are trying to induce logic ("it stands to reason") on easily falsifiable conclusions.

Fool said:
No, but more food production means a higher likelihood of foodborne illnesses.

likelihood/rate/probability/percentage. none of these terms care about the strict number of cases. you know what the words mean and you used them correctly and are trying to waffle

interesting how much you're willing to dig in instead of just giving up already. apparently it's not just a trump phenomenon for you
 
Last edited:
I'm not trying to waffle on anything, I'm not trying to dig in, I simply don't think I made the argument you're claiming I made, and if I inadvertently did it was not my intent. I recognize that everything you're stating is absolutely correct if I was making the argument you claim I'm making.
 
so.... their citation in the vid description does not claim 0 deaths in 2016. it claims 77 deaths due to salmonella in england and wales in 2008. it's also comparing rigorous data from the cdc which covers ALL foodborne illness to a "strategy" pamphlet by the UK food standards agency that covers 6 pathogens.

from the CDC study:


whoops, looks like they even pointed out highly suspect data likely behind whatever created that pamphlet LOOOOOL
Ummm.....


Salmonella Homepage | CDC

"CDC estimates Salmonella causes about 1.2 million illnesses, 23,000 hospitalizations, and 450 deaths in the United States every year. Food is the source for about 1 million of these illnesses."



UK report for England and Wales:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/711972/salmonella_data_2007_to_2016_may_2018.pdf

In 2016 (not 2008 btw): 8630 cases, 24 hospitalizations, 0 deaths

The US had 6 times the population, but 1000 times the number of hopsitalizations due to salmonella in 2016. Even if we grant Fool his "20 times the food produced" thing, that's way the fuck off the scale.


And then you have studies like this:

A survey of Salmonella enteritidis in spent hens and its relation to farming style in Hokkaido, Japan - ScienceDirect

From the three spent hen processing plants, samples of intestines and sera were collected from 740 birds presented for slaughter from 37 flocks of 22 layer hen farms. [...] Salmonellae were isolated from the birds of ten layer hen farms, all of these hens were raised in houses without windows and with automatic feeders. No isolations of salmonella were made from birds raised in houses with windows.
 
o wutta suprize amapedo n an00bis shown y dey both bettuh off ded not even belongin 2 live in dey own chithole country dis y dey famly n frenz wishn dem wyte trash pussycuck disgr8c 2 dey own races gon die asap so peeps can b happy smdh lol :jester:
 

this is not an original source nor does it provide a link to the original source, and is it not linked from the video. I don't know how to research illness data for the UK and the video is making claims that are not supported by its sources.

In 2016 (not 2008 btw): 8630 cases, 24 hospitalizations, 0 deaths

8630 laboratory confirmed cases. that is not an estimate of the number of actual cases. if you look at the CDC study itself:

We determined the proportion of illnesses ascertained through FoodNet that were caused by Campylobacter spp., Cryptosporidium spp., C. cayatanensis, L. monocytogenes, Salmonella spp., Shigella spp., STEC, Vibrio spp., and Y. enterocolitica that were also reported to FDOSS as outbreak associated and applied the inverse of this proportion, 25.5, to those pathogens (Technical Appendix 4).

if you open up technical appendix 4, page 3, table 1: number of NNDSS reported illnesses for salmonella for 8 years was 349k. 349k/8 = 43k lab confirmed cases of salmonella per year (reported to the national db), a better per capita number than the 8630 you cite for the UK. however, reported cases are not representative of reality for which the cdc study went through great pains to estimate.

The US had 6 times the population, but 1000 times the number of hopsitalizations due to salmonella in 2016. Even if we grant Fool his "20 times the food produced" thing, that's way the fuck off the scale.

but you're an idiot because you're comparing 0 confirmed deaths and 24 confirmed hospitalizations BASED ONLY ON LAB REPORTS ONLY DURING OUTBREAKS to the ENTIRE ESTIMATE FOR ALL CASES IN THE US. try reading page 11 again from your source with an iq higher than 65. hint: notice how the "total affected" count of 507 doesn't line up anywhere near to the 8630 total lab confirmations?

this is like fucking saying the UK has less cases of salmonella diagnosed at 2pm on wednesdays than the US does for the entire week and acting like you've won an argument. for fuck's sake
 
Amadeus getting bitch slapped as usual. About to disappear for a while is my guess.
 
animals exist 2 b eaten tbh

Yeah but they should be treated nicely before we kill em and grill em

As I continue to be intrigued with discoveries in evolution, it amazes me how close we are to the animals we eat. I do not think it is right to cause pain and suffering to these animals. And clearly they can feel pain and suffering. If we are in charge of raising these animals for food, then as human beings we should make sure they have a decent life before the slaughter.
 
Back
Top