Bacteria sick shower head!

Page 3 of 4  

snipped-for-privacy@dog.com wrote:
: 212 degrees for 20 minutes. You can call whatever you do, whatever you : prefer. It doesn't kill all the bacteria. It's usually the tougher : bacteria you need to kill. Wiping your cutting board with a dry paper : towel kills/removes some bacteria, too.
Can you point to a single example of someone who's gotten seriously ill from the bacteria in their showerheads? Or, better, a properly controlled study reaching statistical significance?
The world, including the skin all over your body, is teeming with bacteria. If you tried to kill them all,
a) you couldn't b) you shouldn't c) you might increas the chances of making a favorable environment for a dangerous bacterium.
-- Andy Barss (also drinks tap water)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 18:42:00 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Barss

No, and I haven't claimed it is a problem, either.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
clipped

I don't worry about the shower head. Yet. I just recently read about the majority of beaches (Florida or all of US) having contamination by antibiotic resistant bacteria. That is no joke - it is pretty much endemic in hospitals and nursing homes and is, truly, something to worry about (along with docs and nurses who "don't have time" to wash their hands.
Article few years back about sea otters off coast of OR dying from feline diseases carried by domestic cats via sewage outflow.
My most immediate concerns are being hospitalized and picking up a nasty infection and for my grandchildren who participate in organized sports and who might acquire infection to these nasty bugs. I'm a retired nurse and have seen a few bad outcomes.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.net wrote:

Just think of all the dog shit that washes into the lakes, rivers and the ocean.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

As usual these news articles contain so little fact that you cannot make any reasonable judgement on the surrounding conditions and solutions except for a panic reaction, which many people do.
For example, was this using well water that was contaminated or treated municipal drinking water with chlorine added, as this is supposed to keep the mains, pipes etc. clean. Was this a shower that was used several times every day or only once in a while, as this could affect any accumulation of bacteria. How did they supposedly clean the shower head with bleach, did they use the lazy way and wipe the outside, or did they dip the head quickly in a bowl of bleach or did they remove the head and let it soak for several minutes or up to an hour.
Without any real facts it is impossible to determine if the article is really true, or grossly exaggerated or a just local phenomenon.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Exactly. In this case I was just curious. And that led to removing the shower head! BTW as mentioned by snipped-for-privacy@dog.com ............... the Dept of Health requirement here is that hot water for washing dishes be at least 160 deg F. (They used to come and measure it when we ran a school cafeteria!) Whereas water for children's hand washing must be a lot lower; to avoid scalding. So we have our domestic hot water tank set sufficiently high and it is that hot water than is fed to the dishwasher. The dishwasher even on a medium or economy setting goes through several wash 'cycles'. Also we run the tap for a moment before starting the dishwasher to ensure hot water has reached the kitchen, because we have some 25 feet of half inch copper between tank and kitchen taps. Thanks for the comments. Not trying to Michael Moore!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

On cutting boards you can forget about the dish washer. For one thing you can kill the wood and for another you are lucky you have wood cutting boards as the wood tends to kill off the pathogens due to the mechanical difficulties of the woods surface.
All you need to do is to use soap or detergent to break the fats or oils on the surface and rinse really well, then dry. Surprisingly the plastic cutting boards are the problem as the bugs thrive in the depths of the little slices making them virtually imposable to kill. Another nasty thing in the kitchen is that scrubbing sponge. To kill the nasties there a quick trip through the microwave works well as the steam is heated to autoclave temps and wipes out the buggers.
--

Roger Shoaf

About the time I had mastered getting the toothpaste back in the tube, then
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
If I worried, or even believed any of the studies in regards to health, I would be in a bubble. It amazes me that people believe this all this shit because it was either on TV or the Internet. Medias are creating most of these scares of which very few can be proven.
I am also under the belief that most bacteria will only help the body build up its own defenses, which is what it will naturally do. Only in extreme cases is any antibiotic needed.
Hank <~~~runs with scissors
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Roger Shoaf wrote:

The FDA outlawed wood because it couldn't be run through a washer. Scientists who may have been partial to wood found that if they made cuts on a wooden board and cleaned it with a sponge and dishwashing liquid, they couldn't find bacteria on the surface. Bacteria below the surface were found days later, though.
If they cut on dry boards, swelling would have trapped the bacteria that didn't wash off. With the old, wet boards I've used, the results might not have been so good.
Some cut on counters or plates, not boards. Statistically, people with wooden boards have half the risk of food poisoning, and those with plastic or glass have twice the risk. Glass? Glass doesn't have slices to trap bacteria, does it?
Statistically, washing a cutting board between uses does not affect a person's risk of food poisoning. Whatever board you use, washing should get rid of most of the bacteria. If it doesn't reduce the risk of food poisoning, it sounds as if cutting boards are not a significant danger.
The risk is 23 times higher for people who undercook chicken. I think that's why glass is statistically more dangerous than wood. A person who undercooks chicken sounds careless. Isn't a careless person likely to choose whatever board looks easiest to care for? That would be plastic or glass.

I like to heat a wet dish rag or sponge in a closed container in the microwave. The closed container helps steam distribute the heat. It wouldn't reach autoclave temperatures until the steam was gone, and then it might scorch.
I prefer to bring cloths and sponges to a boil with a little sodium percarbonate. The bleach improves the sanitizing, and the washing soda helps remove greasy soil which could soon harbor bacteria colonies.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

you
boards
on
danger.
Here is a copy of the article from the UC Davis PhD: http://www.naturalhandyman.com/iip/infxtra/infcuttingboard.html
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Roger Shoaf wrote:

Thank you. So the USDA recommended plastic but didn't outlaw wood.
I'd like to find out the difference between this research, which picked up bacteria on plastic but not wood, and the research with different results.
At the end, the article mentions the statistical research I mentioned. Those statistics indicate that people who regularly clean their cutting boards after cutting meat are more likely to contract sporadic salmonellosis. That and the statistical finding that people with glass cutting boards are more likely to contract the sickness lead me to believe the relationship with cutting boards is not cause and effect. Perhaps people who don't methodically clean their cutting boards are more likely to cook only what they can eat in one sitting, and that makes food poisoning less likely.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

"...It revealed that those using wooden cutting boards in their home kitchens were less than half as likely as average to contract salmonellosis (odds ratio 0.42, 95% confidence interval 0.22-0.81), those using synthetic (plastic or glass) cutting boards were about twice as likely as average to contract salmonellosis (O.R. 1.99, C.I. 1.03-3.85); and the effect of cleaning the board regularly after preparing meat on it was not statistically significant (O.R. 1.20, C.I. 0.54-2.68).
I think you are reading this wrong. I read that the folks using wood boards are half as likely to have contacted the disease
That and the statistical finding that people with glass

Here I think you are attempting to get the data to support your assumptions.
If I understand the statistical study, they looked at folks that had contacted food poisoning and then went looking for a cause. I read that they suspect plastic and glass boards are the culprits more often than the wood boards.
The study by UC Davis concludes that wood boards are safe to use:
"We believe, on the basis of our published and to-be-published research, that food can be prepared safely on wooden cutting surfaces and that plastic cutting surfaces present some disadvantages that had been overlooked until we found them. "
And that plastic boards may be making folks sick:
"...we regard it as the best epidemiological evidence available to date that wooden cutting boards are not a hazard to human health, but plastic cutting boards may be."
--

Roger Shoaf

About the time I had mastered getting the toothpaste back in the tube, then
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
clipped

Not a scientific study by the sound of it. Not controlled lab conditions. I suspect that if there is less contamination of food from wood cutting boards it is because those who use wood are very likely to be more skilled and knowledgeable cooks. Primary is rinsing meat and poultry from the package before continuing with preparation because contamination, esp. e coli, comes from gut fluids of animal during butchering. The article mentioned people who don't cook chicken thoroughly, which adds strength to the argument. Yuck! Rare chicken!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Roger Shoaf wrote:

"The effect of cleaning the board regularly after preparing meat on it was not statistically significant." The likelihood of getting sick depends on how many salmonella you eat at once. If you cut contaminated chicken on a plastic board, the bacteria on the board before washing must be 10,000 times more than those in the slits after washing. So if boards are a health hazard, the odds ratio ought to be 1000 or so.

The data saying glass and plastic are equally dangerous came from another report of the same study. If ever there was a cutting board that would wash clean, wouldn't it be glass? If people with glass boards are twice as likely to get sick and it doesn't matter if they clean their glass boards, they must be getting salmonellosis some other way.

Here's an abstract: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1342320
The study included 120 patients and 265 control subjects. It noted that because the patients were self-selected, there may be alternative explanations of the statistics. I see another problem. Experts estimate that 35 cases are unreported for every one reported. So the study is about the 3% of cases who went to a doctor; of those, it's about the ones who chose to participate.
Cutting boards aren't even mentioned in the abstract. The study found an odds ratio of 24 for those who had eaten undercooked chicken, 10 for those who had recently been abroad, 6 for diabetics, 4 for those on hormone replacement therapy, and 2 for those who had recently received antibiotics.

I assume the epidemiological study they mean is the Kass study, which my link abstracts. If the study did not find that those who cleaned their boards were less likely to get sick, I don't see much significance in the finding that a certain group of patients were somewhat more likely than the control group to use boards of glass or plastic.
Undercooked chicken, foreign travel, and diabetes would probably include almost all the 120 patients.
I imagine a dinner where a housewife wants to impress guests would be risky. She may be trying a new recipe. She's trying to have a lot of tasks come out on schedule. She may not test the chicken to be sure it's cooked through, and it may then sit at an ideal temperature for salmonella to multiply.
Several guests may see their doctor afterward, and they may want to participate in the study because they want to know what made them sick. To cook for the group, the hostess was likely to use a plastic or glass board because it's large and easy to clean. The hostess says she washed the board after each use. Statistically, this sort of thing could make it appear that glass is more dangerous than wood and washed boards are no safer than unwashed boards.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
terry wrote:

I think we should all shower in wet suits with scuba breathing apparatus until solution to this serious health hazard is determined.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
on 9/16/2009 10:18 AM (ET) terry wrote the following:

Ignore all these scare tactics. What about the same water that runs through your faucets? Don't drink that? I think a lot of this doomsday warnings are the result of bottled water advertising.
--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

???
Are you saying that you can't tell the (significant) differences between a shower head and a faucet?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
on 9/16/2009 2:51 PM (ET) snipped-for-privacy@dog.com wrote the following:

Nope. I'm saying that any bacteria in the water is the same coming from the faucet or the shower head, and one drinking from the faucet is putting that bacteria in the body, which could be more dangerous than showering with the same water.
--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

So, you don't know why a shower head would be different from a faucet? It's VERY different.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
on 9/17/09 10:54 AM snipped-for-privacy@dog.com said the following:

Mildew can collect on any faucet head.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.