A little help

[Derek]

The thing is, regardless of what medical studies or other people say, if the baby has a defect you don't want to be wondering whether it's because of the time you had a couple beers. Logic or no logic, that's how the brain works.

Very true.

[Tapsucker]

It was only a matter of time before there would be a thread that debated bottle v.s. breast (tap?) on Bartowel.

[ritzkiss]

No. Especially not when one of the members has a vested interest in the development of that child and asked the board its opinion.

I guess I missed where he asked your opinion on whether or not his wife should drink. My mistake, I read it as him asking for low ABV beer options. Carry on.

[Ale's What Cures Ya]

Asking what a woman can drink during pregnancy will invariably lead to the question of should a woman drink during pregnancy.

[JeffPorter]

It's a personal choice, and your wife's to make without judgement. My wife had the odd sip of beer when she was pregnant, but never more than a third of a bottle. The thing is, regardless of what medical studies or other people say, if the baby has a defect you don't want to be wondering whether it's because of the time you had a couple beers. Logic or no logic, that's how the brain works.

And congratulations!

Kind of where I am with this - It might not be worth it to be wondering...I think if you're responsible (and that might mean different amounts for different people) then we probably shouldn't judge...not worth it, if you're anxious about it though...

[JeffPorter]

I bet the womyn that wrote that article is a real joy at parties.

I think you're entitled to your opinion, and while I don't agree with you I think you've made some valid points and articulated yourself quite well, but that's childish at best and insulting at worst.

Not to mention about 30 years out of date. I hope you're not going to make a joke about "Reds" or "Charlie" next...

See this is part of the problem...We men want to be the authority on women's health. As the article said, it's so much easier to make a long list of prohibited stuff, than to explain the risks and benefits.

Then when women want to take responsibility or interest in their own health we deride them.

[cmadd]

See this is part of the problem...We men want to be the authority on women's health. As the article said, it's so much easier to make a long list of prohibited stuff, than to explain the risks and benefits.

It's an issue with the application of scientific knowledge to policy, not men telling women what to do with their bodies. When this issue is recreational drugs and whether they're ok to do in small quantities, no one starts talking about men oppressing the rest of society.

[JeffPorter]

See this is part of the problem...We men want to be the authority on women's health. As the article said, it's so much easier to make a long list of prohibited stuff, than to explain the risks and benefits.

It's an issue with the application of scientific knowledge to policy, not men telling women what to do with their bodies. When this issue is recreational drugs and whether they're ok to do in small quantities, no one starts talking about men oppressing the rest of society.

I agree that it's about knowledge and policy. You're absolutely right.

But sometimes when there's a lack of knowledge (as is the case here), other assumptions and narratives can take over. You're right about recreational drugs because in that situation a different dynamic is in play...it's always the case of men telling women what to do.

I don't want to harp on it, because I like Ale's, and I don't want to be a prick, but it just drives me nuts when people make comments that are anti-feminist and can be perceived as vaguely anti-women. And I think that comments like that hihglights the undercurrent of our sometimes troubled relationship with women's bodies...that's all...and I think that the relationship does indeed have at least a small roll to play in what we're talking about it.

YES, I'M BRINGING GENDER THEORY UP INTO THIS PARTY...

[kona]

Has anyone ever tried to make a non-alcoholic homebrew? I've been thinking about this same subject for when/if I have a child at some point.

If you boiled after the ferment instead of before, then cool, add some more yeast and prime as usual I wonder how well that would work. Maybe you'd do a shortened boil before the ferment as well for sterilization. It might not be ideal for all styles, but I bet it would taste better than commercial examples.

[Derek]

Boiling homebrew would evaporate the alcohol and the product might be acceptable, but how would you know how much alcohol you evaporated?

Oh, and I'd probably be talking to THAT woman at a party.

Good discussion.

[kona]

Boiling homebrew would evaporate the alcohol and the product might be acceptable, but how would you know how much alcohol you evaporated?

I searched online and found a few recipes that sound alright. One reference suggested heating on the stove or in the oven to the boiling point of ethyl alcohol (173.3 F) and holding for 30 min would evaporate all or nearly all the alcohol. If you brought it to a full boil for at least that long I'd imagine you'd be safe.

[Belgian]

I bet the womyn that wrote that article is a real joy at parties.

Ad Hominem. And are we now saying neither men NOR women have a right to an opinion?

So if you're comfortable rolling the dice on something like that then by all means have a drink. Might as well have a smoke too.

... and then go sniff airplane glue while bungie jumping. Another solid.

[Belgian]

It doesn't help that policy-makers don't want people to actually think, they want them to follow rules (less chance of error?).

Well it's just like Systems. In a business you want the person with the lowest level of skill to still be able to cope with any forseeable problem. So you'd write a bunch of rigid, bulletproof rules anyone can follow.

This for some people eliminates the need to think. Maybe it's correct to assume many people ARE sheep?

[JeffPorter]

Boiling homebrew would evaporate the alcohol and the product might be acceptable, but how would you know how much alcohol you evaporated?

I searched online and found a few recipes that sound alright. One reference suggested heating on the stove or in the oven to the boiling point of ethyl alcohol (173.3 F) and holding for 30 min would evaporate all or nearly all the alcohol. If you brought it to a full boil for at least that long I'd imagine you'd be safe.

My understanding of alcohol and cooking, though, isn't so much that alcohol gets evaporated as much as it gets killed from long slow heat. So for example, it's thought that you lose more alcohol to say, braising, then you do to quick boils.

[Belgian]

My understanding of alcohol and cooking, though, isn't so much that alcohol gets evaporated as much as it gets killed from long slow heat. So for example, it's thought that you lose more alcohol to say, braising, then you do to quick boils.

"Killed?"

But longer cooking does help. (see chart.)

And you have to do the math - if 5% of the original alcohol remains, that is 5% of a 12% abv wine - or just over half of one percent by volume, but then that's diluted even further by the other liquid in the sauce.

So if the sauce is one-quarter per cent alcohol, you can say 'OK maybe that's less alcohol in a good-size serving than you'd get eating a ripe pear' (yes, there are natually occuring alcohols in other foods.) So it's a safe way to enjoy the flavors of wine and beer.