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
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.
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 Shaw wrote:
> However, I was once listening to a girl describe how she used to have a
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
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.
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
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
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?
Resistance has nothing to do with "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.
Irrelevant if there isnt 100% kill.
Nothing you 'think' about what breed bad bugs
is going to change the basics of evolution.
Not if the kill rate isnt 100%, stupid.
But wont do a damned thing about breeding roaches that can
avoid getting stomped by being bred to be harder to stomp.
Nothing to 'get'
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.
"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.
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
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.
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.
And bad bugs were a real problem before antibiotics showed up anyway.
Nope, not with the kitchen situation being discussed.
They dont show up in kitchens.
Wrong. Have fun explaining the problem seen
in hospitals before antibiotics showed up.
"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 ass and
provides no proof for his claim. He's a confused, old welfare bum who
hasn't a clue, as always.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.