Beanfeast   10 #13 Posted October 29, 2009 a cynic...  A what? Is that another type of germ? We don't have those in here do we?  Maybe I'd better cover my screen in handwash to kill them all just in case! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Banjo Griner   10 #14 Posted October 29, 2009 The makers of popular household cleaner Domestos used to boast on their ads that it killed 99% of germs. Dead. I've seen recently some ads for a handwash that improves on this and can kill 99.9% of germs dead, so it seems we're getting better and better. The Question is; what exactly is the 0.1% of germs that mankind, with all its chemicals and technology has so far been unable to eradicate. Why can't we kill them? Will we ever be able to and have a product that kills "100% of germs. Dead"? Yes, that Dara O'Briain joke sure is funny on his DVD. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
HeadingNorth   11 #15 Posted October 29, 2009 Domestos probably does kill 100% of all germs, but there's no way to be certain. Since bacteria have evolved that can live on plutonium - just about the deadliest substance known in the world even if it wasn't radioactive - and others that live exclusive on man-made nylon, it's quite possible that germs will evolve which are resistant to bleach.  That's why they are careful not to claim total coverage. They can't be sued for being wrong. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
04jessops   10 #16 Posted October 29, 2009 The makers of popular household cleaner Domestos used to boast on their ads that it killed 99% of germs. Dead. I've seen recently some ads for a handwash that improves on this and can kill 99.9% of germs dead, so it seems we're getting better and better. The Question is; what exactly is the 0.1% of germs that mankind, with all its chemicals and technology has so far been unable to eradicate. Why can't we kill them? Will we ever be able to and have a product that kills "100% of germs. Dead"?  I think we should be told.  I asked said question a while back on SF and got shouted at (virtually) for getting my maths wrong.  But yeah, it's a valid question, especially when the cleaning products market themselves as really good at fighting against those germs... except that 0.1%.  Yay! I got my maths right! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
medusa   16 #17 Posted October 29, 2009 I do worry about the 0.1%, mainly because if we upset the balance of the commensil bacteria on the world then the 0.1% remaining has a free run at the resources available and even if we don't currently recognise it as a pathogen it could very rapidly become one (or an opportunist organism) purely because of the lack of other bacteria to keep it in balance.  An awful lot of the world is made up of microscopic organisms and dependent on them for its function, from the content of our gut to the reason that wine and beer is made. We really don't want to try living in a sterile world. Quite apart from the fact that we'd all die of malnutrition in very short order, much of the rest of the world would also fail to function. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
metalman   21 #18 Posted October 29, 2009 It all depends what you mean by a germ (as C.E.M. Joad would have said).*  *This will only mean anything to anyone over the age of about 80. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Cyclone   10 #19 Posted October 29, 2009 If everyone stopped using such products we'd all end up a lot healthier and safer.  Go out and eat some dirt, it's good for you. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
HeadingNorth   11 #20 Posted October 29, 2009 If everyone stopped using such products we'd all end up a lot healthier and safer.   Mostly we would, but an unfortunate few would die of something nasty. (A very few, indeed...)  People nowadays don't seem capable of performing a risk assessment. If using antiseptics on everything, all the time, equals three less deaths, then they assume it's a good thing and that is that. The side-effects don't even get considered, let alone balanced against the three dead. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Cyclone   10 #21 Posted October 29, 2009 Less than currently die from MSRA and other resistant strains. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
upinwath   10 #22 Posted October 29, 2009 If you clean it twice do you kill 99% of what is left after the first cleaning? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
HeadingNorth   11 #23 Posted October 29, 2009 Less than currently die from MSRA and other resistant strains.  True, but try drumming that into people's heads. I gave up. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Solomon1   10 #24 Posted October 29, 2009 If everyone stopped using such products we'd all end up a lot healthier and safer. Go out and eat some dirt, it's good for you.  you know what i'm sayin  its frightening how many toxic products people use in their homes to protect them from a non-existent enemy  causing untold damage to their skin and lungs Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
