Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Dishwasher Salmon

en.wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 385 posts

Re: Dishwasher Salmon

#351

Post by schwartzworld »

mattmaroon wrote: post #340
schwartzworld wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sushi freezers are colder than regular freezers. This is real galaxy brain stuff.

Ha. I don’t think it’s even true. I mean it wouldn’t surprise me if some sushi restaurant somewhere had such things, but restaurant supply companies don’t sell extra cold freezers. Seafood wholesalers might have such things but I’d wager the vast majority of sushi restaurants are using regular freezers.

Sushi in the us has to be held at -20C for 7 days, or -35C for 15 hours. They absolutely sell extra cold freezers that go to that temperature. Your home freezer won't.

> I’d wager the vast majority of sushi restaurants are using regular freezers.

After the 7 days at -20 the fish can just be transferred to a regular freezer. So you're right, most places probably don't have the special freezer in house.

Re: Dishwasher Salmon

#352

Post by giantg2 »

pvaldes wrote: post #349
giantg2 wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But if you're using the freezing method, the parasites will still be there but be dead. Using modern methods, it seems any species of salmon is safe to use for sashimi. Some are just more palatable than others.

If the parasites are visible my understanding is that is not sashimi grade meat and would be smoked or processed in several ways instead. I assume that Japanese would assure to remove any undesirable aspect in the meat before to make the fish and serve it just because would ruin aesthetics. I could be wrong.

Just for aesthetics, maybe in Japan. In the US, there's no standard for sashimi grade fish. So there's no real difference between most fish marked sashimi grade vs most IQF.

Re: Dishwasher Salmon

#353

Post by krisoft »

germinalphrase wrote: post #275
krisoft wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It’s not recommended to use straight tap water here, only filtered, due to bacteria which is harmless to older children/adults but could be a problem for a newborn. I’m very currious about the filter you mention. How do you filter bacteria out in a household setting? How do you keep the filter itself clean and how do you QA your solution? I find it likely that any filtering done by average people is more likely to…

Why expect that a charcoal filter, changed at the recommended interval, would add more bacteria than it removes?

Because of two reasons together: charcoal filters don’t remove bacteria[1][2], that is the reason why I don’t expect it to reduce bacterial count. And then any user error (less than pristine pitcher, filter not replaced at the recomended interval) would increase the count.

But there is also a different reasoning. A more philosophical, heuristic based one: The water where I live is treated by professionals with professional grade equipment. They also take regular samples and try to grow the bacteria to be able to tell if they are doing their job right or not. And the quality, at least where I live, is generally good. To improve something from good to excelent you often need to put in as much work as it was already put in to move it from mediocre to good. It is possible of course, but I would expect the process to be either energy intensive, or fiddly, or resource intensive, or require even more specialised equipment. Most likely all four at once. A simple, easy to use, and convenient filter doesn’t pass my sniff test. Like if it is that easy why wouldn’t the pros just do it at the water treatment facility?

Now of course this is just a heuristic, it can go wrong many different ways. And I admit I can be wrong of course. This is very far from my expertise. But this is how I was thinking about the question.

1: https://www.livestrong.com/article/193977-what-do-carbon-fil...

2: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC242697/

Re: Dishwasher Salmon

#354

Post by carlosjobim »

Broken_Hippo wrote: post #321
carlosjobim wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not all salmon species are sashimi-grade. You should never eat any fish or flesh cooked that you wouldn't eat raw.

This simply isn't true. Some things are perfectly safe cooked but unsafe when raw. Pork is a good example of this: Folks get parasites from undercooked pork. (I'm sure there are others, I just know this with pork). Cooking meat saves live and helps prevent food-born illnesses. Heck, this isn't even true with vegetables. Kidney beans need to be properly cooked so they aren't toxic. One kidney bean is enough to cause s…

Do you want to eat those parasites after they are cooked? That is what I'm trying to say: I don't want to eat food that has bacteria, worms and parasites - even if they are killed by cooking. That is disgusting.

I don't know how many times I've heard people say they need to cook their meat well or need the restaurant to cook it well to kill those parasites. Don't buy meat you don't trust the quality of! Don't go to restaurants where you think the meat has parasites!

Instead of repeating things by habit that they've been told, why can't people stop and think about what they are doing?

Re: Dishwasher Salmon

#355

Post by wholinator2 »

vxNsr wrote: post #232
floodle wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is some debate about whether or not to prepare formula with 70C/160F water. The NHS in the UK for example, says to do so (under "Reducing the risk of infection"): https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/baby/breastfeeding-and-bottle-... However some, in particular Emily Oster, argue that the risk is negligible and that having an overly complicated set of steps for tired parents to follow is counter-productive: https://ar…

Your second link makes a very strong argument against boiling water due to the minimal risk posed by unboiled water. Comparing it to putting your child in a car. The recommendation appears to be just another attempt by the government to coddle and infantilize (no pun intended) their constituents.

I mean, it's not like they're making it illegal, or actually investigating people doing it. I think it's a great thing that we have governmental organizations that are dedicated towards understanding and disseminating health and safety information. I will agree that they can go too far but just recommending extra heating of water that goes into infant food on a website is ridiculously inconsequential when compared with actual governmental overreach. Someone doesnt want babies to die. I think as long as it stays in the realm of pure information and not legislation, it's much better to go a little to far than not far enough.

Unless of course you were being sarcastic, in which case i recommend denoting it as such.

Re: Dishwasher Salmon

#356

Post by wholinator2 »

ninkendo wrote: post #313
DoreenMichele wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not what the CDC says. It says you may want to take precautions in some cases, such as with a premature infant. https://www.cdc.gov/nutrition/InfantandToddlerNutrition/form... Edit: This also seems like a recent development. My children are grown. https://foodpoisoningbulletin.com/2022/timeline-chronobacter...

Hijacking this thread to comment on a quote from the CDC article which I’ve also heard in a zillion other places: > If you do decide to warm the bottle, never use a microwave. Microwaves heat milk and food unevenly, resulting in “hot spots” that can burn your baby’s mouth and throat. This seems wrong to me. How can any fluid have a “hot spot”? Can’t you just, you know… swirl it a bit and let the temperature even out?…

Exactly, these types of things _are_ written for the dumbest people. Cause while we here a so cultured and educated (implicit sarcasm), the range of human intelligence goes at least as low. Insert anecdote about designing trash cans for State parks.

Re: Dishwasher Salmon

#357

Post by fomine3 »

carlosjobim wrote: post #354
Broken_Hippo wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This simply isn't true. Some things are perfectly safe cooked but unsafe when raw. Pork is a good example of this: Folks get parasites from undercooked pork. (I'm sure there are others, I just know this with pork). Cooking meat saves live and helps prevent food-born illnesses. Heck, this isn't even true with vegetables. Kidney beans need to be properly cooked so they aren't toxic. One kidney bean is enough to cause s…

Do you want to eat those parasites after they are cooked? That is what I'm trying to say: I don't want to eat food that has bacteria, worms and parasites - even if they are killed by cooking. That is disgusting. I don't know how many times I've heard people say they need to cook their meat well or need the restaurant to cook it well to kill those parasites. Don't buy meat you don't trust the quality of! Don't go to r…

Good luck with never-bacteria foods. It's impossible. 100% no parasites chicken/pork is also hard but you can live without them.

Re: Dishwasher Salmon

#358

Post by nunuvit »

mattmaroon wrote: post #299
idk1 wrote: post #127

I feel like this page should have a warning, the fantastic Youtuber Ann Reardon investigated lots of cooking "hacks" to see if they were food safe, and she worked out that cooking salmon in a dishwasher does not bring it up to a food safe temperature. [1] Side note - in a different video she also did debunking on other food hacks and ended up investigating Russian bot networks who uploads both food hacks for hits and…

I disagree with her conclusion. Raw salmon has no inherent pathogens of interest. People eat salmon raw at sushi bars. I’d be pretty unconcerned about the food safety issue. (Like any food there’s some risk of cross contamination, but that’s so rare.) As someone who has dealt with food safety (both as a hobbyist and professionally) a lot I can tell you most of what you read is based on government recommendations, whi…

Almost everyone misunderstands the recommendations. 165 F is only meant to be held for 1 second. To achieve the same level of pathogen reduction, you can trade temperature for time.

Re: Dishwasher Salmon

#359

Post by ashwagary »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #329
ajmurmann wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's bizarre to me how shallow it stays and how do much of the content just tries to trick the consumer. On Instagram I constantly see travel photos and clips with no indication of where the location is. Videos of weird stuff happening sand if you read comments, you learn it's fake or important context that makes it interesting kiss omitted. How does anyone consume this without getting annoyed about these unanswered,…

My theory is a huge portion of those watching are age 5-12.

You are correct, Youtube is raising a non-trivial percentage of children.
Post reply on HN