Is tooth brushing water from hot tap safer than from cold tap?

[<lucasea]

Of course they are. There's a very good reason that the human body has a broad-spectrum and highly capable immune system. Bacteria and viruses are absolutely ubiquitous, and the stronger your immune system, the better your chance of surviving a drug-resistant pandemic. I'm not saying that people should go out of their way to expose themselves to germs, but the recent obsession with hand-washing, antibacterial soaps, and doctors prescribing antibiotics at every turn cannot be good for the collective humane immune response, and is based on both the cleanliness industries and the drug industries using paranoia to boost sales.

Interesting aside.... I don't know if this program has made it to the international scene, but in the US there are a couple of Hollywood special effects guys that do a quasi-science TV show called "Myth Busters". One of the myths they examime is what surfaces in the house have the most germs. Kitchen counters and floors are abominable, as are bathroom floors. Oddly enough, the toilet (WC) seat is one of the cleanest places in the house. Anyway, as part of this show, they showed that fecal coliform bacteria have a disconcerting habit of spreading to all parts of the bathroom as a result of the small amount of aerosol generated when flushing.

Eric Lucas

[Dave Fawthrop]

|Tom Anderson wrote: |> Alcohol is involved in one in five road deaths; according to: |> |>

| |The trouble with that is, AFAIK, a tiny sniff of alcohol in the |bloodstream, let alone anything approaching "the limit", makes |the incident "alcohol related" - including that in the blood |of pedestrians & cyclists.

A tiny sniff of alcohol has significant effects on driving/walking/cycling ability.

[Dave Fawthrop]

|In article , | Chris Bacon wrote: |> The trouble with that is, AFAIK, a tiny sniff of alcohol in the |> bloodstream, let alone anything approaching "the limit", makes |> the incident "alcohol related" - including that in the blood |> of pedestrians & cyclists. | |It's near impossible to get a *zero* alcohol count in the blood.

How so? I haven't drunk alcohol for years.

[David Hansen]

On Mon, 8 May 2006 21:59:36 +0100 someone who may be Tom Anderson wrote this:-

When the Health & Safety Executive were empire building a decade or so ago they thought that transport was a good way to do this. They got their grubby little hands on railway safety (and made the once world respected Railway Inspectorate something of a laughing stock after they had installed their Factory Inspectors in it). They then looked at extending their empire to road safety, but ran away screaming when they considered it.

[unopened]

|

I don't think you mean what you wrote.

A 'tiny sniff of alcohol', meaning nasal inhalation of a small amount of alcohol vapour has no measurable effect on performance. Point me to a study that disagrees. Mass spectometry of the blood will show presence of alcohol, and uninformed wishful thinking makes the crass leap from 'alcohol was detected in the blood' to 'there was enough alcohol to affect performance'.

I am well aware of studies that show ingestion of one 'unit' of ethanol (10 ml) has measurable effect on performance. What I haven't seen is any statement that the effect is greater than the natural variation of performance in a population. Safety nuts think the only acceptable risk is zero risk, which is both irrational and unachievable.

The spinning and bending of the truth that converts the killing of a pedestrian by a teetotal Quaker driving into them after the pedestrian had a dose of cough medicine into an alcohol related accident shows the contempt campaigners (and government departments and quangos with an agenda) have for the truth.

Sid

[The Reid]

Following up to Tom Anderson

its a matter of balance, being reasonably safe while being able to get a reasonable move on etc. If safety was *everything* we would just stay at home as much as possible. We could stop people having anything to drink if driving that day or week, that should shut the rest of the country pubs and stop people having a bottle of wine with thier dinner and it might save one life a year or so. Why not ban cars and other risky things altogether and make life so dull most people would probably kill themselves anyway?

What we could do of course, instead of more and more arbitary rules and more enforecement but *only* when it can be done mechanically, actually try and get people to pay attention and drive according to what they can see. How many of you have ever seen people slow when passing parked cars (for instance) rather than either driving to the speed limit or ignoring it? Its the same in heavy fog/spray on the motorway, how many carry on at the same speed as when its clear, I usually drive well aove the speed limit on clear motorways, if it starts pouring with rain, I find dozens of people going past me at 70, unable to see anything ahead, I have to put my low visability light on (probably illegally) in the hope they wonr pile into the back of me. In town you would need a 10 mph speed limit to make it safe, as you say, which is impractical. What you actually need is people to drive past obstacles that could conceal a person or car *very* slowly and make up the time on empty bits of road (I mean empty, not most peoples false perception of empty).

[The Reid]

Following up to Chris Bacon

yes.

[The Reid]

Following up to Chris Bacon

about one in five drink drive prosecutions are "morning after", I wonder how many of those are people are causing risk? Lowering the limit would catch auntie with her glass of sherry, what you want to do is catch more of the people who are actually drunk and likely to drive in a risk tolerant way (the real danger in drink driving) I dont see why reaction times are that important, unless youre a totally useless driver, which is of course why we have a lot of the rules in the first place, I suppose.

[Guy King]

The message from The Reid contains these words:

I once had a bloke turn up for a minibus test who was incapable after the night before. He flatly denied he was drunk so we walked down the police station and took a voluntary breath test.

The dibble said "I ain't got my hat on, so this is unofficial, but if you go and get in that bus I'll see you from here and be out to nick you". He was way over the limit.

[The Reid]

Following up to [e-mail]

but its not stopping them trying for it.

[Dave Fawthrop]

| |Dave Fawthrop wrote: |> On 8 May 2006 23:36:56 +0200, Chris Bacon wrote: |>

|> |Tom Anderson wrote: |> |> Alcohol is involved in one in five road deaths; according to: |> |>

|> |>

|> | |> |The trouble with that is, AFAIK, a tiny sniff of alcohol in the ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ |> |bloodstream, let alone anything approaching "the limit", makes |> |the incident "alcohol related" - including that in the blood |> |of pedestrians & cyclists. |>

|> A tiny sniff of alcohol has significant effects on driving/walking/cycling |> ability. | |I don't think you mean what you wrote.

Just quoting OP

[Tom Anderson]

Exactly. We balance safety against freedom to move; the balance at present indicates that we value the convenience we currently have more than a couple of thousand lives a year. Or rather, the convenience we would stand to lose if we tightened up on safety against the hundreds of lives we'd save by doing it.

A strawman argument, as you well know.

tom

[Matt]

A UK programme called something like "So you think you are safe" appeared recently on Sky 3 demonstrating the same thing. Toilet flushing will never be the same again.

My pet hates are doors on the entrances into public/restaurant/pub loos that open inwards. You just KNOW some dirty bastard won't wash their hands so making it almost a complete waste of time for anyone else to do it. Outward opening doors, as long as they don't have stupid latches, can at least be opened with a convenient nudge of the bum or upper arm, keeping your hands relatively clean (assuming autoshut off taps and decent soap)

[Dave Plowman (News)]

It occurs naturally in some foodstuffs. And IIRC is generated by some bodily processes.

[The Reid]

Following up to Matt

just press the hand drier button as you pass like everybody else.

[The Reid]

Following up to Tom Anderson

As one of the safer countries roadwise, we are probably near the point where saving more lives requires disporortionate arbitary restrictions like driving at 10mph, thats why I advocate using more intelligent approaches like the use of matching speed to conditions.

[Dave Fawthrop]

|In article , | Dave Fawthrop wrote: |> |It's near impossible to get a *zero* alcohol count in the blood. | |> How so? I haven't drunk alcohol for years. | |It occurs naturally in some foodstuffs. And IIRC is generated by some |bodily processes.

As a dedicated foodie, **very** little. Home made mince meat which smells of alcohol has the alcohol boiled off when June made Mince Pies.

[Rob Morley]

Alcohol can occur naturally in fruit juice. I'd guess you absorb some if you use aftershave too, or inhale fumes from products that use alcohol as a solvent.

[Dave Fawthrop]

|Following up to Tom Anderson | |>> its a matter of balance, being reasonably safe while being able to get a |>> reasonable move on etc. |>

|>Exactly. We balance safety against freedom to move; the balance at present |>indicates that we value the convenience we currently have more than a |>couple of thousand lives a year. Or rather, the convenience we would stand |>to lose if we tightened up on safety against the hundreds of lives we'd |>save by doing it. | |As one of the safer countries roadwise, we are probably near the |point where saving more lives requires disporortionate arbitary |restrictions like driving at 10mph, thats why I advocate using |more intelligent approaches like the use of matching speed to |conditions.

If you look at the roads, you will see that they are improving road safety by small things like putting yellow lines and skid resistant surfaces approaching roundabouts etc.

Not to mention speed cameras which slow most drivers down.

Also treating casualties better with the good old NHS. You have all done a First Aid course so that you can do the *right* things if you come across an accident.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Then give the handle a wash at the same time as your hands...