Forwarded from 🔥Spicy Steamed Memeballs🍝 (Eighty🍁Canadian)
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
THE Philosopher
How many squares can you make by using 4 of the dots as corners?
9 + 4 + 4 + 2 + 2 = 21
Forwarded from 🔥Spicy Steamed Memeballs🍝 (1515)
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
If you don't live in the city, you're going to have to live without $30 ham and cheese sandwiches. Think you can handle that? No, you can't. Stay in the city.
THE Philosopher
Would you try medium rare chicken?
Today I learned that more than ¼ of Daily Poor subscribers love science and the USDA. 😭
THE Philosopher
Today I learned that more than ¼ of Daily Poor subscribers love science and the USDA. 😭
Exposing your finger to water heated to a temperature of 165°F, even for a fleeting moment, absent any mitigating factors, will invariably result in a burn. Similarly, submerging your finger in water maintained at 130°F for a minute will also cause a burn. However, if the exposure to water at 130°F is constrained to a brief period of a few seconds, your finger will emerge unscathed, with no burn injuries.
The USDA, in mandating a minimum internal temperature of 165°F for the safe consumption of chicken, is essentially proclaiming that water at 130°F is incapable of inflicting burns because it does not occur instantaneously upon contact. The USDA's position implies that if a specific temperature fails to eradicate harmful bacteria within a matter of seconds, it is deemed categorically unsafe. However, this stance is unsubstantiated and fails to consider the temporal dimension. If a particular temperature requires a full minute to effectively eliminate bacteria, then the paramount consideration should be whether the food item was maintained at that temperature for the requisite duration. Analogously, if the process necessitates an hour-long exposure, it would be misguided to simply deem it "unsafe" without evaluating whether the food was subjected to the specified temperature for the appropriate time period.
Pathogenic bacteria remain vulnerable to thermal inactivation at the lower temperatures employed in cooking chicken to a medium-rare doneness; the process merely necessitates a more prolonged exposure compared to the higher temperature of 165°F. Consequently, the consumption of medium-rare chicken can be rendered safe, provided that the meat is held at the appropriate lower temperature for a sufficiently extended period of time.
The USDA, in mandating a minimum internal temperature of 165°F for the safe consumption of chicken, is essentially proclaiming that water at 130°F is incapable of inflicting burns because it does not occur instantaneously upon contact. The USDA's position implies that if a specific temperature fails to eradicate harmful bacteria within a matter of seconds, it is deemed categorically unsafe. However, this stance is unsubstantiated and fails to consider the temporal dimension. If a particular temperature requires a full minute to effectively eliminate bacteria, then the paramount consideration should be whether the food item was maintained at that temperature for the requisite duration. Analogously, if the process necessitates an hour-long exposure, it would be misguided to simply deem it "unsafe" without evaluating whether the food was subjected to the specified temperature for the appropriate time period.
Pathogenic bacteria remain vulnerable to thermal inactivation at the lower temperatures employed in cooking chicken to a medium-rare doneness; the process merely necessitates a more prolonged exposure compared to the higher temperature of 165°F. Consequently, the consumption of medium-rare chicken can be rendered safe, provided that the meat is held at the appropriate lower temperature for a sufficiently extended period of time.