hi there - i'm a lurker, but enjoy readind posts. most of my meals are
made with chicken, vegetables, soups, sauces etc. i cook a few times a
week and do batch cooking, so always have a meal to grab for work. (i
get compliments from co-workers on meals, even though i just follow
recipes, or am creative on my own with spices).

since i cook with raw chicken often, what is a good easy to make
kitchen santizer? i've used a small amount of bleach/water, i've used
ammonia/water/vinegar, but want the best for getting rid of any
possible bacteria on countertops.

is there anything you use that you make? (as opposed to store bought
cleaners with their many promises.

thanks in advance, oh and dinner tonite (and for my lunches this week):
chicken cordon blue: marinated in rasberry pecan vinagrette, spiced
and blue cheese wrapped in bacon, grilled with some mushrooms and
onions (got off foodtv)

i'm lucky that if i make something good i don't mind eating it for
lunch 3-4 days in a row!

thanks again - james...

james wrote:
> [snip]
> since i cook with raw chicken often, what is a good easy to make
> kitchen santizer? i've used a small amount of bleach/water, i've
> used ammonia/water/vinegar, but want the best for getting rid of any
> possible bacteria on countertops. [snip]
>
Others will probably chime in with good formulas for detergent and
bleach, but I would suggest that timeliness is your first and best
defense against cross contamination. As soon as you have finished
using your knife on chicken, wash it and put it away. Use a separate
cutting board for chicken, whether poly or wood, and as soon as you
have moved the chicken off it, wash it. If you can't, because you're
tending to the chicken in the skillet, say, at least plop the board
into the sink under running water. Then at the first opportunity, wash
it. Letting it sit around is, imho, riskier than using the wrong kind
of soap to wash it.

I usually just use dish detergent, but I don't know of any reason not
to fortify it with a little chlorine bleach. -aem

"aem" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> james wrote:
> > [snip]
> > since i cook with raw chicken often, what is a good easy to make
> > kitchen santizer? i've used a small amount of bleach/water, i've
> > used ammonia/water/vinegar, but want the best for getting rid of any
> > possible bacteria on countertops. [snip]
> >
> Others will probably chime in with good formulas for detergent and
> bleach, but I would suggest that timeliness is your first and best
> defense against cross contamination. As soon as you have finished
> using your knife on chicken, wash it and put it away. Use a separate
> cutting board for chicken, whether poly or wood, and as soon as you
> have moved the chicken off it, wash it. If you can't, because you're
> tending to the chicken in the skillet, say, at least plop the board
> into the sink under running water. Then at the first opportunity, wash
> it. Letting it sit around is, imho, riskier than using the wrong kind
> of soap to wash it.
>
> I usually just use dish detergent, but I don't know of any reason not
> to fortify it with a little chlorine bleach. -aem
>
it is dangerous to add bleach to anything else, please don't do it.
ammonia//vinegar wont work because the two neutralize each other.
There are many proprietary brands of anti-bacterial sprays for surfaces in
the kitchen, but do not mix them.
cheers
Wazza

"aem" > wrote in message

> timeliness is your first and best defense against cross
> contamination. As soon as you have finished using your knife
> on chicken, wash it and put it away. Use a separate cutting
> board for chicken, whether poly or wood, and as soon as you
> have moved the chicken off it, wash it. If you can't, because
> you're tending to the chicken in the skillet, say, at least
> plop the board into the sink under running water.

In my kitchen, setting a chicken-contaminated cutting board
into the sink and running water onto it would cause bacteria
to splash all over the place (e.g. onto at least the silverware
holder in the dish drainer).

My solution is to cut up chicken on the piece of butcher
paper the chicken came from the store in, the put the
butcher paper directly in the garbage.

Steve

james wrote:

> since i cook with raw chicken often, what is a good easy to make
> kitchen santizer? i've used a small amount of bleach/water, i've used
> ammonia/water/vinegar, but want the best for getting rid of any
> possible bacteria on countertops.
>
> is there anything you use that you make? (as opposed to store bought
> cleaners with their many promises.

A quick spray with white vinegar and hydrogen peroxide from different
bottles - don't mix them in advance. Let it sit for a few moments and
wipe up. Extremely effective, no bad smells, no bad stuff to "improve"
the flavors of foods. Cheap. Usable for cutting boards (made of any
material) and anything else in the kitchen except, maybe, your paper
towels. Oh, and cats which will claw your leg for amusement after you
wet them.

Pastorio

I always get a sinkful of soapy, bleachy water before I handle any of
the chicken. Then as I use utensils etc. I put them into the water. It
also helps to sanitize my dish cloth and sponges. And you always have a
cloth to wipe the counter around your work area. Easy and cheaper than
buying stuff at the store....Sharon

aem wrote:
>
> james wrote:
> > [snip]
> > since i cook with raw chicken often, what is a good easy to make
> > kitchen santizer? i've used a small amount of bleach/water, i've
> > used ammonia/water/vinegar, but want the best for getting rid of any
> > possible bacteria on countertops. [snip]
> >
> Others will probably chime in with good formulas for detergent and
> bleach, but I would suggest that timeliness is your first and best
> defense against cross contamination. As soon as you have finished
> using your knife on chicken, wash it and put it away. Use a separate
> cutting board for chicken, whether poly or wood, and as soon as you
> have moved the chicken off it, wash it. If you can't, because you're
> tending to the chicken in the skillet, say, at least plop the board
> into the sink under running water. Then at the first opportunity, wash
> it. Letting it sit around is, imho, riskier than using the wrong kind
> of soap to wash it.
>
> I usually just use dish detergent, but I don't know of any reason not
> to fortify it with a little chlorine bleach. -aem

"james" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> hi there - i'm a lurker, but enjoy readind posts. most of my meals are
> made with chicken, vegetables, soups, sauces etc. i cook a few times a
> week and do batch cooking, so always have a meal to grab for work. (i
> get compliments from co-workers on meals, even though i just follow
> recipes, or am creative on my own with spices).
>
> since i cook with raw chicken often, what is a good easy to make
> kitchen santizer? i've used a small amount of bleach/water, i've used
> ammonia/water/vinegar, but want the best for getting rid of any
> possible bacteria on countertops.
>
> is there anything you use that you make? (as opposed to store bought
> cleaners with their many promises.

There are several anti-bacterial agents, but only a couple that can kill
most harmful bacteria.

Note that humans tolerate small amounts of some otherwise nasty bacteria.
The problem occurs when you ingest more than that "small" for that bacteria,
so the approach is to minimize the amount ingested as much as practical.

The first thing to do in the big picure is to use fresh well-refrigerated
product taken straight from a refrigerator meat drawer, a drawer kept just
above freezing. Then bacteria have little chance to grow in the cold food
or spread in the refrigerator.

Second, minimize contamination of other areas by separating meat and poultry
preparation from ready-to-eat food preparation (fruit, vegetable, cheese,
etc.). Then any bacteria in poultry will not cross-contaminate equipment and
surfaces and get into other uncooked-when-served foods.
Use one board exclusively for meat and poultry. Rinse immediately after
use deep in the sink and avoid splashing. Avoid leaving a non-disinfected
board in soapy water for extended periods (as some bacteria can grow in the
warm medium) Clean knives well at the blade-handle edge.
(A bit of trivia on cutting surfaces: In a test from about ten years
back, it was found that after normal cleaning, the maple block counters used
in butcher shops have less bacteria than plastic cutting boards used in
newer butcher shops. Not surprising since first, it is well documented that
most plastic is porous, and second, that most woods have some inherent
alkoid anti-bacterial agents. However, it is easier to clean plastic
boards in 180F dishwashers.
Note that neither wood or plastic by itself was impervious enough not to
require disinfectant by heat or chemical when handling poultry, commercially
or otherwise).


Third, as to disinfecting surfaces and bacteria:
For purposes of their future understanding of the tools and dangers used
in their work in indutry, Chem students at the U used to do a lab experiment
using the various "disinfectants" effects on bacteria - they used sodium
hypochlorite (bleach), hydrogen peroxide (color-safe bleach), alcohol,
ammonia, vinegar, soap, detergent, and a couple other types. (My Chem major
daughter has done this experiment, and I was privy to the results)

These tests have shown that detergent (which reduces surface tension) and
water under 180 degrees do not kill most bacteria - they merely separate
them from utensils, dilute them, and wash them away.
The harmful bacteria do not grow well above 140 degrees, and humans
cannot keep hands in water over 110 F.

The only broad-band chemical disinfectant is "bleach", i.e., hypochlorite
type bleaches. Its active radicals kill almost everything organic, and even
penetrate the hard cover of spoors like those of anthrax.
Alcohol will kill most virus on contact and immersion (vs contact wiping)
kills many bacteria.
Hydrogen peroxide ("color-safe bleach") is far less effective as an
anti-bacterial agent.
The other common cleaners like ammonia and vinegar are mostly wetting
agents with specific Ph-related-bacteria inhibiting properties and are weak
disinfectants at best .
---------

Since other tests have indicated that one third of chickens sold in the US
have some samlonella, a little disinfectant is a good idea.

Water and a very small amount of bleach is all that is necessary. A
little goes along way. Since bleach comes in various strengths of
hypochlorite, follow the directions on the bottle, wear gloves, and avoid
breathing fumes.

best bet: The spray disinfectants in the grocery store that contain
hypochlorite will do the job best, since they have detergents in them -
compatible detergents, unlike some dishwashing detergents with "special
chemicals" added to differentiate them, chemcials that might react with the
bleach.

CAUTION: Mixing bleach with some other cleaners releases chlorine
gas, which causes the lung tissue to chemically "burn" and then weep for
several weeks, which when inhaled in sufficient amounts slowly drowns the
person who inhaled the gas. Or the gas wil contact the liquid on the
eyeball and react and blind you.
And BTW, mixing it in the toilet and quickly flushing often releases
the gas out the vent stack in the roof, poisoning those outside and on your
sewer line.

fwiw
>
> thanks in advance, oh and dinner tonite (and for my lunches this week):
> chicken cordon blue: marinated in rasberry pecan vinagrette, spiced
> and blue cheese wrapped in bacon, grilled with some mushrooms and
> onions (got off foodtv)
>
> i'm lucky that if i make something good i don't mind eating it for
> lunch 3-4 days in a row!
>
> thanks again - james...
>

"--" > wrote in
:

<Good stuff snipped for brievity>

> fwiw


Good info!

Some program on the food channel had a multiple choice asking where the
most bacteria is found in the kitchen. The answer was the kitchen sponge!

I use cheap-o powder-free latex gloves to handle meat. They're also good
for cleaning firearms.

Also use various scented Chlorox wipes to clean countertops, telephones,
toilets, etc.

Andy

--
"Ladies and gentlemen, The Beatles!"
- Ed Sullivan (1964)

Goomba38 > wrote in
:

> Andy wrote:
>
>> Some program on the food channel had a multiple choice asking where
>> the most bacteria is found in the kitchen. The answer was the kitchen
>> sponge!
>>
>> I use cheap-o powder-free latex gloves to handle meat. They're also
>> good for cleaning firearms.
>>
>> Also use various scented Chlorox wipes to clean countertops,
>> telephones, toilets, etc.
>>
>> Andy
>
> Hands are easily washed, and if you were to keep a small bowl of
> soapy, 10% bleach solution in the sink to wash up with afterwards not
> only would you be saving money not buying disposible wipes, you'd also
> aave the landfill from more unnecessary garbage. AND your sponge would
> get cleaned up as you put it into the soapy/bleach water. Just don't
> let it sit there a long time as it tears the sponges up.
> Goomba
>


Goomba,

Heh heh. OK. I quit smoking last year, so I've been doing my share to
save the poor landfills, although by their very nature, aren't meant to
be "saved."

Andy

--
"What can possibly go wrong... go wrong... go wrong..."
- Pop

Andy wrote:

> Some program on the food channel had a multiple choice asking where the
> most bacteria is found in the kitchen. The answer was the kitchen sponge!
>
> I use cheap-o powder-free latex gloves to handle meat. They're also good
> for cleaning firearms.
>
> Also use various scented Chlorox wipes to clean countertops, telephones,
> toilets, etc.
>
> Andy

Hands are easily washed, and if you were to keep a small bowl of soapy,
10% bleach solution in the sink to wash up with afterwards not only
would you be saving money not buying disposible wipes, you'd also aave
the landfill from more unnecessary garbage. AND your sponge would get
cleaned up as you put it into the soapy/bleach water. Just don't let it
sit there a long time as it tears the sponges up.
Goomba

"Wazza" > wrote in message
...
>
>> > since i cook with raw chicken often, what is a good easy to make
>> > kitchen santizer? i've used a small amount of bleach/water, i've
>> > used ammonia/water/vinegar, but want the best for getting rid of any
>> > possible bacteria on countertops. [snip]
>>
>> I usually just use dish detergent, but I don't know of any reason not
>> to fortify it with a little chlorine bleach. -aem
>>
> it is dangerous to add bleach to anything else, please don't do it.
> ammonia//vinegar wont work because the two neutralize each other.
> There are many proprietary brands of anti-bacterial sprays for surfaces in
> the kitchen, but do not mix them.
> cheers
> Wazza

That's just plain silly. There is no good reason not to add bleach to
detergent, other than the fact it's unnecessary. Detergent makers do it all
the time. Bleach is sodium hypochlorite, not far removed from table salt.
The excess chlorine will dissipate quickly enough. But soap and water is
usually more than adequate. The flood of "anti-bacterial sprays" on the
market is nothing more than a false market created by marketing companies
that instill, then play on, fear of bacteria. Get over it.

Scott.

-- wrote:
> "james" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>>hi there - i'm a lurker, but enjoy readind posts. most of my meals are
>>made with chicken, vegetables, soups, sauces etc. i cook a few times a
>>week and do batch cooking, so always have a meal to grab for work. (i
>>get compliments from co-workers on meals, even though i just follow
>>recipes, or am creative on my own with spices).
>>
>>since i cook with raw chicken often, what is a good easy to make
>>kitchen santizer? i've used a small amount of bleach/water, i've used
>>ammonia/water/vinegar, but want the best for getting rid of any
>>possible bacteria on countertops.
>>
>>is there anything you use that you make? (as opposed to store bought
>>cleaners with their many promises.
>
> There are several anti-bacterial agents, but only a couple that can kill
> most harmful bacteria.
>
> Note that humans tolerate small amounts of some otherwise nasty bacteria.
> The problem occurs when you ingest more than that "small" for that bacteria,
> so the approach is to minimize the amount ingested as much as practical.
>
> The first thing to do in the big picure is to use fresh well-refrigerated
> product taken straight from a refrigerator meat drawer, a drawer kept just
> above freezing. Then bacteria have little chance to grow in the cold food
> or spread in the refrigerator.

Growing new ones isn't so much the question. They already come with
them, and in startling amounts. The reality is that cooking the chicken
above 140°F essentially sterilizes it.

Handling surfaces need to be cleaned, of course, as do the utensils and
equipment used to process chicken - and all meats. Look at the URL's
below to see what the real science about it all is.

> Second, minimize contamination of other areas by separating meat and poultry
> preparation from ready-to-eat food preparation (fruit, vegetable, cheese,
> etc.). Then any bacteria in poultry will not cross-contaminate equipment and
> surfaces and get into other uncooked-when-served foods.
> Use one board exclusively for meat and poultry. Rinse immediately after
> use deep in the sink and avoid splashing.

Unnecessary. A plastic board run through the full cycle of a dishwasher
will be fine for anything after washing. Between the extremely caustic
detergents and the temperature of the wash and rinse waters, the board
is as sterile as a kitchen can support.

> Avoid leaving a non-disinfected
> board in soapy water for extended periods (as some bacteria can grow in the
> warm medium) Clean knives well at the blade-handle edge.
> (A bit of trivia on cutting surfaces: In a test from about ten years
> back, it was found that after normal cleaning, the maple block counters used
> in butcher shops have less bacteria than plastic cutting boards used in
> newer butcher shops. Not surprising since first, it is well documented that
> most plastic is porous, and second, that most woods have some inherent
> alkoid anti-bacterial agents. However, it is easier to clean plastic
> boards in 180F dishwashers.

This business about wood and plastic and bacteriostatic properties has
long since been debunked. It's still online all over the place, mostly
on sites that sell wooden cutting boards.

> Note that neither wood or plastic by itself was impervious enough not to
> require disinfectant by heat or chemical when handling poultry, commercially
> or otherwise).

> Third, as to disinfecting surfaces and bacteria:
> For purposes of their future understanding of the tools and dangers used
> in their work in indutry, Chem students at the U used to do a lab experiment
> using the various "disinfectants" effects on bacteria - they used sodium
> hypochlorite (bleach), hydrogen peroxide (color-safe bleach), alcohol,
> ammonia, vinegar, soap, detergent, and a couple other types. (My Chem major
> daughter has done this experiment, and I was privy to the results)
>
> These tests have shown that detergent (which reduces surface tension) and
> water under 180 degrees do not kill most bacteria - they merely separate
> them from utensils, dilute them, and wash them away.
> The harmful bacteria do not grow well above 140 degrees, and humans
> cannot keep hands in water over 110 F.

Rather stringent tests conducted by a food science group don't support
that. <http://www.hi-tm.com/Documents/Cutboard.html>

> The only broad-band chemical disinfectant is "bleach", i.e., hypochlorite
> type bleaches. Its active radicals kill almost everything organic, and even
> penetrate the hard cover of spoors like those of anthrax.
> Alcohol will kill most virus on contact and immersion (vs contact wiping)
> kills many bacteria.
> Hydrogen peroxide ("color-safe bleach") is far less effective as an
> anti-bacterial agent.
> The other common cleaners like ammonia and vinegar are mostly wetting
> agents with specific Ph-related-bacteria inhibiting properties and are weak
> disinfectants at best .

Not so. <http://www.hi-tm.com/Documents/Countertops.html>

About sanitizing foods, most notably, produce,
"It doesn't matter which you use first - you can spray with the vinegar
then the hydrogen peroxide, or with the hydrogen peroxide followed by
the vinegar. You won't get any lingering taste of vinegar or hydrogen
peroxide, and neither is toxic to you if a small amount remains on the
produce."

But the writer goes on to say,
"As a bonus: The paired sprays work exceptionally well in sanitizing
counters and other food preparation surfaces -- including wood cutting
boards. In tests run at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University, pairing the two mists killed virtually all Salmonella,
Shigella, or E. coli bacteria on heavily contaminated food and surfaces
when used in this fashion, making this spray combination more effective
at killing these potentially lethal bacteria than chlorine bleach or any
commercially available kitchen cleaner."
<http://my.execpc.com/~mjstouff/articles/vinegar.html>
[References: Science News 9/29/96; Science News 8/8/98].

Pastorio

> Since other tests have indicated that one third of chickens sold in the US
> have some samlonella, a little disinfectant is a good idea.
>
> Water and a very small amount of bleach is all that is necessary. A
> little goes along way. Since bleach comes in various strengths of
> hypochlorite, follow the directions on the bottle, wear gloves, and avoid
> breathing fumes.
>
> best bet: The spray disinfectants in the grocery store that contain
> hypochlorite will do the job best, since they have detergents in them -
> compatible detergents, unlike some dishwashing detergents with "special
> chemicals" added to differentiate them, chemcials that might react with the
> bleach.
>
> CAUTION: Mixing bleach with some other cleaners releases chlorine
> gas, which causes the lung tissue to chemically "burn" and then weep for
> several weeks, which when inhaled in sufficient amounts slowly drowns the
> person who inhaled the gas. Or the gas wil contact the liquid on the
> eyeball and react and blind you.
> And BTW, mixing it in the toilet and quickly flushing often releases
> the gas out the vent stack in the roof, poisoning those outside and on your
> sewer line.
>
> fwiw
>
>>thanks in advance, oh and dinner tonite (and for my lunches this week):
>> chicken cordon blue: marinated in rasberry pecan vinagrette, spiced
>>and blue cheese wrapped in bacon, grilled with some mushrooms and
>>onions (got off foodtv)
>>
>>i'm lucky that if i make something good i don't mind eating it for
>>lunch 3-4 days in a row!
>>
>>thanks again - james...
>>
>
>
>

the links to Dr Snyder's test results paid for by the restaurant industry
are interesting, but his one persons/one test's conclusion regarding
disinfectant and material flies in the face of the conclusions of tremendous
amounts of tests done by the US, states, and other food industry groups.

Why is that? because of the two flaws in Dr Snyder's method and his slight
of hand.

First, he uses "plastic". Even within specific types of plastic, forming
creates different results. He does not differentiate from the different
types of plastic,
let alone subtypes. I can pick a plastic cutting board that beats wood, one
that is beaten by wood, and one that beats one and then later is beaten -
depending on the "plastic" I choose. (Which goes to the crux of my wood vs.
plastic comment, and why only a couple types of plastic may now be used.)

Second, he cultures his swabs in an artificially acidic medium induced by
his vinegar, and then he extrapolates that (bad) protocol of creating a slow
growth within 24 hours of contaminating the medium into a disinfectant
power.
That is, he did NOT measure the bacteria remaining after use of the wipe,
he measured the amount that GREW after use of the wipe.
And one cannot extrapolate 5 days growth based on a 24 hour acidic
culture.

Third, a growth inhibitor is definitely not a disinfectant. Regulations
for cleaning are aimed at disinfectant. Regulations for storing are aimed
at inhibiting. To make the conclusion that vinegar is better at disinfecting
based on growth inhibiting is sloppy science.
(And the economic benefit to his funder, the restaurant industry, by
being able to substitute unregulated vinegar for special chemicals, e.g.,
quat ammonium mixes, and their delivery systems is significant.)

other specific comments regarding errors in your assumptions are below

"Bob (this one)" > wrote in message
...
> -- wrote:
> > "james" > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> >
> >>hi there - i'm a lurker, but enjoy readind posts. most of my meals are
> >>made with chicken, vegetables, soups, sauces etc. i cook a few times a
> >>week and do batch cooking, so always have a meal to grab for work. (i
> >>get compliments from co-workers on meals, even though i just follow
> >>recipes, or am creative on my own with spices).
> >>
> >>since i cook with raw chicken often, what is a good easy to make
> >>kitchen santizer? i've used a small amount of bleach/water, i've used
> >>ammonia/water/vinegar, but want the best for getting rid of any
> >>possible bacteria on countertops.
> >>
> >>is there anything you use that you make? (as opposed to store bought
> >>cleaners with their many promises.
> >
> > There are several anti-bacterial agents, but only a couple that can kill
> > most harmful bacteria.
> >
> > Note that humans tolerate small amounts of some otherwise nasty
bacteria.
> > The problem occurs when you ingest more than that "small" for that
bacteria,
> > so the approach is to minimize the amount ingested as much as practical.
> >
> > The first thing to do in the big picure is to use fresh
well-refrigerated
> > product taken straight from a refrigerator meat drawer, a drawer kept
just
> > above freezing. Then bacteria have little chance to grow in the cold
food
> > or spread in the refrigerator.
>
> Growing new ones isn't so much the question. They already come with
> them, and in startling amounts. The reality is that cooking the chicken
> above 140°F essentially sterilizes it.
>
> Handling surfaces need to be cleaned, of course, as do the utensils and
> equipment used to process chicken - and all meats. Look at the URL's
> below to see what the real science about it all is.
>
> > Second, minimize contamination of other areas by separating meat and
poultry
> > preparation from ready-to-eat food preparation (fruit, vegetable,
cheese,
> > etc.). Then any bacteria in poultry will not cross-contaminate equipment
and
> > surfaces and get into other uncooked-when-served foods.
> > Use one board exclusively for meat and poultry. Rinse immediately
after
> > use deep in the sink and avoid splashing.
>
> Unnecessary. A plastic board run through the full cycle of a dishwasher
> will be fine for anything after washing.

Agreed, but if it were inadvertantly used by your kid or spouse before it
was washed, your assumption is compromised. Separation by having a special
known board severely limits that possible compromise.

Between the extremely caustic
> detergents and the temperature of the wash and rinse waters, the board
> is as sterile as a kitchen can support.
>
> > Avoid leaving a non-disinfected
> > board in soapy water for extended periods (as some bacteria can grow in
the
> > warm medium) Clean knives well at the blade-handle edge.
> > (A bit of trivia on cutting surfaces: In a test from about ten years
> > back, it was found that after normal cleaning, the maple block counters
used
> > in butcher shops have less bacteria than plastic cutting boards used in
> > newer butcher shops. Not surprising since first, it is well documented
that
> > most plastic is porous, and second, that most woods have some inherent
> > alkoid anti-bacterial agents. However, it is easier to clean plastic
> > boards in 180F dishwashers.
>
> This business about wood and plastic and bacteriostatic properties has
> long since been debunked. It's still online all over the place, mostly
> on sites that sell wooden cutting boards.
>

Apparently not, since your link has a result that indicates a lowering over
plastic by wood using quat.
" Wiping the surfaces with cloths soaked in quaternary ammonium solution
reduced the CFU on the wood cutting board from 205,000 to 3,050 (log10 5.29
to 3.76); on the plastic cutting board from113,500 to 12,000 (log10 5.04 to
4.08), ..."

plastic's 12,000 is more than wood's 3,050, at least in this area.

> > Note that neither wood or plastic by itself was impervious enough not
to
> > require disinfectant by heat or chemical when handling poultry,
commercially
> > or otherwise).
>
> > Third, as to disinfecting surfaces and bacteria:
> > For purposes of their future understanding of the tools and dangers
used
> > in their work in indutry, Chem students at the U used to do a lab
experiment
> > using the various "disinfectants" effects on bacteria - they used sodium
> > hypochlorite (bleach), hydrogen peroxide (color-safe bleach), alcohol,
> > ammonia, vinegar, soap, detergent, and a couple other types. (My Chem
major
> > daughter has done this experiment, and I was privy to the results)
> >
> > These tests have shown that detergent (which reduces surface tension)
and
> > water under 180 degrees do not kill most bacteria - they merely separate
> > them from utensils, dilute them, and wash them away.
> > The harmful bacteria do not grow well above 140 degrees, and humans
> > cannot keep hands in water over 110 F.
>
> Rather stringent tests conducted by a food science group don't support
> that. <http://www.hi-tm.com/Documents/Cutboard.html>
>

again, his tests have the flaws noted above.. he is not addressing
disinfectants, he is addressing short-lived growth inhibitors.

he does support the "washing off" comment

and--

110 F can scald

140 F is the minimum steam table food temperature for the inhibition reason

180 F is the minimum temperature allowed in commercial dishwashers, and it
is a general minimum pasteurizing temperature

> > The only broad-band chemical disinfectant is "bleach", i.e.,
hypochlorite
> > type bleaches. Its active radicals kill almost everything organic, and
even
> > penetrate the hard cover of spoors like those of anthrax.
> > Alcohol will kill most virus on contact and immersion (vs contact
wiping)
> > kills many bacteria.
> > Hydrogen peroxide ("color-safe bleach") is far less effective as an
> > anti-bacterial agent.
> > The other common cleaners like ammonia and vinegar are mostly wetting
> > agents with specific Ph-related-bacteria inhibiting properties and are
weak
> > disinfectants at best .
>
> Not so. <http://www.hi-tm.com/Documents/Countertops.html>
>

afgain, his flawed tests supporting vinegar as a growth inhibitor - no
problem, since every reputable chemist in the field acknowledges that
CONTINUOUS strong acid or strong alkali contact will inhibit growth.
(pickles, lutefisk)

> About sanitizing foods, most notably, produce,
> "It doesn't matter which you use first - you can spray with the vinegar
> then the hydrogen peroxide, or with the hydrogen peroxide followed by
> the vinegar. You won't get any lingering taste of vinegar or hydrogen
> peroxide, and neither is toxic to you if a small amount remains on the
> produce."
>
> But the writer goes on to say,
> "As a bonus: The paired sprays work exceptionally well in sanitizing
> counters and other food preparation surfaces -- including wood cutting
> boards. In tests run at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
> University, pairing the two mists killed virtually all Salmonella,
> Shigella, or E. coli bacteria on heavily contaminated food and surfaces
> when used in this fashion, making this spray combination more effective
> at killing these potentially lethal bacteria than chlorine bleach or any
> commercially available kitchen cleaner."

Sorry, having seen test reports on killing those bacteria, she is full of
shit to say that vinegar and peroxide is better than "chlorine bleach" (the
term by which I assume she by mistake forgot to use the proper chemical
term) at killing bacteria.
That is pure and simple unadulterated BS.-

Totally and blatantly false, unless she assumed an implied clause "at
killing bacteria [WITHOUT USING CHLORINE BLEACH]"

> <http://my.execpc.com/~mjstouff/articles/vinegar.html>
> [References: Science News 9/29/96; Science News 8/8/98].
>
> Pastorio
>
> > Since other tests have indicated that one third of chickens sold in the
US
> > have some samlonella, a little disinfectant is a good idea.
> >
> > Water and a very small amount of bleach is all that is necessary. A
> > little goes along way. Since bleach comes in various strengths of
> > hypochlorite, follow the directions on the bottle, wear gloves, and
avoid
> > breathing fumes.
> >
> > best bet: The spray disinfectants in the grocery store that contain
> > hypochlorite will do the job best, since they have detergents in them -
> > compatible detergents, unlike some dishwashing detergents with "special
> > chemicals" added to differentiate them, chemcials that might react with
the
> > bleach.
> >
> > CAUTION: Mixing bleach with some other cleaners releases chlorine
> > gas, which causes the lung tissue to chemically "burn" and then weep for
> > several weeks, which when inhaled in sufficient amounts slowly drowns
the
> > person who inhaled the gas. Or the gas wil contact the liquid on the
> > eyeball and react and blind you.
> > And BTW, mixing it in the toilet and quickly flushing often
releases
> > the gas out the vent stack in the roof, poisoning those outside and on
your
> > sewer line.
> >
> > fwiw
> >
> >>thanks in advance, oh and dinner tonite (and for my lunches this week):
> >> chicken cordon blue: marinated in rasberry pecan vinagrette, spiced
> >>and blue cheese wrapped in bacon, grilled with some mushrooms and
> >>onions (got off foodtv)
> >>
> >>i'm lucky that if i make something good i don't mind eating it for
> >>lunch 3-4 days in a row!
> >>
> >>thanks again - james...
> >>
> >
> >
> >

-- wrote:

> the links to Dr Snyder's test results paid for by the restaurant
> industry are interesting,

Funny thing how instead of offering any FACTS or DATA you attack Dr.
Snyder personally - without knowing anything substantial about him. So
here's his CV and a lot of facts. Drown in it and see what a real expert
who's not afraid to put his credentials and his face out here looks
like. <http://www.hi-tm.com/Documents/Opsresum.html>

Dr. Snyder's operation is held in high enough regard to be considered an
authoritative processing source by the FDA, industry groups and academics.

> but his one persons/one test's conclusion regarding disinfectant and
> material flies in the face of the conclusions of tremendous amounts
> of tests done by the US, states, and other food industry groups.

Perhaps instead of just SAYING things about these "conclusions of
tremendous amounts of tests," you could cite them. Just to, you know,
offer the odd reason to take anything you say as a supported assertion.
But I note their absence.

Oh, well...

> Why is that? because of the two flaws in Dr Snyder's method and his
> slight of hand.

Talk to facts, oh anonymnous one, and save your bullshit for the boys in
the trailer park.

> First, he uses "plastic". Even within specific types of plastic,
> forming creates different results. He does not differentiate from
> the different types of plastic, let alone subtypes.

He specified the brand and manufacturer - "Plasti-Tuff, from Teknor
Apex, Pawtucket, RI" How much more specific can he get?

> I can pick a plastic cutting board that beats wood, one that is
> beaten by wood, and one that beats one and then later is beaten -
> depending on the "plastic" I choose. (Which goes to the crux of my
> wood vs. plastic comment, and why only a couple types of plastic may
> now be used.)

Yadda yadda

Your wood vs. plastic comment offered that urban legend about wood
having antibacterial properties. It doesn't.

> Second, he cultures his swabs in an artificially acidic medium
> induced by his vinegar, and then he extrapolates that (bad) protocol
> of creating a slow growth within 24 hours of contaminating the
> medium into a disinfectant power. That is, he did NOT measure the
> bacteria remaining after use of the wipe, he measured the amount that
> GREW after use of the wipe.

"This simple experiment demonstrates that semi-spoiled ground beef, a
simple swab, and Petrifilm&trade; can be used to validate that a surface
has received a 100,000-to-1 bacterial removal treatment." Oooops. Looks
like he measured the removal...

> And one cannot extrapolate 5 days growth based on a 24 hour acidic
> culture.

DID YOU EVEN READ THE PAPER?

He used letheen broth-rinsed swabs. No vinegar. <LOL>

"Letheen media are highly nutritious containing Lecithin and Tween® 80
for neutralizing quaternary ammonium compounds. These media are
modifications of the AOAC formulae."

It says on the bottom of that paper -
"Reference: AOAC. 1996. Official methods of analysis of AOAC
International. Chapter 6. Disinfectants. AOAC. Gaithersburg, MD."
Here, check them oput - <http://www.aoac.org/about/aoac.htm>

Funny thing how Dr. Snyder has a rather substantial academic background,
many significant accomplishments recognized by academia, government and
business and how he works according to international standards. But you
say he does bad science. Nah...

> Third, a growth inhibitor is definitely not a disinfectant.

I looked through that paper and didn't find any reference to growth
inhibition. I did see a lot of info on kill figures.

> Regulations for cleaning are aimed at disinfectant. Regulations for
> storing are aimed at inhibiting. To make the conclusion that vinegar
> is better at disinfecting based on growth inhibiting is sloppy
> science.

Yes, it would be. But you're pulling that out of thin air.

You simply read it wrong. As for the quality of the science, it was done
in accordance with some pretty serious standards. Just like it says on
the paper.

"AOAC “Official Methods of Analysis” have been defined as “official” by
regulations promulgated for enforcement of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (21 CFR 2.19), recognized in Title 9 of USDA-FSIS Code of Federal
Regulations, and in some cases by the US Environmental Protection Agency. "

> (And the economic benefit to his funder, the restaurant industry, by
> being able to substitute unregulated vinegar for special chemicals,
> e.g., quat ammonium mixes, and their delivery systems is
> significant.)

You splash innuendo and implications instead of actually offering
science, data or facts. You SAY a lot of stuff but back up none of it.
And you try to denigrate a genuine heavyweight - from the anonymity of a
missing handle. Nice work.

You can only wish your background even began to look like Dr. Snyder's.

The fact is that Quat chemicals are losing ground in foodservice and
food processing industries. They're only good when very clean
themselves, and unpolluted. It's why Dr. Snyder notes, "It is also known
that when a quaternary ammonium compound solution becomes dirty in an
open bucket into which dirty cloths are dipped, the solution becomes
susceptible to degradation by filth, dirt, and other debris. As a
result, the solution does not remain at its beginning strength over a
period of 2 hours that the solution is used. The quaternary ammonium
compound solution used in this experiment was dispensed from a squirt
bottle to maintain its effectiveness and prevent degradation."

In the last several operations of mine, we got away from Quats and went
to other cleaning/sterilizing approaches including steam (for surfaces
that we could clean that way) to vinegar-peroxide for working surfaces
(blessed by hte health department) and bleach in detergent as our
walking-surface and wall cleaner where steam was not possible.

> other specific comments regarding errors in your assumptions are
> below

Comments ain't facts, Sparky.

> "Bob (this one)" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>> -- wrote:
>>

>>> The first thing to do in the big picure is to use fresh
>>> well-refrigerated product taken straight from a refrigerator meat
>>> drawer, a drawer kept just above freezing. Then bacteria have
>>> little chance to grow in the cold food or spread in the
>>> refrigerator.
>>
>> Growing new ones isn't so much the question. They already come with
>> them, and in startling amounts. The reality is that cooking the
>> chicken above 140°F essentially sterilizes it.
>>
>> Handling surfaces need to be cleaned, of course, as do the utensils
>> and equipment used to process chicken - and all meats. Look at the
>> URL's below to see what the real science about it all is.
>>
>>
>>> Second, minimize contamination of other areas by separating meat
>>> and poultry preparation from ready-to-eat food preparation
>>> (fruit, vegetable, cheese, etc.). Then any bacteria in poultry
>>> will not cross-contaminate equipment and surfaces and get into
>>> other uncooked-when-served foods. Use one board exclusively for
>>> meat and poultry. Rinse immediately after use deep in the sink
>>> and avoid splashing.
>>
>> Unnecessary. A plastic board run through the full cycle of a
>> dishwasher will be fine for anything after washing.
>
>
> Agreed, but if it were inadvertantly used by your kid or spouse
> before it was washed, your assumption is compromised. Separation by
> having a special known board severely limits that possible
> compromise.

Don't be silly. We aren't talking about what my kid does or doesn't do.
It's about whether separate boards are needed. If my kid decided to use
that separate board, same result.

The real-world situation in my house is that The Kid is very
knowledgeable and conscious about foodborne illness and safety. My wife
leaves it all to us. That's none of your business, but fact it is.

>> Between the extremely caustic detergents and the temperature of the
>> wash and rinse waters, the board is as sterile as a kitchen can
>> support.
>>
>>
>>> Avoid leaving a non-disinfected board in soapy water for extended
>>> periods (as some bacteria can grow in the warm medium) Clean
>>> knives well at the blade-handle edge. (A bit of trivia on cutting
>>> surfaces: In a test from about ten years back, it was found that
>>> after normal cleaning, the maple block counters used in butcher
>>> shops have less bacteria than plastic cutting boards used in
>>> newer butcher shops. Not surprising since first, it is well
>>> documented that most plastic is porous, and second, that most
>>> woods have some inherent alkoid anti-bacterial agents. However,
>>> it is easier to clean plastic boards in 180F dishwashers.
>>
>> This business about wood and plastic and bacteriostatic properties
>> has long since been debunked. It's still online all over the
>> place, mostly on sites that sell wooden cutting boards.
>
> Apparently not, since your link has a result that indicates a
> lowering over plastic by wood using quat.

<LOL> Great objective citation of facts. You phony blowhole. Are you
going to seriously try to attribute that ONE example out of many to the
bacteriostatic properties of wood...? C'mon. That's too silly even for you.

Of all the citations in the paper, one example out of many shows what
you quote. Other charts show things like:
"Wiping with vinegar reduced the CFU on the wood surface from 205,000 to
240 (log10 5.29 to 1.98), on the plastic surface from 113,500 (log10
5.04) to none recoverable, and on the stainless steel surface from
40,000 (log10 4.47) to 5 (log10 0.70)."

How about this:
"When the wood surface was washed in a sink containing 4 gallons of
detergent and water, the bacteria count was reduced from 265,000 to 700
(log10 5.41 to 2.69). On the plastic surface, the reduction was from
225,000 to 45 (log10 5.35 to 1.65). The CFU on the stainless steel
surface was reduced from 32,000 (log10 4.50) to none recoverable."

Or maybe:
"Following cleaning in the detergent solution, the surfaces were rinsed
with flowing water. The results were as follows. On the wood surface,
the counts were reduced from 700 to 55 (log10 2.69 to 1.63). Bacterial
counts were reduced on the plastic surface from 45 to 10 (log10 1.65 to
1.00). On the stainless steel surface, they remained at <10 or none
recoverable."

The all-powerful wood didn't kill anything. And your spinning, spinning
doesn't reflect well on you.

> " Wiping the surfaces with cloths soaked in quaternary ammonium
> solution reduced the CFU on the wood cutting board from 205,000 to
> 3,050 (log10 5.29 to 3.76); on the plastic cutting board from113,500
> to 12,000 (log10 5.04 to 4.08), ..."
>
> plastic's 12,000 is more than wood's 3,050, at least in this area.

Even more hilarious. The chart from which these numbers are taken
includes the effects of vinegar (<LOL>) Here's The Rest OF The Story
from that same chart you left out - "Wiping with vinegar reduced the CFU
on the wood surface from 205,000 to 240 (log10 5.29 to 1.98), on the
plastic surface from 113,500 (log10 5.04) to none recoverable, and on
the stainless steel surface from 40,000 (log10 4.47) to 5 (log10 0.70)."

Vinegar blow Quat out of the picture. In spite of Dr. Snyder's
extraordinary efforts to make sure it was at its best operational
strength and purity.

>>> Note that neither wood or plastic by itself was impervious enough
>>> not to require disinfectant by heat or chemical when handling
>>> poultry, commercially or otherwise).
>>
>>> Third, as to disinfecting surfaces and bacteria: For purposes of
>>> their future understanding of the tools and dangers used in
>>> their work in indutry, Chem students at the U used to do a lab
>>> experiment using the various "disinfectants" effects on bacteria
>>> - they used sodium hypochlorite (bleach), hydrogen peroxide
>>> (color-safe bleach), alcohol, ammonia, vinegar, soap, detergent,
>>> and a couple other types. (My Chem major daughter has done this
>>> experiment, and I was privy to the results)
>>>
>>> These tests have shown that detergent (which reduces surface
>>> tension) and water under 180 degrees do not kill most bacteria -
>>> they merely separate them from utensils, dilute them, and wash
>>> them away. The harmful bacteria do not grow well above 140
>>> degrees, and humans cannot keep hands in water over 110 F.
>>
>> Rather stringent tests conducted by a food science group don't
>> support that. <http://www.hi-tm.com/Documents/Cutboard.html>
>>
>
> again, his tests have the flaws noted above.. he is not addressing
> disinfectants, he is addressing short-lived growth inhibitors. he
> does support the "washing off" comment

He's not talking about growth inhibition, the title of the paper is "The
Microbiology of Cleaning and Sanitizing a Cutting Board." *Sanitizing*

He says "This experiment was conducted in order to obtain practical
information about the reduction of bacteria on food contact surfaces,
following the standard wash-rinse-sanitize requirements in food codes."

In the conclusions he says,

"Experiment 1 demonstrated that rinsing a cutting board with a solution
of 1 part 5% vinegar to 4 parts water was a more effective sanitizer
than using a quaternary ammonium compound solution for removing aerobic
bacteria from a food contact surface." That's disinfection.

"In Experiment 2, it is evident that the rinsing-after-washing process
does little to reduce bacterial counts, even though the surfaces were
rinsed with flowing water. Applying the quaternary ammonium compound
solution had essentially no value."

"Experiment 3 shows the practical value of the pre-wash, rinse, and
scrub before putting the cutting board into the detergent-and-water
sink. Simply scrubbing the cutting board in flowing water, without the
use of a detergent reduced the bacteria enough that even if there were a
heavy load of Salmonella, Campylobacter jejuni, or other pathogens,
there would be so few pathogens remaining that the surface would be
considered safe."

Not talking about growth inhibition, it's about killing bacteria.

> and-- 110 F can scald

It's beginning to be hot to the touch. But I routinely put my hand into
that temperature water to test for bread-making. Yeast prospers at that
temperature. My tap water is set to 120°F and I can put my hand under
it, thought, admittedly, with some discomfort.

> 140 F is the minimum steam table food
> temperature for the inhibition reason

FDA food code is looking at dropping that temperature because the
"science" behind it has been shown to be flawed. If foods are cooked to
higher temperatures and then held at temperatures lower than 140°F, the
safety remains at the same levels.

"Supplement To The 2001 FDA Food Code Issued
"On August 29, 2003, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a
Supplement to the 2001 FDA Food Code based on several recommendations
made as a result of the 2002 Conference for Food Protection. While the
complete FDA Food Code will not be revised until 2005 and the changes
recommended in the 2003 Supplement have not yet been incorporated into
the Colorado Food Code, some of the changes recommended in the
Supplement are of interest to those who work with the food service
industry. Major changes include:

* Lower the upper end of the temperature "danger zone" from 60°C
(140°F) to 57°C (135°F).
* Revise the hot holding temperature requirement from 60°C (140°F)
to 57°C (135°F).
* Revise cooling requirements to now read cooling "from 135°F to
41°F" in 6 hours, with cooling from 135°F to 70°F in 2 hours.

Scientific literature, documented in the January 2001 report by the
National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods
(NACMCF) supports that the lowered hot holding temperature of 135°F is
still sufficiently above the temperatures at which Clostridium
perfringens and Bacillus cereus may grow (max of 126°F). These two
pathogens are estimated by the CDC to be responsible for some 250,000
cases of foodborne illness each year in the United States. Still, the
FDA "believes that maintaining food at a temperature of 57°C (135°F) or
greater during hot holding is sufficient to prevent the growth of
pathogens and is therefore an effective measure in the prevention of
foodborne illness."
Source:
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Public Health Service.
Supplement to the 2001 Food Code. August 29, 2003. Food and Drug
Administration.
<http://www.colostate.edu/Orgs/safefood/NEWSLTR/v8n2s03.html>

> 180 F is the minimum temperature allowed in commercial dishwashers,

Nowadays, chemical sterilization at lower temperatures is gaining
popularity because of reduced energy costs, with comparable efficacy.

> and it is a general minimum pasteurizing temperature

Sorry, no it isn't. Different foods are pasteurized at very different
temps.

Here's milk:
Low temperature/long time ("vat") pasteurization: 62.8 C(145F);30 min.
High temperature/short time: 71.7 C (161 F) 15 seconds
"Flash" pasteurization can be
89 C (192 F) 1 sec
90 C (194 F) 0.5 sec
94 C (201 F) 0.1 sec
96 C (204 F) 0.05 sec
100 C (212 F) 0.1 sec
96 C (204 F) 0.05 sec
100 C (212 F) 0.1 sec
UHT (ultra high temperature) milk is heated to 138 C (280 F) for 2 sec

Eggs are pasteurized at temperatures in the 146°F area.

Juices are pasteurized:
160 degrees F for at least 6 seconds
165 degrees F for at least 2.8 seconds,
170 degrees F for at least 1.3 seconds,
175 degrees F for at least 0.6 seconds, or
180 degrees F for at least 0.3 seconds

>>> The only broad-band chemical disinfectant is "bleach", i.e.,
>>> hypochlorite type bleaches. Its active radicals kill almost
>>> everything organic, and even penetrate the hard cover of spoors
>>> like those of anthrax. Alcohol will kill most virus on contact
>>> and immersion (vs contact wiping) kills many bacteria. Hydrogen
>>> peroxide ("color-safe bleach") is far less effective as an
>>> anti-bacterial agent. The other common cleaners like ammonia and
>>> vinegar are mostly wetting agents with specific
>>> Ph-related-bacteria inhibiting properties and are weak
>>> disinfectants at best .
>>
>> Not so. <http://www.hi-tm.com/Documents/Countertops.html>
>>
> afgain, his flawed tests supporting vinegar as a growth inhibitor -

Better get another tune to play. That one's off key.

> no problem, since every reputable chemist in the field acknowledges
> that CONTINUOUS strong acid or strong alkali contact will inhibit
> growth. (pickles, lutefisk)

Can't get away from that One Note Symphony. That's old information -
that "only bleach can do it" song. You SAY the tests are flawed, but
your descriptions of what you think you saw doesn't look much like that
was actually done. His explanatory notes pretty much detail the kill
numbers. You've offered nothing to counter the information here.

Given that "CONTINUOUS strong acid or strong alkali contact" was missing
from the experiments, this looks like a red herring. Which will taste
better with a little acid - maybe lemon juice or yogurt.

>> About sanitizing foods, most notably, produce, "It doesn't matter
>> which you use first - you can spray with the vinegar then the
>> hydrogen peroxide, or with the hydrogen peroxide followed by the
>> vinegar. You won't get any lingering taste of vinegar or hydrogen
>> peroxide, and neither is toxic to you if a small amount remains on
>> the produce."
>>
>> But the writer goes on to say, "As a bonus: The paired sprays work
>> exceptionally well in sanitizing counters and other food
>> preparation surfaces -- including wood cutting boards. In tests run
>> at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, pairing
>> the two mists killed virtually all Salmonella, Shigella, or E. coli
>> bacteria on heavily contaminated food and surfaces when used in
>> this fashion, making this spray combination more effective at
>> killing these potentially lethal bacteria than chlorine bleach or
>> any commercially available kitchen cleaner."
>
> Sorry, having seen test reports on killing those bacteria, she is
> full of shit to say that vinegar and peroxide is better than
> "chlorine bleach" (the term by which I assume she by mistake forgot
> to use the proper chemical term) at killing bacteria. That is pure
> and simple unadulterated BS.-

And those "test reports on killing those bacteria" would be...?

MISSING!

Give Dr. Susan Sumner a call. I think she's still a few miles down the
road from me here at Virginia Tech. I'm sure she'd be happy to bring you
up to speed. Perhaps you missed the references,
"[References: Science News 9/29/96; Science News 8/8/98]."

So she's got Science News. Who's behind you?

Right.

> Totally and blatantly false, unless she assumed an implied clause
> "at killing bacteria [WITHOUT USING CHLORINE BLEACH]"

<LOL> Now you're trying to make it into an exercise in English...? Zany.

We're done with this now. You've blustered and harrumphed and
denigrated, but what you haven't done is offer any substantiation for
your assertions.

Bye

Pastorio

>> <http://my.execpc.com/~mjstouff/articles/vinegar.html> [References:
>> Science News 9/29/96; Science News 8/8/98].
>>
>> Pastorio
>>
>>
>>> Since other tests have indicated that one third of chickens sold
>>> in the US have some samlonella, a little disinfectant is a good
>>> idea.
>>>
>>> Water and a very small amount of bleach is all that is necessary.
>>> A little goes along way. Since bleach comes in various
>>> strengths of hypochlorite, follow the directions on the bottle,
>>> wear gloves, and avoid breathing fumes.
>>>
>>> best bet: The spray disinfectants in the grocery store that
>>> contain hypochlorite will do the job best, since they have
>>> detergents in them - compatible detergents, unlike some
>>> dishwashing detergents with "special chemicals" added to
>>> differentiate them, chemcials that might react with the bleach.
>>>
>>> CAUTION: Mixing bleach with some other cleaners releases chlorine
>>> gas, which causes the lung tissue to chemically "burn" and then
>>> weep for several weeks, which when inhaled in sufficient amounts
>>> slowly drowns the person who inhaled the gas. Or the gas wil
>>> contact the liquid on the eyeball and react and blind you. And
>>> BTW, mixing it in the toilet and quickly flushing often releases
>>> the gas out the vent stack in the roof, poisoning those outside
>>> and on your sewer line.
>>>
>>> fwiw
>>>
>>>
>>>> thanks in advance, oh and dinner tonite (and for my lunches
>>>> this week): chicken cordon blue: marinated in rasberry pecan
>>>> vinagrette, spiced and blue cheese wrapped in bacon, grilled
>>>> with some mushrooms and onions (got off foodtv)
>>>>
>>>> i'm lucky that if i make something good i don't mind eating it
>>>> for lunch 3-4 days in a row!
>>>>
>>>> thanks again - james.

"Bob (this one)" > wrote in message
...
> -- wrote:
>
> > the links to Dr Snyder's test results paid for by the restaurant
> > industry are interesting,
>
> Funny thing how instead of offering any FACTS or DATA you attack Dr.
> Snyder personally.

Kind of missed as to how pointing out flaws in his method is attacking him
personally.
Or how following peer protocol by pointing out any potential conflicts of
interest which may have inadvertantly or deliberately caused problems in the
conclusions is attacking him personally.
(Your suggestion that we defer any criticism of a test based on who pays
for the test, if followed, would open the gates for biasing such-protected
tests for profit. OF COURSE in a review we look at who funded at test. )
And the more indignant the one supporting the test is at such questions,
the more suspicious the reviewers become as to the validity of the test.

While some of your material contains valid information, your conclusions are
as flawed as "Dr Snyders".

To cite a few -
Immerse an acclimated adult male hand in 110 water, and he may be able
to keep it in for a minute; immerse a teen female or a four year old's hand
in 110 F water for a minute and it will be damaged. It's not about you -
its about all workers and users.

Another - Steam tables settings at 140 F may well be considered for being
moved down to 135 F - but that assumes the food was properly prepared and
reached that internal temp (and it often is not); it assumes the table is
actually at 135 (and 5 degrees is the 3% margin for those thermosats when
new, so half of them may be at 135 F now); and that the perfection of the
lab at 135 degrees is achieved in the slop line.

And yet another - having a separate board to avoid inadvertant use by a
child won't happen in your house because you conduct TRAINING CLASSES in
food safety?
What about homes where they don't conduct food quarterly safety classes?
Is it better to conduct food safety classes for seven year olds and the
fading elderly, or use a different board kept separate?

Curious - Do you read ANYTHING posted, or do you just try to make your
personal stance appear reasoned at any cost, without regard to the health
and safety of the people who might follow your flawed and dangerous advice?

Your posts have the content of the insecure troll who can never be wrong,
never reads with an analytical eye, and can't stand to be challenged: A
technician who thinks he should be considered a proven scholar on techncial
matters, unable to separate opinion from validated test results.

Your lack of technical training and experience is evidenced by your
total inability to interact critically on matters technical. That
all-or-nothing rather than technical interaction indelibly marks one as a
neophyte. And thus you are dismissed by those who have actual knowledge and
experience, a disjointed-fact wannabe.

Your apparent reliance on the computer keys and google is another evidence
of inexperience, in that thinking such activity is a substitute for real
papers done by real people, papers having peer review. By referencing
internet "sources" it is obvious you accept internet"papers" without
recognizing their part in industry influence programs, the method of using
offical-loking pseudo science on the internet to sway public opinion.
Limbaugh papers.
Have you ever met any of those people you reference? Are they real
people?

You embody propter hoc, ergo propter hoc, no matter how foolish or
dangerous.

- without knowing anything substantial about him. So
> here's his CV and a lot of facts.

No, I say that is not his CV - I say it is an internet posting made up to
sound good, for fools to make his conclusions seem valid.

And the logic of that is that at this moment: you say yes, he is an
experienced researcher, and I say no, he is a shill with the ability to
made up credentials.

And neither knows for sure. But his test protocol and his CFR cite for the
protocol are totally worthless and invalid.

>Drown in it and see what a real expert
> who's not afraid to put his credentials and his face out here looks
> like. <http://www.hi-tm.com/Documents/Opsresum.html>
>
> Dr. Snyder's operation is held in high enough regard to be considered an
> authoritative processing source by the FDA, industry groups and academics.
>

cite, please. Not Fred from the mail room at the FDA, either.

Tell you what. We can do this by the "technical book" -

My neighbor a couple houses up worked at the FDA food labs for 40 years, and
my daughters close friend worked at different FDA lab for two years as a
researcher.
I'll ask them if vinegar disinfects better than hypochlorite bleach
(they'll like the laugh), and if they ever heard of Dr Snyder. I'll add to
the experience and tests I have already cited.

Will you go to your local University and get a paper(s) on the matter which
has been subjected to peer review, and cite here many you foind and what
their conclusions were? You can add to the papers which you have already
cited.

> > but his one persons/one test's conclusion regarding disinfectant and
> > material flies in the face of the conclusions of tremendous amounts
> > of tests done by the US, states, and other food industry groups.
>
> Perhaps instead of just SAYING things about these "conclusions of
> tremendous amounts of tests," you could cite them. Just to, you know,
> offer the odd reason to take anything you say as a supported assertion.
> But I note their absence.
>
> Oh, well...
>
> > Why is that? because of the two flaws in Dr Snyder's method and his
> > slight of hand.
>
> Talk to facts, oh anonymnous one, and save your bullshit for the boys in
> the trailer park.

read, neophyte

>
> > First, he uses "plastic". Even within specific types of plastic,
> > forming creates different results. He does not differentiate from
> > the different types of plastic, let alone subtypes.
>
> He specified the brand and manufacturer - "Plasti-Tuff, from Teknor
> Apex, Pawtucket, RI" How much more specific can he get?
>

Man, you really are innocent, aren't you? Are you a college freshman, by any
chance?

that is like spec'ing pants material and saying "JC Penny" is the material.
Real tests by real scientists use the material, not the brand.

> > I can pick a plastic cutting board that beats wood, one that is
> > beaten by wood, and one that beats one and then later is beaten -
> > depending on the "plastic" I choose. (Which goes to the crux of my
> > wood vs. plastic comment, and why only a couple types of plastic may
> > now be used.)
>
> Yadda yadda
>
> Your wood vs. plastic comment offered that urban legend about wood
> having antibacterial properties. It doesn't.
>
> > Second, he cultures his swabs in an artificially acidic medium
> > induced by his vinegar, and then he extrapolates that (bad) protocol
> > of creating a slow growth within 24 hours of contaminating the
> > medium into a disinfectant power. That is, he did NOT measure the
> > bacteria remaining after use of the wipe, he measured the amount that
> > GREW after use of the wipe.
>
> "This simple experiment demonstrates that semi-spoiled ground beef, a
> simple swab, and Petrifilm&trade; can be used to validate that a surface
> has received a 100,000-to-1 bacterial removal treatment." Oooops. Looks
> like he measured the removal...

And how did he come to that (invalid) conclusion?
read the "test" carefully. He got it by contaminating the bacteria with a
growth inhibitor in one dish, then growing the bacteria in all dishes and
claiming inhibiting for 24 hours of culture in one dish extrapolates to
removal.
>
> > And one cannot extrapolate 5 days growth based on a 24 hour acidic
> > culture.
>
> DID YOU EVEN READ THE PAPER?
>

very carefully.

> He used letheen broth-rinsed swabs. No vinegar. <LOL>
>

he soaked the bacteria in vinegar, then picked them up and put them in the
growth medium. I don't care if he used a transporter or a letheen rinse. He
did not disinfect, he inhibited the bacteria before he put them in the
growth. He should have assured that all medium were of equal Ph in order to
extrapolate bacteria after 24 hours into bacteria remaining immediately
after "disinfecting"

> "Letheen media are highly nutritious containing Lecithin and Tween® 80
> for neutralizing quaternary ammonium compounds. These media are
> modifications of the AOAC formulae."
>
> It says on the bottom of that paper -
> "Reference: AOAC. 1996. Official methods of analysis of AOAC
> International. Chapter 6. Disinfectants. AOAC. Gaithersburg, MD."
> Here, check them oput - <http://www.aoac.org/about/aoac.htm>
>
> Funny thing how Dr. Snyder has a rather substantial academic background,
> many significant accomplishments recognized by academia, government and
> business and how he works according to international standards. But you
> say he does bad science. Nah...
>

You once again evidence you inexperience and naivete.

Even if he is more than a ficticious shill on the internet used to sway
public opinion, most experiments do have flaws. He is no different - and
when he finds cold fusion when no one else can, or proves that perpetual
motion machines exist, or kills more bacteria with vinegar than chlorine,
the expereinced smell a problem in the proof.

And a disinfectant would have no bacteria in a PH neutral dish after 24
hours. All dead. None to grow.
If he soaked all the bacteria he removed in acetic acid, after he removed
the post-cleaning samples, and then grew them, the results might have some
meaning.
All he did was change the growth medium PH to a level which inhibits
growth and then found nothing had grown, and says - "see, vinegar works!!"
That is why peer review is required, getting them form proper archives is
necessary, and internet papers aren't worth the bandwidth they use.

> > Third, a growth inhibitor is definitely not a disinfectant.
>
> I looked through that paper and didn't find any reference to growth
> inhibition. I did see a lot of info on kill figures.
>

You sure as hell wouldn't find it in HIS paper - if he had spotted his flaw,
he would have canned the paper.

Where does it say he "killed" them? He washed them off, he soaked them in
medium.

Thise are not kill figures - those are remaining bacteria figures after
washing with vinegar or water or whatever- extrapolated backards from
growing contaminated contamination bacteria for 24 hours -


> > Regulations for cleaning are aimed at disinfectant. Regulations for
> > storing are aimed at inhibiting. To make the conclusion that vinegar
> > is better at disinfecting based on growth inhibiting is sloppy
> > science.
>
> Yes, it would be. But you're pulling that out of thin air.
>
> You simply read it wrong. As for the quality of the science, it was done
> in accordance with some pretty serious standards. Just like it says on
> the paper.
>

"AOAC “Official Methods of Analysis” have been defined as “official” by
> regulations promulgated for enforcement of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
> Act (21 CFR 2.19), recognized in Title 9 of USDA-FSIS Code of Federal
> Regulations, and in some cases by the US Environmental Protection Agency.
"
>

EPA for FDA - right. Food service practice for smokestack emissions?

As to 21 CFR 2.19

OOps ! I guess Dr Snyder should have read the regulation (below) before
citing it

Sec. 2.19 Methods of analysis.

Where the method of analysis is not prescribed in a regulation, it
is the policy of the Food and Drug Administration in its enforcement
programs to utilize the methods of analysis of the Association of
Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC) as published in the latest edition
(13th Ed., 1980) of their publication ``Official Methods of Analysis of
the Association of Official Analytical Chemists,'' and the supplements
thereto (``Changes in Methods'' as published in the March issues of the
``Journal of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists''), which
are incorporated by reference, when available and applicable. Copies are
available from the Association of Official

Wow, now there is a protocol to be cited !! "Dr. Snyder" looks more and more
like a shill for the industry.

nuff said. His paper is crap, his protocol cite is crap, and his conclusions
are as valid as his cite and his method.


> > (And the economic benefit to his funder, the restaurant industry, by
> > being able to substitute unregulated vinegar for special chemicals,
> > e.g., quat ammonium mixes, and their delivery systems is
> > significant.)
>
> You splash innuendo and implications instead of actually offering
> science, data or facts. You SAY a lot of stuff but back up none of it.
> And you try to denigrate a genuine heavyweight - from the anonymity of a
> missing handle. Nice work.
>
> You can only wish your background even began to look like Dr. Snyder's.
>
> The fact is that Quat chemicals are losing ground in foodservice and
> food processing industries. They're only good when very clean
> themselves, and unpolluted. It's why Dr. Snyder notes, "It is also known
> that when a quaternary ammonium compound solution becomes dirty in an
> open bucket into which dirty cloths are dipped, the solution becomes
> susceptible to degradation by filth, dirt, and other debris. As a
> result, the solution does not remain at its beginning strength over a
> period of 2 hours that the solution is used. The quaternary ammonium
> compound solution used in this experiment was dispensed from a squirt
> bottle to maintain its effectiveness and prevent degradation."
>
> In the last several operations of mine, we got away from Quats and went
> to other cleaning/sterilizing approaches including steam (for surfaces
> that we could clean that way) to vinegar-peroxide for working surfaces
> (blessed by hte health department) and bleach in detergent as our
> walking-surface and wall cleaner where steam was not possible.
>
> > other specific comments regarding errors in your assumptions are
> > below
>
> Comments ain't facts, Sparky.
>
> > "Bob (this one)" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>> -- wrote:
> >>
>
> >>> The first thing to do in the big picure is to use fresh
> >>> well-refrigerated product taken straight from a refrigerator meat
> >>> drawer, a drawer kept just above freezing. Then bacteria have
> >>> little chance to grow in the cold food or spread in the
> >>> refrigerator.
> >>
> >> Growing new ones isn't so much the question. They already come with
> >> them, and in startling amounts. The reality is that cooking the
> >> chicken above 140°F essentially sterilizes it.
> >>
> >> Handling surfaces need to be cleaned, of course, as do the utensils
> >> and equipment used to process chicken - and all meats. Look at the
> >> URL's below to see what the real science about it all is.
> >>
> >>
> >>> Second, minimize contamination of other areas by separating meat
> >>> and poultry preparation from ready-to-eat food preparation
> >>> (fruit, vegetable, cheese, etc.). Then any bacteria in poultry
> >>> will not cross-contaminate equipment and surfaces and get into
> >>> other uncooked-when-served foods. Use one board exclusively for
> >>> meat and poultry. Rinse immediately after use deep in the sink
> >>> and avoid splashing.
> >>
> >> Unnecessary. A plastic board run through the full cycle of a
> >> dishwasher will be fine for anything after washing.
> >
> >
> > Agreed, but if it were inadvertantly used by your kid or spouse
> > before it was washed, your assumption is compromised. Separation by
> > having a special known board severely limits that possible
> > compromise.
>
> Don't be silly. We aren't talking about what my kid does or doesn't do.
> It's about whether separate boards are needed. If my kid decided to use
> that separate board, same result.
>
> The real-world situation in my house is that The Kid is very
> knowledgeable and conscious about foodborne illness and safety. My wife
> leaves it all to us. That's none of your business, but fact it is.
>
> >> Between the extremely caustic detergents and the temperature of the
> >> wash and rinse waters, the board is as sterile as a kitchen can
> >> support.
> >>
> >>
> >>> Avoid leaving a non-disinfected board in soapy water for extended
> >>> periods (as some bacteria can grow in the warm medium) Clean
> >>> knives well at the blade-handle edge. (A bit of trivia on cutting
> >>> surfaces: In a test from about ten years back, it was found that
> >>> after normal cleaning, the maple block counters used in butcher
> >>> shops have less bacteria than plastic cutting boards used in
> >>> newer butcher shops. Not surprising since first, it is well
> >>> documented that most plastic is porous, and second, that most
> >>> woods have some inherent alkoid anti-bacterial agents. However,
> >>> it is easier to clean plastic boards in 180F dishwashers.
> >>
> >> This business about wood and plastic and bacteriostatic properties
> >> has long since been debunked. It's still online all over the
> >> place, mostly on sites that sell wooden cutting boards.
> >
> > Apparently not, since your link has a result that indicates a
> > lowering over plastic by wood using quat.
>
> <LOL> Great objective citation of facts. You phony blowhole. Are you
> going to seriously try to attribute that ONE example out of many to the
> bacteriostatic properties of wood...? C'mon. That's too silly even for
you.
>
> Of all the citations in the paper, one example out of many shows what
> you quote. Other charts show things like:
> "Wiping with vinegar reduced the CFU on the wood surface from 205,000 to
> 240 (log10 5.29 to 1.98), on the plastic surface from 113,500 (log10
> 5.04) to none recoverable, and on the stainless steel surface from
> 40,000 (log10 4.47) to 5 (log10 0.70)."
>
> How about this:
> "When the wood surface was washed in a sink containing 4 gallons of
> detergent and water, the bacteria count was reduced from 265,000 to 700
> (log10 5.41 to 2.69). On the plastic surface, the reduction was from
> 225,000 to 45 (log10 5.35 to 1.65). The CFU on the stainless steel
> surface was reduced from 32,000 (log10 4.50) to none recoverable."
>
> Or maybe:
> "Following cleaning in the detergent solution, the surfaces were rinsed
> with flowing water. The results were as follows. On the wood surface,
> the counts were reduced from 700 to 55 (log10 2.69 to 1.63). Bacterial
> counts were reduced on the plastic surface from 45 to 10 (log10 1.65 to
> 1.00). On the stainless steel surface, they remained at <10 or none
> recoverable."
>
> The all-powerful wood didn't kill anything. And your spinning, spinning
> doesn't reflect well on you.
>
> > " Wiping the surfaces with cloths soaked in quaternary ammonium
> > solution reduced the CFU on the wood cutting board from 205,000 to
> > 3,050 (log10 5.29 to 3.76); on the plastic cutting board from113,500
> > to 12,000 (log10 5.04 to 4.08), ..."
> >
> > plastic's 12,000 is more than wood's 3,050, at least in this area.
>
> Even more hilarious. The chart from which these numbers are taken
> includes the effects of vinegar (<LOL>) Here's The Rest OF The Story
> from that same chart you left out - "Wiping with vinegar reduced the CFU
> on the wood surface from 205,000 to 240 (log10 5.29 to 1.98), on the
> plastic surface from 113,500 (log10 5.04) to none recoverable, and on
> the stainless steel surface from 40,000 (log10 4.47) to 5 (log10 0.70)."
>
> Vinegar blow Quat out of the picture. In spite of Dr. Snyder's
> extraordinary efforts to make sure it was at its best operational
> strength and purity.
>
> >>> Note that neither wood or plastic by itself was impervious enough
> >>> not to require disinfectant by heat or chemical when handling
> >>> poultry, commercially or otherwise).
> >>
> >>> Third, as to disinfecting surfaces and bacteria: For purposes of
> >>> their future understanding of the tools and dangers used in
> >>> their work in indutry, Chem students at the U used to do a lab
> >>> experiment using the various "disinfectants" effects on bacteria
> >>> - they used sodium hypochlorite (bleach), hydrogen peroxide
> >>> (color-safe bleach), alcohol, ammonia, vinegar, soap, detergent,
> >>> and a couple other types. (My Chem major daughter has done this
> >>> experiment, and I was privy to the results)
> >>>
> >>> These tests have shown that detergent (which reduces surface
> >>> tension) and water under 180 degrees do not kill most bacteria -
> >>> they merely separate them from utensils, dilute them, and wash
> >>> them away. The harmful bacteria do not grow well above 140
> >>> degrees, and humans cannot keep hands in water over 110 F.
> >>
> >> Rather stringent tests conducted by a food science group don't
> >> support that. <http://www.hi-tm.com/Documents/Cutboard.html>
> >>
> >
> > again, his tests have the flaws noted above.. he is not addressing
> > disinfectants, he is addressing short-lived growth inhibitors. he
> > does support the "washing off" comment
>
> He's not talking about growth inhibition, the title of the paper is "The
> Microbiology of Cleaning and Sanitizing a Cutting Board." *Sanitizing*
>
> He says "This experiment was conducted in order to obtain practical
> information about the reduction of bacteria on food contact surfaces,
> following the standard wash-rinse-sanitize requirements in food codes."
>
> In the conclusions he says,
>
> "Experiment 1 demonstrated that rinsing a cutting board with a solution
> of 1 part 5% vinegar to 4 parts water was a more effective sanitizer
> than using a quaternary ammonium compound solution for removing aerobic
> bacteria from a food contact surface." That's disinfection.
>
> "In Experiment 2, it is evident that the rinsing-after-washing process
> does little to reduce bacterial counts, even though the surfaces were
> rinsed with flowing water. Applying the quaternary ammonium compound
> solution had essentially no value."
>
> "Experiment 3 shows the practical value of the pre-wash, rinse, and
> scrub before putting the cutting board into the detergent-and-water
> sink. Simply scrubbing the cutting board in flowing water, without the
> use of a detergent reduced the bacteria enough that even if there were a
> heavy load of Salmonella, Campylobacter jejuni, or other pathogens,
> there would be so few pathogens remaining that the surface would be
> considered safe."
>
> Not talking about growth inhibition, it's about killing bacteria.
>
> > and-- 110 F can scald
>
> It's beginning to be hot to the touch. But I routinely put my hand into
> that temperature water to test for bread-making. Yeast prospers at that
> temperature. My tap water is set to 120°F and I can put my hand under
> it, thought, admittedly, with some discomfort.

children

>
> > 140 F is the minimum steam table food
> > temperature for the inhibition reason
>
> FDA food code is looking at dropping that temperature because the
> "science" behind it has been shown to be flawed.

5 degrees makes previous science flawed? ever thjionk that the steam


If foods are cooked to
> higher temperatures and then held at temperatures lower than 140°F, the
> safety remains at the same levels.
>
> "Supplement To The 2001 FDA Food Code Issued
> "On August 29, 2003, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a
> Supplement to the 2001 FDA Food Code based on several recommendations
> made as a result of the 2002 Conference for Food Protection. While the
> complete FDA Food Code will not be revised until 2005 and the changes
> recommended in the 2003 Supplement have not yet been incorporated into
> the Colorado Food Code, some of the changes recommended in the
> Supplement are of interest to those who work with the food service
> industry. Major changes include:
>
> * Lower the upper end of the temperature "danger zone" from 60°C
> (140°F) to 57°C (135°F).
> * Revise the hot holding temperature requirement from 60°C (140°F)
> to 57°C (135°F).
> * Revise cooling requirements to now read cooling "from 135°F to
> 41°F" in 6 hours, with cooling from 135°F to 70°F in 2 hours.
>
> Scientific literature, documented in the January 2001 report by the
> National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods
> (NACMCF) supports that the lowered hot holding temperature of 135°F is
> still sufficiently above the temperatures at which Clostridium
> perfringens and Bacillus cereus may grow (max of 126°F). These two
> pathogens are estimated by the CDC to be responsible for some 250,000
> cases of foodborne illness each year in the United States. Still, the
> FDA "believes that maintaining food at a temperature of 57°C (135°F) or
> greater during hot holding is sufficient to prevent the growth of
> pathogens and is therefore an effective measure in the prevention of
> foodborne illness."
> Source:
> U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Public Health Service.
> Supplement to the 2001 Food Code. August 29, 2003. Food and Drug
> Administration.
> <http://www.colostate.edu/Orgs/safefood/NEWSLTR/v8n2s03.html>
>
> > 180 F is the minimum temperature allowed in commercial dishwashers,
>
> Nowadays, chemical sterilization at lower temperatures is gaining
> popularity because of reduced energy costs, with comparable efficacy.
>
> > and it is a general minimum pasteurizing temperature
>
> Sorry, no it isn't. Different foods are pasteurized at very different
> temps.
>
> Here's milk:
> Low temperature/long time ("vat") pasteurization: 62.8 C(145F);30 min.
> High temperature/short time: 71.7 C (161 F) 15 seconds
> "Flash" pasteurization can be
> 89 C (192 F) 1 sec
> 90 C (194 F) 0.5 sec
> 94 C (201 F) 0.1 sec
> 96 C (204 F) 0.05 sec
> 100 C (212 F) 0.1 sec
> 96 C (204 F) 0.05 sec
> 100 C (212 F) 0.1 sec
> UHT (ultra high temperature) milk is heated to 138 C (280 F) for 2 sec
>
> Eggs are pasteurized at temperatures in the 146°F area.
>
> Juices are pasteurized:
> 160 degrees F for at least 6 seconds
> 165 degrees F for at least 2.8 seconds,
> 170 degrees F for at least 1.3 seconds,
> 175 degrees F for at least 0.6 seconds, or
> 180 degrees F for at least 0.3 seconds
>
> >>> The only broad-band chemical disinfectant is "bleach", i.e.,
> >>> hypochlorite type bleaches. Its active radicals kill almost
> >>> everything organic, and even penetrate the hard cover of spoors
> >>> like those of anthrax. Alcohol will kill most virus on contact
> >>> and immersion (vs contact wiping) kills many bacteria. Hydrogen
> >>> peroxide ("color-safe bleach") is far less effective as an
> >>> anti-bacterial agent. The other common cleaners like ammonia and
> >>> vinegar are mostly wetting agents with specific
> >>> Ph-related-bacteria inhibiting properties and are weak
> >>> disinfectants at best .
> >>
> >> Not so. <http://www.hi-tm.com/Documents/Countertops.html>
> >>
> > afgain, his flawed tests supporting vinegar as a growth inhibitor -
>
> Better get another tune to play. That one's off key.
>
> > no problem, since every reputable chemist in the field acknowledges
> > that CONTINUOUS strong acid or strong alkali contact will inhibit
> > growth. (pickles, lutefisk)
>
> Can't get away from that One Note Symphony. That's old information -
> that "only bleach can do it" song. You SAY the tests are flawed, but
> your descriptions of what you think you saw doesn't look much like that
> was actually done. His explanatory notes pretty much detail the kill
> numbers. You've offered nothing to counter the information here.
>
> Given that "CONTINUOUS strong acid or strong alkali contact" was missing
> from the experiments, this looks like a red herring. Which will taste
> better with a little acid - maybe lemon juice or yogurt.
>
> >> About sanitizing foods, most notably, produce, "It doesn't matter
> >> which you use first - you can spray with the vinegar then the
> >> hydrogen peroxide, or with the hydrogen peroxide followed by the
> >> vinegar. You won't get any lingering taste of vinegar or hydrogen
> >> peroxide, and neither is toxic to you if a small amount remains on
> >> the produce."
> >>
> >> But the writer goes on to say, "As a bonus: The paired sprays work
> >> exceptionally well in sanitizing counters and other food
> >> preparation surfaces -- including wood cutting boards. In tests run
> >> at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, pairing
> >> the two mists killed virtually all Salmonella, Shigella, or E. coli
> >> bacteria on heavily contaminated food and surfaces when used in
> >> this fashion, making this spray combination more effective at
> >> killing these potentially lethal bacteria than chlorine bleach or
> >> any commercially available kitchen cleaner."
> >
> > Sorry, having seen test reports on killing those bacteria, she is
> > full of shit to say that vinegar and peroxide is better than
> > "chlorine bleach" (the term by which I assume she by mistake forgot
> > to use the proper chemical term) at killing bacteria. That is pure
> > and simple unadulterated BS.-
>
> And those "test reports on killing those bacteria" would be...?
>
> MISSING!
>
> Give Dr. Susan Sumner a call. I think she's still a few miles down the
> road from me here at Virginia Tech. I'm sure she'd be happy to bring you
> up to speed. Perhaps you missed the references,
> "[References: Science News 9/29/96; Science News 8/8/98]."
>
> So she's got Science News. Who's behind you?
>
> Right.
>
> > Totally and blatantly false, unless she assumed an implied clause
> > "at killing bacteria [WITHOUT USING CHLORINE BLEACH]"
>
> <LOL> Now you're trying to make it into an exercise in English...? Zany.
>
> We're done with this now. You've blustered and harrumphed and
> denigrated, but what you haven't done is offer any substantiation for
> your assertions.
>
> Bye
>
> Pastorio
>
> >> <http://my.execpc.com/~mjstouff/articles/vinegar.html> [References:
> >> Science News 9/29/96; Science News 8/8/98].
> >>
> >> Pastorio
> >>
> >>
> >>> Since other tests have indicated that one third of chickens sold
> >>> in the US have some samlonella, a little disinfectant is a good
> >>> idea.
> >>>
> >>> Water and a very small amount of bleach is all that is necessary.
> >>> A little goes along way. Since bleach comes in various
> >>> strengths of hypochlorite, follow the directions on the bottle,
> >>> wear gloves, and avoid breathing fumes.
> >>>
> >>> best bet: The spray disinfectants in the grocery store that
> >>> contain hypochlorite will do the job best, since they have
> >>> detergents in them - compatible detergents, unlike some
> >>> dishwashing detergents with "special chemicals" added to
> >>> differentiate them, chemcials that might react with the bleach.
> >>>
> >>> CAUTION: Mixing bleach with some other cleaners releases chlorine
> >>> gas, which causes the lung tissue to chemically "burn" and then
> >>> weep for several weeks, which when inhaled in sufficient amounts
> >>> slowly drowns the person who inhaled the gas. Or the gas wil
> >>> contact the liquid on the eyeball and react and blind you. And
> >>> BTW, mixing it in the toilet and quickly flushing often releases
> >>> the gas out the vent stack in the roof, poisoning those outside
> >>> and on your sewer line.
> >>>
> >>> fwiw
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> thanks in advance, oh and dinner tonite (and for my lunches
> >>>> this week): chicken cordon blue: marinated in rasberry pecan
> >>>> vinagrette, spiced and blue cheese wrapped in bacon, grilled
> >>>> with some mushrooms and onions (got off foodtv)
> >>>>
> >>>> i'm lucky that if i make something good i don't mind eating it
> >>>> for lunch 3-4 days in a row!
> >>>>
> >>>> thanks again - james.

james wrote:
> hi there - i'm a lurker, but enjoy readind posts. most of my meals
are
> made with chicken, vegetables, soups, sauces etc. i cook a few times
a
> week and do batch cooking, so always have a meal to grab for work. (i
> get compliments from co-workers on meals, even though i just follow
> recipes, or am creative on my own with spices).
>
> since i cook with raw chicken often, what is a good easy to make
> kitchen santizer? i've used a small amount of bleach/water, i've
used
> ammonia/water/vinegar, but want the best for getting rid of any
> possible bacteria on countertops.
>
> is there anything you use that you make? (as opposed to store bought
> cleaners with their many promises.

Ordinary hot soapy water is your friend. And It's not practical to
sterilize your entire kitchen nor is it necessary... simply wash the
food prep surfaces as well as you wash your hands (no point making
surfaces cleaner than the hands that will be touching the food), and
keep all surfaces dry, moisture promotes bactarial growth. Wash cutting
boards immediately after use and whenever possible further sanitize by
exposing them to UV rays... and the last I checked sunlight is still
free... let as much sunlight and fresh air into your kitchen as
possible too. Do NOT spray anything with clorine, not unless you are
willing to wear a respirator and proctective clothing.

Sheldon