Difference between revisions of "Talk:1161: Hand Sanitizer"

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 7: Line 7:
 
Shouldn't 200 million times .01% actually be equivalent to 200 million times .0001, which equals 20 000 germs? [[Special:Contributions/134.169.169.121|134.169.169.121]] 13:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 
Shouldn't 200 million times .01% actually be equivalent to 200 million times .0001, which equals 20 000 germs? [[Special:Contributions/134.169.169.121|134.169.169.121]] 13:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  
Yes, it should.
+
Yes, it should. I wonder if he will change it when he notices? [[Special:Contributions/24.93.151.187|24.93.151.187]] 13:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:37, 16 January 2013

Does anyone think the "peak" referred to in the title text could be the 1918 flu pandemic? Or even the bird flu outbreak?Chexwarrior (talk) 10:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

That 99.99% number on the hand sanitizer is probably made up anyway. Any actual scientific measure of effectivity would need to take into account different resistance of different types of germs. So, question is, is the sanitizer more or less effective? -- Hkmaly (talk) 10:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I actually had in the back of my mind that the 99.99% figure wasn't a "dead germ count," but the number of strains of germs the sanitizer has the ability to kill. I.e. there are some strains which it doesn't kill. —98.122.166.235 12:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't 200 million times .01% actually be equivalent to 200 million times .0001, which equals 20 000 germs? 134.169.169.121 13:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it should. I wonder if he will change it when he notices? 24.93.151.187 13:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)