Monday, October 10, 2011

Better bathroom design to combat infection

Full disclosure, I'm under the firm belief (being married to a Biologist might help in that regard) that the ONLY way to safely combat against disease is exposure, exposure, exposure. Having said that, you don't necessarily want to expose yourself to every infectious entity...

- kids going to pre-school and being exposed to other kids
- kids getting chicken pox at a young age
- Having the occasional cold
- MOST immunizations*

- Anti-bacterial soap at every sink
- cleaning EVERYTHING with bleach
- Staph infections (see Bad #1 and #2)
- freaking out that a child must always be wiped down with hand sanitizer bc you believe a cold virus is fatal


Are bathrooms inherently poorly designed? Most (public) bathrooms are designed around fire code requirements, available building space and building code (# of stalls, etc) requirements, not cleanliness.
Even things like electric hand dryers can actually promote infectious growth instead of hindering it (see source article).

Think about this, can you walk into the bathroom at your work, use it, wash your hands (hopefully with REGULAR soap), then leave without touching a dirty surface (I'm not talking about using an additional paper towel to open the door)? Doubt it.

From the wired article:
There’s a surprisingly large amount of literature on reworking bathroom design to prevent hospital injuries — moving beds closer to toilets, adding handrails and alarms — and especially to forestall fallsamong the elderly. There seems to be much less on whether altering the architecture of bathrooms — adding signs like Purrington’s, removing door handles, installing sensor-driven faucets — can make a difference to passing infections along.

Earlier related link ->

Source ->

*I do not take medical advice from former eye-candy on MTV's Singled out, nor should you.

No comments:

Post a Comment