Talk:Disinfectant/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1

If I explain in detail why the current reversion is incorrect, would kind, good will fellow editors of the Wiki community not drag me into editor wars and cry wolf again and again? I see that misleading information was again inserted on the basis of questionable evidence. Who cares ? Thank you and happy editing :-) - irismeister 17:20, 2004 Feb 21 (UTC)

Instead of making smarmy comments why didn't you explain in the first place ? theresa knott 17:32, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

ditor probably did not read in full:-)

  • If the packager pours food grade H2O2 out of one of those drums into a smaller container, it is no longer a "food grade" unless that smaller container is also tested for the FDA compliance.

TRANSLATION AND EXPLANATION

All garden-variety supply of H2O2, including that delivered in the canonical 3% drum is downgraded from "food grade" the very moment one touches it. Therefore I maintain (and I cannot possible overstress my view and track record) that correct information in matters of chemicals-for-medical-and-food-industry-use is both essential and needs to be double checked without going into edit wars and crying wolf. For those who give me anything but the benefit of doubt, I am not into criticizing persons, I am into quality control of medical information for everybody to advance in knowledge! Thank you and happy editing :-)


What are you going on about ? I said that it is used to disinfect packaging. Here is another reference Hydrogen Peroxide. Hydrogen peroxide as a 3% aqueous solution has long been used as an antiseptic. For example, hydrogen peroxide potentiated by ultraviolet light has been used in the production-line sterilization of commodity items such as cartons for food products. " taken from http://www.devicelink.com/mpb/archive/98/09/002.html theresa knott 17:42, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Reading the web page referred to (Food grade vs. Technical grade Hydrogen Peroxide), I am unclear of the relevance of the above quote ("If the packager pours food grade...") to the discussion at hand. This quote simply refers to the fact that the container within which "food grade" hydrogen peroxide (i.e. hydrogen peroxide approved for the use of disinfecting food storage items) is stored must have received FDA approval in the United States.
This has no relevance to the issue of whether or not hydrogen peroxide is used as a disinfectant. It clearly is, both for the disinfection of food storage containers, and for use in water systems of hotels, schools, swimming pools, etc (e.g. [1]). Whether this is a primary use of hydrogen peroxide or not is irrelevant. - MykReeve 17:49, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I agree. I think that Irismeister didn't take the time to read the web page through properly, or didn't understand what he was reading. A word of advice irismeister - please check references carefully. Read them through several times before you cut and paste them. theresa knott 17:53, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)


I STRONGLY disagree !!!! OK, if some of my distinguished fellow medical doctors here want to always be right despite the relevant evidence, please drop it :-) It's not mine over yours, it's not POV or opinion, folks, it's about making Wiki great and disinfectants WORK WHERE THEY SHOULD, not where WE WANT THEM TO BE USED - WHICH MIGHT BRING TERRIBLE SUFFERING and hard to treat BURNS. Do you know or can you only represent how many acute H2O2 burnings I treated during my residency and emergency years because of DISINFORMATION and MISREPRESENTATION of CONCENTRATION and USE WITH CARE tags on bottles ? Anyway, who cares ? It seems that it doesn't matter that someone might suffer if YOU think that what YOU read is irrelevant. So please, by all means, do not revert if you THINK so. Just let everybody believe we use H2O2 to disinfect food packages and forget about cleaning dirty rooms in all those septic hospitals :-) . Hope you'll sleep better tonight as a non-follower of Hippocrates if someone reads this stub and poors H2O2 over food packages only to be found tomorrow in emergency services. HOPE THIS HELPS BUT I BRING THIS IN FRONT OF THE WIKI COMMUNITY ON THE SPOT !!!!!

Also it took less than a few minutes for you, MykReeve to read and comment both my warning and the reference. I am mystified. Should anyone give me such benefit of doubt and expression of Wiki love on the iridology page, we'd spare the reader 274 KB worth of noise over the signal there. Sincerest bravo and wikilove :-) Happy editing :O)
This is not an advice page on how you should use disinfectants. Wikipedia does not give that sort of advice. Please take to to read the disclaimers link at the bottom of every page. This page gives info on how disinfectants are used. The fact of the matter is, that hydrogen peroxide is used to disinfect food packaging. No amout of posturing on your part will change that. theresa knott 18:13, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Posturing ? Let the community decide !!!!! - irismeister 18:17, 2004 Feb 21 (UTC)


Irismeister, I don't think anyone was advocating that hydrogen peroxide should be used by members of the public to disinfect food storage containers, nor do I feel that that is either what the website referred to above or Theresa's amendment to the article suggested. Hydrogen peroxide is used commercially for the disinfection of food storage containers. I admit that Theresa's original statement was ambiguous, as it did not specify that this was a commercial application of hydrogen peroxide, but I don't feel that this warranted such extreme agitation on your part.
This minor disagreement could have been resolved much more easily by simple statement of your concerns, without use of capitalisation, invocation of Hippocrates, bold text or multiple exclamation marks.
Nevertheless, I agree that the current text, "used mainly in hospitals", reduces any ambiguity and gives a better reflection of hydrogen peroxide's more common usage as a disinfectant. - MykReeve 19:04, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Disclaimer ? If Wiki does not give medical advice, it surely isn't into DISINFORMATION either. Nor do the two sites quoted above qualify as pieces of direct, independent or special purpose information of heavy weight as a REPLACEMENT OF JUDGEMENT. They were produced on an emergency basis in the spurious belief that they might protect "reputations" and increase vanity addictive habits of one of the editors on this page. But then again, who cares ? 25 + medical experience vs indiscriminate compulsive behavior including cut-and-paste from the web, without properly reading, let alone REPRESENTING knowledge do NEVER a balanced POV make. Competence has a *very poor press these days and people reading Wiki have to think twice about what they read as a consequence. We all lose in the process - from time and love to quality and bandwidth. Prove me wrong ! Happy editing, with Wikilove - irismeister 18:47, 2004 Feb 21 (UTC) :O )


I've reinserted what irismeister cut along with the word industry to make it clear it's used commercially. theresa knott 19:09, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)


In an attempt to maintain good information I reverted the

  • H2O2 to Used mainly in hospitals - which was NOT immediately CENSORED - only maintained with a small addition which is AFAIK correct

Is my hope to avoid an edit war here only wishful thinking ? I can only heartily salute the previous editor's NOT censoring information as an admission of error - something very difficult to achieve, in truth, which only rejoices me and increases Wikilove. Bravo ! Happy editing : O ) irismeister 19:13, 2004 Feb 21 (UTC)

Troll as much as you like. What do I care. theresa knott 19:19, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)


Thank you! Trolls : supernatural creatures of Scandinavian folklore, variously portrayed as a friendly or mischievous dwarfs or giants, living in caves, in the hills, or under bridges. ETYMOLOGY: Old Norse. Does not apply, because they teach nobody nothing. Trolls do NOT help with grammar, typos, wikifification and - bravo! Small note: It's COLLOIDAL silver, and it may cause allergies - like everything. But otherwise a welcome addition. Also note:

  • According to Water and Science Technology, Volume 31 5-6, a 1:1000 solution of colloidal silver to H2O2 increased the efficacy of colloidal silver by up to 100 times under some circumstances (which remain unknown) against bacteria;
  • Catsakis, L. H. and V. I. Sulica. 1978. Allergy to silver. Oral Surg. 46: 371-375.
  • Please remember that the usual 35% H2O2 solution is HIGHLY caustic and should be stored in a safe freezer, clearly labeled and out of the reach of children.

Congratulations, and wikilove : O ) Happy editing - irismeister 22:42, 2004 Feb 21 (UTC)

References to the caustic nature of concentrated solutions of H2O2 belong in hydrogen peroxide. Children are unlikely to get hold of it in a food packaging manufacting plant. Of course many of the disinfectants are toxic, Breathing in chlorine for example is unlikely to do you much good. Incidentally where do you get the info that it is highly caustic ? and why stored in a freezer ? theresa knott 22:48, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)


Yeah, unlikely but better safe than sorry. While many disinfectants are toxic, since H2O2 is really the most frequent - manipulations mandate special caution. chlorine is irritant, of course, but as we all know from the swimming pools, indeed quite common. Causticity refers to NaOH, not H2O2 in this context. Lowering temperatures while we attempt to keep the mother solution as long as possible (even at those higher on purpose concentrations, the [O] yielding activity decays drastically with time and temperature). Happy editing - irismeister 21:01, 2004 Feb 22 (UTC)

What are you talking about ? H202 is not the most common disinfectant. What has sodium hydroxide got to do with 35% H2O2 ? theresa knott 21:06, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

OK - I now have three minutes for you, Theresa. If H2O2 is not the most common disinfectant, than perhaps you don't use disinfectants yourself. France has even a proper name for H2O2 - La Javel. NaOH and H2O2 both have a lot to do IMNSHO with BURNS if used improperly. Which is why I am following you as I explained already, to try to prevent some - a clever move given your confusion between 1:4 and 1:5 - just enough to spell the difference between irritation and burns. What am I talking about is "You can make your household cleaner and safer just by substituting hydrogen peroxide for those caustic chemicals you are currently using". What am i talking about is also If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it.

You don't understand from the first moment, not because I am writing more carefully than you, as a native speaker of several Romance, Slavic and Germanic languages, but - from what I know from our hundreds of exchanges in three months - because you have another priority. If you fix your attitudes first, if you answer my peace treaty, then we'll be back here soon with even more details if you still want them. Please understand that learning means soemting else than cutting and pasting, plus crying loud about what you did, so that Dr Dan Jipa MD comes after you and cleans the mess, does the spelling, sorts things out and all - all in waiting for your next call to ban me and your added insults over this injury. Learning, Theresa, needs an open heart, an open mind, structure and a privileged channel of communication - all of which are better served by not SHOUTING as you did,like, you know in STOP editing the iridology page, or teaching me lessons.

Without understanding the fact that structure and experience and good will make the difference, we have to go again through all of these. Here they are:

We are only talking as deaf people who can't move hands :-)

Theresa, there are two issues remaining between you and me:

  • you do not show respect, although you are willing to learn. Why do you NEVER admit you are terribly wrong calling me a bully, a quack and a nutcase, why don't you apologize, and why don't you show consideration for my title, my profession, my generous offer to spend time to teach you, my competence and my age ? It's as simple as twenty years and two doctorates between us. These differences are a fact, not a POV. When you'll be as old as me, you will understand the irretrievable loss of time spent in discussions such as this one, when one side simply cannot understand the other. I don't stop making efforts to understand you and I find a terribly obstinate person. That's not bad per se, but needs a better direction - meaning a more generous, open, cause than proving me a quack and asking Lord Kenneth to insult me on his talk page.
  • you only address what you want to address. You edited less pages in one year than I did in three months. You feign to defend newbies while you greeted me with nutcase, lier and quack while a newbie. You cry wolf while you insert quote-bullshit-end quote and I will not allow you and you know what else. Seeing that this does not discourage me, you go again cry wolf after buddies to ban me, and want to teach me lessons. You offer epithets and you do not aceept them yourself. If you think this is not double standard, then what is?

You see I offer peace, so why do you ignore it ? I am sick and tired of having to explain what you are not willing to learn, thinking you are superior. I take your continuing insults seriously. 24 hours is all I am willing to wait for an excuse in writing, followed by a peace treaty and living happily thereafter. I will go back to the conflict page, where you misinserted your answer, which was no answer in the first place. Please go back there, do not avoid or pretend to avoid my peace treaty, point by point, and then I'll explain to you this page too. Please do not miss this chance too.

Happy editing - irismeister 21:57, 2004 Feb 22 (UTC)

Irismeister -you can't win an argument by putting words into you opponents mouth then saying those words are wrong. I never said anything about sodium hydroxide being used in food containers. I know full well that NaOH causes burns in strong concentrations. But the thing is - we are not talking about NaOH we are talking about H2O2. Do you understand that these are different chemicals ? Do you actually understand chemistry mr MD ? theresa knott 22:54, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

There is no argument, and correct medical information is not negociable. What you wrote above References to the caustic nature of concentrated solutions of H2O2 belong in hydrogen peroxide is wrong. If you are not talking about NaOH than why do you mention caustic ? Caustic is an attribute of NaOH, not of H2O2. Children are VERY likely to see 35% H2O2 in HOUSEHOLDS since the site you keep quoting from keeps selling exactly THAT 35%. Why do you pretend to ignore the peace treaty? Why don't you answer my points on peace on the conflict page ? Furthermore, and finally, please note If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it. It's written on every page you contribute to, under the Show preview button. Happy editing :-) Sincerely - irismeister 23:09, 2004 Feb 22 (UTC)

You are the person who said H2O2 was caustic not me. You are the person who brought up NaOH not me. The site I qouted once was to demonstrate that H2o2 is used to disinfect food cartons. I am not advocating that anyone should use a particular disinfectant at home. What peoace treaty are you talking about ? As for conflicts between users, there can be no peace until you agree to stop inserting spam on iridology. I'm not going to argue with you anymore over H2O2. it's pointless arguing with you when you will not accept that you were wrong despite evidence proving that fact. theresa knott 23:19, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You can't read what you wrote ? I put it under bold characters. Use FIND and REPLACE and you'll find that you just wrote References to the caustic nature of concentrated solutions of H2O2 belong in hydrogen peroxide. Anyway, What peoace treaty (sic) is on the conflict page, where I kindly ask to stop calling me a lier or face legal consequences for libel in less than 24 hours. Nobody calls a doctor a lier in public without answering about it in a court of law. I cannot physically "spam" an article which is protected. Your obsession in proving others wrong blinds your critical judgement, and as you see, does not brings you service. I frankly invite you to cool down, think twice, apologize, and we'll live happily everafter. Sincerely, - irismeister 23:27, 2004 Feb 22 (UTC)