Re: Germs in the School Room

[Guest guest]

LOL. Applause. Cheers. And I am not surprised.

>

> A very interesting article. One thing that makes me wonder about the

objectivity of the investigation. One of the investigator's was

associated to L & F Products, the makers of Lysol. Just thought I'd

mention it.

[Guest guest]

Not garlic ... unless you want all your furniture to smell like it. LOL.Lee <jackalope_lepus@...> wrote: Wonderful. Rinsing was a major nuisance.I don't know how to disinfect a wood surface either, but if it does not disinfect, then that is a good reason to pitch it. I suppose one might try garlic... >> No rinsing required. Just spray the area lightly and wipe dry with clean paper towels.> > Caveat to all: Don't use the bleach solution on wood surfaces. Chlorine and wood just don't mix at all. I don't know what to recommend for wood surfaces. Frequent dusting and wiping down with a damp (not wet) cloth is just about all I can

think of.

Never place a period where God has placed a comma. - Gracie

[Guest guest]

Even so, this is not to say that Lysol is not effective.Lee <jackalope_lepus@...> wrote: LOL. Applause. Cheers. And I am not surprised.>> A very interesting article. One thing that makes me wonder about the objectivity of the investigation. One of the investigator's was associated to L & F Products, the makers of Lysol. Just thought I'd mention it.

Never place a period where God has placed a comma. - Gracie

[Guest guest]

>About the "germs in the school room" thread. You are forgetting that for us >to develope a healthy immune system we need to be exposed to viruses and >bacteria. This is a NORMAL thing, not something to be avoided.

ah, no. You won't seek illness just to be immune for it in future.Of course, immunity is a nice thing and it makes illness not asbad as it would have been else, but still nothing to seek for.You aren't seeking for death either ;-)

>It is why >adults get fewer colds and flu than children do, we were exposed to them as >children.

only one of the reasons.and the cold viruses change frequently, that's why you can getanother cold each year.

>Would it be nice if parents kept their child home, yes, it would. >The problem is that missing school can cause its own problems and if the >child is home from school, then one of the parents needs to be there too. >As a Mom and an RN, I have met many people that are concerned about their >jobs becasue they have missed too much work due to sick kids.

you're thinking in too short terms. If infected children stay at home,then far fewer children will be infected and the likelyhood thatyour child gets infected decreases.Without infection there were no colds and flues at all.Let's take these deseases seriously and eliminate them,as we eliminated pest,cholera,One little effort for us, one big advantage for the future of mankind.

>IF the current avian flu mutates to a human to human transmissiable virus, >THEN we will need to be concerned with isolating people that exhibit flu >symptoms until a diagnosis is made. Right now, this has not happened and it >may not ever happen. Getting a flu shot this year isn't a bad idea, but it >will NOT protect anyone against this currently non existant human to human >tranmittable avian flu. > >IF this avian flu does mutate and become human to human transmissable, our >best protection is good handwashing, isolating people that test positvie to >it, covering our faces when out and about.

I think - other than cold-viruses - it spreads through the air, not by contact.

>Gloves do help protect us, but in spite of how they look, they are porous >and can let viruses thru. They protect your hands from blood (which may or >may not carry the virus) and mucus ( which will be carrying the virus). >Good handwashing with soap and water is still the best bet and must be done >when you remove your gloves.

gloves can be non-porous,they can be removed without touching them, you can always carry themwith you. Water and soap is not so easily available.

>Alcohol hand cleansers work well, but dry the >skin and sting if you have the smallest cut. They are best used when soap >and water isn't available, such as when you are out shopping. Also, what >happens is that you touch a contaminate surface and then touch your or your >someones elses eyes, nose or mouth and the virus gets in. You don't catch >it just by having it on your hands. > >Many viruses die if not in a moist environment, as in, if there is no mucus >or moisture for the virus to live in, it dies. Since this virus doesn't >exist, we don't know if it will die in a dry environment. > >If you need to wear mask, it would probably have to be an N95 one, this >isn't a mask most can tolerate for any lenght of time. I have worn them at >work and I know this for a fact. > >Yes, 10% bleach is a better disinfectant than alsohol.

in the posted study it was 30 times worse. Alcohol is also less harmful.

> I can't site a >study, but this is what is used in hospitals these days. There are some >other disinfectants that are available, but they are much more expensive >than plain old bleach solution. Do you want to wipe your entire house with >bleach, NO. If you keep the bleach solution to areas that need it, you >will take care most of the dangerous germs. These areas are the kitchen >counter and the toilet and bathroom sink. IF someone is sick in the home, >you might consider wiping door knobs, the phone and other things that are >touched by both the ill person and others in the family.

OK. But also, I think the ill person shouldn't touch these thingswithout gloves or having washed the hands.

>"Shouldn't it be illegal to go to public places it you are infected ?!?" >This has been done in the past with TB, before they had meds to treat it. I >really doubt they would make it illegal and if they did, I doubt they could >enforce it if they did. They will be busy with other things.

they won't catch everyone, but if there is no such law, noone would care.People just need to develope a sense that this is dangerous and criminal.

>"As I read, the cold mainly spreads by contact through hands, while the flu >mainly spreads by breathing." They are both transmitted by touching a >surface that has the virus on it (in mucus/secretions) or by inhaling the >virus that is suspended in the air within a droplet of moisuture that has >been coughed/sneezed out by an ill person. These droplets aren't in the air >all of the time, they drop to the ground eventually.

where did you read this ?I remember a study saying something different. Let me see,whether I can find it..

>Just my 2 cents (more than that according to my husband) > >Kathi, Blue Mounds, WI >RN, BSN, Certified Pediatric Oncology Nurse

Guenter Stertenbrink, Germany, mathematician.

[Guest guest]

No, of course not. But even if Lysol were a teensy bit more effective,

would it be worth the added cost? I doubt it. That is why I recommend

the " Clean & Simple " book so highly.

>

> Even so, this is not to say that Lysol is not effective.

[Guest guest]

Right you are.

Treat. Treat the dried surfaces with a U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA)-registered premixed disinfectant. While chorine bleach and

water are often used in mold cleanup, improperly mixed bleach/water

solutions can discolor treated surfaces and may irritate the nose,

mouth and lungs. What's worse, the wrong bleach mixture can actually

fail to kill mold and mildew.

http://www.nbc4i.com/homeimprovement/5218469/detail.html

>

> Doubling the strength makes the solution too strong since it will

leave a decided residue of chlorine on a surface. One to ten, that's it.

[Guest guest]

-

> > Doubling the strength makes the solution too strong since it will

> leave a decided residue of chlorine on a surface. One to ten, that's it.

Too much inhaled chlorine bleach can also be fatal. Chlorine is after

all capable of becoming a chemical weapon when used improperly...

>

[Guest guest]

>My response is below Geunter's

>

>>> About the " germs in the school room " thread.

>>> You are forgetting that for us

>>> to develope a healthy immune system we need to

>>> be exposed to viruses and bacteria. This is a NORMAL

>>> thing, not something to be avoided.

>

>> ah, no. You won't seek illness just to be immune for it in future.

>> Of course, immunity is a nice thing and it makes illness not as

>> bad as it would have been else, but still nothing to seek for.

>> You aren't seeking for death either ;-)

>

> You need to review immunity and what is does and doesn't do.

> I am not talking only this avian flu that hasn't mutated to

> a human to human transmissable virus. You must not have been

> around parents of children that haven't had chicken pox.[Windpocken]

> I have heard of many sending thier preschoolers over to play

> with kids that have it, so that they get chicken pox before

> going to school.

>

>

>

>>> It is why adults get fewer colds and flu than children do,

>>> we were exposed to them as children.

>

>> only one of the reasons.

>> and the cold viruses change frequently, that's why you can get

>> another cold each year.

>

> Yes, cold viruses mutate and is one reason why adults get colds,

> but the reason for us adults getting fewer colds is that we have

children also have closer contact with each other

> an immune system that recognizes the virus and attacks it before

> we get symptoms. The more cold viruses we are exposed to, the

> more antibodies we have.

stockpiling antibodies for ever changing cold-viruses is not

very effective.

>>> Would it be nice if parents kept their child home, yes, it would.

>>> The problem is that missing school can cause its own problems and if the

>>> child is home from school, then one of the parents needs to be there

too.

>>> As a Mom and an RN, I have met many people that are concerned about

their

>>> jobs becasue they have missed too much work due to sick kids.

>

>> you're thinking in too short terms. If infected children stay at home,

>> then far fewer children will be infected and the likelyhood that

>> your child gets infected decreases.

>> Without infection there were no colds and flues at all.

>> Let's take these deseases seriously and eliminate them,

>> as we eliminated pest,cholera,

>> One little effort for us, one big advantage for the future of mankind.

>

>Again, I am not talking about the unmutated avian flu.

>If you keep your child isolated from all viruses, they

>will just get sick more often as an adult, so what does that save?

not that more often and not for all viruses, i.e. not changing viruses.

Also, there are vaccines for many viruses.

I estimate children might save maybe 20% of the virus-deseases

as adult, because they had these as children.

But they lose 100% due to these, because they _had_ it as children.

They might even die, so the immunization benefit would be lost.

There is also some chance that advancing science will protect

them from many viruses as adults.

>And cholera still exists,

minimal

>the only illness we have 'eliminted' is small pox and it still

>exists in lab freezers. Because viruses, especially cold and

>flu viruses, mutate readliy, you will never totally eliminate them.

OK, but maybe almost eliminate them. Reduce them significantly.

I guess, it could be reduced by 90%

>>> IF the current avian flu mutates to a human to human transmissiable

virus,

>>> THEN we will need to be concerned with isolating people that exhibit flu

>>> symptoms until a diagnosis is made. Right now, this has not happened

and it

>>> may not ever happen. Getting a flu shot this year isn't a bad idea, but

it

>>> will NOT protect anyone against this currently non existant human to

human

>>> tranmittable avian flu.

>>>

>>> IF this avian flu does mutate and become human to human transmissable,

our

>>> best protection is good handwashing, isolating people that test positvie

to

>>> it, covering our faces when out and about.

>

>> I think - other than cold-viruses - it spreads through the air,

>> not by contact.

>

> See other posts on this.

here is one source:

only an excert, get the whole article from:

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol7no2/goldmann.htm

----------------------------------------------------------

Epidemiology and Prevention of Pediatric

Viral Respiratory Infections in Health-Care Institutions

A. Goldmann

Children's Hospital and Harvard Medical School,

Boston, Massachusetts, USA

....

Influenza is

a substantial threat to hospitalized patients despite the availability

of a relatively effective vaccine and two classes of drugs (M2

ion channel inhibitors and neuraminidase inhibitors) shown to

prevent infection in clinical trials (24). Although influenza

is widely viewed as affecting primarily elderly patients and

adults with coexisting illnesses or conditions, such as chronic

pulmonary and cardiac disease, nosocomial transmission has been

well documented in young children (25,26). Perhaps nosocomial

disease is less frequently diagnosed in hospitalized children

because infants are unable to articulate many of influenza's

characteristic symptoms, and influenza often presents simply

as an episode of fever in this population.

The proper isolation

procedures for hospitalized patients with influenza are controversial.

Infection can likely be transmitted by direct and indirect contact

as well as by droplet contact. Airborne spread by droplet nuclei

has sparked controversy, since true airborne transmission would

best be controlled by isolating patients in rooms with negative

air pressure and requiring staff to wear masks on entering the

room. Such precautions would be costly and difficult to implement

at the height of an influenza outbreak.

What is the evidence

for airborne transmission of influenza? The explosive nature

of influenza outbreaks supports airborne transmission. Some investigators

have even suggested that the rapid intercontinental transmission

of influenza can be mediated by transport of aerosolized virus

on air currents over hundreds to thousands of kilometers in low-

pressure centers with frontal waves (27). However, data substantiating

the airborne theory of transmission are relatively sparse. Perhaps

the most compelling data come from animals models of influenza.

Mice inoculated with influenza virus readily transmitted infection

to susceptible animals from which they had been separated by

double wire screens (28). The attack rate increased at low relative

humidity, as would be expected, since virus suspended in aerosolized

droplet nuclei survives much longer at lower humidity. Moreover,

transmission occurred more frequently when the ventilation in

the chamber housing the mice was poor, as Wells established is

typical of diseases spread by the airborne route. In a ferret

influenza model, infected ferrets transmitted influenza to uninfected

ferrets separated by a 9-foot duct with two 90 bends (29). Large

droplets certainly would not be able to negotiate such curves,

whereas droplet nuclei typically can.

A natural experiment

in patients at the Veterans Administration Hospital in Livermore,

California, can be viewed as the human counterpart of these

animal experiments (30). One building housing 150 patients with

tuberculosis and chronic pulmonary disease was ventilated by

UV light-irradiated air, whereas another part of the hospital

housing 250 tuberculosis patients received nonirradiated air.

During the 1957-58 influenza season, the attack rate in patients

in the irradiated building (as confirmed serologically) was 2%,

but the attack rates among patients and staff in the nonirradiated

area were 19% and 18%, respectively.

Probably the most dramatic

example of airborne spread in humans occurred during an airplane

flight from Anchorage to Kodiak, Alaska (31). At an intermediate

stop in Homer, Alaska, the plane had mechanical difficulty and

remained on the tarmac for several hours with an inoperative

ventilation system. A young woman had boarded the flight in Homer

and within 15 minutes developed full-blown symptoms of acute

influenza. A point-source outbreak of influenza ensued, and 72%

of the 54 passengers became ill within 72 hours. The attack

rate was highest in passengers who remained on the crippled plane

the longest, and the six passengers who deplaned immediately

remained well. Although the passengers who stayed on the plane

moved about at will, influenza developed in few of those who

had close contact with the index patient.

Since available evidence

tends to support airborne transmission of influenza, attempting

to place infected patients on precautions suitable for protecting

susceptible patients and staff from virus-laden droplet nuclei

seems prudent. Of course, improved compliance with current recommendations

for immunizing health-care workers remains the key to influenza

control in the hospital. Most facilities will be severely challenged

if they try to isolate all patients with symptoms compatible

with influenza.

---------------------------------------------------------

can we expect similar behaviour from H5N1 ?

>>> Gloves do help protect us, but in spite of how they look, they are

porous

>>> and can let viruses thru. They protect your hands from blood (which may

or

>>> may not carry the virus) and mucus ( which will be carrying the virus).

>>> Good handwashing with soap and water is still the best bet and must be

done

>>> when you remove your gloves.

>

>>gloves can be non-porous,

>>they can be removed without touching them, you can always carry them

>>with you. Water and soap is not so easily available.

>

>As long as you learn how to take them off without comtaminating

>your hands, fine. What gloves are made non porous?

e.g. those gloves which became obligatory for car-1st-aid sets.

1 time gloves which you can get everwhere for cheap.

>The lack of availability of soap and water, is why it is

>recommended to use alcohol hand cleansers.

>

>>> Alcohol hand cleansers work well, but dry the

>>> skin and sting [stechen] if you have the smallest cut.

>>> They are best used when soap and water isn't available,

>>> such as when you are out shopping.

agreed

>>> Also, what happens is that you touch a contaminate surface

>>> and then touch your or your someones elses eyes, nose or mouth

I've always wondered, why they include eyes here. How should the virus

enter through eyes ? I couldn't find evidence for this on the web.

Just one study which showed that people often touch their eyes

and noses. Doesn't show, how the virus enters. Maybe it even enters

with food on eating ?

>>> and the virus gets in. You don't catch

>>> it just by having it on your hands.

who knows ? Maybe also through small cuts ...

>>> Many viruses die if not in a moist environment, as in, if

>>> there is no mucus or moisture for the virus to live in, it dies.

but maybe not fast enough

>>> Since this virus doesn't

>>> exist, we don't know if it will die in a dry environment.

similar viruses do exist

>>> If you need to wear mask, it would probably have to be an N95 one, this

there are also N100 available or nanomasks

>>> isn't a mask most can tolerate for any lenght of time. I have worn

>>> them at work and I know this for a fact.

can maybe improved, if there is real need

>>> Yes, 10% bleach is a better disinfectant than alsohol.

>

>> in the posted study it was 30 times worse.

>> Alcohol is also less harmful.

>

>You need to reread the studies. How is alcohol less harmful?

for the furniture and mixing with other chemicals

>It is poisonous and flammable?

not poisonous in small amounts. This has been tested by

drinkers for centuries ;-)

flammable, yes. Use only for wiping or spraying when no flames

are there.

>>> I can't site a

>>> study, but this is what is used in hospitals these days. There are some

>>> other disinfectants that are available, but they are much more expensive

>>> than plain old bleach solution.

maybe you should have both in hospitals. One could be good for (against)

salmonella the other for rhinoviruses

>>> Do you want to wipe your entire house

>>> with bleach, NO. If you keep the bleach solution to areas that

>>> need it, you will take care most of the dangerous germs.

>>> These areas are the kitchen

>>> counter and the toilet and bathroom sink. IF someone is sick in the

home,

>>> you might consider wiping door knobs, the phone and other things that

are

>>> touched by both the ill person and others in the family.

>

>OK. But also, I think the ill person shouldn't touch these things

>without gloves or having washed the hands.

>

>

>That is true, you need to wash your hands before you use an article

>that is used by others in the home,

only when you're ill and in the infectious phase

>but realistically, does it happen every time? No, it doesn't.

so let's look for easier measures. Opening the door with a tissue

is easier than handwashing

>It is hard enough to get people to consistently wash their hands

>after using the toilet, let alone the phone and TV remote.

>Wiping them when someone is sick in the home is added protection

>for the rest of the family.

I think, many of these measures can be improved: better gloves,

replacements for doorknobs, extra keyboard, telefone, remote control,

food for infected people should be not so expensive.

Bathroom,refrigerator,TV, .. that must be organized.

>>> " Shouldn't it be illegal to go to public places it you are infected

?!? "

>>> This has been done in the past with TB, before they had meds to treat

it. I

>>> really doubt they would make it illegal and if they did, I doubt they

could

>>> enforce it if they did. They will be busy with other things.

>

>they won't catch everyone, but if there is no such law, noone would care.

>People just need to develope a sense that this is dangerous and criminal.

>

>You can't legislate people's behavior, been tried, doesn't work.

it worked pretty well e.g. for driving with alcohol

>Is spreading viruses dangerous, yes. Is it, in general, criminal, no.

just change the law and it is.

>There have been a few cases where a person that knew they had

>a deadly virus (HIV, typhoid) have in locked up to protect others,

>but these cases the perpetrator has been aggressively infected others.

>

>> " As I read, the cold mainly spreads by contact through hands, while the

flu

>> mainly spreads by breathing. " They are both transmitted by touching a

>> surface that has the virus on it (in mucus/secretions) or by inhaling the

>> virus that is suspended in the air within a droplet of moisuture that has

>> been coughed/sneezed out by an ill person. These droplets aren't in the

air

>> all of the time, they drop to the ground eventually.

it's still a bit unclear and controversy how exactly this happens.

Astonishing that they can't figure this out, regarding the importance

of the subject. See above article (3/2001, maybe a bit outdated, though)

-Guenter

[Guest guest]

About the " germs in the school room " thread. You are forgetting that for us

to develope a healthy immune system we need to be exposed to viruses and

bacteria. This is a NORMAL thing, not something to be avoided. It is why

adults get fewer colds and flu than children do, we were exposed to them as

children. Would it be nice if parents kept their child home, yes, it would.

The problem is that missing school can cause its own problems and if the

child is home from school, then one of the parents needs to be there too.

As a Mom and an RN, I have met many people that are concerned about their

jobs becasue they have missed too much work due to sick kids.

IF the current avian flu mutates to a human to human transmissiable virus,

THEN we will need to be concerned with isolating people that exhibit flu

symptoms until a diagnosis is made. Right now, this has not happened and it

may not ever happen. Getting a flu shot this year isn't a bad idea, but it

will NOT protect anyone against this currently non existant human to human

tranmittable avian flu.

IF this avian flu does mutate and become human to human transmissable, our

best protection is good handwashing, isolating people that test positvie to

it, covering our faces when out and about.

Gloves do help protect us, but in spite of how they look, they are porous

and can let viruses thru. They protect your hands from blood (which may or

may not carry the virus) and mucus ( which will be carrying the virus).

Good handwashing with soap and water is still the best bet and must be done

when you remove your gloves. Alcohol hand cleansers work well, but dry the

skin and sting if you have the smallest cut. They are best used when soap

and water isn't available, such as when you are out shopping. Also, what

happens is that you touch a contaminate surface and then touch your or your

someones elses eyes, nose or mouth and the virus gets in. You don't catch

it just by having it on your hands.

Many viruses die if not in a moist environment, as in, if there is no mucus

or moisture for the virus to live in, it dies. Since this virus doesn't

exist, we don't know if it will die in a dry environment.

If you need to wear mask, it would probably have to be an N95 one, this

isn't a mask most can tolerate for any lenght of time. I have worn them at

work and I know this for a fact.

Yes, 10% bleach is a better disinfectant than alsohol. I can't site a

study, but this is what is used in hospitals these days. There are some

other disinfectants that are available, but they are much more expensive

than plain old bleach solution. Do you want to wipe your entire house with

bleach, NO. If you keep the bleach solution to areas that need it, you

will take care most of the dangerous germs. These areas are the kitchen

counter and the toilet and bathroom sink. IF someone is sick in the home,

you might consider wiping door knobs, the phone and other things that are

touched by both the ill person and others in the family.

" Shouldn't it be illegal to go to public places it you are infected ?!? "

This has been done in the past with TB, before they had meds to treat it. I

really doubt they would make it illegal and if they did, I doubt they could

enforce it if they did. They will be busy with other things.

" As I read, the cold mainly spreads by contact through hands, while the flu

mainly spreads by breathing. " They are both transmitted by touching a

surface that has the virus on it (in mucus/secretions) or by inhaling the

virus that is suspended in the air within a droplet of moisuture that has

been coughed/sneezed out by an ill person. These droplets aren't in the air

all of the time, they drop to the ground eventually.

Just my 2 cents (more than that according to my husband)

Kathi, Blue Mounds, WI

RN, BSN, Certified Pediatric Oncology Nurse

[Guest guest]

My response is below Geunter's

>About the "germs in the school room" thread. You are forgetting that for us >to develope a healthy immune system we need to be exposed to viruses and >bacteria. This is a NORMAL thing, not something to be avoided.

ah, no. You won't seek illness just to be immune for it in future.Of course, immunity is a nice thing and it makes illness not asbad as it would have been else, but still nothing to seek for.You aren't seeking for death either ;-)

You need to review immunity and what is does and doesn't do. I am not talking only this avian flu that hasn't mutated to a human to human transmissable virus. You must not have been around parents of children that haven't had chicken pox. I have heard of many sending thier preschoolers over to play with kids that have it, so that they get chicken pox before going to school.

>It is why >adults get fewer colds and flu than children do, we were exposed to them as >children.

only one of the reasons.and the cold viruses change frequently, that's why you can getanother cold each year.

Yes, cold viruses mutate and is one reason why adults get colds, but the reason for us adults getting fewer colds is that we have an immune system that recognizes the virus and attacks it before we get symptoms. The more cold viruses we are exposed to, the more antibodies we have.

>Would it be nice if parents kept their child home, yes, it would. >The problem is that missing school can cause its own problems and if the >child is home from school, then one of the parents needs to be there too. >As a Mom and an RN, I have met many people that are concerned about their >jobs becasue they have missed too much work due to sick kids.

you're thinking in too short terms. If infected children stay at home,then far fewer children will be infected and the likelyhood thatyour child gets infected decreases.Without infection there were no colds and flues at all.Let's take these deseases seriously and eliminate them,as we eliminated pest,cholera,One little effort for us, one big advantage for the future of mankind.

Again, I am not talking about the unmutated avian flu. If you keep your child isolated from all viruses, they will just get sick more often as an adult, so what does that save? And cholera still exists, the only illness we have 'eliminted' is small pox and it still exists in lab freezers. Because viruses, especially cold and flu viruses, mutate readliy, you will never totally eliminate them.

>IF the current avian flu mutates to a human to human transmissiable virus, >THEN we will need to be concerned with isolating people that exhibit flu >symptoms until a diagnosis is made. Right now, this has not happened and it >may not ever happen. Getting a flu shot this year isn't a bad idea, but it >will NOT protect anyone against this currently non existant human to human >tranmittable avian flu. > >IF this avian flu does mutate and become human to human transmissable, our >best protection is good handwashing, isolating people that test positvie to >it, covering our faces when out and about.

I think - other than cold-viruses - it spreads through the air, not by contact.

See other posts on this.

>Gloves do help protect us, but in spite of how they look, they are porous >and can let viruses thru. They protect your hands from blood (which may or >may not carry the virus) and mucus ( which will be carrying the virus). >Good handwashing with soap and water is still the best bet and must be done >when you remove your gloves.

gloves can be non-porous,they can be removed without touching them, you can always carry themwith you. Water and soap is not so easily available.

As long as you learn how to take them off without comtaminating your hands, fine. What gloves are made non porous? The lack of availability of soap and water, is why it is recommended to use alcohol hand cleansers.

>Alcohol hand cleansers work well, but dry the >skin and sting if you have the smallest cut. They are best used when soap >and water isn't available, such as when you are out shopping. Also, what >happens is that you touch a contaminate surface and then touch your or your >someones elses eyes, nose or mouth and the virus gets in. You don't catch >it just by having it on your hands. > >Many viruses die if not in a moist environment, as in, if there is no mucus >or moisture for the virus to live in, it dies. Since this virus doesn't >exist, we don't know if it will die in a dry environment. > >If you need to wear mask, it would probably have to be an N95 one, this >isn't a mask most can tolerate for any lenght of time. I have worn them at >work and I know this for a fact. > >Yes, 10% bleach is a better disinfectant than alsohol.

in the posted study it was 30 times worse. Alcohol is also less harmful.

You need to reread the studies. How is alcohol less harmful? It is poisonous and flammable?

> I can't site a >study, but this is what is used in hospitals these days. There are some >other disinfectants that are available, but they are much more expensive >than plain old bleach solution. Do you want to wipe your entire house with >bleach, NO. If you keep the bleach solution to areas that need it, you >will take care most of the dangerous germs. These areas are the kitchen >counter and the toilet and bathroom sink. IF someone is sick in the home, >you might consider wiping door knobs, the phone and other things that are >touched by both the ill person and others in the family.

OK. But also, I think the ill person shouldn't touch these thingswithout gloves or having washed the hands.

That is true, you need to wash your hands before you use an article that is used by others in the home, but realistically, does it happen every time? No, it doesn't. It is hard enough to get people to consistently wash their hands after using the toilet, let alone the phone and TV remote. Wiping them when someone is sick in the home is added protection for the rest of the family.

>"Shouldn't it be illegal to go to public places it you are infected ?!?" >This has been done in the past with TB, before they had meds to treat it. I >really doubt they would make it illegal and if they did, I doubt they could >enforce it if they did. They will be busy with other things.

they won't catch everyone, but if there is no such law, noone would care.People just need to develope a sense that this is dangerous and criminal.

You can't legislate people's behavior, been tried, doesn't work. Is spreading viruses dangerous, yes. Is it, in general, criminal, no. There have been a few cases where a person that knew they had a deadly virus (HIV, typhoid) have in locked up to protect others, but these cases the perpetrator has been aggressively infected others.

>"As I read, the cold mainly spreads by contact through hands, while the flu >mainly spreads by breathing." They are both transmitted by touching a >surface that has the virus on it (in mucus/secretions) or by inhaling the >virus that is suspended in the air within a droplet of moisuture that has >been coughed/sneezed out by an ill person. These droplets aren't in the air >all of the time, they drop to the ground eventually.

where did you read this ?I remember a study saying something different. Let me see,whether I can find it..

>Just my 2 cents (more than that according to my husband) > >Kathi, Blue Mounds, WI >RN, BSN, Certified Pediatric Oncology Nurse

Guenter Stertenbrink, Germany, mathematician.

[Guest guest]

Hi Kathi, Thanks for this comment. I am sure that you are right. One

problem that I have had: alcohol hand towelettes in their little foil

pack will dry out over time. I keep the towelettes in luggage and

brief case and jacket pockets, and have opened a towelette and been

unhappy to find it dry. Not sure how to prevent this.

[Guest guest]

Here I go again, Kathi

>

> > an immune system that recognizes the virus and attacks it before

> > we get symptoms. The more cold viruses we are exposed to, the

> > more antibodies we have.

>

> stockpiling antibodies for ever changing cold-viruses is not

> very effective.

I am talking about the antibodies that our bodies naturally produce, NOT

antibiotics. Besides no antibiotic is effective against viruses, they

are for bacteria

..

>> I estimate children might save maybe 20% of the virus-deseases

> as adult, because they had these as children.

> But they lose 100% due to these, because they _had_ it as children.

> They might even die, so the immunization benefit would be lost.

> There is also some chance that advancing science will protect

> them from many viruses as adults.

>

> >And cholera still exists,

>

> minimal

That depends on where you live. It is uncommon in the US, but is

epidemic in Africa and parts of India. It thrives in unsanitary water

and was/is a concern in the flood waters after Katrina and Rita. And

isn't it a concern that the avian flu would mutate in Third world

countries and then come to more modern areas?

> OK, but maybe almost eliminate them. Reduce them significantly.

> I guess, it could be reduced by 90%

That is a guess.

> >> I think - other than cold-viruses - it spreads through the air,

> >> not by contact.

> here is one source:

> only an excert, get the whole article from:

> http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol7no2/goldmann.htm

From your source- " Infection can likely be transmitted by direct and

indirect contact as well as by droplet contact "

This tells me that is by both ways. If you

> What gloves are made non porous?

>

> e.g. those gloves which became obligatory for car-1st-aid sets.

> 1 time gloves which you can get everwhere for cheap first aid kits

These gloves are NOT non porous, they don't publisize it. They also

tear easily, even the ones in the hospital tear easily.

> I've always wondered, why they include eyes here. How should the virus

> enter through eyes ? I couldn't find evidence for this on the web.

> Just one study which showed that people often touch their eyes

> and noses. Doesn't show, how the virus enters. Maybe it even enters

> with food on eating ?

The lining around the eye is a mucus membrane, just like the lining of

the nose and mouth, it is warm and moist and a good place for virus and

bacteria to grow. Also, the tear ducts drain into the nose and the eyes

are constantly washed with tears. Most, not all viruses and bacteria,

are killed by the stomach acid.

>

> >>> and the virus gets in. You don't catch

> >>> it just by having it on your hands.

>

> who knows ? Maybe also through small cuts ...

Each virus has its area of 'specialty', respiratory viruses (colds and

influenza) only live in the respiratory system and not via cuts.

> >>> If you need to wear mask, it would probably have to be an N95 one, this

>

> there are also N100 available or nanomasks

>

> >>> isn't a mask most can tolerate for any lenght of time. I have worn

> >>> them at work and I know this for a fact.

>

> can maybe improved, if there is real need

N95 masks allow little air thru them, most is filtered and I really

doubt that the health product industry is likely to 'improve' them.

They need to be inexpensive for hospitals and the public to buy. The

N100 and nano masks, I don't know much about, but if an N95 mask lets

in little fresh air, and N100 would allow less. Also, I have seen some

masks that have a little 'flapper' in them to let out air, I wouldn't

use one of these in an infectious situation, too likely that you would

inhale some virus before the flap closed.

>>

> not poisonous in small amounts. This has been tested by

> drinkers for centuries ;-)

> flammable, yes. Use only for wiping or spraying when no flames

> are there.

Rubbing alcohol, what a person would be using for cleaning IS poisonous.

It is not the same as alcohol that a person drinks. Rubbing alcohol is

iso-propyl alcohol, drinking alcohol is ethyl alcohol or ethanol.

>

> I think, many of these measures can be improved: better gloves,

> replacements for doorknobs, extra keyboard, telefone, remote control,

> food for infected people should be not so expensive.

> Bathroom,refrigerator,TV, .. that must be organized

You can do all of those things if you so choose.

>

> >>> " Shouldn't it be illegal to go to public places it you are infected

> ?!? "

> >>> This has been done in the past with TB, before they had meds to treat

> it. I

> >>> really doubt they would make it illegal and if they did, I doubt they

> could

> >>> enforce it if they did. They will be busy with other things.

> >

> >they won't catch everyone, but if there is no such law, noone would care.

> >People just need to develope a sense that this is dangerous and criminal.

> >

> >You can't legislate people's behavior, been tried, doesn't work.

>

> it worked pretty well e.g. for driving with alcohol

It hasn't helped much here in the States, people still drive impaired.

>

> >Is spreading viruses dangerous, yes. Is it, in general, criminal, no.

>

> just change the law and it is.

But is making it a criminal offense going to make people safer or make

them criminals?

>

[Guest guest]

>Here I go again, Kathi

thanks for feedback.

much traffic here...I'll make the response a bit shorter

>> stockpiling antibodies

yes, I meant stockpiling in your body. Sorry for bad English

>isn't it a concern that the avian flu would mutate in Third world >countries and then come to more modern areas?

yes, that's what I read too. But people here in Europe become concernedon dead bird in Romania or Greece. They'd better follow the WHO newsabout Vietnam,China,Indonesia

>From your source- "Infection can likely be transmitted by direct and >indirect contact as well as by droplet contact" >This tells me that is by both ways. If you

the direct contact seems to be more important for cold,while the droplets are more important for flu.And probably H5N1,SARS

the way a virus enters a body - (eyes,nose,mouth,..)has it been examined or is it speculation ? If someone knowsa study, I'd like to know

>inhale some virus before the flap closed.

they'll have to examine this !

>Rubbing alcohol is iso-propyl alcohol,

70% ethanol in the Lysol from the study. I assume, just ethanolis as effective as Lysol.

>But is making it a criminal offense [spreading viruses]going to make people safer or make them criminals?

criminal only in severe cases, usually a "summary offence".

---------------------

viruses only travel 3 feet (1m) after sneezing ?? I can't believe this

Can their traveling be reactivated by vacuum cleaners or ventilators ?

I'd like to see an animated video, how they spread , with colorfulvirii ! Has anyone seen such a video-clip ?

----------------------------------

I read that this bird-flu-virus is transferred by birds picking something contaminated

with other bird's fecies.(true ?)

In that case, I won't expect it can easily mutate so it can be transferred by droplets

Was it the same with the other pandemics virii ?

[Guest guest]

Right you are. Chlorine is highly toxic. Just the merest whiff of full strength Clorox is enough to tell you all about it.cginca96 <cginca96@...> wrote: -> > Doubling the strength makes the solution too strong since it will > leave a decided residue of chlorine on a surface. One to ten, that's it.Too much inhaled chlorine bleach can also be fatal. Chlorine is afterall capable of becoming a chemical weapon when used improperly...>

Never place a period where God has placed a comma. - Gracie

[Guest guest]

Thank you, colleague. (RN)Kathi <kmartin@...> wrote: About the "germs in the school room" thread. You are forgetting that for us to develope a healthy immune system we need to be exposed to viruses and bacteria. This is a NORMAL thing, not something to be avoided. It is why adults get fewer colds and flu than children do, we were exposed to them as children. Would it be nice if parents kept their child home, yes, it would. The problem is that missing school can cause its own problems and if the child is home from school, then one of the parents needs to be there too. As a Mom and an RN, I have met many people that are concerned about their jobs becasue they have missed too much work due to sick kids.IF the current avian flu mutates to a human to

human transmissiable virus, THEN we will need to be concerned with isolating people that exhibit flu symptoms until a diagnosis is made. Right now, this has not happened and it may not ever happen. Getting a flu shot this year isn't a bad idea, but it will NOT protect anyone against this currently non existant human to human tranmittable avian flu.IF this avian flu does mutate and become human to human transmissable, our best protection is good handwashing, isolating people that test positvie to it, covering our faces when out and about.Gloves do help protect us, but in spite of how they look, they are porous and can let viruses thru. They protect your hands from blood (which may or may not carry the virus) and mucus ( which will be carrying the virus).Good handwashing with soap and water is still the best bet and must be done when you remove your gloves. Alcohol hand cleansers work well, but dry the

skin and sting if you have the smallest cut. They are best used when soap and water isn't available, such as when you are out shopping. Also, what happens is that you touch a contaminate surface and then touch your or your someones elses eyes, nose or mouth and the virus gets in. You don't catch it just by having it on your hands.Many viruses die if not in a moist environment, as in, if there is no mucus or moisture for the virus to live in, it dies. Since this virus doesn't exist, we don't know if it will die in a dry environment.If you need to wear mask, it would probably have to be an N95 one, this isn't a mask most can tolerate for any lenght of time. I have worn them at work and I know this for a fact.Yes, 10% bleach is a better disinfectant than alsohol. I can't site a study, but this is what is used in hospitals these days. There are some other disinfectants that are available, but

they are much more expensive than plain old bleach solution. Do you want to wipe your entire house with bleach, NO. If you keep the bleach solution to areas that need it, you will take care most of the dangerous germs. These areas are the kitchen counter and the toilet and bathroom sink. IF someone is sick in the home, you might consider wiping door knobs, the phone and other things that are touched by both the ill person and others in the family."Shouldn't it be illegal to go to public places it you are infected ?!?" This has been done in the past with TB, before they had meds to treat it. I really doubt they would make it illegal and if they did, I doubt they could enforce it if they did. They will be busy with other things."As I read, the cold mainly spreads by contact through hands, while the flu mainly spreads by breathing." They are both

transmitted by touching a surface that has the virus on it (in mucus/secretions) or by inhaling the virus that is suspended in the air within a droplet of moisuture that has been coughed/sneezed out by an ill person. These droplets aren't in the air all of the time, they drop to the ground eventually.Just my 2 cents (more than that according to my husband)Kathi, Blue Mounds, WIRN, BSN, Certified Pediatric Oncology Nurse

Never place a period where God has placed a comma. - Gracie

[Guest guest]

Just to jump in here - no bacterium or virus actually travels through the air since they are not able to fly. They are expelled into the air through the droplets ejected by coughing and sneezing. This "mist" can travel up to three feet before everything plummets to the ground by force of gravity.sterten@... wrote: >About the "germs in the school room" thread. You are forgetting that for us >to develope a healthy immune system we need to be exposed to viruses and >bacteria. This is a NORMAL thing, not something to be avoided. ah, no. You won't seek illness just to be immune for it in future.Of course, immunity is a nice thing and it

makes illness not asbad as it would have been else, but still nothing to seek for.You aren't seeking for death either ;-) >It is why >adults get fewer colds and flu than children do, we were exposed to them as >children. only one of the reasons.and the cold viruses change frequently, that's why you can getanother cold each year. >Would it be nice if parents kept their child home, yes, it would. >The problem is that missing school can cause its own problems and if the >child is home from school, then one of the parents needs to be there too. >As a Mom and an RN, I have met many people that are concerned about their >jobs becasue they have missed too much work due to sick kids. you're thinking in too short terms. If infected children stay at

home,then far fewer children will be infected and the likelyhood thatyour child gets infected decreases.Without infection there were no colds and flues at all.Let's take these deseases seriously and eliminate them,as we eliminated pest,cholera,One little effort for us, one big advantage for the future of mankind. >IF the current avian flu mutates to a human to human transmissiable virus, >THEN we will need to be concerned with isolating people that exhibit flu >symptoms until a diagnosis is made. Right now, this has not happened and it >may not ever happen. Getting a flu shot this year isn't a bad idea, but it >will NOT protect anyone against this currently non existant human to human >tranmittable avian flu. > >IF this avian flu does mutate and become human to human transmissable, our >best protection

is good handwashing, isolating people that test positvie to >it, covering our faces when out and about. I think - other than cold-viruses - it spreads through the air, not by contact. >Gloves do help protect us, but in spite of how they look, they are porous >and can let viruses thru. They protect your hands from blood (which may or >may not carry the virus) and mucus ( which will be carrying the virus). >Good handwashing with soap and water is still the best bet and must be done >when you remove your gloves. gloves can be non-porous,they can be removed without touching them, you can always carry themwith you. Water and soap is not so easily available. >Alcohol hand cleansers work well, but dry the >skin and sting if you have the smallest cut. They are

best used when soap >and water isn't available, such as when you are out shopping. Also, what >happens is that you touch a contaminate surface and then touch your or your >someones elses eyes, nose or mouth and the virus gets in. You don't catch >it just by having it on your hands. > >Many viruses die if not in a moist environment, as in, if there is no mucus >or moisture for the virus to live in, it dies. Since this virus doesn't >exist, we don't know if it will die in a dry environment. > >If you need to wear mask, it would probably have to be an N95 one, this >isn't a mask most can tolerate for any lenght of time. I have worn them at >work and I know this for a fact. > >Yes, 10% bleach is a better disinfectant than alsohol. in the posted study it was 30 times

worse. Alcohol is also less harmful. > I can't site a >study, but this is what is used in hospitals these days. There are some >other disinfectants that are available, but they are much more expensive >than plain old bleach solution. Do you want to wipe your entire house with >bleach, NO. If you keep the bleach solution to areas that need it, you >will take care most of the dangerous germs. These areas are the kitchen >counter and the toilet and bathroom sink. IF someone is sick in the home, >you might consider wiping door knobs, the phone and other things that are >touched by both the ill person and others in the family. OK. But also, I think the ill person shouldn't touch these thingswithout gloves or having washed the hands. >"Shouldn't it be illegal to go to public places it you are infected ?!?" >This has been done in the past with TB, before they had meds to treat it. I >really doubt they would make it illegal and if they did, I doubt they could >enforce it if they did. They will be busy with other things. they won't catch everyone, but if there is no such law, noone would care.People just need to develope a sense that this is dangerous and criminal. >"As I read, the cold mainly spreads by contact through hands, while the flu >mainly spreads by breathing." They are both transmitted by touching a >surface that has the virus on it (in mucus/secretions) or by inhaling the >virus that is suspended in the air within a droplet of moisuture that has >been coughed/sneezed out by an ill

person. These droplets aren't in the air >all of the time, they drop to the ground eventually. where did you read this ?I remember a study saying something different. Let me see,whether I can find it.. >Just my 2 cents (more than that according to my husband) > >Kathi, Blue Mounds, WI >RN, BSN, Certified Pediatric Oncology Nurse Guenter Stertenbrink, Germany, mathematician.

Never place a period where God has placed a comma. - Gracie

[Guest guest]

Don't keep them in your "stuff" for more than a week or so; or you could put them is small plastic bags that you could seal. This might retard evaporation.Lee <jackalope_lepus@...> wrote: Hi Kathi, Thanks for this comment. I am sure that you are right. One problem that I have had: alcohol hand towelettes in their little foil pack will dry out over time. I keep the towelettes in luggage and brief case and jacket pockets, and have opened a towelette and been unhappy to find it dry. Not sure how to prevent this.

Never place a period where God has placed a comma. - Gracie

[Guest guest]

Good evening, , I keep the towelettes in a coat or bag for

months, but the plastic bag may take care of the problem. Thanks.

>

> Don't keep them in your " stuff " for more than a week or so; or you

could put them is small plastic bags that you could seal. This might

retard evaporation.

[Guest guest]

> >> stockpiling antibodies

>

> yes, I meant stockpiling in your body. Sorry for bad English

You want to have these naturally occuring antibodies on your body. They

are part of your immune system. If you didn't have them, you would die

from the least infection because you would not have anything to fight

it with. These antibodies exist in your body until needed. They are

white blood cells that have been exposed to various infections and

'remember' what it is and kill it.

>

>

> >isn't it a concern that the avian flu would mutate in Third world

> >countries and then come to more modern areas?

>

> yes, that's what I read too. But people here in Europe become concerned

> on dead bird in Romania or Greece. They'd better follow the WHO news

> about Vietnam,China,Indonesia

>

>

>

> >From your source- " Infection can likely be transmitted by direct and

> >indirect contact as well as by droplet contact "

> >This tells me that is by both ways. If you

>

> the direct contact seems to be more important for cold,

> while the droplets are more important for flu.

> And probably H5N1,SARS

>

>

>

> the way a virus enters a body - (eyes,nose,mouth,..)

> has it been examined or is it speculation ? If someone knows

> a study, I'd like to know

>

>

>

> viruses only travel 3 feet (1m) after sneezing ?? I can't believe this

>

> Can their traveling be reactivated by vacuum cleaners or ventilators ?

Probably not, the virus needs to be suspended in a droplet of moisture

and after it was sucked up in the vacuum the other debris in the vacuum

would absorb the moisture.

>

> I'd like to see an animated video, how they spread , with colorful

> virii ! Has anyone seen such a video-clip ?

I think it has been done, but I haven't seen a video for it. But if you

think about it, have you ever been around someone that has had a big wet

sneeze? You can feel the spray a long way off. I know, that is a gross

thought.

>

> ----------------------------------

>

> I read that this bird-flu-virus is transferred by birds picking something

contaminated

> with other bird's fecies.(true ?)

> In that case, I won't expect it can easily mutate so it can be transferred by

droplets

> Was it the same with the other pandemics virii ?

This is how it is transmitted. People that have gotten it live closely

with their birds and probably walk thru the bird feces.

[Guest guest]

If we can use 1 part bleach to ten parts water as a disinfectant against

virus's, how long can it be stored in a sprayer or would i have to throw any

unused away on a daily basis?

I also read on a website you can use 16 drops of bleach in a gallon of

drinking water if it is contaminated.Has anyone else read of this?

Kind Regards

>From: <rboylern@...>

>Reply-Flu

>Flu

>Subject: Re: [Flu] Re: Germs in the School Room

>Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 00:01:14 -0800 (PST)

>

>Right you are. Chlorine is highly toxic. Just the merest whiff of full

>strength Clorox is enough to tell you all about it.

>

>cginca96 <cginca96@...> wrote: -

> > > Doubling the strength makes the solution too strong since it will

> > leave a decided residue of chlorine on a surface. One to ten, that's it.

>

>Too much inhaled chlorine bleach can also be fatal. Chlorine is after

>all capable of becoming a chemical weapon when used improperly...

> >

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

The bleach solution will last indefinitely as far as I know. Yes, I've heard something about adding a small amount of bleach to water to purify it. You might check at this survivalist site: http://www.survivalistssite.com .brian longworth <blongworth@...> wrote: If we can use 1 part bleach to ten parts water as a disinfectant against virus's, how long can it be stored in a sprayer or would i have to throw any unused away on a daily basis?I also read on a website you can use 16 drops of bleach in a gallon of drinking water if it is contaminated.Has anyone else read of this?Kind Regards>From: <rboylern@...>>Reply-Flu >To:

Flu >Subject: Re: [Flu] Re: Germs in the School Room>Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 00:01:14 -0800 (PST)>>Right you are. Chlorine is highly toxic. Just the merest whiff of full >strength Clorox is enough to tell you all about it.>>cginca96 <cginca96@...> wrote: -> > > Doubling the strength makes the solution too strong since it will> > leave a decided residue of chlorine on a surface. One to ten, that's it.>>Too much inhaled chlorine bleach can also be fatal. Chlorine is after>all capable of becoming a chemical weapon when used improperly...> >>>>>>>>

[Guest guest]

Thanks , i found the survivalist site very interesting

>From: <rboylern@...>

>Reply-Flu

>Flu

>Subject: Re: [Flu] Re: Germs in the School Room

>Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 14:47:00 -0800 (PST)

>

>The bleach solution will last indefinitely as far as I know. Yes, I've

>heard something about adding a small amount of bleach to water to purify

>it. You might check at this survivalist site:

>http://www.survivalistssite.com .

>

>brian longworth <blongworth@...> wrote: If we can use 1 part

>bleach to ten parts water as a disinfectant against

>virus's, how long can it be stored in a sprayer or would i have to throw

>any

>unused away on a daily basis?

>I also read on a website you can use 16 drops of bleach in a gallon of

>drinking water if it is contaminated.Has anyone else read of this?

>Kind Regards

>

>

>

> >From: <rboylern@...>

> >Reply-Flu

> >Flu

> >Subject: Re: [Flu] Re: Germs in the School Room

> >Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 00:01:14 -0800 (PST)

> >

> >Right you are. Chlorine is highly toxic. Just the merest whiff of full

> >strength Clorox is enough to tell you all about it.

> >

> >cginca96 <cginca96@...> wrote: -

> > > > Doubling the strength makes the solution too strong since it will

> > > leave a decided residue of chlorine on a surface. One to ten, that's

>it.

> >

> >Too much inhaled chlorine bleach can also be fatal. Chlorine is after

> >all capable of becoming a chemical weapon when used improperly...

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >