<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Hand Sanitizer that Kills 99.9% Germs Without Toxic Synthetic Chemicals</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.safbaby.com/hand-sanitizer-that-kills-999-germs-without-toxic-synthetic-chemicals/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.safbaby.com/hand-sanitizer-that-kills-999-germs-without-toxic-synthetic-chemicals</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2012 04:55:50 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: safbaby</title>
		<link>http://www.safbaby.com/hand-sanitizer-that-kills-999-germs-without-toxic-synthetic-chemicals/comment-page-1#comment-1722</link>
		<dc:creator>safbaby</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Apr 2009 05:33:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.safbaby.com/?p=1056#comment-1722</guid>
		<description>If you read our article we state that this is a safe alternative to other sanitizers and why.

We also state that our first choice is soap and water, when there is none available, this is the safest alternative we have found.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If you read our article we state that this is a safe alternative to other sanitizers and why.</p>
<p>We also state that our first choice is soap and water, when there is none available, this is the safest alternative we have found.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Handwashing researcher</title>
		<link>http://www.safbaby.com/hand-sanitizer-that-kills-999-germs-without-toxic-synthetic-chemicals/comment-page-1#comment-1716</link>
		<dc:creator>Handwashing researcher</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Apr 2009 15:13:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.safbaby.com/?p=1056#comment-1716</guid>
		<description>Ah it says 99.99% my bad, but my argument still holds. That is a log 5 reduction.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ah it says 99.99% my bad, but my argument still holds. That is a log 5 reduction.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Handwashing researcher</title>
		<link>http://www.safbaby.com/hand-sanitizer-that-kills-999-germs-without-toxic-synthetic-chemicals/comment-page-1#comment-1715</link>
		<dc:creator>Handwashing researcher</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Apr 2009 15:10:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.safbaby.com/?p=1056#comment-1715</guid>
		<description>This is something that has been bothering me about cleaning products. The claim that a product kills 99.9% of germs is publicly claiming its poor cleaning potential. Bacterial reduction is measured in log reductions of colony forming units (cfu). For those of you who do not know, a log reduction is the reduction by a power of ten. So if 10,000 cfu is reduced to 10 cfu then there is a 1,000 (10^4 reduction) or a log 4 reduction.

Usually rendering a bacteria harmless, while depending on the bacteria, is usually as low as 0.00001 cfu (10^5 reduction). So in a sample of 10,000 cfu it would require a log 10 reduction to render it harmless (10^10 reduction). 

Let me break down what that means for cleaning products that claim 99.9% efficacy. 99.9% is also .999 which is approximately 0.0001 or a log 4 reduction (10^4 reduction). Say there is a 10,000 cfu colony and the soap only reduces it by 99.9% (10 cfu) then there is still 1,000,000 times more bacteria present than it would be if it were rendered harmless. 

These are very rough numbers, but look up some studies on bacterial reduction and you will see that I am not blowing hot air. 99.9% is a truly pathetic attempt to fool the public into &quot;cleanly&quot; behavior.

Just wash your hands with soap and water, its literally a million times more effective than sanitizers.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is something that has been bothering me about cleaning products. The claim that a product kills 99.9% of germs is publicly claiming its poor cleaning potential. Bacterial reduction is measured in log reductions of colony forming units (cfu). For those of you who do not know, a log reduction is the reduction by a power of ten. So if 10,000 cfu is reduced to 10 cfu then there is a 1,000 (10^4 reduction) or a log 4 reduction.</p>
<p>Usually rendering a bacteria harmless, while depending on the bacteria, is usually as low as 0.00001 cfu (10^5 reduction). So in a sample of 10,000 cfu it would require a log 10 reduction to render it harmless (10^10 reduction). </p>
<p>Let me break down what that means for cleaning products that claim 99.9% efficacy. 99.9% is also .999 which is approximately 0.0001 or a log 4 reduction (10^4 reduction). Say there is a 10,000 cfu colony and the soap only reduces it by 99.9% (10 cfu) then there is still 1,000,000 times more bacteria present than it would be if it were rendered harmless. </p>
<p>These are very rough numbers, but look up some studies on bacterial reduction and you will see that I am not blowing hot air. 99.9% is a truly pathetic attempt to fool the public into &#8220;cleanly&#8221; behavior.</p>
<p>Just wash your hands with soap and water, its literally a million times more effective than sanitizers.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

