Practicing Safe Chicken

I have friends who are freaked-out about chicken. It turns out that many people actually think that chicken gets infected with disease-causing bacteria more than, say, cheese, or avocados; that bacteria specifically seek out chicken to do their procreative dirty work.

I know people who immediately refrigerate a nice juicy hot roasted chicken they are planning to have for a meal within an hour or two! It’s sad, really.

So today’s lesson boys and girls is practicing safe chicken in four simple points.

1.    (Most important) Roasting a chicken kills every living organism. Roasting anything at 350° to 400° for an hour pretty much kills everything. It comes out of the oven STERILE. From that point on, with the exception of drying out, it would take days to weeks at room temperature for any spoilage to develop, and then it would likely be a harmless mold that, while unappealing, wouldn’t make you sick. You don’t believe me, I can tell. Read on.

2.    Since cooking kills everything, there is no need to worry about leaving an uncooked chicken out for several hours to bring it to room temperature before popping it into the oven. Chickens, turkeys, ducks and most meats cook better when brought to room temperature first.

3.    There is nothing special about chicken flesh that preferentially attracts bacteria. If you got sick at the company picnic, it came from the food-handler’s sneeze, not the chicken. (And not the mayo either, because the acid pH of mayo actually helps to prevent spoilage).

4.    The Salmonella that occasionally contaminates raw chicken is real, and justifies separating the surface and knives used for butchering a chicken from those used for foods you plan to eat raw. But fortunately, the Salmonella gets completely nuked by the 160° temperature in the center of a nicely done chicken.

Cheers,

JCS

This blogpost is a long-overdue accompaniment to the Apr 16, 2009 posting entitled “Food Poisoning: it’s not the mayonnaise!”

https://www.jameschanningshaw.com

"Don't Pick That Mole"--- dispelling the myth

NEW ADDENDUM: view new video on preventing and detecting melanoma skin cancers:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3hWv26Bs9E

My daughter recently asked, “Is it true that pulling hair out of moles or picking at moles causes them to turn into cancer?”

This is a melanoma, not a mole!

She was trying to help one of her girlfriends understand something her mother had pounded into her from childhood: “Don’t touch that mole! If you pick, you’ll turn it into cancer!”

So, once again I am here to dispel another myth. Hundreds of my patients have asked the same question over the years. 

The cancer in question here is melanoma. 

THE BOTTOM LINE: There is no convincing scientific evidence that picking a mole turns it into cancer (melanoma). That also applies to nicking during shaving, catching with a comb or brush, or any other trauma. Traumatized moles, however, if removed, can show abnormal features under a microscope even if they are not cancerous.

The usual scenario is that a traumatized mole might look scary for a few days but it should heal the same way traumatized skin anywhere heals, back to its normal appearance after about two weeks. If it doesn't heal, see a doctor.

The majority of melanomas originate from normal skin, entirely independent of moles. We know that individuals with large numbers of moles on their body, especially ones called ‘atypical’ or ‘dysplastic’ moles, have a higher risk for melanoma. This is probably based on mutated genes that affect normal skin as well as moles. The number of moles may simply be one sign of innate genetic programming or altered genes from ultraviolet light. Fortunately, there are also genes that limit the growth of most moles for a lifetime unless they also become mutated.

CAN ANYTHING BE DONE TO PREVENT MELANOMA?

Melanoma is a potentially deadly cancer. One out of every eight individuals with melanoma dies from melanoma. You definitely DO NOT want to get a melanoma if you can avoid it. So the question about picking as a risk factor is an important one simply because you have control over it.

The only controllable behavior associated with both increased numbers of moles and melanoma risk is EXPOSURE TO ULTRA-VIOLET LIGHT. Ultraviolet light from sun or tanning beds has the potential to alter genes that can lead to more moles and increased risk of melanoma. Genetic studies are still in early stages, but there is enough epidemiological evidence to link ultraviolet light with melanoma in many cases (though not those that occur in skin of color).

Persons of light color (red hair, freckles, blue eyes, etc.) and those with many moles should make every effort to avoid exposure to the sun, starting in early childhood. And concerning sunscreens: don’t be fooled into thinking that they fully protect against sun damage and skin cancer. They partially protect against sunburn, so people often think they can stay out longer, which explains some of the theories that sunscreens cause skin cancer when it is really the increased sun damage in most cases.

In summary, the only real control we have to prevent melanoma is to avoid sun exposure and UV tanning beds. It does not provide complete protection, but it’s the best we have.

An important measure, while not prevention per se, is to monitor your skin with a Skin Self Exam. Look at your skin and your moles once per month approximately. If you see obvious new growth or new black color in the space of a month or two, see a doctor, get it checked. Many cases of melanoma become deadly because of delays in diagnosis. Some links:

http://www.skincancer.org/skin-cancer-information/early-detection

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W82G2QjqOhg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iS27V22uNIM

http://james-channing-shaw.blogspot.ca/2011/06/sun-protection-myths-and-truths-summer.html

So, in conclusion, don’t pick at your moles, monitor them regularly. And don’t be foolish in the sun.

Best regards,

January 20, 2013

https://www.jameschanningshaw.com

THE PARTY OF WORK

David Brooks (The Party of Work, NYTimes Nov 8) correctly points out important reasons why Republican emphasis on individualism failed to attract voters. Hard working Asians and Hispanics don’t buy into rugged individualism, a concept as old as the Mayflower. They recognize the benefit of having some security through government.

What Brooks left out, as everyone is afraid to include, is the role of fundamental Christian beliefs in Republicans losing the election. It is Christian beliefs that hijack the education of our children away from science, reduce their future competitiveness and obstruct medical innovations such as stem cell research. It is Christianity (as well as orthodox Judaism and fundamentalist Islam) that supports male-dominant societies that treat women as property or conduits for progeny and strive to remove their having any control over their own bodies. Christian beliefs are usually the main justification for resisting civil rights of gays. The list goes on. It’s all in the Bible, sometimes between the lines, and it was rejected by voters last Tuesday.

Brooks also omits a more insidious force in Republican camps: classism, which runs deep in old money. The rich wish to preserve class differences as long as they can. They couch it in terms of job creation or trickle down benefits if taxes are kept low, but it really is class warfare. They don’t want expanding middle classes or waves of immigrants to upset their own apple carts. Other people’s poverty doesn’t seem to bother them much. It’s a story as old as the Bible. It’s what caused the French revolution.

But back to individualism. In early U.S. history, the least functional of these libertarian types just moved further into the frontier, as Brooks pointed out. Now, we’ve run out of frontier. And sadly, there are no far-off lands toward which Karl Rove, Rush Limbaugh and several tall blond rabid Republican women commentators might set sail. Looks like they’ll just have to learn how to get along.

The Republican loss is a move in the right direction. Who knows, maybe in a decade or two the country can take on hand guns, or eliminate the teaching of Creationism in public schools.

November 10, 2012

https://www.jameschanningshaw.com

ROOM FOR EXAMINATION

For all of James's blogposts, books, and more, visit https://www.jameschanningshaw.com

My blog has been rather silent for a while. I'm sure you've been heartbroken. The reason is that I've been working on my new book, the title shown below. It finally went live on Kindle this week and is available through the Kindle store. If you do not own a Kindle, the Kindle app is free for ipads and iphones, possibly other computers.

This is an account of my career as doctor and dermatologist; the training, the patients, doctors, the practice in both private and academic settings. 

Here's an excerpt from the first chapter:

One Friday, Mrs. Berenson, a woman in her late fifties, was hospitalized for severe psoriasis. Hers was much worse than most. I took a history and examined her. We ordered some standard treatments and I left for the weekend. Over the years she had become familiar with the hospitalization routine.

When I arrived Monday morning, Dr. Raugi broke the terrible news. Early Saturday morning Mrs. Berenson climbed out her tenth floor window without being noticed by nurses, and jumped to her death.

        As soon as I could, I went alone to her room. It smelled of disinfectant. I closed the door, muffling the voices that came from the corridor. What had we missed? We must have missed something. This wasn't the psych ward; this was dermatology. I could hear a siren in the distance. I put my head against the glass to look down at the flat roof of the service entrance ten floors below. A shiver crossed my shoulders. Dermatology patients don't commit suicide. Had there been clues? Morning sun shimmered on the river and bridges below in the city. Admittedly, her diagnosis was a severe form of psoriasis, the pustular type of psoriasis, the von Zumbusch type that covers the entire body, and she had struggled with it for years. I pulled open the window, letting in traffic noise, and pushed it closed again. There had been prior hospitalizations. Maybe Mrs. Berenson had had enough of the repeated admissions and poor results. Did we make the mistake of directing all our attention to her skin disease while overlooking a profoundly depressed, suicidal woman? I looked around the room. Housekeeping had already made up her bed. More likely, we missed something much larger. We, Medicine, the profession of medicine, had failed her.

I hope you get a chance to read the book!

James Channing Shaw 

GNOCCHI in creamy tomato sauce: 

           Prep time: 10 minutes

           Cooking time: 30-40 minutes

           Serves 2 to 4

Gnocchi must be one of the ultimate comfort foods of all time: soft, sexy little bite-sized potato puff dumplings, firm enough to resist in your mouth, bland enough to absorb whatever sauce you put with them. Gnocchi are wonderful as a starter, side dish or main entrée.

Try this easy recipe. You won’t be sorry. It’s pronounced approximately: “Nyoki”

MUSIC: Listen to the song Calgary from the Bon Iver album called BON IVER, and then listen to the rest of the album. Gorgeous. It’s pronounced approximately French: ‘Bone Yverre’.

HERE’S ALL YOU NEED:

           

•             Gnocchi: one package 500g, vacuum packed or fresh
•             Shallots or yellow onion, finely chopped, ¼ Cup
•             Garlic, ½ to 1 medium clove, finely chopped
•             Grape or cherry tomatoes: approx 300 grams (10 oz) or about 30 tomatoes
•             White wine: (vermouth, dry white, or sweet white), 1/3 to ½   Cup
•             Heavy cream (from 18% to 35% fat), ½ Cup to 1 Cup
•             Salt, pepper
•             Pinch of sugar
•             Olive oil: 3 TBSP
•             Thyme (optional) small pinch
•             Slivered basil leaves for garnish
•             Parmesan cheese, grated, for garnish

HERE’S WHAT TO DO:

·        sautee tomatoes in olive oil for five minutes in a covered shallow sauce pan

·        add shallots, garlic, salt, thyme, pepper, sugar and cook, covered, stirring occasionally, until tomatoes are soft or broken and release some liquid.

·        While tomatoes cook, bring pot of water to boil for the gnocchi

·        Add wine to tomatoes and reduce, uncovered, to about 1/3 liquid

·        Salt the pot of water and add gnocchi: stir occasionally to prevent sticking on the bottom. Gnocchi are done when they float, about 2 to 5 minutes

·        Add cream to tomato mixture and bring to a medium boil.

·        Add more salt and pepper to taste

·        When gnocchi are done ladle them into the tomato mixture through a slotted spoon and reheat.

·        Mix gently and serve

·        Garnish with slivered fresh basil and parmesan cheese.

 

WINE: This dish goes well with a red or white. White Burgundy, Chablis or Chardonnay, or a Chianti or Rioja would do nicely. Avoid a really heavy red like a Shiraz. I would accept a nice red Bordeaux, especially if the gnocchi are served with an accent of rare rib eye on the side.

            

GUM CHEWING: the ugly side

                                    by James Channing Shaw

            Try this experiment. Walk up Broadway in New York or any big city street. Watch people chewing gum. Do you think they look good? Sexy, manly, feminine, smart, whatever? If so, I probably can't help you. 

NEW YORK CITY

            Now try this: Look down at the sidewalk in New York or any city of five million or more. For miles and miles, each and every concrete slab of sidewalk is polka-dotted with hundreds of splats of stepped-on gum, mostly black, no matter how pink or sparkly or blue they started out. And—talk about disgusting—try stepping on a soft wad that sticks to your heel in a really long string and gets picked up by the wind and wraps around your pants. But I don’t care that much about your pants, or the polka-dot sidewalks. It’s the chewing that gets me. 

PARIS

            My guess is that the majority of people who regularly chew gum do it more for the image than the taste. For those who are about image, I wish you luck. For those who chew gum for the taste, or your breath, there still is hope for you.

            

Here’s the concept: Quietness is a great beautifier.^* Picture the inside of Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris at closing time; a grove of giant Sequoias at dusk with rays of sun peeking through; an empty stage with a nine-foot grand piano. Quietness beautifies your face as well. Rippling jaw muscles are off-putting, tense. Blow bubbles and you have just labeled yourself a junior high school punk or a Valley Girl from the eighties. Chew with an open mouth and you become a caricature of a gangster, a pimp, or some other low life form. Yeah, you're tough all right. Just need a few tattoos.

            Let’s face it. Gum chewing and charm are as incongruous as oysters with chocolate sauce, or a Republican with a social conscience. They simply don’t go together.

            I can accept it when it’s a celebrity doing the chewing, especially when it serves a purpose. John Lennon, I admit, looks pretty good chewing gum in the studio recording of “All You Need Is Love”, but he has to keep the saliva flowing. He has a job to do. Or the final scene of Last Tango in Paris in which wounded Marlon Brando slows his jaw, furrows his brow, takes the gum out of his mouth and sticks it to the underside of the balcony railing before he collapses, dead. It is hard to deny that gum chewing carries with it some cachet in the arts. At least for Brando and Lennon.

            But what famous role models have chewed gum over the years? Queen Elizabeth? Winston Churchill? Fred Astaire? Audrey Hepburn? Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis? The President of the United States?  Of course not. None of them. In public, at least. The gum-chewers would be the Donald Trumps of the world, televangelists, professional wrestlers, the Charlie Sheens of the world, low-level politicians, maybe ex-governors of Alaska. You get the gist. In what career could it possibly be advantageous to interview for a job with gum in your mouth? Induction into the Mafia, perhaps.

            There is one major exception to all this:  professional baseball players. To their credit, they figured out that the manly wad of tobacco they used to squirrel into the sides of their cheeks caused mouth cancer, so now it's a gooshy wad of pink bubblegum. It looks so juvenile, so demeaning, compared with the tobacco, but they deserve a break. And they have important work to do, as do soldiers, whom I would totally forgive for chewing gum. Maybe, though, the ball players could consider not blowing bubbles during televised games, at least while at bat.

 * quote from Robertson Davies