3 ms·

Boiling water is enough. And while I've never been there I guess they drink water and cook like most humans so combining both might be manageable. Also, you do

Boiling water is enough. And while I've never been there I guess they drink water and cook like most humans so combining both might be manageable. Also, you don't need everything to be sterile anyways, and pads and tampons certainly are not. Clean is enough, with sterilization from time to time.

lawlessone 8y ago
people with limited means might not want to cook with the same (only one they have)pot they use for that.
- pegasus 8y ago
  it probably still would be cheaper to buy an additional pot too, instead of a lifetime of pads
  - mschuster91 8y ago
    For this you need to first have the cash up-front to pay for a second pot only needed for one week a month. The general economic problem behind this is common for people living from paycheck to paycheck. For example, a good pair of shoes will last over a decade but cost 100€ (=> less than 10€/year), while cheap shoes for 10€ last a year. Now the cost over 10 years is equal, and for any year the shoe lasts longer, the person saves money. But without access to non-predatory loans (such as payday lending, pawn shops, mafia loans or CCs >5% APR) the person can never realize the saving.
    - SketchySeaBeast 8y ago
      > But without access to non-predatory loans (such as payday lending, pawn shops, mafia loans or CCs >5% APR) the person can never realize the saving. And that predator lending has now made the next purchase decision even more difficult than the last.
    - theriddlr 8y ago
      "The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles. But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet. This was the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness."
oliwarner 8y ago
Consider in context: 56% of Indians lack even basic sanitation, and 12% lack any access to clean water.
- hycaria 8y ago
  You don't need clean water, boiling some is enough to kill most germs. And boiling seems common in a culture with lots of cooked meals. Germs which are not even that big of a problem anyways, considering vaginas are supposed to be in contact with dirty stuff : fingers or penises are not known for their cleaniness. It mostly self maintains.
  - oliwarner 8y ago
    I'm not saying it's either-or, just that any approach to this needs to factor in poverty at levels that is incomprehensible to the Western middle class. And yes, vaginas are great but any membrane suffers when in prolonged contact with foreign material. And again, access to antibiotics and antifungals is a worthwhile consideration when using small-but-still-higher risk sanitary products.

lawlessone 8y ago

people with limited means might not want to cook with the same (only one they have)pot they use for that.

pegasus 8y ago
it probably still would be cheaper to buy an additional pot too, instead of a lifetime of pads
- mschuster91 8y ago
  For this you need to first have the cash up-front to pay for a second pot only needed for one week a month. The general economic problem behind this is common for people living from paycheck to paycheck. For example, a good pair of shoes will last over a decade but cost 100€ (=> less than 10€/year), while cheap shoes for 10€ last a year. Now the cost over 10 years is equal, and for any year the shoe lasts longer, the person saves money. But without access to non-predatory loans (such as payday lending, pawn shops, mafia loans or CCs >5% APR) the person can never realize the saving.
  - SketchySeaBeast 8y ago
    > But without access to non-predatory loans (such as payday lending, pawn shops, mafia loans or CCs >5% APR) the person can never realize the saving. And that predator lending has now made the next purchase decision even more difficult than the last.
  - theriddlr 8y ago
    "The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles. But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet. This was the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness."

oliwarner 8y ago

Consider in context: 56% of Indians lack even basic sanitation, and 12% lack any access to clean water.

hycaria 8y ago
You don't need clean water, boiling some is enough to kill most germs. And boiling seems common in a culture with lots of cooked meals. Germs which are not even that big of a problem anyways, considering vaginas are supposed to be in contact with dirty stuff : fingers or penises are not known for their cleaniness. It mostly self maintains.
- oliwarner 8y ago
  I'm not saying it's either-or, just that any approach to this needs to factor in poverty at levels that is incomprehensible to the Western middle class. And yes, vaginas are great but any membrane suffers when in prolonged contact with foreign material. And again, access to antibiotics and antifungals is a worthwhile consideration when using small-but-still-higher risk sanitary products.