Slashdot Mirror


Scientists Put an End To Smelly Socks

athe!st writes "A new anti-microbial treatment that can make clothing — including smelly socks — permanently germ-free has been developed by US scientists. In a paper published in the American Chemical Society journal Applied Materials and Interfaces, Dr Jason Locklin and his colleagues state that the treatment kills a wide range of dangerous pathogens, including staph, strep, E. coli, pseudomonas and acinetobacter."

238 comments

  1. Great... by msauve · · Score: 3, Insightful

    another way to breed resistant strains of dangerous pathogens.

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    1. Re:Great... by geekoid · · Score: 3, Informative

      depends on how it works.

      For example, alcohol based hand sanitizers can not be a vector for a 'resistant' germ.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Great... by Normal+Dan · · Score: 1

      Why not? Someday germs might love getting drunk.

      --
      A unique way to learn a language: http://languageloom.com
    3. Re:Great... by LocalH · · Score: 1

      No, but overuse of them can lessen our immune system's ability to practice on the nastiness that exists in the world. I would not recommend anything alcohol-based to be used with children who's development is still in progress.

      --
      FC Closer
    4. Re:Great... by mcsqueak · · Score: 2

      I would not recommend anything alcohol-based to be used with children who's development is still in progress.

      So you're saying I shouldn't be giving my toddler bottles filled with whiskey then?

    5. Re:Great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      depends on how it works.

      For example, alcohol based hand sanitizers can not be a vector for a 'resistant' germ.

      The easiest way is using nano silver in the fabric. It's been known for hundreds of years that silver kills bacteria on contact and I've never heard of a resistant strain. Silver has always been considered having a purifying effect. It's why it shows up in myths as being a monster or demon killer. It kills anything impure.

    6. Re:Great... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Until the microbes start building EV suits. At that stage we'll be doomed.

  2. I really really need this by sortius_nod · · Score: 1

    for my ugg boots.

    They smell pretty bad and it grosses the fiancee out.

    1. Re:I really really need this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what she said!

    2. Re:I really really need this by Lifyre · · Score: 2

      There is a time tested method to solve this problem. Burn them and buy footwear that doesn't get ruined the first time you wear it in a winter storm.

      --
      I'll meet you at the intersection of "Should be" and "Reality"
    3. Re:I really really need this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There is a time tested method to solve this problem.

      Get rid of the fiancée?

    4. Re:I really really need this by Abstrackt · · Score: 1

      Freeze them. Ideally you don't want to use the freezer you store food in but it works in a pinch. Leave them in there for about two or three days and they should smell better. If that doesn't work, buy good leather shoes (or boots) so they can breathe.

      --
      They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
    5. Re:I really really need this by Lifyre · · Score: 1

      I was assuming that was a euphemism for something closer to a power tool actually.

      --
      I'll meet you at the intersection of "Should be" and "Reality"
    6. Re:I really really need this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are they waterproof? Consider soaking them in a bucket of water to which you have added several denture-cleaning tablets.

    7. Re:I really really need this by Jimbookis · · Score: 1

      You shouldn't have this problem if your ugg boots are made from real sheep skin and wool. My sheep skin slippers are falling apart from 4+ years of use but don't stink. The cheaper synthetic wool boots and slippers take about 2 weeks to start ponging to high heaven.

    8. Re:I really really need this by brusk · · Score: 1

      Put them in the freezer (in a plastic bag) for a few days. Most of the bacteria that cause odors can't survive cold temperatures.

      --
      .sig withheld by request
    9. Re:I really really need this by kno3 · · Score: 1

      Tell her to man up and get used to guys smelly feet.

    10. Re:I really really need this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      for my ugg boots.

      They smell pretty bad and it grosses the fiancee out.

      I hate to break it to you, but it's not the smell. Doesn't matter if they smell like daisies, they still look like shit.

    11. Re:I really really need this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      News flash: It's probably not the smell that's grossing him out. Uggs have got to be the least attractive trend in women's footwear since, well, Crocs. Please, do us all a favour, help bring about the end of the trend, and just throw the damn things out already.

    12. Re:I really really need this by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      Tell the girlfriend to "man up"? Either you're trying to prove the /. stereotype, by having no idea what a girlfriend is for, or you have a very strange porn list.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  3. Great! by newcastlejon · · Score: 1

    Until the resistant variety comes along, that is.

    What's wrong with just washing the damn things?

    --
    If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    1. Re:Great! by PCM2 · · Score: 1

      What's wrong with just washing the damn things?

      It would be prohibitively expensive, and it probably wouldn't work. You would need to wash your scrubs etc. every day, immediately before starting your shift. If you washed them after your shift, then hung them up or put them in a locker, they could potentially be contaminated again. You can also pick up a pathogen when working with one patient, then carry it on your clothes to the next. If this spray makes garments permanently resistant to pathogens, even that would stop happening. It could cut down nosocomial infections a lot.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    2. Re:Great! by newcastlejon · · Score: 2

      Sorry, but I was just talking about socks there. When it comes to white coats, why not try paper? You could impregnate it with this chemical and recycle or just throw into an incinerator after use.

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    3. Re:Great! by PCM2 · · Score: 1

      I dunno, I kinda doubt busy professionals who spent years in medical school to get where they are would appreciate having to wear Tyvek clothes all day, when there are other solutions.

      I wasn't even thinking about the sock angle, because I read TFA and it says almost nothing about that. This compound's main application is going to be in healthcare settings.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    4. Re:Great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you didn't read TFS or even the title?

    5. Re:Great! by tmosley · · Score: 1

      This technology works by interfering with the membrane. It is not simply a substance that attaches to some protein on the surface that will simply be selected against. It's like saying that deer will evolve to resist rifle bullets. It's just not going to happen.

      My own company has developed a similar technology, though our primary application thus far has been medical devices. It actually works quite a bit better than quaternary amines too. Even better, it is a much smaller active group that can be attached in a much more versatile manner, rather than requiring either surface polymerization or attachment with a trimethoxysilane like most quat compounds. I'd like to get my hands on some of this stuff for a head to head comparison.

  4. Only socks? by rednip · · Score: 2

    Hospital bed sheets would be my first use.

    --
    The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
    1. Re:Only socks? by Lashat · · Score: 1

      don't forget the hotel industry. maybe this kills bedbugs too.

      --
      For every benefit you receive a tax is levied. - Ralph Waldo Emerson
    2. Re:Only socks? by newcastlejon · · Score: 1

      When it comes to hospital sheets I'd rather have a boil wash, followed by another one if possible.

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    3. Re:Only socks? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Of course, but along with that, sheets treated with this could continue to kill germs and bacteria while in use. Anyone who suggest this is a replacement is simply ignorant.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:Only socks? by Pino+Grigio · · Score: 0

      The DDT story is an interesting one. It was banned after a big eco-hoo-haa, and a few decades and millions of dead Malaria victims later, it was unbanned because the science that provoked the ban in the first place turned out to be wrong. There's a lesson here somewhere, but as my karma is already low for expressing green cynicism on slashdot, I won't bother to make it.

    5. Re:Only socks? by capedgirardeau · · Score: 5, Informative

      You need to update your talking points. Bedbugs were either in the process or already resistant to DDT in many areas.

      Please see:
      DDT resistance: once more, with tables and sources

      --
      Wax on, wax off baby!
    6. Re:Only socks? by newcastlejon · · Score: 1

      I freely admit I'm pretty ignorant of microbiology but given the choice I'd wager heavily that boiling water is more efficacious than than a chemical treatment. In fact, I'd go even further and also bet that adapting to such high temperatures will take a lot longer for staph. and it's ilk - we've been using it for quite some time successfully after all.

      I once attended a lecture about the many useful attributes of brass (including its bacteriostatic properties) but I still wouldn't recommend it over regular hand washing. Was it even me that you were calling ignorant, anyway? I couldn't tell.

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    7. Re:Only socks? by PCM2 · · Score: 2

      I freely admit I'm pretty ignorant of microbiology but given the choice I'd wager heavily that boiling water is more efficacious than than a chemical treatment.

      We'll agree on "at least as effective," but the problem is that you can't have your hospital staff lounge in vats of boiling water while they deal with patients. It's not like a scalpel where you use it once and throw it into the autoclave. Healthcare workers wear their garments all day.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    8. Re:Only socks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
      Hmm.. I wonder what lesson you think of.

      Possibly the one in which attempts to eradicate malaria fails to do so and create resistant insects but successfully eradicates the bald eagle and other bird/fish species? C'mon, don't be shy.

    9. Re:Only socks? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      ... but the problem is that you can't have your hospital staff lounge in vats of boiling water while they deal with patients.

      I could volunteer a couple of such lounges for a clinical trial. Purely in the name of research, you understand.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    10. Re:Only socks? by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      Mmm...hospital staff soup...

    11. Re:Only socks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HOTEL bed sheets would be a better starting point.

    12. Re:Only socks? by omnichad · · Score: 2

      Mmm...hospital staff soup...

      CORRECTION: hospital Staph soup

    13. Re:Only socks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I freely admit I'm pretty ignorant of microbiology but given the choice I'd wager heavily that boiling water is more efficacious than than a chemical treatment.

      Some bacteria easily survive to boiling but are killed by soap or alcohol.

  5. Inviting bacteria to evolve further? by PaulBu · · Score: 0

    ... into resistant strains?

    Paul B.

    1. Re:Inviting bacteria to evolve further? by Stormthirst · · Score: 1

      Yes, but they are doing that anyway.

      As someone else pointed out, this should be being used in hospitals. This probably should not be being used in something as trivial as socks. One of the problems we're seeing with resistant bacteria is due to the overuse of antibiotics. Perhaps we need a multi-pronged approach?

    2. Re:Inviting bacteria to evolve further? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One of the problems we're seeing with resistant bacteria is due to the overuse of antibiotics.

      The misuse of antibiotics more like it. If people would finish their course of antibiotics instead of stopping when they feel better their infections wouldn't be given a chance to overcome the antibiotics. Thus the infection would not be given a chance to evolve a defense to said antibiotics.

    3. Re:Inviting bacteria to evolve further? by EdIII · · Score: 1

      That I would agree with.

      The problem is the "evolution" part of the discussion. Some people just shut down and refuse to talk about any further because it can't exist and is too contentious of a conversation.

      Explaining that evolution can exist as a process, does exist as a process, and we don't need to discuss origins of life is difficult.

      However, if we lose the race with the bacteria and there are a lot of super strains that start making it out the public it will make it pretty hard to deal with the truth then. Unless it devolves into the Black Plague again and it was just a "punishment" from God.

      I think it is a no-brainer. Only use it when it is in a setting that is required. Sick people stay the hell home, and stop contributing to the problem.

      Hospitals should be using every technology possible to eliminate viruses and bacteria because sick people come there. Using it for your socks because you can't do a load of laundry? That's just laziness.

  6. Better living through chemicals by Moof123 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Am I the only one who has grown cautious of putting chemicals on my skin, in close contact, for many hours of the day? We'll either end up with a super bug or foot cancer...

    1. Re:Better living through chemicals by ohnocitizen · · Score: 1

      Not at all. I wish I still had mod points to mod you up. We already put a range of materials in socks, shoes, and other clothing. Some are touted as anti-fungal, others have a blanket "anti-microbial" label. I wonder what the long term effects might be...

    2. Re:Better living through chemicals by geekoid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You don't have any air contact your skin? no moisture? no cloths? hmm, maybe you should narrow it down from 'chemicals'?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:Better living through chemicals by geekoid · · Score: 1, Funny

      less fungus and microbes.

      So, now that I answered your question, maybe you can do less implied FUD?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:Better living through chemicals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Less; not none. Parent and GP are worried about superbugs by the look of it. Are you missing posts' points intentionally, or are you just an arrogant prick? By the look of your other posts I'm going to say both.

    5. Re:Better living through chemicals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      You don't have any air contact your skin? no moisture? no cloths? hmm, maybe you should narrow it down from 'chemicals'?

      From google - Chemical (noun): A compound or substance that has been purified or prepared, esp. artificially

      I think GP had his usage correct.

    6. Re:Better living through chemicals by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      So what exactly are your clothes made of that has no chemicals?

    7. Re:Better living through chemicals by psithurism · · Score: 1

      maybe you should narrow it down from 'chemicals'?

      "Chemicals" are rather vague, y'know, they make chemical free products these days.

      Anyway, I would narrow it down to avoid chemicals that are designed to kill things. It destroys microbes, so I'll let it be tested on somebody else's skin cells first.

    8. Re:Better living through chemicals by LongearedBat · · Score: 1

      GP is probably referring to high concentrations of manufactured chemicals that are intentionally designed to be toxic. Microbes will adapt to those much faster than we will.

    9. Re:Better living through chemicals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm with you, bacteria do a lot for us, wearing clothes that kill bacteria sounds like an ill conceived plan.

    10. Re:Better living through chemicals by ohnocitizen · · Score: 1

      Precisely.

    11. Re:Better living through chemicals by sFurbo · · Score: 1

      GP is probably referring to high concentrations of manufactured chemicals that are intentionally designed to be toxic. Microbes will adapt to those much faster than we will.

      Which was why GGP brought up the microbe foot cancer?

    12. Re:Better living through chemicals by tmosley · · Score: 1

      ISO 10993 standards. Look them up.

      The way this compound works is by disrupting the cell membranes it comes in contact with. The cells on the surface of your skin are dead, and can't be harmed by this. This is not a material that will cause damage from skin contact.

      This is my field of research, though I work with a different (better) technology.

    13. Re:Better living through chemicals by tmosley · · Score: 1

      Those are generally either silver, or triclosan, both of which are leachables, and toxic as they accumulate in your liver. This material is not a leachable, and as such does not pose a systemic health risk.

    14. Re:Better living through chemicals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hear people pour dihydrogen monoxide on themselves each morning.

      For those who don't know, dihydrogen monoxide is a chemical found in cancer cells, the main component of acid rain, and is used by Big Tobacco and Big Oil to increase their profits. It was also used at the nuclear power plant in Fukushima.

    15. Re:Better living through chemicals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He probably assumed you wouldn't be such a semantic douche bag about it and comprehend what he meant.

    16. Re:Better living through chemicals by treeves · · Score: 1

      Real men take peroxide/sulfuric baths. Followed by isopropanol rinse.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    17. Re:Better living through chemicals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they make chemical free products these days.

      Do you even *know* what a chemical is?

      Hint: It's not just the "stuff that's bad for you".

  7. Resistant Germs by Lifyre · · Score: 1

    Much like antibiotics does this not help create resistant germs and ultimately makes some of those dangerous pathogens harder to kill? Even more so since it is constantly in contact with and battle against said pathogens?

    --
    I'll meet you at the intersection of "Should be" and "Reality"
    1. Re:Resistant Germs by ImprovOmega · · Score: 2

      Depends on how it works. If it's a vector that some germs can survive, like with antibiotics, then there's a chance for a new generation to be born resistant to it. If it's a physical vector that is incompatible with germ life like how alcohol basically dissolves bacterial cell membranes, then no.

      It's like how the human population can become resistant to a particular virus, but no one is resistant to a bullet through the heart.

    2. Re:Resistant Germs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's like how the human population can become resistant to a particular virus, but no one is resistant to a bullet through the heart.

      Point well made, so sorry to be pedantic: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=117084&page=1

  8. Hmm... by AngryDeuce · · Score: 1

    Let's see, contribute to the creation of a superbug, or wash my fucking socks? Decisions, decisions...

    1. Re:Hmm... by Literaphile · · Score: 5, Funny

      Let's see, contribute to the creation of a superbug, or wash my fucking socks? Decisions, decisions...

      You have socks just for fucking?

    2. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Business socks:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGOohBytKTU

    3. Re:Hmm... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Probably the same black one he wears with sandals. Probably wearing them while telling [people things that clearly indicate he doesn't know WTF he is talking about. you know, when he isn't too busy doing the same thing on slashdot.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have socks just for fucking?

      Yeah, he keeps them under his mattress.

    5. Re:Hmm... by Abstrackt · · Score: 4, Funny

      Let's see, contribute to the creation of a superbug, or wash my fucking socks? Decisions, decisions...

      You have socks just for fucking?

      You don't?

      --
      They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
    6. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They're called Business Socks!

    7. Re:Hmm... by BinarySolo · · Score: 1

      You know when I'm down to just my socks it's time for business, that's why they call them business socks.

    8. Re:Hmm... by Surt · · Score: 1

      Let's see, contribute to the creation of a superbug, or wash my fucking socks? Decisions, decisions...

      You have socks just for fucking?

      You don't?

      Just what I was thinking. If you're at all competent at sex, you gotta have the non-slip pads for traction, and most people would last longer (/more times) with a thick sock due to the blood pressure advantages.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
  9. Thalidomide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thalidomide relieved pregnant women of that pesky morning sickness--and resulted in babies born with missing limbs.

    I think I'll stick with smelly socks until we've had a good 20 year run with guinea pigs who are willing to buy any spiffy new thing the chemical industry comes up with.

    1. Re:Thalidomide by Verdatum · · Score: 2

      It's really hard to make socks that fit on guinea pigs.

    2. Re:Thalidomide by Surt · · Score: 1

      Most men's 9-12 socks will cover a guinea pig almost perfectly.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    3. Re:Thalidomide by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      Most men's 9-12 socks will cover a guinea pig almost perfectly.

      You know this for a fact, do you? Why exactly is that?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    4. Re:Thalidomide by tmosley · · Score: 1

      Thalidomide was taken orally. Do you take your socks orally?

    5. Re:Thalidomide by treeves · · Score: 1

      It's really hard to make socks that fit on guinea pigs feet.

      FTFY. Of course it's easy to fit a guinea pig inside a sock, I'd imagine.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
  10. Ask the microbes by FranTaylor · · Score: 2

    Why they don't want to live in the clothing, maybe they know something you don't.

    1. Re:Ask the microbes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right. How long till we find out it cause cancer and all the scientists who worked on creating it die?

    2. Re:Ask the microbes by tmosley · · Score: 1

      Mutagens cause cancer. This is not a mutagen. It disrupts cell membranes. This is not a poison, it's the world's smallest knife. This doesn't cause cancer.

  11. Can't wait. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    . for new research to show how much cancer it causes.

  12. Phenomenal! by Kingrames · · Score: 1

    Scientists have created a thing, made out of atoms, that can PERMANENTLY eliminate any possibility of other atoms being arranged in such a fashion as to inconvenience me? Huzzah! An infinite number of solutions posted to problems seemingly thought to be unsolvable in polynomial time! Mathematics has been defeated! Long live ...US SCIENTISTS!

    morons.

    --
    If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
    1. Re:Phenomenal! by geekoid · · Score: 1

      You , sir, are the moron. If you had an IQ big enough to be able to click on the link, you would have noted it's many uses in killing things that want to kill you or at the very least, give you a very miserable few weeks. The socks bit is a fringe benefit and a headline to grab people attention.
      Because you are clearly simpleton I'll explain it is a a way you cam understand: This is a good thing.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Phenomenal! by Kingrames · · Score: 1

      The words "Permanently germ-free" should never be promised on anything larger than an atom. You show me a germ-free surface, I'll show you a lazy germ.

      --
      If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
    3. Re:Phenomenal! by CubicleView · · Score: 1
      He could be referring to the last link. Useful arrangement of atoms sounds about right.

      "Locklin's technology uses ingeniously simple, inexpensive and scalable chemistry."

    4. Re:Phenomenal! by ImprovOmega · · Score: 1

      You know how some stop lights have those little spikes on them the keep birds from landing on them and pooping on cars below? I wouldn't say those stop lights are bird free due to "lazy birds". I suspect for this to work at all it has to rely on making the environment physically unsuitable for micro-organisms in a similar fashion. I would like to say I know this, but the article is pretty stingy on details.

    5. Re:Phenomenal! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does the surface of the Sun count?

    6. Re:Phenomenal! by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      You show me a germ-free surface, I'll show you a lazy germ.

      What about the surface of the sun?

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  13. Yes, Great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    What makes you think microbes cannot be resistant to alcohol? Some microbes literally shit alcohol.

    Unicellular life has a much easier time evolving than we do. Lining up 3 trillion cells to work together at all amazes me, & I'm doing that right now!

    1. Re:Yes, Great... by buback · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Since alcohol literally dissolves cell membranes, I'd be pretty impressed if they evolved past that impediment. Also remember that those bacteria that 'shit' alcohol are eventually killed off by all that 'shit'. That's why you can't brew vodka, but distill it instead.

    2. Re:Yes, Great... by dr-suess-fan · · Score: 2

      FYI, it's yeast (a member of the fungi kingdom), not bacteria. Bacteria can spoil a good brew.

    3. Re:Yes, Great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some microbes literally shit alcohol.

      Yes, but don't they stop doing it when the concentration of their own waste becomes toxic? I think yeast also works along these lines.

      Unicellular life has a much easier time evolving than we do.

      Might that be because of the vastly faster rate at which they reproduce? Even with asexual reproduction, reproducing every few hours probably beats the likes of us hands-down.

    4. Re:Yes, Great... by Ossifer · · Score: 5, Informative
    5. Re:Yes, Great... by Surt · · Score: 1

      I can't see what the impediment there is. It seems like there could be a lot of relatively simple modifications of the cell wall structure that would block alcohol. Why couldn't a bug by chance develop a plastic coating? Plastics are chemically pretty simple, resist alcohol, and can be made from stuff available to bugs.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    6. Re:Yes, Great... by pclminion · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Some microbes literally shit alcohol.

      Such organisms consume food and excrete alcohol until the ambient concentration is too high for them to tolerate any longer. After years of selective breeding some yeasts have been produced that can tolerate up to about 22% ABV but it doesn't seem to go much higher than that.

      How many days could you take a shit in your living room until you could no longer tolerate it? I doubt any amount of evolutionary pressure could enable you to swim in a diarrhea swimming pool.

    7. Re:Yes, Great... by Cryolithic · · Score: 2

      Mod Parent Up! God I love me a good lambic! He's GP is right though, *most* of the time, bacteria in your fermentation process is not a good thing.

    8. Re:Yes, Great... by ImprovOmega · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because it would have to evolve a plastic coating that still magically performed all of the functions of the original cell membrane. It would be kind of like saying why can't human evolve a plastic coating over their lungs to defend against inhaling acid fumes. You would block what was killing you at the expense of ...well...killing you in a different and horrible way.

    9. Re:Yes, Great... by adolf · · Score: 2

      How many days could you take a shit in your living room until you could no longer tolerate it? I doubt any amount of evolutionary pressure could enable you to swim in a diarrhea swimming pool.

      Perhaps not evolutionary pressure, but I for one would be perfectly happy to swim some laps in a diarrhea swimming pool for the correct amount of monetary pressure.

      Which leads to an interesting philosophical question: Does this mean that I am better-adapted than yeast, or does it mean the opposite?

    10. Re:Yes, Great... by Ossifer · · Score: 2

      My GP says I should not drink so much beer.

    11. Re:Yes, Great... by biodata · · Score: 1

      I don't see any theoretical reason why a microbe couldn't evolve a mechanism to metabolise alcohol into something like, say, a sugar. Most organic enzymatic reactions seem to be reversible.

      --
      Korma: Good
    12. Re:Yes, Great... by mortonda · · Score: 2

      I had a navy friend who was, fortunately, the 2nd smallest person on the ship. The guy who beat him out for being the smallest had to dive into the septic tank to unplug the drain. Evolutionary pressure, no. Navy pressure, yes.

    13. Re:Yes, Great... by Greyfox · · Score: 1
      How many days could you take a shit in your living room until you could no longer tolerate it? I doubt any amount of evolutionary pressure could enable you to swim in a diarrhea swimming pool.

      You haven't met my room mate...

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    14. Re:Yes, Great... by EdIII · · Score: 1

      How many days could you take a shit in your living room until you could no longer tolerate it?

      The answer is 12.

      I doubt any amount of evolutionary pressure could enable you to swim in a diarrhea swimming pool.

      No.... but the pressure of the person behind you pushing you in and your desire to survive at all costs would cause you to swim. Besides, at this point your crapping in your living room. Why do you care about the swimming pool?

    15. Re:Yes, Great... by thisnamestoolong · · Score: 2, Funny

      How many days could you take a shit in your living room until you could no longer tolerate it?

      Well, I started watching Transformers that one time, so I guess it would be about 15 minutes...

      --
      To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
    16. Re:Yes, Great... by repapetilto · · Score: 1

      Yes, ethanol is not just for drinking, but can also be used as a fuel and chemical reagent. Producing more alcohol resistant yeast is a multimillion (if not billion) dollar industry. There are various ways microorganisms can develop resistance to alcohol. Increase membrane stability (eg increase cholesterol content), increase the ability to cope with oxidation stress (upregulate heat shock proteins, DNA repair enzymes, anti-oxidant producing enzymes), increase the ability to turn alcohol into something less noxious (upregulate alcohol and acetaldehyde dehydrogenase enzymes). We are past the selective breeding stage and now looking at selectively mutating certain genes. This also has applications in the biomedical field in terms of increasing cell survival under oxidizing conditions (e.g. salvage more brain tissue after a stroke).

      Here is the abstract by the way:
      http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/am200324f

    17. Re:Yes, Great... by Columcille · · Score: 1

      Enabling is not the same as desiring. How long would you survive such an environment?

      --
      I love my sig.
    18. Re:Yes, Great... by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      Which leads to an interesting philosophical question: Does this mean that I am better-adapted than yeast, or does it mean the opposite?

      It means neither, though I'd be willing to argue that it means the opposite.
      >24% alcohol will kill all but a few non-commercially available yeasts.
      Unlike yeast, you are capable of swimming around in 100% shit, even though you choose not to.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    19. Re:Yes, Great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about Jackass? They like swimming in diarrhea. Are they idiots, or the next phase in human evolution...

    20. Re:Yes, Great... by buback · · Score: 1

      what reason would it have, then, to infect a human host? (drunk college kid jokes aside)

    21. Re:Yes, Great... by buback · · Score: 2

      And if it did survive, it would have to evolve an entirely new way to infect cells. it would become so different from what we see now that it might not even "want" be infectious anymore.

    22. Re:Yes, Great... by Odinlake · · Score: 2

      What makes you think microbes cannot be resistant to alcohol? Some microbes literally shit alcohol.

      You shit shit, but can you live in shit???

    23. Re:Yes, Great... by Odinlake · · Score: 1

      You shit shit, but can you live in shit???

      Sorry, I realize that looked superficially like trolling, but I meant it as a fairly serious analogy - why should we think that an organism can live in its own excretion?

    24. Re:Yes, Great... by smisle · · Score: 1

      I wish I had mod points - lol!

      --
      I'm not a bird, I'm a super-advanced flying stealth dinosaur!
    25. Re:Yes, Great... by sjames · · Score: 2

      Some microbes literally shit alcohol.

      And in spite of that, they eventually poison themselves in a closed environment. That's why you can only get proof so high without distilling or fortifying in spite of centuries of effort by brewers to improve their yeast.

      Certainly single celled life can evolve surprising levels of resistance to various noxious environments, but there are limits. At the edge of those limits, extremophiles must go to such extremes of adaptation that they can no longer compete in a less hostile environment.

    26. Re:Yes, Great... by Orangebeard · · Score: 1

      I think the point is that alcohol based sanitizers won't create antibiotic resistant germs. I think that's all we really care about. Antibiotics are what we use to treat infections, we don't care if bacteria become resistant to alcohol or other disinfectant methods.

    27. Re:Yes, Great... by sjames · · Score: 1

      While I have seen plastics act as an osmotic filter, and I have seen other plastic like materials that can perform gas exchange, I have not seen one manage both at once, and certainly not while maintaining a surface tension and selectively passing larger molecules AND acting as a barrier to alcohol.

    28. Re:Yes, Great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't one of those jackasses just kill himself and a friend while having an adventure in ethanol land?

    29. Re:Yes, Great... by Artifakt · · Score: 1

      Unicellular life does not have an easier time evolving - it's a false concept in Evolution - Here's just the simplest of several reasons why.

      First, we have to define what we mean by evolving - let's go with one of the simplest measures - species lifetime. A species either dies without a successor or gives rise to its own successor, which is a new species. For simplicity, a new species happens when the successors cannot still interbreed at all with the original.
      There are more complicated definitions than those, but they are mostly agreed on in a specific context among professionals - for example, sometimes a species gives rise to another, but is still around as well, so it's not clear yet if the second should be called a successor, or sometimes we call things separate species even though some interbreeding is still possible (as for Zebras and Horses). I don't want to get into how and why these cases don't affect my basic line of thought here, as that's college level specialization in Biology to deal with, you probably won't get it from a general course.

      Here's the basic idea: Organisms survive because they are pretty well adapted to their environment. In improvement is a small step towards more perfect adaptation, and huge jumps are not how evolution works. A typical good mutation means an organism reproduces just a little bit better than the ones without that mutation. Usually, it's more a matter of having 1.01 offsprings when the competitors have on average only 0.99 than a big spike. (Yes, there are exceptions, but usually...) A really simple organism has only a few genes - So each mutation is proportionately bigger. If only two genes control flagellum length in a bacterium, mutations are overwhelmingly too big to be of benefit, while if 38 genes control height in a Giraffe, a mutation in just one can occasionally be a good one, resulting in just enough of a tweak to make that Giraffe a little more successful than its neighbors. The technical term for this involves morpheme space - in a simple, low gene organism, even the simplest single point mutation typically results in a large jump across morpheme space for the organism, to a point that is nowhere close to any adaptation needed for its environment.

      Here's an elaboration: More complex organisms can have lots of small tweaks which may be a bit negative by themselves, without dying of them. Bad genes can be just bad enough to linger for many generations without ever really spreading widely through the species. When one organism get a potentially positive mutation, one or more of those negatives may also become a positive in conjunction with the new gene. To use a simple textbook model that probably isn't a real example, A giraffe may get a slightly longer neck, and a gene that normally resulted in a slight problem with high blood pressure may turn out to now be needed to keep the new, taller giraffe from fainting spells. Again, this won't work as well in really simple organisms, and may not happen at all, but it may happen with complex ones and speed up splitting off new species.

      Bacteria mutate a lot. But not all mutation affects natural selection. there are whole classes of mutation normally called stochastic. Stochastic normally means pretty much the same as random, and mutation is always random in a sense, but Darwin's model is that Natural Selection gives a direction to what would otherwise stay a random process. Stochastic mutations are ones where there doesn't seem to be any selection pressure. Thinking that the high percentage of bacterial and virus mutations that are stochastic get selected like other mutations is usually why people assume bacteria or viruses are ultra rapid evolvers.

      It seems likely that both the fast reproductive rate and the high number of offspring could drive rapid evolution in simple lifeforms if it were not that these other factors also apply, but I don't see how that could be proved or disproved.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    30. Re:Yes, Great... by sFurbo · · Score: 1

      Even if they did evolve to survive 70% alcohol, they probably wouldn't be fit to survive in the human body any more.

    31. Re:Yes, Great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      22% alcahol butt vapor?

    32. Re:Yes, Great... by biodata · · Score: 1

      I guess the conversion back to sugars would be expensive, so it wouldn't necessarily include this in its regular metabolism, only do it as a temporary defence mechanism to cope with attack. If it could exude enough enzymes, it might be able to render its very near environment survivable by surrounding itself in an enzymey sugary sticky blob that can beat the wipe. Ingestion by a human would neatly strip off the sugar coating. Just speculating tho.

      --
      Korma: Good
    33. Re:Yes, Great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      42? ... OMG!

    34. Re:Yes, Great... by CSMoran · · Score: 1

      I can't see what the impediment there is. It seems like there could be a lot of relatively simple modifications of the cell wall structure that would block alcohol.

      Cell wall != cell membrane.

      --
      Every end has half a stick.
    35. Re:Yes, Great... by fatphil · · Score: 1

      A little information is a dangerous thing. Brettanomyces is not a bacterium, and brettanomyces is the largest contributor to sour tastes in lambics. (Not necessarily the contributor of the largest tastes, acetobacteria will give a monstrously strong taste, but that taste is generally called a brewing flaw.) In fact, many of the deliberately sour beers I've had (I've had at least 150 just of the lambic styles, but have had many other sours that are not lambics) have been soured purely with brettanomyces, and not any bacteria, as they've not been spontaniously fermented, the pure lab-bred brett culture has been specifically added by the brewer.

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    36. Re:Yes, Great... by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      How would you say Lindeman's (the only lambic easy to find here) stacks up against others? What is your favorite brand? I love that stuff, but I don't drink enough to do much research.

    37. Re:Yes, Great... by tmosley · · Score: 1

      Such a radical change in the membrane of the bacteria would lead to it not being a bacteria any more. At the very least it would be a new species, but more than likely it would be a new phylum, or maybe even a new kingdom altogether. This does not happen every day.

    38. Re:Yes, Great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Your question contains its own answer. Why are living beings expelling a chemical instead of using it? There are two common reasons: one, it's a waste product of the metabolism, with no further use, ot two, it's poisonous to them. Alcohol is highly energetic (more than sugar), so it's hardly a waste product.

    39. Re:Yes, Great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get a new GP! :)

    40. Re:Yes, Great... by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1

      I thought I liked Lindeman's until I found Lindeman's on tap. That stuff is incredible! There is a pub near me that serves Framboise.

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
    41. Re:Yes, Great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh... FTFA that you linked to.

      Unlike conventional ales and lagers, which are fermented by carefully cultivated strains of brewer's yeasts, lambic beer is produced by spontaneous fermentation: it is exposed to the wild yeasts and bacteria that are said to be native to the Senne valley, in which Brussels lies.

      And

      Since the method of inoculation and long fermentation time of lambic beers increases the risk of spoilage, lambic brewers still use large amounts of hops for their antibacterial properties.

      So in conclusion, I seriously doubt that bacteria is the reason for fermentation in Lambic beer...

    42. Re:Yes, Great... by 5c11 · · Score: 1

      Among beer snobs, I think Lindeman's is usually sort of considered to be bottom rung (with the exception of their Cuvee Rene, which is fairly highly regarded). That said, Lindeman's isn't bad... I certainly would never turn down a glass.

      My personal favorite is Cantillion Classic Gueze which is an unfruited blended lambic. It's very sour though... I often compare to drinking a glass of sharp cheese. Cantillion's fruited lambics are all really good as well.

      If you like sours, Flanders Red Ales are also quite good... I would recommend Rodenbach, New Belgium's La Folie (seasonal release under their Lips of Faith label), or Duchesse De Bourgogne if you can find any of them.

    43. Re:Yes, Great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many days could you take a shit in your living room until you could no longer tolerate it?

      Depends. Do I get earthworms or black soldier fly larvae? What temp is my living room at?

      I doubt any amount of evolutionary pressure could enable you to swim in a diarrhea swimming pool.

      "evolutionary pressure" has little to do with things. The pressure of the number of 0's after the digit on the check matters.

      $1 - No one save jackass stars.
      $10,000,000 - I'm guessing most /.ers would take 1 lap in an Olympic pool.

    44. Re:Yes, Great... by adolf · · Score: 1

      About as long as I'd survive swimming in any other pool of other non-toxic stuff with a similar viscosity, I'd imagine.

      It sounds gross and unhealthful, but really: There are people with occupations that expose them to others' shit every day, from nurse aids to sewer workers. I'm not talking about an occupational habit, but just a few laps across the pool, perhaps with a careful back-stroke...

      Unbroken skin is pretty good at insulating one's innards from the shit around us every day, and it's not much different if that is shit, literally. (Having raised kids, puppies, cats, lizards, and birds, I'm pretty familiar with shit.)

      Shit happens.

    45. Re:Yes, Great... by Ossifer · · Score: 1

      Cantillon is the only true, classic lambic brewery remaining. Their fruited lambics are *not* sweet at all. As a beer snob, I must reveal that I have toured the brewery in Brussels, and have photos of myself with the proprietor. Getting it served to me in Brussels was more difficult--ordering in French with an American accent I had to almost sign a disclaimer that I understood it would be extremely acidic...

      On the other side of things, the absolute worst "lambic" (quotes intentional) is Bellevue. Basically effervescent cherry syrup...

    46. Re:Yes, Great... by PCM2 · · Score: 1

      About as long as I'd survive swimming in any other pool of other non-toxic stuff with a similar viscosity, I'd imagine.

      Who says diarrhea is non-toxic? There's a reason your body starts trying to violently get rid of as much intestinal bulk as possible, you know. Usually it's because it's swarming with bacteria or viruses. In the case of cholera, the organism is adapted to cause you to get diarrhea so it can spread itself. Dive into a swimming pool of cholera diarrhea and you literally take your life in your hands.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    47. Re:Yes, Great... by fatphil · · Score: 1

      As said elsewhere, their Cuvee Renees are very good. Everything else is too sweet (but such easy drinkers). I'm cellaring a few of those bottles until well past their best-before date in order to see whether any of the sugars will be broken down. However, they just fall short of Cantillon, 3 Fonteinen, Boon, and a few other brewers of the traditional styles.

      Here are my fruit lambic, and geuze lambic ratings:
      http://www.ratebeer.com/user/51287/styleratings/14/
      http://www.ratebeer.com/user/51287/styleratings/73/
      Make of that what you will. I'm a sucker for the style, so even the non-traditional (overly sweet) ones tend to get good ratings.

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    48. Re:Yes, Great... by fatphil · · Score: 1

      Very much agreed on all points. Did the open brewing tour too - was given the tour by Jean-Pierre himself - he's a wonderful character. If you're ever back in Brussels again, the two Chez Moeder Lambic bars are the bars for you.

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
  14. Amazing... by Zephyn · · Score: 1

    The effort some people will go to just to avoid having to do the laundry.

    1. Re:Amazing... by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Well, socks that only start to smell after removing them in the evening would already be a great win.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  15. will they can crack stain resistance next? by ozduo · · Score: 1

    Then we can throw away our pocket protectors and blend into society.

    --
    I got to the chocolate box before you, that's why the hard ones have teeth marks.
  16. Patent-free alternative by macraig · · Score: 1

    Vinegar and rubbing alcohol will do a fine job of creating a microbe-free zone, but you might smell a bit more like sour wine than you'd like.

  17. Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Locklin's technology uses ingeniously simple, inexpensive and scalable chemistry."

    I've heard almost the same thing about "free energy" magnetic motors. Tell us what the chemicals are or it's bullshit.

    1. Re:Bullshit by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      "Locklin's technology uses ingeniously simple, inexpensive and scalable chemistry."

      I've heard almost the same thing about "free energy" magnetic motors. Tell us what the chemicals are or it's bullshit.

      Somehow I think using bullshit would make your feet smell more (but admittedly it wouldn't be the typical foot smell) :-)

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    2. Re:Bullshit by tmosley · · Score: 1

      Thirty seconds of Google show that it is a polymeric quaternary amine.

  18. How it works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    I normally don't post on slashdot, but since this is related to my field (I am a chemist) and there have been a lot of comments about how bad this must be because of the possibility of building resistance, I felt obligated to clarify this after looking into it.

    As far as anti-microbial substances work, this is about as simple as it gets. All bacteria have cell membranes consisting of a lipid bilayer - it's basically two layers of negatively-charged water-loving stuff attached to a fatty part in the middle that stays away from water. This treatment uses a polymer that can pass through the cell membrane, with positively-charged bits making it inside the membrane. The positively-charged parts on the polymer attract the negatively-charged parts on the membrane and cause it to come apart enough for the cell to die.

    Many other antibiotics are based on small molecules that interrupting some metabolic process of bacteria. Bacteria develop resistance by making enzymes that will break down these small molecules once inside the cell. This new method attacks the outside of the cell directly, not something inside the cell. It wouldn't be impossible for bacteria to develop immunity to this, but it would be comparably very improbable.

    1. Re:How it works by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      No wonder you don't normally post on Slashdot. You demonstrate a reasonable comprehension of the concepts discussed and furthermore can explain your thoughts in perfectly comprehensible English.

      This is a pretty lonely place for folks like you.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:How it works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BBC article is non-information. Reads like a technobabble full-page advertisement.

      You say this compound interferes with the membrane? Problem: eukaryotes (plants, fungi, animals) also have lipid bilayers. Correct me if I'm wrong, but antibiotics that target specific metabolic processes are used because those processes aren't used in eukaryotic cells; they selectively kill prokaryotes, bacteria. A chemical that disintegrates ALL cell membranes? Not something I'm going to spray my clothes with.

      (You said that you looked into this, could you cite any sources? Thanks.)

    3. Re:How it works by migloo · · Score: 2

      Pardon my total ignorance but, presuming human skin cells also have a membrane, why aren't they also destroyed in the process?
      It reminds me of this old mystery (to me at least) of why the stomach does not digest itself.

    4. Re:How it works by Moraelin · · Score: 1

      If you had open wounds, maybe, but otherwise your skin has a keratin layer that keeps most of the stuff well away from your cells. It's basically the same reason why the doctor can wipe your skin with concentrated alcohol before giving you an injection, but if you tried the same on an open wound they could probably hear the scream from a mile away.

      --
      A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    5. Re:How it works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > All bacteria have cell membranes consisting of a lipid bilayer

      Just a correction for you "All currently known bacteria have cell membranes consisting of a lipid bilayer"

    6. Re:How it works by tmosley · · Score: 1

      It is attached to the surface of the cloth. The cells on the surface of your skin are already dead, and in any event, it would only disrupt the top layer in the really very few points that it actually touches.

    7. Re:How it works by tmosley · · Score: 1

      Uhhh, no. If it doesn't have a membrane that consists of a lipid bilayer, then it isn't just a new kingdom, it's a new domain of life.

    8. Re:How it works by chandar · · Score: 1

      ...Many other antibiotics are based on small molecules that interrupting some metabolic process of bacteria. Bacteria develop resistance by making enzymes that will break down these small molecules once inside the cell. This new method attacks the outside of the cell directly, not something inside the cell. It wouldn't be impossible for bacteria to develop immunity to this, but it would be comparably very improbable.

      It may be less probable, but not improbable. Bacteria are so abundant, reproduce so fast, and can have such high mutation rates that probability is almost always on their side. They also can develop resistance in many ways other than "making enzymes." The likelihood of them developing resistance is proportional to the selection acting on them. If we put this stuff everywhere, selection will be very strong. They will develop resistance.

    9. Re:How it works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I normally don't post on slashdot, but since this is related to my field (I am a chemist) and there have been a lot of comments about how bad this must be because of the possibility of building resistance, I felt obligated to clarify this after looking into it.

      As far as anti-microbial substances work, this is about as simple as it gets. All bacteria have cell membranes consisting of a lipid bilayer - it's basically two layers of negatively-charged water-loving stuff attached to a fatty part in the middle that stays away from water. This treatment uses a polymer that can pass through the cell membrane, with positively-charged bits making it inside the membrane. The positively-charged parts on the polymer attract the negatively-charged parts on the membrane and cause it to come apart enough for the cell to die.

      Many other antibiotics are based on small molecules that interrupting some metabolic process of bacteria. Bacteria develop resistance by making enzymes that will break down these small molecules once inside the cell. This new method attacks the outside of the cell directly, not something inside the cell. It wouldn't be impossible for bacteria to develop immunity to this, but it would be comparably very improbable.

      I heard silver is and has already been used in socks to effectively control odor and is unlike anti-biotics; that won't become resistant to... Any thoughts about silver, specifically nano-silver(less needed for more coverage/contact)?

  19. Since we're mostly bacteria ourselves by countertrolling · · Score: 1

    We're all gonna die!

    BAH - They've been promising this stuff for over ten years now. I remember seeing it on that show "Beyond 2000" back in '98... Still waiting for it

    --
    For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
  20. On /., so I'm smarter by default... by MMAfrk19BB · · Score: 1

    To all the people posting about ultra-resistant super MRSA mega death bacteria forming because I crack open a bottle of Dawn occasionally, haven't you ever heard of defense in depth? Also, what about this study which suggests that a combination of antibiotics may be more effective against resistant bugs? This shit happens all the time on /. Whatever trendy counter-intuitive "wisdom" there is on a subject is repeated and subsequently shit on ad nauseum. Isn't this the home of RTFA?

  21. Just wash by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

    While this might eliminate cleaning due to bacteria, this won't resolve the issue of dirt built up.

    As to socks, just wear sandals :)

    --
    Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    1. Re:Just wash by kimvette · · Score: 1

      Sandals invariably reek though, requiring frequent applications of tea tree oil or febreeze.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    2. Re:Just wash by sFurbo · · Score: 1

      No, plastic footwear invariably reek, leather sandals don't (unless we are talking about the smell of leather).

  22. Cookie Absent by Hatta · · Score: 2

    47 comments and no one noticed that the link was broken? Sure there's a BBC link, but it tells you exactly nothing. Doesn't even tell you what it is. I know slashdotters seldom read the articles, but come on.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    1. Re:Cookie Absent by Chuckstar · · Score: 1

      LOL... I was gonna make the same comment. Took me 30 seconds to log in first, or I'd have beaten you to it.

    2. Re:Cookie Absent by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      It's the scientists fault. They ate my cookie... I would have gone to the article.. if I hadn't heard this story so many times

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    3. Re:Cookie Absent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A link to the original publication (subscription required) is:

      dx.doi.org/10.1021/am200324f

  23. Isn't this the home of RTFA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No it's the home of telling other people to RTFA, or pre-posing a statement with the admission that you haven't. Sometimes both.

  24. Sploosh! by c++0xFF · · Score: 1

    That's why I only use natural ingredients in my shoe deodorizer: onions and peaches.

    It's even endorsed by the baseball legend Clyde "Sweet Feet" Livingston!

  25. Permanently germ free by nedlohs · · Score: 0

    or in other words permanently free of germs that haven't developed resistance to another potential treatment for when they make you sick.

  26. Ironic... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How odd this story comes up when I am watching, Honey, I Shrunk the Kids TV episode "Honey, You're So Transparent".

  27. Working link to actual paper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Link to the paper since nobody seems to actually click on the links and see 'cookieabsent.html'

    http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/am200324f

    1. Re:Working link to actual paper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      thx, was looking for that

      also, clicky
      http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/am200324f

    2. Re:Working link to actual paper by slew · · Score: 2

      And since nobody probably will click on that link either, here's a convenient summary

      Antimicrobial copolymers of hydrophobic N-alkyl and benzophenone containing polyethylenimines were synthesized from commercially available linear poly(2-ethyl-2-oxazoline), and covalently attached to surfaces of synthetic polymers, cotton, and modified silicon oxide using mild photo-cross-linking. Specifically, these polymers were applied to polypropylene, poly(vinyl chloride), polyethylene, cotton, and alkyl-coated oxide surfaces using solution casting or spray coating and then covalently cross-linked rendering permanent, nonleaching antimicrobial surfaces. The photochemical grafting of pendant benzophenones allows immobilization to any surface that contains a C–H bond. Incubating the modified materials with either Staphylococcus aureus or Escherichia coli demonstrated that the modified surfaces had substantial antimicrobial capacity against both Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria (>98% microbial death).

      For folks not in the "know", the basic anti-microbial technique is described in this wiki page.

    3. Re:Working link to actual paper by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1
      Or, a perfectly cromulent explanation from an AC above:

      I normally don't post on slashdot, but since this is related to my field (I am a chemist) and there have been a lot of comments about how bad this must be because of the possibility of building resistance, I felt obligated to clarify this after looking into it.

      As far as anti-microbial substances work, this is about as simple as it gets. All bacteria have cell membranes consisting of a lipid bilayer - it's basically two layers of negatively-charged water-loving stuff attached to a fatty part in the middle that stays away from water. This treatment uses a polymer that can pass through the cell membrane, with positively-charged bits making it inside the membrane. The positively-charged parts on the polymer attract the negatively-charged parts on the membrane and cause it to come apart enough for the cell to die.

      Many other antibiotics are based on small molecules that interrupting some metabolic process of bacteria. Bacteria develop resistance by making enzymes that will break down these small molecules once inside the cell. This new method attacks the outside of the cell directly, not something inside the cell. It wouldn't be impossible for bacteria to develop immunity to this, but it would be comparably very improbable.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    4. Re:Working link to actual paper by slew · · Score: 1

      Although mr AC described the generic anti-microbial action of the chemical on the bacteria, the breakthrough is really how you can "spray" the anti-microbial chemical to stick on-to things w/o blending the anti-microbial chemicals into the materials during the manufacturing process.

      Basically this is the anti-microbial polymer technique described by the wiki that I pointed to in my original posting. You embed your anti-microbial chemical (in this case polyethylenimines or PEI) into a N-alkyl polymer, mix in some sunblock (that's the benzophenone which is basically sunblock for plastics, which isn't the same as the human usable type of organic chemical sunblock which is called avobenzone) and it creates something that sticks to your clothes when you spray it on and has the anti-microbial chemical embeded into it.

    5. Re:Working link to actual paper by tmosley · · Score: 1

      Incorrect. Quaternary amines have always been "spray on". The breakthrough here is that the quat is in the backbone of the polymer. This allows for a more robust coating than the previous standard, where the quat was attached via a trimethoxysilane group, which only lasted for some 25 washes or so. That method was also "spray on", or "put into the fabric softener holder in your washing machine and wash the clothes you want to coat", which is available commercially.

  28. Side effects may include... by Roachie · · Score: 1

    Gas, bloating, confusion, reverse mermaid, anal leakage, suicide, bad breath, explosive diarrhea, fire, missing teeth, unexpected death, unexplained pregnancy, moles, sawdust, traffic congestion, slight bleeding from the ear canal, voice immodulation, income tax, vaginal leakage( in men), religious intolerance, elves, anal fissures, webbed toes, sleep-driving, and rectal myopia.

    --
    This sig is not paradoxical or ironic.
    1. Re:Side effects may include... by treeves · · Score: 1

      rectal myopia

      I understand that there are brown-eye glasses made to correct this condition.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
  29. One problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The down side is that it turns your feet purple -- permanently.

    But at least your socks won't stink! :-)

  30. You accidentally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the paper link

  31. Just use Ammonium Alum by Twinbee · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Okay here's a semi-secret which shouldn't be so secret. I use something called PitRok Crystal Deodorant (perhaps try this if you're US based), but any Ammonium Alum based deodorant will be good. It's meant for the armpits, but I find it works good on feet too. 5 stars on Amazon.co.uk by almost everyone including me.

    I only wish I knew about this sooner. It's completely odorless and nonsticky, which is great, but also lasts over a year (you wet its hard crystal tip and apply). Anybody who benefits from this, feel free to buy me a beer or 10 according to how generous you feel.

    --
    Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
    1. Re:Just use Ammonium Alum by biodata · · Score: 1

      I've tried this and it works well as a deodorant but I worried about the Alzheimer's risks from absorbing the Al through my skin. Do you think it's safe?

      --
      Korma: Good
    2. Re:Just use Ammonium Alum by Cl1mh4224rd · · Score: 1

      I've tried this and it works well as a deodorant but I worried about the Alzheimer's risks from absorbing the Al through my skin. Do you think it's safe?

      Is what safe?

      --
      People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
    3. Re:Just use Ammonium Alum by sFurbo · · Score: 1

      The working mechanism is different, alum is an astringent, making you sweat less. The less moist environment not as suitable for germs. Alum (or a close chemical relative, aluminium chlorohydrate) is an ingredient in most deodorants for exactly that reason. Alum works great at stopping small wounds from bleeding, such as after shaving.

    4. Re:Just use Ammonium Alum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Alum is for armpits, boric acid is for shoes. There are many more natural remedies used for thousands of years and yet forgotten.

    5. Re:Just use Ammonium Alum by Twinbee · · Score: 1

      Actually, it doesn't help you sweat less, as AA is a deodorant, not an anti-perspirant. It just stops the bacteria from building up.

      --
      Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
    6. Re:Just use Ammonium Alum by Twinbee · · Score: 1

      Thanks anon. I'll check out boric acid, as maybe AA isn't perfect for shoes. One thing I didn't mention is food-grade peroxide (diluted of course!) which is great for breath ;)

      --
      Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
    7. Re:Just use Ammonium Alum by Twinbee · · Score: 1

      Probably. One can't say for sure, as there are apparently no peer reviewed studies unfortunately. I remember one place saying how one consumes many more times the amount of aluminium with normal food, but not sure how true that is.

      --
      Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
    8. Re:Just use Ammonium Alum by biodata · · Score: 1

      Putting alum on your armpits every day

      --
      Korma: Good
    9. Re:Just use Ammonium Alum by sFurbo · · Score: 1

      I was sure it was the other way around, and I even checked wikipedia before posting just to be absolutely sure. I don't really get how I could do that thorough a misread.

      Anyway, I stand corrected.

    10. Re:Just use Ammonium Alum by tmosley · · Score: 1

      WOOSH!

    11. Re:Just use Ammonium Alum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't it bother you that the plaque's formed with strangely folded proteins in the brains of Alzheimer's patients are correlated with high amounts of aluminum?

  32. proceed with caution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You don't want to end up with yet another cure is worse than the disease scenario.
    asbestos, polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB), any one of a litany of popular pharmaceuticals (the cures your acne but gives you hemmorrhoids scenario), ...

  33. silver nanoparticles? by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 1

    tfa doesn't mention if they are using silver nanonparticles or no but a lot of times the side effects of these wonder chemicals are worse than the malady.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091028114025.htm

    --
    Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
    1. Re:silver nanoparticles? by tmosley · · Score: 1

      No, quaternary amine. No build up in the liver, no side effects. Just an antimicrobial surface.

  34. Actual article link and abstract by apokruphos · · Score: 1

    The antimicrobial action is hypothesized to be largely physical (disruption of the cell membrane leading to cell death). Barring some relatively significant mutations that greatly change the overall structure of the bacteria, a "resistance" would be relatively unlikely.

    Here is the actual article link, since it's busted in the summary:
    http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/am200324f
    or
    http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/am200324f

    Abstract:

    One-Step Photochemical Synthesis of Permanent, Nonleaching, Ultrathin Antimicrobial Coatings for Textiles and Plastics

    Antimicrobial copolymers of hydrophobic N-alkyl and benzophenone containing polyethylenimines were synthesized from commercially available linear poly(2-ethyl-2-oxazoline), and covalently attached to surfaces of synthetic polymers, cotton, and modified silicon oxide using mild photo-cross-linking. Specifically, these polymers were applied to polypropylene, poly(vinyl chloride), polyethylene, cotton, and alkyl-coated oxide surfaces using solution casting or spray coating and then covalently cross-linked rendering permanent, nonleaching antimicrobial surfaces. The photochemical grafting of pendant benzophenones allows immobilization to any surface that contains a C–H bond. Incubating the modified materials with either Staphylococcus aureus or Escherichia coli demonstrated that the modified surfaces had substantial antimicrobial capacity against both Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria (>98% microbial death).

    --
    "I defy the second law of thermodynamics."
    "The hell you do. Get back in the box."
  35. Dude, Sock Paste is the way to go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTpG37OvjFs

    I swear, people must be so ignorant.

  36. Panties Anyone? by TheTyrannyOfForcedRe · · Score: 1

    How long until this stuff makes it's way into panties?

    --
    "Liechtenstein is the world's largest producer of sausage casings, potassium storage units, and false teeth."
    1. Re:Panties Anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Faster than anyone around here will.

  37. and hotels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    of course

  38. Oblig. Simpsons Quote by jgbishop · · Score: 1

    Another case of The Simpsons come to life.

    Homer: So, a graduate student, huh? How come they can send a man to the moon but can't make my shoes smell good?
    Ashley Grant: I'm sorry?
    Homer: Ah, nobody's blamin' you.

    --
    Go, and never darken my towels again! -- Rufus
    1. Re:Oblig. Simpsons Quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shut the fuck up, retard.

  39. (98% microbial death) by biodata · · Score: 1
    This says it all. So out of every million bacteria up to 20,000 individuals can survive the attack. The article doesn't indicate what proportion of this 20,000 go on to successfully reproduce, but if it's &gt0 then voila, instant selection pressure for resistant microbes,

    Given microbes can survive high temperature thermal vents, concentrated heavy metals in mining waste ponds, high pressures a mile underground, low pressures and cosmic rays in space, etc, I would say it's probably only a matter of time.

    --
    Korma: Good
    1. Re:(98% microbial death) by tmosley · · Score: 1

      No. It is more like shooting a million deer with a rifle (lots of rifles), and having 20,000 survive. The offspring don't develop bullet resistance. In order to develop resistance to this technology, they would have to form not only a new kingdom of microbe, but a new domain of life (ie the difference between cellular life and viruses, which are immune to this technology because they don't have a membrane to disrupt).

    2. Re:(98% microbial death) by biodata · · Score: 1
      They wouldn't necessarily have to evolve a new kingdom of life. Perhaps they might just evolve a mechanism to exude something very sticky that gums up the nano surface. There's more than one way to survive a weapon.

      As for the deer, they might not learn bullet resistance but they would almost certainly develop camouflage, faster wound healing, faster running, or other hunter survival strategies. The point is the slow easy to kill ones are the ones to die first. The weapon automatically selects for the survival of the ones best place to avoid the weapon, creating a harder to kill population overall, and any subsequent mutation which increases the ability to avoid the weapon spreads like wildfire through the population. The better the weapon at killing, the stronger the selection pressure to evolve immunity. If the kill rate is less than 100% the critters get better and better at not being killed over time through mutation.

      --
      Korma: Good
    3. Re:(98% microbial death) by tmosley · · Score: 1

      Sorry, still not possible. Bacteria already put out sticky stuff that gums up the surface. This is called EPS (extra-cellular polysaccharides). They don't really help, because they can't put out significant quantities of the stuff until they attach to a surface. If they attach to the surface, they die.

      I work in the field. These types of technologies can not be resisted by bacteria. Larger organisms might be able to develop defenses, but bacteria are too simple.

    4. Re:(98% microbial death) by biodata · · Score: 1

      If the kill rate is less than 100% then it seems the bacteria can resist/avoid.
      Perhaps evolution won't use the first strategy that came off the top of my head, but that doesn't imply 'not possible'. History says otherwise. Perhaps the bacteria will piggy-back on a fungus which develops defenses, or form agglomerations where the individuals which attach directly are killed but their sisters stick to their cold dead bodies and are cushioned. I think we are both speculating and we still can't really call 'impossible' even after a few millions of generations of bacteria have been all over it and the kill rate is still over 98%. If the kill rate is less than 100% then my argument holds - the slightest genetic advantage in terms of survivability/avoidability will be amplified by the weapon, and such advantages will accumulate over time.

      --
      Korma: Good
    5. Re:(98% microbial death) by tmosley · · Score: 1

      This is a bit like saying that a deer will evolve to ride a bear to avoid hunters. It's just silly. The point about this material is that it is non-specific, and creates a surface that can't support bacteria or other microbes. That's it. The method of killing is so robust that there is no reasonable way to avoid getting killed other than to simply not grow there. There is no protein or peptide or polysaccharide that can be expressed on the surface that will provide immunity. This is the only reason we see resistance to antibiotics, because proteins or peptides can be added, subtracted, or modified, or pumps can be introduced to stop internal accumulation. Again, this is the difference between a poison and a firearm. You can gain immunity to a poison, but not to a firearm.

    6. Re:(98% microbial death) by biodata · · Score: 1

      Tell that to lichen, a whole family of bacterial-fungal symbionts which are large enough that they might stick to a surface, with the individuals in direct contact dying but the rest of the organism proliferating, or go talk to Streptomyces coelicolor; it forms large colony-like sticky clusters under phosphate limitation in the switch to seconday metabolism. I don't see why those clumps wouldn't stick to a surface, killing the individuals in direct contact, but providing an environment for the rest of the clump that is free from competition, hence ripe for exploitation. Also, you say that there is no reasonable way to avoid getting killed but see Comment Subject. How do 20,000 individuals out of every million avoid being killed? There are the fittest and do survive, and will mutate.

      --
      Korma: Good
  40. Misread that by Ranger · · Score: 1

    I thought it said Scientists Put an End To Smelly *ock. (rhymes with sock)

    --
    "You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
  41. Here's the actual paper reference ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Vikram P Dhende, Satyabrata Samanta, David M Jones, Ian R. Hardin, Jason Locklin. One-Step Photochemical Synthesis of Permanent, Nonleaching, Ultrathin Antimicrobial Coatings for Textiles and Plastics. ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces, 2011; : 110621093431069 DOI: 10.1021/am200324f

    The posted link is to a "your cookies are busted" link:

    http://pubs.acs.org/cookieabsent.html

    I mean, what gives?

  42. This stuff is rather terrifying. by Chardansearavitriol · · Score: 2

    And its been bothering me. I mean have you seen those hand gels people are always slathering on? They seem to forget the .1% that it doesnt kill. Its like, congrats, you just made your hands a cess pool by removing all the competition a microbe that is already resistant to our best efforts would normally have! The only thing that nears that level of stupidity would be preemptively dosing all our herd animals with anitbiotics by default. But thats so insanely reckless that theres no way wed ever allow it. ...We do? Oh. Thats not good. :/

  43. god forbid we create jobs by decora · · Score: 1

    we could have kicked unemployment down by a couple ten-thousand by hiring people to wash scrubs and keep things clean, and at the same time reduced bacteria in hospitals, which would have prevented countless infections (actually not countless, some people have done studies on this type of thing).

    but no. fuck that. lets fire all the janitors and clotheswashers and invent weird new chemical experiments that probably might work maybe, because some investment banker needs to pay-off the maserati he wrecked on his last coke and whore binge.

    SuperGermKiller - what it really kills is all those lazy union laborers fucking up your numbers at your hospital administration job!

    1. Re:god forbid we create jobs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, and automobiles should have never been invented because of all the buggy drivers, whip manufacturing and stable hand jobs that were lost.

      I also doubt that this will make washing clothes obsolete. Blood doesn't get itself out!

    2. Re:god forbid we create jobs by kryliss · · Score: 1

      Sounds like the rantings of an ex scrub washer.... washer of scrubs...? scrub scrubber??? :) I kid, I kid......

      --
      --- If the bible proves the existence of God, then Superman comics prove the existence of Superman.
  44. outsourcing janitorial services by decora · · Score: 1

    and cutting 'expenses' of proper floor cleaning and bathroom cleaning....

    oh fuck it.

  45. we used to think the bottom of the ocean by decora · · Score: 1

    had no life forms too...

  46. oh my god beyond 2000 by decora · · Score: 1

    the fount of a thousand 'wheres my jetpack' jokes.

  47. What about wool? by casi0qv · · Score: 2

    Wool does this naturally.... it's microscopic physical structure is such that bacteria has a difficult time attaching to it physically. When I switched to wool socks I permanently eliminated smelly feet, and they're much more comfortable even in hot weather. Once again, scientists develop a "novel" solution to a problem nature solved much more elegantly long ago. Wool literally evolved for the explicit purpose in which humans use clothing for: keeping mammals comfortable and healthy in a wide range of climates... and it has a complicated structure that gives it unique properties to this end that have yet to be replicated by synthetics.

    1. Re:What about wool? by Red_Chaos1 · · Score: 1

      If that were the case then why do sheep smell? Hrm? :p

    2. Re:What about wool? by msauve · · Score: 1

      Sheep smell so they can find the tastiest grass to eat.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    3. Re:What about wool? by casi0qv · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure... but here's a few guesses: 1) The bacteria grow on other substrates (dirt, grass, etc.) trapped in the wool 2) The wool is simply more resistant to bacteria growth such that no significant growth occurs in a single day or a few days between clothes washings. 3) Are you sure sheep smell? I'm not sheep farmer, but I have visited them and they certainly aren't as smelly as most other livestock. The important thing isn't understanding the underlying mechanism... but the reality that wool clothes are much more resistant to odor than essentially any other type of fabric. If people are concerned about this issue, or having problems with it, why not use wool? I have no financial interest here, but I personally own almost entirely wool clothes... they're just more durable, less smelly, and more comfortable (in the case of high grade/fine diameter wool) than anything else I've worn.

  48. Re:Yes, Great...Jackass! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I doubt any amount of evolutionary pressure could enable you to swim in a diarrhea swimming pool.

    HI I'M JOHNNY KNOXVILLE AND THIS IS MY DIARRHEA SWIMMING POOL!!!

  49. Alcohol-resisting bugs by DrYak · · Score: 2

    I'd be pretty impressed if they evolved past that impediment

    - Mycobacteria (as those causing Tuberculosis) have thick reinforced waxy cell walls, which can withstand alcohol, for example.
    - P. Aeruginosas also protect themselves (polysaccharids and biofilms) and have evolved to be able to digest quite a lot of organic compound. They'll resist alcohol, and try drinking it too.
    - not a living bacteria, but lots of bacterial spores can withstand a crazy vast amount of abuse, and stay unharmed (that the whole point of spores).

    And for whatever other physical hard-limit you may dream of (and which should effectively kill most of the regular bacteria), there is always bound to exist some obscure extremophile able not only to survive, but thriving in these extreme conditions.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  50. Ah, homebrew.... by LongearedBat · · Score: 2

    When friends taste my homebrew, they sometimes ask me how I got the alcohol in there. I tell them that the yeast eats the sugars, pisses alcohol and farts carbon dioxide. For some reason, that I can't fathom, they loose their appetite for my brew at that point.

  51. Agent Orange laced socks FTW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Go Monsanto!

  52. A sock a day by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    keeps the doctor away!

    /burp

  53. Put it in Sandals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Put this Crap on Sandals....my god. After Teva stopped doing the anti-mocrobial thing I was not happy

  54. Clean vs. Dirty by Bocaj · · Score: 1

    Any just how am I suppose to discern which of my clothes are good-to-go that morning? Seriously though, this could be huge for outdoor clothing used by hikers and the like. No more smelling ripe after a week in the bush. It could also allow clothing to last longer because most of the damage it takes these days is from the washing machines. We often wash clothing that has very little actual dirt on it, but a little sweat and oil with bacteria that smells.

  55. Me want some by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    I know a few people i could spray this stuff in there shoes....and mine of course, but more theirs...

  56. Can kill "good" bacteria by Kamiza+Ikioi · · Score: 1

    This is true, and I disagree with GP also. However, it can kill "good" bacteria, which is a vector for infection by more dangerous microbes.

    --
    I8-D
  57. Locklin - Socklin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I initially read the scientist's name as Dr. Socklin. It makes more sense that way, at least in my mind.

  58. Maybe the "chemical solution" by mrclevesque · · Score: 1
  59. SnakeEyes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This could perhaps work for nasty odors! I like that idea!

  60. resistant to alcohol? - was Re:Yes, Great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't know about the rest of you, but my experience is that microbes may generate methanol or ethanol, but none generate isopropanol. Remember that the simplest alcohol is hydrogenol (a.k.a. dihydrogen monoxide, hydrogen hydroxide, hydric acid and water). This alcohol is necessary for life as we know it. That doesn't mean that all alcohol is good for you.

  61. Better living through cell phones by Gaffod · · Score: 1

    Am I the only one who has grown cautious of putting electronics on my ear, in close contact, for many hours of the day? We'll either end up with a super AI or WiFi headaches...