Hi Tony,
Glad the dog problem has been solved. You raise a question in post #117 for which there is an answer.

"Product X kills 99.9 percent of germs." Why only 99.9 % ? ? ?

In standard microbiological testing, it is customary to distinguish between an antimicrobial that inhibits and one that kills. Inhibition simply inhibits growth. You may have seen a "disk diffusion" test. Here is one variant:


The clear zone is considered "inhibition." One may or may not be able to recover viable organisms from within that zone. Tests for killing are usually done in samples of broth medium containing increasing dilutions of the antimicrobial. Starting with an innoculum of, say 10^5 organisms per ml and incubation for a prescribed period (usually 18 to 24 hours for common bacteria), one subcultures the media that remain clear (i.e., show inhibition). If the test is done using 100-ul cultures (e.g., in a Microtiter plate), then the most you can subculture is 100 ul = 10^4 original organisms. More typically, one subcultures 10 ul = 10^3 original organisms.* Obviously, statistics of sampling and counting come into play to set a confidence interval. The common term is a "three-log decrease," which equals 0.001 of the original innoculum (e.g., 0.001 x 10^3 =1). Thus, for samples with no growth on subculture, the term 99.9% killing has been widely accepted as meaning microbiocidal at that concentration.

It is not an effort to obscure the result. It is simply a reflection of the limits of the test.

John

*That protocol was developed years ago. One confounder to consider is the need for an adequate dilution to mitigate against carryover of the antimicrobial. For example, if one subcultured 0.1 ml to just 0.1 ml of broth (1:2 dilution) there would likely be enough antibiotic carried over to affect growth. On the other hand, too high a dilution of an inoculum can result in failed growth too. It is a compromise. Tests for true sterility (e.g., tests on fluids intended intravenous use) are more complex.

 

Read it wrong removed.

 

Here's the one my wife bought:
Notice carefully in the description that it claims to "HELP" stop dog barking. Doesn't say it "STOPS" the barking - it HELPS. It's up to you to define how well it - um - helps.

thanks!

 

Welcome to AAC @Kira Smart. I hope you find the article useful.

Since installing the device some time back dog barking has been much much less. I don't mind when dogs bark for a reason. It was the incessant barking that was making me crazy. And for me that can be a short drive.

Some here offered advice that would cause harm. I'm against harming an animal simply because it has a bad owner. And no, harming an owner is not an alternative. Education would be the best, but some people believe they know enough and ignore helpful advice or instruction.

Side note about the sonic bark deterrent: One of the offending neighbors (with whom I used to be friendly) saw the device and thought it was a camera. It was aimed specifically at his yard. He called the cops. When the police arrived to ask why I had a camera pointed at his yard I explained it's not a camera but a device to stop dogs from barking. Took it down and demonstrated it in test mode so the officer would know for a fact it was ME spending money to control HIS DOGS barking. I can only imagine when the officer returned to my neighbors house to tell him that I've had to spend MY money to stop his dogs from being so big a nuisance.

This neighbor has always had more dogs in his yard than allowed by the city ordinance. Claiming he owned two dogs and his mother owned two dogs, and dog-sitting his brothers two dogs seemed to satisfy the powers that be, but the dogs have been there for years. At one time we WERE friendly toward each other, but when his dogs began to be a problem I asked him to do something about it. He did nothing. So I asked a second time, and a third, letting him know that the police would be getting involved if nothing was done. Well, "nothing was done." Since then we don't speak, but that's his choice, not mine. One of his dogs, in old old age, was finally put to sleep because of health issues; the dog could barely walk and would just sit in the yard and bark without moving. I find it sad when pet owners think of their animals as mere "Things" and fail to treat them as though they were sentient beings. Animals don't have to be on our intelligence level, and probably some would choose not to, but they DO have feelings and emotions as well. Being a cat owner I can tell you each has their own personality, wants and needs. They bring us joy, and I believe we make them happy. After all, petting a cat's belly is an honor. They don't offer that without trust and acceptance.

If you're a pet owner or someone who believes pets deserve to be treated better then thank you for being in the world with many of us who feel the same. I have one remaining dog, a hound/something mix and he likes to howl when there are sirens. OK, I accept that. But he's the only one who spends the day barking. So maybe it's time to redirect the sonic bark deterrent at his yard. I'd ask my neighbor to do something, but the guy is just not that smart when it comes to training a dog. He has a bark collar, which I don't care for the approach versus proper training, but one dog barking is not as bad as 13 dogs barking within the adjacent 5 yards.