On 23/05/2011 20:42, David Paste wrote:
On May 23, 8:13 pm, "Nightjar\"cpb\"@""insertmysurnamehere wrote:

So you don't know then.

Do you?

I never claimed or inferred that I did,

You don't think that:

Right. Really? I mean, really? Bugs build up a resistance to peracetic
acid?!

strongly implies that you do?

but I am not giving an
argument from authority, but rather asking you.

My authority is a professional microbiologist I no longer retain, so I
can give tell you what that microbiologist said in the past, but cannot
answer specific questions about areas that were never covered, which
includes the effects of peracetic acid.

Can you point to anything that says it will produce a 100%
disinfection?

Yes.

Then please do. I have never come across any disinfectant that makes
that claim and would be very interested to see it supported.

Can you show it is used in that manner on wood?

The wood would be single-use only.

Wooden plates are not single use.


So you agree that they are not the same things with the same
requirements.

That is a logical conclusion from the fact that I said that food has
more stringent requirements.

It may have different requirements, but I will remain sceptical of the
relative stringent-ness of them until you can show me some evidence of
this difference. As it stands, I would consider a kitchen a pretty bad
place to do surgery,

Probably a better place than many operating theatres short of those with
laminar flow HEPA filtration. However, I did specify a food preparation
factory, rather than just a kitchen.

but a medical clean room would probably be A-OK
for preparing food.

The only requirement is that the bug count is low enough for a weekend
spent in close proximity to a fairly active radioactive isotope to have
a high probability of not leaving enough alive to breed to a dangerous
level within the shelf life of the product. With food preparation, you
want it low enough that they won't breed in the food without the need to
zap it with several megarads of ionizing radiation.

Giving sweeping statements like "food has more
stringent requirements" doesn't convince me of anything. Especially
after seeing working kitchens in various salubrious student ghettos.

The fact that the standards exist does not mean all establishments meet
them, else Environmental Health would be out of a job.

A further logical conclusion from that and
the fact that we could not use wood anywhere, is that it is not a
suitable material for food use.

Well YOUR logic may well lead you to that conclusion, but (some, not
all) wood is fine for food use, otherwise it would have been outlawed
by the various money-collectors. Now you may not LIKE to use it, or
see it used, but that is a different matter.

The Food Hygiene Directive (93/43/EEC) and subesquent legislation
require that food preparation areas shall be easy to clean and, where
necessary, to disinfect. That effectively does outlaw it for food
preparation. I suspect that not covering the serving of food on wood is
an oversight.

Colin Bignell