Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / January 2005
32,000 pin holes per condom
|
|
Thread rating:  |
PaulKing - 22 Jan 2005 23:34 GMT The condom itself is not 100 % safe. Result of examination show the following :
A condom is made of rubber (latex), a hydrocarbon compound with polymerization, which means that it is fibrous and porous like woven cloth. By means of an electronic microscope the pores of the condom can be seen in a non-stretched state with a width of 1/60 micron, while the HIV/AIDS virus has a width of 1/250 micron. When the condom is stretched the pores of the condom are 10 times as wide as that of the virus; in other words, the virus can go through the wall of the condom. The condom was designed for family planning (to strain sperm, not viruses); and a condom is not meant for fornication/prostitution.
Research carried out in the U.S. on 89 condoms in circulation on the market proved that 29 out of 89 leaked, which means that the leakage was about 30 %. In Indonesia condoms imported from Hong Kong in 1996 were withdrawn from market because 50 % leaked. In practice in the field there is often failure of condoms use for family planning because of leakage, let alone for fornication/prostitution. As a comparison, sperm are as large as oranges and viruses as large as a period (dot).
Another examination conducted in the U.S. ( the Physical Division of Human Sciences, Maryland, USA, 1992) showed that particles as minute as viruses can be detected going through the wall of condoms. In every condom there are 0.4 % pinhole, microscopic defect in the manufacturing process. The area of the condom is 80 cm2 and if you count 32,000 pinhole in each condom, and if each pinhole is 1/1000 micron, you can imagine the total number of pinholes in a condom.
Based on the above finding, the anti-AIDS campaign in the U.S. no longer uses the Safe Sex Use Condoms slogan, but just the reverse (a turn of 180o),
At the same time an expert of the University of Utah, Professor Victor Cline, state in 1995 that if we believe that by using condoms we are protected from sexually transmitted diseases including the HIV/AIDS virus, we really have gone astray.
GMCarter - 23 Jan 2005 11:14 GMT >The condom itself is not 100 % safe. Nothing is. Victor Cline, whoever he is, simply is wrong. Pinholes don't matter. You can blow AIR into a condom. It may slowly leak out some after a couple hours. Does a guy stay inside a person with a condom on after ejaculating for a couple hours?
How big is an air molecule?
How big is HIV? Or seminal fluid constituents?
Surface tension?
These concepts are all apparently still alien to you. And tho you regurgitate this mess of crap again, it remains that condoms can vastly reduce the risk of passing HIV infection and other STDs.
George M. Carter
Brian Mailman - 23 Jan 2005 21:14 GMT > Nothing is. Victor Cline, whoever he is, simply is wrong. Pinholes > don't matter. You can blow AIR into a condom. Onto is bettter.
B/
PaulKing - 24 Jan 2005 00:02 GMT Models of STD transmission
Condoms are made to withstand the rigors of sex. But the models used by governments to test condom durability have nothing to do with sex.
Even if the models used to test condoms are reasonable indicators of whether a condom will break during sex, and thus whether they will function adequately in preventing sperm from reaching the female's reproductive system, but they may be rather poor indicators of whether a microscopic pathogen can pass from one partner to the other.
For example, the water test can detect holes only as small as 5 mm, but this sized hole is many times the size of sexually-transmitted viruses and even of the bacterium Chylamidia.
Similarly, the airburst test is insensitive to small holes. So here we find new limitations of existing methods of testing condoms: these models don't give us a good understanding of the barrier to pathogens afforded by a condom.
That is, these models have serious limitations when considering condoms as barriers to infectious disease.
READ THE FULL ARTICLE AT: -
http://www.utexas.edu/courses/bio301d/Topics/Condoms/Text.html
GMCarter - 24 Jan 2005 09:46 GMT >Models of STD transmission snip...>
>READ THE FULL ARTICLE AT: - > >http://www.utexas.edu/courses/bio301d/Topics/Condoms/Text.html An article that sounds like it comes from some erudite course. Actually, if you read a bit into it, one comes across: "We might think of these as 'dickless' tests, but this is of course not a term that youll hear used by professionals"...
That is persuasive!
But see http://www.utexas.edu/courses/bio301d/
Basically, this is just some bigoted a.shole's poorly written homework assignment. Probably some braindead frat jock trying to justify f.cking without a condom, like Paul does.
George M. Carter
PaulKing - 24 Jan 2005 00:01 GMT WRONG AGAIN CARTER: -
Home > Health > AIDS > University of T... Search! My Preferences Email to a friend Bookmark Post Log Out Latest [ Topics | Posts ] Archive Post A New Topic Post a Reply << Topic < Post Post 1 of 4 Topic 2514 of 2545 Post > Topic >> University of Texas on condom testing by "PaulKing" <aimulti@aimultimedia.com> Jan 20, 2005 at 05:48 AM
Models of STD transmission
Condoms are made to withstand the rigors of sex. But the models used by governments to test condom durability have nothing to do with sex.
Even if the models used to test condoms are reasonable indicators of whether a condom will break during sex, and thus whether they will function adequately in preventing sperm from reaching the female's reproductive system, but they may be rather poor indicators of whether a microscopic pathogen can pass from one partner to the other.
For example, the water test can detect holes only as small as 5 mm, but this sized hole is many times the size of sexually-transmitted viruses and even of the bacterium Chylamidia.
Similarly, the airburst test is insensitive to small holes. So here we find new limitations of existing methods of testing condoms: these models don't give us a good understanding of the barrier to pathogens afforded by a condom.
That is, these models have serious limitations when considering condoms as barriers to infectious disease.
READ THE FULL ARTICLE AT: -
http://www.utexas.edu/courses/bio301d/Topics/Condoms/Text.html
GMCarter - 24 Jan 2005 09:47 GMT >WRONG AGAIN CARTER: - >snip >University of Texas on condom testing >by "PaulKing" <aimulti@aimultimedia.com> Jan 20, 2005 at 05:48 AM > >Models of STD transmission Oh! lol. I shoulda known. This is YOUR homework assignment.
That is NOT the position of the U of Texas but a student opinion piece.
Based on the way you frame arguments based on flawed interpretations of data and outright fraud in "creating" data, I trust your professor saw through and gave it an F. Unless of course he was merely grading you on your ability to be a sophist.
George M. Carter
David Canzi -- non-mailable address - 25 Jan 2005 15:23 GMT >The condom itself is not 100 % safe. Result of examination show the >following : [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >seen in a non-stretched state with a width of 1/60 micron, while the >HIV/AIDS virus has a width of 1/250 micron. The virus is actually about 1/10 micron.
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=4625da386ae4a7d2e756287c1f7e827c%40localhos t.talkabouthealthnetwork.com> <http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=a92add0fd0c013d477dbd3df32b5df83%40localhos t.talkabouthealthnetwork.com>
This has been pointed out to you before.
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=chbfus%24uuv%241%40rumours.uwaterloo.ca>
When you repeat a mistake that has been shown to be a mistake, it becomes a lie.
 Signature David Canzi
Let Us Carry Out the Great Leader Comrade Kim Il Sung's Instructions for National Reunification - 27 Jan 2005 07:05 GMT "David Canzi -- non-mailable address" <dmcanzi@remulak.ads.uwaterloo.ca> wrote...
>>The condom itself is not 100 % safe. Result of examination show the >>following : [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > When you repeat a mistake that has been shown to be a mistake, it > becomes a lie. And I don't think he's demonstrated that the "holes" in latex condoms actually go through the material completely uninterrupted. In other words, while there may be "holes" in the latex, none of them goes directly from one side to another, so that even if a viral particle entered into one of them, it would never make it through the entire membrane. Just my opinion, though one supported by the fact that virtually everyone who FAITHFULLY uses latex condoms does not contract the HIV virus.
I've questioned PaulKing's sanity before. He is very unstable, and his recent crusade against condoms suggest he may be an agent of the Catholic cult. It is the most logical explanation, as his agenda seems to be to get people to quit worrying about the HIV virus (it is harmless) and stop using condoms to prevent infection (condoms fail to stop HIV transmission, even though it is a harmless virus, therefore condoms are evil). Since we are dealing with a religious ideology, it does not appear to make sense to us, but is perfectly logical to someone indoctrinated in Catholicism which teaches that all contraception is a sin.
If I am right, PaulKing does not give a flying f.ck about the spread of HIV, he simply wishes to dissuade people from using condoms and thus ensure a steady supply of new Church members, even if they are born HIV+ (not that the Church will pay for their medical treatment).
|
|
|