Main Question or Discussion Point
Would you recommend washing hands, not only often, but especially after using a Kleenex? Such concern, not usually considered, could save lives this flu season.
What I should have said... I do so when I come in contact with surfaces that are used by a lot of people i.e the underground (subway).As much as I agree cleanliness is a good thing, you don't want to overdo it.
I think this over-clean society we're trying to create is causing more problems than it's solving.
Obviously, you need to maintain a certain level of cleanliness, but if you do as you describe ╔(σ_σ)╝, I think you're over doing it by quite a margin.
As much as I agree cleanliness is a good thing, you don't want to overdo it.
I think this over-clean society we're trying to create is causing more problems than it's solving.
Your post does not have any substance.Obviously, you need to maintain a certain level of cleanliness, but if you do as you describe ╔(σ_σ)╝, I think you're over doing it by quite a margin
If you wash your hands every time you might ingest 'germs', you'd be washing an unhealthy amount for your skin at the very least. That seems like a substantive observation to me, and "over-cleaning" I assume refers to the problems with Triclosan. "Over-doing it" in a home-setting is considered problematic... I'd think you'd have googled that much at least before slamming someone.Your posts does not have any substance.
What problems? What's over-doing? What would you recommend?
http://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/stopgerms.htmThere are plenty of studies out there regarding people trying to be 'too clean'. There is plenty of substance behind what I'm saying, so let's cut the crap.
What is overdoing it? Well that comes down to the individual, but there are people who are now living in close to sterile home environments and have virtually no contact with 'dirt' as a child. Although in a perfect society where everywhere is clean that may not be a problem, at some point in your life you'll be in a situation where you are exposed to said 'dirt'.
I have no problem with basic cleaning (washing your hands after certain tasks, ensuring the kitchen/bathroom is clean etc) but at what point did there become a need (due to adverse effects) to use cleaners capable of 'killing 99.9% of all germs'? (Here's a hint, it never happened. We invented it as a way to sell products.)
I am highlighting the word often.Clean your hands.
Washing your hands often will help protect you from germs.
It does not mention after coming home from public places but I think that should also be in the list.* Before, during, and after preparing food
* Before eating food
* After using the toilet
* After changing diapers or cleaning up a child who has used the toilet
* Before and after caring for someone who is sick
* After blowing your nose, coughing, or sneezing
* After touching an animal or animal waste
* After touching garbage
* Before and after treating a cut or wound
And from the CDC...http://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/stopgerms.htm
I am highlighting the word often.
It does not mention after coming home from public places but I think that should also be in the list.
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol7no3_supp/levy.htmCDC Study said:Presentation from the 2000 Emerging Infectious Diseases Conference in Atlanta, Georgia
Antibacterial Household Products: Cause for Concern
Stuart B. Levy
Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
The recent entry of products containing antibacterial agents into healthy households has escalated from a few dozen products in the mid-1990s to more than 700 today. Antibacterial products were developed and have been successfully used to prevent transmission of disease-causing microorganisms among patients, particularly in hospitals. They are now being added to products used in healthy households, even though an added health benefit has not been demonstrated. Scientists are concerned that the antibacterial agents will select bacteria resistant to them and cross-resistant to antibiotics. Moreover, if they alter a person's microflora, they may negatively affect the normal maturation of the T helper cell response of the immune system to commensal flora antigens; this change could lead to a greater chance of allergies in children. As with antibiotics, prudent use of these products is urged. Their designated purpose is to protect vulnerable patients.
Antibiotics are critical to the treatment of bacterial infections. However, after years of overuse and misuse of these drugs, bacteria have developed antibiotic resistance, which has become a global health crisis (1, 2). The relatively recent increase of surface antibacterial agents or biocides into healthy households may contribute to the resistance problem.
The antibacterial substances added to diverse household cleaning products are similar to antibiotics in many ways. When used correctly, they inhibit bacterial growth. However, their purpose is not to cure disease but to prevent transmission of disease-causing microorganisms to noninfected persons. Like antibiotics, these products can select resistant strains and, therefore, overuse in the home can be expected to propagate resistant microbial variants (3-6). Moreover, these agents, like antibiotics, are not cure-alls but have a designated purpose. Whereas antibiotics are designed to treat bacterial (not viral) infections, antibacterial products protect vulnerable patients from infectious disease-causing organisms. Neither are demonstrably useful in the healthy household.
Proliferation of Antibacterial Products
Seven years ago, only a few dozen products containing antibacterial agents were being marketed for the home. Now more than 700 are available. The public is being bombarded with ads for cleansers, soaps, toothbrushes, dishwashing detergents, and hand lotions, all containing antibacterial agents. Likewise, we hear about "superbugs" and deadly viruses. Germs have become the buzzword for a danger people want to eliminate from their surroundings. In response to these messages, people are buying antibacterial products because they think these products offer health protection for them and their families. Among the newer products in the antibacterial craze are antibacterial window cleaner and antibacterial chopsticks. Antibacterial agents are now in plastic food storage containers in England. In Italy, antibacterial products are touted in public laundries. In the Boston area, you can purchase a mattress completely impregnated with an antibacterial agent. Whole bathrooms and bedrooms can be outfitted with products containing triclosan (a common antibacterial agent), including pillows, sheets, towels, and slippers.
Development of Resistance
Bacteria are not about to succumb to this deluge, however. Through mutation, some of their progeny emerge with resistance to the antibacterial agent aimed at it, and possibly to other antimicrobial agents as well (4). Laboratory-derived mutants of Pseudomonas stutzeri with resistance to the cationic biocide chlorhexidine were also cross-resistant to antibiotics (nalidixic acid, erythromycin, and ampicillin) (7). In a recent study, 7% of Listeria monocytogenes strains isolated from the environment and food products showed resistance to quaternary ammonium compounds (8).
Laura McMurry in my laboratory group conducted experiments to determine whether triclosan had a particular cellular site for its antibacterial activity. She used a classic genetic technique, the isolation of resistant mutants of Escherichia coli, to identify its possible target. Surprisingly, finding the cellular site proved easy. In fact, mutants appeared with low, medium, and high-level resistance (3). They all had a mutation in one gene, the fabI gene (3) (Table 1). This finding indicated that triclosan had a target for the enoyl reductase essential in fatty acid biosynthesis. In the presence of triclosan or a know fabI inhibitor (diazoborine) fatty acid biosynthesis was inhibited, whereas the antibiotics chloramphenicol or ciprofloxacin with other targets had little effect on fatty acid biosynthesis (Table 2). In comparison with the wild-type E. coli, the mutant required up to 100 times more triclosan to show even minimal inhibition of fatty acid biosynthesis (3).
I've numbered them as you can group them together. There's no need for the list to be so long, I believe it's only like that to highlight individual matters specifically.1 Before, during, and after preparing food
2 Before eating food
3 After using the toilet
4 After changing diapers or cleaning up a child who has used the toilet
5 Before and after caring for someone who is sick
6 After blowing your nose, coughing, or sneezing
7 After touching an animal or animal waste
8 After touching garbage
9 Before and after treating a cut or wound
The risk is LEAST (not 0) for any virus being ingested; stomach acid WILL destroy them. Influenza needs a mucous membrane... preferably something "lungy". Again, if you're eating viable influenza on food... you probably already have been exposed more directly.I've heard warnings all my life about touching your face - especially your eyes - with unclean hands. It's an effective way to get flu, if the virus is on your hands.
But what about ingesting flu virus? Are you as likely to get sick if you eat food with flu virus on it?
Thanks, nismar!The risk is LEAST (not 0) for any virus being ingested; stomach acid WILL destroy them. Influenza needs a mucous membrane... preferably something "lungy". Again, if you're eating viable influenza on food... you probably already have been exposed more directly.
The risk of getting the flu through your eyes... is MINUSCULE... remember, one virus in the body doesn't = infection. Your immune system needs to be initially overwhelmed, and it takes SOME seed stock. Nose and inhalation are the main issue, and of course if someone coughs on a roll, and then you eat it... then inhale...
Still, what are you going to do, wear biochem gear? It's fair to carry a little alcohol or benzyl-group (usually chloride salts) disinfectant if someone is concerned about excessive contact.
Unfortunately, the best defense against influenza is to get vaccinated, and avoid people showing frank symptoms... there is no pattern of living (except hermetically) which ensures a life free of contagion. I mean (and again, this is not directed at you Lisab, or anyone in particular), we COULD walk through UV "baths" on a regular basis... there are more compelling reasons to avoid that however.
Ahhh, that's the new TIV? The... confused... nurse who administered my shot mixed things up and gave me the new QIV, Fluzone. First time in my life that at least ONE of my triceps bulged.Thanks, nismar!
Vaccines are the best answer, no doubt about it. I've never had flu *knocks on wood* but I've been around people who have, and it looks like no fun. I don't have time to be sick for ~10 days! So I get the shot.
This year the shots give triple protection (3 strains, including H1N1) - what a deal!
re bold: You've GOT IT! Most of hand-washing is about removing fecal matter that you may have come into casual contact with, even on surfaces, which can contain corona and other viruses for a shockingly long time. You also essentially eliminate the risk of fecal-oral contamination that can lead to Hepatitis (not strain C), and other nasties."Every germ that ever bit me died."
Yes, wash our hands. It makes sense. Kills most of them, anyway, and possibly most of the worst.
But not all. The rest we have simply have to fight off ourselves.
It would seem to me though, that minimising the 'bad' stuff that goes in, would eventually compromise your immune system, and minimise your resistance to them when they do, one way or another, find a way in.I try to wash my hands before touching my face, eating, or performing any activity that could cause me to injest germs.
So, as often as you do thoes things I suggest you wash your hands. :-)