I keep seeing adverts that state that the product kills 99.9% of germs
dead. What can't we have a product that kills them all, like Screen?

Dave

Dave wrote:
I keep seeing adverts that state that the product kills 99.9% of germs
dead. What can't we have a product that kills them all, like Screen?

Dave

What's 'Screen'?
Whatever it is, it doesn't kill 100% of bacteria - it might come close to
it, under lab tests, like all the others making the claim of 99.99%, but as
I said, this is under lab conditions - in the home, you would be lucky to
achieve 60-80%, but it's all ******** anyway, your food is covered in
bacteria, unless you soak it in domestos first, and there are more bacteria
in the body than there are human cells, so you could say we are just a
collection of bacteria that has managed to walk upright and tell jokes.

--
Phil L
RSRL Tipster Of The Year 2008

In article , says...
I keep seeing adverts that state that the product kills 99.9% of germs
dead. What can't we have a product that kills them all, like Screen?


I think it's because the manufacturer has no way of proving 100% killed, or something like that.

--
Halmyre

This is the most powerful sigfile in the world and will probably blow your head clean off.

On 24/12/2010 16:44, Dave wrote:
I keep seeing adverts that state that the product kills 99.9% of germs
dead. What can't we have a product that kills them all, like Screen?

Dave

It means that they're a waste of time - 'cos it's the remaining 0.1%
which are the virulent ones which kill *you*! g
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

On Dec 24, 5:19 pm, Halmyre wrote:
In article , says...

I keep seeing adverts that state that the product kills 99.9% of germs
dead. What can't we have a product that kills them all, like Screen?

I think it's because the manufacturer has no way of proving 100% killed, or something like that.

more cynically, I reckon it's so no one can sue the b@stards when
they've relied on any "100% kill" claim.

Merry Xmas

Jim K

On 24/12/2010 18:29, Roger Mills wrote:
On 24/12/2010 16:44, Dave wrote:
I keep seeing adverts that state that the product kills 99.9% of germs
dead. What can't we have a product that kills them all, like Screen?

Dave

It means that they're a waste of time - 'cos it's the remaining 0.1%
which are the virulent ones which kill *you*! g

Hee hee. You've got a point. The ones that survive are the ones that are
most resistant to the glog. They pass that on to the next generation
etc. Just like anti-biotics. Then 'We're doomed, Captain Mainwaring,
we're doomed!'.

Peter Scott

"Dave" wrote in message
...
I keep seeing adverts that state that the product kills 99.9% of germs
dead. What can't we have a product that kills them all, like Screen?

Dave

IIRC it is (or at least used to be) 99.9% of KNOWN germs.
So it was always the unknown germs that used to worry me.

Merry festive season of choice to you all

Dave R

"David WE Roberts" wrote in message
...


"Dave" wrote in message
...
I keep seeing adverts that state that the product kills 99.9% of germs
dead. What can't we have a product that kills them all, like Screen?

Dave

IIRC it is (or at least used to be) 99.9% of KNOWN germs.
So it was always the unknown germs that used to worry me.

Merry festive season of choice to you all

Oh, and does it kill the other 0.1% undead, so your kitchen surfaces are
haunted by the living dead?
I feel a B movie script coming on...

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember John Rumm
saying something like:

More to the point, is there a way of killing them other than dead?

I expect these are the same people who say "foot-pedal".

and "for free"

Those would be the same ****s in ad agencies who invite people to
pre-register. Shooting's too good for 'em.

On 12/24/2010 7:17 PM, Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember John Rumm
saying something like:

More to the point, is there a way of killing them other than dead?

I expect these are the same people who say "foot-pedal".

and "for free"

Those would be the same ****s in ad agencies who invite people to
pre-register. Shooting's too good for 'em.

And the people who 'pre-prepare' food.

On Dec 24, 11:00*pm, "David WE Roberts"
wrote:
"David WE Roberts" wrote in ...



"Dave" wrote in message
...
I keep seeing adverts that state that the product kills 99.9% of germs
dead. What can't we have a product that kills them all, like Screen?

Dave

IIRC it is (or at least used to be) 99.9% of KNOWN germs.
So it was always the unknown germs that used to worry me.

Merry festive season of choice to you all

Oh, and does it kill the other 0.1% undead, so your kitchen surfaces are
haunted by the living dead?
I feel a B movie script coming on...

Actually, it's the ad campaign that's come back from the dead. The
"Kills 99% of household germs" advert for product "A" appeared on TV
at least 20-30 years ago. a few weeks later, product "B" started
advertising "Kills ALL known germs". I thought the story was told to
trainee advertising executives as a lesson in not underselling your
product (or being too honest), but maybe training isn't what it used
to be.

Chris

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember saying
something like:

Actually, it's the ad campaign that's come back from the dead. The
"Kills 99% of household germs" advert for product "A" appeared on TV
at least 20-30 years ago. a few weeks later, product "B" started
advertising "Kills ALL known germs". I thought the story was told to
trainee advertising executives as a lesson in not underselling your
product (or being too honest), but maybe training isn't what it used
to be.

Doesn't matter what it's called, it still tastes like bleach.

On 24/12/2010 17:07, Phil L wrote:
Dave wrote:
I keep seeing adverts that state that the product kills 99.9% of germs
dead. What can't we have a product that kills them all, like Screen?

Dave

What's 'Screen'?

It is an acidic cleaner used in hospitals and the school I used to work
at. It claims to kill MRSA and another hospital bug I can't bring to my
alcohol washed brain at the moment.

I can see why you asked the question about what is it. I can't pick the
product up on google.

Dave

On 24/12/2010 18:29, Roger Mills wrote:
On 24/12/2010 16:44, Dave wrote:
I keep seeing adverts that state that the product kills 99.9% of germs
dead. What can't we have a product that kills them all, like Screen?

Dave

It means that they're a waste of time - 'cos it's the remaining 0.1%
which are the virulent ones which kill *you*! g

We have been here before in the old super bug thread, when it was
decided to let the normal bugs compete with the super bugs and kill off
their supply of food.

Dave

On Dec 25, 5:44 am, Dave wrote:
I keep seeing adverts that state that the product kills 99.9% of germs
dead. What can't we have a product that kills them all, like Screen?

You can kill all germs with Aqua Regia.

"Matty F" wrote in message
...
On Dec 25, 5:44 am, Dave wrote:
I keep seeing adverts that state that the product kills 99.9% of germs
dead. What can't we have a product that kills them all, like Screen?

You can kill all germs with Aqua Regia.



Talking of Domestos - why are there different coloured bottles? The gloop
seems to come out the same colour. Perhaps it bleaches itself.

On 26/12/2010 09:38, Matty F wrote:
On Dec 25, 5:44 am, wrote:
I keep seeing adverts that state that the product kills 99.9% of germs
dead. What can't we have a product that kills them all, like Screen?

You can kill all germs with Aqua Regia.

Jeez I wouldn't like to be in the same room as that, let alone use it on
a work top

Dave

On Dec 24, 4:44*pm, Dave wrote:
I keep seeing adverts that state that the product kills 99.9% of germs
dead. What can't we have a product that kills them all, like Screen?

Dave

IRL you wont get a continuous film of product, and germ kill rates
will be far lower.


NT

In article ,
says...
I keep seeing adverts that state that the product kills 99.9% of germs
dead. What can't we have a product that kills them all, like Screen?


The approvals standard with which bleaches and such things have to
comply requires that 99% of the sample population of bugs be dead after
certain time at a certain concentration.

Of course, in most cases this is exceeded, but the rules state 99%
minimum, and that's what they're rated at.

--
Skipweasel - never knowingly understood.

On 26/12/2010 20:12, Skipweasel wrote:
In ,
says...
I keep seeing adverts that state that the product kills 99.9% of germs
dead. What can't we have a product that kills them all, like Screen?


The approvals standard with which bleaches and such things have to
comply requires that 99% of the sample population of bugs be dead after
certain time at a certain concentration.

Of course, in most cases this is exceeded, but the rules state 99%
minimum, and that's what they're rated at.

Understood
Thanks

Dave

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On 26/12/2010 09:38, Matty F wrote:
On Dec 25, 5:44 am, wrote:
I keep seeing adverts that state that the product kills 99.9% of germs
dead. What can't we have a product that kills them all, like Screen?

You can kill all germs with Aqua Regia.

Jeez I wouldn't like to be in the same room as that, let alone use it on a
work top

Dave

IIRC Aqua Regia is just a combination of acids which dissolves the noble
metals such as gold and silver.
Wikipedia says Nitric and Hydrochloric. which sounds right.
Mind you, Wikipedia says 'fuming' and "concentrated" so that could be a bit
dodgy to be near.
Oh, and it rapidly decomposes and loses its effectiveness.
So probably not good on a work top.

Did I mention the guy who invented a universal solvent then couldn't find
anything to keep it in?

On Dec 24, 4:44*pm, Dave wrote:
I keep seeing adverts that state that the product kills 99.9% of germs
dead. What can't we have a product that kills them all, like Screen?

Dave

Nothing kills all Germs. Germs is an inexact term, means nothing.
Bacteria can be killed by chemicals or heat or radiation.
Some bacteria, when life becomes difficult, turn into a spore (almost
like hibernating) and are then very hard to kill. Tetanus and gangrene
for example which is why they are so serious.

Disinfecting kills non-sporing organisms.
Sterilising kills, theoretically, all life.
Pasteurising kills targeted organisms.

However with all forms of streilisation there is a "death
curve" (time versus the process) which never reaches zero. ie some
will always escape.

Household disinfectants are pretty ineffective and what effect they
have lasts only a short time. Phenol based ones can be dangerous as
they oxidise to something that supports some bacteria. They should be
washed off after use.
Chlorine base dones cease to be effective when they have evaporated.
They are totally ineffective on dirty surfaces.
Most are a complete waste of money, better effects can be achieved by
cleaning with normal household cleaners. There are no short cuts. But
there's plenty of ******** out there.
The very idea that you can kill all bacteria is ridiculous. We need
some to live.
20% of garden soil is bacteria. 10% of your wieght is bacteria. You
are covered in them inside and out. Your house is full of them. The
air is filled with them.

On Dec 24, 10:54*pm, "David WE Roberts"
wrote:
"Dave" wrote in message

...

I keep seeing adverts that state that the product kills 99.9% of germs
dead. What can't we have a product that kills them all, like Screen?

Dave

IIRC it is (or at least used to be) 99.9% of KNOWN germs.
So it was always the unknown germs that used to worry me.

Merry festive season of choice to you all

Dave R

99.999% of "germs" are unknown.

In article
,
harry wrote:
[snip sensible comments]

The very idea that you can kill all
bacteria is ridiculous. We need some to live.
The main reason MRSA is a modern hospital problem is because
anti-biotics have killed off other bugs that would normally
keep MRSA under control

20% of
garden soil is bacteria. 10% of your wieght is bacteria.
You are covered in them inside and out. Your house is
full of them. The air is filled with them.
.. . .and many of them are responsible for keeping you
healthy without having to buy them in yoghurt drinks

--
John Mulrooney
NOTE Email address IS correct but might not be checked for a while.

A person who is not forgotten is not dead

On Dec 27, 12:52*pm, JTM wrote:
In article
,
* *harry wrote:
[snip sensible comments]

The very idea that you can kill all
bacteria is ridiculous. We need some to live.

The main reason MRSA is a modern hospital problem is because
anti-biotics have killed off other bugs that *would normally
keep MRSA under control

20% of
garden soil is bacteria. 10% of your wieght is bacteria.
You are covered in them inside and out. Your house is
full of them. The air is filled with them.

. . .and many of them are responsible for keeping you
healthy without having to buy them in yoghurt drinks

--
*John Mulrooney
NOTE Email address IS correct but might not be checked for a while.

A person who is not forgotten is not dead

The main reason for the likes of MRSA and Cdifficul is the
indiscriminate use of antibiotics in the past. Also th failure of
people to complete their antibiotic courses, so leaving behind the
survivor bacteria which thus gradually built up their resistance.
However we are/were discussing household "disinfectants".

In article 50f59d24-0640-46da-9493-
, says...
The main reason for the likes of MRSA and Cdifficul is the
indiscriminate use of antibiotics in the past.


Past? We're still feeding antibiotics to farm animals on a regular basis
- i.e. not as part of a treatment for a current ailment.

--
Skipweasel - never knowingly understood.

In message , Skipweasel
writes
In article 50f59d24-0640-46da-9493-
, says...
The main reason for the likes of MRSA and Cdifficul is the
indiscriminate use of antibiotics in the past.


Past? We're still feeding antibiotics to farm animals on a regular basis
- i.e. not as part of a treatment for a current ailment.

Continual feeding is one thing, not taking a complete course to totally
wipe out an infection is another


--
geoff

In article , says...
Past? We're still feeding antibiotics to farm animals on a regular basis
- i.e. not as part of a treatment for a current ailment.

Continual feeding is one thing, not taking a complete course to totally
wipe out an infection is another

Ah - that may actually be rather misleading.

Wish I could remember where I saw some research that showed that a 7-day
course of antibiotics is "traditional" because it's a week, but that in
many cases 3 or 4 days is plenty even allowing for making sure that
survivors don't develop resistance.

Long-term feeding probably has a better chance to develop "superbugs"
than human periodic useage.
--
Skipweasel - never knowingly understood.

In message , Skipweasel
writes
In article , says...
Past? We're still feeding antibiotics to farm animals on a regular basis
- i.e. not as part of a treatment for a current ailment.

Continual feeding is one thing, not taking a complete course to totally
wipe out an infection is another

Ah - that may actually be rather misleading.


Not when there's a dish of them on the table and you just pop one when
you feel unwell - seen it many times in Asia




--
geoff

In article , says...
[antibiotics]
Not when there's a dish of them on the table and you just pop one when
you feel unwell - seen it many times in Asia

Now that's jsut plain wrong.



--
Skipweasel - never knowingly understood.

In message , Skipweasel
writes
In article , says...
[antibiotics]
Not when there's a dish of them on the table and you just pop one when
you feel unwell - seen it many times in Asia

Now that's jsut plain wrong.

Lived there, have you?

--
geoff

On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 20:10:03 +0000, geoff wrote:

In message , Skipweasel
writes
In article , says...
Past? We're still feeding antibiotics to farm animals on a regular basis
- i.e. not as part of a treatment for a current ailment.

Continual feeding is one thing, not taking a complete course to totally
wipe out an infection is another

Ah - that may actually be rather misleading.


Not when there's a dish of them on the table and you just pop one when
you feel unwell - seen it many times in Asia

I read that as Asda.

--
Frank Erskine

In article , says...
Not when there's a dish of them on the table and you just pop one when
you feel unwell - seen it many times in Asia

Now that's jsut plain wrong.

Lived there, have you?


Nope.

--
Skipweasel - never knowingly understood.

In article , says...
Not when there's a dish of them on the table and you just pop one when
you feel unwell - seen it many times in Asia

Now that's jsut plain wrong.

Lived there, have you?

Sorry, just re-read that. I mean wrong as in "They shouldn't be doing
that", not "You're mistaken, no such thing happens."

--
Skipweasel - never knowingly understood.

In message , Skipweasel
writes
In article , says...
Not when there's a dish of them on the table and you just pop one when
you feel unwell - seen it many times in Asia

Now that's jsut plain wrong.

Lived there, have you?

Sorry, just re-read that. I mean wrong as in "They shouldn't be doing
that", not "You're mistaken, no such thing happens."

Yes, well, it's a bit like having a tub of sweeties in the middle of the
table,

as you say, totally wrong, but there's nothing better to build up yer
average bacterium's resistance


--
geoff

Dave wrote:

What's 'Screen'?

It is an acidic cleaner used in hospitals and the school I used to work
at. It claims to kill MRSA and another hospital bug I can't bring to my
alcohol washed brain at the moment.

That doesn't mean that it kills all germs. It's not even a particularly
effective biocide. It is, however, yet another product trading on
ignorance and fear.

Phil L wrote:

but it's all ******** anyway, your food is covered in
bacteria, unless you soak it in domestos first, and there are more bacteria
in the body than there are human cells, so you could say we are just a
collection of bacteria that has managed to walk upright and tell jokes.

The reasons for stating the last is because it's more or less an
accurate portrayal of any eukaryote. The more one studies eukaryotic
cells the more they look like a bunch of bacteria that have struck a
truce and agreed to work together.