 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / January 2005Air and water tests are useless - Texas University
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 STANDARD WATER TEST "The FDA tests every batch of imported condoms as well, though imports account for very few condoms used in this country. Although the smallest hole the water test can find is 100 times bigger than the HIV virus, officials believe the water test is sufficient. " _______ VISUAL TESTING ONLY Condoms contain 57 toxic proteins, 41 FDA toxins, 3 Carcinogens, 2 suspected Carcinogens and at least one Teratogen (causes birth defects). In addition silicone is the main lubricant (as in breast implants). INDUSTRY BROCHURE ADMITS KNOWLEDGE OF TOXIC EFFECTS OF THEIR PRODUCT "............new concerns are arising regarding allergic or other toxic reactions to various components of latex condoms such as vulcanization accelerators, latex proteins, spermicides and finishing powders." VISUAL DETECTION ONLY (If HIV existed it would be 125,000th of an inch across) "Independent laboratories testing selected condoms from batches for quality assurance use either the "hang" or the "hang/roll" method, described on page 50. (Some manufacturers also use these methods.) ISO, CEN and WHO require the hang/roll method. ASTM and USAID require only the hang method. The hang/roll method is more capable of detecting holes that leak tiny amounts of water undetected by the human eye. Even so, both tests are limited to visual detection. While experts consider the visual test acceptable, they would like to find a more reliable and reproducible test that is independent of the technician's judgment. An electronic detection approach could be used, but would require complex apparatus. In monitoring condom imports, a few countries currently use an electronic wet test similar to the one used during the manufacturing process." INTERNATION STANDARDS DON"T REQUIRE EVEN MANY BASIC TESTS "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." snip >READ THE FULL ARTICLE AT: - > >http://www.utexas.edu/courses/bio301d/Topics/Condoms/Text.html This is at least the 3rd time you've posted this drivel. Is this a violation of your ISP's TOS? George M. Carter Because YOU have posted the utter drivel that condoms holding water proves they are protection, again and again and again. So the University of Texas is teaching 'drivel'? You are such an idiot I cannot even believe it. You dismiss EVERYTHING as 'drivel' unless it supports your insane obsession with so called 'AIDS'. YOU ARE DRIVEL, SIR >Because YOU have posted the utter drivel that condoms holding water proves >they are protection, again and again and again. Because, darling, it's just true. >So the University of Texas is teaching 'drivel'? Possibly. But for you to claim that the URL is a viewpoint of the University is yet another disingenuous lie. Holes as _small_ as 5mm? That's a quarter-inch in diameter. One would hope you wouldn't need a sophisticated test to spot one of those. :-P Bennett "Bennett" <njb35@cantab.net> wrote in message > Holes as _small_ as 5mm? That's a quarter-inch in diameter. One would > hope you wouldn't need a sophisticated test to spot one of those. LOL, indeed, a BB is 5mm. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.