Here is one for you
-
Isn't this the reason that public bathrooms (e.g., at the cinema) commonly no longer have doors? So that after you wash your hands you don't need to touch anything another user has touched?
-
I've always figured my willy is cleaner than my hands - so I should be washing it after visiting what the Americans refer to as a bathroom for some reason. but I stopped doing that after being thrown out of a shopping centre after using the Dyson Hand Dryer "inappropriately"
_Maxxx_ wrote:
I've always figured my willy is cleaner than my hands
This is a common misconception. The truth is that your, ahem, willy is covered by potentially disease causing bacteria due to its proximity to your No.2.
The difficult we do right away... ...the impossible takes slightly longer.
-
_Maxxx_ wrote:
I've always figured my willy is cleaner than my hands
This is a common misconception. The truth is that your, ahem, willy is covered by potentially disease causing bacteria due to its proximity to your No.2.
The difficult we do right away... ...the impossible takes slightly longer.
-
Thanks, I think...:~
The difficult we do right away... ...the impossible takes slightly longer.
-
Ok, I am going to state the rules first. Please, only response if you have a link to actual peer reviewed research. Anecdotal comments, references from this agency said, and other informal sources not allowed ( but I bet I get them anyway) Any one have a link to research suggesting the amount of bacteria on your hands before entering the restroom and after and various combinations of utilization (ie #1 + wash, #1 no wash, #2+wash, #2+no wash, #3) My Google fu only yieled results that linked anecdotal evidence and not a single piece of scholarly research on the subject. I am not debating that washing hands is not good, and I concede that public policy of asking people to wash after use is good since more hand washing with non-anti bactieral soap is good [This assumes proper technique and drying hands of course] but is their any research that proves a definitive hygienic link pre bathroom vs post. Ie, Do your hands contain statistically significant differences of germs and other bacteria. (Not just "run the risk" which is anecdotal since I know that e. coli and other sort of bacteria can exist) Well?
Need custom software developed? I do custom programming based primarily on MS tools with an emphasis on C# development and consulting. "And they, since they Were not the one dead, turned to their affairs" -- Robert Frost "All users always want Excel" --Ennis Lynch
Well, years ago I read in Science News (a layman's digest of scientific journal papers and conventions) that someone had done some research showing that soap (anti-bacterial or not) is essentially irrelevant -- 90% or more of bacteria is removed simply by washing with water. I believe this would be a study that meets your criteria, but I seriously doubt I can find the article, even though Science News has an online presence[^]. Certainly my feeble attempt failed! Marc
-
The stalls have doors, obviously! But most places don't have a door to the toilet area itself, just a long twisted corridor.
-
Ok, I am going to state the rules first. Please, only response if you have a link to actual peer reviewed research. Anecdotal comments, references from this agency said, and other informal sources not allowed ( but I bet I get them anyway) Any one have a link to research suggesting the amount of bacteria on your hands before entering the restroom and after and various combinations of utilization (ie #1 + wash, #1 no wash, #2+wash, #2+no wash, #3) My Google fu only yieled results that linked anecdotal evidence and not a single piece of scholarly research on the subject. I am not debating that washing hands is not good, and I concede that public policy of asking people to wash after use is good since more hand washing with non-anti bactieral soap is good [This assumes proper technique and drying hands of course] but is their any research that proves a definitive hygienic link pre bathroom vs post. Ie, Do your hands contain statistically significant differences of germs and other bacteria. (Not just "run the risk" which is anecdotal since I know that e. coli and other sort of bacteria can exist) Well?
Need custom software developed? I do custom programming based primarily on MS tools with an emphasis on C# development and consulting. "And they, since they Were not the one dead, turned to their affairs" -- Robert Frost "All users always want Excel" --Ennis Lynch
Proper handwashing promotes wellness in child care JP Niffenegger - Journal of Pediatric Health Care, 1997 - Elsevier http://www.jpedhc.org/article/S0891-5245%2897%2990141-3/abstract The effect of a soap promotion and hygiene education campaign on handwashing behaviour in rural India: a cluster randomised trial Adam Biran, Wolf-Peter Schmidt, et. al., Tropical Medicine & International Health http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-3156.2009.02373.x/full Those are just abstracts though, but those are old studies. ---------------- Now, for facts that I have read in several places, but do not have references I can cite. (You predicted you would get such facts, and I won't disappoint you - beside, you only asked for peer-reviewed articles, but not for such articles for every single statement that is made!) One of these places where I read such facts is Scientific American, and in the specific issue, I believe there was a peer-reviewed reference for the fact I am about to relate. The fact is, there are more bacteria cells in the human body that are not the body's cells, i.e. they have different DNA, then there are human cells in the human body! Also, if interested in the spread of disease, then the question about a statistically significant difference in bacteria with washing and not washing is not the only relevant question. Bacteria are a part of the human ecosystem. Certain types of bacteria that can be picked up in the environment are more likely to cause disease than the natural bacteria that exist in the body. Or to put it more accurately, there are both bad and good bacteria in the human body, but mostly good ones that consume resources and keep the bad bacteria in-check. ---------------- By the way, another real peer-reviewed study, which again I cannot cite, found that children raised with pets had fewer allergies later in life than those who were raised in very clean environments. I know a lot about allergies as I am very allergic to a number of things and I've been treated by a Harvard-educated allergist who related a lot of information I won't go into here. Allergies are caused by the body's immune system attacking things that aren't bad. The theory is that the children with pets had more exposure to bacteria, which primes a young child's immune system to learn what to attack and what to ignore. Th
-
I've always figured my willy is cleaner than my hands - so I should be washing it after visiting what the Americans refer to as a bathroom for some reason. but I stopped doing that after being thrown out of a shopping centre after using the Dyson Hand Dryer "inappropriately"
So, the Dyson is a hand dryer. That explains the mess I did.
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello[^]
-
Ok, I am going to state the rules first. Please, only response if you have a link to actual peer reviewed research. Anecdotal comments, references from this agency said, and other informal sources not allowed ( but I bet I get them anyway) Any one have a link to research suggesting the amount of bacteria on your hands before entering the restroom and after and various combinations of utilization (ie #1 + wash, #1 no wash, #2+wash, #2+no wash, #3) My Google fu only yieled results that linked anecdotal evidence and not a single piece of scholarly research on the subject. I am not debating that washing hands is not good, and I concede that public policy of asking people to wash after use is good since more hand washing with non-anti bactieral soap is good [This assumes proper technique and drying hands of course] but is their any research that proves a definitive hygienic link pre bathroom vs post. Ie, Do your hands contain statistically significant differences of germs and other bacteria. (Not just "run the risk" which is anecdotal since I know that e. coli and other sort of bacteria can exist) Well?
Need custom software developed? I do custom programming based primarily on MS tools with an emphasis on C# development and consulting. "And they, since they Were not the one dead, turned to their affairs" -- Robert Frost "All users always want Excel" --Ennis Lynch
-
This might help: How to wash your hands[^] (cdc.gov - Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). There is a list of references and studies at the end and a search for 'hand wash' on the site turns up quite a few results. Cheers, --Russ
Did you even read the titles of the results? Not a single paper in the list addresses my question. Though, maybe I will email the researchers, I am curious. Someone must know!
Need custom software developed? I do custom programming based primarily on MS tools with an emphasis on C# development and consulting. "And they, since they Were not the one dead, turned to their affairs" -- Robert Frost "All users always want Excel" --Ennis Lynch
-
Did you even read the titles of the results? Not a single paper in the list addresses my question. Though, maybe I will email the researchers, I am curious. Someone must know!
Need custom software developed? I do custom programming based primarily on MS tools with an emphasis on C# development and consulting. "And they, since they Were not the one dead, turned to their affairs" -- Robert Frost "All users always want Excel" --Ennis Lynch
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/May2012/03052012-Cleanyourhands[^] I know this is directed at medical personnel but its worth a read.
I may not last forever but the mess I leave behind certainly will, unless I wash my hands with soap.
-
I work on a similar theory with towels. They should never need washing: when I get out of the shower I'm the cleanest thing in the house; towels should get cleaner by contact with me... :laugh:
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952) Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
-
Proper handwashing promotes wellness in child care JP Niffenegger - Journal of Pediatric Health Care, 1997 - Elsevier http://www.jpedhc.org/article/S0891-5245%2897%2990141-3/abstract The effect of a soap promotion and hygiene education campaign on handwashing behaviour in rural India: a cluster randomised trial Adam Biran, Wolf-Peter Schmidt, et. al., Tropical Medicine & International Health http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-3156.2009.02373.x/full Those are just abstracts though, but those are old studies. ---------------- Now, for facts that I have read in several places, but do not have references I can cite. (You predicted you would get such facts, and I won't disappoint you - beside, you only asked for peer-reviewed articles, but not for such articles for every single statement that is made!) One of these places where I read such facts is Scientific American, and in the specific issue, I believe there was a peer-reviewed reference for the fact I am about to relate. The fact is, there are more bacteria cells in the human body that are not the body's cells, i.e. they have different DNA, then there are human cells in the human body! Also, if interested in the spread of disease, then the question about a statistically significant difference in bacteria with washing and not washing is not the only relevant question. Bacteria are a part of the human ecosystem. Certain types of bacteria that can be picked up in the environment are more likely to cause disease than the natural bacteria that exist in the body. Or to put it more accurately, there are both bad and good bacteria in the human body, but mostly good ones that consume resources and keep the bad bacteria in-check. ---------------- By the way, another real peer-reviewed study, which again I cannot cite, found that children raised with pets had fewer allergies later in life than those who were raised in very clean environments. I know a lot about allergies as I am very allergic to a number of things and I've been treated by a Harvard-educated allergist who related a lot of information I won't go into here. Allergies are caused by the body's immune system attacking things that aren't bad. The theory is that the children with pets had more exposure to bacteria, which primes a young child's immune system to learn what to attack and what to ignore. Th
I've heard this theory and I think that while it may have some merit, however in my particular case it wouldn't be very applicable. I have lots of allergies and my family had all kinds of domesticated animals when I was growing up. Some of what we had were birds (parakeets, cockatiel and a parrot), cats, goldfish, dogs (no more than 2 at any point in time), hermit crabs, iguana, gerbils, hamsters... and I'm sure I've forgotten some others that were at home and my sister had a horse. If this reduced my allergies, I'd hate to see what my life would have been without the menagerie. However, my allergies are comparable to my mother's, so perhaps this only applies to people with allergies that aren't genetic?
