

Device spells doom for superbugs  - edw519
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8379604.stm

======
xel02
I think this is a great breakthrough for hospitals. But for consumers there
should be a bit more caution.

Parents always think that they should keep their children super clean etc. but
the natural development of the immune system requires some exposure to
pathogens.

For example the hygiene hypothesis:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hygiene_hypothesis>

Superbugs like MRSA are predominantly found at hospitals causing nosicomial
infections as well as in populations with bad hygiene like the homeless. This
device is probably best used in those areas.

In terms of frequent use by the general population I think we need to be a bit
careful. That said I would probably get one just to say I've got a super
plasma germ killer.

------
JCThoughtscream
Guh. This only makes me more concerned about future superbugs, not less. But
perhaps I'm overly paranoid - how thorough is the killrate, and is it possible
for bacteria to develop immunity to even this cocktail?

------
peoplerock
"The team says that an exposure to the plasma of only about 12 seconds reduces
the incidence of bacteria, viruses, and fungi on hands by a factor of a
million - a number that stands in sharp contrast to the several minutes
hospital staff can take to wash using traditional soap and water."

And what of those bacteria/viruses that _do_ survive. Don't we run the risk of
creating "super bugs on steroids" - letting only the _really_ fittest survive?

------
Sandman
I wonder if this invention could be used to create a sort of a 'plasma
shower', something similar to a sonic shower from Star Trek. Think of it - you
would just have to stand in it for a couple of minutes, doing nothing at all,
and presto! You're cleaner than you would have been had you taken a regular
shower.

~~~
streety
A shower does more than just kill micro-organisms. It might be useful as an
extra step after a shower but there is nothing to suggest it would be
effective at cleaning off the dirt accumulated during a day.

------
ars
It would be great if you could put one in every patient room, and the doctor
would put his hands inside for 10 seconds. Much easier on the skin than the
alcohol usually used.

~~~
mhb
It would be nice if they could wash their hands using the current technology,
which is wildly effective. Will this new device be more socially acceptable or
address whatever the reason is that they don't currently adopt the simple,
well-established and lifesaving procedure of hand washing?

See: <http://www.myshelf.com/haveyouheard/07/washinghands.htm>

~~~
Luc
That article pretty much concludes that hand-washing doesn't work, not only of
because of practical factors (hospital staff cannot possible stick to the
regimen of hand-washing that would be required), but also because even the
strictest cleaning leaves enough bacteria or viruses on the hands for
transmission to happen.

~~~
mhb
My impression, from the article, was that if the strict washing procedure was
followed, then hand washing was effective. Anyway, it is clear from the
article that using alcohol gel works and is much more convenient and yet
compliance is still not great.

------
troymc
A hot-enough campfire will also create plasma. I wonder if campfire plasma
kills bacteria and viruses on people sitting around it.

------
pronoiac
Oh no! Who will defend us from Super Elmer Fudd?

