Why does Candida, disorders and other antibacterial materials kill 99.9% of plants?

Why does Candida, disorders and other antibacterial materials kill 99.9% of plants? Networking Network Networking I've been listening to. Believe the banner that we show Why you kill Candida, disorders and other antibacterial materials but 99.9% of plants? Why kill Candida, disorders and other antibacterial substances but 99.9% of plants? We are releasing our new news today through our network of knights and Starting with the most important news, why does Candida kill, disasters and other antibacterial materials but 99.9% of grids?

Forsan Network The people responsible for advertising and sales of the product are more interested in the efficiency of the product than the percentage of success.

So, they just say that the antiseptic can kill 99.99% of the bubbles, which means good or perfect, but in fact they will never get it.

"Killing 99.9% of fluids in one"

You may find the text above on a bottle or sticker for most of all – if not all general desktops.

Hand sanitizer, hand flame, soap lottery, toilet glass, bleach …

If the product is cleaned, it seems to indicate that it is possible to eliminate so large bacteria.

So what's the issue of this incredible unsatisfactory number – 99.9%? Why are not these antiseptics on the document saying they are? 100% of the bakes used to kill them? At the end, 99.9% are up to 100%. Why do makers choose to & # 39; Holding a figure is lower than 99.9% and is not the 100% accurate?

Another interesting side of the story is that not all antiseptics have a valid application of 99.9%.

Some say they are only killing 99% of the bugs, and others say they are " cost 99.9%. Others say they can eliminate 99.99% of the bacteria and pathogens that they use.

With these figures, average users would not accept that the vacuum cleaner is in a position; Effective level application 99.99% vs. fluid is better than 99% (those 0.99% are more effective than the second one).

A product that says it will eliminate 99.99% of grids – in theory – should it work better, right?

Not all antiseptics are considered effective!

Do not dispose of any debris.

In general, individuals accept – as the most ambitious aim is to kill all buzzers antiseptics – they all have to be similar, and are only different in non-important features , such as color, beauty, reduction, etc.

But this idea can not be beyond the truth.

Despite great credit, decomposition solutions may differ from a variety of ways.

Some antiseptics may preserve a variety of chemical methods and show different results when the bacteria are used and bacteria are used.

Their efficiency and mitigation efficiencies could also be changed.

The most commonly used deinstallation solutions that are used in the stereo of a pool; including active substances such as sodium hypochloride (bleach), ammonium, hydrogen peroxide, ionan silver, alcohol, acids, iaidine, etc.

Each person has special features in the bacteria.

When mixed with other blends, they will turn into a solution that can be different from different types of pathogen.

Antiseptics are used to kill bacteria quickly. Bacteria are killed by causing damage to their protocols and their symptoms; eliminating the outer cover of bacteria cells. DNA will be discharged, causing its death.
(Source: Wikimedia Commons)

For example, it was decided that a particular variety of antiseptics could be more effective against bacteria in areas prepared for cooking.

Although other species work strongly against viruses such as cold and cold.

There are also "high-level" antiseptics, which have a wide range of antibiotic antibody efficacy, and this type of antiseptics is highly regarded in the healthcare department.

Generally, antiseptics are in a variety of different types and there are different levels of efficiency.

Which means that they can not be effective against all kinds of glosses and patents that we have known and we can not; expectations of them too.

99.99% ؜ … not just gimmick propaganda

The sentence "to delete 99.99% of grids" is their marketing and no doubt.

This is a very meaningful way to inform consumers that an abuser can kill almost all who are present in a particular area.

I tell you so, the word "almost" can change the game completely in certain situations.

As you can see, antiseptics are not only killing 99.99% of juices, but the other 0.01%.

It is likely to eliminate 100% of the fluid that comes in with them (as long as the discharge is effective against this species of fluid).

Scientists who analyze antiseptic activity can not apply 100% certification that the detention of all abstracts can not be removed for reasons; including the limited capacity for detecting the bacteria and the testing methods they use to determine the effectiveness of deployment in laboratories.

Those responsible for advertising and sales of the product are more interested in the efficiency of the product, rather than their interest in the percentage of their impact.

So, they say that their discharge can kill 99.99% of fears, means that it is good or perfect but in fact they have never admitted.

The 99.99% number is not right to be literally.

You can say that it's a kind of "prison break" with a Monopoly game.

That is, if someone encounters some problems with the effectiveness of the product and meets the makers, they can just turn their cartridge and say, "My partner! ; we always say the 100% product was essential, we said it was 99.99% effective.

And we do not forget, we also added the magic word … almost ".

  • Translation: Laith Adeeb Salih.
  • Audit: Aya Fahmawi.
  • Abduction: Issa Hazeem.
  • Source

Thank you for continuing us and we 're promises that you always give everything to the best … and move news from all the news and allow you to read. Do not forget IK's work for our Facebook page and follow the latest news on Twitter. Welcome to the Knights Knights' family site.
Why kill Candida, disorders and other substances against bacteria 99.9% of grids? Why are you killed on social network sites on our site to get new news?

Source link