http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/28/dining/28KITC.html

Squeaky Clean? Not Even Close

By AMANDA HESSER

Published: January 28, 2004


WHEN mad cow disease was discovered in Washington State recently, it made
headlines for days and brought action from the federal government. Coupled
with a number of E. coli scares, it caused some Americans to swear off
hamburger.

But most people don't seem to worry about what experts say is a petri dish
for food-borne illness: the home kitchen.

"Everybody is so acutely aware of mad cow disease," said Janet Anderson, a
clinical associate professor of nutrition and food sciences at Utah State
University, "but people aren't aware of the fact that they don't even wash
their hands when they enter their kitchens, which is a much greater risk."

Professor Anderson filmed more than 100 people preparing dinner and found
that only two did not cross-contaminate raw meat with fresh vegetables.

It is not only people's hands, though. Dish towels, sinks, refrigerator door
handles and warm, moist, crevice-filled sponges are also breeding grounds
for bacteria.

"A sponge that's been in use for no more than two or three days in a kitchen
will harbor millions of bacteria," said Elizabeth Scott, co-director of the
Simmons Center for Hygiene and Health in the Home at Simmons College in
Boston. That's a problem, she said, "if you pick up the pathogen or a
pathogenic E. coli, salmonella or campylobacter on the sponge."

She added: "That means that any time you use the sponge to wipe up a surface
you are potentially spreading those pathogens."

These pathogens are a potential problem mainly for infants, the sick elderly
and people with compromised immune systems. But when allowed to multiply on
food, they can make the average person sick.

"The basic reality is that the risks that scare people and the risks that
kill people are very different," said Dr. Peter M. Sandman, a risk
communication consultant in Princeton, N.J. "Risks that you control," Dr.
Sandman said, "are much less a source of outrage than risks that are out of
your control. In the case of mad cow, it feels like it's beyond my control.
I can't tell if my meat has prions in it or not. I can't see it, I can't
smell it. Whereas dirt in my own kitchen is very much in my own control. I
can clean my sponges. I can clean the floor."

Dread is another factor, Dr. Sandman said. People can deal with sick
stomachs, but they absolutely dread the idea of rotting brains.

Fair enough, except that many of the estimated 76 million cases of
food-borne illnesses in the United States each year are contracted in the
home, and many can be prevented.

Dean Cliver, a professor of food safety at the University of California,
Davis, found that microwaving sponges - cellulose ones, not the natural
kind - wipes out harmful bacteria. "We did soak sponges in some pretty bad
things," he said, "and one minute in the nuke and that pretty much did it."

Dishcloths also become saturated with bacteria, although since they dry more
quickly than sponges, bacteria are less likely to breed. They can be
microwaved, too, or simply laundered regularly.

Professor Cliver's other notable discovery involved cutting boards.
"Somewhere along the line, wood got a bad name," Professor Cliver said. Part
of the blame, he said, must go to the rubber industry, which assailed wood
cutting boards in order to promote hard rubber and plastic. In recent years,
it has become conventional wisdom that plastic cutting boards are safer and
easier to clean than wood cutting boards. Even the Food and Drug
Administration says that plastic is less likely to harbor bacteria and
easier to clean.

But in a study Professor Cliver conducted, he found that cellulose in wood
absorbs bacteria but will not release it. "We've never been able to get the
bacteria down in the wood back up on the knife to contaminate food later,"
he said.

Plastic absorbs bacteria in a different way. "When a knife cuts into the
plastic surface, little cracks radiate out from the cut," Professor Cliver
said. The bacteria, he said, "seem to get down in those knife cuts and they
hang out. They go dormant. Drying will kill, say, 90 percent of them, but
the rest could hang around for weeks."

In one test he did, raw chicken juices were spread on samples of used wood
and plastic cutting boards. Both boards were washed in hot soapy water and
dried, then knives were used to simulate cutting vegetables for a salad. No
bacteria appeared on the knives cut on wood, but there were plenty on the
knives used on a plastic board.

Professor Cliver found that running plastic boards through the dishwasher
only spread the bacteria around. The bacteria in the cracks remained. He
said that the water in dishwashers must get hotter than 140 degrees or all
sorts of bacteria can survive.

Wood cutting boards may be microwaved for five minutes, but Professor Cliver
warned that some wood cutting boards contain metal pieces within. He added,
"Some people who tried their boards in the microwave had some spectacular
fireworks."

Even with clean sponges and cutting boards, no one's kitchen will ever be
germ-free because the food supply is not sterile. In 1998, Consumer Reports,
for instance, found that 71 percent of store-bought chicken contained
harmful bacteria. Most bacteria in food can be killed if the food is cooked
properly. But much of the harm happens before the food gets near the oven.

In an experiment performed by Professor Anderson of Utah State University,
she and her colleagues covered a chicken with a product called Glo Germ,
which is invisible in daylight but visible when exposed to ultraviolet
light. The chicken was given to a home cook, who was asked to prepare it. By
the time the chicken was done, Professor Anderson said, the light revealed
chicken juices everywhere - on the counter, in the sink, on cabinet handles,
even on the sippy cup of the cook's 2-year-old child.

Chuck Gerba, a professor of environmental microbiology at the University of
Arizona who has studied bacteria in home kitchens, said that he found that
people who had the cleanest-looking kitchens were often the dirtiest.
Because "clean" people wipe up so much, they often end up spreading bacteria
all over the place. The cleanest kitchens, he said, were in the homes of
bachelors, who never wiped up and just put their dirty dishes in the sink.

The biggest obstacle seems to be simply getting people to wash their hands.
Professor Anderson found that only 34 percent of her subjects washed their
hands before cooking, and most failed to use soap. Washing hands in hot
soapy water for at least 20 seconds rinses off surface bacteria and makes it
difficult for bacteria to cling to skin.

The less bacteria that you pick up, the less likely you will fall ill.
Getting people to change their habits, however, is a big mountain to climb.

The truth is, as Dr. Sandman pointed out, bacteria in the home kitchen is
simply not mysterious or weird enough. To respond to it, you have to do
something very banal: wash your hands. And that's just not as compelling as
taking a dramatic stand and halting beef consumption in the face of a
brain-rotting disease.

</>

>Dishcloths etc.

Science, if that's what it is, is always open to appeals from reality.

I've used the same plastic (Joyce Chen) cutting board on both meat (especially
chicken) and vegetables for 20 years, cleaning it only with hot water and
dishwashing fluid in the sink. I, personally, have had two infectious diseases
severe enough to cause fever in the past 10 years, and the kids, respectively,
have averaged less than one every three years, which is a good deal under the
average. None of us has ever had anything resembling salmonella symptoms, even
though we also have a pet semi-aquatic turtle, whose pump and thermostat also
get cleaned in that self-same sink.

I'm not a neatness freak; just take ordinary, reasonable precautions--but, I
would guess, fewer than the subjects in the controlled studies here cited did.

These warnings that kitchens are dirty places circulate periodically; I
remember hearing about a similar study when I was in high school and another
one about 15 years ago, both making the same mention of chickens (although not
raising the plastic cutting board point). But these warnings never seem to
coordinate with demographic data measuring actual outbreaks.

Neil

WardNA wrote:
>>Dishcloths etc.
>
>
> Science, if that's what it is, is always open to appeals from reality.
>
> I've used the same plastic (Joyce Chen) cutting board on both meat (especially
> chicken) and vegetables for 20 years, cleaning it only with hot water and
> dishwashing fluid in the sink. I, personally, have had two infectious diseases
> severe enough to cause fever in the past 10 years, and the kids, respectively,
> have averaged less than one every three years, which is a good deal under the
> average. None of us has ever had anything resembling salmonella symptoms, even
> though we also have a pet semi-aquatic turtle, whose pump and thermostat also
> get cleaned in that self-same sink.
>
> I'm not a neatness freak; just take ordinary, reasonable precautions--but, I
> would guess, fewer than the subjects in the controlled studies here cited did.
>
> These warnings that kitchens are dirty places circulate periodically; I
> remember hearing about a similar study when I was in high school and another
> one about 15 years ago, both making the same mention of chickens (although not
> raising the plastic cutting board point). But these warnings never seem to
> coordinate with demographic data measuring actual outbreaks.
>
> Neil

Science, unless it's a conjecture, uses the scientific method. We are
already superbly advanced in knowing what microorganisms can cause
disease, and pretty much how they do it.

Out of the many dinners that I have been invited to, I have always
observed many practices which I frown upon:

Wiping raw egg from hands with the kitchen towel;

cleaning hands with the towel after just washing with plain tap water;

using utensils on raw meat, and after a simple water wash, using the
same to cut raw veggies going into a non cooked salad;

cleaning sweat from the face of the cook, with the kitchen towel (this
one just disgusts me);

kitchen towels that have been in the sink for days, without being
properly cleaned (in my case I use plain bleach,)

Regarding your statistics with getting sick; I believe them. Only
because our meat now a days is much cleaner, inspection and testing is
more common, and spread is less likely because of these two factors. But
one must err on the side of caution. If you ever suffered from a bad
case of gastroenteritis (which puts some people in a hospital,) you
would take the proper precautions. And I'm not talking about the other
precautions which involve cooking the various meats, at the recommended
temperatures.

An ounce of prevention is worth more than a pound of cure.

Rich

--
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Dum spiro, spero. (Cicero) As long as I breathe, I hope.

Richard wrote:
>Out of the many dinners that I have been
>invited to, I have always observed many
>practices which I frown upon:
>Wiping raw egg from hands with the
>kitchen towel;
>cleaning hands with the towel after just
>washing with plain tap water;
>using utensils on raw meat, and after a
>simple water wash, using the same to
>cut raw veggies going into a non cooked
>salad;
>cleaning sweat from the face of the cook,
>with the kitchen towel (this one just
>disgusts me);
>kitchen towels that have been in the sink
>for days, without being properly cleaned
>(in my case I use plain bleach,)

I was invited to a house where they poured the undrank milk from their
childrens back into the carton.

I recoiled because I used that milk in my coffee.

A smelly trash can without a lid was in another friends house near the
food preparation area.

Another disgusting practice is to have a parakeet in the kitchen. Sorry
if I offend you pet owners but animals should be kept outside. The
germs they carry are very dangerous to your health and your children's
well-being.

in article , Not Available at
wrote on 1/29/04 9:50 PM:

> Another disgusting practice is to have a parakeet in the kitchen. Sorry
> if I offend you pet owners but animals should be kept outside. The
> germs they carry are very dangerous to your health and your children's
> well-being.
>

YOU should be kept outside.

Sheryl Rosen wrote:
>
> in article , Not Available at
> wrote on 1/29/04 9:50 PM:
>
> > Another disgusting practice is to have a parakeet in the kitchen. Sorry
> > if I offend you pet owners but animals should be kept outside. The
> > germs they carry are very dangerous to your health and your children's
> > well-being.
> >
>
> YOU should be kept outside.

(laugh) Like there is a law saying you have to have pets. You don't
like them, don't get them. Especially don't get them and leave them
outside to annoy the neighbors and let them roam. Not to mention pick
up ticks and fleas and god knows what disease. Just don't get pets.

nancy (Moxie the cat stays *inside*)

Sheryl wrote:

>YOU should be kept outside.

Gosh! I was only making a polite observation.

>our meat now a days is much cleaner, inspection and testing is
>more common, and spread is less likely because of these two factors.

But that's not what I'm hearing (except in the case of trichinosis): more than
half of all chickens are supposed to be infested with salmonella.

Neil

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 02:03:01 GMT, Richard Periut >
wrote:

>WardNA wrote:

>> These warnings that kitchens are dirty places circulate periodically; I
>> remember hearing about a similar study when I was in high school and another
>> one about 15 years ago, both making the same mention of chickens (although not
>> raising the plastic cutting board point). But these warnings never seem to
>> coordinate with demographic data measuring actual outbreaks.
>
>Science, unless it's a conjecture, uses the scientific method. We are
>already superbly advanced in knowing what microorganisms can cause
>disease, and pretty much how they do it.
>
>Out of the many dinners that I have been invited to, I have always
>observed many practices which I frown upon:

There *has* to be a balance between normal cleanliness and sterile
perfection. Else none of us would ever touch money without washing it
first. And some do. They are thought to be rather peculiar. :-)
Because we can't live in a microbeless world *doesn't* mean we
shouldn't wash dishes, clean counters, store food properly, and wash
hands frequently.

Contemplation and study of the number of disease organisms in a
kitchen (or bathroom or office or bed or carpet) is *always*
horrifying. Yet outside 'bubble children,' we manage to survive.
Pouring back undrunk milk sounds pretty horrifying to *me*. And false
economy, too. Again, there's a balance between utterly nasty and
statistically unsanitary.

Eg.: I often package chicken breasts into individual freezer bags. And
consider the 'raw chicken' contamination. Can't get the chicken into
the bags without touching the outside surface of bags. I put the
individual bags into a larger, more sturdy plastic wrapping. Same
problem. The big bag goes into the freezer, where it touches other
containers. Even if I religiously wash hands, knives, and cutting
boards after these operations (which I do), a chicken-o-scope would
show many unscoured bits of chicken juice. I'm not going to stop
washing, but I'm also not going to try and sterilize the kitchen every
time I handle food.

>From: (Not Available)

>Another disgusting practice is to have a parakeet in the kitchen. Sorry
>if I offend you pet owners but animals should be kept outside. The
>germs they carry are very dangerous to your health and your children's
>well-being.

You're right that birds should NEVER be kept in the kitchen, but that's because
it's a danger to the birds,...bringing nonstick pans to high cooking temps
releases chemicals that kill birds, and can make humans ill.
Gail~~~~~~~~~~~~
---
Please remember the needy... http://www.quickdonations.com
~~~ Artificial Intelligence is no match for natural stupidity ;o) ~~~

CHUSMA@webtv wrote:

>
> Another disgusting practice is to have a parakeet in the kitchen. Sorry
> if I offend you pet owners but animals should be kept outside. The
> germs they carry are very dangerous to your health and your children's
> well-being.

While I don't believe pets need to be involved in the food preparation
area, they're hardly a routine danger being in the house and have been
found to be beneficial to children (exposure to pets from a young age has
been found to decrease allergy development actually).
Goomba

dienne (Gail) wrote in message >...
> You're right that birds should NEVER be kept in the kitchen, but that's because
> it's a danger to the birds,...bringing nonstick pans to high cooking temps
> releases chemicals that kill birds, and can make humans ill.
> Gail~~~~~~~~~~~~

What about a canary in the kitchen to act as a gas detector?

Frogleg wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 02:03:01 GMT, Richard Periut >
> wrote:
>
>
>>WardNA wrote:
>
>
>>>These warnings that kitchens are dirty places circulate periodically; I
>>>remember hearing about a similar study when I was in high school and another
>>>one about 15 years ago, both making the same mention of chickens (although not
>>>raising the plastic cutting board point). But these warnings never seem to
>>>coordinate with demographic data measuring actual outbreaks.
>>
>>Science, unless it's a conjecture, uses the scientific method. We are
>>already superbly advanced in knowing what microorganisms can cause
>>disease, and pretty much how they do it.
>>
>>Out of the many dinners that I have been invited to, I have always
>>observed many practices which I frown upon:
>
>
> There *has* to be a balance between normal cleanliness and sterile
> perfection. Else none of us would ever touch money without washing it
> first. And some do. They are thought to be rather peculiar. :-)
> Because we can't live in a microbeless world *doesn't* mean we
> shouldn't wash dishes, clean counters, store food properly, and wash
> hands frequently.
>
> Contemplation and study of the number of disease organisms in a
> kitchen (or bathroom or office or bed or carpet) is *always*
> horrifying. Yet outside 'bubble children,' we manage to survive.
> Pouring back undrunk milk sounds pretty horrifying to *me*. And false
> economy, too. Again, there's a balance between utterly nasty and
> statistically unsanitary.
>
> Eg.: I often package chicken breasts into individual freezer bags. And
> consider the 'raw chicken' contamination. Can't get the chicken into
> the bags without touching the outside surface of bags.

That's where I have my wife or one of my daughters hold the freezer bag
open, while I drop each indivual chicken in the bag, without it touching
the outside. Then, I clean my hands with soap and water, and seal it. So
I don't see why you can't get the chicken into the interior of the bags,
without contaminating its exterior???

Rich




I put the
> individual bags into a larger, more sturdy plastic wrapping. Same
> problem. The big bag goes into the freezer, where it touches other
> containers. Even if I religiously wash hands, knives, and cutting
> boards after these operations (which I do), a chicken-o-scope would
> show many unscoured bits of chicken juice. I'm not going to stop
> washing, but I'm also not going to try and sterilize the kitchen every
> time I handle food.



--
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Dum spiro, spero. (Cicero) As long as I breathe, I hope.

Frogleg wrote:

> Eg.: I often package chicken breasts into individual freezer bags. And
> consider the 'raw chicken' contamination. Can't get the chicken into
> the bags without touching the outside surface of bags.


Sure you can - just use tongs to handle the fowl...zip the bags shut...then
spray all "affected" areas. e.g. the outside of the bags, etc. with hydrogen
peroxide....


I put the
> individual bags into a larger, more sturdy plastic wrapping. Same
> problem. The big bag goes into the freezer, where it touches other
> containers. Even if I religiously wash hands, knives, and cutting
> boards after these operations (which I do), a chicken-o-scope would
> show many unscoured bits of chicken juice. I'm not going to stop
> washing, but I'm also not going to try and sterilize the kitchen every
> time I handle food.


No. Just follow my advice as per above: I have a quart bottle of hydrogen
peroxide with a sprayer attachment...just spray where needed....easy!

--
Best
Greg

"Gregory Morrow" > wrote in
message ink.net...
>
> Frogleg wrote:
>
> > Eg.: I often package chicken breasts into individual freezer bags. And
> > consider the 'raw chicken' contamination. Can't get the chicken into
> > the bags without touching the outside surface of bags.
>
>
> Sure you can - just use tongs to handle the fowl...zip the bags
shut...then
> spray all "affected" areas. e.g. the outside of the bags, etc. with
hydrogen
> peroxide....
>
>
> I put the
> > individual bags into a larger, more sturdy plastic wrapping. Same
> > problem. The big bag goes into the freezer, where it touches other
> > containers. Even if I religiously wash hands, knives, and cutting
> > boards after these operations (which I do), a chicken-o-scope would
> > show many unscoured bits of chicken juice. I'm not going to stop
> > washing, but I'm also not going to try and sterilize the kitchen every
> > time I handle food.
>
>
> No. Just follow my advice as per above: I have a quart bottle of
hydrogen
> peroxide with a sprayer attachment...just spray where needed....easy!
>
> --
> Best
> Greg
>


Of course you know you're coddling your immune system so when you really
need it, it's gonna require peroxide.

People, we didn't get sick from our kitchens; it's what we brought into our
kitchens that made us sick.

Jack Antibiotics

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 04:51:25 GMT, Richard Periut >
wrote:

>Frogleg wrote:

>> Eg.: I often package chicken breasts into individual freezer bags. And
>> consider the 'raw chicken' contamination. Can't get the chicken into
>> the bags without touching the outside surface of bags.
>
>That's where I have my wife or one of my daughters hold the freezer bag
>open, while I drop each indivual chicken in the bag, without it touching
>the outside. Then, I clean my hands with soap and water, and seal it. So
>I don't see why you can't get the chicken into the interior of the bags,
>without contaminating its exterior???

Send one of your wives or daughters over and I'll give it a shot. The
cat doesn't have thumbs. :-)

Frogleg > wrote:

>On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 02:03:01 GMT, Richard Periut >
>wrote:
>
>>WardNA wrote:
>
>There *has* to be a balance between normal cleanliness and sterile
>perfection. Else none of us would ever touch money without washing it
>first. And some do. They are thought to be rather peculiar. :-)
>Because we can't live in a microbeless world *doesn't* mean we
>shouldn't wash dishes, clean counters, store food properly, and wash
>hands frequently.
>
>
>Eg.: I often package chicken breasts into individual freezer bags. And
>consider the 'raw chicken' contamination. Can't get the chicken into
>the bags without touching the outside surface of bags. I put the
>individual bags into a larger, more sturdy plastic wrapping. Same
>problem. The big bag goes into the freezer, where it touches other
>containers. Even if I religiously wash hands, knives, and cutting
>boards after these operations (which I do), a chicken-o-scope would
>show many unscoured bits of chicken juice. I'm not going to stop
>washing, but I'm also not going to try and sterilize the kitchen every
>time I handle food.

The saving grace here is that you are promptly placing the
'contaminated' bag into an environment in which the 'spoilers' become
inactive and are unlikely to continue producing toxins.

BTW - building on an idea I took from the preserving group... there is
a level of contamination (density of 'spoilers') that
pressure/time/temperature cannot overcome; probably the same way with
my immune system. So it makes sense to modulate the 'spoiler'
population to give both my immune system and my preserving techniques
a fighting chance. And it gives me an excuse to clean the dried
tomato sauce off the stove. - Mike

in article , Jack Schidt® at
wrote on 1/31/04 1:16 AM:

> Of course you know you're coddling your immune system so when you really
> need it, it's gonna require peroxide.

Ain't that the truth!
Why are there so many more incidences of severe infections and allergies now
than 40 years ago? Because people are disinfecting everything in sight, to
the point that when they are exposed to something, their immune system looks
at it and says "Whoa, a germ? What am I supposed to do with THAT?? I've
never seen one before."

In article >, "Jack
Schidt®" > wrote:
(snip)
> Of course you know you're coddling your immune system so when you really
> need it, it's gonna require peroxide.
> Jack Antibiotics

A-men, Bruddah!
--
-Barb, <www.jamlady.eboard.com> updated 1-31-04
A good friend will come and bail you out of jail;
a true friend will be sitting next to you saying, "Damn,that was fun!"

Sheryl Rosen wrote:

> in article , Jack Schidt®
at
> wrote on 1/31/04 1:16 AM:
>
> > Of course you know you're coddling your immune system so when you really
> > need it, it's gonna require peroxide.
>
> Ain't that the truth!
> Why are there so many more incidences of severe infections and allergies
now
> than 40 years ago? Because people are disinfecting everything in sight,
to
> the point that when they are exposed to something, their immune system
looks
> at it and says "Whoa, a germ? What am I supposed to do with THAT?? I've
> never seen one before."


Actually Sheryl, when handling chicken I like things as "clean" as possible.
Chicken is the one meat that I really don't like handling...other meats and
fish don't bother me, but chicken I find "gross" to handle...no reason for
you to get all hysterical because another poster likes to keep their working
area somewhat clean.

Of course you are painting with a broad brush, but we are all used to that
by now. Some things just never change :-)

--
Best
Greg

Frogleg wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 04:51:25 GMT, Richard Periut >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Frogleg wrote:
>
>
>>>Eg.: I often package chicken breasts into individual freezer bags. And
>>>consider the 'raw chicken' contamination. Can't get the chicken into
>>>the bags without touching the outside surface of bags.
>>
>>That's where I have my wife or one of my daughters hold the freezer bag
>>open, while I drop each indivual chicken in the bag, without it touching
>>the outside. Then, I clean my hands with soap and water, and seal it. So
>>I don't see why you can't get the chicken into the interior of the bags,
>>without contaminating its exterior???
>
>
> Send one of your wives or daughters over and I'll give it a shot. The
> cat doesn't have thumbs. :-)

OK, then use some sort of grasping device, tongs, et cetera.

Rich

--
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Dum spiro, spero. (Cicero) As long as I breathe, I hope.

Sheryl Rosen wrote:
> in article , Jack Schidt® at
> wrote on 1/31/04 1:16 AM:
>
>
>>Of course you know you're coddling your immune system so when you really
>>need it, it's gonna require peroxide.
>
>
> Ain't that the truth!
> Why are there so many more incidences of severe infections and allergies now
> than 40 years ago? Because people are disinfecting everything in sight, to
> the point that when they are exposed to something, their immune system looks
> at it and says "Whoa, a germ? What am I supposed to do with THAT?? I've
> never seen one before."
>
>

Um, can you post a respected scientific source to back that up? Cause I
sure have not heard of that? Or is that just a conjecture?

Rich

--
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Dum spiro, spero. (Cicero) As long as I breathe, I hope.

>>The
>> cat doesn't have thumbs. :-)
>
>OK, then use some sort of grasping device, tongs, et cetera.

Tongs would still be ineffective without an assistant with opposable thumbs,
since it requires two hands to hold the bag open and a third to operate the
tongs.

>Because people are disinfecting everything in sight, to
>> the point that when they are exposed to something, their immune system
>looks
>> at it and says "Whoa, a germ? What am I supposed to do with THAT?? I've
>> never seen one before."

>Um, can you post a respected scientific source to back that up? Cause I
>sure have not heard of that? Or is that just a conjecture?
>
>Rich

No, I don't have a reference either, but the assertion may be alluding to two
recent observations, neither of which quite applies entirely:

(1) abuse of antibiotics has created classes of parasites that are harder to
eradicate now than formerly, a public health problem for the long term;

(2) a couple years ago, someone submitted the observation that small children
subjected to numerous minor infections (in day-care situations) are less prone
to allergies later on; the suggestion is that the hermaneutically sealed
youngster may be depriving his immune system of the light homeopathic
calisthenics he needs for proper development.

I haven't heard anyone saying that household disinfectants are causing serious
microbe famine or that we should stop teaching Johnny to wash his hands after
wiping himself.

Neil

(WardNA) wrote in
:

>>>The
>>> cat doesn't have thumbs. :-)
>>
>>OK, then use some sort of grasping device, tongs, et cetera.
>
> Tongs would still be ineffective without an assistant with opposable
> thumbs, since it requires two hands to hold the bag open and a third
> to operate the tongs.

If you turn the the top inch of so of the bag over onto itself forming a
cuff around the entire perimeter (not sure how better to explain this
exactly), then only the interior surface of the bag can be exposed to the
food being dropped in. Afterwards, simply unfold the top and seal.

Wayne

WardNA wrote:
>>>The
>>>cat doesn't have thumbs. :-)
>>
>>OK, then use some sort of grasping device, tongs, et cetera.
>
>
> Tongs would still be ineffective without an assistant with opposable thumbs,
> since it requires two hands to hold the bag open and a third to operate the
> tongs.
>

Um, do you have a problem with coordination? Or with movement?

It's pretty simple for me, I open the bag and keep it open by inserting
my thumb and index finger slightly inside the bag, then I use the tongs
with the other. Unless you are trying to stuff an entire bird (at
once)with this method; I don't see the problem?

Rich

--
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Dum spiro, spero. (Cicero) As long as I breathe, I hope.

WardNA wrote:
>>Because people are disinfecting everything in sight, to
>>
>>>the point that when they are exposed to something, their immune system
>>
>>looks
>>
>>>at it and says "Whoa, a germ? What am I supposed to do with THAT?? I've
>>>never seen one before."
>>
>
>>Um, can you post a respected scientific source to back that up? Cause I
>>sure have not heard of that? Or is that just a conjecture?
>>
>>Rich
>
>
> No, I don't have a reference either, but the assertion may be alluding to two
> recent observations, neither of which quite applies entirely:
>
> (1) abuse of antibiotics has created classes of parasites that are harder to
> eradicate now than formerly, a public health problem for the long term;
>
First, I directed the question to another person, who still hasn't
answered.

Second, that's not the issue of the polemic, the issue of the polemic is
that because we are more "cleaner" today, we are more vulnerable to
diseases caused by microorganisms.


> (2) a couple years ago, someone submitted the observation that small children
> subjected to numerous minor infections (in day-care situations) are less prone
> to allergies later on; the suggestion is that the hermaneutically sealed
> youngster may be depriving his immune system of the light homeopathic
> calisthenics he needs for proper development.

That was completely anecdotal, and probably biased. You'd be surprised
to see what people do to get fame. Even the small studies from respected
centers; are full of bull. Drug companies and centers that want
kickbacks, alter the results to make the drug or product seem effective.
Then someone comes with a real good study, and this scandals the whole
medical community.

>
> I haven't heard anyone saying that household disinfectants are causing serious
> microbe famine or that we should stop teaching Johnny to wash his hands after
> wiping himself.
>
> Neil

I will tell you this that I have observed; when I worked full time, I
was getting an average of 3 to 4 upper respiratory infections a year.
Now that I work part time, I get one maybe every 3 years. Lack of sleep,
less stress,among other factors are probably the reason

Rich

--
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Dum spiro, spero. (Cicero) As long as I breathe, I hope.

On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 18:03:04 GMT, Richard Periut >
wrote:

>
>
>> (2) a couple years ago, someone submitted the observation that small children
>> subjected to numerous minor infections (in day-care situations) are less prone
>> to allergies later on; the suggestion is that the hermaneutically sealed
>> youngster may be depriving his immune system of the light homeopathic
>> calisthenics he needs for proper development.
>
>That was completely anecdotal, and probably biased. You'd be surprised
>to see what people do to get fame. Even the small studies from respected
>centers; are full of bull. Drug companies and centers that want
>kickbacks, alter the results to make the drug or product seem effective.
>Then someone comes with a real good study, and this scandals the whole
>medical community.

There was an article in the NEJM about childhood exposures,
specifically in regard to asthma, but it mentioned that the theory.
The study is Siblings, day-care attendance, and the risk of asthma and
wheezing during childhood, in The New England Journal of Medicine,
August 24, 2000.

Peer reviewed journals are, of course, better sources of med info than
other, les reliable sources and no one says the academic-medical
research world is free of all bias, but, neither is it to be tarred
with such broad a brush as you propose.

>> I haven't heard anyone saying that household disinfectants are causing serious
>> microbe famine or that we should stop teaching Johnny to wash his hands after
>> wiping himself.
>>
>> Neil
>
>I will tell you this that I have observed; when I worked full time, I
>was getting an average of 3 to 4 upper respiratory infections a year.
>Now that I work part time, I get one maybe every 3 years. Lack of sleep,
>less stress,among other factors are probably the reason


Maybe stress and rest contribute, but if you are working part time,
you are exposed to fewer people for shorter periods of time, too,
thereby lessening chance of catching anything.

There is no question that decent rest and general well-being
contribute in some ways to health, but so does exposure. If you stayed
at home and had contact with no one ever, you can bet you'd get very
little in the way of URIs.

Boron

in article , Richard Periut at
wrote on 1/31/04 7:02 PM:

>> Sheryl Rosen wrote:
>>> in article , Jack Schidt® at
>>> wrote on 1/31/04 1:16 AM:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Of course you know you're coddling your immune system so when you really
>>>> need it, it's gonna require peroxide.
>>>
>>>
>>> Ain't that the truth!
>>> Why are there so many more incidences of severe infections and allergies now
>>> than 40 years ago? Because people are disinfecting everything in sight, to
>>> the point that when they are exposed to something, their immune system looks
>>> at it and says "Whoa, a germ? What am I supposed to do with THAT?? I've
>>> never seen one before."
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Um, can you post a respected scientific source to back that up? Cause I
>> sure have not heard of that? Or is that just a conjecture?
>>
>> Rich

Google search on "antibacterial cleansers"+link+illness

This was the first hit:

(Assuming, of course, you consider the New England Journal of Medicine a
"respected scientific source".)

> Kids Should Play In the Dirt With Their Buddies
> Exposure to germs early on could eliminate asthma problems later
> *
> *
> When it comes to playing in the dirt with their friends, kids might be right
> after all. Not only is it fun, but it could help them develop immunities that
> could protect them from asthma when they get older.
>
> Children who grow up in sterile environments run a greater risk of having
> problems with their immune systems later in life, according to Dr. Leonard
> Bielory, director of the Asthma and Allergy Research Center at the University
> of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey in Newark. He's quoted in an
> Associated Press story on C-Health.
>
> The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says asthma cases have
> increased 158 percent from 1990-98. Many of the new cases involve children.
> Experts have been at a loss to explain the increase, but some say
> squeaky-clean houses, scrubbed with antibacterial cleansers, may be among the
> culprits.
>
> Other factors include the number of siblings, or other children the child is
> exposed to in the first six months of life.
>
> The study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, involved 1,000
> children who were followed for 15 years. Children who had frequent exposure to
> other children developed protection from asthma, but only if that exposure
> happened in the first six months of life, while the immune system was
> developing.
>
> To find out more about childhood asthma, you can get the facts from the
> American Lung Association, which also has information on early warning signs
> of childhood asthma.
>
> *
> 28-AUG-2000
> *
> Copyright © 2000 Rx Remedy, Inc.
> ----
>
And this one is quotes the World Health Organization and the American
Medical
Association.

> We all want our homes clean, right? But how clean is clean enough? Is there
> such a thing as a house that is too clean?
> Starting around 1997, American consumers were introduced to the newest
> defenses in our ongoing war against germs: antibacterial cleaners. The first
> antibacterial products were kitchen and bathroom cleaners, all of them
> promising to make our kitchens and bathrooms virtually germ-free. One cleaner
> promises destruction of 99.9% of bacteria in your bathroom.
> The kitchen and bathroom cleaners were quickly followed by antibacterial hand
> soaps and lotions, dishwashing liquids, body washes, window cleaners, and just
> about all other types of cleaner used in the home. Today, in addition to all
> of the antibacterial cleaning products on the market, some companies have
> begun to impregnate the plastic used to make cutting boards, toothbrushes, and
> children¹s toys with an antibacterial agent.
> With the multitude of antibacterial cleaning products on the market, and an
> estimated one-half of all soap in the United States containing antibacterial
> ingredients, it¹s not hard to imagine a virtually sterile environment in which
> to live and raise our families. But is living in a sterile home really what¹s
> best for us?
> Fifty years ago, penicillin was the world¹s newest wonder drug, an antibiotic
> used to treat Streptococcus infections. Among other illnesses, Streptococcus
> is the bacterium that causes strep throat. Penicillin worked great at wiping
> out these infections, until the Streptococcus bacteria mutated and became
> resistant to treatment by penicillin. New and stronger antibiotics were
> developed, and those too, worked to treat strep infections until, once again,
> the bacteria became resistant. Streptococcus is just one example of many
> bacteria resistant to some antibiotics.
> In June of 2000, the World Health Organization warned that antibacterial
> products directly contribute to the rise in antibiotic-resistant bacteria. The
> American Medical Association (AMA) says ³(bacterial) resistance ascribed to
> overuse of antibiotics is a growing problem, and there is concern that some
> types of infections will eventually not be treatable with antibiotics². On
> June 13, 2000, the AMA advised consumers to avoid extensive use of
> ³antibacterial soaps, lotions, and other household products². The AMA has also
> urged the Food and Drug Administration to increase regulation of antibacterial
> products.
> So, on one side, we have the advertisements for antibacterial cleaners telling
> us that killing 99.9% of germs in our homes is a good thing. On the other
> side, we have the World Health Organization and the American Medical
> Association telling us that use of antibacterial products might NOT be such a
> good thing. For the millions of Americans who just want a clean home, whether
> to use, or not use, antibacterial cleaners can be a confusing decision to
> make.
> According to most experts, the following guidelines are your best bet for
> keeping your home clean and your family safe, while avoiding the risks
> associated with antibacterial cleaners:
> *Wash your hands thoroughly, and often.
> *Limit your use of antibacterial products.
> *Use bleach to clean your bathroom.
> *Plain old soap and hot water remain the best ingredients to wash your hands,
> body, and dishes.
> *Use separate cutting boards for raw meat and foods such as fruits and
> vegetables that may not be cooked before eating.
> *Wash all fruits and vegetables, either in soapy water (rinse THOROUGHLY), or
> in one of the new fruit and vegetable washes.
> *Wash all kitchen surfaces, dishes, and utensils in hot, soapy water. Make
> sure you rinse thoroughly. If possible, put everything (including cutting
> boards) in the dishwasher.
> *Every time you run your dishwasher, throw your kitchen sponge in.
> *Don¹t wipe your counters with a sponge that¹s been sitting on your sink. This
> can deposit even more bacteria on your countertops. Damp sponges are an
> excellent breeding ground for bacteria. Use paper towels, or replace your
> dishrag every day with a clean one.
> New parents and parents-to-be worry about bacteria and viruses making their
> little one(s) sick. While this is certainly a concern, especially when there
> is a newborn in the home, it¹s important to remember that a sterile
> environment is NOT in the baby¹s best interest. Why?
> Bacteria and viruses are present in our homes, at our work, anywhere and
> everywhere we go. What prevents us from getting sick from these bacteria and
> viruses? Antibodies. Our bodies make antibodies in response to exposure to
> bacteria and viruses. Chickenpox is an excellent example. Chickenpox is a
> common childhood illness. When we contract the virus that causes chickenpox,
> our bodies make antibodies to fight the illness. Those antibodies stick with
> us (antibodies for some viruses and bacteria, such as chickenpox, last for a
> lifetime), and prevent us from getting sick again from the same virus.
> However, there are viruses out there (like the virus that causes the common
> cold) that change their genetic composition on a regular basis. This means
> that the antibodies we made for last month¹s cold may not necessarily work on
> this month¹s cold! If there were no exposure to bacteria and viruses, how
> would we make antibodies? Babies who are exposed to bacteria and viruses at an
> early age make antibodies more quickly than those babies who are kept in
> virtually sterile environments do. Some illnesses (such as chickenpox), while
> relatively minor in children, can be very serious in adults. Those children
> that are exposed to the chickenpox virus at an early age are less likely to
> have complications from the illness than those exposed later in life. While
> your instinct may be to scrub your house from top to bottom with every
> antibacterial product you can find in order to make your home as germ-free as
> possible, remember that germs are crucial for development of baby¹s immune
> system.
> Are germs bad? Some bacteria and viruses cause illness in humans, and some
> maintain bacterial harmony in our bodies. Some bacteria and viruses are
> neutral to humans, causing neither illness nor benefit. Are antibacterial
> cleaners bad? Not necessarily. When used in moderation, antibacterial cleaners
> can help you keep your home clean. Limit your use of antibacterial products to
> one or two products. For instance, use an antibacterial spray for your
> doorknobs, and a bottle of antibacterial hand cleaner for outings. Clean the
> rest of your house with bleach and/or regular cleaners. Use caution when
> exposing yourself and your children to unknown environments, but don¹t limit
> outings due to fear of infection and illness. Don¹t try to create a sterile
> environment for yourself and your family. In addition to the potential for
> antibiotic-resistant bacteria, it¹s a virtually impossible task, and you may
> just be lulled into a false sense of security. That one square inch on your
> kitchen counter you missed with your bottle of antibacterial kitchen spray
> could contain literally millions of bacteria! Instead of spending the entire
> day trying to annihilate every last germ, take your kids to the zoo, or go for
> a walk. Get yourself an ice cream cone with the money you would have spent on
> every antibacterial product you saw in the cleaning aisle at your grocery
> store. Keep your house clean, but above all else, have fun and enjoy life!
> Written by Kathleen Newton

Boron Elgar wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 18:03:04 GMT, Richard Periut >
> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>>(2) a couple years ago, someone submitted the observation that small children
>>>subjected to numerous minor infections (in day-care situations) are less prone
>>>to allergies later on; the suggestion is that the hermaneutically sealed
>>>youngster may be depriving his immune system of the light homeopathic
>>>calisthenics he needs for proper development.
>>
>>That was completely anecdotal, and probably biased. You'd be surprised
>>to see what people do to get fame. Even the small studies from respected
>>centers; are full of bull. Drug companies and centers that want
>>kickbacks, alter the results to make the drug or product seem effective.
>>Then someone comes with a real good study, and this scandals the whole
>>medical community.
>
>
> There was an article in the NEJM about childhood exposures,
> specifically in regard to asthma, but it mentioned that the theory.
> The study is Siblings, day-care attendance, and the risk of asthma and
> wheezing during childhood, in The New England Journal of Medicine,
> August 24, 2000.

What does that have to do with getting infections? Asthma is a disease
of airway inflammation and bronchospasm.

>
> Peer reviewed journals are, of course, better sources of med info than
> other, les reliable sources and no one says the academic-medical
> research world is free of all bias, but, neither is it to be tarred
> with such broad a brush as you propose.

But it's true; unless you have a large prospective double blinded
randomized trial, all the other studies are full of bias. That's why the
practice of medicine constantly changes; not to mention again, the greed
of corporations who will do anything to get a drug or study approved.
Look at the editorials on the NEJM as well. The studies are sometimes
biased and full of holes.

>
>
>>>I haven't heard anyone saying that household disinfectants are causing serious
>>>microbe famine or that we should stop teaching Johnny to wash his hands after
>>>wiping himself.
>>>
>>>Neil
>>
>>I will tell you this that I have observed; when I worked full time, I
>>was getting an average of 3 to 4 upper respiratory infections a year.
>>Now that I work part time, I get one maybe every 3 years. Lack of sleep,
>>less stress,among other factors are probably the reason
>
>
>
> Maybe stress and rest contribute, but if you are working part time,
> you are exposed to fewer people for shorter periods of time, too,
> thereby lessening chance of catching anything.
>
> There is no question that decent rest and general well-being
> contribute in some ways to health, but so does exposure. If you stayed
> at home and had contact with no one ever, you can bet you'd get very
> little in the way of URIs.
>
> Boron

That is true, but in my home I have kids, and they are a constant source
of infection (even wiping their snotty noses on my face towel.) Plus, my
exposure (whether part time or not) is with people who are sick. So that
factor is not that significant; at least not in my case.

Rich

--
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Dum spiro, spero. (Cicero) As long as I breathe, I hope.

in article et, Gregory
Morrow at wrote on 1/31/04
5:12 PM:

>
> Sheryl Rosen wrote:
>
>> in article , Jack Schidt®
> at
>> wrote on 1/31/04 1:16 AM:
>>
>>> Of course you know you're coddling your immune system so when you really
>>> need it, it's gonna require peroxide.
>>
>> Ain't that the truth!
>> Why are there so many more incidences of severe infections and allergies
> now
>> than 40 years ago? Because people are disinfecting everything in sight,
> to
>> the point that when they are exposed to something, their immune system
> looks
>> at it and says "Whoa, a germ? What am I supposed to do with THAT?? I've
>> never seen one before."
>
>
> Actually Sheryl, when handling chicken I like things as "clean" as possible.
> Chicken is the one meat that I really don't like handling...other meats and
> fish don't bother me, but chicken I find "gross" to handle...no reason for
> you to get all hysterical because another poster likes to keep their working
> area somewhat clean.
>
> Of course you are painting with a broad brush, but we are all used to that
> by now. Some things just never change :-)

You need to learn how to read, Greggy-Pooh.
Nobody is saying "don't wash up" before and after handling food, or using
the bathroom. Nobody is saying not to clean your house.

Soap and hot water is our friend, and in fact, does a darn good job of
getting things clean.

My point is that disinfecting everything in sight may be overkill, and is
probably doing more harm than good, because it causes bacteria to mutate and
become resistant to antibiotics.

Several studies have confirmed this, I didn't just make it up out of thin
air.

Do a Google search and see for yourself.

Sheryl Rosen wrote:
> in article , Richard Periut at
> wrote on 1/31/04 7:02 PM:
>
>
>>>Sheryl Rosen wrote:
>>>
>>>>in article , Jack Schidt® at
wrote on 1/31/04 1:16 AM:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Of course you know you're coddling your immune system so when you really
>>>>>need it, it's gonna require peroxide.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Ain't that the truth!
>>>>Why are there so many more incidences of severe infections and allergies now
>>>>than 40 years ago? Because people are disinfecting everything in sight, to
>>>>the point that when they are exposed to something, their immune system looks
>>>>at it and says "Whoa, a germ? What am I supposed to do with THAT?? I've
>>>>never seen one before."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Um, can you post a respected scientific source to back that up? Cause I
>>>sure have not heard of that? Or is that just a conjecture?
>>>
>>>Rich
>>
>
> Google search on "antibacterial cleansers"+link+illness
>
> This was the first hit:
>
> (Assuming, of course, you consider the New England Journal of Medicine a
> "respected scientific source".)
>
>
>>Kids Should Play In the Dirt With Their Buddies
>>Exposure to germs early on could eliminate asthma problems later
>>
>>
>>When it comes to playing in the dirt with their friends, kids might be right
>>after all. Not only is it fun, but it could help them develop immunities that
>>could protect them from asthma when they get older.
>>
>>Children who grow up in sterile environments run a greater risk of having
>>problems with their immune systems later in life, according to Dr. Leonard
>>Bielory, director of the Asthma and Allergy Research Center at the University
>>of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey in Newark. He's quoted in an
>>Associated Press story on C-Health.
>>
>>The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says asthma cases have
>>increased 158 percent from 1990-98. Many of the new cases involve children.
>>Experts have been at a loss to explain the increase, but some say
>>squeaky-clean houses, scrubbed with antibacterial cleansers, may be among the
>>culprits.
>>
>>Other factors include the number of siblings, or other children the child is
>>exposed to in the first six months of life.
>>
>>The study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, involved 1,000
>>children who were followed for 15 years. Children who had frequent exposure to
>>other children developed protection from asthma, but only if that exposure
>>happened in the first six months of life, while the immune system was
>>developing.
>>
>>To find out more about childhood asthma, you can get the facts from the
>>American Lung Association, which also has information on early warning signs
>>of childhood asthma.
>>
>>
>>28-AUG-2000
>>
>>Copyright © 2000 Rx Remedy, Inc.
>>----
>>
>
> And this one is quotes the World Health Organization and the American
> Medical
> Association.
>
>
>>We all want our homes clean, right? But how clean is clean enough? Is there
>>such a thing as a house that is too clean?
>>Starting around 1997, American consumers were introduced to the newest
>>defenses in our ongoing war against germs: antibacterial cleaners. The first
>>antibacterial products were kitchen and bathroom cleaners, all of them
>>promising to make our kitchens and bathrooms virtually germ-free. One cleaner
>>promises destruction of 99.9% of bacteria in your bathroom.
>>The kitchen and bathroom cleaners were quickly followed by antibacterial hand
>>soaps and lotions, dishwashing liquids, body washes, window cleaners, and just
>>about all other types of cleaner used in the home. Today, in addition to all
>>of the antibacterial cleaning products on the market, some companies have
>>begun to impregnate the plastic used to make cutting boards, toothbrushes, and
>>children¹s toys with an antibacterial agent.
>>With the multitude of antibacterial cleaning products on the market, and an
>>estimated one-half of all soap in the United States containing antibacterial
>>ingredients, it¹s not hard to imagine a virtually sterile environment in which
>>to live and raise our families. But is living in a sterile home really what¹s
>>best for us?
>>Fifty years ago, penicillin was the world¹s newest wonder drug, an antibiotic
>>used to treat Streptococcus infections. Among other illnesses, Streptococcus
>>is the bacterium that causes strep throat. Penicillin worked great at wiping
>>out these infections, until the Streptococcus bacteria mutated and became
>>resistant to treatment by penicillin. New and stronger antibiotics were
>>developed, and those too, worked to treat strep infections until, once again,
>>the bacteria became resistant. Streptococcus is just one example of many
>>bacteria resistant to some antibiotics.
>>In June of 2000, the World Health Organization warned that antibacterial
>>products directly contribute to the rise in antibiotic-resistant bacteria. The
>>American Medical Association (AMA) says ³(bacterial) resistance ascribed to
>>overuse of antibiotics is a growing problem, and there is concern that some
>>types of infections will eventually not be treatable with antibiotics². On
>>June 13, 2000, the AMA advised consumers to avoid extensive use of
>>³antibacterial soaps, lotions, and other household products². The AMA has also
>>urged the Food and Drug Administration to increase regulation of antibacterial
>>products.
>>So, on one side, we have the advertisements for antibacterial cleaners telling
>>us that killing 99.9% of germs in our homes is a good thing. On the other
>>side, we have the World Health Organization and the American Medical
>>Association telling us that use of antibacterial products might NOT be such a
>>good thing. For the millions of Americans who just want a clean home, whether
>>to use, or not use, antibacterial cleaners can be a confusing decision to
>>make.
>>According to most experts, the following guidelines are your best bet for
>>keeping your home clean and your family safe, while avoiding the risks
>>associated with antibacterial cleaners:
>>*Wash your hands thoroughly, and often.
>>*Limit your use of antibacterial products.
>>*Use bleach to clean your bathroom.
>>*Plain old soap and hot water remain the best ingredients to wash your hands,
>>body, and dishes.
>>*Use separate cutting boards for raw meat and foods such as fruits and
>>vegetables that may not be cooked before eating.
>>*Wash all fruits and vegetables, either in soapy water (rinse THOROUGHLY), or
>>in one of the new fruit and vegetable washes.
>>*Wash all kitchen surfaces, dishes, and utensils in hot, soapy water. Make
>>sure you rinse thoroughly. If possible, put everything (including cutting
>>boards) in the dishwasher.
>>*Every time you run your dishwasher, throw your kitchen sponge in.
>>*Don¹t wipe your counters with a sponge that¹s been sitting on your sink. This
>>can deposit even more bacteria on your countertops. Damp sponges are an
>>excellent breeding ground for bacteria. Use paper towels, or replace your
>>dishrag every day with a clean one.
>>New parents and parents-to-be worry about bacteria and viruses making their
>>little one(s) sick. While this is certainly a concern, especially when there
>>is a newborn in the home, it¹s important to remember that a sterile
>>environment is NOT in the baby¹s best interest. Why?
>>Bacteria and viruses are present in our homes, at our work, anywhere and
>>everywhere we go. What prevents us from getting sick from these bacteria and
>>viruses? Antibodies. Our bodies make antibodies in response to exposure to
>>bacteria and viruses. Chickenpox is an excellent example. Chickenpox is a
>>common childhood illness. When we contract the virus that causes chickenpox,
>>our bodies make antibodies to fight the illness. Those antibodies stick with
>>us (antibodies for some viruses and bacteria, such as chickenpox, last for a
>>lifetime), and prevent us from getting sick again from the same virus.
>>However, there are viruses out there (like the virus that causes the common
>>cold) that change their genetic composition on a regular basis. This means
>>that the antibodies we made for last month¹s cold may not necessarily work on
>>this month¹s cold! If there were no exposure to bacteria and viruses, how
>>would we make antibodies? Babies who are exposed to bacteria and viruses at an
>>early age make antibodies more quickly than those babies who are kept in
>>virtually sterile environments do. Some illnesses (such as chickenpox), while
>>relatively minor in children, can be very serious in adults. Those children
>>that are exposed to the chickenpox virus at an early age are less likely to
>>have complications from the illness than those exposed later in life. While
>>your instinct may be to scrub your house from top to bottom with every
>>antibacterial product you can find in order to make your home as germ-free as
>>possible, remember that germs are crucial for development of baby¹s immune
>>system.
>>Are germs bad? Some bacteria and viruses cause illness in humans, and some
>>maintain bacterial harmony in our bodies. Some bacteria and viruses are
>>neutral to humans, causing neither illness nor benefit. Are antibacterial
>>cleaners bad? Not necessarily. When used in moderation, antibacterial cleaners
>>can help you keep your home clean. Limit your use of antibacterial products to
>>one or two products. For instance, use an antibacterial spray for your
>>doorknobs, and a bottle of antibacterial hand cleaner for outings. Clean the
>>rest of your house with bleach and/or regular cleaners. Use caution when
>>exposing yourself and your children to unknown environments, but don¹t limit
>>outings due to fear of infection and illness. Don¹t try to create a sterile
>>environment for yourself and your family. In addition to the potential for
>>antibiotic-resistant bacteria, it¹s a virtually impossible task, and you may
>>just be lulled into a false sense of security. That one square inch on your
>>kitchen counter you missed with your bottle of antibacterial kitchen spray
>>could contain literally millions of bacteria! Instead of spending the entire
>>day trying to annihilate every last germ, take your kids to the zoo, or go for
>>a walk. Get yourself an ice cream cone with the money you would have spent on
>>every antibacterial product you saw in the cleaning aisle at your grocery
>>store. Keep your house clean, but above all else, have fun and enjoy life!
>>Written by Kathleen Newton
>
>
>

First of all, you were talking infections. Specifically the topic
started with the kitchen cleanliness. Now it has ramificated into
allergen exposure et cetera.

Anyway, notice that these studies say that extreme cleanliness COULD,
and that's the keyword here; COULD be a factor. Meaning, it's now known
for sure, to even use the words High Correlation.

Of course you need to expose yourselves to bugs and other antigens,
else, your immune system wouldn't develop and memory or specialized
cells to directly attack, or produce antibodies; that's the whole basis
behind a vaccine.

I do consider the NEJM to be a respectable source of their large double
blinded randomized studies, but I take with a grain of salt, all the
other smaller ones, which again, are full of bias. The NEJM accepts
articles from international sources, and I've at times questioned their
bias.

That knee jerk repsonse of people that have a little knowledge about
something can be very deceiving to others. Example; NEJM study says,
children need germs, to prevent asthma and allergies; interpretation by
someone that knows how to interpret a study; there may be an association
, but it's not well supported, only a conejecture. Interpretation by a
layperson, expose yourself to plenty of germs, because it prevents
asthma, allergies, et cetera. Or in your case: Ain't that the truth!
>>>>Why are there so many more incidences of severe infections and
allergies now
>>>>than 40 years ago? Because people are disinfecting everything in
sight, to
>>>>the point that when they are exposed to something, their immune
system looks
>>>>at it and says "Whoa, a germ? What am I supposed to do with THAT?? I've
>>>>never seen one before."
>>>>

Please try to stay in focus of the polemic.

Rich
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Dum spiro, spero. (Cicero) As long as I breathe, I hope.

>the greed
>of corporations who will do anything to get a drug or study approved.

Do you have a cite on that?

>it causes bacteria to mutate and
>become resistant to antibiotics.

Not to mutate; to naturally select.