You're welcome to use whatever you want to use, as is Don. But for you and
Don to say that their claim of being no-rinse means nothing, shows that you
are offering opinions and nothing based on chemistry or facts. Thus, my
comments remain valid. If you don't believe the manufacturers of the
products, why do you believe the manufacturer of bleach? The fact is that
these products are used by commercial food prep companies and thus, their
products have to be approved by the government who, in turn, test it to make
sure that it provides the sanitation levels necessary to meet their
standards.

-Danno

--
email me at s_danno at msn dot com
---------------------------------------------------------


"Negodki" wrote in message
...
There is a significant difference between the "chemistry" claimed by the
manufacturers of such products and reality. Chlorine bleach (actually
sodium
hypochlorite) is inexpensive, effective, and rinses out easily. Rinse
water
is cheap as well. If you are happy with "no-rinse" products, and are not
bothered by the measurable residuals left by those products, fine. I'd
rather rinse, and (since I'm rinsing anyway) use an inexpensive solution.

"danno" wrote in message
...
Don, that just shows your ignorance of the chemistry. No rinse
sanitizers
are designed to break down once there's little volume left. With
Iodophor,
I
believe the Iodine combines and dissipates as a gas. I can't say how
Star
San works but it works on the same theory (becoming innocuous after the
volume of solution has been removed).

Chlorine can cause some nasty off flavors with very low taste thresholds
in
brewing. I don't know if it takes the boiling temps of brewing to bring
them
out or if they will affect wines. I do know that you need higher
concentrations, longer contact times and a complete dry or rinse to
remove
the chlorine. Iodophor and StarSan don't require a rinse.

-Danno
--
email me at s_danno at msn dot com
---------------------------------------------------------


"Don S" wrote in message
om...
Ahh, a cynic.

Ahh, a believer. There's more than one in every graveyard.
If a product is called no-rinse and kills things, I'd rinse!

The beauty of chlorine is that it's actually recommended
for sterilizing water in the backwoods. The same goes for
iodine, so I'd trust products based on that as well.

Like a friend said, "I didn't get this cynical all by my
myself".

Don S

"danno" wrote:

You're welcome to use whatever you want to use, as is Don.

Thank you.

But for you and Don to say that their claim of being no-rinse means
nothing,
shows that you are offering opinions and nothing based on chemistry or
facts.

It appears that you have not read all the available data on Idophor, but
rather are offering _your_ opinion, perhaps based on your personal
experience, perhaps based on the inaccurate claims of various vendors of
these products. There _are_ residuals, even when solutions are made "to the
correct strength". Excess ingested iodine _can_ cause health problems, even
if the iodine cannot be tasted or smelled. When solutions are made stronger
than "recommended", the residuals can easily be detected. Rinsing "no-rinse"
products is good prudent practice. Even the manufacturers of the product
recommend rinsing in the small-print of their product literature!

If you don't believe the manufacturers of the
products, why do you believe the manufacturer of bleach?

I don't necessarily believe the claims of the manufacturer (is there only
one?) of bleach, nor the propoganda of its opponents, but rather the
plethora of empirical data available on the subject. Idophor is
"recommended" as a substitute for bleach in applications where corrosion is
a concern, not because of its alleged "no-rinse" characteristics.

The fact is that these products are used by commercial food prep companies
and thus, their products have to be approved by the government who, in
turn,
test it to make sure that it provides the sanitation levels necessary to
meet their
standards.

Chlorine bleach (sodium hypochlorite) is also used by "commercial food prep
companies", and it is also "approved by the government" which "test[s] it to
make sure that it provides the sanitation levels necessary to meet their
[arbitrary] standards". Various governments are also continually revising
their standards and test procedures, as well as their definition of what
levels of contaminants are "acceptable". Individuals and companies may
desire lower contamination levels than what current government standards
deem acceptable, and fortunately there are usually no laws precluding this
extra caution. The issue is not whether "no-rinse" sanitizers provide
effective sanitation levels, but whether (without rinsing) they leave
acceptable levels of residuals. There are many "commercial food prep
companies" who do rinse after using "no-rinse" products, because of this
concern.

You're welcome to use whatever you want to use, as is Don. But for you and
Don to say that their claim of being no-rinse means nothing, shows that you
are offering opinions


What I said was definitely my opinion. I would rinse any
no-rinse sanitizer. In my semi-old age (47) I've become
very cynical about all chemicals and most companies.

I found a box of DDT that my father had left in a shed.
The DDT was for use in gardens and the only warning on it
was not to use it within 24 hours of eating the produce.
Problems with chemicals are largely a known thing now but
I wondered at that time what are we using now that we
think is OK only because we haven't discovered some new
link to cancer or whatever.

There's no need to get up in arms on this topic. If your
paranoid - rinse - the water you rinse with has been tested.

Don

Why is it then that resterants have a three compartment sink, one for
washing, one for rinsing, and on for sanatizing? Right now i'm working
in a kitchen, and we sanatize everything that we can. Some notes on
different sanatizers, bleach works well, invest in a test strip and get
it to about 50 ppm. At that concentration you don't need any protection
from it. Hot water is another way to go, but this is also the most
dangorus sanatizer. Our kitchen uses water that temps at about 180 F.
One of the guys i work with got what looks like second degree burns from
it.

What is important to keep in mind with sanatizers is two things,
concentration, and contact time. If you are using sanatizers, know how
strong they are, and make sure they have the right amount of contact
time.

And as to soap, its only meant for cleaning, not sanatizing.


"Negodki" wrote in
:

"Brian Lundeen" wrote:
...The only good thing that can be said about bleach
is, it's cheap. Iodophor and Star San (my personal choice) are both
very effective sanitizers that are much less hassle to deal with.

Where is the "hassle" in using bleach? It's not that difficult to
avoid splashing it on clothing and carpeting, and it does a good job
--- inexpensively. It needs to be rinsed off well, but (IMO) so do
the ones that _say_ they don't.

OxyClean is a cleaner, not a sanitizer, and I'm told does a good job.
For winemaking purposes, it is probably sufficient. Brewers should
use an
actual
sanitizer.

Why? If the equipment is washed and rinsed thoroughly, no bacteria
should remain. I.e. there should be nothing to "sanitize". Properly
used, soap and water is just as effective as the more expensive
"anti-bacterial" "sanitizers".

"quakeholio" wrote:

Why is it then that resterants have a three compartment sink, one for
washing, one for rinsing, and on for sanatizing?

I presume you mean "restaurants" and "sanitizing"? The short answer is:
because the "health code" regulations are written by civil servants who
enjoy dictating behavior, and don't care whether or not empirical data
supports their fiats.

In my experience, most restaurants use commercial dishwashers, not three
compartment sinks. Where three compartment sinks are used (e.g. small
restaurants and bars), the wash and rinse water are usually changed very
infrequently, and the water temperature is so low as to not burn the (human)
dishwasher, a perfect environment for septic microbes. Therefore germs can
(and do) grow in the both the wash and the rinse. For economic and
"environmental" reasons, rinsing is not performed under a stream of hot
water, and thus the sterilizer rinse is needed to kill the germs deposited
by the rinse water itself. If you wash your winemaking equipment in such a
sink setup, rather than under a stream of hot water, you probably _do_ need
to use a "sanitizer" rinse.

In the case of commercial dishwashers, the wash and rinse waters are at a
high enough temperature to kill most (not all germs), but the rinse water is
recycled (again, for economic and "environmental" reasons), and becomes a
breeding ground for germs. Thus, a "sterilizer" in the rinse is required. If
the rinse water were not recycled, and the kitchen were reasonably sterile,
it would not be necessary.

Another reason "sterilizers" and "sanitizers" are "needed" is to (hopefully)
kill the residual microbes embedded in the microscopic crevices of porous
substances (such as stoneware dishes, and cutting boards). This should not
be a concern with standard-shaped glass bottles and carboys.

I believe that, in most cases, properly used soap and water is just as
effective as the more expensive "anti-bacterial" "sanitizers". I define
"proper usage" as frequent changes of wash and rinse water, and a final
rinse under a hot, pressurized stream (as provided by a standard hot water
tap).

... Hot water is another way to go, but this is also the most
dangorus sanatizer. Our kitchen uses water that temps at about 180 F.
One of the guys i work with got what looks like second degree burns from
it.

Hot water is a "dangerous sanitizer" because one does not normally use hot
enough (212º) water to kill all germs. Soapy water, however, makes organisms
"lose their grip", and then wash away in a pressurize rinse stream. If used
in sufficient strength to be effective, bleach must also be rinsed away, as
(IMO) must the various "no-rinse" sanitizers. But to declare hot water as
"the most dangerous" because a worker managed to burn himself, is no more
valid than to declare bleach "the most dangerous" because someone managed to
drink a bottle. It is the type of logic that motivates ambulance chasers and
politicians.

And as to soap, its only meant for cleaning, not sanatizing.

It's interesting to note that the manufacturer's data on several sanitizers
mentions that soap and water must be used first, because their sanitizers do
NOT reach into the various crevices in porous substances. If that is the
case, I submit that the germs the soap releases from the crevices can
probably be rinsed away, and alleviate the need for an expensive sanitizer.
The various studies on the subject, each promoting a different bias, make
interesting reading.

"Negodki" wrote in message
...

It's interesting to note that the manufacturer's data on several
sanitizers
mentions that soap and water must be used first, because their sanitizers
do
NOT reach into the various crevices in porous substances. If that is the
case, I submit that the germs the soap releases from the crevices can
probably be rinsed away, and alleviate the need for an expensive
sanitizer.
The various studies on the subject, each promoting a different bias, make
interesting reading.

I suspect your views on this topic might alter somewhat if you had
considerable money invested in an enterprise where bacterial spoilage could
result in product loss, a drop in sales, and possible lawsuits. In such
ventures, the word "probably" just isn't good enough.

Brian

"Brian Lundeen" wrote:

I suspect your views on this topic might alter somewhat if you had
considerable money invested in an enterprise where bacterial spoilage
could
result in product loss, a drop in sales, and possible lawsuits. In such
ventures, the word "probably" just isn't good enough.

My views wouldn't change [at least for those reasons], but my actions might.
Fear of lawsuits or persecution by various politically-motivated government
regulatory agencies in today's world makes many of us take "precautions" (to
protect our posteriors) that are otherwise unnecessary and/or unwise. But no
matter what precautions we take, an element of risk always remains. One must
weigh the cost against the result.

"Probably" and "good enough" (or their equivalents) are terms (or at least
concepts) used by the regulatory agencies, and the manufacturers of the
products you espouse. Lawyers, self-designated "consumer advocates, and
politicians try to convince gullible juries, consumers, and voters, that
anything less than unattainable perfection is unacceptable. Then they try to
sell us products purported to reduce those risks, which do nothing but feed
the next wave of advocates. It's a very profitable business for everyone
except the producer, consumer, and tax payer.

What is the bacterial count on a surface that has been washed with soap and
water and thoroughly rinsed? What is the bacterial count on a surface that
has been washed with bleach or Idophor? What is the bacterial count 10
seconds later? Or five minutes later, when you are more likely to be placing
food on the surface? What type of surface is it? In what sort of environment
is the surface?What type of bacteria are present? Can they be killed with
soap and water? [Most bacteria can!] Can they be killed with bleach or
Idophor? [Some bacteria can not!] Which is the most effective agent for
killing those type of bacteria? [Some bacteria are resistant or immune to
certain "sterilizers"]. Rinse a (clean) glass bottle under a stream of hot
water. Then examine it under a microscope.

Why do dairies, who once ran acid through their lines to cleanse them, now
use Idophor (followed by a thorough rinsing)? What will they use tomorrow,
when Idophor is declared a health hazard, or ineffective against the xyz
microbe? Why is bleach the preferred agent in meat-processing plants? Why is
sodium metabisulphite banned?

I'll let you enjoy your dining experience, and hope that food poisoning
dose not nock on your door. As a member of the restaurant community it
must be kept in mind that the consumer is very willing to punish a
business if other options are available.

As to the safety, EVERY sanitizing method, when used properly, is almost
completely harmless. It is the margin of tolerable error. Water at
180F. is dangerous. Bleach at proper concentration is much less
harmful, and more able to handle error.

But back to the subject of wine, you certainly can make wine with only
washing it off and rinsing it off. You could make it with only washing.
You can even just keep the equipment going without cleaning. Sanitizing
is one more safety for the consumer, and protecting the product.
Cleaning is something up to you. I'm just happy to know your thoughts
on cleaning, and would take great care when sampling anything that you
might offer.

Well, happy winemaking.

"Negodki" wrote in
:

"quakeholio" wrote:

Why is it then that resterants have a three compartment sink, one for
washing, one for rinsing, and on for sanatizing?

I presume you mean "restaurants" and "sanitizing"? The short answer
is: because the "health code" regulations are written by civil
servants who enjoy dictating behavior, and don't care whether or not
empirical data supports their fiats.

In my experience, most restaurants use commercial dishwashers, not
three compartment sinks. Where three compartment sinks are used (e.g.
small restaurants and bars), the wash and rinse water are usually
changed very infrequently, and the water temperature is so low as to
not burn the (human) dishwasher, a perfect environment for septic
microbes. Therefore germs can (and do) grow in the both the wash and
the rinse. For economic and "environmental" reasons, rinsing is not
performed under a stream of hot water, and thus the sterilizer rinse
is needed to kill the germs deposited by the rinse water itself. If
you wash your winemaking equipment in such a sink setup, rather than
under a stream of hot water, you probably _do_ need to use a
"sanitizer" rinse.

In the case of commercial dishwashers, the wash and rinse waters are
at a high enough temperature to kill most (not all germs), but the
rinse water is recycled (again, for economic and "environmental"
reasons), and becomes a breeding ground for germs. Thus, a
"sterilizer" in the rinse is required. If the rinse water were not
recycled, and the kitchen were reasonably sterile, it would not be
necessary.

Another reason "sterilizers" and "sanitizers" are "needed" is to
(hopefully) kill the residual microbes embedded in the microscopic
crevices of porous substances (such as stoneware dishes, and cutting
boards). This should not be a concern with standard-shaped glass
bottles and carboys.

I believe that, in most cases, properly used soap and water is just as
effective as the more expensive "anti-bacterial" "sanitizers". I
define "proper usage" as frequent changes of wash and rinse water, and
a final rinse under a hot, pressurized stream (as provided by a
standard hot water tap).

... Hot water is another way to go, but this is also the most
dangorus sanatizer. Our kitchen uses water that temps at about 180
F. One of the guys i work with got what looks like second degree
burns from it.

Hot water is a "dangerous sanitizer" because one does not normally use
hot enough (212º) water to kill all germs. Soapy water, however, makes
organisms "lose their grip", and then wash away in a pressurize rinse
stream. If used in sufficient strength to be effective, bleach must
also be rinsed away, as (IMO) must the various "no-rinse" sanitizers.
But to declare hot water as "the most dangerous" because a worker
managed to burn himself, is no more valid than to declare bleach "the
most dangerous" because someone managed to drink a bottle. It is the
type of logic that motivates ambulance chasers and politicians.

And as to soap, its only meant for cleaning, not sanatizing.

It's interesting to note that the manufacturer's data on several
sanitizers mentions that soap and water must be used first, because
their sanitizers do NOT reach into the various crevices in porous
substances. If that is the case, I submit that the germs the soap
releases from the crevices can probably be rinsed away, and alleviate
the need for an expensive sanitizer. The various studies on the
subject, each promoting a different bias, make interesting reading.

Perhaps it is worth noting here that no human pathogens can survive in wine.
lum

"quakeholio" wrote in message
. 77.201...
I'll let you enjoy your dining experience, and hope that food poisoning
dose not nock on your door. As a member of the restaurant community it
must be kept in mind that the consumer is very willing to punish a
business if other options are available.

As to the safety, EVERY sanitizing method, when used properly, is almost
completely harmless. It is the margin of tolerable error. Water at
180F. is dangerous. Bleach at proper concentration is much less
harmful, and more able to handle error.

But back to the subject of wine, you certainly can make wine with only
washing it off and rinsing it off. You could make it with only washing.
You can even just keep the equipment going without cleaning. Sanitizing
is one more safety for the consumer, and protecting the product.
Cleaning is something up to you. I'm just happy to know your thoughts
on cleaning, and would take great care when sampling anything that you
might offer.

Well, happy winemaking.

"Negodki" wrote in
:

"quakeholio" wrote:

Why is it then that resterants have a three compartment sink, one for
washing, one for rinsing, and on for sanatizing?

I presume you mean "restaurants" and "sanitizing"? The short answer
is: because the "health code" regulations are written by civil
servants who enjoy dictating behavior, and don't care whether or not
empirical data supports their fiats.

In my experience, most restaurants use commercial dishwashers, not
three compartment sinks. Where three compartment sinks are used (e.g.
small restaurants and bars), the wash and rinse water are usually
changed very infrequently, and the water temperature is so low as to
not burn the (human) dishwasher, a perfect environment for septic
microbes. Therefore germs can (and do) grow in the both the wash and
the rinse. For economic and "environmental" reasons, rinsing is not
performed under a stream of hot water, and thus the sterilizer rinse
is needed to kill the germs deposited by the rinse water itself. If
you wash your winemaking equipment in such a sink setup, rather than
under a stream of hot water, you probably _do_ need to use a
"sanitizer" rinse.

In the case of commercial dishwashers, the wash and rinse waters are
at a high enough temperature to kill most (not all germs), but the
rinse water is recycled (again, for economic and "environmental"
reasons), and becomes a breeding ground for germs. Thus, a
"sterilizer" in the rinse is required. If the rinse water were not
recycled, and the kitchen were reasonably sterile, it would not be
necessary.

Another reason "sterilizers" and "sanitizers" are "needed" is to
(hopefully) kill the residual microbes embedded in the microscopic
crevices of porous substances (such as stoneware dishes, and cutting
boards). This should not be a concern with standard-shaped glass
bottles and carboys.

I believe that, in most cases, properly used soap and water is just as
effective as the more expensive "anti-bacterial" "sanitizers". I
define "proper usage" as frequent changes of wash and rinse water, and
a final rinse under a hot, pressurized stream (as provided by a
standard hot water tap).

... Hot water is another way to go, but this is also the most
dangorus sanatizer. Our kitchen uses water that temps at about 180
F. One of the guys i work with got what looks like second degree
burns from it.

Hot water is a "dangerous sanitizer" because one does not normally use
hot enough (212º) water to kill all germs. Soapy water, however, makes
organisms "lose their grip", and then wash away in a pressurize rinse
stream. If used in sufficient strength to be effective, bleach must
also be rinsed away, as (IMO) must the various "no-rinse" sanitizers.
But to declare hot water as "the most dangerous" because a worker
managed to burn himself, is no more valid than to declare bleach "the
most dangerous" because someone managed to drink a bottle. It is the
type of logic that motivates ambulance chasers and politicians.

And as to soap, its only meant for cleaning, not sanatizing.

It's interesting to note that the manufacturer's data on several
sanitizers mentions that soap and water must be used first, because
their sanitizers do NOT reach into the various crevices in porous
substances. If that is the case, I submit that the germs the soap
releases from the crevices can probably be rinsed away, and alleviate
the need for an expensive sanitizer. The various studies on the
subject, each promoting a different bias, make interesting reading.

"Negodki" wrote in message
...

It has far less chance of "nocking" [sic] at my door than most other
places,

Little cheap shots like that don't contribute toward an atmosphere of
respectful disagreement in discussions.

Brian

"Brian Lundeen" wrote:

Little cheap shots like that don't contribute toward an atmosphere of
respectful disagreement in discussions.

It was far more expensive a shot than the post to which I was (and am)
replying.

Howdy,
I will refrain from the debate, but will outline my general method. If
I have say 6 gallon carboys to rack, I take one that I have "sanitized" by
use of normally hot water and sulphite solution,(yes I know hot water is
dangerous) or I use Steramine tablets w/ water.
I take this first carboy and use it to rack into first. After the first
carboy is empty I mearly rinse it out, and then fill it from the next carboy
in line and then repeat as needed. Logically if there isn't an infection in
the carboy I am emptying, then why the need for further cleaning? I have
made quite a few hundred gallons of wine this way without ill effect. HTH
John Dixon