4 ms·

This is bad advice: « Do not wash your hands in the bathroom; use alcohol-based hand sanitizer containing at least 60% alcohol instead. » Alcohol only kills s

by phyzome 10mo ago

This is bad advice: « Do not wash your hands in the bathroom; use alcohol-based hand sanitizer containing at least 60% alcohol instead. » Alcohol only kills some pathogens. Notably, it does not kill norovirus. If the water has coliform bacteria, you should wash your hands with soap and water and then use the alcohol hand sanitizer

deleted 10mo ago
[deleted]
saagarjha 10mo ago
Sanitizer also does not remove dirt and grime from your hands.
- jagged-chisel 10mo ago
  At least the dirt and grime will have fewer pathogens
  - jaggederest 10mo ago
    Unfortunately the reason you need mechanical cleaning is that dirt and grime prevent disinfectants from reaching pathogens or being effective once they do reach them.
  - phyzome 10mo ago
    Not when the "dirt" in question may be literal feces.
airstrike 10mo ago
The better advice is to ask the flight attendants for a cup of bottled water and use that instead, especially for brushing teeth.
- sneak 10mo ago
  It says right on the bathroom faucet that it isn’t for drinking - anyone brushing their teeth with the sink water is a fool.
  - zdc1 10mo ago
    I think that's a bit of a harsh take. People will use what they can get, and they may be assuming the signage was placed there for compliance/legal box-ticking reasons rather than because it will actually make them sick.
    - otterley 10mo ago
      If you fail to heed a warning, though, the law provides that you assume the risk of injury that could result and contributed to your own injury. Without assumption of risk, anyone who provides any services would be strictly liable for any injury, even for those that don’t result from inherently dangerous activities. That would mark a significant change in the law and would suddenly make a lot of activities and services infeasible to provide.
  - kalleboo 10mo ago
    Newer planes do not have that sign and even supply paper drinking cups https://i0.wp.com/roomreviews.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/20180504-092709-0116.jpg?ssl=1 https://i0.wp.com/roomreviews.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06...
- gosub100 10mo ago
  There's a YouTuber named Stig Shift who chronicles his job as an airline mechanic and he insists the bathroom water is clean enough to drink.
- ecb_penguin 10mo ago
  > especially for brushing teeth As someone in a dental family and with excellent teeth, you absolutely do not need to brush your teeth on a flight.
xnx 10mo ago
That people like the author of the article proudly don't wash their hands after being in a bathroom is a huge argument for washing your hands whenever you've been in public and trying to avoid touching your face if you haven't washed your hands.
- lucb1e 10mo ago
  I don't think this has anything to do with being "proud" when it's part of a study summary that said the water you'd wash with commonly contains e.coli and advises a different cleaning method instead -- misguided as that conclusion may be when considering other types of viruses (I'm not an expert and cannot judge either argument's merit). Seems strange/unfair to lump them in with people that "proudly" (do you know anyone like that??) don't clean their hands
- golem14 10mo ago
  To quote George Carlin (careful, swearwords ahead): When I was a little boy in New York City in the 1940s, we swam in the Hudson River and it was filled with raw sewage okay? We swam in raw sewage! You know... to cool off! And at that time, the big fear was polio; thousands of kids died from polio every year but you know something? In my neighbourhood, no one ever got polio! No one! Ever! You know why? Cause we swam in raw sewage! It strengthened our immune systems! The polio never had a prayer; we were tempered in raw shit! So personally, I never take any special precautions against germs. I don't shy away from people that sneeze and cough, I don't wipe off the telephone, I don't cover the toilet seat, and if I drop food on the floor, I pick it up and eat it! Yes I do. Even if I'm at a sidewalk café! In Calcutta! The poor section! On New Year's morning during a soccer riot! And you know something? In spite of all that so-called risky behaviour, I never get infections, I don't get them, I don't get colds, I don't get flu, I don't get headaches, I don't get upset stomach, you know why? Cause I got a good strong immune system and it gets a lot of practice.
  - SapporoChris 10mo ago
    I do not advise taking comedic medical advice.
zarzavat 10mo ago
Presumably the number they are doing is less than 2 otherwise this is disgusting.
spike021 10mo ago
And then touch the knob to open the door... the same knob half the other lavatory users touched with completely unwashed hands.
- shukantpal 10mo ago
  You should push the knob with a paper towel instead. I do this at all small public restrooms.
  - nickt 10mo ago
    Good job the Brits are asleep as they’d be cracking up at these comments.
- refurb 10mo ago
  Or, rather than trying to keep your hands sterile which is a futile exercise, doing what the military teaches - keep your hands away from your face (eyes, nose, mouth) and don't scratch your skin. The reason you care about germs on your hands is because they make you sick when you stick them in your body orifaces. Otherwise, those germs don't matter. Wash hands before meals otherwise.
  - spike021 10mo ago
    > Wash hands before meals otherwise. considering the topic is about airlines and flights, you would presumably be eating a meal after this and not be able to easily wash your hands again.
    - refurb 10mo ago
      That makes sense, but the idea of no touching things after becomes an impossible process considering fecal coliform contamination is everywhere.
- VerifiedReports 10mo ago
  Related rant: The widespread stupidity around bathroom doors calls the intelligence of humans into (even more) question. Airplane-bathroom doors open out because they must. But the number of public-bathroom doors that inexplicably open INWARD is mind-boggling. Instead of simply having doors open outward, millions of bathrooms create mountains of paper waste by having them open inward and encouraging users to waste a paper towel to grab its handle. Galling stupidity: https://www.instagram.com/p/BlO_-jmg4o7/ https://www.instagram.com/p/BlO_-jmg4o7/
hidroto 10mo ago
isnt most of the advantage of soap is that it gets the germs off your skin and washes them down the drain. the soap does not have to kill them to work.
- awesome_dude 10mo ago
  I thought that soap did something more than just wash the nasties off - something about it interfering with cell walls of viruses/bacteria and therefore killing them Looked it up https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3037063/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3037063/ Handwashing is thought to be effective for the prevention of transmission of diarrhoea pathogens. However it is not conclusive that handwashing with soap is more effective at reducing contamination with bacteria associated with diarrhoea than using water only. In this study 20 volunteers contaminated their hands deliberately by touching door handles and railings in public spaces. They were then allocated at random to (1) handwashing with water, (2) handwashing with non-antibacterial soap and (3) no handwashing. Each volunteer underwent this procedure 24 times, yielding 480 samples overall. Bacteria of potential faecal origin (mostly Enterococcus and Enterobacter spp.) were found after no handwashing in 44% of samples. Handwashing with water alone reduced the presence of bacteria to 23% (p < 0.001). Handwashing with plain soap and water reduced the presence of bacteria to 8% (comparison of both handwashing arms: p < 0.001). The effect did not appear to depend on the bacteria species. Handwashing with non-antibacterial soap and water is more effective for the removal of bacteria of potential faecal origin from hands than handwashing with water alone and should therefore be more useful for the prevention of transmission of diarrhoeal diseases.
  - 2143 10mo ago
    Why not use antibacterial soap instead of NON-antibacterial soap? Wouldn’t it be even more effective?
    - dillydogg 10mo ago
      The implication of antibacterial soap is that it contains antibiotics, which leads to resistance in bacterial populations. Non-antibacterial soap is a misnomer, it is plenty effective against bacteria, but kills the bacteria mechanically.
k2xl 10mo ago
Also it doesn’t kill c diff bacteria
skeeter2020 10mo ago
This is a pretty dumb report overall. What do I do if I'm on a plane with a 3.85 rating, or a "B"? How are these measures supposed to influence my decision making? I'll just follow the spirit of the ridiculous recommendations: NEVER drink any water onboard; only drink alcohol-based hand sanitizer containing at least 60% alcohol instead

by phyzome 10mo ago

deleted 10mo ago

[deleted]

saagarjha 10mo ago

Sanitizer also does not remove dirt and grime from your hands.

jagged-chisel 10mo ago
At least the dirt and grime will have fewer pathogens
- jaggederest 10mo ago
  Unfortunately the reason you need mechanical cleaning is that dirt and grime prevent disinfectants from reaching pathogens or being effective once they do reach them.
- phyzome 10mo ago
  Not when the "dirt" in question may be literal feces.

airstrike 10mo ago

The better advice is to ask the flight attendants for a cup of bottled water and use that instead, especially for brushing teeth.

sneak 10mo ago
It says right on the bathroom faucet that it isn’t for drinking - anyone brushing their teeth with the sink water is a fool.
- zdc1 10mo ago
  I think that's a bit of a harsh take. People will use what they can get, and they may be assuming the signage was placed there for compliance/legal box-ticking reasons rather than because it will actually make them sick.
  - otterley 10mo ago
    If you fail to heed a warning, though, the law provides that you assume the risk of injury that could result and contributed to your own injury. Without assumption of risk, anyone who provides any services would be strictly liable for any injury, even for those that don’t result from inherently dangerous activities. That would mark a significant change in the law and would suddenly make a lot of activities and services infeasible to provide.
- kalleboo 10mo ago
  Newer planes do not have that sign and even supply paper drinking cups https://i0.wp.com/roomreviews.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/20180504-092709-0116.jpg?ssl=1 https://i0.wp.com/roomreviews.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06...
gosub100 10mo ago
There's a YouTuber named Stig Shift who chronicles his job as an airline mechanic and he insists the bathroom water is clean enough to drink.
ecb_penguin 10mo ago
> especially for brushing teeth As someone in a dental family and with excellent teeth, you absolutely do not need to brush your teeth on a flight.

xnx 10mo ago

That people like the author of the article proudly don't wash their hands after being in a bathroom is a huge argument for washing your hands whenever you've been in public and trying to avoid touching your face if you haven't washed your hands.

lucb1e 10mo ago
I don't think this has anything to do with being "proud" when it's part of a study summary that said the water you'd wash with commonly contains e.coli and advises a different cleaning method instead -- misguided as that conclusion may be when considering other types of viruses (I'm not an expert and cannot judge either argument's merit). Seems strange/unfair to lump them in with people that "proudly" (do you know anyone like that??) don't clean their hands
golem14 10mo ago
To quote George Carlin (careful, swearwords ahead): When I was a little boy in New York City in the 1940s, we swam in the Hudson River and it was filled with raw sewage okay? We swam in raw sewage! You know... to cool off! And at that time, the big fear was polio; thousands of kids died from polio every year but you know something? In my neighbourhood, no one ever got polio! No one! Ever! You know why? Cause we swam in raw sewage! It strengthened our immune systems! The polio never had a prayer; we were tempered in raw shit! So personally, I never take any special precautions against germs. I don't shy away from people that sneeze and cough, I don't wipe off the telephone, I don't cover the toilet seat, and if I drop food on the floor, I pick it up and eat it! Yes I do. Even if I'm at a sidewalk café! In Calcutta! The poor section! On New Year's morning during a soccer riot! And you know something? In spite of all that so-called risky behaviour, I never get infections, I don't get them, I don't get colds, I don't get flu, I don't get headaches, I don't get upset stomach, you know why? Cause I got a good strong immune system and it gets a lot of practice.
- SapporoChris 10mo ago
  I do not advise taking comedic medical advice.

zarzavat 10mo ago

Presumably the number they are doing is less than 2 otherwise this is disgusting.

spike021 10mo ago

And then touch the knob to open the door... the same knob half the other lavatory users touched with completely unwashed hands.

shukantpal 10mo ago
You should push the knob with a paper towel instead. I do this at all small public restrooms.
- nickt 10mo ago
  Good job the Brits are asleep as they’d be cracking up at these comments.
refurb 10mo ago
Or, rather than trying to keep your hands sterile which is a futile exercise, doing what the military teaches - keep your hands away from your face (eyes, nose, mouth) and don't scratch your skin. The reason you care about germs on your hands is because they make you sick when you stick them in your body orifaces. Otherwise, those germs don't matter. Wash hands before meals otherwise.
- spike021 10mo ago
  > Wash hands before meals otherwise. considering the topic is about airlines and flights, you would presumably be eating a meal after this and not be able to easily wash your hands again.
  - refurb 10mo ago
    That makes sense, but the idea of no touching things after becomes an impossible process considering fecal coliform contamination is everywhere.
VerifiedReports 10mo ago
Related rant: The widespread stupidity around bathroom doors calls the intelligence of humans into (even more) question. Airplane-bathroom doors open out because they must. But the number of public-bathroom doors that inexplicably open INWARD is mind-boggling. Instead of simply having doors open outward, millions of bathrooms create mountains of paper waste by having them open inward and encouraging users to waste a paper towel to grab its handle. Galling stupidity: https://www.instagram.com/p/BlO_-jmg4o7/ https://www.instagram.com/p/BlO_-jmg4o7/

hidroto 10mo ago

isnt most of the advantage of soap is that it gets the germs off your skin and washes them down the drain. the soap does not have to kill them to work.

awesome_dude 10mo ago
I thought that soap did something more than just wash the nasties off - something about it interfering with cell walls of viruses/bacteria and therefore killing them Looked it up https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3037063/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3037063/ Handwashing is thought to be effective for the prevention of transmission of diarrhoea pathogens. However it is not conclusive that handwashing with soap is more effective at reducing contamination with bacteria associated with diarrhoea than using water only. In this study 20 volunteers contaminated their hands deliberately by touching door handles and railings in public spaces. They were then allocated at random to (1) handwashing with water, (2) handwashing with non-antibacterial soap and (3) no handwashing. Each volunteer underwent this procedure 24 times, yielding 480 samples overall. Bacteria of potential faecal origin (mostly Enterococcus and Enterobacter spp.) were found after no handwashing in 44% of samples. Handwashing with water alone reduced the presence of bacteria to 23% (p < 0.001). Handwashing with plain soap and water reduced the presence of bacteria to 8% (comparison of both handwashing arms: p < 0.001). The effect did not appear to depend on the bacteria species. Handwashing with non-antibacterial soap and water is more effective for the removal of bacteria of potential faecal origin from hands than handwashing with water alone and should therefore be more useful for the prevention of transmission of diarrhoeal diseases.
- 2143 10mo ago
  Why not use antibacterial soap instead of NON-antibacterial soap? Wouldn’t it be even more effective?
  - dillydogg 10mo ago
    The implication of antibacterial soap is that it contains antibiotics, which leads to resistance in bacterial populations. Non-antibacterial soap is a misnomer, it is plenty effective against bacteria, but kills the bacteria mechanically.

k2xl 10mo ago

Also it doesn’t kill c diff bacteria

skeeter2020 10mo ago

This is a pretty dumb report overall. What do I do if I'm on a plane with a 3.85 rating, or a "B"? How are these measures supposed to influence my decision making? I'll just follow the spirit of the ridiculous recommendations: NEVER drink any water onboard; only drink alcohol-based hand sanitizer containing at least 60% alcohol instead