Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Archim3des wrote:Again, not worried about it affecting my health in any way. Just think that its gross that I got a pot of it that this is the case for

Seriously, swab your keyboard, your phone, your door handles, window latches, your kitchen countertops, your own skin in 20 different places and see what you can find. For all the microbio knowledge you seem to have, how do you not get that bacteria and other nasty little critters are everywhere? You eat bugs (insects), do you know that? There are bug parts in many foods you eat, and also, you swallow a decent amount a year while awake and asleep. Also, bugs eat you while you sleep. Hooray!

If some tiny tiny amount of bacteria in paint is "gross" to you, you must find almost everything about life gross.

The worst, though?
The most abhorrent, vile, repugnant thing?

People that obstinately refuse to even consider there might be another side to an issue other than their own.

Now I'm off to ingest something crawling with parasites. Perhaps a hot dog. I will take comfort though, that it will likely NOT contain Shigella bacteria.

Archim3des wrote:The worst, though?
The most abhorrent, vile, repugnant thing?

People that obstinately refuse to even consider there might be another side to an issue other than their own.

LOL. Passive aggressive much? Again, to reiterate the point. You for some strange reason, equate a tiny tiny tiny amount of bacteria, with poop, and call that gross, not even acknowledging that bacteria and other bigger things (yet usually too small for us to see) are all over the place, inside and outside of us, inside the food we eat, on our skin, eating our skin, on practically every surface we touch, and so on.

The only 'side' to this issue that I have not considered, is that you have some kind of irrational poop phobia. Maybe you crapped your pants as a child, or fell into a pile of elephant dung. Whatever it was, you seem to have a strange issue with this, where even the mere chance of some super dilute one parts per billion poop contamination of your paint is causing you trouble. Oh right, it is only making you smile slightly less, I forgot. So I guess you are just continuously responding here to prove just how little this bothers you? Sure thing there

Archim3des wrote:
Also, by 1x10^2, you do mean "100", correct? Less than 100 cells in the wash, causing a 5-10nm shift on a spectrum that is only, at largest, 300 nm wide? Since the visible light spectrum is 400nm-700nm? So 100 cells caused a shift of that much?
That ah.... that seems way way off.

If you use the latest spectrophotometers, you can use the entire wavelength. I used a range of 400-600nm. Also, a 10nm shift is very slight, you must remember that different samples will have a variance so the error margins of around 10nm is actually correct. What I'm saying is that bacteria growing in the actual wash itself is minimal, and you can actually discount the cells inside the wash. Also you do have to realize that I'm not using the entire pot, I'm putting a sample of 1000 microlitres in a glass cuvette, so the actual amount of cells measured will likely be around one. This means that the 5-10nm shift I'm talking about is actually caused by a variance in the samples rather than the actual bacteria.

Sorry if I caused confusion before. Also, I think you're missing my previous points, when someone opens a pot of paint, bacteria colonizes it. Perhaps some dirty person at your store opened the paint without washing his hands then put the pot back? This could easily account for the bacteria inside the wash. The bacteria inside the wash is highly unlikely to be GWs since I assume that the paints are all done mechanically at a factory somewhere.

Archim3des wrote:Now I'm off to ingest something crawling with parasites. Perhaps a hot dog. I will take comfort though, that it will likely NOT contain Shigella bacteria.

But if you have one portion red meat/ processed meat per day you increase your chance of dying early by 15 - 20%. lol

I learn't that this morning on the BBC NEWS, makes you wonder if anyone truly recognise's that Life is what happens while you are waiting to die..

MightyGodzilla wrote:<---Lix hiz brush. Wonders if maladies will befall him.

I think that's why we're all interested

Snarky, could you clarify your thoughts on the results of your findings vs. Archim3des here? You think the "poo" bacteria is from Archim3des environment (i.e. not showing up in your test?) since it's pretty much everywhere, but the neurotoxin is present in yours and was surprising? Was it present in Archim3des', too?

Also, I think everyone should ratchet down the angst a little... imo, you as well Archim3des, not just those who were unecessarily "hating". There are plenty of us interested in these tests, no need to respond to unwarranted criticism (i.e. just ignore it).

^ Here here.

So now I'm wondering if any other "controls" were (or can be) used?

Like any other GW colors tested or just the brown wash?
Any other lines of gaming paint tested to see if this bacteria is common to it (paint).
Any other types of paint (besides gaming lines) tested to see if bacteria is common to paint.
Or sources of information we can use to find this out.

Right now there's a lot of flaming going on by participants who I'm sure don't have all of the information but are instead pinpointing/zooming in on facts that may be taken out of context without the whole presented along with it.

<GENERAL WARNING: people need to calm down and discuss this topic rationally. If you can't do so, and can't talk to your fellow posters without tossing around personal insults, we're going to have problems. Next warning I have to issue in here will accompany a suspension.>

Rtides-
Acrylamide and Acrylonitrile were also found in my paint, as they would be in most Acrylic paint. Acryl is the prefix there.
As Snarky said, they are necessary to bind the pigment to the solution it is suspended in, and as a result, you dont have to shake GW washes.

Snarky-
"you can actually discount the cells inside the wash. .... the actual amount of cells measured will likely be around one. "
That you're cutting off 100 nm of the range makes the 10nm shift weighted more, especially for 100 cells causing that, or one as you claim above. Actually, discounting the cells in the wash would negate the entire purpose of the spectra test. Clarification, please?

Mwnciboo-
But what about stress? Does stressing about the meat you're eating affect lifespan?

I thought I'd seen it somewhere, doesnt necessarily mean its up to date though.

"The primary host and natural reservoir known at this point for Shigella sonnei and among all other species of Shigella is the human gastrointestinal tract. Shigella can survive in fecal contaminated material but has a low survival rate without the optimal acidic environment in the intestinal tract as its surrounding. The bacterium is known to be able to survive in soiled linen for up to seven weeks. In fresh water environments, it can live up to 5 days and in salt water for 12-30 hours."

Montrano, thanks for that. Goes a long way towards solving the "is there actual poop in there" argument. I doubt there is anything special about linen as a preservative, so the operative idea there being that the wash is also soiled, meaning
Edit
Ahem.
There is the distinct likelyhood, even probability, that my sample of wash did indeed also contain human or primate feces.

Ok, I think it might be my fault here. I'm not terribly good at explaining things.

Acrylamide is a substance found in many things. It is only a neurotoxin when used in it's pre-polymerized liquid form, meaning that you have to keep it below room temperature for it to remain in that state. After polymerization which occurs by heating Acrylamide, it is now non-toxic and the neurotoxic properties are negated. You only ever use the non-polymerized and dangerous forms in either PCR or industrial manufacture, it's one of those substances that is illegal to sell in the non-polymerized form since in large doses it can kill.

Acrylic paints and washes are made when Acrylamide and Acrylanitrile are fused together using a solvent of Sodium Hydroxide and Sulphuric Acid (to my knowledge anyway, they may use a different mechanism these days but trade secrets ho). I don't think it's possible to even have unpolymerized Acrylamide in everyday products just because of how unstable it is even at room temperature. Even if some managed to sneak it's way into a product, if left at room temperature it would polymerize in around an hour.

As for Archim3des, I took a 1000microlitre sample from a 10ml bottle so I took a sample from that's 100x less than the original sample. I estimated around 100 cells in the entire 10ml since I only counted one cell per 1000 microlitres per counting chamber. I chose a standard 400-600nm range since that's the normal range for checking for bacterial activity.

Here's an example, if you were expecting bacteria to metabolize the paint to another product (since paint is a pigment it would affect the refractive index a lot) you would expect the wavelength to change by at least 100-200nm by the end of an eight hour study. My findings however were that over eight hours, the readings fluctuated only between 5-10nm between both samples, indicating that the bacteria weren't metabolizing the paint or growing in an exponential rate to affect the readings.

I have managed to grow a few colonies of bacteria from the pot of wash, but that's expected since the wash is hardly sterile.

Ah. Thanks, I was reading into that wrong then. I still think that 100 cells in the whole (its actually 12 ml) bottle is a little low, but those are your findings.
My sample had around 30 floating in the one drop I took out of the bottle.

Sadly since we're the only two that have had tests run, neither can be said to be conclusive. I'd hypothesize, or at least hope, that your sample would be closer to the norm. Objectively, did yours smell?

Well, it smells the same as every other bottle that I've used. It doesn't smell like sewage if that's what you're asking though.

Also, were you sure you were using a sterile tip for your micropipette? Non sterile pipette tips are a common cause of contamination when it comes to microscopy.

Yes, sterilized it in alcohol. Think I posted about that, not sure.

I'm surprised there are so few bacterial being recorded. 100 cells in a 12ml pot? That's probably contamination from the user, I'm surprised that the figure isn't far higher.

Faecal matter is everywhere. If it's in the paint you probably put it there. Reading some responses, well you can understand how health scares begin. A little knowledge and a lot of paranoia IMO.

Howard A Treesong wrote:I'm surprised there are so few bacterial being recorded. 100 cells in a 12ml pot? That's probably contamination from the user, I'm surprised that the figure isn't far higher.

Faecal matter is everywhere. If it's in the paint you probably put it there. Reading some responses, well you can understand how health scares begin. A little knowledge and a lot of paranoia IMO.

Fae? You're telling me its elf feces?
I'm ... displeased by the continued implication that I put feces in my own wash and then was surprised to find it there. Especially in that amount.

Again, not trying to suggest that this is what makes Devlan Mud smell, or even that its a real problem. No scare here, even for me.

Howard A Treesong wrote:I'm surprised there are so few bacterial being recorded. 100 cells in a 12ml pot? That's probably contamination from the user, I'm surprised that the figure isn't far higher.

Faecal matter is everywhere. If it's in the paint you probably put it there. Reading some responses, well you can understand how health scares begin. A little knowledge and a lot of paranoia IMO.

Wait till someone tests their toothbrush on here, will be chaos!

Skippy wrote:Wait till someone tests their toothbrush on here, will be chaos!

Exactly. I wrote a post about spraying everything with bleach and lighting our wallets on fire (since money has cocaine on it) but I guess it didn't go through this crappy internet connection I have. There are bacteria everywhere, and mites and other microscopic bugs that hang out on your skin and eat the top layer. But it's all good, 99.999% of the time. Symbiosis or some such.

A fun, informative thread. I've been following the progress somewhat loosely and this has seriously made me think about the amount of paint I must ingest orally.

I have no idea why many posters are getting so irate - information is information, data is data. You can't really argue with it. This isn't going to impact my life in any significant way, but it's been an interesting journey of two curious Dakkanauts and some expensive science kits.

Top marks.

Eating that paint could be good for my immune system right?

Skippy wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote:I'm surprised there are so few bacterial being recorded. 100 cells in a 12ml pot? That's probably contamination from the user, I'm surprised that the figure isn't far higher.

Faecal matter is everywhere. If it's in the paint you probably put it there. Reading some responses, well you can understand how health scares begin. A little knowledge and a lot of paranoia IMO.

Wait till someone tests their toothbrush on here, will be chaos!

I'm still not getting it. You're telling me that stuff that commonly resides in the same room where I go to the bathroom might have my leavings on it?
Oh please, tell me more!

I think everyone has been made well aware of what you speak of, I would appreciate if the rest of the comments could be questions about the testing process or how to go about testing their own. Questioning why there were only 100 cells in a 12ml pot would be a perfect example of this. Pointing out differences between statements and facts, like Snarky saying 10ml pot instead of 12ml would also be helpful.
I think everyone gets it, and I apologize for my own hyping of this.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tek wrote:Eating that paint could be good for my immune system right?

Could very well be!

Well, those 100 cells is simply an estimate I took based on cell counts and a standardized table. It could be that from the 12ml total, I took 10mls of wash that had little amounts of cell and the remaining 2 mls had all the bacteria inside it.

It's not like I could centrifuge a paint pot... they simply don't fit inside the machine...

Snarky wrote: I took a 1000microlitre sample from a 10ml bottle so I took a sample from that's 100x less than the original sample. I estimated around 100 cells in the entire 10ml since I only counted one cell per 1000 microlitres per counting chamber. I chose a standard 400-600nm range since that's the normal range for checking for bacterial activity.

Here's an example, if you were expecting bacteria to metabolize the paint to another product (since paint is a pigment it would affect the refractive index a lot) you would expect the wavelength to change by at least 100-200nm by the end of an eight hour study. My findings however were that over eight hours, the readings fluctuated only between 5-10nm between both samples, indicating that the bacteria weren't metabolizing the paint or growing in an exponential rate to affect the readings.

Snarky, while I appreciate your input (very much so actually since you're the only other one doing tests) is there any way you could tone it down for the other readers?
When you say 1000 microlitres, I'm sure that sounds very sci-fi and cool to a lot of readers. I know you're using terms that come up around the workplace, but for everyone else it may come off as archaic and incomprehensible.
1000 microliters = 1 ml = ...

Wait a minute. You're off by a factor of 10.
That's a pretty significant margin. Is this in any way affected by your boss not being there?

Archim3des wrote:I think everyone gets it, and I apologize for my own hyping of this.

Nice of you to say so... bury the hatchet and all that

Also thanks for the post trying to put things in layman's terms, Snarky, although I don't think it's totally working for me (despite working inside of a lab every day and thus having to take normal safety precautions, I have little to no bio knowledge, as that's not my field).

So, basically, it seems that Archim3des bottle of wash (which was new, right?) had tons of bacteria, and Snarky's didn't. I wish there was a way to verify one way or the other...

Skippy wrote:Quite amazing how angry some people get when someone is curious about the world around them.

QFT

Knowledge is forbidden!

Archim3des wrote:

Snarky wrote: I took a 1000microlitre sample from a 10ml bottle so I took a sample from that's 100x less than the original sample. I estimated around 100 cells in the entire 10ml since I only counted one cell per 1000 microlitres per counting chamber. I chose a standard 400-600nm range since that's the normal range for checking for bacterial activity.

Here's an example, if you were expecting bacteria to metabolize the paint to another product (since paint is a pigment it would affect the refractive index a lot) you would expect the wavelength to change by at least 100-200nm by the end of an eight hour study. My findings however were that over eight hours, the readings fluctuated only between 5-10nm between both samples, indicating that the bacteria weren't metabolizing the paint or growing in an exponential rate to affect the readings.

Snarky, while I appreciate your input (very much so actually since you're the only other one doing tests) is there any way you could tone it down for the other readers?
When you say 1000 microlitres, I'm sure that sounds very sci-fi and cool to a lot of readers. I know you're using terms that come up around the workplace, but for everyone else it may come off as archaic and incomprehensible.
1000 microliters = 1 ml = ...

Wait a minute. You're off by a factor of 10.
That's a pretty significant margin. Is this in any way affected by your boss not being there?

Oops! You're completely right!

That serves me right for doing maths during my lunchbreak. But yeah, microlitres is what you always write. Just a force of habit I suppose. That puts it at 10 cells per 10mls as I only saw 1 cell per 1ml. I guess that I must have had an anomalous result. I'll check again tomorrow using the digital counter instead of doing it the good ol fashioned way.

Good spot, Archim3des! Looking forward to your check tomorrow, Snarky

You couldn't just transfer it into a tube that would fit in the centrifuger?

i'll see if i can find some time and make up some slides. I got a devlan mud and some old gw paints circa 1996 that should be harbouring something if it can sustain life.
In the long term, it would be interesting to see what any microbes in the paint might be living off, presumably whatever substance it is would affect the properties of the paint

RiTides wrote:Good spot, Archim3des! Looking forward to your check tomorrow, Snarky

You couldn't just transfer it into a tube that would fit in the centrifuger?

Hmm I didn't think of that, I could probably stick it back in the pot and try again since I still have the sample on my workbench.