Yeah, you're right I was unclear about the status of MD5 and SHA-1. Unfortunately they are currently both well-known and faster, so I think there's value in calling them broken -- but I didn't do that effectively.

My argument is roughly that, one, you should listen to cryptographers about what is "broken" and take that advice seriously, and two, having done that, you should realize that the standard of "broken" is so conservative that the possibility collisions in a non-broken hash is not even worth thinking about at an application level. I'm not sure that got across effectively.

Thanks for the links!