Your bi-monthly reminder that just because you're a nerd, it doesn't make you smart:

Xprimentyl

Made you look...
Legacy
Aug 13, 2011
6,295
4,581
118
Plano, TX
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Gethsemani said:
It is good to know that modern man in some ways is more ignorant than people that lived in the literal dark ages...
More proof that Idiocracy isn?t so much a cult comedy as it is a prophetical documentary. That Juicero douche bag Doug Evans is on board, and there exist people who still think it?s a good idea?!? Dysentery FTW; take them ALL out before they reproduce and shit the gene pool?
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,214
5,875
118
Country
United Kingdom
I bloody hate this notion that consuming untreated food or drink conveys some kind of health benefit. It's wholly unscientific, based on essentially meaningless language, and preys on the gullible.

Pasteurisation is good. Genetic modification is fine. Water treatment is borderline essential. The only reason so many people have been duped into thinking otherwise is that these terms sound vaguely sciency, and there exists an irrational fear of complex artificial involvement in the food-making process.
 

Chewster

It's yer man Chewy here!
Apr 24, 2008
1,050
0
0
I think that Silicon Valley the TV show does a good job of exposing this sort of bizarre space that the tech industry inhabits. It's filled with nerds who want to make the world a better place but only in their way and only by them and usually to the detriment of a lot of small people or those not in the industry.

It's basically a neo-liberal hell filled with weirdos and new age hippies. I could see Gavin Belson drinking this stuff.
 

Leg End

Romans 12:18
Oct 24, 2010
2,948
58
53
Country
United States
This is at least less retarded than the juicer I can outdo by man-hugging the packets.
 

Gethsemani_v1legacy

New member
Oct 1, 2009
2,552
0
0
Silvanus said:
I bloody hate this notion that consuming untreated food or drink conveys some kind of health benefit. It's wholly unscientific, based on essentially meaningless language, and preys on the gullible.

Pasteurisation is good. Genetic modification is fine. Water treatment is borderline essential. The only reason so many people have been duped into thinking otherwise is that these terms sound vaguely sciency, and there exists an irrational fear of complex artificial involvement in the food-making process.
There's a Swedish psychiatrist that's gone into b-list fame in Sweden by writing book about society, his most notable one being about how the Swedish people (applicable to most of the West really) has become safety addicts. His basic hypothesis is that since there are no real dangers in modern society, we don't have epidemics that kill millions, starvation, long, bloody wars etc., our psyche gets a little mixed up, since it is evolved to constantly find and react to dangers. The end result is that we over-value low key threats like food additives that can potentially give us cancer if over consumed for decades, and obsess about them the way you'd expect a farmer with a bad harvest to obsess over the coming winter.

I'm not sure how much I agree with him, but it is an interesting hypothesis when put in the context of something like Raw Water. This is something that can be actually dangerous, marketed to people who are convinced that water purification, flouride and trace amounts of pharmaceuticals in tap water is dangerous despite decades of experience to the contrary.
 

Chimpzy_v1legacy

Warning! Contains bananas!
Jun 21, 2009
4,789
1
0
Gethsemani said:
Here's a fun bit of trivia: Prior to the advent of modern plumbing and tap water the most common drinks in the Western World were beer and wine (depending on if you lived in Northern/Central Europe, America or Southern Europe). This was the case from Antiquity up to the early-20th century. The reason people choose to go around being drunk all the time and eventually suffering from liver cirrhosis was that drinking water straight from natural water sources was always a gamble with a bunch of nasty diseases and intestinal parasites (and the concept of boiling water was not well understood).
Thaluikhain said:
Baffle2 said:
I was bored and had a look into the whole 'people in the Middle Ages didn't drink water' thing. Apparently that is indeed exaggerated.

While it is true that beer and wine were staple drinks, depending on which region you lived in, people commonly drank water all throughout history.

Most of it would've been well water i.e. ground water, which is relatively safe to drink since the soil serves as a natural filter. Wells are more likely to be contaminated from the surface than bottom up, so unless the soil itself was already contaminated to begin with, a well-placed and well-maintained well should provide drinkable water.[footnote]Fun fact, ground water is the largest source of drinkable water in the US and there are still many people who rely on wells for their drinking water in developing countries.[/footnote]

They may not have known about pathogens back then, but they did understand the importance of clean wells. Purposefully contaminating wells was a common scorched earth tactic in warfare since at least ancient times and some places apparently had local laws prohibiting outsiders from using wells. And at the very least, people knew not to drink dirty, bad-smelling water unless absolutely necessary for survival. There are also sources of historical medical authorities like Pliny and Paulus recommending boiling bad water or adding wine to make it safer, indicating at least educated people knew it helped even if they didn't know why.

However, people of all social classes did commonly drink beer, wine or mead. The beer they drank wasn't what we know today, but 'small beer', a beverage made in the same way as beer but with much lower alcohol content, and favored because it was a lot cheaper than a true beer. It was drank by men, women and children alike. In regions where grapes were grown, people, at least the more well-off ones, commonly drank wine instead. They often did water it down with up to 4 or 5 parts water to one part wine to offset the heavy alcohol consumption. Combined with the weak small beer, this indicates that, no, they didn't go around drunk all the time.

Some historical sources did recommend drinking beer or wine over water for better health, some indeed because it was deemed safer, but also because they were considered more nourishing. Which is true, since beer and wine contain at calories, while water doesn't, and of course they contain other nutritious stuff which water doesn't as well.

But, there were just as many sources listing water as a preferred drink, even over beer and wine. It was also a common practice at the time to punish monks with a diet of bread and water, which would've been pretty sadistic if they believed water caused disease, especially since monks would be some of the most educated people around and thus more likely to know. In any case, few, if any, sources advocated against drinking clean water.

Of course, the above mostly covers Medieval Europe. I didn't look into other parts of the world. People in Asia (and later the Middle East, then Europe) probably drank tea, but that in itself doesn't mean they didn't drink water.

Anyway, you guys will probably want a source. I checked a lot of them, but kinda forgot to keep most of them.

I still have the most important one tho.

It covers most of what I said. It's from Jim Chevallier, a historian specialized in food and comes with its own bibliography of sources. I have no reason to believe it isn't reputable.

I hope this helps.
 

Baffle

Elite Member
Oct 22, 2016
3,465
2,747
118
Chimpzy said:
However, people of all social classes did commonly drink beer, wine or mead. The beer they drank wasn't what we know today, but 'small beer', a beverage made in the same way as beer but with much lower alcohol content
I believe (this is based on things I've read as a brewer in brewing-related rather than historical reading, so possibly incorrect) 'small beer' is the beer made with the second sparging of the brewing grains (the 'mash'). The majority of sugars come out in the release of the liqor (I forget the correct term for this) and the first sparging; the second sparging has a much higher water to sugars ratio (because most sugar is already gone), so the beer is necessarily weaker. It's like watering beer down before you make it I guess.

I think small beer would taste pretty bad, but would still have the benefit of having been boiled. It was probably about as alcoholic as Top Deck.
 

Chimpzy_v1legacy

Warning! Contains bananas!
Jun 21, 2009
4,789
1
0
Baffle2 said:
Chimpzy said:
However, people of all social classes did commonly drink beer, wine or mead. The beer they drank wasn't what we know today, but 'small beer', a beverage made in the same way as beer but with much lower alcohol content
I believe (this is based on things I've read as a brewer in brewing-related rather than historical reading, so possibly incorrect) 'small beer' is the beer made with the second sparging of the brewing grains (the 'mash'). The majority of sugars come out in the release of the liqor (I forget the correct term for this) and the first sparging; the second sparging has a much higher water to sugars ratio (because most sugar is already gone), so the beer is necessarily weaker. It's like watering beer down before you make it I guess.

I think small beer would taste pretty bad, but would still have the benefit of having been boiled. It was probably about as alcoholic as Top Deck.
Yes, that's right, beer made with the second runnings of a strong beer was small beer, and one way of making it, in particular on the British Isles and then later their colonies. As far as I know tho, small beer could refer to any weak beer. In some regions, it also referred to beers with little added hops.

Small beer generally had less than 1% alcohol content, so yes, kind of like Top Deck or other similar shandies.
 

Pseudonym

Regular Member
Legacy
Feb 26, 2014
802
8
13
Country
Nederland
Silvanus said:
I bloody hate this notion that consuming untreated food or drink conveys some kind of health benefit. It's wholly unscientific, based on essentially meaningless language, and preys on the gullible.

Pasteurisation is good. Genetic modification is fine. Water treatment is borderline essential. The only reason so many people have been duped into thinking otherwise is that these terms sound vaguely sciency, and there exists an irrational fear of complex artificial involvement in the food-making process.
Well, there is the common trope of humanity not knowing what it's doing and harming itself in the process. Natural apples or food that has been eaten for centuries just seems safer. Add to that that contradictory studies into food and health get reported on without the context of the overal field and the relevant metastudies. Add to that the people who lie about this issue or use meaningless gibberish in their commercials and I understand that people don't really know what to believe anymore. There is a fuckton of advice about food out there based on all kinds of considerations (health, environment, labour conditions, animal welfare) and to be honest, I don't always know what to make of it all either.

That said, drinking "raw" water just sounds rather dumb.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
18,715
3,597
118
Chimpzy said:
Gethsemani said:
Here's a fun bit of trivia: Prior to the advent of modern plumbing and tap water the most common drinks in the Western World were beer and wine (depending on if you lived in Northern/Central Europe, America or Southern Europe). This was the case from Antiquity up to the early-20th century. The reason people choose to go around being drunk all the time and eventually suffering from liver cirrhosis was that drinking water straight from natural water sources was always a gamble with a bunch of nasty diseases and intestinal parasites (and the concept of boiling water was not well understood).
Thaluikhain said:
Baffle2 said:
I was bored and had a look into the whole 'people in the Middle Ages didn't drink water' thing. Apparently that is indeed exaggerated.

While it is true that beer and wine were staple drinks, depending on which region you lived in, people commonly drank water all throughout history.

Most of it would've been well water i.e. ground water, which is relatively safe to drink since the soil serves as a natural filter. Wells are more likely to be contaminated from the surface than bottom up, so unless the soil itself was already contaminated to begin with, a well-placed and well-maintained well should provide drinkable water.[footnote]Fun fact, ground water is the largest source of drinkable water in the US and there are still many people who rely on wells for their drinking water in developing countries.[/footnote]

They may not have known about pathogens back then, but they did understand the importance of clean wells. Purposefully contaminating wells was a common scorched earth tactic in warfare since at least ancient times and some places apparently had local laws prohibiting outsiders from using wells. And at the very least, people knew not to drink dirty, bad-smelling water unless absolutely necessary for survival. There are also sources of historical medical authorities like Pliny and Paulus recommending boiling bad water or adding wine to make it safer, indicating at least educated people knew it helped even if they didn't know why.

However, people of all social classes did commonly drink beer, wine or mead. The beer they drank wasn't what we know today, but 'small beer', a beverage made in the same way as beer but with much lower alcohol content, and favored because it was a lot cheaper than a true beer. It was drank by men, women and children alike. In regions where grapes were grown, people, at least the more well-off ones, commonly drank wine instead. They often did water it down with up to 4 or 5 parts water to one part wine to offset the heavy alcohol consumption. Combined with the weak small beer, this indicates that, no, they didn't go around drunk all the time.

Some historical sources did recommend drinking beer or wine over water for better health, some indeed because it was deemed safer, but also because they were considered more nourishing. Which is true, since beer and wine contain at calories, while water doesn't, and of course they contain other nutritious stuff which water doesn't as well.

But, there were just as many sources listing water as a preferred drink, even over beer and wine. It was also a common practice at the time to punish monks with a diet of bread and water, which would've been pretty sadistic if they believed water caused disease, especially since monks would be some of the most educated people around and thus more likely to know. In any case, few, if any, sources advocated against drinking clean water.

Of course, the above mostly covers Medieval Europe. I didn't look into other parts of the world. People in Asia (and later the Middle East, then Europe) probably drank tea, but that in itself doesn't mean they didn't drink water.

Anyway, you guys will probably want a source. I checked a lot of them, but kinda forgot to keep most of them.

I still have the most important one tho.

It covers most of what I said. It's from Jim Chevallier, a historian specialized in food and comes with its own bibliography of sources. I have no reason to believe it isn't reputable.

I hope this helps.
Thanks, that's quite informative.

Silvanus said:
I bloody hate this notion that consuming untreated food or drink conveys some kind of health benefit. It's wholly unscientific, based on essentially meaningless language, and preys on the gullible.

Pasteurisation is good. Genetic modification is fine. Water treatment is borderline essential. The only reason so many people have been duped into thinking otherwise is that these terms sound vaguely sciency, and there exists an irrational fear of complex artificial involvement in the food-making process.
Yes, though perhaps it's indicative that this is a fad amongst the rich. Poor people get stuck with unsafe water, rich people can play with it in the knowledge that they are better equipped to cope with illness.

...

As an aside, one way of disinfected water is by UV light, either from sunlight (hours of exposure in a transparent bottle, say) or from an artificial source. Nevermind vampies, humans can fight one of their oldest enemies that way.

(Though boiling has the advantage that you can see the water boil and know it's working, you can't really see the UV doing it's work)
 

Addendum_Forthcoming

Queen of the Edit
Feb 4, 2009
3,647
0
0
Chimpzy said:
Addendum_Forthcoming said:
"Medium-rare Copper Water" ...

Our water has been hand-scooped and distilled at our laboratories, heated carefullly through electrically charged metal drums and hosing to allow maximum metal ionization before being pressurized to perfection for sensual molecular agitation and partial electrolysis.
Should sell like gangbusters. How could it not when you word it so eloquently?
What can I say? I have a talent at being a scumlady and conning people out of money.

It's a gift.
 

CaitSeith

Formely Gone Gonzo
Legacy
Jun 30, 2014
5,354
370
88
"Tap water? You're drinking toilet water with birth control drugs in them. Chloramine, and on top of that they're putting in fluoride. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but it's a mind-control drug that has no benefit to our dental health."


Calling him a conspiracy theorist would be an insult to the conspiracy theorists all around the globe. I love the choice of words "birth control drugs" (it certainly shows who are his target suckers).
 

Gordon_4_v1legacy

New member
Aug 22, 2010
2,577
0
0
Addendum_Forthcoming said:
Chimpzy said:
Addendum_Forthcoming said:
"Medium-rare Copper Water" ...

Our water has been hand-scooped and distilled at our laboratories, heated carefullly through electrically charged metal drums and hosing to allow maximum metal ionization before being pressurized to perfection for sensual molecular agitation and partial electrolysis.
Should sell like gangbusters. How could it not when you word it so eloquently?
What can I say? I have a talent at being a scumlady and conning people out of money.

It's a gift.
I swear man, you?re like Colonel Hogan.
 

Addendum_Forthcoming

Queen of the Edit
Feb 4, 2009
3,647
0
0
Chimpzy said:
I was bored and had a look into the whole 'people in the Middle Ages didn't drink water' thing. Apparently that is indeed exaggerated.

While it is true that beer and wine were staple drinks, depending on which region you lived in, people commonly drank water all throughout history.

Most of it would've been well water i.e. ground water, which is relatively safe to drink since the soil serves as a natural filter. Wells are more likely to be contaminated from the surface than bottom up, so unless the soil itself was already contaminated to begin with, a well-placed and well-maintained well should provide drinkable water.[footnote]Fun fact, ground water is the largest source of drinkable water in the US and there are still many people who rely on wells for their drinking water in developing countries.[/footnote]

They may not have known about pathogens back then, but they did understand the importance of clean wells. Purposefully contaminating wells was a common scorched earth tactic in warfare since at least ancient times and some places apparently had local laws prohibiting outsiders from using wells. And at the very least, people knew not to drink dirty, bad-smelling water unless absolutely necessary for survival. There are also sources of historical medical authorities like Pliny and Paulus recommending boiling bad water or adding wine to make it safer, indicating at least educated people knew it helped even if they didn't know why.

However, people of all social classes did commonly drink beer, wine or mead. The beer they drank wasn't what we know today, but 'small beer', a beverage made in the same way as beer but with much lower alcohol content, and favored because it was a lot cheaper than a true beer. It was drank by men, women and children alike. In regions where grapes were grown, people, at least the more well-off ones, commonly drank wine instead. They often did water it down with up to 4 or 5 parts water to one part wine to offset the heavy alcohol consumption. Combined with the weak small beer, this indicates that, no, they didn't go around drunk all the time.

Some historical sources did recommend drinking beer or wine over water for better health, some indeed because it was deemed safer, but also because they were considered more nourishing. Which is true, since beer and wine contain at calories, while water doesn't, and of course they contain other nutritious stuff which water doesn't as well.

But, there were just as many sources listing water as a preferred drink, even over beer and wine. It was also a common practice at the time to punish monks with a diet of bread and water, which would've been pretty sadistic if they believed water caused disease, especially since monks would be some of the most educated people around and thus more likely to know. In any case, few, if any, sources advocated against drinking clean water.

Of course, the above mostly covers Medieval Europe. I didn't look into other parts of the world. People in Asia (and later the Middle East, then Europe) probably drank tea, but that in itself doesn't mean they didn't drink water.

Anyway, you guys will probably want a source. I checked a lot of them, but kinda forgot to keep most of them.

I still have the most important one tho.

It covers most of what I said. It's from Jim Chevallier, a historian specialized in food and comes with its own bibliography of sources. I have no reason to believe it isn't reputable.

I hope this helps.
Yeah... to highlight this point, poor people still drank water... and the fact of the matter is what constituted 'wine' and ale was often watered down to begin with during the brewing process. Educated people in the brewing and vintner (and jam makers) industry already knew the health and safety benefits of boiling. Effectively people in places like Aragon and Valencia used to label 'wine' for paupers that was effectively the liquidy mush from grapes during the vinting process mixed with cheap juice products snd pulp from oranges and the like (old sangria) ... which traditionally relied on naturally aging and fermentation before boiling in enclosed vats and being barreled.

The reason why Northern Europeans traditionally boil the living shit out of things in their cooking.

Give a cauliflower to a German or Briton or a Scandinavian and it's fucking mush by the time they get through with it. Protip Europeans... when you blanche something, despite its namesake that doesn't mean boil the fucking colour out of something till it's paste.

Anyways ... Essentially you bring your own drinking vessel ... pay a weekly stipend to the keep and dunk it into these barrels filled with pureed liquidy mush.

Stuff like was also considered 'wine' ...

And you were liable to fill your gut before getting tanked.


Which assisted with giving Europeans both vitamins, something to dunk rye bread into, and with a few siddlings of charred meat or the like gave the pauper what they needed to keep enduring 6 months of hard labour and 3 months light duties. The idea that Europeans didn't drink water is a trope that needs to die...

Certainly they couldn't trust open sources of water, but poor people still drank extensively from wells... because so do poor villages in places like India now. Groundwater is all they have... Which is why when they are contaminated it begins to significantly impact a community in the late modern world. Port Jackson colonists in Australia largely emptied and polluted the Tank Stream they habitually accessed in a matter of two decades. Necessitating large geo-exploratory efforts to find a new water source and ways to channel away wastewater from contaminating it. They didn't just drink ale and wine.

Freshwater, whether now or 2000 years ago, is lifeblood.