|
May 9, 2009 04:58An other way of washing and cleaning perhaps?Well, we are told that washing hands before we eat is healthy because we kill most germs. Or, we heat food, pasteurize milk so as to kill most germs again. Well, growing up in a very "clean" environment is not good because we do not get use to germs. So, I wonder, whether we could use other methods as to kill ONLY severe germs, because it is due to them we wash and clean... |
||||||
|
TAGS:
|
|||||||
Post on
You need to be logged in to post to the MoleClues forums! Use the log in form, or register link above.
Really "nasty" germs are of course different to most germs. The difference could be due to various reasons eg targets more sensitive parts of our body, or disguises itself better etc
Basically I wonder if we could find a series of "nasty" characteristics and find a way to attack them and only them...
But, as I think about it, why destroy those nasty germs, while we could just make them extremelly weak so as to infect us but not as bad and then get immunized?
How difficult could this be? I mean finding more advanced methods of cleaning.
Actually my answer would be: Quite difficult!
It's much easier killing all the germs all together that just killing those that are actually "bad" for you. I mean, how are you going to know exactly which germ to kill?
Look at antibiotics for example! Antibiotics kill all bacteria! It doesn't chose...
Your question is interesting though. Why not make some kind of medicine that will kill-or like you said weaken- only particular types of germs? But there would be some difficulties... Maybe there is one kind of germ the new cleaning method will not kill, and that would be very dangerous for the human body, wheras if we'd used the "old" method, that "bad germ" would never have harmed us!
Also, by washing your hands, you don't actually KILL the germs! Some could get killed, but most of them are just washed away!
What do you think?
I hope you don't kill me after I say that, but if we kept leaving the bacteria in our hands, and just cure ourselves in various ways if they do something bad to us, wouldn't we gain some type of immunity to such diseases? As John said, most of these bacteria are harmful to us only because we have "learned" to live in a clean environment! Dogs can eat food from the floor, but we can't because we have been eating on plates for hundreds of years!
And not only that! But most importantly we have learned to COOK our food! Dogs can eat raw meat for example! Whereas we can eat only certain types of raw meat (eg. raw bacon or fish) and only in certain circumstances!
Also I think that what John means is that when we steam our food, we kill ALL germs. But the truth is that only a small percent of those are really dangerous for us. So he suggests (correct me if I'm wrong) we kill only the ones that are really dangerous and leave the rest that harm us very very little or they do not harm us at all! Theoretically, that way we would learn to cope with some germs that we wouldn't otherwise! Hence, we wouldn't get that sick!
Of course that is quite difficult as I pointed out in my previous post, but it's not an illogical thought!
Natalia, I like your point!:)
Thanks. Well, it may take a lot of research to define how these antibodies would be (different bacteria "require" different antibodies to be killed), but I can't see the really difficult part. The only complicated process is finding every single type of bacterium, wich is indeed almost impossible. But provided that we've found the bacterium, we only need to find out what type of antibody can kill it, and put it in our body.
My theory may be a bit "too easy", but biology - biotechnology has developed so much, that finding suitable antibodies for such a common disease - especially when it's a bacterium responsible for it - wouldn't be so hard, since bacteria have DNA similar to ours.
Correct me if I'm wrong! B)