On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 01:57:34 GMT, raden wrote:

In message , Mike Mitchell
writes
On 27 Jul 2004 16:09:13 GMT, (Huge) wrote:

Grunff writes:
Huge wrote:

Can't be. We don't like it, either.

Ahem... Well, we do. We installed our first lot in our first house about
7 - 8 years ago, when it was still a pretty new thing. We loved having a
nice wipe-clean surface all over the floor, with no gaps in it. Back
then, Pergo was the only decent make around.

We've only done one room in laminate in this house, and that's the TV
room/library. We like it lots. It's nice. ;-)

Enjoy.

The ground floor of our house is parquet. We covered the cold,
uncomfortable, noisy, dusty stuff up with carpet. We like it lots. It's
nice. ;-)

Did you know that there are more bacteria in a well-trodden carpet
than outside in the street? I think carpets are disgustingly
unhygenic,

Lucky you weren't born a couple of hundred years ago, isn't it

Er, serfs didn't have carpet then, did they?

MM

"raden" wrote in message
...
How many people die from being bitten on the bum by a funnel web ?
hardly any

diseases such as malaria and cholera, and now HIV kill far more people
than all the spiders, snakes and other slithery beasts put together


Malaria IS caused by the bite of a slithery beast. Well and insect anyway.

And HIV doesn't kill anybody - only if it progresses to AIDS is there a
problem. A big problem admittedly (you ARE going to die) but ...

"Mike Mitchell" wrote
| But EColi 157 from a cowpat, for example, isn't
| healthy.
| Sorry, I meant to write, "...EColi 157 from a CARPET...."

Of coirrrrse, in rurrrral areas if yurr don't woipe yurrr feeet on the
durrrmat, yurr end up with cowpat on yurrr carpets anyway.

| My mind was wandering and I was thinking of my Mum's cow.

That's no way to talk about your little sister :-)

Owain

In message , Mike Mitchell
writes
On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 02:52:24 GMT, raden wrote:

The most biologically dirty thing in your house is you. You house far
more potentially dangerous bacteria than your carpets could.

Yes, but *our* bacteria are not *foreign* bacteria, unlike those in
the carpet, which may be ours, but probably are from many other
humans, animals, insects and plant matter as well. Of course *we* are
fighting all the time to keep our own bacteria under control, and in
fact a heck of the lot of bacteria in our gut is extremely necessary
for good health. But EColi 157 from a cowpat, for example, isn't
healthy.

Sorry, I meant to write, "...EColi 157 from a CARPET...."

I'm sure you did

I'm not in the habit of licking the carpet

In fact, I've always had carpets in the house and I'm still alive, in
fact, as far as I know, I'm as healthy as could be expected (no problems
as far as I know)


--
geoff

In message , Mike Mitchell
writes
On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 01:57:34 GMT, raden wrote:

In message , Mike Mitchell
writes
On 27 Jul 2004 16:09:13 GMT, (Huge) wrote:

Grunff writes:
Huge wrote:

Can't be. We don't like it, either.

Ahem... Well, we do. We installed our first lot in our first house about
7 - 8 years ago, when it was still a pretty new thing. We loved having a
nice wipe-clean surface all over the floor, with no gaps in it. Back
then, Pergo was the only decent make around.

We've only done one room in laminate in this house, and that's the TV
room/library. We like it lots. It's nice. ;-)

Enjoy.

The ground floor of our house is parquet. We covered the cold,
uncomfortable, noisy, dusty stuff up with carpet. We like it lots. It's
nice. ;-)

Did you know that there are more bacteria in a well-trodden carpet
than outside in the street? I think carpets are disgustingly
unhygenic,

Lucky you weren't born a couple of hundred years ago, isn't it

Er, serfs didn't have carpet then, did they?

I don't think they had serfs around that time, they did, however have
levels of hygiene which would have probably have killed you off
--
geoff

Mike Mitchell wrote:

On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 09:53:51 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:


Mike Mitchell wrote:


On 30 Jul 2004 18:58:32 GMT, (Huge) wrote:



Grunff writes:


Mike Mitchell wrote:



Did you know that there are more bacteria in a well-trodden carpet
than outside in the street?

Did you know that your skin has millions of bacteria on it? Per square
centimeter? Did you know that faeces is 2/3 by weight bacteria?


Yes, but I don't smear **** over my floor, then walk on it.



As for MRSA and other superbugs, they are a direct result of very clean
environments.

Err, no. MRSA is a result of the abuse of antibiotics.


And privatisation.


NO. Exactly the reverse.
NHS rules make it easier to spend money on drugs than cleaners.


I think the money is being spent on cleaning *contracts*. But the wily
privatised cleaning companies take their licence to print money, rub a
damp rag around the place - job done. If the bosses of these
privatised cleaning companies were dragged down to where the dirt
still is after the cleaning crew has left, and kicked repeatedly in
the nuts until they mend their greedy ways, things would change
pronto. But no one has the bottle. The doctors want to do their
doctoring, and the managers want to drive their BMWs around, have
meetings and look important.

If you look at the latest stats you find that returning to 10th century
standards of personal cleanliness - i.e. double washing hands in fierce
antiseptics - has reduced hospital infections markedly.

We got sloppy because we could always slap in antibiotics. Now we have
to go back to clean standards.



Meanwhile, there's still that bedpan full of faeces left under the
bed.

MM

Mike Mitchell wrote:

On 31 Jul 2004 10:18:06 GMT, (Huge) wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" writes:

In article ,
Grunff wrote:

Err, no. MRSA is a result of the abuse of antibiotics.

Kind of what I meant, in that an over-sterile environment will
inevitably produce organisms capable of thriving in it. One way of
achieving this over-sterile environment is the use of antibiotics. But
I'm no biologist...

Can't see how antibiotics produce a sterile environment - they are purely
a treatment for when you catch something.

Err, no. The majority of antibiotic production goes into animal feed. A practice
that should be banned, IMNHO.


Totally agree with that.


You would not if you had been alive 100 years ago - a lot of people died
from animal borne diseases.

Its more a question of coming up with a more sane policy, than reverting
to a previous situation.


MM

On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 08:58:07 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Mike Mitchell wrote:

On 31 Jul 2004 10:18:06 GMT, (Huge) wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" writes:

In article ,
Grunff wrote:

Err, no. MRSA is a result of the abuse of antibiotics.

Kind of what I meant, in that an over-sterile environment will
inevitably produce organisms capable of thriving in it. One way of
achieving this over-sterile environment is the use of antibiotics. But
I'm no biologist...

Can't see how antibiotics produce a sterile environment - they are purely
a treatment for when you catch something.

Err, no. The majority of antibiotic production goes into animal feed. A practice
that should be banned, IMNHO.


Totally agree with that.


You would not if you had been alive 100 years ago - a lot of people died
from animal borne diseases.

How much of that was due to unhygenic habits of all kinds? Face it,
people themselves were not very clean, especially the upper classes.
And then there was little refrigeration available, certainly not to
ordinary people. It was only 150-odd years ago that surgeons competed
with each other to have the dirtiest aprons as a mark of their
competence. However, I wonder how many people really died because of
the diseases which the feeding of antibiotic-dosed feed to animals
today seeks to prevent? Isn't it all done nowadays for commercial
reasons, i.e. a cured animal contributes to the bottom line? When my
parents kept a poultry smallholding in the 1960s we never dosed the
chickens at all. If one died, Dad buried it. Sometimes Mum would kill
a chicken for the pot, only to find on extracting the innards that it
"had a growth", and Dad buried that one, too.

MM

In article ,
G&M wrote:
And HIV doesn't kill anybody - only if it progresses to AIDS is there a
problem. A big problem admittedly (you ARE going to die) but ...

IIRC, AIDS as such doesn't kill you either - it's one of a number of
'opportune' diseases that attack the now immune deficient body.

--
*I have a degree in liberal arts -- do you want fries with that

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Mike Mitchell wrote:

On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 08:58:07 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:


Mike Mitchell wrote:


On 31 Jul 2004 10:18:06 GMT, (Huge) wrote:



"Dave Plowman (News)" writes:


In article ,
Grunff wrote:


Err, no. MRSA is a result of the abuse of antibiotics.

Kind of what I meant, in that an over-sterile environment will
inevitably produce organisms capable of thriving in it. One way of
achieving this over-sterile environment is the use of antibiotics. But
I'm no biologist...

Can't see how antibiotics produce a sterile environment - they are purely
a treatment for when you catch something.

Err, no. The majority of antibiotic production goes into animal feed. A practice
that should be banned, IMNHO.


Totally agree with that.


You would not if you had been alive 100 years ago - a lot of people died

from animal borne diseases.

How much of that was due to unhygenic habits of all kinds? Face it,
people themselves were not very clean, especially the upper classes.
And then there was little refrigeration available, certainly not to
ordinary people. It was only 150-odd years ago that surgeons competed
with each other to have the dirtiest aprons as a mark of their
competence. However, I wonder how many people really died because of
the diseases which the feeding of antibiotic-dosed feed to animals
today seeks to prevent?

TB was one of the biggest killers early 20th century. TT tested milk
herds and pasteurization sorted a lot of that out.

Salmonella from chickens, and especially eggs, was always a bad one,
though seldom a killer. However even in the 50's pre fridges, a more or
less violent stomach upset every month was more the norm than the
exception. How much of this was due to post Mortem contamination versus
pre mortem disease is a moot point. But infantile diahoerrhea was a
killer.

Thinking back to my grandparents generation (born around 1900) the main
killers of the young were

- dysentery and cholera
- TB
- Scarlet fever, measles and german measles.
- Typhoid
- Diphtheria.
- small pox
- Polio
- meningitis
- Pneumonia.

All of these are more or less eliminated as risk now by dint of
antibiotics and the sorts of inoculation that modern idiots throw their
hands up in horror at.

In the middle aged the sorts of things that often got you were
septicaemia of one sort or another following accidents etc.

- Tetanus, streptococcal and other bacterial infections were killers.

Most of the less serious diseases - i.e. pneumonia and viral colds and
flus, with bacterial complications were killers to the frail or elderly
as well.

Antibiotics are not the whole story as to why these are rare today -
refrigeration, and better public health standards have made food
poisoning a rarity. Inoculation and vaccination has reduced the
prevalence and seriousness of most viral diseases, and chlorinated water
supplies and decent sewage treatment has made the enteric disorders
relatively rare. And factory egg production more or less eliminated
salmonella from eggs, though its coming back as more people demand 'free
range' . Well hope that the chickens are getting their penicillin then,
because its a very unpleasant disease to get from semi cooked eggs.


Isn't it all done nowadays for commercial
reasons, i.e. a cured animal contributes to the bottom line? When my
parents kept a poultry smallholding in the 1960s we never dosed the
chickens at all. If one died, Dad buried it. Sometimes Mum would kill
a chicken for the pot, only to find on extracting the innards that it
"had a growth", and Dad buried that one, too.

And how often did you get a 'tummy upset' from eating a soft boiled egg.

My mother, now dotty and in her eighties, will not ever eat eggs except
in things like cakes. She reported almost continual stomach problems as
a child eating them ( her parents always kept poultry), and was later
diagnosed with diverticulitis, and needed a section of gut chopping out.

I am not totally happy about indiscriminate use of antibiotics for
purely commercial reasons, or weedkillers or pesticides either, but I
can remember far enough back to know that I would not wish to return to
the sorts of productivity levels and diseased food we had before heir
advent.

Sane use is, as I said, the key.

Progress is always about finding something useful, using it to excess,
discovering the side effects, and then setting decent standards at the
right level of compromise. Like chlorinated water. Too much and it
poisons you. Too little and you get cholera epidemics.



MM

Huge wrote:

The Natural Philosopher writes:

Mike Mitchell wrote:


On 31 Jul 2004 10:18:06 GMT, (Huge) wrote:



"Dave Plowman (News)" writes:


In article ,
Grunff wrote:


Err, no. MRSA is a result of the abuse of antibiotics.

Kind of what I meant, in that an over-sterile environment will
inevitably produce organisms capable of thriving in it. One way of
achieving this over-sterile environment is the use of antibiotics. But
I'm no biologist...

Can't see how antibiotics produce a sterile environment - they are purely
a treatment for when you catch something.

Err, no. The majority of antibiotic production goes into animal feed. A practice
that should be banned, IMNHO.


Totally agree with that.


You would not if you had been alive 100 years ago - a lot of people died

from animal borne diseases.

That's not why the antibiotics are there. They're growth promoters.


Not always. They do kill a lot of gut-borne bacteria - which is why the
animals get fat quicker. Gut borne bacteria contaminated animal
carcasses are a source of many food poisonings.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
G&M wrote:
And HIV doesn't kill anybody - only if it progresses to AIDS is there a
problem. A big problem admittedly (you ARE going to die) but ...

IIRC, AIDS as such doesn't kill you either - it's one of a number of
'opportune' diseases that attack the now immune deficient body.

Sort of, though you often die of something you've happily lived with and
been immune to since birth.

"raden" wrote in message
...
In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
raden wrote:
Called a Prince Albert or more commonly just PA. I sometimes work with
a
chap who's said to have one. He's also got multiple ear rings.



We call him scrapyard.

Sounds like that might be a dangerous place for him to work

Yup. One of those magnet crane thingies lifting him up by the toger.
Suppose that's stretching things a bit far.

Dunno - he might become a porno super star


My mate billy had a 10 foot ... you know the rest

So you brought two latex suits through customs then.

Mike Mitchell wrote in message . ..
On 30 Jul 2004 08:27:14 -0700, (MBQ) wrote:

Mike Mitchell wrote in message . ..
On 27 Jul 2004 16:09:13 GMT, (Huge) wrote:

Grunff writes:
Huge wrote:

Can't be. We don't like it, either.

Ahem... Well, we do. We installed our first lot in our first house about
7 - 8 years ago, when it was still a pretty new thing. We loved having a
nice wipe-clean surface all over the floor, with no gaps in it. Back
then, Pergo was the only decent make around.

We've only done one room in laminate in this house, and that's the TV
room/library. We like it lots. It's nice. ;-)

Enjoy.

The ground floor of our house is parquet. We covered the cold,
uncomfortable, noisy, dusty stuff up with carpet. We like it lots. It's
nice. ;-)

Did you know that there are more bacteria in a well-trodden carpet
than outside in the street? I think carpets are disgustingly
unhygenic, especially if owners keep pets indoors. Yuk. We had dogs
when I was a lad and they would sometimes get itchy bums. Mum would
drag the spaniel outside, but only after it had succeeded in "wiping"
its bum across the carpet in a desperate attempt to relieve the
itching. Oh, I hear you say, why not wash the dogs' bottoms regularly?
Why not, indeed. Just the sort of thing I'd not like to be doing after
my breakfast, thanks all the same. Get shot of the dogs and get shot
of the carpet! It will be banned shortly, no doubt, once the
Government realises that domestic carpets are probably responsible for
MRSA.

MM

What a stupid thing to say (I don't see any smileys, so assume you are
serious).

Deadly, yes.

When did you ever hear of anyone getting an infection from a carpet?
Some people today have an unhealthy obsession with cleanliness.

Ten per cent of the weight of a carpet after a few years is made up of
particles of dead skin and similar detritus. If you think this is
healthy in a country where the incidence of childhood asthma has
skyrocketed, then think again.

IMHO (and that of others more knowledgable in the area than me) is
that the increase in allergies has far more to do with obsessive
cleanliness than dirty carpets.


Did you know your armpits most probably contain fecal bacteria? It's
*very* common, but probably never did anyone any harm. Are you going
to chop your arms off or just shave under them?

Don't try to turn the argument back on to me or my armpit! That's just
a cheap shot. Concentrate on the dirtiest thing in your house - if you
have carpets, that is. The loo bowl has less bacteria.

It wasn't a cheap shot. Just something that surprised me when I heard
it and an attempt to point out that there are harmful things a lot
closer to home that your carpet. Actually, at the moment, we have very
few carpets as when we moved in last year we discovered we were
infested with fleas from the previous owners cat. The carpets had to
go eventually so we just got rid of them a bit sooner. As we decorate
each room, however, we will be fitting carpet.

Our house is "clean enoough to be healthy and dirty enough to be
happy".

MBQ

On Sun, 1 Aug 2004 14:30:58 +0100, (Steve Firth)
wrote:

Mike Mitchell wrote:

Yes, but I don't smear **** over my floor, then walk on it.

You would be an extremely rare person if you didn't walk **** onto your
floor. Most people do and seem unbothered by it. As (another)
microbiologist I can assure you that if I came to your home, swabbed the
carpet and cultured the swab I would be able to grow up faecal bacteria
everytime.

What's your take on antibacterial washing up liquids?

MM

On Sun, 1 Aug 2004 14:30:59 +0100, (Steve Firth)
wrote:

Bacteria have been around for about 2 billion years. They've had time to
evolve strategies to cope with short-term measures like anti-biotics.

But we'll beat 'em, Steve! We're cleverer than they are, we're humans!
Surely we *will* beat 'em, Steve? Maybe we'll not beat 'em, but learn
to respect 'em more. Like giving them fewer of us to attack. Recently
some philosopher reckoned that the ideal world population was around
five hundred million, and certainly the south-east of Britain is far
too densely populated for anyone's health, let alone quality of life.

MM

On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 22:46:19 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:


And how often did you get a 'tummy upset' from eating a soft boiled egg.

None whatsoever. We were all healthy as f**k. And none of my mates or
their families ever "went down" with anything, either. I think it's
just scaremongering to suggest that you eat a soft-boild egg, you get
food poisoning! Ridiculous idea! Think how many soft-boiled eggs have
been eaten over the past few decades and how disappearingly small the
number of infections has been. I expect those who did become infected
were susceptible anyway. I prefer to see the healthy side of growing
up when we and many others lived pretty much off the land and our
fresh eggs were maybe just a few minutes old, the chickens having had
freedom to roam outside their coops.

MM

On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 22:48:09 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Not always. They do kill a lot of gut-borne bacteria - which is why the
animals get fat quicker. Gut borne bacteria contaminated animal
carcasses are a source of many food poisonings.

Tell me, why do you think we hang game, sometimes till it's green?

MM

On 2 Aug 2004 02:14:29 -0700, (Andrew)
wrote:

It wasn't a cheap shot. Just something that surprised me when I heard
it and an attempt to point out that there are harmful things a lot
closer to home that your carpet. Actually, at the moment, we have very
few carpets as when we moved in last year we discovered we were
infested with fleas from the previous owners cat. The carpets had to
go eventually so we just got rid of them a bit sooner. As we decorate
each room, however, we will be fitting carpet.

If you haven't yet bought the carpets, think again while there's still
time! At least consider beautiful ceramic tiled floors like you
typically get on the continent throughout the house or apartment. Such
a floor looks really classy, is wonderfully clean and hygenic and easy
to keep clean, and you can always lay a rug on top if you like. At
least the rug can be removed, taken outside and beaten, which is also
advised for recalcitrant children, by the way.

But carpets are long past their use by date - even while they're still
in the shop!

MM

Mike Mitchell wrote:

What's your take on antibacterial washing up liquids?


They are seriously bad news.


--
Grunff

In article ,
Mike Mitchell wrote:
If you haven't yet bought the carpets, think again while there's still
time! At least consider beautiful ceramic tiled floors like you
typically get on the continent throughout the house or apartment.

Great. I take it you never drop anything? And have incredible balance when
on bare feet? And have no suspended wood floors?

--
*Letting a cat out of the bag is easier than putting it back in *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Grunff wrote:
What's your take on antibacterial washing up liquids?

They are seriously bad news.

Naw - when you dry them you'll put all the bacteria back from the cloth.

--
*Therapy is expensive, poppin' bubble wrap is cheap! You choose.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Mon, 2 Aug 2004 14:59:53 +0100, (Steve
Firth) wrote:

Mike Mitchell wrote:

On Sun, 1 Aug 2004 14:30:58 +0100, (Steve Firth)
wrote:

Mike Mitchell wrote:

Yes, but I don't smear **** over my floor, then walk on it.

You would be an extremely rare person if you didn't walk **** onto your
floor. Most people do and seem unbothered by it. As (another)
microbiologist I can assure you that if I came to your home, swabbed the
carpet and cultured the swab I would be able to grow up faecal bacteria
everytime.

What's your take on antibacterial washing up liquids?

A pointless and stupid waste of money.

They give a flase sense of security and there's no way of knowing which
bacteria they kill. The bacterial flora on a surface tends to be in some
sort of equilibrium, with (mostly) "good" bacteria far poutnumbering
"bad" bacteria. It's possible that antibacterials will inhibit the
growth of "good" bacteria while permitting pathogens to flourish. No one
really knows.

In the past, I had experienc eof a horrible outbreak of disease in a
hospital which was eventually traced to a cleaner who used "Dettol" in
the belief that by swabbing everythign with it she was keeping the ward
nice and clean. When tested her supply of Dettol was the source of the
infection, the bugs loved the taste of it.

There is one solution to infection control and that is cleanliness.
Washing to dilute the bacteria is all that is needed and washing with
household washing up liquid diluted in water (and using lots of water)
is more effective than mucking about with "antibacterials".

If you do need to clean something with an antibacterial then the best
antibacterial to use is bleach. Cheap, effective and kills just about
anything.

When I was a grease monkey I used Brobat to clean my fingers and
nails. It stung a bit, but didn't half get 'em clean.

No, this MRSA malarkey - how about the NHS closing a ward, sealing it,
then "fumigating" it or however the Yanks cleaned up after that
contamination with anthrax? I know it would be a problem housing the
patients somewhere else temporarily, but suppose it could be done,
would it be more effective than the current measures adopted?

MM

On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 13:43:43 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Mike Mitchell wrote:
If you haven't yet bought the carpets, think again while there's still
time! At least consider beautiful ceramic tiled floors like you
typically get on the continent throughout the house or apartment.

Great. I take it you never drop anything?

Oh, this is hardly a problem! Of course, if you are carrying engine
blocks or cylinder heads across the kitchen floor, what can you
expect? But a wine bottle? A bunch of keys? A book? What could
possibly damage tiles, except once in a blue moon? Even dead cats
bounce.

And have incredible balance when
on bare feet?

Especially on bare feet. It's when you have socks on that you do have
to take a little care. But I already covered that earlier by
recommending non-slip socks.

And have no suspended wood floors?

Now that is a problem, granted. How about laminate flooring?

MM

In article ,
Mike Mitchell wrote:
Great. I take it you never drop anything?

Oh, this is hardly a problem! Of course, if you are carrying engine
blocks or cylinder heads across the kitchen floor, what can you
expect? But a wine bottle? A bunch of keys? A book? What could
possibly damage tiles, except once in a blue moon? Even dead cats
bounce.

I was more concerned about the dropped object. Many things will survive
dropping on a carpet, but not tiles.

And have incredible balance when
on bare feet?

Especially on bare feet. It's when you have socks on that you do have
to take a little care. But I already covered that earlier by
recommending non-slip socks.

I don't wander round the house in socks - surely then you're picking up
dirt in them only to transfer it to your shoes? If I'm not wearing shoes I
wear nothing.

And have no suspended wood floors?

Now that is a problem, granted. How about laminate flooring?

I'd rather have my toenails extracted by old pliers than have that rubbish
in my house. If I wanted something to look like wood, I'd use wood which
will.

--
*Never kick a cow pat on a hot day *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Mike Mitchell wrote:
If you haven't yet bought the carpets, think again while there's still
time! At least consider beautiful ceramic tiled floors like you
typically get on the continent throughout the house or apartment.

Great. I take it you never drop anything? And have incredible balance when
on bare feet? And have no suspended wood floors?

And don't live in a flat above some poor suffering soul. Fortunately
several councils are now taking action to enforce carpeting even in private
flats.

On Mon, 2 Aug 2004 18:13:20 +0100, (Steve
Firth) wrote:

Mike Mitchell wrote:

No, this MRSA malarkey - how about the NHS closing a ward, sealing it,
then "fumigating" it or however the Yanks cleaned up after that
contamination with anthrax? I know it would be a problem housing the
patients somewhere else temporarily, but suppose it could be done,
would it be more effective than the current measures adopted?

No, because mostly MRSA lurks in the nasal passages of the staff.

But I assume therefore that the nasal passages of previous staff,
going back decades, were similarly infected? So what's changed? MRSA
has only become a problem since privatisation, no?

MM

On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 18:10:49 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

I'd rather have my toenails extracted by old pliers than have that rubbish
in my house. If I wanted something to look like wood, I'd use wood which
will.

A lot of people like it, though. Do you think it's infra dig to
dislike it so?

MM

Huge wrote:

Yes, I know. I was a biochemist and I've worked in an abattoir...

Nice!

--
Grunff

"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 2 Aug 2004 18:13:20 +0100, (Steve
Firth) wrote:

Mike Mitchell wrote:

No, this MRSA malarkey - how about the NHS closing a ward, sealing it,
then "fumigating" it or however the Yanks cleaned up after that
contamination with anthrax? I know it would be a problem housing the
patients somewhere else temporarily, but suppose it could be done,
would it be more effective than the current measures adopted?

No, because mostly MRSA lurks in the nasal passages of the staff.

But I assume therefore that the nasal passages of previous staff,
going back decades, were similarly infected? So what's changed? MRSA
has only become a problem since privatisation, no?

What has privatisation got to do with MRSA. MRSA is a problem in most
countries, whether they have mostly state provision like France or Sweden,
or mostly private like the US. It is caused by the fact that hospitals use
antibiotics to cure people, but a few bacteria mutate into stronger strains
that are resistant to those antibiotics. That's pure evolution that Darwin
would recognise.

In article ,
Mike Mitchell wrote:
I'd rather have my toenails extracted by old pliers than have that
rubbish in my house. If I wanted something to look like wood, I'd use
wood which will.

A lot of people like it, though. Do you think it's infra dig to dislike
it so?

I'm not a blind follower of fashion, and laminate flooring is simply a
fashion - and a cheap and nasty one at that. With many disadvantages apart
from looking like what it is - a sham.

--
*Why is the time of day with the slowest traffic called rush hour?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In message , Mike Mitchell
writes
On Sun, 1 Aug 2004 14:30:58 +0100, (Steve Firth)
wrote:

Mike Mitchell wrote:

Yes, but I don't smear **** over my floor, then walk on it.

You would be an extremely rare person if you didn't walk **** onto your
floor. Most people do and seem unbothered by it. As (another)
microbiologist I can assure you that if I came to your home, swabbed the
carpet and cultured the swab I would be able to grow up faecal bacteria
everytime.

What's your take on antibacterial washing up liquids?

One after meals, and no alcohol

--
geoff

Mike Mitchell wrote:

On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 22:46:19 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:



And how often did you get a 'tummy upset' from eating a soft boiled egg.


None whatsoever. We were all healthy as f**k. And none of my mates or
their families ever "went down" with anything, either. I think it's
just scaremongering to suggest that you eat a soft-boild egg, you get
food poisoning! Ridiculous idea!

It used to be very very common with free range eggs.


Think how many soft-boiled eggs have
been eaten over the past few decades

Those have ben from factory farmed chickens mainly fed on antibiotics.
No salmonella in those mostly.

google 'Edwina Currie' and see why she had to resgnfor telling the truth.


and how disappearingly small the
number of infections has been. I expect those who did become infected
were susceptible anyway. I prefer to see the healthy side of growing
up when we and many others lived pretty much off the land and our
fresh eggs were maybe just a few minutes old, the chickens having had
freedom to roam outside their coops.

So do I. Taste much better, BUT chicken **** and chicken eggs grown that
way have high incidences of slamonlella bacteria.

Fine if you totally cok the egg, but occasionally dangerous and
unplaeasnt f you e.g. make mayonnaise out of raw egg yolk.


MM

Mike Mitchell wrote:

On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 22:48:09 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:


Not always. They do kill a lot of gut-borne bacteria - which is why the
animals get fat quicker. Gut borne bacteria contaminated animal
carcasses are a source of many food poisonings.


Tell me, why do you think we hang game, sometimes till it's green?


That gets well cooked afterwards. Also the bacteria that soften up tough
old birds are not quite the same as the gut borne ones.

Meat handling is a bit of an art, to find the fine line between tough
and flavourless, and rotten and disgusting.



MM

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Mike Mitchell wrote:

I'd rather have my toenails extracted by old pliers than have that
rubbish in my house. If I wanted something to look like wood, I'd use
wood which will.


A lot of people like it, though. Do you think it's infra dig to dislike
it so?


I'm not a blind follower of fashion, and laminate flooring is simply a
fashion - and a cheap and nasty one at that. With many disadvantages apart
from looking like what it is - a sham.

Dunno. Ive got real wood laminate down, and agreed it looks a bit too
'perfect' but it is ageing down nicely. Its not bad and I was chary of
using real wood planks with underfloor.

However if I ever get stinking rich again, I'll parquet the whole thing
with oak blocks I think.

"raden" wrote in message
...
In message , Mike Mitchell
writes
On Sun, 1 Aug 2004 14:30:58 +0100, (Steve Firth)
wrote:

Mike Mitchell wrote:

Yes, but I don't smear **** over my floor, then walk on it.

You would be an extremely rare person if you didn't walk **** onto your
floor. Most people do and seem unbothered by it. As (another)
microbiologist I can assure you that if I came to your home, swabbed the
carpet and cultured the swab I would be able to grow up faecal bacteria
everytime.

What's your take on antibacterial washing up liquids?

One after meals, and no alcohol

Maxie, as I suspected, you are into dangerous substances.

In article , Mike Mitchell
wrote:

If you haven't yet bought the carpets, think again while there's still
time! At least consider beautiful ceramic tiled floors like you
typically get on the continent

Lovely idea if you live on the continent where it is warm underfoot. Not in
the UK though.

--
AJL Electronics (G6FGO) Ltd : Satellite and TV aerial systems
http://www.classicmicrocars.co.uk : http://www.ajlelectronics.co.uk

On Mon, 2 Aug 2004 22:33:20 +0100, "G&M"
wrote:


"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 2 Aug 2004 18:13:20 +0100, (Steve
Firth) wrote:

Mike Mitchell wrote:

No, this MRSA malarkey - how about the NHS closing a ward, sealing it,
then "fumigating" it or however the Yanks cleaned up after that
contamination with anthrax? I know it would be a problem housing the
patients somewhere else temporarily, but suppose it could be done,
would it be more effective than the current measures adopted?

No, because mostly MRSA lurks in the nasal passages of the staff.

But I assume therefore that the nasal passages of previous staff,
going back decades, were similarly infected? So what's changed? MRSA
has only become a problem since privatisation, no?

What has privatisation got to do with MRSA. MRSA is a problem in most
countries, whether they have mostly state provision like France or Sweden,
or mostly private like the US. It is caused by the fact that hospitals use
antibiotics to cure people, but a few bacteria mutate into stronger strains
that are resistant to those antibiotics. That's pure evolution that Darwin
would recognise.

But is MRSA such a problem in those other countries as it is here in
Britain? Or could it be that those other countries actually do
something to confront the infection rather than just wring hands and
talk about it, as our politicians and managers are wont to do?

I maintain that MRSA has become far more of a problem in Britain since
privatisation opened the way to lackadaisical policing of contracts by
NHS management. As long as a manager can tick a box marked "cleaning
performed", then that is the end of it as far as he is concerned. Tony
Blair gave us lots of warm words over how he would confront the foot &
mouth crisis head on, yet eventually he had to recognise that his own
ministers and advisers were incompetent, and was forced to call in the
army as the only organised group of people in the country to mean what
they say and do what they mean. If it wasn't for the army at that
time, Britain would have no farm animals alive today, except in zoos.
All it takes is joined up government, which this Government is
woefully inadequate at supplying. You see evidence of this in every
utterance and with every new initiative it announces.

MM

On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 08:43:48 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

google 'Edwina Currie' and see why she had to resgnfor telling the truth.

She had to resign because no one liked her - except John Major. I
suppose in that sense, eggs can be deadly for some. Oh, and what is
the status of free range eggs today? Or is the countryside on which
chickens range freely being sprayed with antibiotics?

MM

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Mike Mitchell wrote:

I'd rather have my toenails extracted by old pliers than have that
rubbish in my house. If I wanted something to look like wood, I'd use
wood which will.


A lot of people like it, though. Do you think it's infra dig to dislike
it so?


I'm not a blind follower of fashion, and laminate flooring is simply a
fashion - and a cheap and nasty one at that. With many disadvantages
apart
from looking like what it is - a sham.

What tripe!

Dunno. Ive got real wood laminate down, and agreed it looks a bit too
'perfect' but it is ageing down nicely. Its not bad and I was chary of
using real wood planks with underfloor.

However if I ever get stinking rich again, I'll parquet the whole thing
with oak blocks I think.