> Imagine if she had somehow fostered a deadly pathogen on her toothbrush and through a mistake outside of her level of expertise managed to contaminate somethi

> Imagine if she had somehow fostered a deadly pathogen on her toothbrush and through a mistake outside of her level of expertise managed to contaminate something/herself. The idea was to try to kill bacteria in the toothbrush after she used it. By definition, she was already "infected". Does she need a waiver every time she is going to brush her teeth? Because I guarantee the toothbrush is not routinely subjected to that level of sterilization. The only argument I can think of is that she could be creating bacteria more resistant to whatever was that she was trying to use to disinfect. But if that's a problem, then we should all focus on banning antibacterial soap first. Excess paperwork never solves any problems.