Isn't that what Trump was referring to when he mentioned injecting the antiseptic. Right idea, just the wrong method. Stay home, get drunk and stay drunk for the duration.
When I was a yoof I dated a girly-yoof from Jamaica. Double Jamaica, actually, she was born and raised in Montego Bay, and when I was dating here in the NYC area, she lived in Queens, in Jamaica. But I digress. She and some of her friends referred to "overproof rum," what we know as the 151 proof stuff. I was young and foolish and got throwing-up drunk on that stuff. So young and foolish, in fact, that I didn't learn the first time. Or even the second time.
When I was in the Navy, stationed at NAS Roosevelt Roads, in Puerto Rico, the Acey-Duecy Club, for first and second class petty officers, was up on a high hillside, overlooking the bay. The bartender there, Andy was his name (I remember these trivial details from sixty years ago, but I can't remember where I put my glasses when I take them off), any way, Andy was a great bartender. He had an act: he would mix a drink like a rum collins, and the glass would not be full, so he would look at it, shrug his shoulders, and top off the glass with 151 proof rum. I think the going price for these drinks was twenty-five or thirty cents when I was there, back in the late 1950s.
I am a retired Infection Control Practitioner and the BC disinfectant is useless against most bacteria and viruses. That is why we have not used it in hospitals in 20 years.
Never let the enemy pick the battle site.
Thanks for the information, bayouman. I wish I had known that before I bought the stuff from Amazon.
Do these wipes have any value, any use, at all?
One thing you need to be very aware of with wipes that small is contact time for sanitation. Disinfectants have a table for how long the chemical needs to be in contact with a germ to be effective. This time varies for different chemicals and different viruses and bacteria. A 2x2 wipe isn't going to have enough of anything on it to provide the necessary contact time for anything other than an incredibly small area.
"The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."
"Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."
"I did," said Ford, "it is."
"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't the people get rid of the lizards?"
"It honestly doesn't occur to them. They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates the government they want."
"You mean they actually vote for the lizards."
"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."
"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"
"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard, then the wrong lizard might get in."
Look again at what I wrote. I did not say that the wipes are 2x2, I said that the packets are approximately 2x2. Open the 2x2 packet, take the wipe out, unfold the wipe, and it is maybe 6x6 -- I don't have one open right now, I might have to edit that size later, but the wipe is certainly much bigger than 2x2.
Interesting to be told that the stuff is “useless” against bacteria.
A quick search turned up two relatively recent articles of interest:
“Benzalkonium chlorides (BAC) are biocides broadly used in disinfectant solutions.” 
“BACs are also among the most common active ingredients in disinfectants used in residential, industrial, agricultural, and clinical settings.” [July 2019]
Other articles discuss their overuse and their possible contribution to antibacterial resistance and the dangers of inappropriate clinical use causing irritations. I found nothing, however, saying they were ineffective against bacteria.
My own experience is as I mentioned above: I’ve been using benzalkonium chloride for decades as an antiseptic for minor injuries to the skin and have found it to be extremely effective at preventing infections even under adverse conditions when it wasn’t possible to keep wounds as clean as they should be. I understand that there may be other products that are safer, more effective, and generally more suitable for various purposes, but “useless”? It seems I am not the only one who would disagree.
“The most common reaction to a life-or-death situation is to do nothing.”
— Amanda Ripley, The Unthinkable: who survives when disaster strikes and why (New York: Three Rivers Press, 2008)
Not for disinfection, ok for cleaning
Never let the enemy pick the battle site.
Be very careful regarding the use of Benzalkonium Chloride (BAK).
It is used as a preservative in eye drops. For sure it seems safe for occasional use as intended; however there are potential risks to the eye.
From a study published in the National Library of Medicine:
“ The most frequently used preservative, benzalkonium chloride (BAK), has consistently demonstrated its toxic effects in laboratory, experimental, and clinical studies. As a quaternary ammonium, this compound has been shown to cause tear film instability, loss of goblet cells, conjunctival squamous metaplasia and apoptosis, disruption of the corneal epithelium barrier, and damage to deeper ocular tissues. The mechanisms causing these effects have not been fully elucidated, although the involvement of immunoinflammatory reactions with the release of proinflammatory cytokines, apoptosis, oxidative stress, as well as direct interactions with the lipid components of the tear film and cell membranes have been well established. Preservative-induced adverse effects are therefore far from being restricted to only allergic reactions, and side effects are often very difficult to identify because they mostly occur in a delayed or poorly specific manner. Care should therefore be taken to avoid the long-term use of preservatives, otherwise a less toxic alternative to BAK should be developed, as this weakly allergenic but highly toxic compound exerts dose- and time-dependent effects. On the basis of all these experimental and clinical reports, it would be advisable to use benzalkonium-free solutions whenever possible, especially in patients with the greatest exposure to high doses or prolonged treatments, in those suffering from preexisting or concomitant ocular surface diseases, and those experiencing side effects related to the ocular surface. Indeed, mild symptoms should not be underestimated, neglected, or denied, because they may very well be the apparent manifestations of more severe, potentially threatening subclinical reactions that may later cause major concerns.”
Another article of interest in Pharmacy Times
|Powered by Social Strata||Page 1 2|