Are infected beers dangerous?

As long as you don't eat the bottle you'll be fine.

 

My guess on the prevalence of consuming water vs. beer ‘back in the day’ from a health safety perspective would have been dependent on where you lived and the specific timeframes.

I did a quick web search and found:

“I do not know much but I know there is a published book about that. Beer in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance by Richard W. Unger. Some lines from the excerpt of the book:

Modern beer, however, has little in common with the drink that carried that name through the Middle Ages and Renaissance. Looking at a time when beer was often a nutritional necessity, was sometimes used as medicine, could be flavored with everything from the bark of fir trees to thyme and fresh eggs, and was consumed by men, women, and children alike...

It was the beverage of choice of urban populations that lacked access to secure sources of potable water; a commodity of economic as well as social importance; a safe drink for daily consumption that was less expensive than wine; and a major source of tax revenue for the state.

Unger describes the transformation of the industry from small-scale production that was a basic part of housewifery to a highly regulated commercial enterprise dominated by the wealthy and overseen by government authorities.”

My understanding about the safety of drinking water was mostly a concern of the presence of bacteria that can cause illnesses. If there is poor sanitation in the area of the source of drinking water (i.e., no sewage control) than the water supply may be contaminated with Coliform Bacteria (e.g., E. coli). Boiling the water prior to drinking will kill the pathogens and make the water safe to drink. When producing beer the wort is boiled which would kill any pathogens which may be present in the wort (e.g., brewing water).

I am uncertain whether it was known (and a common practice) back in the day of boiling water prior to drinking it but a ‘benefit’ of drinking beer was that the wort (e.g., brewing water) was boiled as part of the brewing process.

Dr, Charlie Bamforth (Brewing Scientist) has discussed in some of his presentations the aspect of ‘survival of the fittest’ in this context. He would state that folks like you and I are alive today because our ancestors chose to drink beer vs. water and thereby did not die of waterborne diseases and lived to procreate. Of course if our ancestors lived in areas (and during the times of) where the drinking water was free of pathogens then perhaps they survived because of these fortunate circumstances?

Cheers!

P.S. Another example of disease from contaminated water is Cholera.

 

Dangerous? Certainly not. Though the probability of it tasting good is very minimal. That said I have been pleasantly surprised before, some actually end up being pretty tasty.

 

I wish my doctor brother was on this forum... he'd say something to the effect of "harmful microbes cannot survive an environment with ethyl alcohol present"

 

I'd say your guess is pretty much spot on.

Back in the day urban areas would have had a problem with drinking water purity to a much greater extent than rural areas of farms and/or small communities.

Indeed, what seems to get overlooked by some folks arguing beer drinking for all was because of water quality is where the majority of our ancestors lived. It wasn't until about 10 years ago that the world population shifted from mostly rural to mostly urban. (The US only got to urban majority status by about 1920.)

Religion also complicates things a bit for those who argue that the only motivation for beer consumption was contaminated water. There are several religions that date back hundreds of year where the use of alcohol (e.g., beer) is/was forbidden. Clearly beer is not required to have a non-contaminated water supply or those religions would have disappeared in a generation just as did the Shakers who were celibate.

 

So . . . for some reason the only actual science in this thread was deleted. I'd venture a guess that some people might actually want to know the prospective of a microbiologist on this subject.

http://suigenerisbrewing.com/index.php/about-sgb/

https://suigenerisbrewing.blogspot.com/2014/02/fact-or-fiction-can-pathogens-survive.html

https://suigenerisbrewing.blogspot.com/2016/08/fact-or-fiction-can-pathogens-survive.html

http://suigenerisbrewing.com/index....athogens-survive-in-beer-the-rdwhahb-edition/

 

They’re fine.

Just don’t search anything on WebMD....you’ll be convinced you are dying

 

Lol....did you also have Taco Bell?

 

Make a run for the border!?!

Cheers!

 

This thread is 28 posts too long.

Ope. Make that 29.

 

Maybe it wasn't diptheria or cholera that killed people back then... it was too many 5 dollar boxes at taco bell.

 

Only to your taste buds.

 

If the beer that you had was a gusher and that is what clued you that you had an infected beer, and if you have any more of them, then yes they could be dangerous.... from exploding bottles.

 

Excellent point.

 

Its bad for the brewery

Enjoy