|
Home > Archive > Home Cleaning > October 2005 > Sanitizing kitchen
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Sanitizing kitchen
|
|
| Picilli 2005-09-22, 10:21 pm |
| Browsing web pages, I see everybody suggests bleach that contains
sodium hypochlorite to sanitize sponge, utensils, to kill salmonella
and other foodborne bacteria on a countertop, fridge handle, kitchen
sink, especially after handling meat and poultry.
Why only bleach ? OK, it may be an excellent sanitizer, but aren't
99% propanol or ethanol just as effective disinfectants ?
Remembering chemistry lessons from school I don't think any bacteria
will ever survive alcohol.
There either must be some advantage of bleach over alcohol (price
maybe), or once upon a time someone mentioned bleach and everybody
is over and over again rewriting the same advice with bleach on
their web pages, forgetting there are other effective sanitizers ?
| |
| Vox Humana 2005-09-22, 11:21 pm |
|
"Picilli" <feranija@net...> wrote in message news:gig0hd.oc.ln@127.0.0.1...
> Browsing web pages, I see everybody suggests bleach that contains
> sodium hypochlorite to sanitize sponge, utensils, to kill salmonella
> and other foodborne bacteria on a countertop, fridge handle, kitchen
> sink, especially after handling meat and poultry.
>
> Why only bleach ? OK, it may be an excellent sanitizer, but aren't
> 99% propanol or ethanol just as effective disinfectants ?
> Remembering chemistry lessons from school I don't think any bacteria
> will ever survive alcohol.
>
> There either must be some advantage of bleach over alcohol (price
> maybe), or once upon a time someone mentioned bleach and everybody
> is over and over again rewriting the same advice with bleach on
> their web pages, forgetting there are other effective sanitizers ?
Alcohol is not as effective as bleach. It does not kill the most pathogenic
bacteria - the ones that will make you sick. A 10% bleach solution is much
better and less expensive. The solution should be fresh. In medical/dental
practices, the protocol is to clean the surface of obvious debris, moisten
the surface with a 10% bleach solution, and let it sit for 10 minutes. The
down-side of bleach is that it can discolor and weaken fabrics and the
solution should be made fresh daily. A better approach is often to use a
barrier, such as plastic or several layers of paper over surfaces where you
will be preparing meat (or doing surgery.) There is an entire industry that
makes barriers to cover medical/dental equipment so as to minimize time,
and the quantity of potentially hazardous chemicals used to disinfect
surfaces.
| |
| Rod Speed 2005-09-22, 11:21 pm |
| Picilli <feranija@net...> wrote:
> Browsing web pages, I see everybody suggests bleach that contains
> sodium hypochlorite to sanitize sponge, utensils, to kill salmonella
> and other foodborne bacteria on a countertop, fridge handle, kitchen
> sink, especially after handling meat and poultry.
>
> Why only bleach ? OK, it may be an excellent sanitizer, but aren't
> 99% propanol or ethanol just as effective disinfectants ?
> Remembering chemistry lessons from school I don't think any bacteria
> will ever survive alcohol.
>
> There either must be some advantage of bleach over alcohol (price
> maybe), or once upon a time someone mentioned bleach and everybody
> is over and over again rewriting the same advice with bleach on
> their web pages, forgetting there are other effective sanitizers ?
It makes no sense to 'sanitize' the kitchen, that just breeds better bugs.
| |
| Spod Reed 2005-09-23, 12:21 am |
|
Rod Speed wrote:
> Picilli <feranija@net...> wrote:
>
>
> It makes no sense to 'sanitize' the kitchen, that just breeds better bugs.
More Rod Speed bullshit.
Bleach and alcohol do nothing of the sort. "Better bugs" are the result
of antibiotics (triclosan for instance in a cleaning product) being
used to kill bacteria. Bleach and alcohol kill bacteria and viruses by
causing physical damage. Germs have no chance to develop antibiotic
resistance to physical damage and thus would not "breed better bugs".
What a dumbass you are.
| |
|
|
"Picilli" <feranija@net...> wrote in message news:gig0hd.oc.ln@127.0.0.1...
> Why only bleach ? OK, it may be an excellent sanitizer, but aren't 99%
> propanol or ethanol just as effective disinfectants ?
Here's a discussion of various sanitizers as they apply to home brewing, but
you'll find information to answer your questions:
A COMPLETE GUIDE TO CLEANING AND SANITATION
http://www.realbeer.com/jjpalmer/cleaning.html
Hope this helps,
-Tock
| |
| Wooly 2005-09-23, 12:21 am |
| When I got the rabbit the breeder recommended some stuff called
Vanodine for hutch sanitation. Its essentially an iodine solution and
it claims to kill all sorts of creepy crawlies.
I use it on the plastic cutting boards a couple of times a week (spray
to saturate, allow to dry), but whether it has any beneficial effect I
can't say for sure. We haven't had any E.coli or salmonella outbreaks
attributed to our kitchen...
I've also used it to clean minor dings on the dog, including a rather
nasty gash he got in his mouth when he chewed something he shouldn't
have. I wouldn't hesitate to use it for human first aid if push came
to shove.
As far as "sanitizing" the kitchen - what's the point? If you
practice good hygiene (of both the cook and hte equipment) you ought
to be fine.
+++++++++++++
Reply to the list as I do not publish an email address to USENET.
This practice has cut my spam by more than 95%.
Of course, I did have to abandon a perfectly good email account...
| |
| Beeblebrox 2005-09-23, 12:21 am |
| Spod Reed wrote:
>
>
> More Rod Speed bullshit.
>
> Bleach and alcohol do nothing of the sort. "Better bugs" are the result
> of antibiotics (triclosan for instance in a cleaning product) being
> used to kill bacteria. Bleach and alcohol kill bacteria and viruses by
> causing physical damage. Germs have no chance to develop antibiotic
> resistance to physical damage and thus would not "breed better bugs".
> What a dumbass you are.
>
Nope, the dumbass with no understanding of evolution (eg: survival of
the fittest) would be you.
*Any* sanitizer kills only a portion of germs. Let's say 1% of the germs
are left. These are going to be the strongest, most able-to-survive
germs of the bunch. Then these, the strongest germs, are the ones left
to breed the next generation of germs. Along comes you with a spray
bottle, and again you knock out all but the 1% strongest. Surely you
know enough by now to figure out the trend, that the remaining germ
population is getting stronger and stronger.
You seem to think that somehow individual germs develop a resistance to
antibiotics. This is not the case. It happens much the same as I
described. The germs that survive are the ones with the best resistance,
which breed a new generation, of which only the most resistant
survive, etc etc
So remember people when you reach for that unnecessary hand sanitizer
(even your doc will tell you plain soap is sufficient!!!), that you're
helping to create the next world health crisis.
| |
| Rod Speed 2005-09-23, 1:21 am |
| Spod Reed <rhalford1961@yahoo.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
> More Rod Speed bullshit.
We'll see...
> Bleach and alcohol do nothing of the sort.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof
that you've never ever had a fucking clue.
> "Better bugs" are the result of antibiotics (triclosan for
> instance in a cleaning product) being used to kill bacteria.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof
that you've never ever had a fucking clue.
ANYTHING that kills bugs breeds better bugs, fuckwit.
> Bleach and alcohol kill bacteria and
> viruses by causing physical damage.
ANYTHING that kills bugs breeds better bugs, fuckwit.
> Germs have no chance to develop
> antibiotic resistance to physical damage
Duh.
> and thus would not "breed better bugs".
ANYTHING that kills bugs breeds better bugs, fuckwit.
If it was anything like your stupid pig ignorant
claim, hospitals would use bleach and or alcohol
and would never see any better bugs bred.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof
that you've never ever had a fucking clue.
| |
| Logan Shaw 2005-09-23, 1:21 am |
| Beeblebrox wrote:
> Spod Reed wrote:
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
> Nope, the dumbass with no understanding of evolution (eg: survival of
> the fittest) would be you.
>
> *Any* sanitizer kills only a portion of germs. Let's say 1% of the germs
> are left. These are going to be the strongest, most able-to-survive
> germs of the bunch.
I agree that if a portion are killed and that the method of killing them
selects for stronger germs (as opposed to just killing at random and
leaving behind germs that happen to be stuck in crevice or something),
then the germs will tend to get more resistant.
However, I was once listening to a girl describe how she used to have a
job doing biology research with live HIV virus. Someone asked if she
wasn't afraid of being infected, and she said, no, because they used
double gloves and washed everything with bleach. Not being entirely
convinced, someone asked if that was really enough, and she basically
said she couldn't see how any of the HIV could possibly survive bleach,
so she believed it was perfectly safe.
The point is, she seemed to believe not that a small percentage of the
germs would survive but that exactly zero would. Nothing in the real
world is every 100% for sure, but there are things which are so unlikely
we are quite safe assuming they just won't happen.
If you give 1000 people identical cars with a full tank of gas and ask
them to drive 250 miles on a dangerous off-road course with landslides,
washed out bridges, strong winds, rocks that can damage the tires and
underbody, etc., then perhaps you will create a situation where only
1% of them make it to the destination. Those 1% will tend to be the
most capable ones. But if the course is 1000 miles long, then none of
them will make it, because they will all run out of gas. (If you make
it 10000 miles long, then they'll starve to death too.)
So, the question is, which scenario does bleach most closely resemble?
If some of the germs survive, then it could have negative effects. But
if there's a 99.999% chance that all the germs are killed without
exceptions, then it won't create stronger germs.
- Logan
| |
| Beeblebrox 2005-09-23, 1:21 am |
| Logan Shaw wrote:
> However, I was once listening to a girl describe how she used to have a
> job doing biology research with live HIV virus. Someone asked if she
> wasn't afraid of being infected, and she said, no, because they used
> double gloves and washed everything with bleach. Not being entirely
> convinced, someone asked if that was really enough, and she basically
> said she couldn't see how any of the HIV could possibly survive bleach,
> so she believed it was perfectly safe.
>
> The point is, she seemed to believe not that a small percentage of the
> germs would survive but that exactly zero would. Nothing in the real
> world is every 100% for sure, but there are things which are so unlikely
> we are quite safe assuming they just won't happen.
> - Logan
so you're basing your whole argument on some girl who "seemed to
believe" against all scientific data on the subject?
different also since HIV is a virus, not a bacteria. A virus needs a
host to be able to reproduce itself, or it dies quickly. A bacteria
needs no host, and will replicate itself wherever it happens to be.
1% HIV left on a kitchen counter would die unless it managed to infect a
host while still viable.
1% bacteria is perfectly happy on the kitchen counter, and will soon be
a colony of bacteria. Even things sanitized in hospitials are only
considered sanitized for a specified period after the sanitization
| |
| Spod Reed 2005-09-23, 2:21 am |
|
Beeblebrox wrote:
> Spod Reed wrote:
>
>
> Nope, the dumbass with no understanding of evolution (eg: survival of
> the fittest) would be you.
Think again.
> *Any* sanitizer kills only a portion of germs. Let's say 1% of the germs
> are left. These are going to be the strongest, most able-to-survive
> germs of the bunch. Then these, the strongest germs, are the ones left
> to breed the next generation of germs. Along comes you with a spray
> bottle, and again you knock out all but the 1% strongest. Surely you
> know enough by now to figure out the trend, that the remaining germ
> population is getting stronger and stronger.
Nope. Disinfectants don't care how strong a germ is. They kill by
physical action. Let me repeat, PHYSICAL ACTION. That's akin to me
stepping on them, crushing them, tearing them apart. You are now the
one with no understanding.
"Quat-based disinfectants carry a positive charge. Bacteria, viruses
and fungi carry a negative charge. When a bacteria-laden surface is
sprayed or mopped with a disinfectant, the charge distribution of the
bacteria cell changes from negative to positive. This results in the
disruption of the bacteria cell wall and eventual death to the
microbe."
Nothing you *think* is going to change how they work. Doesn't matter
how *strong* the bacteria or virus is, physical action will still do
it's job.
Roaches may become resistant to chemical sprays, but the shoe coming
down on them will still continue to kill no matter how
chemical-resistant they become.
Getting it yet?
> You seem to think that somehow individual germs develop a resistance to
> antibiotics. This is not the case. It happens much the same as I
> described. The germs that survive are the ones with the best resistance,
> which breed a new generation, of which only the most resistant
> survive, etc etc
Resistance has nothing to do with "physical" action.
| |
|
| Logan Shaw <lshaw-usenet@austin.rr.com> wrote:
> Beeblebrox wrote:
>
>
>
>
> I agree that if a portion are killed and that the method of killing
> them selects for stronger germs (as opposed to just killing at random
> and leaving behind germs that happen to be stuck in crevice or
> something), then the germs will tend to get more resistant.
>
> However, I was once listening to a girl describe how she used to have
> a job doing biology research with live HIV virus. Someone asked if
> she wasn't afraid of being infected, and she said, no, because they
> used double gloves and washed everything with bleach. Not being
> entirely convinced, someone asked if that was really enough, and she
> basically said she couldn't see how any of the HIV could possibly
> survive bleach, so she believed it was perfectly safe.
Yes, because that particular virus is easy to kill.
> The point is, she seemed to believe not that a small percentage of the
> germs would survive but that exactly zero would. Nothing in the real
> world is every 100% for sure, but there are things which are so
> unlikely we are quite safe assuming they just won't happen.
You cant assume that with santizing. If it was that simple,
you wouldn't see hospitals breeding bad bugs, and they do.
> If you give 1000 people identical cars with a full tank of gas and ask
> them to drive 250 miles on a dangerous off-road course with
> landslides, washed out bridges, strong winds, rocks that can damage
> the tires and underbody, etc., then perhaps you will create a
> situation where only 1% of them make it to the destination. Those 1%
> will tend to be the most capable ones. But if the course is 1000
> miles long, then none of them will make it, because they will all run
> out of gas. (If you make it 10000 miles long, then they'll starve to death
> too.)
Silly analogy.
> So, the question is, which scenario does bleach most closely resemble?
The hospital sanitizing situation, which does breed bad bugs.
> If some of the germs survive, then it could have negative effects. But if
> there's a 99.999% chance that all the germs are killed without exceptions,
> then it won't create stronger germs.
Wrong again. If some survive, you breed bad bugs.
| |
| Rod Speed 2005-09-23, 2:21 am |
| Spod Reed <rhalford1961@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Beeblebrox wrote:
>
> Think again.
>
[color=darkred]
> Nope. Disinfectants don't care how strong a germ is. They
> kill by physical action. Let me repeat, PHYSICAL ACTION.
Irrelevant how they kill, ANYTHING THAT KILLS BREEDS BAD BUGS
UNLESS THE KILL IS 100% and that aint even possible with a kitchen.
If it was as simple as you claim, hospitals would just use bleach
and they dont because it aint anything like your pig ignorant claim.
> That's akin to me stepping on them, crushing them, tearing them apart.
Irrelevant if there isnt 100% kill.
> You are now the one with no understanding.
Wrong again.
> "Quat-based disinfectants carry a positive charge. Bacteria, viruses
> and fungi carry a negative charge. When a bacteria-laden surface is
> sprayed or mopped with a disinfectant, the charge distribution of the
> bacteria cell changes from negative to positive. This results in the
> disruption of the bacteria cell wall and eventual death to the microbe."
> Nothing you *think* is going to change how they work.
Nothing you 'think' about what breed bad bugs
is going to change the basics of evolution.
> Doesn't matter how *strong* the bacteria
> or virus is, physical action will still do it's job.
Not if the kill rate isnt 100%, stupid.
> Roaches may become resistant to chemical sprays, but the shoe coming down
> on them will still continue to kill no matter how chemical-resistant they
> become.
But wont do a damned thing about breeding roaches that can
avoid getting stomped by being bred to be harder to stomp.
> Getting it yet?
Nothing to 'get'
>
> Resistance has nothing to do with "physical" action.
Physical action doesnt eliminate evolution, stupid.
Its the physical action thats done the most
breeding of more effective almost anything.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you've
never ever had a clue about anything at all, ever.
| |
| Logan Shaw 2005-09-23, 2:21 am |
| Beeblebrox wrote:
> so you're basing your whole argument on some girl who "seemed to
> believe" against all scientific data on the subject?
She was a girl who had a Ph.D. in Biology, so I feel it's OK to
trust her opinion on what kills germs and what doesn't.
- Logan
| |
|
| Logan Shaw <lshaw-usenet@austin.rr.com> wrote
> Beeblebrox wrote:
[color=darkred]
> She was a girl who had a Ph.D. in Biology, so I feel it's OK to trust her
> opinion on what kills germs and what doesn't.
You're wrong, plenty with PhDs have got stuff wrong.
Even Nobel Prize winners have got stuff wrong.
| |
| Peter Bruells 2005-09-23, 2:21 am |
| "latmu" <eree@nopam.com> writes:
> You cant assume that with santizing. If it was that simple,
> you wouldn't see hospitals breeding bad bugs, and they do.
Besides, proper sanitizing is a non-trivial skill. Hospitals,
physicians, lab personel - they all follow specifically designed
protocols for specific areas.
Just taking "MurderDeathKillSuperBleachXXX" and using it genereously
doesn't kill the germs and stuff normal products left over. Doesn't
increase security at all.
| |
| Neon John 2005-09-23, 3:21 am |
| On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 02:06:24 -0700, Picilli <feranija@net...> wrote:
>Browsing web pages, I see everybody suggests bleach that contains
>sodium hypochlorite to sanitize sponge, utensils, to kill salmonella
>and other foodborne bacteria on a countertop, fridge handle, kitchen
>sink, especially after handling meat and poultry.
>
>Why only bleach ?
Because it is THE most effective sanitizer there is and it's cheap as
dirt to boot.
>OK, it may be an excellent sanitizer, but aren't
>99% propanol or ethanol just as effective disinfectants ?
No.
>There either must be some advantage of bleach over alcohol (price
>maybe), or once upon a time someone mentioned bleach and everybody
>is over and over again rewriting the same advice with bleach on
>their web pages, forgetting there are other effective sanitizers?
There are other effective sanitizers - quaternary ammonia, phenol,
carbolic acid, etc - but bleach is the proven gold standard that costs
almost nothing.
The USDA standard, enforced by health department restaurant
inspectors, is 100ppm available chlorine in the sanitizing solution.
At that concentration, the chlorine smell is just barely detectable on
the surface of the liquid. Contact with the solution does not leave
any smell on the hands. Casual contact with this solution will not
bleach colors or damage clothes. Pretty much the ideal sanitizer.
Why fool with anything else?
John
---
John De Armond
See my website for my current email address
http://www.johngsbbq.com
Cleveland, Occupied TN
| |
| Logan Shaw 2005-09-23, 3:21 am |
| Neon John wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 02:06:24 -0700, Picilli <feranija@net...> wrote:
[color=darkred]
> There are other effective sanitizers - quaternary ammonia, phenol,
> carbolic acid, etc - but bleach is the proven gold standard that costs
> almost nothing.
Iodine would work well, but it would be hell on the countertops. :-)
- Logan
| |
| Peter Ammon 2005-09-23, 5:21 am |
| Beeblebrox wrote:
> Spod Reed wrote:
>
>
> Nope, the dumbass with no understanding of evolution (eg: survival of
> the fittest) would be you.
>
> *Any* sanitizer kills only a portion of germs. Let's say 1% of the germs
> are left. These are going to be the strongest, most able-to-survive
> germs of the bunch. Then these, the strongest germs, are the ones left
> to breed the next generation of germs. Along comes you with a spray
> bottle, and again you knock out all but the 1% strongest. Surely you
> know enough by now to figure out the trend, that the remaining germ
> population is getting stronger and stronger.
"Stronger," when? "Most able to survive," where? Biology is about
surviving and reproducing with the finite resources available.
Developing a resistance to an oxidizer as powerful as bleach would
require so much energy that those organisms would be at a real
competitive disadvantage relative to the usual bugs, when the bleach is
taken away (like in your body). At least that's my understanding.
>
> You seem to think that somehow individual germs develop a resistance to
> antibiotics. This is not the case. It happens much the same as I
> described. The germs that survive are the ones with the best resistance,
> which breed a new generation, of which only the most resistant survive,
> etc etc
Antibiotics typically work in a very specific manner by exploiting a
particular recation, and marshalling a resistance to antibiotics
requires much less energy than marshalling a resistance to a powerful
oxidizer.
>
> So remember people when you reach for that unnecessary hand sanitizer
> (even your doc will tell you plain soap is sufficient!!!), that you're
> helping to create the next world health crisis.
That is just plain false. There are lots of examples of germs that have
developed resistance to antibiotics due to their use. There are no
examples of germs that have developed resistance to hand sanitizers or
bleach because we use them for disinfectants. Sanitize away.
-Peter
--
Pull out a splinter to reply.
| |
| Rod Speed 2005-09-23, 7:21 am |
| Peter Ammon <gershwin@splintermac.com> wrote
> Beeblebrox wrote
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
> "Stronger," when? "Most able to survive," where? Biology is about surviving
> and reproducing with the finite resources available.
> Developing a resistance to an oxidizer as powerful as bleach would
> require so much energy that those organisms would be at a real
> competitive disadvantage relative to the usual bugs, when the bleach
> is taken away (like in your body). At least that's my understanding.
Have fun explaining how bad bugs evolved when bleach and alcohol
were the only way to 'sanitize' before the development of antibiotics.
It got so bad before antibiotics showed up that
some were just left to die when they got infected.
[color=darkred]
> Antibiotics typically work in a very specific manner by exploiting a
> particular recation, and marshalling a resistance to antibiotics requires much
> less energy than marshalling a resistance to a powerful oxidizer.
And bad bugs were a real problem before antibiotics showed up anyway.
[color=darkred]
> That is just plain false.
Nope, not with the kitchen situation being discussed.
> There are lots of examples of germs that have developed resistance to
> antibiotics due to their use.
They dont show up in kitchens.
> There are no examples of germs that have developed resistance to hand
> sanitizers or bleach because we use them for disinfectants.
Wrong. Have fun explaining the problem seen
in hospitals before antibiotics showed up.
> Sanitize away.
Stupid approach with kitchens.
| |
| Rod Speed 2005-09-23, 7:21 am |
| Neon John <jgd@johngsbbq.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 02:06:24 -0700, Picilli <feranija@net...> wrote:
>
>
> Because it is THE most effective sanitizer there is and it's cheap as
> dirt to boot.
>
>
> No.
>
>
> There are other effective sanitizers - quaternary ammonia, phenol,
> carbolic acid, etc - but bleach is the proven gold standard that costs
> almost nothing.
>
> The USDA standard, enforced by health department restaurant
> inspectors, is 100ppm available chlorine in the sanitizing solution.
> At that concentration, the chlorine smell is just barely detectable on
> the surface of the liquid. Contact with the solution does not leave
> any smell on the hands. Casual contact with this solution will not
> bleach colors or damage clothes. Pretty much the ideal sanitizer.
> Why fool with anything else?
Because using that breeds bad bugs.
| |
| Peter Ammon 2005-09-23, 10:21 pm |
| Rod Speed wrote:
> Peter Ammon <gershwin@splintermac.com> wrote
>
[...]
>
>
>
>
> Wrong.
Interesting. I'm not a doctor, so it's quite possible I'm wrong. Which
example did you have in mind?
-Peter
--
Pull out a splinter to reply.
| |
| The Real Bev 2005-09-23, 10:21 pm |
| Just for curious -- has anybody here ever gotten sick because of a
poorly-sanitized kitchen?
--
Cheers, Bev
=================================================================
"A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person
or to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and ev01C5
possibly incurring losses." -- C.M.Cipolla
| |
| Rod Speed 2005-09-23, 11:21 pm |
| Peter Ammon <gershwin@splintermac.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
> Interesting. I'm not a doctor, so it's quite possible I'm wrong. Which
> example did you have in mind?
Already told you, you just deleted it from the quoting.
Enjoying your juvenile games ?
| |
| Tom Quackenbush 2005-09-23, 11:21 pm |
| Peter Ammon wrote:
>Rod Speed wrote:
[color=darkred]
>
>Interesting. I'm not a doctor, so it's quite possible I'm wrong. Which
>example did you have in mind?
Hey, there's two of us! I'm not a doctor, either, and I'd also like
to know which germs have developed a resitance to bleach.
R,
Tom Q.
| |
| Tom Quackenbush 2005-09-24, 12:21 am |
| The Real Bev wrote:
>Just for curious -- has anybody here ever gotten sick because of a
>poorly-sanitized kitchen?
Not me - but I've carefully cultivated a resistance to those types
of germs. I suspect that my dinner guests aren't all as far-sighted as
I am in that respect, so I'll have to poll them as to their
post-dinner health. Unfortunately, I'll need to restrict the poll to
those that remain on speaking terms with me. That could bias the poll,
I'm afraid.
R,
Tom Q.
| |
| The Real Bev 2005-09-24, 1:21 am |
| Tom Quackenbush wrote:
>
> The Real Bev wrote:
>
>
> Not me - but I've carefully cultivated a resistance to those types
> of germs. I suspect that my dinner guests aren't all as far-sighted as
> I am in that respect, so I'll have to poll them as to their
> post-dinner health. Unfortunately, I'll need to restrict the poll to
> those that remain on speaking terms with me. That could bias the poll,
> I'm afraid.
What you have done is assist your surviving guests to resist additional
microbes -- a favor, and at absolutely no cost to them. If they don't thank
you for it, it's simple thoughtless ingratitude for your concern for their
well-being on their part and you may either forgive them or wipe them off your
future guest lists.
--
Cheers, Bev
=============================================================
My house isn't a pigsty, it's an Immunity Enhancement Center.
| |
| Chloe 2005-09-24, 10:21 am |
| "The Real Bev" <bashley@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:4334A619.6E916EED@myrealbox.com...
> Just for curious -- has anybody here ever gotten sick because of a
> poorly-sanitized kitchen?
No, although I didn't take the warnings seriously enough about cooking
chicken thoroughly one time. Emphasis on the word one. So although I think
some of the caution about wiping down with bleach and the like might be
overdone for people with healthy immune systems, I do treat raw chicken as
the toxic substance it is.
| |
| Spod Reed 2005-09-24, 2:21 pm |
|
Tom Quackenbush wrote:
> Peter Ammon wrote:
>
>
> Hey, there's two of us! I'm not a doctor, either, and I'd also like
> to know which germs have developed a resitance to bleach.
>
"Bleach and phenolics have been used since the 1800s, and quaternary
ammonium compounds since at least 1935. The many decades and high
volumes of use have provided ample opportunity for bacteria to adapt
genetically; however, disinfectant failure due to genetic adaptation
has not been reported. In contrast, the evolution of
antibiotic-resistant bacteria rendered penicillin therapeutically
useless within a decade of its introduction. In addition, germicides
have been shown to be equally effective against antibiotic-resistant
bacterial strains (e.g., MRSA, VRE, PRSP) and strains exhibiting
renewed virulence (e.g., E. coli 0157). Biocides are crucial to
reducing the reservoir of such pathogens in our surroundings."
"By definition, antibiotics are substances produced by one organism
that inhibit the growth of another organism. They have specific
cellular targets, e.g., a particular site on an enzyme, into which they
fit like a key into a lock to perform their function. Just as minor
changes in a lock make a key useless, a single mutation in an organism
can make it resistant to an antibiotic. Penicillin is a good example.
Widespread use began circa 1945, and resistance was detected within a
decade. Conversely, many antiseptics and disinfectants have been used
for over 100 years without loss of effectiveness."
As usual, Rod Speed is talking out of his germ infected XXX and
provides no proof for his claim. He's a confused, old welfare bum who
hasn't a clue, as always.
| |
| Rod Speed 2005-09-24, 3:21 pm |
| Spod Reed <rhalford1961@yahoo.com> wrote
> Tom Quackenbush wrote
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
> "Bleach and phenolics have been used since the 1800s, and
> quaternary ammonium compounds since at least 1935. The
> many decades and high volumes of use have provided ample
> opportunity for bacteria to adapt genetically; however, disinfectant
> failure due to genetic adaptation has not been reported.
Lie. Before antibiotics showed up, those infected with the
worst bugs were just left to die. That is why parents of that
era were so obsessed about disinfecting, those consequences.
The worst of those bugs around around anymore, they
were wiped out by antibiotics, to be replaced by others
due to antibiotic resistance half a century or so later.
If it was as simple as that stupid woman claims in her article,
we wouldnt see hospitals as the worst places for bad bugs
today, because they could just continue to use bleach etc and
wipe out those bugs that have developed antibiotic resistance
in hospitals. Doesnt happen, because she is just plain wrong.
And this bit is flagrantly dishonest
Unlike antibiotics, current scientific evidence does not
demonstrate a link between the use of antimicrobial-biocidal
products and the emergence of biocide or antibiotic resistance.2,3
Turns out that those two references are to
2. Anderson RL, Carr JH, Bond WW, Favero MS. Susceptibility
of Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococci to Environmental Disinfectants.
Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology. 1997; 18: 195-199.
3. Rutala WA, Stiegel MM, Sarubbi FA, Weber DJ. Susceptibility
of Antibiotic-Susceptible and Antibiotic-Resistant Hospital Bacteria
to Disinfectants. Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology. 1997; 18:
417-421.
Those two are clearly NOT discussing resistance to the use of
bleach etc at all.
http://www.infectioncontroltoday.co.../131topics.html
> In contrast, the evolution of antibiotic-resistant bacteria rendered
> penicillin therapeutically useless within a decade of its introduction.
> In addition, germicides have been shown to be equally effective
> against antibiotic-resistant bacterial strains (e.g., MRSA, VRE,
> PRSP) and strains exhibiting renewed virulence (e.g., E. coli 0157).
> Biocides are crucial to reducing the reservoir of such pathogens
> in our surroundings."
Pity they dont eliminate them. Funny that.
> "By definition, antibiotics are substances produced by one organism
> that inhibit the growth of another organism. They have specific
> cellular targets, e.g., a particular site on an enzyme, into which
> they fit like a key into a lock to perform their function. Just as
> minor changes in a lock make a key useless, a single mutation in an
> organism can make it resistant to an antibiotic. Penicillin is a good
> example. Widespread use began circa 1945, and resistance was detected
> within a decade. Conversely, many antiseptics and disinfectants have
> been used for over 100 years without loss of effectiveness."
Lie. Doesnt explain why the use of bleach in hospitals hasnt
stopped those antibiotic resistant organisms in their tracks.
| |
| Rod Speed 2005-09-24, 3:21 pm |
| Chloe <justsayno@spam.com> wrote
> The Real Bev <bashley@myrealbox.com> wrote
[color=darkred]
> No, although I didn't take the warnings seriously enough about cooking
> chicken thoroughly one time. Emphasis on the word one. So although I think
> some of the caution about wiping down with bleach and the like
> might be overdone for people with healthy immune systems, I do treat
> raw chicken as the toxic substance it is.
More fool you. I dont bother and have never had a problem.
| |
| Spod Reed 2005-09-24, 3:21 pm |
|
Rod Speed wrote:
> Lie. Doesnt explain why the use of bleach in hospitals hasnt
> stopped those antibiotic resistant organisms in their tracks.
It does on the surface it's being applied to.
Tell us how using bleach on a kitchen counter will "breed better bugs".
Explain to us how a germ will develop resistance to being physically
destroyed.
We know how germs develope anti-biological resistance, so explain the
other for us.
| |
| Rod Speed 2005-09-24, 3:21 pm |
| Spod Reed <rhalford1961@yahoo.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
[color=darkred]
> It does on the surface it's being applied to.
Lie, it isnt even possible to apply it to all surfaces effectively.
> Tell us how using bleach on a kitchen counter will "breed better bugs".
The same way that anything that doesnt kill 100% does, cretin.
> Explain to us how a germ will develop
> resistance to being physically destroyed.
The same way that anything that doesnt kill 100% does, cretin.
> We know how germs develope anti-biological
> resistance, so explain the other for us.
The same way that anything that doesnt kill 100% does, cretin.
And just how many of you are there between those ears, wanker ?
| |
| Spod Reed 2005-09-24, 4:21 pm |
|
Rod Speed wrote:
> Spod Reed <rhalford1961@yahoo.com> wrote
>
>
>
> Lie, it isnt even possible to apply it to all surfaces effectively.
>
>
> The same way that anything that doesnt kill 100% does, cretin.
Still waiting for an answer instead of your moronic babbling. Explain
how that would work with "physical action"? While you may physically
miss a germ with the bleach, it won't be any stronger so explain how it
will grow better.
If you haven't got a real answer than shut the fuck up.
Note that it's probabaly about 2 or 3:30 AM where Rod lives and yet
he's still at the computer. When you never had a job, you can post
24/7.
See how Rod is the top poster for September and is the all time top
poster here. Like I said, 24/7, no job, no life.
<http://groups.google.com/group/misc...ing/about?hl=en>
| |
| Rod Speed 2005-09-24, 4:21 pm |
| Spod Reed <rhalford1961@yahoo.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
> Still waiting for an answer instead of your moronic babbling.
Lying, as always.
> Explain how that would work with "physical action"?
Already did, repeatedly.
ANYTHING THAT DOESNT KILL 100% WILL BREED RESISTANCE.
That is just as true with a bullet to the head, as I already said.
> While you may physically miss a germ with the bleach,
That aint the only possibility. The other obvious possibility
is that some of the germs dont get hit with a strong
enough bleach solution to kill them, cretin.
> it won't be any stronger so explain how it will grow better.
Pathetic, really.
> If you haven't got a real answer
Already have, repeatedly.
> than shut the fuck up.
Go and fuck yourself.
And you STILL havent managed to explain why, if bleach will
kill all germs, WE STILL SEE ANTIBIOTIC RESISTANT GERMS
CAUSING MASSIVE PROBLEMS IN HOSPITALS TODAY.
And why we saw people left to die when they got
infected in the days before antibiotics showed up.
<reams of your puerile lying flushed where it belongs>
Couldnt bullshit its way out of a wet paperbag even
if its pathetic excuse for a 'life' depended on it.
| |
| Victor Smith 2005-09-24, 5:21 pm |
| On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 03:22:20 +1000, "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>Lie. Doesnt explain why the use of bleach in hospitals hasnt
>stopped those antibiotic resistant organisms in their tracks.
>
Because the humans harboring the germs aren't treated with bleach,
dingbat. You and that beetle fellow are the first I've seen that
can't differentiate between bleach and antibiotics, or between the
germ breeding potential of live organisms versus the germ-carrying
quality of dead utensils.
Here's some clues for you:
1. Don't treat an germ-infected person with bleach. Won't work.
2. Don't treat a germ-infected cutting board with anti-biotics. The
needle will break off, or the board will refuse to swallow the pill.
3. Quit making excuses for not washing your hands after wiping your
asses, which in your feeble minds will just make shit germs stronger
and stronger until they take over the world. Sane people tend to look
askance at such nonsense.
4. Keep you tin-foil hats shiny. Repels germs.
--Vic
| |
| Victor Smith 2005-09-24, 5:21 pm |
| On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 13:06:18 GMT, "Chloe" <justsayno@spam.com> wrote:
>"The Real Bev" <bashley@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
>news:4334A619.6E916EED@myrealbox.com...
>
>No, although I didn't take the warnings seriously enough about cooking
>chicken thoroughly one time. Emphasis on the word one. So although I think
>some of the caution about wiping down with bleach and the like might be
>overdone for people with healthy immune systems, I do treat raw chicken as
>the toxic substance it is.
>
http://www.chclibrary.org/micromed/00048630.html
"Description
Every year millions of people suffer from bouts of vomiting and
diarrhea that they blame on "something I ate." These people are
generally correct. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC) estimates that there are from 6–33 million cases of food
poisoning in the United States each year. Many cases are mild and pass
so rapidly that they are never diagnosed. Occasionally a severe
outbreak creates a newsworthy public health hazard."
------------------
"Prevention
Food poisoning is almost entirely preventable by practicing good
sanitation and good food handling techniques. These include:
Keep hot foods hot and cold foods cold.
Cook meat to the recommended internal temperature. Use a meat
thermometer to check. Cook eggs until they are no longer runny.
Refrigerate leftovers promptly. Do not let food stand at room
temperature.
Avoid contaminating surfaces and other foods with the juices of
uncooked meats.
Wash fruits and vegetables before using.
Purchase pasteurized dairy products and fruit juices.
Throw away bulging or leaking cans or any food that smells spoiled.
Wash hands well before and during food preparation and after using the
bathroom.
Sanitize food preparation surfaces regularly."
Most everybody has gotten sick because of a "poorly-sanitized kitchen"
To me the kitchen includes the cooks and food handlers.
I got sick a few times from wedding and picnic food, and just don't
eat it anymore. Bread, and beer or soda holds me over.
Never gotten sick from home-cooked.
--Vic
| |
| Logan Shaw 2005-09-24, 5:21 pm |
| Rod Speed wrote:
> Spod Reed <rhalford1961@yahoo.com> wrote
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Lie, it isnt even possible to apply it to all surfaces effectively.
And that answers the objection that if disinfectants could kill germs
very effectively why hospitals still have nasty microbes running around.
The answer is that hospitals still hvae nasty microbes running around
for two reasons: one, they are full of germ factories (also known as
"patients"); two, it is not possible to evacuate all the air from the
hospital and then submerge the entire hospital in bleach or some other
disinfectant. There are going to be spots which are missed.
- Logan
| |
| Rod Speed 2005-09-24, 5:21 pm |
| Victor Smith <victorfsmith@earthlink.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
[color=darkred]
> Because the humans harboring the germs aren't treated with bleach, dingbat.
Pity that if the claim about bleach being all you need
was correct, you could eliminate the antibiotic resistant
germs FROM HOSPITALS, so no one would ever get
infected with them IN HOSPITALS, cretin.
> You and that beetle fellow are the first I've seen that
> can't differentiate between bleach and antibiotics,
Lying, as always.
> or between the germ breeding potential of live organisms
> versus the germ-carrying quality of dead utensils.
Lying, as always.
> Here's some clues for you:
> 1. Don't treat an germ-infected person with bleach. Won't work.
> 2. Don't treat a germ-infected cutting board with anti-biotics. The
> needle will break off, or the board will refuse to swallow the pill.
So stupid it doesnt even realise that antibiotics
dont just come in injectable and pill form.
> 3. Quit making excuses for not washing your hands after wiping
> your asses, which in your feeble minds will just make shit germs
> stronger and stronger until they take over the world. Sane
> people tend to look askance at such nonsense.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof
that you've never ever had a fucking clue.
> 4. Keep you tin-foil hats shiny. Repels germs.
Pathetic, really.
| |
| Rod Speed 2005-09-24, 5:21 pm |
| X-Trace: individual.net pGhgU3uBAcYyoT2nBPEBDwwqXLMd/df0uax/Y/ptSrPZ/kcCA=
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2670
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2670
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Response
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com misc.consumers.frugal-living:671780 alt.home.cleaning:31649 alt.food.safety:1419
Logan Shaw <lshaw-usenet@austin.rr.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
> And that answers the objection that if disinfectants could kill germs
> very effectively why hospitals still have nasty microbes running around.
Nope, what is possible in hospitals is completely different to kitchens.
> The answer is that hospitals still hvae nasty microbes running around for two
> reasons: one, they are full of germ factories (also known as "patients");
That problem was solved more than a century ago with isolation wards etc.
> two, it is not possible to evacuate all the air from the hospital
The worst of them arent airborne.
> and then submerge the entire hospital in bleach or some other disinfectant.
How odd that that works with surgerys and surgical instruments.
> There are going to be spots which are missed.
Perfectly possible to santize the wards so patients that
dont arrive with a bad bug dont get infected in the hospital.
And that is in fact done in the research operations
that do research on the worst of the bad bugs.
The problem is that when those extreme measures arent used,
you dont get 100% kills with bleach, so you do breed bad bugs.
Its stupid to be doing that in a kitchen where
normal cleanliness is perfectly adequate.
| |
| Spod Reed 2005-09-24, 5:21 pm |
|
Rod Speed wrote:
> Spod Reed <rhalford1961@yahoo.com> wrote
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Lying, as always.
>
>
> Already did, repeatedly.
>
> ANYTHING THAT DOESNT KILL 100% WILL BREED RESISTANCE.
> That is just as true with a bullet to the head, as I already said.
Using your logic, if I shot at a herd of twenty deer and only kill 19,
the one I missed will evolve into a bullet-proof super deer. What a
fucking XXX you are.
>
>
> That aint the only possibility. The other obvious possibility
> is that some of the germs dont get hit with a strong
> enough bleach solution to kill them, cretin.
But that wouldn't make them any stronger against bleah AS YOU CLAIM,
roofucker.
>
> Pathetic, really.
Oops, did your dick make an appearance? Anyhow...
>
>
> Already have, repeatedly.
Nope.
>
>
> Go and fuck yourself.
>
> And you STILL havent managed to explain why, if bleach will
> kill all germs, WE STILL SEE ANTIBIOTIC RESISTANT GERMS
> CAUSING MASSIVE PROBLEMS IN HOSPITALS TODAY.
There you go yet again confusing antibiotics with disinfectants. Stupid
really. Antibiotic resistant germs are transmitted by improperly
sanitized
equipment, surfaces and hygene, that's why there are still problems,
asswhipe. Ebola is antibiotic resistant but bleach will kill it dead as
your parents.
"A physician with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
describes the first order of business when he and his colleagues
arrived at Kikwit General Hospital, the main locus of transmission for
Ebola: "We just went in, cleaned the floor, removed the needles,
removed the cadavers, put them in body bags, did the cleaning." Wearing
protective clothing, they cleared out and carefully disposed of the
vomit, urine, excrement, dirty needles, and dead bodies, liberally
applying bleach solution to everything. They instituted basic sanitary
procedures, including the wearing of gloves and face masks. Thus was
the "doomsday disease" conquered.
"The fact of the matter was that Ebola hemorrhagic fever, along with
Marburg and Lassa, were diseases of poverty and bad hospitals," writes
Regis. "Although they thrived momentarily when they erupted in such
environments, those same viruses were stopped cold every time they
turned up in well-equipped medical institutions....Common and ordinary
items such as rubber gloves, plastic gowns, and face masks could halt
an epidemic. A killer virus itself could be killed by a liberal
application of household bleach. [T]hose items, mundane and boring as
they were, had been the very things that had terminated the Ebola
outbreak in Kikwit."
Suck it Rod. You are wrong.
| |
| Choreboy 2005-09-24, 6:21 pm |
|
Vox Humana wrote:
>
> "Picilli" <feranija@net...> wrote in message news:gig0hd.oc.ln@127.0.0.1...
>
> Alcohol is not as effective as bleach. It does not kill the most pathogenic
> bacteria - the ones that will make you sick.
Mycobacteria cause many serious diseases including TB. They are good at
developing resistance to antibiotics. Bleach won't kill them. Alcohol will.
> A 10% bleach solution is much
> better and less expensive. The solution should be fresh. In medical/dental
> practices, the protocol is to clean the surface of obvious debris, moisten
> the surface with a 10% bleach solution, and let it sit for 10 minutes. The
> down-side of bleach is that it can discolor and weaken fabrics and the
> solution should be made fresh daily. A better approach is often to use a
> barrier, such as plastic or several layers of paper over surfaces where you
> will be preparing meat (or doing surgery.) There is an entire industry that
> makes barriers to cover medical/dental equipment so as to minimize time,
> and the quantity of potentially hazardous chemicals used to disinfect
> surfaces.
For wiping surfaces, isn't the protocol 1000 ppm, or 0.1%?
Disinfectants are judged on how fast they kill. If bleach is too
strong, it takes longer to kill through bleaching, although the high pH
will kill many microbes.
Citrus fruit is washed to reduce spoilage. The best disinfectant has
been found to be approximately a teaspoon of household bleach and a
teaspoon of baking soda per quart of water.
| |
| The Real Bev 2005-09-24, 6:21 pm |
| Victor Smith wrote:
>
> On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 03:22:20 +1000, "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> Because the humans harboring the germs aren't treated with bleach,
> dingbat. You and that beetle fellow are the first I've seen that
> can't differentiate between bleach and antibiotics, or between the
> germ breeding potential of live organisms versus the germ-carrying
> quality of dead utensils.
And let's not forget recent studies that show infrequent handwashing by "busy"
doctors and really-busy nurses.
--
Cheers,
Bev
----------------------------------------------
Linux: The penguin is mightier than the sword
| |
| Rod Speed 2005-09-24, 6:21 pm |
| Spod Reed <rhalford1961@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Rod Speed wrote:
>
[color=darkred]
> Using your logic, if I shot at a herd of twenty deer and only kill
> 19, the one I missed will evolve into a bullet-proof super deer.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never had a
fucking clue about the basics of evolution, or anything else at all, either.
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
> But that wouldn't make them any stronger against bleah AS YOU CLAIM,
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never had a
fucking clue about the basics of evolution, or anything else at all, either.
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
> Nope.
Yep.
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
> There you go yet again confusing antibiotics with disinfectants.
Lying, as always.
> Antibiotic resistant germs are transmitted by improperly sanitized
> equipment, surfaces and hygene, that's why there are still problems,
Have fun explaining how come the worst bugs were a
massive problem before antibiotics had even been invented.
> Ebola is antibiotic resistant but bleach will kill it dead
Have fun explaining how come the worst bugs were a
massive problem before antibiotics had even been invented.
> "A physician with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
> describes the first order of business when he and his colleagues
> arrived at Kikwit General Hospital, the main locus of transmission for
> Ebola: "We just went in, cleaned the floor, removed the needles,
> removed the cadavers, put them in body bags, did the cleaning."
> Wearing protective clothing, they cleared out and carefully disposed
> of the vomit, urine, excrement, dirty needles, and dead bodies,
> liberally applying bleach solution to everything. They instituted
> basic sanitary procedures, including the wearing of gloves and face
> masks. Thus was the "doomsday disease" conquered.
Have fun explaining how come the worst bugs were a massive problem
before antibiotics had even been invented where that approach didnt work.
> "The fact of the matter was that Ebola hemorrhagic fever, along with
> Marburg and Lassa, were diseases of poverty and bad hospitals," writes
> Regis. "Although they thrived momentarily when they erupted in such
> environments, those same viruses were stopped cold every time they
> turned up in well-equipped medical institutions....Common and ordinary
> items such as rubber gloves, plastic gowns, and face masks could halt
> an epidemic. A killer virus itself could be killed by a liberal
> application of household bleach. [T]hose items, mundane and boring as
> they were, had been the very things that had terminated the Ebola
> outbreak in Kikwit."
Have fun explaining how come the worst bugs were a massive problem
before antibiotics had even been invented where that approach didnt work.
> You are wrong.
Only in your pathetic little drug crazed pig ignorant fantasyland.
| |
| Spod Reed 2005-09-24, 6:21 pm |
|
Rod Speed wrote:
>
> The problem is that when those extreme measures arent used,
> you dont get 100% kills with bleach, so you do breed bad bugs.
Give some examples, otherwise you're just talking out of your germ
ridden XXX.
| |
|
| "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never had a
>fucking clue about the basics of evolution, or anything else at all, either.
>Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never had a
>fucking clue about the basics of evolution, or anything else at all, either.
>Have fun explaining how come the worst bugs were a
>massive problem before antibiotics had even been invented.
>Have fun explaining how come the worst bugs were a
>massive problem before antibiotics had even been invented.
Excellent, looks like you've figured out how to use the clipboard!
| |
| Rod Speed 2005-09-24, 7:21 pm |
| Spod Reed <rhalford1961@yahoo.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
[color=darkred]
> Give some examples,
Already did, what was seen before antibiotics showed up, when
the best there was was bleach, phenolics, alcohol, iodine etc.
| |
| The Real Bev 2005-09-24, 7:21 pm |
| Rod Speed wrote:
>
> Spod Reed <rhalford1961@yahoo.com> wrote
>
>
>
> Already did, what was seen before antibiotics showed up, when
> the best there was was bleach, phenolics, alcohol, iodine etc.
I think you mean phenols here. Phenolics are phenol-derived resins.
HTH. HAND.
--
Cheers, Bev
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Why should I be tarred with the epithet "loony" merely
because I have a pet halibut? --Monty Python
| |
| Victor Smith 2005-09-24, 8:21 pm |
| On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 13:54:11 -0700, The Real Bev
<bashley@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>Victor Smith wrote:
>
>And let's not forget recent studies that show infrequent handwashing by "busy"
>doctors and really-busy nurses.
Let's not. Nor the bacteria found under nurses' long fingernails,
which a study done not long ago found to be a particularly nasty
breeding ground, and difficult to disinfect even when proper
hand-washing techniques are used.
--Vic
| |
| Logan Shaw 2005-09-24, 8:21 pm |
| Rod Speed wrote:
> Spod Reed <rhalford1961@yahoo.com> wrote
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
> Already did, what was seen before antibiotics showed up, when
> the best there was was bleach, phenolics, alcohol, iodine etc.
Iodine is still used. When I had surgery to correct my majorly
screwed up toenail, the hospital staff told me I had to rub some
iodine stuff all over the lower half of my whole leg thoroughly.
By your logic, this is a bad practice because it breeds iodine
resistant bacteria. Nevertheless, it is still a standard thing
to do before an operation.
- Logan
| |
| Rod Speed 2005-09-24, 8:21 pm |
| The Real Bev <bashley@myrealbox.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
> I think you mean phenols here.
Nope.
> Phenolics are phenol-derived resins.
That is just a subset of phenolics,
http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/np/phenolics/title.htm
> HTH. HAND.
DWT. KUYH.
| |
| Rod Speed 2005-09-24, 8:21 pm |
| The Real Bev <bashley@myrealbox.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
> I think you mean phenols here.
Nope.
> Phenolics are phenol-derived resins.
That is just a subset of phenolics,
http://www.hcs.ohio-state.edu/hcs300/biochem3.htm
> HTH. HAND.
DWT. KUYH.
| |
| Rod Speed 2005-09-24, 8:21 pm |
| Logan Shaw <lshaw-usenet@austin.rr.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
> Iodine is still used.
So is bleach. Separate issue entirely to whether bad
bugs were seen before antibiotics were invented.
> When I had surgery to correct my majorly screwed up toenail, the hospital
> staff told me I had to rub some iodine stuff all over the lower half of my
> whole leg thoroughly.
That is massive overkill. I didnt need
anything like that with major knee surgery.
> By your logic, this is a bad practice because it breeds iodine resistant
> bacteria.
Wrong. I never said that sanitizing isnt useful in hospitals, JUST
that its very undesirable in KITCHENS where it breeds bad bugs.
> Nevertheless, it is still a standard thing to do before an operation.
Never ever said it wasnt.
Alcohol is still used before injections etc too.
| |
| The Real Bev 2005-09-24, 9:21 pm |
| Rod Speed wrote:
> Alcohol is still used before injections etc too.
Even lethal ones.
--
Cheers,
Bev
=====================================================
It's 95% of the lawyers making the other 5% look bad.
| |
| Spod Reed 2005-09-24, 10:21 pm |
|
Rod Speed wrote:
> Spod Reed <rhalford1961@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never had a
> fucking clue about the basics of evolution, or anything else at all, either.
>
>
>
>
> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never had a
> fucking clue about the basics of evolution, or anything else at all, either.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yep.
>
>
>
>
>
> Lying, as always.
>
>
> Have fun explaining how come the worst bugs were a
> massive problem before antibiotics had even been invented.
>
>
> Have fun explaining how come the worst bugs were a
> massive problem before antibiotics had even been invented.
>
>
> Have fun explaining how come the worst bugs were a massive problem
> before antibiotics had even been invented where that approach didnt work.
>
>
> Have fun explaining how come the worst bugs were a massive problem
> before antibiotics had even been invented where that approach didnt work.
Don't have to Dick Rod, poor hygene and sanitation practices have been
around a long time contributing to the problem.
>
> Only in your pathetic little drug crazed pig ignorant fantasyland.
Still waiting for those examples Rod. Wow, you've been up all night
posting!
Sucks having no life, no job and no friends.
| |
| Spod Reed 2005-09-24, 10:21 pm |
|
Rod Speed wrote:
> Logan Shaw <lshaw-usenet@austin.rr.com> wrote
>
>
>
>
>
> So is bleach. Separate issue entirely to whether bad
> bugs were seen before antibiotics were invented.
>
>
> That is massive overkill.
Wow, Rod knows more than the people doing the prep for surgery!
He should be getting paid to tell the hospitals and doctors that they
are all wrong.
>I didnt need anything like that with major knee surgery.
No surprise there as most people on welfare recieve sub-standard
medical care.
| |
| Rod Speed 2005-09-24, 10:21 pm |
| Spod Reed <rhalford1961@yahoo.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
> Don't have to Dick Rod, poor hygene and sanitation practices
> have been around a long time contributing to the problem.
Pity they did what they could with good hygene and
sanitation once they realised how important that was,
and it wasnt enough until antibiotics showed up.
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
> Still waiting for those examples Rod.
Still lying.
| |
| Rod Speed 2005-09-24, 10:21 pm |
| Spod Reed <rhalford1961@yahoo.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
> Wow, Rod knows more than the people doing the prep for surgery!
I know that few bother with that level of prep with toenails, cretin.
[color=darkred]
> No surprise there as most people on
> welfare recieve sub-standard medical care.
Never ever had a cent of welfare in my entire life thanks liar.
| |
| William Souden 2005-09-24, 10:21 pm |
| Rod Speed wrote:
>
> Never ever had a cent of welfare in my entire life thanks liar.
>
>
It is doled out in dollars.
| |
| William Souden 2005-09-24, 10:21 pm |
|
Even on welfare Rod still has access to the counseling that he needs.
Inability to ever admit error is a major reason no one will hire him.
| |
| Logan Shaw 2005-09-24, 11:21 pm |
| Rod Speed wrote:
> Logan Shaw <lshaw-usenet@austin.rr.com> wrote
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
> Wrong. I never said that sanitizing isnt useful in hospitals, JUST
> that its very undesirable in KITCHENS where it breeds bad bugs.
How do the germs know whether they're in a kitchen or someplace else
like a hospital? It seems like germs would respond to the same chemical
in the same way no matter where the germs are located. If it breeds
bad bugs in a kitchen, then it will in a hospital too, and vice versa.
If it did breed bad bugs, then why would hospitals disinfect things at
such a critical time as right before an operation?
- Logan
| |
| Victor Smith 2005-09-25, 12:21 am |
| On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 01:50:24 GMT, Logan Shaw
<lshaw-usenet@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>Rod Speed wrote:
>
>
>
>
>How do the germs know whether they're in a kitchen or someplace else
>like a hospital?
They look in a mirror. If they're wearing an apron and chef hat, they
know they're in the kitchen, and prepare to selectively breed and
mutate while sharpening their little cleavers.
--Vic
| |
| Rod Speed 2005-09-25, 12:21 am |
| Logan Shaw <lshaw-usenet@austin.rr.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
> How do the germs know whether they're in a kitchen or someplace else like a
> hospital?
By the thoroughness of the 'sanitizing'
> It seems like germs would respond to the same chemical in the same way no
> matter where the germs are located.
They dont necessarily get the same chemical as in a hospital
where real care is taken to ensure that the right mixture of say
bleach is used which ensure enough active ingredient, let alone
the same level of application to everywhere like the floors etc.
> If it breeds bad bugs in a kitchen, then it will in a hospital too, and vice
> versa.
Wrong, what matters is those that dont get killed.
> If it did breed bad bugs, then why would hospitals disinfect things at such a
> critical time as right before an operation?
Because they can ensure that its done right with a very high kill rate.
That was not however enough before antibiotics were invented.
| |
| Sue Larkin 2005-09-25, 1:21 am |
| In article <ebcZe.33058$uD6.7268@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>,
"Chloe" <justsayno@spam.com> wrote:
> "The Real Bev" <bashley@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
> news:4334A619.6E916EED@myrealbox.com...
>
> No, although I didn't take the warnings seriously enough about cooking
> chicken thoroughly one time. Emphasis on the word one. So although I think
> some of the caution about wiping down with bleach and the like might be
> overdone for people with healthy immune systems, I do treat raw chicken as
> the toxic substance it is.
I have friends of long standing who have extremely questionable kitchen
hygiene habits. They tend to get digestive disturbances more often than
what might be considered normal (whatever 'normal' might be in this
case!). And, they get them at the same time. They always say it's the
flu and never consider that it could be 'something they ate' or, rather,
the array of germs comingling in their kitchen that clung to whatever
they ate...or the very outdated food at the back of their refrigerator
that they refuse to toss! I stopped accepting dinner invitations over a
decade ago when I felt ill after eating at their home. I know others who
also decline dinner invites. In the meantime, my friends just keep
getting the flu more often than anyone they know and their friend base
just keeps getting smaller.
Talk about denial!
aloha...Sue
| |
| Peter Bruells 2005-09-25, 4:21 am |
| Logan Shaw <lshaw-usenet@austin.rr.com> writes:
> Iodine is still used. When I had surgery to correct my majorly
> screwed up toenail, the hospital staff told me I had to rub some
> iodine stuff all over the lower half of my whole leg thoroughly.
> By your logic, this is a bad practice because it breeds iodine
> resistant bacteria. Nevertheless, it is still a standard thing
> to do before an operation.
Part of the anti-biotics-resistancy problem is simply mis-use.
Over-Exposure - patients insisting on anti-biotics even for viral
infections - and stopping them to early, i.e. putting them away when
the sickness has passed, but not all bacteria have been killed.
| |
| shinypenny 2005-09-25, 10:21 am |
|
The Real Bev wrote:
> Just for curious -- has anybody here ever gotten sick because of a
> poorly-sanitized kitchen?
Not to my knowledge, but I have gotten food poisoning from eating
outside the home.
Worst bout was after eating airplane food - I was deathly ill for weeks
(doc thinks it was probably some form of hepatitis - I have never been
so sick in my life!!). Second worst was eating at a questionable
restaurant (the food tasted funky so we didn't finish it, both of us
got ill the next day, so we complained later to the health department
and found out the place had numerous violations).
At home we eat very little meat, and when we do, we handle VERY
carefully, following the cautions on the package, washing hands
thoroughly after handling, throwing the cutting board and knife
immediately into the dishwasher, etc.
While I will use bleach in the bathroom to reduce mildew and mold
(since I'm allergic to it), I do not use much bleach or other harsh
cleaners in my kitchen or elsewhere in the house. I have been slowly
learning how to clean a house without use of much in the way of toxic
cleaners. (Biggest hurdle is getting over the psychological "need" to
have the house smell "clean" - i.e, like furniture polish, bleach,
etc!!)
Also I'm not sure it's wise to use bleach on granite counters? I just
assumed it wasn't, so I don't. I just wipe them down with soap and
water, or once a week use a granite cleaner.
I will spray out the sink periodically with a bleach-based cleanser
(especially around Thanksgiving, when we're dealing with raw turkey in
the sink), but mostly I just treat the kitchen sink as a "toxic" zone
since I've heard that's where most of the worst germs are in the house.
I.e., I use colanders for washing veggies in the sink and any food that
touches the sink itself, gets thrown away.
Ultimately I think the most important hygiene habit is to wash your
hands with hot water and soap, and do it frequently throughout the day.
We are big on hand-washing around here. I think soap and water is
sufficient and we don't use hand sanitizers except when we travel or go
someplace that we know will only have porto-pots.
I think the times we tend to get sick are almost always when we make
the long car trip to visit grandma over the holidays. I think those
highway gas stations are landmines, with all those thousands of
travelers using the same bathroom. That's when hand sanitizer is a must
(even if you wash your hands in the bathroom, think of those who don't,
and then touch the same door handle on the way out). Yuck.
I guess I figure it is far more likely that you'll pick up germs from
someone who's sick, than from raw meat or eggs in your kitchen.
jen
| |
| shinypenny 2005-09-25, 10:21 am |
|
The Real Bev wrote:
> Just for curious -- has anybody here ever gotten sick because of a
> poorly-sanitized kitchen?
Forgot one more comment: my pet peeve is grocery store baggers who toss
the raw meat in on top of the fresh produce. DUH! That is soooo
unsafe!!
jen
| |
| dogsnus 2005-09-25, 10:21 am |
| Picilli <feranija@net...> wrote in news:gig0hd.oc.ln@127.0.0.1:
>
> Why only bleach ? OK, it may be an excellent sanitizer, but aren't
> 99% propanol or ethanol just as effective disinfectants ?
I can get a gallon of bleach for .99. It goes a very long way.
Terri
--
Your rubber and I'm chocolate, whatever you say bounces off me and lands
in fondue. No, wait, I told that wrong. Wiblur-alt.religion.kibology
| |
| The Real Bev 2005-09-25, 4:21 pm |
| shinypenny wrote:
>
> I think the times we tend to get sick are almost always when we make
> the long car trip to visit grandma over the holidays. I think those
> highway gas stations are landmines, with all those thousands of
> travelers using the same bathroom. That's when hand sanitizer is a must
> (even if you wash your hands in the bathroom, think of those who don't,
> and then touch the same door handle on the way out). Yuck.
Perhaps it comes down to individual resistance. After crossing the country
innumerable times since 1962, stopping at the cheapest gas station in any
town and being horrified at what we found in many restrooms, including no
hand-washing facilities, we have NEVER gotten any sort of illness. My
daughter got poison oak once, but that was from a patch of brush in the
forest, not a public restroom. Only recently have I thought about the dangers
lurking on the bathroom doorhandle, and I worry about those only when I'm
in/near doctors' offices or a hospital.
--
Cheers,
Bev
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
'Politics' comes from an ancient Greek word meaning
'many blood-sucking leeches.' -- Mark Russell
| |
| Bob Ward 2005-09-25, 7:21 pm |
| On 25 Sep 2005 05:28:05 -0700, "shinypenny" <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>
>The Real Bev wrote:
>
>
>Forgot one more comment: my pet peeve is grocery store baggers who toss
>the raw meat in on top of the fresh produce. DUH! That is soooo
>unsafe!!
>
>jen
In the stores I frequent, they wrap the raw meat in plastic, then in
paper, then place the package in a plastic bag. You might mention
this possibility to your local butcher.
| |
| Suzanne Rioux 2005-10-26, 9:21 pm |
| "If you follow the $6 by Six Million directions, then you will earn an
income for the rest
of your life!"
Finally an Opportunity that Pays!
*Exclusive* products you can sell and keep every penny you earn
You get an Instant Personal Website to promote that practically sells
itself! People can't wait to pay you for it!!! Promoting it is easy and
we'll even show you how to do it AUTOMATICALLY.
Money deposited Directly and Immediately into YOUR PAYPAL account
For all the details:
http://www.dynamic.charworld.biz
"The Real Bev" <bashley@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:4334D1D5.206ADE96@myrealbox.com...
> Tom Quackenbush wrote:
>
> What you have done is assist your surviving guests to resist additional
> microbes -- a favor, and at absolutely no cost to them. If they don't
> thank
> you for it, it's simple thoughtless ingratitude for your concern for their
> well-being on their part and you may either forgive them or wipe them off
> your
> future guest lists.
>
> --
> Cheers, Bev
> =============================================================
> My house isn't a pigsty, it's an Immunity Enhancement Center.
|
|
|
|
|