Drinking Milk: Healthy or Not?

[xnebulalordx676]

Oh contraire there Lance...As far white blood cells being available to an udder yes they are present and present within milk. White blood cells are leukocytes. These are found with human breast milk as large component. These are also found within cows milk.

 

This one's easy to find a source on:

 

Infect Immun. 1980 May; 28(2): 314–318.

 

PMCID: PMC550935

Copyright notice

Bactericidal mechanisms of human breast milk leukocytes.

D F Johnson, G L France, D J Marmer, and R W Steele

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=550935

nebula

I suggest you do a bit of reading and research. Milk does not have white blood cells. The term 'white blood cell' is specific, and refers to specific types of cell found in blood. It is not part of milk.

[iNow]

Infect Immun. 1980 May; 28(2): 314–318.

 

PMCID: PMC550935

Copyright notice

Bactericidal mechanisms of human breast milk leukocytes.

D F Johnson, G L France, D J Marmer, and R W Steele

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=550935

 

I'm pretty sure this thread is not discussing the consumption of human breast milk.

[xnebulalordx676]

I'm sure your views don't like being challenge at all either. You so full of one liners and such a tool here running around spouting them.

I might be incorrect on some level about pus being a worry. I hope that pus is not the worry; but I choose not to place that within my body.

 

No actually I find this entire subject to be childish and you represent that with your rude comment rather well. Is something so far removed from the natural source good or bad? Most cases such is bad to ingest.

No thank you for reminding me to search hard for some findings I am able to provide some day

 

And ugh as for second post there...Human breast milk and cows milk both have the leukocytes so get real.

I postulate that your departure from this thread has more to do with the fact that you are a little kid who has said something which he cannot back up with real data, and that you've been openly challenged on that and still cannot support it. Either way, you're leaving is going to be appreciated by many here. Thanks!

[mooeypoo]

I'm sure your views don't like being challenge at all either. You so full of one liners and such a tool here running around spouting them.

I might be incorrect on some level about pus being a worry. I hope that pus is not the worry; but I choose not to place that within my body.

 

No actually I find this entire subject to be childish and you represent that with your rude comment rather well. Is something so far removed from the natural source good or bad? Most cases such is bad to ingest.

No thank you for reminding me to search hard for some findings I am able to provide some day

 

 

We've asked for references and you give us irrelevant ones. My initial question was about cow milk, not breast milk. Cow milk (that we drink) does not contain white bloodcells. iNow's response was relevant.

 

It wasn't rude, it was vigorous, as it SHOULD be in a scientific forum. I chose this forum to ask my question because I'm not interested in unfounded claims. I have enough of those at other sites, thank you. So when you make a claim, make sure you reference it and back it up. iNow pointed out that your references were outside of the subject asked, which they are. Stop being defensive and just give us other references that support your claim in cow milk.

 

And ugh as for second post there...Human breast milk and cows milk both have the leukocytes so get real.

A point that you have NOT substantiated, and is in NEED of evidence.

 

Either substantiate it or stop complaining we're asking for more evidence for your claims.

 

~moo

[SkepticLance]

I have to back up nebula on one point. He is wrong on a number of points, and talking about pus in milk, and talking about pasteurisation as if it is the same as cooking is definitely wrong. However, iNow was not correct to respond as he did. This is a place where a gentle correction is much better.

 

To say : "your departure from this thread has more to do with the fact that you are a little kid who has said something which he cannot back up" in my opinion is uncalled for and amounts to insult. Let's remain polite and use a more gentle correction when people post items that are not scientifically correct.

[imp]

Mooey, the ONE material in your milk which should be most troubling to you has not been mentioned: Strontium 90. When I was a kid growing up, in America, the news posted daily the average levels of Sr 90 in the local milk supply, and advised by age how much to drink, maximum. It is hard for me to believe that, knowing the persistence of Sr 90, it is no longer to be found in milk. Fact is, it couldn't be removed then, never was, and probably STILL can be found to some degree in our milk supply; no one worries about it anymore, sort of like mercury in tuna fish.

 

Sr 90 was produced in large quantities during the above-ground atomic bomb testing, which loaded the air currents circling the globe with various radioactive contaminants, Sr 90 being one of them. Fallout brought large amounts to earth, grazing milk cows ingested it with their food, and it presented in their milk because Strontium is so similar chemically to Calcium. Our bodies assimilate Strontium like they do Calcium, and distribute it in our bones, where it remains irradiating our cell structures for life.

 

Denial of it's presence there is a blatant lie. Question is, how much? If you fear the presence of unwanted materials within your body, get a copy of the book "Our Stolen Future", which illustrates very well how over 90% of ALL human beings inhabiting the earth today present detectable levels of the herbicide 2,4,-D in their bodies. 2,4,-D is chemically so similar to ESTROGEN, that the body picks it up and distributes it throughout. This one material ALONE has done irrepairable harm to humanity.

 

But, enjoy life! However much of it may remain. imp

[xnebulalordx676]

Used to sarcasm by now.

But I do have some supporting evidence now about the blood cells and whether they're there.

Cow milk that's drank either pasteurized or unpasteurized DOES contain white blood cells.

 

White blood cells = a leukocytes in blood stream or mammary glands and milk.

 

excerpt: "data presented show a highly significant increase in numbers of bovine milk leukocytes, obtained from mammary glands of 13 cows irritated by sterile distilled water"

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1319501

Can J Comp Med. 1970 July; 34(3): 261–264.

 

PMCID: PMC1319501

Copyright notice

Enhancement of Phagocytosis in Bovine Milk Leukocytes in vitro

F. H. S. Newbould

Dept. of Veterinary Microbiology and Immunology, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario.

 

That's all I want to share. When they state these as "milk leukocytes" that means found within milk.

[mooeypoo]

Mooey, the ONE material in your milk which should be most troubling to you has not been mentioned: Strontium 90. When I was a kid growing up, in America, the news posted daily the average levels of Sr 90 in the local milk supply, and advised by age how much to drink, maximum. It is hard for me to believe that, knowing the persistence of Sr 90, it is no longer to be found in milk. Fact is, it couldn't be removed then, never was, and probably STILL can be found to some degree in our milk supply; no one worries about it anymore, sort of like mercury in tuna fish.

 

Sr 90 was produced in large quantities during the above-ground atomic bomb testing, which loaded the air currents circling the globe with various radioactive contaminants, Sr 90 being one of them. Fallout brought large amounts to earth, grazing milk cows ingested it with their food, and it presented in their milk because Strontium is so similar chemically to Calcium. Our bodies assimilate Strontium like they do Calcium, and distribute it in our bones, where it remains irradiating our cell structures for life.

 

Denial of it's presence there is a blatant lie. Question is, how much? If you fear the presence of unwanted materials within your body, get a copy of the book "Our Stolen Future", which illustrates very well how over 90% of ALL human beings inhabiting the earth today present detectable levels of the herbicide 2,4,-D in their bodies. 2,4,-D is chemically so similar to ESTROGEN, that the body picks it up and distributes it throughout. This one material ALONE has done irrepairable harm to humanity.

 

But, enjoy life! However much of it may remain. imp

 

Look.. I don't ask for much, I ask for references and resources, for the very important reason that this subject is taken headon by multiple pseudoscience "causes", and I don't want to trust information over nothing.

 

You might be right. You might be wrong. The only way to judge is if you supply the evidence and reference what you're claiming.

[iNow]

However, iNow was not correct to respond as he did. This is a place where a gentle correction is much better.

 

To say : "your departure from this thread has more to do with the fact that you are a little kid who has said something which he cannot back up" in my opinion is uncalled for and amounts to insult. Let's remain polite and use a more gentle correction when people post items that are not scientifically correct.

 

I have asked you this at least twice already in other threads, but since you seem to have forgotten, I'll state it for a third.

 

Please don't truncate my words when arguing against me. I began the sentence you quoted with "I postulate," which dramatically changes the tone of my comment.

 

 

It's not about my post being right or wrong. It's about the fact that you didn't like my tone. I say, tough. Grow a pair. How's that for polite and gentle?

[mooeypoo]

 

excerpt: "data presented show a highly significant increase in numbers of bovine milk leukocytes, obtained from mammary glands of 13 cows irritated by sterile distilled water"

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1319501

Can J Comp Med. 1970 July; 34(3): 261–264.

 

PMCID: PMC1319501

Copyright notice

Enhancement of Phagocytosis in Bovine Milk Leukocytes in vitro

F. H. S. Newbould

Dept. of Veterinary Microbiology and Immunology, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario.

 

That's all I want to share. When they state these as "milk leukocytes" that means found within milk.

I'm not trying to be cynical when I say - thank you. Now I have something to read and verify, which is what I was looking for.

 

But if you do have more to share, I would request you do. It seems you're taking this more personally than it should be. I am not against you personally, I just don't trust your word for it, as I don't trust anyone's word for anything. I require reference and proof.. look up my nick and see my posts -- I require that from *everyone* on this forum.

 

As for iNow's response, I haven't seen whatever other response was before the one that is available at this moment above your previous post. If it was edited, I have no way of knowing what the previous one was, and by what I saw, I didn't think it was - in any means - rude. I thought the demand for proof was justified, as I demand the same. From everyone.

 

There's no need to go into personal defensiveness here.

[SkepticLance]

To imp

 

I have said before, and I will probably be forced to say again - a statement that food or anything in our environment contains something nasty is totally meaningless. For it to obtain meaning, you have to state :

1. How toxic is the nasty material?

2. How much of that nasty material is present.

In other words, quantify.

 

To simply state the fact that Strontium 90 is present in milk is absolutely and totally without meaning or significance. Radioactive materials are a part of our natural environment, and have been for billions of years. We, along with all other living things, have adaptations to cope. A 'small' increase in the presence of these radioactive materials in our bodies, in our food, water etc is something that has no health implications whatever.

 

It is only when the increase is sufficient to have adverse effects on health that it is worth dealing with. Otherwise, the information is just paranoid. If you want to bring up Sr90 or 2,4 D as topics, that is fine. Just make sure you quantify to give your assertions meaning.

 

Just to provide an example. Greenpeace have had an anti-dioxin campaign for a long time. One of the things they state is that human mother's milk contains dioxin. They are correct. It contains 0.1 parts per trillion. An absolute bloody miracle of science that we can measure something so utterly trivial.

 

The worst member of the dioxin family needs a person to ingest 20 parts per billion based on human body weight to have a 50% chance of killing him or her. To drink enough human milk to obtain that amount requires you to drink 200,000 times your body weight. Wow!

 

Unless you quantify your statements and show significance, then I for one will treat your observations with the disdain I treat Greenpeace statements about dioxin in mother's milk.

[xnebulalordx676]

Let me just say that I already know you require that from *everyone* on this forum. That's after all how a good and balanced scientist should operate. But If someone honestly can't see how I was stating that 'iNow' was being rude with asking me to leave with the foul manner and tone he used then someone's blind. (cough: mooey)

 

The justified demand for proof was not all he was swinging at me just then. As opposed to the subject of being at "all defensive" about being asked to provide sources; which I certainly don't mind doing. No I am not personal with that at all. I only don't get iNow. But I take it he's not all that mature if he likes insulting someone a bunch.

 

I try to find those references if I am able to find ones for the subject I am looking for to be able to state my point. I was not able to allocate those before now.

 

I certainly do differentiate between the two positions > rude vs. asked for references; even extensive references.

 

But I do not insult others like I have been done so. I do not even report others when there's the button to do so.

 

I can see however that I have wasted my time here on this thread anyhow. I should not post "clique" sites. I don't have time for this. So I'll try to avoid "clique" threads from now on.

 

Have fun with finding out more about milks properties and or safety. [This was alright practice for me to post elsewhere.] Cheers.

 

: As for iNow's response, I haven't seen whatever other response was before the one that is available at this moment above your previous post. If it was edited, I have no way of knowing what the previous one was, and by what I saw, I didn't think it was - in any means - rude. I thought the demand for proof was justified, as I demand the same. From everyone. There's no need to go into personal defensiveness here.

Edited October 6, 2008 by xnebulalordx676
merged posts

[iNow]

Wow. I'm an asshole. </epiphany>

[mooeypoo]

Let me just say that I already know you require that from *everyone* on this forum. That's after all how a good and balanced scientist should operate.

But If someone honestly can't see how I was stating that 'iNow' was being rude with asking me to leave with the foul manner and tone he used then someone's blind. (cough: mooey)

As opposed to being at all "personal" about being asked to provide sources; which I certainly don't mind doing. No I am not personal with that only I don't get iNow. But I take it he's not all that mature and likes insulting someone a bunch. I try to find those references if I am able to find ones for the subject I am looking for to be able to state my point. I was not able to allocate those before now.

I certainly do differentiate between the two positions > rude vs. asked for references, even extensive references. I do not insult others like I done so. I do not even report others when there's the button to do so.

 

I can see I have wasted my time here on this thread anyhow. I should not post "clique" sites. I don't have time for this. So I'll try to avoid "clique" threads from now on.

 

Have fun with finding out more about milks properties and or safety. This was alright practice for me to post elsewhere.

Okay let's knock off the personal issues here. I think I've already said that I might NOT HAVE SEEN whatever it is that I should've seen. And explained what I meant to say.

 

This is a science forum and my question was science based, in an effort to get SCIENTIFICALLY BASED ANSWER, not personal arguments over treatment.

 

Could we please just drop the personal issues here and go back to the debate at hand?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

What just happened?

 

Can we move back to the point now? Sources have been provided, so it's all good. If anyone has any problems with other people they can just talk to me about it.