RE: why open flame is not a way to sterilize a needle

[Guest guest]

--- marcos <ishk18 wrote:

 

 

>I really doubt you(or anyone) will find bacteria,

virus or

WHATEVER alive on a needle after it has been heated

red-hot over

a flame.

That's better than autoclave(not to mention pee!).<

 

Actually when a study was done of the effect of Open

Flame Re; Sterilization the results showed that yes it

killed germs on the intended surface but that it

created a thin bed ofg carbon which was a focus for

infection. Of course you could wipe the carbon off and

clean with ETOH ....

And in traditional CM they did use the urine of a boy

under 1 year of age because it is sterile and has

healing effect for certain eye conditions.

 

Doc

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

--- Doc <Doc escreveu:

 

 

--- marcos <ishk18 wrote:

 

 

>I really doubt you(or anyone) will find bacteria,

virus or

WHATEVER alive on a needle after it has been heated

red-hot over

a flame.

That's better than autoclave(not to mention pee!).<

 

>Actually when a study was done of the effect of Open

Flame Re; Sterilization the results showed that yes it

killed germs on the intended surface but that it

created a thin bed ofg carbon which was a focus for

infection. Of course you could wipe the carbon off and

clean with ETOH ....

And in traditional CM they did use the urine of a boy

under 1 year of age because it is sterile and has

healing effect for certain eye conditions.

 

>Doc

 

Well, that IS a contribution to this discussion, thank's Doc, I

just answered Matt on this, and, if there is ever the NEED(no

other way to get or sterilise needles) to use 'traditional'

methods, I will remember to clean the carbon...;-)

 

Marcos

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_____

Acesso Grátis - Internet rápida e grátis. Instale o discador agora!

http://br.acesso./