wood and plastic cutting boards

Chronos, no no no, lad! It’s only the mechanism of this solvation that’s the mystery, not the fact of it! When we shuffle off this mortal coil, we do indeed dissolve into the bath of the ecosphere; our many and varied component parts are recycled into the components of other organisms (if we’re lucky; some of us are merely incinerated) and thus life goes on. I have personally dissolved many many animal cells growing in bottles, years ago, with a little sodium dodecyl sulfate (a pretty determined detergent if ever there was one). Enough chemical bonds get disrupted in the membranes surrounding a cell, and the poor thing just dribbles away, turns to mush.
Bacteria, generally, aren’t so easy to dissolve as an animal cell; they have a cell wall, more like a plant, and that generally keeps them from getting dissolved by, well, most anything. Acid, alkali, detergent, you name it; maybe not all bacteria, but there will be at least one bacteria that won’t get dissolved by whatever you got to throw at it. Bacteria are tough, and it only takes a few of them (like in the case of E coli o157) to genuinely mess you up by secreting some NASTY poisons inside of you.

And that, THAT is what is so remarkable about this simple observation about wooden cutting boards – that they make the bacteria vanish. The amount of actual stuff in a bacterial cell is vanishingly small; you have to have zillions of them before they even make the water look a little cloudy, and that’s mostly from light scattering. So there’s very little stuff there after the wood, well, dissolves them. Dissolves them into what? I don’t know. The water. The water everybody uses right after they cut something up on the cutting board, to rinse away the offal. Or the steak juice. Whatever.
Think of it as like breaking a bunch of water balloons. What’s left? non-waterballoons. Not much. What’s left of the bacteria? Nothing you’ll get sick from. They’re dead, man. They’re so dead, there’s nothing left to bury. They went down the drain. They’re dissolved.

and to date, nobody seems to know just what it is in that piece of wood that dissolved them!!! I think that’s a real trip.

I hope someobody writes in to this Board and tells us that I’m full of crap, they’ve known what it is that is in the wood and dissolves the bacteria for two years now, and it’s _______.

Last I heard, it might be lignin. But historically, people don’t believe in any kind of medical preventative or cure until it’s synthesized in a lab and checked out in the field. Hell, people Believed that scurvy was a communicable disease until 1920 or so, when somebody finally synthesized vitamin C from scratch. (Yeah, I know, the Royal Navy knew about the lemons and limes since 1754. Go figure. People are so wedded to the germ theory of disease, they used to Believe that scurvy just had to be caused by a germ. They used to maroon scurvy victims, lest the rest of the crew catch it. Of course, if the marooned guys found any food where they were marooned, they got well immediately. Hey, hope it doesn’t take a hundred and seventy five years for everybody to get the message about the cutting boards )
:smiley:

By the way, I’ll just make a few comments about the “Glossy Paper Conspiracy” mentioned earlier. Most scholarly journals can, indeed, be read on the Web, but only if you have a subscription. This is not a conspiracy, it’s just sound business practice. It’s expensive to produce a scholarly journal, and you’re not going to stay afloat if you just give away your product for free. Some journals can cost thousands of dollars a year for subscriptions, and still just barely keep afloat. These are not like your ordinary mass-market magazines (which also make you pay for most of their content). First of all, most of them don’t have advertisements. They’re generally printed in much smaller runs than magazines (perhaps less than a thousand subscribers), so you don’t have the economy of scale, and since they can be expected to be archived, they need to be of higher quality. There are also a lot more editorial costs associated with all of your content being unsolicited, and the need for peer-review. So, yes, of course they make you pay to read it.

All quite correct, and fairly representative of the liturgy of the Glossy Paper Conspiracy. There is a corresponding and responsive liturgy that can chime in at any point there with a witty riposte and rebuttal, stuff like “okay, but make it free after the first six months” or “just publish it de novo on the web and save the cost of glossy paper (not to mention the trees)”; the BEST example I’ve seen is Optics Express. Great journal; all online; and the graphics including Quicktime movies would cost a FORTUNE to produce in print.) Et seq.

But hey, the best thing about all this is that the medium is the message; whilst we are discussing these things, we are doing what we are saying – we’re publicizing some information, here on Cecil’s Straight Dope publication online. Hopefully, we’re spreading some truth. I have no idea how many people are reading any of this, but the topic is being batted around and the truth will out. And the main thing, if we follow Cecil’s example, is that the readership should stay tuned. and Amused.

Funny, though, how the main thing lacking from our discussion is all the information in those scholarly journals. It’s locked up somewhere, Authentic; but copyrighted, as if it were somebody’s novel that they wrote or somebody’s nonfiction work they researched. It’s not; for the most part, the research that is in the scholarly journals was paid for by you and me, and it’s only the PUBLICATION that gave the publishers (Elsevier et al) the keys to it.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences is a grand exception. I’m gonna see if I can find a cutting board article, the original research type, from there. I’m not even sure if you can use that for free.

I have an idea I’m gonna try out here: I’m going to get that article of Dr Cliver’s, and just scan in the data!! the tables, with the results of the experiments. I won’t even include the Materials and Methods, or even the captions. And I’ll put it in a form that will reproduce as text in This Forum!! Maybe just one table. Kind of like the way the Court decided that you couldn’t actually copyright the information in the phone book.

Stay tuned.

BTW, though, how comes you’re defending them, or expressing the Glossy Paper Conspiracy viewpoint, without mentioning any counterarguments or, well, the Other Side of it? I’m a published author; I feel pretty strongly about it; but it’s like Free Software, it’s not a one sided thing. It’s interesting and complex.

No need for me to present the other side, since you’re already doing it. And for the record, I’m not affiliated with any of the journals, but in fact am a person who uses them. Fortunately, most educational institutions have institutional subscriptions to most journals. In fact, I might just see if we have Journal of Food Safety here.

Wrong. While the underlying facts are not copyrighted, presentation format is. A scan of a table is a copyright violation.

Enough about the Glossy Paper Conspiracy. I did go looking in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Nothing online about cutting boards.:dubious:
While you’re at the library, though, you can check this out, which says, sortof, that wood doesn’t do squat (CHECK OUT THE LAST LINE):

Published online before print May 15, 2001, 10.1073/pnas.111143098;
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 98, Issue 11, 5981-5985, May 22, 2001

Designing surfaces that kill bacteria on contact

Joerg C. Tiller*, Chun-Jen Liao*, Kim Lewis, and Alexander M. Klibanov*,

  • Department of Chemistry, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139; and Biotechnology Center, Tufts University, Medford, MA 02155

Poly(4-vinyl-N-alkylpyridinium bromide) was covalently attached to glass slides to create a surface that kills airborne bacteria on contact. The antibacterial properties were assessed by spraying aqueous suspensions of bacterial cells on the surface, followed by air drying and counting the number of cells remaining viable (i.e., capable of growing colonies). Amino glass slides were acylated with acryloyl chloride, copolymerized with 4-vinylpyridine, and N-alkylated with different alkyl bromides (from propyl to hexadecyl). The resultant surfaces, depending on the alkyl group, were able to kill up to 94 ± 4% of Staphylococcus aureus cells sprayed on them. A surface alternatively created by attaching poly(4-vinylpyridine) to a glass slide and alkylating it with hexyl bromide killed 94 ± 3% of the deposited S. aureus cells. On surfaces modified with N-hexylated poly(4-vinylpyridine), the numbers of viable cells of another Gram-positive bacterium, Staphylococcus epidermidis, as well as of the Gram-negative bacteria Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Escherichia coli, dropped more than 100-fold compared with the original amino glass. In contrast, the number of viable bacterial cells did not decline significantly after spraying on such common materials as ceramics, plastics, metals, and wood.

:smiley: Yep.