A Concerned Scientist @BE@qoto.org

@ScienceCommunicator

Every person saying something is a lottery ticket, agreed.

@ScienceCommunicator

Normally I'd tell you to find it yourself, especially because we've discussed this, but I typo'd that. "14%" is what I was referencing and it's well cited Ipsos study that looked at people who claimed to understand and believe in climate science, but only 1 in 7 would actually do things like stop flying to help. This is because what people "understand" about climate change is that if they have some solar panels, recycle and maybe buy an EV eventually that everything will be fine. When told "Actually, you need to do more than that" very few people are on board.

If you want to blame this on scientists for not controlling the narrative then you've lost the narrative. That's all. There's plenty of scientists who are damn near suicidal that no one's listened for decades.

If I do a study, on, say, PFAs in water and the people who fund it decide to bury it, that's out of my control.

If I do a study that shows a certain polluter is wrecking waterway, and it gets published, a PR piece goes out, and the local newspaper puts it on the front page, sure, more people read it, but we're still talking thousands in a country of 330 million.

Scale matters. To your original point why would that 70% of people who are concerned do anything more than they've been told is enough? That's where the disconnect is.

@ScienceCommunicator

In terms of how people are even aware of anything, in general, people do research and their organization puts out a press release. Those are covered by whatever press feels like picking it up, or no one. I know you know this.

@ScienceCommunicator

The reason that about 4% of people understand what actually needs to be done is precisely because scientists don't control the narrative, what I say doesn't matter, and why maybe 1% of people in the US could identify Michael Mann. We're all talking in a small bubble hoping that what we find important makes it to a larger bubble controlled by other people. This isn't my opinion, this is just the actual numbers of people vs. organizations reach.

@CdnCurmudgeon

I have to admit that I thought I'd done a pretty thorough review of relevant papers, but this 1953 one referenced in the article was not on my list.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1791522/?page=1

@samhainnight

Also, I just don't know about UHT in this scenario. They didn't test any higher temperatures in this test, and from what I understand it's only for ~2 seconds. It would be interesting to find out, though.

@samhainnight

If, and this is still an if to me, high temperature short time pasteurization really is the standard, then what I found was the procedure there is "heat the milk to between 72°C to 74°C for 15 to 20 seconds."

If that's what's being done currently, then this seems to show that it brings the amount of detectable virus below detection limits, but, there is enough live virus to replicate when inoculated into chicken eggs.

From there, it does still go down further when refrigerated over time, but also does not go away.

Between the two, is that enough to make certain that it's not enough to make people sick? I don't know, and I don't know if there's a known infectious dose that we could go off of to do that calculation.

@kateiacy

That's the way I understood it, basically, but I've been told more than once that different facilities may have slightly different procedures, and I'm honestly not sure how that works.

Earlier today I read that all of these are acceptable:

Batch pasteurization: Also known as low-temperature long time (LTLT) pasteurization. Heat the milk to 63°C for 30 minutes.

Flash pasteurization: Also known as high-temperature short time (HTST) pasteurization. Heat the milk to between 72°C to 74°C for 15 to 20 seconds.

Ultra-high temperature (UHT) pasteurization: Heat the milk to between 135°C to 140°C for 2 to 4 seconds.