Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Medicine Science

Nanotech Paint To Kill Bacteria 208

Posted by kdawson
from the any-color-as-long-as-it's-white dept.
ColGraff points out reporting at Science News about the possibility of killing bacteria with paint. Scientists in the UK have found that high concentrations of titanium oxide nanoparticles in paint can kill bacteria by creating hydroxyl radicals when exposed to ordinary fluorescent light. Titanium dioxide is present in most white paint at concentrations of 30% or so, but not always at nanoparticle scale. The researchers found that an 80% concentration of TiO2 nanoparticles worked well to kill E. Coli bacteria. There is hope that the technique could be used against "superbugs," which are resistant to multiple antibiotics. A researcher not associated with the UK team pointed out the problem with developing products based on this idea: "[A]nything that survives and sticks around grows greater resistance... ultimately [antibiotic paint] will be its own worst enemy and the bacteria could grow to be even stronger."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Nanotech Paint To Kill Bacteria

Comments Filter:
  • by Naughty Bob (1004174) * on Sunday September 14, 2008 @02:58PM (#25000635)

    A researcher not associated with the UK team pointed out the problem with developing products based on this idea: "[A]nything that survives and sticks around grows greater resistance... ultimately [antibiotic paint] will be its own worst enemy and the bacteria could grow to be even stronger."

    What a crazy thing to say. It's true, for sure, but has always been the case in the arms race against bacteria. It's what natural selection does...

    What could possibly be the researcher's motivation to say such a strange thing?

    *cough*She's the founder of a rival nanotech firm*cough*

    A coincidence, or fear mongering unscientific FUD? You decide!

    • by goombah99 (560566) on Sunday September 14, 2008 @03:12PM (#25000773)

      Actually that was the very forst thing I thought of. Basically the paint is harnessing photon energy to increase the availability of an energetic and highly reactive compound. It also kills bacteria. If some bacteria figures out how to live in the environment --- alkyline loving bacteria exist-- then it will have free food and no competition.

      Unlike anti-bacterial soaps, this food source is persistent so the bacteria can more quickly adapt.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by orkysoft (93727)

        Also, there are enviroments that no bacteria can evolve to survive in, at least from their current state, either because it is just too hostile to life, or because it is too different from their usual environment that they can't adapt quickly enough, because it requires changing too many genes.

        The hostile environment option is probably not so nice for us either, you wouldn't want to heat your kitchen top to 3000 degrees to sterilize it, because that would be unpractical and dangerous. But no organism could

        • I imagine one could cycle through certain parameters to improve sterilisation -- for example, if a bacterium is quite happy in a high-saline environment, perhaps flooding the surface with fresh water for a while might help. And to ensure the low-salinity bacteria aren't forgotten, then flood the surface with a salt solution. You could do the same thing for PH -- switch from (reasonably) low PH to (reasonably) high PH because some bacteria might find sodium hydroxide rather yummy, and other bacteria might
      • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 14, 2008 @04:02PM (#25001263)

        So we get bacteria who adapt to live in conditions that are totally unlike the conditions inside a human body.

        Was this supposed to be a bad thing?

        (Captcha: fitness. I swear, the thing has a mind of its own.)

        • Wrong kind of logic (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Rui del-Negro (531098) on Sunday September 14, 2008 @08:50PM (#25004301) Homepage

          So we get bacteria who adapt to live in conditions that are totally unlike the conditions inside a human body.

          It's really not a matter of what "conditions inside the human body" are like. Conditions inside the human body don't normally include the presence of vast amounts of amoxicillin, for example. And yet, when you have a bacterial infection, taking amoxicillin tablets will get rid of them for you.

          Bacteria that aren't "adapted to the conditions inside the human body" aren't a threat to begin with, so they're irrelevant. The problem with antibiotic resistance is that, if you wipe out 99% of bacteria, leaving only the 1% that are resistant to that antibiotic, when those multiply to fill the space left by the ones you killed, you have as many bacteria as you started with, but now your antibiotic is useless.

          Not that the arguments in TFA make much sense, mind you, but saying that bacterial resistance is only an issue if they're "adapting to conditions inside the human body" is missing the point. Normal conditions inside the human body don't include antibiotic drugs.

          • by Urkki (668283)

            But will the resistant bacteria be as adapted to human body? I mean, everything is a tradeoff. If they have for example proteins that won't get denatured by certain bad chemicals, then those proteins probably are not as efficient at what is their primary function. Less efficient proteins, less efficient bacteria, easier job for human immune system to deal with 'em.

            Actually I think that would be a good thing to research. Can we develop anti-bacterial substanses that guide their evolution into direction that

      • by tmosley (996283) on Sunday September 14, 2008 @04:21PM (#25001463)
        Antibacterial soaps target specific molecules on the surface of bacterial membranes, or interfere with some metabolic process. This stuff directly oxidizes the bonds on the surface of the membrane. The only way to develop resistance would be to change the nature of the membrane dramatically.

        That would mean (by definition) that they have evolved into a new species. More than likely, they wouldn't be able to live inside the body anymore.

        I am working on developing a similar technology in my lab, one that I would argue is better, because it doesn't require light or UV.
        • by Peaker (72084) <gnupeakerNO@SPAMyahoo.com> on Sunday September 14, 2008 @06:50PM (#25003175) Homepage

          I think evolution finds creative and interesting solutions to problems that we wouldn't think of.

          I wouldn't underestimate their ability to "dramatically change their membrane" (if there is no clever way to avoid it), while also being able to live in a human body.

      • by Renraku (518261) on Sunday September 14, 2008 @04:47PM (#25001791) Homepage

        Its all about resources.

        Having resistance to something takes up resources. So this bacteria might need x food, whereas its paint-resistant form might need x+3 food. If there's only x+3 food available to the bacteria, that's all it can do. It can't even reproduce because x+3 isn't enough for the cells to divide. Now, what if you slathered the wall with antibacterial soap? The bacteria would need to have soap-resistance at another +2 food, which isn't there.

        It would likely die out.

        The point isn't making the wall completely sterile, but is just making it a hostile environment for bacteria. The more a bacteria has to invest to protect itself, the less it can invest in its other traits, given a limited amount of food.

        • So this bacteria might need x food, whereas its paint-resistant form might need x+3 food. If there's only x+3 food available to the bacteria, that's all it can do. It can't even reproduce because x+3 isn't enough for the cells to divide. Now, what if you slathered the wall with antibacterial soap? The bacteria would need to have soap-resistance at another +2 food, which isn't there.

          And they say that video games are not educational...

          • by Renraku (518261)

            Spore has a nice way of simplifying things.

            In reality, the bacteria would need a multitude of different things besides 'food'. Like it might need either a raw source of vitamin A, or facilities to convert something else into vitamin A..

            Biology takes a shotgun approach more than a selected one. Think of a brute force password cracker run by a protein-based computer. It has to find the right 'password' consisting of modules that might give it a competitive edge when it comes to other bacteria. Every corre

        • Sir, you made some interesting claims here! Do you have any studies to back up your claim? In the words of a commercial, "Where's the beef?" List some studies in a reputable scientific journal by reputable biologists.

      • by Evil Pete (73279)

        But. And this is my objection to the original quote. The environment is special. If they live off the special conditions the paint offers, then they can't live easily off it. If they adapt to it so it doesn't kill them then they have added biochemical machinery that is pointless off the paint environment. Most likely, I can't say for sure of course, the paint will either kill the critters or evolve them towards a weakened, specialised state.

        Anyway my 2 cents.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by falconwolf (725481)

      What a crazy thing to say. It's true, for sure, but has always been the case in the arms race against bacteria. It's what natural selection does...

      It's not crazy at all, nor is it FUD. What is crazy is ignoring antibacterial resistance. As TFA says, almost 100,000 become infected with antibiotic-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in hospitals alone. And that's not a competitor saying that.

      Falcon

      • by mrbooze (49713) on Sunday September 14, 2008 @04:16PM (#25001403)

        And yet the response is always "just use soap and water".

        So why aren't we getting soap-and-water-resistant bacteria? Presumably because such an evolved trait is too "expensive".

        A genetics professor of mine once explained that when I asked if bacteria can become resistant to alcohol. (As he was wiping his hands with Purell.) He said, yes, you can induce bacteria to evolve alcohol-resistance in a lab environment, but it's such an expensive adaptation that as soon as the alcohol exposure is reduced, the trait rapidly disappears again.

        So the real question would be, is any resistance encouraged by this nano-particle approach an expensive trait or not?

        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by Amy Grace (1205236)
          My understanding was always that soap just allowed water to rinse bacteria away more effectively than water alone, without actually killing the bacteria. Is that the sort of thing that bacteria can adapt to? (Genuinely curious, not being snotty.)
          • IANAB, but I understand that the soap breaks apart the lipids that compose the cell membrane and that is what makes it very effective at killing bacteria. A resistance to this is apparently not easy for a single celled organism to develop.

            • by KGIII (973947) *

              Hmm...

              I will start with, "I am not a chemist."

              Having said that I had a conversation some years ago with a chemist who was very clear, at the time but I forgot most of it, that there are often misleading uses of the word soap. Soap does one thing and detergents do another.

              One attracts stuff to the molecules and the other changes the molecular structure. I think soap is the former.

              I'm not entirely sure but I think that may have some bearing on this conversation.

              • I'm not entirely sure, but I think you may be right.

        • In many cases all that is needed is soap and water.

          So the real question would be, is any resistance encouraged by this nano-particle approach an expensive trait or not?

          The thing is is once these approaches of using antibiotics gets started they won't end, at least not without something dramatic happening. Instead when a biotic becomes resistant industry will work to make a more powerful antibiotic. Strains of Mosquito born malaria are getting resistant so companies are trying to develop stronger drugs, t

          • by hedwards (940851)

            Antibiotic drugs are a pretty big waste of money in terms of development. Most of the easy to produce cheap ones have long since been discovered and many are already running into serious problems with efficacy. Even if there are a few new ones which are easy to create, they still have serious issues with how long they'll be useful.

            If this sort of approach works, there's potential to make bacteria more difficult to spread. But really, antibiotics as we know them now are of decreasing value, and doing so at a

            • by Stickerboy (61554)

              >But really, antibiotics as we know them now are of decreasing value, and doing so at an increased rate than before.

              Hmm... tell that to the makers of Zyvox, Tygacil, Doribax, and Cubicin. All of them are new potential blockbuster antibiotics on the market, and most of them are seeing widespread hospital inpatient use.

            • Antibiotic drugs are a pretty big waste of money in terms of development

              I don't think antibiotics are a waste. What I do consider deadly is improper use of antibiotics. Such as not following through with an antibiotic regime a doctor prescribes. Or flushing unused drugs down the toilet. Both of these are part of the reason microbes develop drug resistance.

              Falcon

        • That's because soap and water is about mechanical cleaning. The soap loosens the muck and the water washes it away.

    • by Ihlosi (895663)

      A coincidence, or fear mongering unscientific FUD?

      Unscientific FUD. Either she has no clue what an antibiotic is, or she's intentionally twisting the facts around. An oxidizer isn't an antibiotic, it's a disinfectant if anything. What's the big difference you ask? Well, try drinking some H2O2 or sodium hypochlorite (both are strong oxidizers and disinfectant) to treat a bacterial infection.

  • by BitterOldGUy (1330491) on Sunday September 14, 2008 @02:59PM (#25000639)
    Paint for bacteria and I guess really really small brushes to paint the bacteria. Nanotech at its finest!
    • It's a good thing I did a search for "paint the bacteria" to avoid the -1 Redundant for the obvious joke... although bacteria look really good with a nice coat of white semi-gloss paint.

  • by Zarhan (415465) on Sunday September 14, 2008 @03:00PM (#25000653)

    Tetrasodium-including soaps have already given a free boot camp for bacterias at home when folks have been buying the stuff thinking it somehow makes places healthier. There's a difference between clean and sterile environments, and clean is really all that you need.

    • by Teun (17872) on Sunday September 14, 2008 @03:32PM (#25000965) Homepage
      You are talking about a US problem, the too liberal, really uncontrolled, abuse of industrial strength disinfectants.

      The problem here is British, a historical lack of hygiene.

      The paint proposed could be a solution but I doubt whether they'll ever be able to recuperate the investments by lack of an export market...

      Another issue is that by now it's known nano particles are potentially in the same league as Asbestos fibres and spreading them on large surfaces might introduces other problems.

      • by g-san (93038)

        Well, if the British can get this to adhere to tooth enamel, this could be a major breakthrough.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by falconwolf (725481)

      Tetrasodium-including soaps have already given a free boot camp for bacterias at home when folks have been buying the stuff thinking it somehow makes places healthier. There's a difference between clean and sterile environments, and clean is really all that you need.

      Unfortunately as the products in the market that has, and is labeled as having, antibiotic properties shows most people don't think clean is enough. When I clean I use baking soda, a citrus cleaner, and vinegar. I try to stay away from antibio

    • are you talking about tetra sodium EDTA,

      EDTA is also known as H4EDTA, diaminoethanetetraacetic acid, edetic acid, edetate, ethylenedinitrilotetraacetic acid, celon A, gluma cleanser, versene acid, nervanaid B acid, nullapon B acid, ethylene diamine tetracetic acid, tetrine acid, trilon BS, vinkeil 100, warkeelate acid, N,N'-1,2-ethanediylbis(N-(carboxymethyl)glycine)edetic acid, YD-30, Dissolvine Z. EDTA [wikipedia.org]

      by any chance? I use it at work and inspite of a scary reading MSDS it's pretty benign stuff.

    • Allergies (Score:3, Interesting)

      by wfstanle (1188751)

      Not only that but there is some evidence that children need some exposure to germs for their immune system to develop properly. Without this exposure their immune systems start to react to normal items that are a part of their environment. Allergies for short. In extreme cases it can actually develop into an autoimmune disorder. I'm not saying that it is healthy to live in a pig sty.

      Aristotle said it best when he thought up the "Golden Mean".

  • by Toe, The (545098) on Sunday September 14, 2008 @03:03PM (#25000689)

    So much for grey goo [wikipedia.org].

    Now we can have eggshell goo, sky blue goo, burnt sienna goo... the mind boggles.

  • Well.. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Creepy Crawler (680178) on Sunday September 14, 2008 @03:03PM (#25000697)

    Lets give people lead in small dosages from age of a baby to 18.

    Whoever we dont kill will make the rest of them immune.

    Or shall we say that boric acid with cockroaches will make boric acid resistant cockroaches? I think not.

    Some things in biology are terminal, regardless of dose

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Darkness404 (1287218)

      Lets give people lead in small dosages from age of a baby to 18. Whoever we dont kill will make the rest of them immune.

      No, but over a 600 year period, humans will have a greater resistance to lead.

      • Are you really sure about that?

        Why hasnt this been true in the case of boric acid vs cockroaches? We've used boric acid over 100 years, and no resistances as of yet.

        There's just certain chemicals that directly affect the chemistry of a biological critter that I dont think we could ever adapt to.

        Well, I was going to say that an example would be sodium cyanide... but this [thenakedscientists.com], specifically

        and a few species (e.g. the Giant Bamboo in its shoots) are known to contain cyanides. Interestingly, the Golden Bamboo Lemur

        • The thing is, Boric Acid is only mildly toxic to humans. So obviously, (assuming that evolution is true), its possible for a cockroach to eventually gain immunity to it.
          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            Humans didn't evolve from cockroaches or from any arthropod. The origins of the vertebrates are currently quite obscure; something closer to a lancelet [wikipedia.org] seems the most likely candidate.

            Also, it's not clear that cockroaches could evolve immunity to boric acid while still remaining cockroaches. In other words, the biological changes required to make them resistant to the stuff could be so severe that we might not recognize the result as a cockroach.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Teun (17872)
        The old Romans tried and failed.
      • by jonbryce (703250)

        It might not. Instead it could wipe out humans completely, to be replaced with another species that is more resistant to lead.

  • by clang_jangle (975789) * on Sunday September 14, 2008 @03:04PM (#25000701) Journal
    ...TiO2 is basically poison [uni-heidelberg.de].
    • I should have said "TiO2 nanoparticles are basically poison [uni-heidelberg.de].
      • by jcorno (889560)
        TiO2 nanoparticles are poison in that case (as a sunscreen ingredient) because they're being applied directly to the skin and exposed to UV. That means the skin is being exposed to hydroxyl and oxygen ions. In the case of the paint, it's not an issue. Those radicals have a pretty short lifetime, and production stops when you block the light source, so the paint should be perfectly safe to touch. Between the time that your hand blocks the light and the time it actually touches the surface, all of the dan
    • ...TiO2 is basically poison.

      So is pretty much every other drug. They are dose-dependent poisons with useful side effects (paraphrased from the first sentence of the first lecture in my med school pharmacology course).

      That said, I'm not sure I want to welcome our new 'brighter-than white' overlords. As a previous poster has mentioned things generally need to be clean, not sterile.

    • by Daimanta (1140543)

      DISCLAIMER:It is advised that you don't lick the paint.

      That should solve the issues ;)

    • How do they break DNA if they're outside the cell nucleus?

      Does the titanium dioxide in your sunscreen get taken up by skin cells? Does it even make it past the epidermis? (Not rhetorical questions, asking because I don't know).

      Getting really weird, does this mean that if you're stuck without a first aid kit at the beach that you could substitute sunscreen for antibiotic ointment?

  • by compumike (454538) on Sunday September 14, 2008 @03:06PM (#25000719) Homepage

    I found an article that has much more information about the actual mechanism of the TiO2 anti-bacterial effect [nrel.gov].

    The nice thing is that the titanium acts as a catalyst, so ideally it isn't consumed in the reaction.

    The bad thing is that this requires UV light (below 385nm), which is really only present from "ordinary fluorescent lights" because they have bad phosphor coatings. All fluorescent lights really generate tons of UV, which is downconverted to visible via that white phosphor coating on the glass. But some UV escapes, and that's the stuff that triggers this anti-bacterial reaction. So good for anti-bacterial, but bad for skin cancer.

    In any case, maybe this is the kind of thing where some dedicated UV lights could turn on when no people were in a given room, and that would make for the best of both worlds?

    --
    Hey code monkey... learn electronics! Powerful microcontroller kits for the digital generation. [nerdkits.com]

    • http://energystar.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/energystar.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=3867&p_created=1196783272 [custhelp.com]

      Do Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs (CFLs) produce a hazardous amount of UV light?

      Regular fluorescent light bulbs used in your home and office, including CFLs, do not produce a hazardous amount of ultraviolet light (UV). Ultraviolet light rays are the light wavelengths that can cause sunburn and skin damage. Most light sources, including fluorescent bulbs, emit a small amount of UV light, but the UV light produced by fluorescent light bulbs is far less than the amount produced by natural daylight. The amount of UV given off by regular fluorescent light bulbs used in your home and office are not hazardous. A recent report from E Source indicates a level of UV radiation from CFLs at a range of 50-140 microwatts/lumen. In comparison, this report also sites that some incandescent products have been found to have UV levels exceeding 100 microwatts/ lumen.

  • Old news (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Jade E. 2 (313290) <slashdot AT perlstorm DOT net> on Sunday September 14, 2008 @03:09PM (#25000753) Homepage

    So you can use this new nano-titanium paint with a UV light and kill bacteria within 96 hours... or you can use the nano-silver paint [e-spaces.com] to kill them with no light needed in 2 hours. And it's been around for around 4 years.

  • I can see the point in being cautious about where this is used, but surely this would be very handy in operating theatres and other places where a sterile environment is important?
    • by nietsch (112711)

      Yes because they store all that equipment right on the wall or ceiling, and if the wall will clean it, that means that's a lot of savings for/from the autoclave. Unless it is stuff like doorhandles, there is little reason to make everything self-'disinfecting'.

  • by Rui del-Negro (531098) on Sunday September 14, 2008 @03:20PM (#25000833) Homepage

    A researcher [...] pointed out the problem [...]: "[A]nything that survives and sticks around grows greater resistance"

    If those were his words, then I guess this "researcher" needs to do a bit more research, perhaps starting with a book written by a certain "Charles Darwin".

    If the bacteria "stick around" it's because they are already resistant. Meaning they get to multiply, not to "grow greater resistance" (if they survived, their resistance is as "great" as it needs to be).

    All that antibiotics do (in the long run) is change the relative populations of different kinds of bacteria (eliminating the ones that aren't resistant, leaving more room and resources for the resistant ones to grow). They don't actively make bacteria "get stronger", as the quote suggests. It's not as if the bacteria send a sample of the antibiotic to their underground lab where bacterial boffins come up with an antidote. They don't even have proper immune systems.

    It's annoying when even "scientists" attribute some sort of "guiding intelligence" to the process of natural selection (or to individual bacteria, for that matter).

    P.S. - And yes, I'm aware of plasmids, but bacteria can't suddenly rush out to buy some when they need them [ * ], so it's still a matter of selection, not "self-improvement".

    [ * ] Unless they're playing Bioshock.

  • Titanium Dioxide can also be found in McDonalds (and others) honey mustard. Just putting that out there...
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by canajin56 (660655)
      And the meat is full of antibiotics! McDonalds PREVENTS food poisoning? Film at 11.
  • by localman (111171) on Sunday September 14, 2008 @03:40PM (#25001047) Homepage

    I realize that we face a pretty tough battle with certain "superbugs", but wouldn't one expect that as these bacteria adapt immunity to current antibiotics that they'll open up a weakness to something else? I suppose it's _possible_ that they're evolving to be stronger in a general sense, but usually I think of evolution as becoming more fit for one's environment -- which usually makes one less fit for another environment. Engineering is all about tradeoffs -- whether via intelligent design (our designs) or evolution (natures "design"). We created a new environment for them by introducing antibiotics, which they've adapted to. So we'll change the environment again.

    I understand this is not simple or straightforward, but I think the idea of "superbugs" is a bit of misnomer -- they're only super until we find the next weakness, and I imagine they'll always be one, even if it takes us a while to find it.

    Cheers.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by wfstanle (1188751)

      Who can say for sure what will happen? This brings to mind what happened to a strain of E. Coli. They were experimenting on a streptomycin resistant strain and they noticed something strange. Some colonies actually needed streptomycin to live! Evolution can do some really strange and unpredictable things.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by budgenator (254554)

      This paint attacks them via a much different mechanism than antibiotics do. When the TiO2 nanoparticles are moist and exposed to ultraviolet light it breaks down the water into hydrogen gas and a Hydroxide ion, The hydroxide ion is the same that is generated when lye or sodium hydroxide is added to water and it chemically burns the bacteria to death. I suspect this paint will not last very long because it will decompose on exposure to moisture and ultraviolet light, just like the bacteria it is killing.

    • by Gruturo (141223)

      Resistance is an expensive trait. Bacteria which evolved many resistances would be as bloated as Vista and similarly unable to perform their original function efficiently, thus mostly harmless (pun doubly intended: It would also be a very effective Douglas Adams-esque way of dealing with the threat)

      (oh look btw, 11 updates plus the friggin' no-thank-you Silverlight, and a mandatory reboot which I can only postpone.)

    • by Weedlekin (836313)

      "wouldn't one expect that as these bacteria adapt immunity to current antibiotics that they'll open up a weakness to something else?"

      No.

      "I suppose it's _possible_ that they're evolving to be stronger in a general sense, but usually I think of evolution as becoming more fit for one's environment -- which usually makes one less fit for another environment."

      It _sometimes_ results in organisms that are less fit for other environments, but the many, many cases of plants and animals that humans have deliberately

  • "ultimately [antibiotic paint] will be its own worst enemy and the bacteria could grow to be even stronger."

    Oh wait. Already in the summary. No need to tag it. No need to even read TFA.

    Well done, sir. I'm impressed. ;^)

    --
    Toro

  • by grogo (861262) on Sunday September 14, 2008 @04:41PM (#25001723)
    Fears about developing resistance are probably misplaced: no bacterium is resistant to chlorine, and we don't worry about it happening. The environment in the paint described in the article would be similar.

    The reason antibiotic resistance develops is because antibiotics are highly targeted to a certain bacterial mechanism, usually one enzyme or protein, or a complex of enzymes working together. For obvious reasons, these have to be enzymatic mechanisms and proteins unique to bacteria, and not found in humans, primates, mammals, etc.

    On the other hand, chlorine kills everything, regardless of details of underlying biology. Presumably, this paint would do the same, unless they evolve some complex way of dealing with titanium dioxide, which is highly unlikely IMHO.

    • It alway seemed ludicrous that health facilities spend major amount of money buying disinfectants that only work slightly better than laundry detergent and bleach costing 1/100th as much to use. Usually the dirtiest thing in a hospital is the wheels on the mop bucket anyways; how is antibacterial paint on the walls going to stop that?

  • It's been known for ages that titanium dioxide is a photooxidizer.

    Also, mentioning superbugs in this context doesn't make sense. Killing superbugs _outside the human body_ is no problem at all, and they will not be able to develop any kind of resistance against most forms of disinfection (that includes using oxidizers). Saying that they might become resistant to something that oxidizes the shit out of them is like saying they might become resistant to being heated to 200C - there's a few physical and chem

  • I for one welcome our new bacteria killing, aesthetically pleasing, nano-overlords.

  • My CVS2 Bison has been killing people for years now. Fresh can of paint! Paint the fence!
  • 1) Does it come in black?
    2) Is it suitable for use on doors?
    3) Does the answer to 2) change if the door was originally red, and if so, how?

  • They used to put lead in house paint, and mercury on seeds, to prevent unwanted biotic infestations. Then they discovered the benefit was small, and the harm they were doing to people was great. We live in a modern world that is at odds with the very evolutionary machinery that created us. Part of the problem is that we seemed hell bent to ride the proverbial horse in the direction it's not going. We try to beat our environment into submission, all the while forgetting that we are still part of that enviro

Our policy is, when in doubt, do the right thing. -- Roy L. Ash, ex-president, Litton Industries

Working...