|
Thread Number: 9084
Tree Huggers get Their Wish - Samsung "Silver" Washing Machine To Be Regulated |
[Down to Last] |  |
Post# 169540 11/24/2006 at 16:43 (6,361 days old) by launderess  (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage) |
||
Today, the United States government announced it would begin regulating "silver" technology appliances and such that claim to destroy germs. This will include the Samsung "Silver care" washing machine that claims to kill germs in laundry even when done in cold water without LCB. Apparently enviromnental groups have been at the EPA to do something about these products, and in what is probably a first for the Bush administration, they have listened. L. CLICK HERE TO GO TO launderess's LINK | ||
|
|
Post# 169578 , Reply# 1 11/24/2006 at 22:35 (6,361 days old) by frigilux (The Minnesota Prairie) |
||
 | ||
|
Post# 169612 , Reply# 3 11/25/2006 at 05:32 (6,361 days old) by foraloysius (Leeuwarden, Friesland, the Netherlands) |
||
According to an article in the German Consumer Magazine until now there is no scientific evidence that the silver is working against the normal bacteria in laundry that have survived the wash process. Acoording to professor Franz Daschner there are at least 30 different kind of bacteries in laundry. But tests were only done with 2 species with one almost never causing infections in normal households. IMHO the whole silver thing is a hype.
| ||
| Post# 169628 , Reply# 4 11/25/2006 at 08:31 (6,360 days old) by peterh770 (Marietta, GA) | ||
 | ||
|
Post# 169648 , Reply# 5 11/25/2006 at 10:43 (6,360 days old) by panthera (Rocky Mountains) |
||
not just in the US
The silver coatings hype was popular here in Germany back in the 1990s with "proof" that it killed so and so many bacteria in so and so many minuets on refrigerator shelves, etc. These things come and go. Now that it has been "proved" that wood is better at killing salmonella than polycarbonate, I suppose it is just a matter of time 'till we all go back to wooden cutting boards. Until the next "newest" research "proves" the opposite. Yes, silver is toxic. So is brass. Ozone, too. But it is not enough to just wave them at the bacteria - you need contact under the right conditions for the right length of time in order to get anywhere. And the bacterial which do not come into direct contact go their merry way. I have more faith in the traditional TAE processes which produces enough acid to kill the beasts off. | ||
|
Post# 169649 , Reply# 6 11/25/2006 at 10:45 (6,360 days old) by panthera (Rocky Mountains) |
||
|
er, minutes not minuets... | ||
| Post# 169681 , Reply# 7 11/25/2006 at 13:36 (6,360 days old) by oxydolfan1 () | ||
|
Remember the "antibacterial" craze a few years back? | ||
|
Post# 169808 , Reply# 8 11/26/2006 at 09:21 (6,359 days old) by toggleswitch (New York City, NY) |
||
 | ||
|
Post# 169878 , Reply# 9 11/26/2006 at 17:36 (6,359 days old) by frigilux (The Minnesota Prairie) |
||
|
Keven--- I actually conjured a funky, surreal mental picture from your typo: A ballroom full of elegantly dressed people dancing minuets to a live string ensemble as scientists in white smocks fiddled with their experiment of counting bacteria from emerging loads of laundry. Freudian dream analysts would have a field-day with THAT one, no? | ||
| Post# 169903 , Reply# 10 11/26/2006 at 20:03 (6,359 days old) by oxydolfan1 () | ||
|
I'm surprised no one's thought of adding silver to our laundry detergents yet... Look for new "Platinum Tide"! | ||
|
Post# 169982 , Reply# 13 11/27/2006 at 08:39 (6,358 days old) by panthera (Rocky Mountains) |
||
|
Eugene, | ||
|
Post# 169987 , Reply# 15 11/27/2006 at 09:08 (6,358 days old) by mistereric (New Jersey (Taylor Ham)) |
||
"On the flip side, discarded nanothings could be an issue, but, uh, let's research and find out, before we ban it? Despite which. Silver? Hey, it's not exactly synthetic, or unknown. Kodak uses a lot of it, I hear..." Absolutely time for more research. I wonder whats worse for the environment? Silver or detergent? Can silver be removed from wastewater with the same process as regular sewage treatment? Synthetic isn't always bad, and natural isn't always good- lead is all natural and its a pretty lousy baby food addititive. Mercury is all natural, and yet Berry's Creek in the Meadowlands of NJ is loaded with it... its not supposed to be there, and its sure not good for the ecosystem. I dunno about all this germ fighting technology. How many people a year get sick because they don't have sterile underpants? Is this really a problem? | ||
| Post# 170056 , Reply# 19 11/27/2006 at 15:43 (6,358 days old) by lavamat_jon (UK) | ||
|
The only scary thing about Cillit Bang is Barry Scott!! | ||
| Post# 170170 , Reply# 20 11/28/2006 at 00:27 (6,358 days old) by oxydolfan1 () | ||
|
Cillit "Bang" is known as Easy-Off "Bam" here, which I've heard was designed to compete against "Kaboom" Bathroom Cleaner... I think they've been reading too many vintage Marvel Comics down at R&C again.... | ||
| Post# 170207 , Reply# 21 11/28/2006 at 07:24 (6,358 days old) by mrx () | ||
|
Sure all detergents have an element of marvel comic branding to them. Take a look at the DAZ and Ariel logos! 
| ||
| Post# 170210 , Reply# 22 11/28/2006 at 07:27 (6,358 days old) by mrx () | ||
|
the original OMO logo :) the original Unilever OMO logo. 
| ||
| Post# 170212 , Reply# 23 11/28/2006 at 07:31 (6,358 days old) by mrx () | ||
|
Modern OMO - not quite so Marvel Modern OMO shares very similar branding to Unilever Persil (UK/IRL) 
| ||
| Forum Index: |
| Other Forums: |
|
|
|
|
|
Comes to the Rescue!
