Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Permanently Sterile Surfaces

Posted by michael on from the putting-lysol-out-of-business dept.

dfinster writes: "Fox News is running this AP report that "A new germ-killing polymer can permanently sterilize countertops, doorknobs and even surgical equipment...""

3 of 19 comments (clear)

  1. The application of this would be ridiculous by PD · · Score: 5

    What's with all the hyper protection from germs that is built into every product? This is harmful in my opinion, for two reasons.

    -germs develop resistances. This includes bacteria, and probably chemical agents like this one. Evolution is slow, but persistent. If a resistance is possible, it will probably be developed. The result is tougher germs.

    -people need germs. Our immune systems are kept in shape by fighting germs. Even babies need to have some exposure to germs to develop a resistance to them. We should be exposing ourselves to appropriate levels of germs in order to allow our immune systems to recogize them as harmful agents.

    Oh well. If it appeases the anxieties of germ-phobiacs, then it will make money. Who cares about anything else.

    --
    If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
    1. Re:The application of this would be ridiculous by darkonc · · Score: 4
      -germs develop resistances. This includes bacteria, and probably chemical agents like this one. Evolution is slow, but persistent. If a resistance is possible, it will probably be developed. The result is tougher germs.

      This is why I shudder every time I see those anti-bacterial soaps in grocery stores. I call it 'genetic training'. These things don't really get rid of germs. They get rid of most of them. The ones that are left are quite possibly somewhat resistant to the antibiotic in the soap.

      Worse yet, you have mostly-sterile space in which these things can grow with little competition. (nature HATES a vacuum). After a couple hundred cycles like this, if there's any resistant mutation available, or possible in the set, it's likely to triumph in such an environment.

      Now that these germs have been effectively 'trained' to survive the antibiotic, if/when you actually need an antibiotic, it's effectiveness is going to be reduced or even negated. In our race to have a 'safe' world, we're generating a world in which our safety mechanisms are ineffective.

      The interesting thing is that there are some people who surmise that our race to generate a germ-free world is contributing to an increase in the incidence of asthma and alergies in children. The thought is that our immune system essentially gets 'bored' and reacts to whatever happens to be vailable. If that happens to generate an auto-immune response, that's just too bad.

      Given that we've grown up for millions of years in a completely non-sterile environment, the no - enemy - means - something's - wrong logic seems plausable to me.
      --

      --
      Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
  2. A bunch of replies.... by Alik · · Score: 4

    1. Yeah, the hygeine theory does suggest that killing off too many bugs is a bad idea, and yes, you do need normal flora. That's not what this is for. This is for, as one poster has suggested, surgical equipment and cutting boards and other things likely to be vectors of infection. (Hint: doctors' office doorknobs.)

    2. No, 94% isn't entirely sterile. However, look at it this way: when I take a sterile metal scalpel and start operating on you, with the first cut, that scalpel comes away loaded with skin germs, which are then spreadable to the deep tissue layer. (We'll ignore the cause of cauterizing scalpels for now.) Right now, part of the way we fight this is constantly irrigating the incision with a diluted antibiotic solution. Having the knife itself contribute would be nice.

    3. Yes, bacteria develop resistance. However, they develop resistance to antibiotics that try to get into their metabolism and screw it up (essentially selective poisons). To the best of my knowledge, no bug is resistant to having its membranes chemically lysed. We can't use that kind of reaction for an internal antibiotic, because it'll also destroy normal tissue. However, when you're already cutting the tissue, you really don't care if a few more cells get popped.