Slashdot Mirror


Plasma Device Kills Bacteria On Skin In Seconds

Ponca City, We love you writes "In medicine, plasma, the fourth state of matter, is already used for sterilizing surgical instruments; plasma works at the atomic level and is able to reach all surfaces, even the interior of hollow needle ends. Now the BBC reports that researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics have demonstrated a plasma device that can rid hands, feet, or even underarms of bacteria, including the hospital superbug MRSA, by creating cold atmospheric plasma that produces a cocktail of chemicals that kills bacteria but is harmless to skin. 'The plasma produces a series of over 200 chemical reactions that involve the oxygen and nitrogen in air plus water vapor — there is a whole concoction of chemical species that can be lethal to bacteria,' says Gregor Morfill. 'It's actually similar to what our own immune system does.' The team says that an exposure to the plasma of only about 12 seconds reduces the incidence of bacteria, viruses, and fungi on hands by a factor of a million — a number that stands in sharp contrast to the several minutes hospital staff can take to wash using traditional soap and water. Morfill says that the approach can be used to kill the bacteria that lead to everything from gum disease to body odor and that the prototype is scalable to any size and can be produced in any shape."

237 comments

  1. Okay, I know this is off-topic... by garg0yle · · Score: 1, Interesting

    But I find it interesting that according to ancient alchemy there were four "elements" (fire, water, earth, and air), and according to modern science there are four "states of matter" (plasma, liquid, solid, and gaseous).

    --
    Modding "-1, Troll" is not a proper response if you disagree with me. Try reason.
    1. Re:Okay, I know this is off-topic... by sakdoctor · · Score: 5, Funny

      That's just coincidental. Besides there were FIVE elements; Fire, water, earth, air and orange haired Ukrainian chick.

    2. Re:Okay, I know this is off-topic... by Eudial · · Score: 1

      They do actually correspond pretty well, but that is only when you ignore the states of matter that occur at very low temperatures (superfluids, superconductors, Bose-Einstein condensates) and at very high temperatures (quark-gluon plasma).

      --
      GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
    3. Re:Okay, I know this is off-topic... by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 1

      No, the fifth element was gold, not Gauldi.

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    4. Re:Okay, I know this is off-topic... by BarryJacobsen · · Score: 4, Informative

      That's just coincidental. Besides there were FIVE elements; Fire, water, earth, air and orange haired Ukrainian chick.

      Everyone knows that the fifth element is Heart and is represented by a South American with a monkey. Source

    5. Re:Okay, I know this is off-topic... by ironicsky · · Score: 1

      Man, was she hot in that movie... *wont be standing up for at least 90 seconds*

    6. Re:Okay, I know this is off-topic... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Traditionally there are only 3 states of matter. If you want to get more contemporary, there are actually 5 states of matter (plasma, gas, liquid, solid, bose-einstein condensate). If you want to get more technical there are a number of others (superfluids, degenerate, etc) that we could consider as well.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_matter

      FYI. Sometimes a coincidence is just a coincidence.

    7. Re:Okay, I know this is off-topic... by DarrenBaker · · Score: 0

      Um, guys? The Fifth Element was LOVE? HELLOOOOOO?

      Nerds... Jeez.

    8. Re:Okay, I know this is off-topic... by JoshuaZ · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, there were 5 elements according to Aristole: Earth, Air, Fire, Water and Aether. The fifth element only appears in the spheres beyond Earth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle#The_five_elements. Post Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo, when it became apparent that objects in space were likely made of the same substances as other elements Aether was dropped. This didn't last long, since the classical elemental theory was already in decline. Robert Boyle's work in The Sceptical Chymist published in 1661 effectively ended the idea of the then four element theory. So four elements was really only an idea with widespread appeal to scientists and thinkers for about 50 years.

    9. Re:Okay, I know this is off-topic... by MadUndergrad · · Score: 4, Funny

      Ninety seconds? Look at who thinks he's a bigshot, Mr. "I'm not a minute-man anymore". Now to click "post anonymously" to protect myself from embarrassment.

    10. Re:Okay, I know this is off-topic... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And other times coincidence is ignorance.

    11. Re:Okay, I know this is off-topic... by SteveFoerster · · Score: 2, Funny

      Um, guys? The Fifth Element was LOVE? HELLOOOOOO?

      What, and you don't consider "Milla Jovovich" and "love" to be interchangeable?

      --
      Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
    12. Re:Okay, I know this is off-topic... by jbezorg · · Score: 1

      All I care about are the stones...

      --
      I've lost all my marbles except one & It's fun to test angular & centripetal acceleration in my skull
    13. Re:Okay, I know this is off-topic... by nacturation · · Score: 3, Interesting

      And four compass directions: North, South, East, and West. The bible mentions the four corners of the (flat, square) Earth too. All these references to four! Before you know it, your post will get modded to Score: 4, Interesting.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    14. Re:Okay, I know this is off-topic... by Jabrwock · · Score: 1

      No no no, the 5th element is "Surprise"...

      --
      Magic doesn't work in my presence. My power of disbelief is too strong.
    15. Re:Okay, I know this is off-topic... by Rorschach1 · · Score: 1

      Only in Western tradition. In China, there were five - Fire, Earth, Water, Metal, and Wood. They're also associated with points of the compass, which in theory ought to make it easier to navigate the gigantic Elements mall in Hong Kong, but in my experience you just wind up wandering in circles, wondering how the hell you wound up back in the 'Metal' section yet again when all you want is a coffee at Starbucks.

      Apparently 'you are here' marks on maps are not a part of Eastern tradition.

    16. Re:Okay, I know this is off-topic... by Drummergeek0 · · Score: 1

      This is going to degrade into time cube quickly at this rate, 4 synchronous days in one Earth rotation. Link

      WARNING: Your head will hurt if you stay on that site for more than a few seconds.

      --
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
    17. Re:Okay, I know this is off-topic... by baKanale · · Score: 1

      But what about heart? Without heart you don't get Captain Planet!

    18. Re:Okay, I know this is off-topic... by WoodenTable · · Score: 1

      All these references to four! Before you know it, your post will get modded to Score: 4, Interesting.

      Of course. Slashdot runs on an elemental system of four key elements, after all: Interesting, Insightful, Informative, and Funny! These four basic qualities are the very building blocks of truly great Slashdot comment sections.

      The Four Slashdot Elements of Negativity will get no mention from me in this place, however. /spits

    19. Re:Okay, I know this is off-topic... by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      But I find it interesting that according to ancient alchemy there were four "elements" (fire, water, earth, and air), and according to modern science there are four "states of matter" (plasma, liquid, solid, and gaseous).

      They fit too (plasma = fire, water = liquid, etc), but just to throw a monkey wrench in your "wisdom of the ancient" musings, the Asian alchemists had 5 elements (metal and wood instead of earth, IIRC).

      Now, if you'll excuse me, I'll go re-read Neal Stephenson's Baroque Cycle.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    20. Re:Okay, I know this is off-topic... by LordVader717 · · Score: 1
    21. Re:Okay, I know this is off-topic... by Kral_Blbec · · Score: 1

      Luckily, there are four Starbucks in each section.

    22. Re:Okay, I know this is off-topic... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A) Linka was WIND (Mati was the 5th element, Heart)
      B) We have Bose-Einstein condensate, too.

    23. Re:Okay, I know this is off-topic... by rcamans · · Score: 1

      For a moment there, I thought you were speaking lightly of Leeloo. Then I realized even if you were a geek living in your mother's basement, that would not be possible. Then I thought, if he were gay, maybe he is jealous...

      --
      wake up and hold your nose
    24. Re:Okay, I know this is off-topic... by aspelling · · Score: 1

      Man, "orange haired Ukrainian chick" is a fiery element ;-) Inbed indeed

    25. Re:Okay, I know this is off-topic... by lonecrow · · Score: 1

      The four corners of the earth is better said as the four corners of the world and has nothing to do with a flat (square) earth.

      The reference is astronomical. http://www.believeallthings.com/2810/corners-earth

    26. Re:Okay, I know this is off-topic... by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      It depends which ones. The ones I learned from the Geomancers were metal, wood, earth, fire, water.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    27. Re:Okay, I know this is off-topic... by Blain · · Score: 1

      Element 5 was also know as the quintessence.  FWIW.

    28. Re:Okay, I know this is off-topic... by vegiVamp · · Score: 1

      I never thought about that, really. There are superficial parallels, too: solid/earth, liquid/water, gas/air and plasma/fire.

      I wonder what distorted picture is gonna be left of *our* knowledge in a couple of thousand years.

      --
      What a depressingly stupid machine.
    29. Re:Okay, I know this is off-topic... by nacturation · · Score: 1

      I can't help but think that site really stands for "Believe all things first, then try and find a story which fits afterward".

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    30. Re:Okay, I know this is off-topic... by lonecrow · · Score: 1

      Yes it is an unfortunately named website. I had read the book he references called "Hamlets Mill" and it was an excellent book which I recommend to anyone with an interest in History and/or literature.

    31. Re:Okay, I know this is off-topic... by Lana.m · · Score: 1

      Instead of killing we could just do $sudo -u bacteria view /var/log/syslog ;) And the chick was not Ukrainian, Milla is Serbian ;)

    32. Re:Okay, I know this is off-topic... by Kvasio · · Score: 1

      Jeff, is that you?

    33. Re:Okay, I know this is off-topic... by cmdr_klarg · · Score: 1

      Man, was she hot in that movie... *wont be standing up for at least 90 seconds*

      I don't want one position, I want ALL positions!

      --
      THE SOFTWARE, IT NO WORKY!!!
    34. Re:Okay, I know this is off-topic... by Taibhsear · · Score: 1

      Actually there are more than four states of matter. Just from the wiki page alone, I count 12 as well as 4 proposed new ones.

  2. Excessive cleanliness by the_one(2) · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Do you remember the article on /. about how excessive cleanliness isn't all that good for you? Yeah...

    1. Re:Excessive cleanliness by spidercoz · · Score: 4, Funny

      would that be next to excessive godliness? that doesn't sound too good either. I dated a girl in high school that had excessive godliness

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
    2. Re:Excessive cleanliness by Chyeld · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Don't know about you kid, but a doc sticking his hand into my insides is one of those situations where I'm willing to forego the 'benefit' of having my immune system stimulated by germs being introduced in the process and ask him to wash up.

    3. Re:Excessive cleanliness by cashX3r0 · · Score: 1

      Now the BBC reports that researchers ... have demonstrated a plasma device that can rid hands, feet, or even underarms of bacteria ... but is harmless to skin.

      i dont mind a little extra cleansing if i can use this on my chode.

    4. Re:Excessive cleanliness by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Do you remember that not everything applies to every situation? Because it doesn't.

      The article about excessive cleanliness was relating to raising children. Basically, our immune systems are like most things in us in that they need to be used to develop. As such children need to get sick to have a well functioning immune system as adults. You don't want to keep them in a sterile environment or they'll never develop defenses.

      However this is for hospitals. There you do want things as clean as possible. You have people who are in weakened states, their ability to fight off disease is less than normal. Also, you are bypassing a lot of their defenses in many cases. Your body is much more difficult to infect via the nose and mouth than directly via an open incision in your chest. As such, maximal clean is desirable.

      This is not an all or nothing thing. Being super clean is not always good or always bad, it depends on the situation. You wouldn't want to buy this for home and turn your house in to a sterile cleanroom from which you never let your kid out. They'd have no immune system and be very vulnerable in the world. However you do want this for hospitals to ensure that wounded and sick people aren't made further sick by an infection that they can't fight in a weakened state.

    5. Re:Excessive cleanliness by spidercoz · · Score: 1

      hey hey hey, check out my new plasma balls!

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
    6. Re:Excessive cleanliness by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Exactly. I can remember the explanation, that our whole skin in 100% covered is a layer of bacteria. And that those good bacteria prevent the settling of bad bacterial. Which is an important part of what keeps us healthy.

      It’s the same thing as in the stomach. No bacteria, no digestion! I once had a bad settlement of a very dominating helicobacter. Man, you’re fucked, if something bad comes along. That little shithead (not even an insult in this case ^^) not only wrecked my whole digestion, but created a massive amount of heartburn (is that the proper English word?) and loads of pain, which was so bad, that it ran into my lungs, and caused me to wake up at night with the inability to breathe, because of the acid in my bronchial tube! I had to breathe veeery calm and slowly, while I was literally already suffocating to begin with. (That’s why I woke up.) I thought I’d die!
      It even wrecked my mood because of sleep deprivation, the pain, and because it’s known to tweak your mood.

      I don’t know what can happen to your skin, if you wreck your protective perimeter, but I bet it’s something pretty nasty like putrescent moldy skin and rashes, or something like that. Yeah, very “clean”. ^^

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    7. Re:Excessive cleanliness by Nathrael · · Score: 5, Funny

      I dated a girl in high school that had excessive godliness

      Considering you are posting on Slashdot...was her surname .png?

      --
      A good education is a bit like a STD - it makes you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and gives you a desire to spread it.
    8. Re:Excessive cleanliness by spidercoz · · Score: 0

      Ha! That was a good one. No, really. You should write sitcoms for Fox.

      Besides, this was 15 years ago, it was still just JPGs.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
    9. Re:Excessive cleanliness by sjames · · Score: 2, Informative

      These are not being suggested for in-home or preschool whole body sanitizing. They're suggested for doctors or nurses working on people with infectious diseases and potentially compromised immune systems. The problem of excessive clenliness isn't caused by washing up, it's caused by obsessively slathering your child in sanitizing gel whenever he might have (god forbid) touched something.

    10. Re:Excessive cleanliness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was told that ultrapure water that is de-mineralied, de-ionized, etc is not good for humans.
      They were telling me that the purified water was being used to cool down elctronics since it
      provided a low ohmic resistance which improved the heat condution of the water. However,they had
      a person tap into the pipe that circulated the water and feed it to an automatic coffee machine.
      When they found out about it, they asked if anyone in the room was haviing the shits. One person
      said they were affected. Thus, they knew who tapped the pipe. They then told them that purified
      or ultra-purified water is not good for humans since it makes you sick.

      I wonder if the same situation occurs for anyone trying to use purfied water or heavy water from
      atomic reactors? Would that water also affect humans regardless if it was or was not sent through
      the reactor and absorbed some radiation, but not mixed with radioactive substances?
      If so, then if humans go to the outer galaxies, find water and not knowing what organisms exist
      in the water, they radiate it or ultra purify it and in the end get sick because it is to pure.
      Thus, one would have to carry minerals or gator aid to make it drinkable by humans. Moreover,
      instead of dragging along minerals from earth, that one only takes the good bacteria along which
      can reproduce and generate the minerals humans need as by-products which are then added to the
      water to allow humans to drink it. The other possibility is we drink the pure water and then
      swallow a liquid/solid pill that contains the minerals we need from the bacteria mineral machine
      and let our stomachs mix the two together. The third possiblity, is to genetically modify the
      bood bacteria to produce the minerals we need, and then we swallow them before takeoff.
      They would live in the humans stomachs so that when one drinks pure water, the bacteria is already
      reproducing inside of us to create the minerals to be mixed with the pure water. Thus, no bacteria
      mineral machine is needed to be carried to outer space - it is inside of us.

    11. Re:Excessive cleanliness by nacturation · · Score: 1

      On a future operating room wall: To ensure your hands have been sterilized of all contaminents, please insert arms into this plasma conduit for 10 seconds before beginning any medical procedure.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    12. Re:Excessive cleanliness by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 1

      Aside: Heartburn is correct. It's acid-reflux coming from the stomach to the esophageal tube.

      --
    13. Re:Excessive cleanliness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suggest you read about "fecal therapy" in this news story:
      http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/11/13/fecal-transplant.html

    14. Re:Excessive cleanliness by RockyPersaud · · Score: 1

      You wouldn't want to buy this for home and turn your house in to a sterile cleanroom from which you never let your kid out.

      Tell that to the bubble boy, you insensitive clod!

    15. Re:Excessive cleanliness by Chyeld · · Score: 1

      Bugs in colon are not the same thing as bugs in my insides. Geometrically speaking the human form is essentially an oddly formed donuts with a hole down the center to pour food and drink. Yes, that is way over simplifying it, but all the same, what that article is talking about doesn't involve surgery and doesn't involve adding anything 'inside' you.

    16. Re:Excessive cleanliness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that refered to the bacteria on your skin that support a healthy immune system in the same way a very very minor level of radiation (re: sunlight) does. Zero bacteria and radiation may be called healthy, but in a world where such things exist, an individual with no exposure would be at extreme risk to them. Hence the minimum threshold exposure caused by the bacteria on skin and sunlight radiation making you "healthier" by being able to deal with basic germs and backgorund radiation that a "sheltered" person would have more difficulty with.

      this on the other hand is not talking about that. this about sterilization, primarily for hospitals (staph on the skin: good. staph inside the body after a surgical proceedure: VERY BAD). but also potentially useful in other "sterilized" locations: namely food processing plants. you realize how much time and effort goes to cleaning these places every night in preparation for the next day? and as successful as they are, stuff still occasional gets through, finding that one lil crack in the machine the soap misses, etc. This tech would both be TREMENDOUSLY more effective (1 in 10000 washes missing somehting to less than 1 in 10mil), it could also be far faster.

      And companies would nut themselves over the faster, probably regardless of the initial investment for the egar. not only the reduced labor requirements, but the fact the plant wouldnt have to be shutdown (ie: inactive) for nearly as long. Plants are basically occupied 24/7, but hte problem is at night, that occupation is the cleaning shift. Even reducing cleaning time by only 33% would cause a profitable increase in available production time. And results would likely be better than that.

    17. Re:Excessive cleanliness by EdIII · · Score: 1

      Thank You. My sides hurt I was laughing so hard. +55 funny.

    18. Re:Excessive cleanliness by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      Don't know about you kid, but a doc sticking his hand into my insides is one of those situations where I'm willing to forego the 'benefit' of having my immune system stimulated by germs being introduced in the process and ask him to wash up.

      And just pray that it's his hands that go under the plasma.

    19. Re:Excessive cleanliness by b4upoo · · Score: 1

      Could this device be used to kill off bacteria in blood without ruining the blood? If so it could be used in a device somewhat like a unit used for kidney patients to save people with runaway internal infections.

    20. Re:Excessive cleanliness by hydromike2 · · Score: 1

      exactly, thats why /.ers will never die of viral/bacterial diseases, just heart attacks and strokes

    21. Re:Excessive cleanliness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, in good news for you, a lot of doctors don't wash their hands very well anyhow.

      Honestly, I get your point, but when a doctor is going to be putting his hands or surgical tools into my body, it would be nice if he made some attempt at cleaning them. It is also proven that clean hands and clean tools tend to lead to less complications. Now in your everyday life? That's a different story.

    22. Re:Excessive cleanliness by roguetrick · · Score: 1

      I didn't read the article but I'm going to guess no. I suspect its alright for external use due to the fact that keratinized skin cells already are dead, just filled with keratin.

      --
      -The world would be a better place if everyone had a hoverboard
    23. Re:Excessive cleanliness by Fotherington · · Score: 1

      Actually, the research was done on mice and cultured skin cells. Choice quotes from the NHS Choices article which discusses and links to the actual research:

      • "While the newspaper suggests that the findings are directly relevant to children’s health, this was not investigated by the researchers, though they did suggest their results may have some application in the management of inflammatory skin disorders."
      • "This laboratory study ... investigated whether chemicals produced by the bacteria Staphylococcus epidermidis could inhibit skin inflammation."
      • "The researchers state that finding out how such bacteria exist on the skin without causing inflammatory responses could help them understand whether these bacteria have a role in immune responses in general"

      So it looks like we can't really draw any conclusions based on this, though it sounds logical that exposure to all sorts of bacteria will keep your immune system focussed on the task in hand rather than (e.g.) psoriasis. As is so often the way, the Swedish are way ahead of us: "In a typical Danish Forest School, young children from 3 years are taken into the forest for 4 hours each day of the week."

    24. Re:Excessive cleanliness by hitmark · · Score: 1

      how long until some corp starts carpet-marketing these for home and other places?

      on that note, i wonder if they could be used as a replacement (or in addition to) soap and water in public facilities, especially if they are hands free in operation...

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    25. Re:Excessive cleanliness by mldi · · Score: 1

      I dated a girl in high school that had excessive godliness

      Considering you are posting on Slashdot...was her surname .png?

      Pillow Pants :)

      --
      If you aren't suspicious of your government's actions, you aren't doing your job as a responsible citizen.
    26. Re:Excessive cleanliness by sjames · · Score: 1

      I'd guess as long as it takes to get to cost in-line with soap, water, and towels/hand dryer.

  3. Resistance? by Dwedit · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So how long until we see bacteria resistant to this device?

    1. Re:Resistance? by geekoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Never. There is a difference between removing the easy bugs, and complete annihilation of all bacteria it come into contact with. Its like saying the if we had enough super novas humans would become resistant to them.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Resistance? by Chyeld · · Score: 5, Informative

      In order to grow resistance, you have to leave a few alive and they have to have been left alive due in some part to something in their makeup causing them to be less vulnerable to the 'weapon'.

      In other words, something that lived only because it was never touched isn't going to evolve into the superbug.

      This eradicates the germs, they aren't being poisoned or having their chemical processes blocked (which is what most antibiotics do), it's ripping the germs apart at the atomic level. You don't develop a resistance to that.

    3. Re:Resistance? by cashX3r0 · · Score: 1

      well, if you took only a small dose of a super nova, a lil bit every day...maybe then...

    4. Re:Resistance? by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 1

      Actually, evolution is pretty clever. If it doesn't eradicate human skin (maybe just reduces the dead layer a bit?), then bacterias can survive too.

      A more apt analogy would be to say that out of all the intelligent species in the universe, there is bound to be some that know how to evade or cope with a supernovae.

      --
      It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
      Be yourself no matter what they say
    5. Re:Resistance? by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 3, Informative

      In order to grow resistance, you have to leave a few alive and they have to have been left alive due in some part to something in their makeup causing them to be less vulnerable to the 'weapon'.

      In other words, something that lived only because it was never touched isn't going to evolve into the superbug.

      Your first sentence is true, the second is false. Position _can_ be a genetic advantage. "Something that lived only because it was never touched" happens all the time in biology, where the positional behaviour can be driven by genetics.

      Birds avoid high altitude, herds don't generally jump off cliffs, etc. The same happens on a more primitive level, too. People think about genetics and think it's like a human arms race or something, but all natural selection needs is surviving members of a species and it will encode _whatever_ information made them survive. Please remember, we're not talking about single instances of plasma sterilization processes, but basically waiting for a mutation to come along that happens to encode the information which in turn makes a significant contribution to the survival of the bacteria. It might not happen often, but if it happens a few times, then that strain will spread.

      --
      It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
      Be yourself no matter what they say
    6. Re:Resistance? by Dunbal · · Score: 2, Informative

      So how long until we see bacteria resistant to this device?

            About 20 years after we see bacteria resistant to current gamma ray and UV sterilization techniques. Don't hold your breath. Sterilize means no bacteria or spores survive. Do you think they chose 12 seconds "at random" or because "it sounds cool"? No, 12 seconds is the time (with a probably safety margin built in) at which cultures have shown repeatedly that all bacteria are dead.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    7. Re:Resistance? by DarrenBaker · · Score: 1

      Hence why the alcohol hand washes don't create superbugs either - it just kills them wholesale, and developing an immunity to it is highly unlikely.

      Now, if they could just do something like this that would kill viruses. We all know someone using Purel like it's going out of fashion because they think it's protecting them against H1N1... What if we actually had something that could (aside from hand-washing, of course)?

    8. Re:Resistance? by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      I wonder why nobody came up with the idea of selling proper bacterial cultures to apply to the skin after killing everything there. or to eat after antibiotics. That would be a gigantic business!!

      Perhaps because it already exists, and is called yogurt (with living cultures), or a proper and fresh sour-dough starter culture (as opposed to the cultures/starters that have gone bad for years, but still are used by bakeries). :)

      But hmm... if I just search around for really nice starter cultures, and let a microbiologist check them for the proper combination.
      That could heal many diseases caused by the inability to get rid of bad cultures. (E.g. because every time you apply antibiotics, the bad ones get there first.)

      Also: Why use such a high-tech device, wen you can just apply a iodine solution to your skin? Kills everything. bacterial, viruses, funguses, parasites. Of course you can never put it in your mouth or something, because it can just as well kill you (or at least make you very sick). But for the skin, what reasons are there not to use it?

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    9. Re:Resistance? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you are underestimating the adaptibility of bacteria and life in general. Yes, this almost certainly will eradicate all bacteria today found on human skin. My expectation is that some radically different bacteria (or something else entirely) would eventually take its place. If your skin itself is immune, a bacteria or fungus that discovers a way to exploit that immunity will benefit from any bacteria-fungi eliminating plasma.

      Note to scientists...there are ALWAYS consequences. We cannot anticipate all of them, but you should make your best effort to ensure that you will ultimately do more good than harm when commercializing. We will not always get it right, but if we don't try, we WILL inflict great misery upon ourselves. Be responsible. A little research into consequences will pay far more dividends in the long run.

    10. Re:Resistance? by sjames · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It will denature any protein at all. It doesn't harm the surface of your skin only because that is already composed of dead cells. Bacteria are about as likely to evolve resistance to fire or concentrated nitric acid.

    11. Re:Resistance? by sjames · · Score: 1

      If all the harmful bacteria evolves to avoid the human body then the problem is solved!

    12. Re:Resistance? by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 1

      You can't become resistant to some things. An example would be, if you burned people to a degree that 90% of them died, and kept breeding the survivors, you would still not be able to breed a human that was fire resistant.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    13. Re:Resistance? by mpeskett · · Score: 1

      Only matters if the "sterilised of all other life" environment is one that persists for long enough to be worth living in. You also have to consider exactly what would be necessary for an organism to survive this treatment, and how likely it is that such a thing exists anywhere, or would be able to develop by small, incremental, beneficial steps.

      If you just sterilise for long enough to do surgery, then it goes back to non-sterile, and it's really hard to survive it, and it's rather hard to evolve resistance (all of which I suspect are true) then you're unlikely to see something arise to fill this particular niche.

      Life can do amazing things when the circumstances are right, but I think this one might at least take a while to find a way around.

    14. Re:Resistance? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't develop a resistance to that.

      ... unless you're Chuck Norris.

    15. Re:Resistance? by mhelander · · Score: 1

      From TFS:

      "The team says that an exposure to the plasma of only about 12 seconds reduces the incidence of bacteria, >>viruses, and fungi on hands by a factor of a million"

    16. Re:Resistance? by Chyeld · · Score: 1

      True Fact - Chuck Norris actually has a rather weak immune system due to a lack of simulation. Even viruses know not to mess with Chuck.

    17. Re:Resistance? by mpeskett · · Score: 1

      Also: Why use such a high-tech device, wen you can just apply a iodine solution to your skin? Kills everything. bacterial, viruses, funguses, parasites. Of course you can never put it in your mouth or something, because it can just as well kill you (or at least make you very sick). But for the skin, what reasons are there not to use it?

      It stains skin yellow, it's a bit of an irritant, and a small amount will be absorbed into your blood stream. Not a problem if you just want to sterilise a wound the wrap a bandage over it, but for general use hand-washing... well, people will be more inclined to use it if it leaves their skin the same colour as they started with.

      Hmm... maybe you could use the staining in a hospital to make it easy to see who's washed their hands...

    18. Re:Resistance? by mandark1967 · · Score: 1

      Now that's something I'd like to see on Mythbusters!

      --
      Sig Follows: "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." -- Mark Twain
    19. Re:Resistance? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoa. Imagine being able to stand in the way of a supernova and basically just be able to give it the finger and laugh.

      That'd certainly be one of those things you could boast about at the bar.
      Taking a punch from a star, can't beat it.

    20. Re:Resistance? by tophermeyer · · Score: 1

      I'm not so sure that's true. You would probably never see a human that is completely resistant to fire, but after a few generations I think you would certainly see humans with a greater ability to recuperate from burns. Over time you would absolutely see humans with skin and physiology more resistance to heat damage.

      It wouldn't happen quickly, but I think you would eventually see selection for some qualities that improve the organism's ability to survive fire.

    21. Re:Resistance? by DarrenBaker · · Score: 1

      ...and the worst part is... I never learned to reeeaaaddd!!!

    22. Re:Resistance? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In order to grow resistance, you have to leave a few alive and they have to have been left alive due in some part to something in their makeup causing them to be less vulnerable to the 'weapon'.

      That sounds like evolution. In Kansas, the official position is that God creates more bacteria to show that science is a false idol.

    23. Re:Resistance? by roguetrick · · Score: 1

      Upper layer of human skin is filled with Keratin. You could break the damn membrane and that shit still would be fine I'm sure.

      --
      -The world would be a better place if everyone had a hoverboard
    24. Re:Resistance? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Car analogy ?

    25. Re:Resistance? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does anybody know what stars Destiny (SGU) can refuel in the centre of? Would that include supernovae?

    26. Re:Resistance? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So how long until we see bacteria resistant to this device?

            About 20 years after we see bacteria resistant to current gamma ray and UV sterilization techniques. Don't hold your breath. Sterilize means no bacteria or spores survive. Do you think they chose 12 seconds "at random" or because "it sounds cool"? No, 12 seconds is the time (with a probably safety margin built in) at which cultures have shown repeatedly that all bacteria are dead.

      Sure, but if it is used for sterilizing hands eventually there will be enough people who decide that 2-3 seconds is 'good enough'...and this could create an opportunity for bugs to adapt to the process.

    27. Re:Resistance? by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      You would probably never see a human that is completely resistant to fire, but after a few generations I think you would certainly see humans with a greater ability to recuperate from burns. Over time you would absolutely see humans with skin and physiology more resistance to heat damage.

      That's quite true. His example was a bad one because bacteria have inherent limitations which humans do not. Macroscopic organisms such as ourselves can develop hardened exteriors (shells/exoskeletons/hardened fire-resistant skin). Microscopic organisms don't really have that option. A strain of bacteria that evolved an exoskeleton would have to go through many other changes first, and in the end would no longer be a bacteria.

    28. Re:Resistance? by Chyeld · · Score: 1

      You are the sort of person who thought Doomsday was a plausible character, aren't you? :-P

    29. Re:Resistance? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      I'm not absolutely sure you're correct. Radiodurans might be able to evolve an immunity to it. (Any bacteria that can grow inside an active nuclear reactor has a good head start.)

      OTOH, it's not something I'd expect very quickly.

      P.S.: My first thought was: "I wonder how long until dentists start using this?"

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    30. Re:Resistance? by Arthur+Grumbine · · Score: 1

      well, if you took only a small dose of a super nova, a lil bit every day...maybe then...

      According to my neighborhood witch doct- I mean, homeopath, you just have to dilute the super nova to microscopic levels in order to obtain complete immunity. Thus we see that for the last 5 years, BREIN/MPAA/RIAA have actually been trying to save humanity from complete annihilation. Whodathunkit?

      --
      Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
    31. Re:Resistance? by toddestan · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, you won't find bacteria at the poles or at the tops of the highest mountains, despite bacteria literally having billions of years to adapt to those environments. I don't think that something will be able to adapt to a process like this, at least in any time frame humans would be concerned with.

    32. Re:Resistance? by Renraku · · Score: 1

      "This eradicates the germs, they aren't being poisoned or having their chemical processes blocked (which is what most antibiotics do), it's ripping the germs apart at the atomic level. You don't develop a resistance to that."

      Actually, resistance was already developed from it. You know, life on Earth isn't mostly carbon based out of chance. Carbon forms bonds that are easy to work with, but aren't susceptible to being torn apart easily. It can form up to four bonds, including double or triple bonds, and good luck trying to break a triple bond without a few kJ of energy in the right spot.

      --
      Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
    33. Re:Resistance? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seeing as you can find bacteria over a mile deep in South African gold mines I doubt that even the poles and mountains are bacteria free.

    34. Re:Resistance? by vegiVamp · · Score: 1

      http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/msad16sep98_1.htm

      --
      What a depressingly stupid machine.
    35. Re:Resistance? by vegiVamp · · Score: 1

      TFS> The team says that an exposure to the plasma of only about 12 seconds reduces the incidence of bacteria, viruses, and fungi on hands by a factor of a million

      Given that bacteria aren't generally counted by the baker's dozen, I'd say a proverbial handful still survives after 12 seconds.

      --
      What a depressingly stupid machine.
    36. Re:Resistance? by Fear+the+Clam · · Score: 1

      So how long until we see bacteria resistant to this device?

      How long does it take for SyFy to make one of their movies?

    37. Re:Resistance? by Phoghat · · Score: 1

      "IF" it gets them all, there's no problem. ":IF"it leaves some (even a small amount) behind, you're fucked.

      --
      Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
    38. Re:Resistance? by sjames · · Score: 1

      They're interesting but none of those have resistance to actual fire or concentrated nitric acid. They're also different enough that the human body is a poor environment for them.

    39. Re:Resistance? by aug24 · · Score: 1

      Exactly as soon as we see cows evolving resistance to chainsaws.

      --
      You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
    40. Re:Resistance? by DaleSwanson · · Score: 1

      http://microbiology.suite101.com/article.cfm/alcohol_based_hand_cleansers
      http://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/qa.htm#e

      What kills influenza virus?
      Influenza virus is destroyed by heat (167-212F [75-100C]). In addition, several chemical germicides, including chlorine, hydrogen peroxide, detergents (soap), iodophors (iodine-based antiseptics), and alcohols are effective against human influenza viruses if used in proper concentration for a sufficient length of time.

    41. Re:Resistance? by DarrenBaker · · Score: 1

      Well don't I feel like the fucking asshole?

      Why don't they use this when advertising Purel and whatnot - they only say that it kills bacteria on the bottle...

    42. Re:Resistance? by DaleSwanson · · Score: 1

      Well the first link says alcohol kills only certain types of viruses. I guess it's easier for Purel to just say bacteria then go into detail about which viruses it kills.

  4. "chemical species" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good one.

  5. sweet by spidercoz · · Score: 2, Funny

    I want a plasma bathtub

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
    1. Re:sweet by garg0yle · · Score: 0

      For some reason I read that as plasma hot tub.

      The mind boggles.

      --
      Modding "-1, Troll" is not a proper response if you disagree with me. Try reason.
    2. Re:sweet by weav · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A plasma bathtub would be good but what *I* really want is a plasma TOOTHBRUSH...

    3. Re:sweet by DarrenBaker · · Score: 1

      I want plasma bog roll.

    4. Re:sweet by bdabautcb · · Score: 0

      I want a plasma hoverboard.

      --
      Koalas. They're telepathic. Plus, they control the weather. -Margaret
    5. Re:sweet by AmberBlackCat · · Score: 3, Funny

      They'll never catch on because the LCD's are brighter.

    6. Re:sweet by roguetrick · · Score: 1

      Me too.

      --
      -The world would be a better place if everyone had a hoverboard
    7. Re:sweet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I swear I'd never use your plasma toothbrush to trim my ass hairs or clean up the dingleberries. And I totally don't use your regular razor and toothbrush to do that now.

    8. Re:sweet by rcamans · · Score: 1

      Wait a minute. when was the last time you used any kind of bath tub?

      --
      wake up and hold your nose
    9. Re:sweet by Walkingshark · · Score: 1

      I'd rather have a sonic screwdriver.

      --
      The world you experience is only a close approximation of reality.
  6. Alas... by mim · · Score: 1

    ...bacteria, I knew thee well...

    1. Re:Alas... by mim · · Score: 1

      while she was swallowing your...., um, beverage...yeah...

  7. Kick-ass for hospitals by Aggrajag · · Score: 2, Interesting

    As a nurse I would welcome this as I have to wash and disinfect my hands several times a day.

    1. Re:Kick-ass for hospitals by geekoid · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Wouldn't you still need to wash hands to remove the larger bit of stuff stuck to your hands? Bacteria is the primary reason why you need to wash your hands all the time, but not the only one.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Kick-ass for hospitals by Dunbal · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I doubt the hospital is going to spring for an x million dollar machine at every nurse's station just so that most nurses can pretend to use it, like most of them pretend to wash their hands nowadays. Don't throw out the soap just yet.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    3. Re:Kick-ass for hospitals by rev_sanchez · · Score: 1

      I'd like to think that before I die the idea of shooting one's self in the ass and/or groin with plasma after using the restroom is not only common but encouraged in the interest of cleanliness and good manners.

      --
      If you didn't come to party don't bother knocking on my door. Prince '1999'
    4. Re:Kick-ass for hospitals by jpmorgan · · Score: 2, Informative

      Removing bulk material is comparatively easy, when needed. Washing to decontaminate, as is required frequently in hospitals, is a much more arduous task.

    5. Re:Kick-ass for hospitals by Aggrajag · · Score: 1

      I seriously doubt that nurse over where ever you live "pretend" to wash their hands. Proper hand hygiene is among the first things nurses learn at least in my country it is.

    6. Re:Kick-ass for hospitals by godel_56 · · Score: 1

      As a nurse I would welcome this as I have to wash and disinfect my hands several times a day.

      Only several? That's disturbing. I'd have thought you'd have to wash them after every patient contact.

    7. Re:Kick-ass for hospitals by Aggrajag · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sorry, a non-english speaker here- On a normal day I wash and disinfect my hands about sixty times.

    8. Re:Kick-ass for hospitals by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      Sixty times hospital-grade disinfectant a day? My skin is close to suicide when I just read about it. Yeah, I can see how a short wash followed by a plasma bath would be greatly preferable.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    9. Re:Kick-ass for hospitals by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      There’s this thing called “gloves”, you know. Just use the condom-like types, that don’t look as if you don’t want to touch the patient, and a bit of self-confidence to overcome stupid comments from stupid people, and you’re good. :)

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    10. Re:Kick-ass for hospitals by Aggrajag · · Score: 1

      Gloves don't give 100% protection, that's why it is extremely important to use disinfectant between glove changes.

    11. Re:Kick-ass for hospitals by Aggrajag · · Score: 1

      Disinfectants do have glycerine so it is not *that* bad. But yes, plasma would be nicer.

    12. Re:Kick-ass for hospitals by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      Sorry, a non-english speaker here-

      The English they speak in the nega-verse? Cool.

      So, is that just like regular English, but with a goatee? Seems like it would only matter to lip-readers...

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    13. Re:Kick-ass for hospitals by roguetrick · · Score: 1

      You certainly can't graduate without that drilled into your skull.

      --
      -The world would be a better place if everyone had a hoverboard
    14. Re:Kick-ass for hospitals by Aggrajag · · Score: 1

      Not a native English speaker. If that pleases, milord?

    15. Re:Kick-ass for hospitals by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      Not a native English speaker. If that pleases, milord?

      It's ok, I didn't even think you were an American-Indian to begin with ;-)

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    16. Re:Kick-ass for hospitals by mldi · · Score: 1

      Sorry, a non-english speaker here- On a normal day I wash and disinfect my hands about sixty times.

      Gadzooks! Honestly, how the heck do you keep your hands from drying to a complete crisp?

      --
      If you aren't suspicious of your government's actions, you aren't doing your job as a responsible citizen.
    17. Re:Kick-ass for hospitals by vegiVamp · · Score: 1

      That's roughly every eight minutes, given an 8-hour day. Another post said that such procedure takes several minutes. What is it you do ?

      --
      What a depressingly stupid machine.
    18. Re:Kick-ass for hospitals by DamienNightbane · · Score: 1

      He washes his hands, apparently.

    19. Re:Kick-ass for hospitals by Aggrajag · · Score: 1

      Should have written "and/or" instead of "and".

  8. Gets rid of body odor? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    When does it come in gift size?

    --
    Qxe4
    1. Re:Gets rid of body odor? by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      They're expensive; don't give them away. Just holster one on your belt and blast any smelly coworkers with your plasma gun.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
  9. Good bacteria? by Lord+Lode · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I thought a lot of the bacteria in and on humans were good ones, which are required to be fit and healthy and function properly. What happens to those?

    1. Re:Good bacteria? by Cedric+Tsui · · Score: 5, Funny

      The same thing that happens to them when you wash with antibacterial soap.

    2. Re:Good bacteria? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RTFS, this isn't something you're using to wash your hands off after you take a shit. It wouldn't even help with that anyway, as afaik you'd still have shit on your hands, just, the bacteria would be dead.

    3. Re:Good bacteria? by Dunbal · · Score: 3, Informative

      The same thing that happens to them when you wash with antibacterial soap.

            One of the most overrated products in the world. Everyone thinks they're getting "anti-bacterial" protection.

            If you want "clean hands" while washing with antibacterial soap, make sure you do like we surgeons and wash each hand for 15 minutes. Even then you'll have critters living in your sweat glands... but your bacterial count will be very very low. For the regular "less time than it takes to sing the the birthday song" hand washing, anti-bacterial soap offers virtually no advantage over regular soap.

            Now hands up who spends 30 mins washing their hands every time they touch something.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    4. Re:Good bacteria? by deprecated · · Score: 1

      They die.

    5. Re:Good bacteria? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if it was deep shit would plasma still kill ALL the germs?

      Inquiring minds want to know.

    6. Re:Good bacteria? by RJFerret · · Score: 1

      More importantly, how to replenish your good bacteria?

      The same problem exists with antibacterial soap, after using it and making yourself more vulnerable to harmful bacteria, how do you replace the good defensive bacteria you had in the first place that keeps you healthy? (Since you've just created an environment ripe for harmful bacteria to flourish.)

      Obviously this new process also affects viruses and fungi, although it makes no mention of any impact to fungal spores in TFA.

    7. Re:Good bacteria? by wizardforce · · Score: 1

      Plasma knows neither good nor evil, it kills them all the same. Further, these plasmas probably destroy a good deal of the oils in your skin as well. Which probably means that if you sterilized your hands too much using non-equilibrium plasma you are more likely to have dry, rough skin.

      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    8. Re:Good bacteria? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I use toilet paper...

    9. Re:Good bacteria? by mhelander · · Score: 1

      How long then would you say is reasonable for normal people to wash their hands to gain useful anti-bacterial protection in everyday life? I'm assuming that the 15 minutes per hand makes sense when operating, but perhaps is overkill as precaution for, say, being able to fairly safely eat a sandwich with your hands? Would you say 1 minute might be enough? 2 minutes?

    10. Re:Good bacteria? by Dunbal · · Score: 2

      being able to fairly safely eat a sandwich with your hands?

            You have your own blend of bacteria, and shouldn't have trouble with a sandwich even if you haven't washed your hands. After all, those Peyer's patches should count for something in identifying and producing antibodies for your home blend of bacteria.

            The trouble is when a) someone prepares your sandwich without washing their hands, thus inoculating you with strange bacteria and b) when you touch other people, things other people have touched, or bodily fluids from other people. I say people but some rare (nowadays) diseases can be acquired from animals. Of course you can get sick by eating food that hasn't been prepared properly and has acquired pathogens from the environment, too - then no amount of hand washing on your or the cook's part will help you with say the Potato-Mayonnaise-S. aureus salad, good old undercooked-eggs-and Salmonella typhi salad, or the famous Not-Quite-Canned-Preserves-with-Botulinum toxin...

            Most courses that teach hygiene, in and outside of medical school, recommend washing your hands approximately the duration of the "Happy Birthday" (c) song - about 30 seconds with regular soap for "everyday hand washing". For minor surgery, about 3 minutes per hand including the wrists, scrubbing the hands and under the nails, and for major surgery 15 minutes per hand and forearm up to the elbow, with a scrubbing brush. Do remember to wash between your fingers. But remember, you will rarely make yourself sick (unless you have some auto-immune problem). It's other people/things that make you sick.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    11. Re:Good bacteria? by TheThiefMaster · · Score: 1

      Not at all should be good enough, as long as you haven't been handling raw meat or dirt, and your immune system is functioning at all.

    12. Re:Good bacteria? by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      Simple, as George Carlin would say: when I shit on them.

      I routinely eat stuff I drop on the floor, touch doorknobs and car doors, eat from other people's forks, drink from their straws, shake their sweaty hands, eat moldy bread and squishy apples, and I'm NEVER sick.

    13. Re:Good bacteria? by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

      how about a 1 second or .5 second dip into liquid nitrogen, cold enough to kill the bugs, not long enough to freeze your skin because it will boil/vaporize the N to gases. Yes ive seen a friend of mine do a quick splash of N on his hands and it had zero harm.

      Then perhaps after that do a quick .3 second blast with a fireball/flame, side effect being youre hairs are gone, but so are the germs.

      Its about time we have a decent solution instead of 15 mins of washing, where are the scientists on this one, 15 mins * few times a day * 1000000 surgens at their salary levels = billions of dollars wasted time.

      --
      Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
    14. Re:Good bacteria? by Dunbal · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Its about time we have a decent solution instead of 15 mins of washing, where are the scientists on this one, 15 mins * few times a day * 1000000 surgens at their salary levels = billions of dollars wasted time.

            There's a problem with your accounting: you're forgetting to offset this by the cost of millions of infected patients staying longer at the hospital, the antibiotics used, and the inevitable fatalities.

            The standard infection rate for most wounds is around 10% in nature. Aseptic procedure (hand washing, sterile equipment, etc) has brought this down to under 1%. So tack on a week or so in the hospital (plus the fatalities) for 9% of all surgeries performed in the world, then compare it to hand washing.

            Not to mention the ethical side. We wash our hands because it's part of our "do no harm" credo.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    15. Re:Good bacteria? by PitaBred · · Score: 2, Funny

      Thanks. Now I have to go wash my hands after typing this. Another half-hour before I can get to bed.

    16. Re:Good bacteria? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought a lot of the bacteria in and on humans were good ones, which are required to be fit and healthy and function properly. What happens to those?

      As long as you aren't ramming your plasma blaster up your ass, you'll be fine.

    17. Re:Good bacteria? by YourExperiment · · Score: 1

      For the regular "less time than it takes to sing the the birthday song" hand washing, anti-bacterial soap offers virtually no advantage over regular soap.

      Apart from the advantage of releasing more anti-bacterial agents into the ecosystem, thus increasing the odds of the development of resistant strains of bacteria. Don't forget that advantage.

    18. Re:Good bacteria? by Gaffod · · Score: 1

      Actually antibacterial soap is only marginally better than normal soap, except for the really serious AB soap (the water-less gel based stuff [Purell]) which turns out to have antibiotics and a 62% ethanol anyway. Since 70% ethanol is just slightly better than that why not just dip your hands in alcohol for 10 seconds and let them dry in 5-15? It's much faster and much more effective than soap, and not difficult to distribute to hospitals. (Ethanol, man! ETHANOL!)

      Anyway, the experiment I did in the lab compared soap to unwashed cultures of about 300 colonies so I'm not sure if ethanol goes beyond 0.3% reduction like this new-fangled plasma whatchamacallit. Does it not damage tissue as well, however? Combined alcohol exposure times around, say, 10 minutes may be bad for your skin but I imagine superoxides (assuming they form) and other nasties are even worse.

    19. Re:Good bacteria? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where did he suggest not washing his hands as an alternative? Are you just arguing to have something to say?

    20. Re:Good bacteria? by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Where did he suggest not washing his hands as an alternative?

      How about Its about time we have a decent solution instead of 15 mins of washing... surgens at their salary levels = billions of dollars wasted time.

            Learn to read. He equates hand washing with billions of dollars of "wasted time".

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  10. Mechanism by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

    plasma works at the atomic level

    Whereas an autoclave, which sterilizes using heat, only works on the proton, quark, and meringue pie levels?

    1. Re:Mechanism by Stewie241 · · Score: 1

      No, but wouldn't regular anti-bacterial soap work on the molecular level?

      If you could get all health-care workers to regularly put their hands in an autoclave, then maybe that would be a better solution.

    2. Re:Mechanism by Spykk · · Score: 1
      From wikipedia:

      An autoclave is a device to sterilize equipment and supplies by subjecting them to high pressure steam at 121 C or more.

      Something tells me that doctors wouldn't be up to performing surgery after putting their hands in an autoclave...

    3. Re:Mechanism by vegiVamp · · Score: 1

      An autoclave takes about an hour, if I'm not mistaken. Additionally, I for one am not going to stick my arm in one that's on.

      --
      What a depressingly stupid machine.
  11. Babylon 5 showed something like ths by Painted · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There was a scene on Babylon 5 where Sheridan and Garibaldi are killing time in a public restroom waiting for someone to leave (yeah, a Sci-Fi show that admits people go to the bathroom!), and Sheridan is shown "washing" his hands under what appears to be a disinfecting device...

    Funny how you can often find references in fiction to things that later become reality...

    --
    http://marsandmore.com - Posters of space, spacecraft, and astronomy.
    1. Re:Babylon 5 showed something like ths by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember that scene, and I thought that was kind of cool, but then I thought to myself - disinfected dirt is still dirt.

    2. Re:Babylon 5 showed something like ths by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are 6.8 billion people in this world. Each one having an idea every minute. The odds of someone guessing something that seems futuristic are pretty high. Now the odds of those being correct are very low, but if just 1 holds true, we look at the person like a visionary.

      Oooh and ahhh that a Sci-Fi show got a futuristic idea right, but how many things were wrong or still not accomplished yet in that show?

  12. Surface only, though? by noidentity · · Score: 1

    Washing hands is partly about physical scrubbing, which loosens things on the surface. How is this plasma going to replace that?

    1. Re:Surface only, though? by Chyeld · · Score: 1

      If it's germ free and not large enough to be visible, does it matter?

    2. Re:Surface only, though? by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If it's germ free and not large enough to be visible, does it matter?

            It does if you're a surgeon. There's something called the foreign body response, and we've seen it happen even with particles of the STERILE talc they line some surgical gloves with to make them easier to put on. Problems aren't only caused by bacteria. Depending on the person's immune response, virtually anything can cause a life-threatening reaction to normally "inert" things like nylon suture or titanium rods/sutures. Things like dirt and human hair are more likely to provoke a reaction.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    3. Re:Surface only, though? by adonoman · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I never wash my hands after spilling bleach on them.. It's germ free, and just a quick wipe with a paper towel and it's not visible anymore. Off to lunch I go...

    4. Re:Surface only, though? by mhelander · · Score: 1

      Perhaps the techniques could be combined (washing + plasma nuking)?

    5. Re:Surface only, though? by roguetrick · · Score: 1

      I doubt this will significantly change the scrub procedure.

      --
      -The world would be a better place if everyone had a hoverboard
  13. Of course... by wcrowe · · Score: 1

    The big question is, how soon can we turn this into some sort of weapon?

    --
    Proverbs 21:19
    1. Re:Of course... by marcosdumay · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It wont. There are way more effective ways if using the same amount of energy on a weapon.

    2. Re:Of course... by WormholeFiend · · Score: 1

      The big question is, how soon can we turn this into some sort of weapon?

      The device does look like an oven...

      You know who else loved ovens?

    3. Re:Of course... by spidercoz · · Score: 1

      and the winner for "Most Subtle Godwining of the Week" goes to...

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
    4. Re:Of course... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holly Hobbie!

      So, what did I win?!

    5. Re:Of course... by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      Depends on how fast we can get our hands at some Elerium-115.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    6. Re:Of course... by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      Rachel Ray?

  14. Resistance is Useless by sanman2 · · Score: 1

    Resistance is useless - we will make your sun go nova...

    1. Re:Resistance is Useless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean... resistance is futile. Fixed that for ya.

  15. a true "wtf" by cinnamon+colbert · · Score: 1, Interesting

    this belongs on the science equivalent of www.thedailywtf.com
    plasma = uncontrolled mix of highly reactive chemicals
    highly reactive chemicals = damage to skin at some level
    thus we have that old item, the therapeutic index roughy ratio of harm to good
    however,
    highly reactive chemcials = bugs getting resistant
    how ? learning to live deeper in the skin (bad for you)
    learning to make enzymes that deto the highly reactive chemicals (radical quenchers like SOD)
    learning to elaborte low molecular weight or high molecular weight (biofilm) molecules that sop up the highly reactive chemicals, so it takes a much higher conc of plasma

    PS: MRSA is actually a :"feeble" bug - we know this because there have been many, very carefull studies that compare patients with MRSA to patients with MSSA (methicillin sensitive S Aureus)
    The finding is that petients who get MRSA infections are sicker then patients who get MSSA infections.
    To my mind, this means that the genetic changes that make S aureus resistant also make the bug less healthy in general, so it has a difficult time getting established in th blood or in the joints or urinary tract.
    And this is consistant with what is known (alot) about the gene mecA and how it acts.

    also, there are new antibiotics approved in canada and switzerland that are active against mrsa - ceftobiprole

  16. gloves by SuperBanana · · Score: 0

    Don't know about you kid, but a doc sticking his hand into my insides is one of those situations where I'm willing to forego the 'benefit' of having my immune system stimulated by germs being introduced in the process and ask him to wash up.

    A surgeon sticking his hand into your insides is wearing a sterile-packaged glove.

    The OP has a valid concern- both because skin has bacteria on it normally which is beneficial, and because our immune systems needs exposure to baddies to keep working properly.

    Fun related fact: infection control became MORE of a problem when gloves were introduced. Something about the doctor or nurse or surgeon really wanting to be clean after getting your bodily fluids all over their hands.

    1. Re:gloves by Anpheus · · Score: 1

      Or infection control was acknowledged as a more serious problem causing secondary infections due to more thorough analysis in the past century, accompanied by numerous other medical advances.

      Or to put it differently;

      Fun related fact: infection control became MORE of a problem when cars became common. Something about the emissions and blah blah blah.

    2. Re:gloves by tsstahl · · Score: 1

      So cars create drug resistant bacteria? Or is it the other way around? Does the autoimmune industry really need more bailing out?

    3. Re:gloves by Kral_Blbec · · Score: 1

      I've worked in surgery as a technologist (ie the one who sets up and gets instruments ready for the doc, as well as the one ultimately responsible for sterility) and I really question your fun related fact. For one thing, it makes no sense.

      You are correct, however, about wearing sterile gloves. Most of the time they are wearing two layers in fact. However, they are also playing around with sharp, pointy thingies and they tend to pierce or tear gloves very often. Thats one of the things the technologist watches for and reminds them to change their gloves if needed. Before scrubbing in, it is required to wash your hands. Many places have a 5 minute scrub mandatory for each case, some just mandate that for the first operaiton of the day and then chemical solutions (kind of like germ-x on steroids) for the rest of the day. Either way, this device would be awesome if it could replace those. A normal hand scrub to get off dirt and residue, then this for 12 seconds. It might not be any faster than the solutions, but it is much friendlier. That stuff really gets irritating to the skin after using it 10 times a day for years.

    4. Re:gloves by Anpheus · · Score: 1

      Yes.

  17. Is harmless to skin? by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    So was phenol, for that matter. If it kills bacteria in 12 seconds, it's "not nice stuff". Oh yeah maybe the keratin on your skin will prevent it from penetrating. What if it gets in your sweat glands. What if your skin has a lesion, and the keratin is interrupted...

    This one gets filed in the "call me when we've been using it safely for 20 years" category. Until then I will stick to soap and water.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    1. Re:Is harmless to skin? by spidercoz · · Score: 1

      What if your skin has a lesion, and the keratin is interrupted...

      then your hands melt

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
    2. Re:Is harmless to skin? by sjames · · Score: 1

      It's a matter of the amounts. Phenol can get past your skin and in to general circulation quite easily. There's a lot more phenol molecules in a liquid cleaner than there will be free radicals in the plasma. The free radicals will also neutralize themselves quickly as they contact proteins.

      Soap and water are just fine though so unless you're a doctor or nurse you will probably want to stay with those anyway for simple practicality.

    3. Re:Is harmless to skin? by yuhong · · Score: 1

      If it kills bacteria in 12 seconds, it's "not nice stuff".

      Another example from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2007/02/08/finally-something-good-you-can-do-with-your-microwave.aspx : "Interestingly, the microwave was even able to kill B. cereus spores, which are able to survive extreme heat and radiation (though it took four minutes, not two). It's no wonder, then, why heating food in a microwave changes the physical structure of foods, with virtually unknown consequences. "

    4. Re:Is harmless to skin? by Urkki · · Score: 1

      So was phenol, for that matter. If it kills bacteria in 12 seconds, it's "not nice stuff". Oh yeah maybe the keratin on your skin will prevent it from penetrating. What if it gets in your sweat glands. What if your skin has a lesion, and the keratin is interrupted...

      Well, soap and water is "not nice stuff" too, if you need to wash your hands all the time, like doctors and nurses should do between meeting patients.

      This one gets filed in the "call me when we've been using it safely for 20 years" category. Until then I will stick to soap and water.

      It's also worth noting that this does not remove any bacteria, it just kills them... And also it probably doesn't work as well on dirty hands, the dirt would probably protect the bacteria from plasma reactions. So soap isn't obsolete yet.

  18. What? by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

    Plasma Device Kills ... Skin In Seconds

    Sorry, but I always read it as this. And TFS is just a big bunch of white noise after this...

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  19. as a nurse, you should know better by SuperBanana · · Score: 1

    As a nurse I would welcome this as I have to wash and disinfect my hands several times a day.

    As a nurse, I'd hope you would remember the same lecture on hand-washing I got when I started working for a hospital. Namely, that your nails are equally if not more important. What does this do for dirt under nails? Uh huh.

    1. Re:as a nurse, you should know better by RemyBR · · Score: 2

      If it can clean the hollow tip of a needle, I'd think that dirt under your nails wouldn't be a problem. One of the posters above is right though, this is not going to eliminate the need to wash your hands to remove the "bulk" dirt.

    2. Re:as a nurse, you should know better by Aggrajag · · Score: 2

      This would mean using less disinfectant, the alcohol dries my hands.

  20. 7 letters by LanMan04 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Lincoln and Kennedy both had 7 letters in their last names. Both were assassinated.

    Coincidence? I THINK NOT!

    --
    With the first link, the chain is forged.
  21. I'll bite by xigxag · · Score: 3, Funny
    --
    There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
    1. Re:I'll bite by locallyunscene · · Score: 1

      Rachael Ray?

      So you're proposing we call the weaponized form of this device a Rachael Ray? ;-)

  22. biological parallel to "with a big enough hammer" by SuperBanana · · Score: 1

    This eradicates the germs, they aren't being poisoned or having their chemical processes blocked (which is what most antibiotics do), it's ripping the germs apart at the atomic level. You don't develop a resistance to that.

    I'm sure similar thoughts were said about radiation, bleach, alcohol, and autoclaves. Turns out there are various critters resistant or immune to each.

    However, if this manages to blow away prions (which aren't zapped by a number of things, including normal autoclaves), it'll be great news.

  23. Amorphous wanst the 4th state of matter ? by ciganito · · Score: 0

    I am not sure, but I always thought as "amorphous" was the 4th state of the matter. Despite I don't have an academic/scientific paper on hand to solidify this, it's at least something to look at. Amorphous matherials, window glass (as an example) are not exactly solid... Anyways... worst than science only religion.

  24. Old news! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Enterprise crew were removing bacteria, skin, and everything else in seconds with plasma (phasers) in 1966!

  25. On-Topic: Who is Gregor Morfill? by reporter · · Score: 1
    The person who lead the research in using plasma to disinfect the human body is Gregor Morfill. Who is Gregor Morfill?

    The Max Planck Institute has a Web page that tells us who he is. Below is a quote from his resume.

    "Born on July 23, 1945 in Oberhausen. Study of physics, doctorate Imperial College of Science and Technology (1971), German Habilitation in physics Heidelberg Univ. (1977), Director and Scientific Member at the Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics (since 1984)."

    Below is a list of his awards.

    Patten Prize of Indiana University
    Science Award of the Donors' Association for the Promotion of Sciences and Humanites in Germany
    Honorary Professor Univ. of Arizona, Tucson
    Honorary Doctor Technical Univ. Berlin
    Honorary Professor Univ. of Leeds, England
    Foreign Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences

    Dr. Morfill must be a brilliant scholar as the Russian Academy of Sciences rarely grants membership to scientists who are not Russian citizens.

    Here is an interesting question. Why have Germans (like Dr. Morfill) accomplished so much in science and technology? Does culture, genetics, or a combination (of both) explain their scientific prowess? Note that Albert Einstein is a German (with a Jewish heritage).

  26. Sonic Showers anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh yes, I went there.

  27. I predict a new gizmo to treat acne by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    zap that zit away

  28. Plama device by brianc · · Score: 1

    BBC reports that researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics have demonstrated a plasma device that can rid hands, feet, or even underarms of bacteria, including the hospital superbug MRSA

    Don't taz me Bro!!!

    --


    SIGLOST && SIGUNUSED && SIGQUIT
  29. Re:biological parallel to "with a big enough hamme by sjames · · Score: 1

    I'm sure similar thoughts were said about radiation, bleach, alcohol, and autoclaves. Turns out there are various critters resistant or immune to each.

    None of which are harmful to us. They had to become so different in order to survive those things that our bodies no longer make a good habitat for them.

  30. Kill Virii? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    sounds similar to ultraviolet sterilization.

  31. Re:7 letters straw man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lincoln and Kennedy both had 7 letters in their last names. Both were assassinated.

    okay, it's a little closer than that:

    four "elements" (fire, water, earth, and air), and according to modern science there are four "states of matter" (plasma, liquid, solid, and gaseous).

    fire->plasma: mix of energy & matter
    water->liquid: instance->class
    earth->solid: instance->class
    air->gas: instance->class

    So, the OP isn't just saying "OOOO!!! LOOOOKZ! THEY BOTH HITZ TEH SAME NUMBR!", they might be trying to point out that the traditional four elements are just the most basic examples of the four root 'qualities' that were observed in matter. The earth/air/fire/water set are a convenient way of pointing to those observed qualities; the states of matter are a more subtle, elemental way of speaking about those qualities.

  32. How long before these are in public restrooms? by davidwr · · Score: 1

    I'll sell my stock in hand-sanitizing gel manufacturers on Monday.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  33. FINALLY by Xelios · · Score: 1

    Finally we'll all get to figure out how to use the three seashells!

    --
    Murphey's fighting Occam, and we're in the stands.
  34. no more showers in the cold winter.... by Emesee · · Score: 0

    yay yay yay yay yay.

    --
    contribute at wikademia
  35. Psoriasis by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    How about testing it on ppl with Psoriasis? This is suppose to be a genetic disease in the same fashion that all of the duodenal ulcers were called that we suddenly soaring in count. Oddly, all of the drug companies claimed it was genetic and came up with all sorts of drugs to solve the symptoms, but not the problem.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  36. Re:biological parallel to "with a big enough hamme by roguetrick · · Score: 1

    I would not classify prions as non-harmful.

    --
    -The world would be a better place if everyone had a hoverboard
  37. I'll Take a Toothbrush by dandenoth · · Score: 1

    Like a poster before me, I'm all about getting one in a toothbrush. I could definitely take 12 seconds to clean off my teeth, rather than the "Five minutes for top teeth, fiver for bottom" that my dentist tells me to do.

  38. Re:7 letters straw man by c6gunner · · Score: 1

    Uhuh. And where does non-baryonic matter fit in?

  39. I hear copper works too. by zullnero · · Score: 1

    Just saying. Hospitals use it for door handles and other surfaces because it can zap superbugs. But hey, it's way cooler to pass your hands into some sort of holding tank where they can be spritzed with some sort of crazy atmospheric plasma.

  40. Re:biological parallel to "with a big enough hamme by Chyeld · · Score: 1

    Or living, or capable of reproducing independently.

  41. Re:biological parallel to "with a big enough hamme by sjames · · Score: 1

    Prions did not evolve due to anti-bacterial action. I doubt the term evolve even applies to prions.

    Besides that, prions are hardly indestructable, it's just that the consequences of missing even one molecule can be terrible.

  42. Re:Plama [sic] device by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't worry. Taz hate plasma.

  43. Hmmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    has anyone asked for a plasma screwdriver yet?

  44. I Always Wanted To Try.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The sonic shower. I guess it will be a plasma sink first though.

  45. Abuse through Overuse? by greenlead · · Score: 1

    When I read articles like this, I can't help but reflect on how radiation was the "in thing", and products featuring it were ubiquitous, and lots of people got sick and died. Centuries before, the same problem existed with mercury.

    I'm concerned about the possibility, however remote, that plasma-based technology is not truly harmless and could come back to bite us in the rear in a few years.

    1. Re:Abuse through Overuse? by Raptoer · · Score: 1

      Each time we went through those periods we adopted more stringent testing. Additionally plasma is different because it has been known about for quite some time, but only recently been harnessed into medical use. Plasma is a lot less penetrating than mercury (which I assume they ate/drank, I can't remember if it can be absorbed into the skin) and certainly less penetrating than any kind of ionizing radiation used back then (although alpha is pretty harmless unless the source is inside of you). Finally the way plasma works is fundamentally different, it simply annihilates every organic chemical is comes in contact with, so very little chance of cancer or side effects. It's kind of like worrying about the side effects of being decapitated.

  46. rife plasma generator from the 1930's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    check this out, http://www.rife.org/ this man had been doing this long ago

  47. Re:7 letters straw man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's the fifth element.

  48. Showers by Phoghat · · Score: 1
    Before she went to the party on the space station, Danielle stepped into the sanitizer and turned it on. Since there was no water involved their was no need for an enclosure and the sleek lines of her body...

    to be continued

    --
    Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.