Guest guest Posted October 21, 2005 Report Share Posted October 21, 2005 I have an extremely hard time when people don't wash their hands after they use the bathroom in my home. Even if they don't wash their hands elsewhere, I think it's absolutely inconsiderate ( & gross) not to in someone else's home. Especially because there's a young child in the house. I had a sign up for a while in our downstairs bathroom that said " Please wash your hands " - I actually put it up as a reminder for my daughter (it had a rubber duck on it, a bar of soap & bubbles), but thought it might also work for guests (without being offensive). I recently took it down after a comment from my mother-in-law (whom I love dearly, but even *she* doesn't wash her hands!!) - I guess she thought it was rude. Does anyone have any suggestions that may not come across as offensive? I'd greatly appreciate some tips. Thanks. Sheree " Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it is time to reform " - Mark Twain FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 21, 2005 Report Share Posted October 21, 2005 To be perfectly honest, and I try to say this in the nicest possible way, it really shouldn't be your concern. Pee is sterile. If someone choses not to wash his/her hands, that shouldn't be your problem. I couldn't figure out a way to say it so it didn't sound rude. I apologize if anyone was offended. -yvette At 01:56 PM 10/21/2005, you wrote: >I have an extremely hard time when people don't wash their hands >after they use the bathroom in my home. Even if they don't wash >their hands elsewhere, I think it's absolutely inconsiderate ( & >gross) not to in someone else's home. Especially because there's a >young child in the house. > >I had a sign up for a while in our downstairs bathroom that said > " Please wash your hands " - I actually put it up as a reminder for my >daughter (it had a rubber duck on it, a bar of soap & bubbles), but >thought it might also work for guests (without being offensive). I >recently took it down after a comment from my mother-in-law (whom I >love dearly, but even *she* doesn't wash her hands!!) - I guess she >thought it was rude. > >Does anyone have any suggestions that may not come across as >offensive? I'd greatly appreciate some tips. > >Thanks. > > > >Sheree > > " Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it is >time to reform " - Mark Twain > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 21, 2005 Report Share Posted October 21, 2005 namaste yvette....yes, in our perfect little bodies is the world's greatest distiller....the kidney's one million and a half nephrons can't be wrong.........silver eagle - yvette Soler RawSeattle Friday, October 21, 2005 2:18 PM Re: [RawSeattle] OT: Handwashing To be perfectly honest, and I try to say this in the nicest possible way, it really shouldn't be your concern. Pee is sterile. If someone choses not to wash his/her hands, that shouldn't be your problem. I couldn't figure out a way to say it so it didn't sound rude. I apologize if anyone was offended. -yvette At 01:56 PM 10/21/2005, you wrote: >I have an extremely hard time when people don't wash their hands >after they use the bathroom in my home. Even if they don't wash >their hands elsewhere, I think it's absolutely inconsiderate ( & >gross) not to in someone else's home. Especially because there's a >young child in the house. > >I had a sign up for a while in our downstairs bathroom that said > " Please wash your hands " - I actually put it up as a reminder for my >daughter (it had a rubber duck on it, a bar of soap & bubbles), but >thought it might also work for guests (without being offensive). I >recently took it down after a comment from my mother-in-law (whom I >love dearly, but even *she* doesn't wash her hands!!) - I guess she >thought it was rude. > >Does anyone have any suggestions that may not come across as >offensive? I'd greatly appreciate some tips. > >Thanks. > > > >Sheree > > " Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it is >time to reform " - Mark Twain > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 21, 2005 Report Share Posted October 21, 2005 Thanks Yvette, I was trying to come up with the same words. If you've been reading what is said here we should not have to worry about washing hands and " germs " . Shari Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 21, 2005 Report Share Posted October 21, 2005 Well, actually, mine are but that's a different story. Plus, the more offensive of the body's two major waste products isn't cleansed by the kidneys, if you get my drift... > namaste yvette....yes, in our perfect little bodies is the world's > greatest distiller....the kidney's one million and a half nephrons > can't be wrong.........silver eagle > - > yvette Soler > RawSeattle > Friday, October 21, 2005 2:18 PM > Re: [RawSeattle] OT: Handwashing > > > To be perfectly honest, and I try to say this in the nicest possible > way, it really shouldn't be your concern. Pee is sterile. If > someone choses not to wash his/her hands, that shouldn't be your > problem. > > I couldn't figure out a way to say it so it didn't sound rude. I > apologize if anyone was offended. > > -yvette > > At 01:56 PM 10/21/2005, you wrote: > >> I have an extremely hard time when people don't wash their hands >> after they use the bathroom in my home. Even if they don't wash >> their hands elsewhere, I think it's absolutely inconsiderate ( & >> gross) not to in someone else's home. Especially because there's a >> young child in the house. >> >> I had a sign up for a while in our downstairs bathroom that said >> " Please wash your hands " - I actually put it up as a reminder for my >> daughter (it had a rubber duck on it, a bar of soap & bubbles), but >> thought it might also work for guests (without being offensive). I >> recently took it down after a comment from my mother-in-law (whom I >> love dearly, but even *she* doesn't wash her hands!!) - I guess she >> thought it was rude. >> >> Does anyone have any suggestions that may not come across as >> offensive? I'd greatly appreciate some tips. >> >> Thanks. >> >> >> >> Sheree >> >> " Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it is >> time to reform " - Mark Twain >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click. >> >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 22, 2005 Report Share Posted October 22, 2005 Hi, If I'm at work handling food I ALWAYS wash my hands but anywhere else - NEVER.... I'm a gardener and can never quite get the garden out from under my fingernails - I consider OK too !! Does anyone know for sure?? Toni Searching for the best free email? Try MetaCrawler Mail, from the #1 metasearch service on the Web, http://www.metacrawler.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 22, 2005 Report Share Posted October 22, 2005 Hi Sheree, Well, since germ phobia is most assuredly a majority position, you might consider taking Mr. Twain's suggestion. Couldn't resist the irony there. It's difficult to accept, I know, but the truth is that hand-washing does nothing to 'prevent' sickness and in fact only irritates the skin, especially if cleansers or soap are used. My hands never touch water unless I'm swimming, showering, or rinsing produce or dishes, and I'm never sick. There's nothing to fear but fear itself, as they say, especially with regard to our friends, bacteria. We've had some good discussions on this topic on the RawSchool list. If you're interested, you could check out the archives. Smiles, Nora www.RawSchool.com Sheree " Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it is time to reform " - Mark Twain FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 22, 2005 Report Share Posted October 22, 2005 Okay, so now I'm a germaphobe.......my main concern from the beginning was that is grosses me out. I never get sick either, so obviously I'm taking care of my body quite well. I suppose I've been eating food for a very long time that people with pee and poop hands have touched, so I must be doing something right. Very cute comment on " Mr. Twain " by the way. I just don't think there's anything wrong with expecting people to wash their hands in my home. I really didn't expect this reaction. Nora Lenz <nmlenz wrote: Hi Sheree, Well, since germ phobia is most assuredly a majority position, you might consider taking Mr. Twain's suggestion. Couldn't resist the irony there. It's difficult to accept, I know, but the truth is that hand-washing does nothing to 'prevent' sickness and in fact only irritates the skin, especially if cleansers or soap are used. My hands never touch water unless I'm swimming, showering, or rinsing produce or dishes, and I'm never sick. There's nothing to fear but fear itself, as they say, especially with regard to our friends, bacteria. We've had some good discussions on this topic on the RawSchool list. If you're interested, you could check out the archives. Smiles, Nora www.RawSchool.com Sheree " Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it is time to reform " - Mark Twain FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 23, 2005 Report Share Posted October 23, 2005 Hi Richard, I hope you stay on this list! I've enjoyed your friendly and respectful way of sharing information. And I value the experience and rationality you've brought to a controversial (in the raw food world) topic. Keep up the good work and keep being an example that healthful eating and factual knowledge need not be at odds. Best, Gael Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 2005 Report Share Posted October 25, 2005 Yeah, this whole thing is reminding me of people who are claiming that the holocaust was a hoax. (among other things) People will get so high and mighty about the most bizarre stuff. I'm just sorry that it had to happen here. It makes me feel embarrassed to look here for valid information. Oh well. I guess it's the price you pay for following a path that is so " out there. " ~Suzanne We don't see things as they are; we see things as WE are. ----Original Message Follows---- " Sea Orca " <seaorca RawSeattle <RawSeattle > Re: [RawSeattle] OT: Handwashing/Nora Sat, 22 Oct 2005 19:36:23 -0700 /Nora <<<I will guarantee you that if I give you a dose of E.coli 0157:H7 you will become ill from it infecting your gut. Also Shigella, Campylobacter, Salmonella >Richard, >People who have invested enough of their time and energy in learning the >fancy names that are attached to all the various bacteria are not >generally willing to openly re-examine the germ theory, unfortunately. Ah, so in other words, those who bother to learn the names of organisms are somehow unqualified to talk about it. So, if you learn the name of daisy, rose, oak, then you are unwilling to examine the study of plants. Or if you learn the name of whale, moose, human, you are unwilling to examine the study of mammals? Perhaps those willing to learn the names of these creatures are the more interested? Just as with bacteria. >And if there's one thing a truthful conclusion on this topic requires, it's an open and receptive mind. Indeed. Yet you seem to be willing to ignore virtually all the published and recognized studies of bacteria to perpetuate some sort of pet theory. >All human bodies host bacteria, even the ones you mention. Untrue. All human host bacteria, yet the ones I mention are only found in humans with acute illness. The exceptions are those who become carriers for certain types of Salmonella. They no longer exhibit symptoms of Salmonellosis but still actively excrete the organism. There are no documented carrier states for Campylobacter that I am aware of, and most people don't carry Shigellae. >That's why >when people present to a doctor with symptoms and the doctor goes >looking for the little varmint, s/he usually finds it. Untrue. As someone who has examined thousands of stool samples, the only ones in which I found Shigella, Camplyobacter, or Salmonella were those who were actively sick with the illness. Many of the other folks with diarrhea were sick with giardia. These organisms are virtually NEVER found in health people. Sorry, it just isn't so! Please document your assertions that most people have these! >The presence of >the bacteria does not prove a causal connection to the symptoms, >however. Sorry to have to educate you in microbiology, but the presence of a known pathogenic organism in a human in the presence of symptoms which it has been proven to cause, and it's absence in a human after these symptom abate is good proof. All of these organisms have been proven to be pathogenic by Koch's postulates: a.. The bacteria must be present in every case of the disease. b.. The bacteria must be isolated from the host with the disease and grown in pure culture. c.. The specific disease must be reproduced when a pure culture of the bacteria is inoculated into a healthy susceptible host. d.. The bacteria must be recoverable from the experimentally infected host. This is clearly the case for all the bacteria I have mentioned. For Salmonella, Shigella, Camplyobacter, Vibrato cholera, etc (sorry to have to mention specific names again, it appears that you do not like that) it is true and has been proven over and over for a few hundred years. Again, I tell you that if I give you a pure culture of E.coli o157:H7 and you drink it in raw juice, you WILL become ill. <<<A couple hundred years of microbiology isn't wrong. >Naturally I'm not proposing that microbiology is wrong in all its >conclusions. Only those that are based on the improvable idea that >bacteria cause disease. Germ theory is quite well proven, thanks. > It actually doesn't take much looking to >scover lots of mistaken ideas in the past that were accepted by almost >veryone, including the 'experts', and for very long periods of time. >hen the people who are in the best position to discover the truth are >he least willing to search it out, false ideas can reign almost >ndefinitely. This is a silly statement. Anyone who has any understanding of science realizes that theories of the past will be improved upon or discarded in the future based upon evidence. The newest methods of biological science, molecular biology, support the germ theory completely for all of the instances that I have cited. There is not one single whit of evidence to support your claims, thus you then try to cast doubt upon the characters of those who try to learn the truth. You cite nothing to support your statements. Nor can you, for there are no studies to support them. You make strange assumptions about people and insulting assumptions about science. I would ask you, what criteria do you use to determine what you accept as true? You remind me much of those who jailed Galileo because his " Science " ran against the " true religion " of those who just knew it was true (but without proof). Science runs against your " true religion " so how do you respond but to make strange claims against those whose spend their lives studying the very organisms which you can't even name. You cite nothing to prove that any of the claims of modern bacteriological science are false. >Thanks for the discussion. I'd welcome further debate but I'd suggest >doing it on the RawSchool list, where there are others who could >contribute besides myself and lots of people who would benefit from the >discourse. >Regards, >Nora Wow, if this goes on over there, then I guess I'd better post there too! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 2005 Report Share Posted October 25, 2005 There was a time when I sided with the mainstream and thought of eating raw food as extreme or radical. If I'd stayed in that place, I'd have missed all the benefits that doing otherwise has brought. Sure, there are some ideas that don't even merit examination but sometimes the only way we can tell is if we try them on for size. That's nothing to be embarrassed about. It's actually a very smart thing to do. Best wishes, Nora www.RawSchool.com - " Suzanne M. Burroughs " <dragonfire_smb <RawSeattle > Monday, October 24, 2005 8:00 PM Re: [RawSeattle] OT: Handwashing Yeah, this whole thing is reminding me of people who are claiming that the holocaust was a hoax. (among other things) People will get so high and mighty about the most bizarre stuff. I'm just sorry that it had to happen here. It makes me feel embarrassed to look here for valid information. Oh well. I guess it's the price you pay for following a path that is so " out there. " ~Suzanne We don't see things as they are; we see things as WE are. ----Original Message Follows---- " Sea Orca " <seaorca RawSeattle <RawSeattle > Re: [RawSeattle] OT: Handwashing/Nora Sat, 22 Oct 2005 19:36:23 -0700 /Nora <<<I will guarantee you that if I give you a dose of E.coli 0157:H7 you will become ill from it infecting your gut. Also Shigella, Campylobacter, Salmonella >Richard, >People who have invested enough of their time and energy in learning the >fancy names that are attached to all the various bacteria are not >generally willing to openly re-examine the germ theory, unfortunately. Ah, so in other words, those who bother to learn the names of organisms are somehow unqualified to talk about it. So, if you learn the name of daisy, rose, oak, then you are unwilling to examine the study of plants. Or if you learn the name of whale, moose, human, you are unwilling to examine the study of mammals? Perhaps those willing to learn the names of these creatures are the more interested? Just as with bacteria. >And if there's one thing a truthful conclusion on this topic requires, it's an open and receptive mind. Indeed. Yet you seem to be willing to ignore virtually all the published and recognized studies of bacteria to perpetuate some sort of pet theory. >All human bodies host bacteria, even the ones you mention. Untrue. All human host bacteria, yet the ones I mention are only found in humans with acute illness. The exceptions are those who become carriers for certain types of Salmonella. They no longer exhibit symptoms of Salmonellosis but still actively excrete the organism. There are no documented carrier states for Campylobacter that I am aware of, and most people don't carry Shigellae. >That's why >when people present to a doctor with symptoms and the doctor goes >looking for the little varmint, s/he usually finds it. Untrue. As someone who has examined thousands of stool samples, the only ones in which I found Shigella, Camplyobacter, or Salmonella were those who were actively sick with the illness. Many of the other folks with diarrhea were sick with giardia. These organisms are virtually NEVER found in health people. Sorry, it just isn't so! Please document your assertions that most people have these! >The presence of >the bacteria does not prove a causal connection to the symptoms, >however. Sorry to have to educate you in microbiology, but the presence of a known pathogenic organism in a human in the presence of symptoms which it has been proven to cause, and it's absence in a human after these symptom abate is good proof. All of these organisms have been proven to be pathogenic by Koch's postulates: a.. The bacteria must be present in every case of the disease. b.. The bacteria must be isolated from the host with the disease and grown in pure culture. c.. The specific disease must be reproduced when a pure culture of the bacteria is inoculated into a healthy susceptible host. d.. The bacteria must be recoverable from the experimentally infected host. This is clearly the case for all the bacteria I have mentioned. For Salmonella, Shigella, Camplyobacter, Vibrato cholera, etc (sorry to have to mention specific names again, it appears that you do not like that) it is true and has been proven over and over for a few hundred years. Again, I tell you that if I give you a pure culture of E.coli o157:H7 and you drink it in raw juice, you WILL become ill. <<<A couple hundred years of microbiology isn't wrong. >Naturally I'm not proposing that microbiology is wrong in all its >conclusions. Only those that are based on the improvable idea that >bacteria cause disease. Germ theory is quite well proven, thanks. > It actually doesn't take much looking to >scover lots of mistaken ideas in the past that were accepted by almost >veryone, including the 'experts', and for very long periods of time. >hen the people who are in the best position to discover the truth are >he least willing to search it out, false ideas can reign almost >ndefinitely. This is a silly statement. Anyone who has any understanding of science realizes that theories of the past will be improved upon or discarded in the future based upon evidence. The newest methods of biological science, molecular biology, support the germ theory completely for all of the instances that I have cited. There is not one single whit of evidence to support your claims, thus you then try to cast doubt upon the characters of those who try to learn the truth. You cite nothing to support your statements. Nor can you, for there are no studies to support them. You make strange assumptions about people and insulting assumptions about science. I would ask you, what criteria do you use to determine what you accept as true? You remind me much of those who jailed Galileo because his " Science " ran against the " true religion " of those who just knew it was true (but without proof). Science runs against your " true religion " so how do you respond but to make strange claims against those whose spend their lives studying the very organisms which you can't even name. You cite nothing to prove that any of the claims of modern bacteriological science are false. >Thanks for the discussion. I'd welcome further debate but I'd suggest >doing it on the RawSchool list, where there are others who could >contribute besides myself and lots of people who would benefit from the >discourse. >Regards, >Nora Wow, if this goes on over there, then I guess I'd better post there too! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 2005 Report Share Posted October 25, 2005 Problem is, there hasn't been agreement on this list about which ideas " don't even merit examination " and which ones should be " tried on for size. " Yet I haven't yet heard any anti germ-theory folks publicly volunteer to take a dose of e coli, not get sick, and prove their point once and for all. Best, Gael Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.