Do you trust condoms?

[SallyNow]

Even if I was wearing rubber safety gloves and rubberized-sole safety boots certified to the highest standard I still wouldn't put staples in a plugged-in set of paper lanterns that were missing the outer coating and therefore contained bare live wire in places. Fire hazard and electrocution risk...

But if the set was in good repair, then I would put it up with said safety equipment. But I'd probably use zap straps if the set was plugged in. If it wasn't, I'd make careful use of a staple gun that had a wire guide.

 

[quatona]

Even if I was wearing rubber safety gloves and rubberized-sole safety boots certified to the highest standard I still wouldn't put staples in a plugged-in set of paper lanterns that were missing the outer coating and therefore contained bare live wire in places. Fire hazard and electrocution risk...

But if the set was in good repair, then I would put it up with said safety equipment. But I'd probably use zap straps if the set was plugged in. If it wasn't, I'd make careful use of a staple gun that had a wire guide.

You have been asked a simple black/white question. Please answer accordingly.

 

[Vene]

You have been asked a simple black/white question. Please answer accordingly.

Is there really such a thing as a simple yes/no, black/white, right/wrong question?

 

[lucyclaire]

Ahhhh...but 'double-bagging' increases the chance of breaking. See the above post on friction...

Having never tried the two condom thing, I wouldn't know. I just remember what that hooker said about it, when the AIDS, scare broke in the 80's. I didn't say it was a got idea, the friction would be an obvious problem.
Personally I am allergic to latex, so I can't used them at all but I do believe they are the most affective way to prevent STD's apart from fidelity.

 

[Skaloop]

Even if I was wearing rubber safety gloves and rubberized-sole safety boots certified to the highest standard I still wouldn't put staples in a plugged-in set of paper lanterns that were missing the outer coating and therefore contained bare live wire in places. Fire hazard and electrocution risk...

But if the set was in good repair, then I would put it up with said safety equipment. But I'd probably use zap straps if the set was plugged in. If it wasn't, I'd make careful use of a staple gun that had a wire guide.

With all that electrical talk, I assume you may be interested in this:

http://www.pluk-in.com/watch/yt.php?v=plukcode_SxzozhTi_fp

 

[Eudaimonist]

Is there really such a thing as a simple yes/no, black/white, right/wrong question?

The one you asked above may count.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[TexasSky]

This would have been around 20 years ago, right? Even back then some of this stuff was known to be incorrect. Much more so now that we known more ab out how the virus works. But don't worry, I'll show ya'

Completely false. The HIV virus is actually a pretty weak virus. It cannot survive outside the host for any length of time. No aerosol transmission here. And you can sterilize it away. Autoclaves, bleach, alcohol, UV light, or any other of a myriad sterilization methods work just fine on HIV. No special industrial grade bug zappers needed for this one.

Once again, not true. HPV is much easier to contract than HIV. And the immune system does fight and destroy the HIV virus. This is why the HIV test looks for the HIV antibodies and not the virus itself. The virus simply overwhelms and then commandeers the auto-immune system.

Half true. Yes, there are no cures (yet). The only way HIV is lethal is by another disease getting you. HIV weakens the immune system to allow other opportunistic pathogens a shot at taking you down. HIV, in and of itself, cannot kill you.

Partially true. Unless the seminal fluid were going directly into and open sore, there would be no cause for alarm. The stuff about condoms is completely true.

And since then they have included STDs into the mix and used various mechanical tests to see where the breaking point is.

I almost let this one slide, but I couldn't. The information provided errors on the side of caution and I can respect that, but I think people should be given correct information so that they can make the best decisions. Back in the day (Late '80s and early '90s) I volunteered for a group that dealt with HIV/AIDS. It was company line to tell people not to brush their teeth prior to going out on a date because the micro-tears in the gums that a toothbrush leaves could leave you open to infection. I raised objections to this due to the fact that you would have to be drinking either quarts of blood or gallons of saliva to get enough of the virus into your system through these micro-tears. I was told that while that was factually correct, we would continue teaching it because there still existed the chance you could contract the virus that way, plus it got people thinking 'outside the box' of transmission vectors and would help them remain safer. It was that type of scare tactic that I had (and still have) problems with and led to me spending my volunteer time elsewhere.

No, not twenty years ago.


As to the "survivability" of HIV. That was actually a point that Jim made that day. The same people who were calling it weak were also the people warning that it could survive on needles used for drugs or tattoos for extended lengths of time. Something that many, many other viruses cannot do. No, you cannot "cough" and give AIDS to someone else. It does require certain conditions, and no, it won't survive on a toilet seat, but many other diseases would NOT survive long enough to be transmitted, even via a "shared needle" the way HIV will. Ergo, Jim said, it does not fit the scientific definitions of a weak virus, yet it was being advertised to the world as such.

I don't know what you are reading that tells you an autoclave will kill HIV, but I wouldn't bet your life on it.
I used to be the coordinator for a DNA lab. We used autoclaves ALL THE TIME in the labs. We also took EXTREME precautions when using those autoclaves because of the high risk to anyone who might be working with HIV tainted blood should any lab accidents (like broken test tubes) occur. Trust me, the attitude was not, "don't worry if you got a scratch, it was all in the autoclave so its safe." We had very rigid standards for handling various body tissue and blodo products based on the world's ability to know they could kill virsues.

With Hive, the rules were "contact the AIDS-Emergency-Coordinator within 2 hours of the incident or we cannot promise you containment of the VIRUS. And that, my friend, was within the last 8 years.

And again, you are ONLY talking about HPV compared to HIV. HPV is only one of the many STD's out there.

AIDS needs a cell to survive in. Sneezing won't give it to someone else, but if an AIDS infected person bleeds enough, and someone touches that blood with an open wound, the virus CAN infect them. You won't see that with something like syphillius.

A recent report said that one American dies from HIV ever 6 mintues, and it is the 6th leading cause of death among people between the ages of 15 to 24.

HIV, unlike other STD's, weakens the immune system.

In 2005, 5 MILLION people were newly infected with HIV, and 3 Million died of AIDS. Compare that to 36,862 cases of syphilis.

People like you, trying to down play the dangers of it, should be forced to work with AIDS patients.

A quote from a January 2006 report on HIV:

"Most perversely, some of the critical lessons about stopping HIV/AIDS, learned painfully and acted on with positive results in the 1980s and 1990s, are now being disregarded."

 

[IzzyPop]

No, not twenty years ago.
Twenty years ago it began to make headlines.
The actual "Panic" was much closer to today's date.

As to the "survivability" of HIV. That was actually a point that Jim made that day. The same people who were calling it weak were also the people warning that it could survive on needles used for drugs or tattoos for extended lengths of time. Something that many, many other viruses cannot do. No, you cannot "cough" and give AIDS to someone else. It does require certain conditions, and no, it won't survive on a toilet seat, but many other diseases would NOT survive long enough to be transmitted, even via a "shared needle" the way HIV will. Ergo, Jim said, it does not fit the scientific definitions of a weak virus, yet it was being advertised to the world as such.
I don't know what you are reading that tells you an autoclave will kill HIV, but I wouldn't bet your life on it. I used to be the coordinator for a DNA lab. We used autoclaves ALL THE TIME in the labs. We also took EXTREME precautions when using those autoclaves because of the high risk to anyone who might be working with HIV tainted blood should any lab accidents (like broken test tubes) occur. Trust me, the attitude was not, "don't worry if you got a scratch, it was all in the autoclave so its safe."
Instead, the attitude was, "contact the AIDS-Emergency-Coordinator within 2 hours of the incident or we cannot promise you containment of the VIRUS.
And that, my friend, was fairly recently.

I work in the restaurant industry. We no longer use raw eggs to make Caesar dressing. Why? Because we stand about a 1 in a thousand chance of getting some people sick. And for as many Caesar salads that get made, the risk is too high. When I am at home, I use raw eggs to make the dressing. Why the difference? Because 1 in a thousand isn't too bad a risk for the few salads I make at home. Same principle as above.

And again, you are ONLY talking about HPV compared to HIV. HPV is only one of the many STD's out there.

And oddly enough, the one that proved your premise is not universal.

A recent report said that one American dies from HIV ever 6 mintues, and it is the 6th leading cause of death among people between the ages of 15 to 24.

HIV, unlike other STD's, weakens the immune system.

In 2005, 5 MILLION people were newly infected with HIV, and 3 Million died of AIDS.

Okay. Follow me though this. HIV weakens the immune system and allows diseases that we would normally be able to fight off to kill us. HIV, in and of itself, does not kill you. If you contract HIV, you end up dying of pneumonia, some odd form of cancer, or some other opportunistic illness. There is a difference.

People like you, trying to down play the dangers of it, should be forced to work with AIDS patients.

A quote from a January 2006 report on HIV:

"Most perversely, some of the critical lessons about stopping HIV/AIDS, learned painfully and acted on with positive results in the 1980s and 1990s, are now being disregarded."

Lady, I have worked with HIV patients. Spent over a year volunteering in an AIDS hospice. I spent 3 years working phone banks answering questions about HIV. I went to over 35 funerals prior to me being 25 years old because of it. I quit when the emotional toll was too much. You know what, there may be some new information out there that I am unaware of, but in general, I know what I am talking about. I have talked to the experts first hand, not 'some doctor'. I have spent my time in the trenches using that knowledge to keep myself safe. In the future, I suggest you keep your condescension to yourself. 'Kay thanx, bai.