(LETTERS) Raw milk, nuclear opportunity and pregnant women’s health

Oil City News publishes letters, cartoons and opinions as a public service. The content does not necessarily reflect the opinions of Oil City News or its employees. Letters to the editor can be submitted by following the link at our opinion section.

Raw milk is not a super food

Dear Casper,

Many people boast about the benefits of the consumption of raw milk, claiming it cures asthma and allergies, is beneficial to gut bacteria and supports the growing immune systems of children. But, is this true? Peer-reviewed scientific testing says otherwise.

Raw milk cannot cure asthma or treat allergies, it does not contain beneficial gut bacteria and it is, in fact, particularly unsafe for children.

There is a misconception that consuming raw milk will alleviate or ease the symptoms of asthma and allergies. The Parisifal study of 2007 has been misused by raw milk advocates since it was published. The study found an inverse association of farm milk consumption, not raw milk consumption, with asthma and allergy. The authors of the Parsifal study clearly indicated in the paper that “the present study does not allow evaluating the effect of pasteurized vs. raw milk consumption because no objective confirmation of the raw milk status of the farm milk samples were available,” (Waser et al., 2007, p. 666).

Regarding allergy, research has shown that raw milk and pasteurized milk do not differ in their anaphylactic sensitizing capacity when tested in humans (Host and Samuelsson, 1988). The authors concluded that people with proven milk allergies cannot tolerate milk, raw or pasteurized.

Beyond the false claims about allergies, advocates also argue raw milk benefits gut health — but science shows otherwise. The bacteria found in raw milk are not probiotic, but rather, harmful to humans. Probiotic microorganisms must be non-pathogenic. Probiotic microorganisms must be of human origin in order to have an impact on human health (Teitelbaum and Walker, 2000). Bacteria present in raw milk often originate from infected udder tissues (e.g., mastitis causing bacteria), the dairy environment (e.g., soil, water, and cow manure), and milking equipment, and therefore not the definition of probiotic.

In addition, the bacteria often found in milk is harmful to humans, bacteria such as E. coli O157:H7, Salmonella, Streptococcus spp. Yersinia enterocolitica, Campylobacter jejuni, Staphylococcus aureus, Listeria monocytogenes, Mycobacterium tuberculosis, and Coxiella burnetti to name a few (Oliver et al., 2005; Hayes and Boor, 2001). All of which have proven to be harmful and sometimes fatal to humans.

Raw milk has proven to be especially harmful to the most vulnerable of our community, children. Recently 21 people in northeast and central Florida have been “sickened by Escherichia coli and Campylobacter bacteria linked to consumption of raw milk, with seven requiring hospitalization,” reports the Florida Department of Health. Of those seven, six were children under the age of 10 and of those six, two are reported to be in severe condition (Florida Health).

In addition, children are more likely to develop Hemolytic uremic syndrome from drinking raw milk contaminated with E. coli O157:H7 (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2008). HUS is a serious condition characterized by hemolytic anemia, thrombocytopenia, or low platelet count, and acute kidney injury. It’s not just an anemia, but a broader syndrome involving multiple organ systems, primarily the blood and kidneys. HUS is a lifelong disorder that is not curable.

I understand the desire for whole, healthy foods. Many of us want to do all we can in order to provide ourselves and our loved ones, especially our children, with as many health benefits as we can. The evidence shows, raw milk is not a healthy super food. It does not cure or treat asthma or allergies, it does not contain beneficial gut bacteria, and it is particularly unsafe for children.

If you are a milk drinker, there are healthy, safe options: consider pasteurized milk or even learning the methods of pasteurizing your own raw milk. “Get Facts, Get Healthy.”

Isla Winter
Casper

Radiant nuclear’s Kaleidos project: the syllogism of fear mongering

Dear Casper,

In moments of great change, communities face a choice: do we lean into opportunity with courage and reason, or retreat into fear and suspicion? This question is now before us in Natrona County as we consider the Radiant Kaleidos project. It is a test of whether we allow fear-mongering to shape our civic decisions.

There is a common pattern whenever new technology is introduced, from the railroad to the automobile to electricity itself. It can be expressed as a simple syllogism:

• Premise 1: Whatever I do not understand is dangerous.
• Premise 2: I do not understand this technology.
• Conclusion: Therefore, this technology is dangerous.

We have all heard some version of this reasoning. It sounds persuasive at first, but it is neither rational nor fair. The simple fact of not understanding something does not make it dangerous, it only makes it unfamiliar. If our community had always relied on this way of thinking, Wyoming would have rejected every technological advancement that built our economy, educated our children, and kept our families safe.

The truth is that human progress has always required us to confront the unknown. Consider the way Wyoming welcomed oil and gas a century ago. At the time, drilling deep into the earth to release flammable liquids must have seemed as foreign and frightening as nuclear energy does to some today. And yet, it became the foundation of our state’s prosperity. Or consider air travel, which was once dismissed as reckless and impossible. Today, we think nothing of stepping into a metal tube that hurls through the sky at 500 mph. The difference between fear and progress is whether we are willing to learn.

The Kaleidos microreactor project represents one of those rare moments where learning and leadership can make all the difference. It is not a conventional nuclear power plant, and it is not designed for unchecked growth. Radiant is not building a permanent reactor here; the plan is to build a manufacturing facility for a carefully engineered technology backed by the Department of Defense and Department of Energy, meeting the strict standards of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. At its core is TRISO fuel, developed and tested since the 1960s, with a proven record of safety. This is not science fiction, but a technology refined over decades, capable of withstanding temperatures no meltdown scenario could realistically reach.

Those who say “nuclear is too dangerous” or “storing waste is dangerous” often reveal that they have never actually examined how these systems work. Instead, they fall back on the syllogism of fear mongering: “I do not understand it, therefore it must be dangerous.” But our community cannot afford to make decisions based on fear of the unfamiliar. Wyoming has invested millions educating our young people in science, technology, and engineering just to bid them adieu after graduation. To reject a project like this because it makes us nervous is to waste that investment and drive another generation of talent out of our state.

We pride ourselves on being independent minded people who do not simply follow the herd. But independence requires courage, the courage to ask questions, learn the facts, and move forward with confidence when the evidence is clear. The courage to trust. That courage is exactly what our community needs right now.

The choice before us is not between safety and danger. The choice is whether to let fear mongering prevent us from pursuing opportunity. The syllogism of fear mongering has always been the enemy of progress. It told us trains were unsafe, cars were reckless, and airplanes were impossible. If we allow it to dictate our response to Radiant, it will once again hold us back from the future.

Natrona County can lead. We can show that we are not afraid of the unfamiliar, but ready to embrace the technologies that will power our communities, create jobs, and secure long-term prosperity. The only true danger is allowing fear to write our future.

William T. Wallace
Casper

Microchimerism shows beauty of life

Dear Casper,

The abortion industry spreads the false claim that pregnancy is a danger to women. Although there can be risks, the facts are clear that pregnancy is a natural occurrence and that, in some cases, the pre-born baby can help his or her mother who may have a medical condition.

This phenomenon is called microchimerism and involves fetomaternal cell transference. The way this works is, when we were inside our moms, some of our cells comingled with hers, especially during the early stages of her pregnancy.

Even for a woman who has experienced a miscarriage, some of her baby’s cells may linger in her body. What a beautiful way to understand the value of every human, even in the tragedy of the loss of a child yet born? These babies leave a part of themselves with their moms.

There is now evidence that a mom who is experiencing a medical issue may receive healing cells from the body of her pre-born child.

This is proof that belief in God aligns with our understanding of science. Who else can design such a wonderful, intricate and true example of how one human helps another? This is the unique nature of the bond between mother and child.

Ross Schriftman
Casper

Related