So, the United States Department of Agriculture and the Centers for Disease Control aren't good enough for you, yet a paper from an institute in Britain is, especially when that paper is talking about conditions that have absolutely NO bearing on what you're practicing?
How about the Food and Drug Administration? Are their recommendations authoritative enough for you? I'd guess not.
That "hiding behind authority" canard that you so blythly threw out works both ways, doubly so when you link to a completely unrelated study about turnip juice. Tell us, what kind of "authority" does it require for you to make a temporal leap that "meat = turnip juice," Nathaniel?
Yet, we're to believe that simply because you've been "doing it for years" that YOU, on the other than, ARE an authoritative source for information on the safe handling of food?
Let's take a look at the very first line of the introduction... "Clostridium botulinum is an anaerobic spore-forming pathogen..."
You see that big word anaerobic? You know what that means? I already posted what it means, and explained why the SURFACE of meat isn't an anaerobic.
Can you actually provide a link to any information regarding the two most common bacteria that affect food?
Camplybacter and Salmonella? Both of those are aerobic bacteria, meaning they grow well, even profusely, in the presence of air.
You want numbers? Given that the numbers you originally tried to provide don't have any bearing on what's being discussed here, I'm not sure you'd accept any numbers from any source as being valid.
Go ahead and play Russian Roulette with your food. Just down blow someone else's gut away with patently poor advice.