4 ms·

Device spells doom for superbugs

41 points by edw519 17y ago

ars 17y ago
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 17y ago
  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 http://www.myshelf.com/haveyouheard/07/washinghands.htm
  - Luc 17y ago
    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 17y ago
      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.
    - teeja 17y ago
      Depends on what hands are washed with. Semmelweis used what we call chlorine bleach, Lister carbolic acid (dangerous stuff). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignac_Semmelweis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignac_Semmelweis Semmelweis's strategy reduced childbed fever in his ward by 90%. (Then he got all pompous about it and was ignored ... unlike Lister.) Since busy people can't wash all the time, a device like the one in the article would make antisepsis a lot harder to resist.
  - tomjen2 17y ago
    Thank you, that was a very interesting article but it leaves me with one question - why aren't the doctors wearing gloves that cover the area that they are expected to wash? Compared to their hands the gloves are trivial to sterilize, cheap to purchase and can be removed in just a few seconds making it trivial to change them between each patient. Finally no medical personnel would ever dream of not changing gloves in between patients.
- Calamitous 17y ago
  Even better, I could have them installed in my pockets so I could clean my hands all the time. I have a (usually sticky) 2-year-old. This would be awesome.
pronoiac 17y ago
Oh no! Who will defend us from Super Elmer Fudd?
tomjen2 17y ago
This is the kind of things that we need if we are to fix medical technology: new and cheaper machines that work better than the previous ones, coupled with mass production adopted from industry.
xel02 17y ago
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 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.
troymc 17y ago
A hot-enough campfire will also create plasma. I wonder if campfire plasma kills bacteria and viruses on people sitting around it.
JCThoughtscream 17y ago
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?
Sandman 17y ago
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 17y ago
  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.
peoplerock 17y ago
"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?

41 points by edw519 17y ago

ars 17y ago

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 17y ago
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 http://www.myshelf.com/haveyouheard/07/washinghands.htm
- Luc 17y ago
  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 17y ago
    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.
  - teeja 17y ago
    Depends on what hands are washed with. Semmelweis used what we call chlorine bleach, Lister carbolic acid (dangerous stuff). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignac_Semmelweis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignac_Semmelweis Semmelweis's strategy reduced childbed fever in his ward by 90%. (Then he got all pompous about it and was ignored ... unlike Lister.) Since busy people can't wash all the time, a device like the one in the article would make antisepsis a lot harder to resist.
- tomjen2 17y ago
  Thank you, that was a very interesting article but it leaves me with one question - why aren't the doctors wearing gloves that cover the area that they are expected to wash? Compared to their hands the gloves are trivial to sterilize, cheap to purchase and can be removed in just a few seconds making it trivial to change them between each patient. Finally no medical personnel would ever dream of not changing gloves in between patients.
Calamitous 17y ago
Even better, I could have them installed in my pockets so I could clean my hands all the time. I have a (usually sticky) 2-year-old. This would be awesome.

pronoiac 17y ago

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

tomjen2 17y ago

This is the kind of things that we need if we are to fix medical technology: new and cheaper machines that work better than the previous ones, coupled with mass production adopted from industry.

xel02 17y ago

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 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.

troymc 17y ago

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

JCThoughtscream 17y ago

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?

Sandman 17y ago

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 17y ago
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.

peoplerock 17y ago

"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?