Skip to main content

The excessive cleanliness brigade slip up

I'm all in favour of sanitation and hygiene. But I think there is good evidence that an obsession with cleanliness is pyschologically worrying - and that if we want children to develop reasonable natural defences, they do have to be exposed to a bit of dirt now and again.

The latest weapon in the fight against dirt is a system from Dettol which provides a handwash dispenser where you don't have to touch the device to have the soap dispensed. From the manufacturers point of view it's a no-brainer. This is a way to get people to pay more for their soap, and to lock them into buying Dettol rather than cheaper supermarket own brand. (The dispenser itself is quite cheap at £9.99*, but the handwash is £2.69 per 250ml - which is decidedly expensive and where they'll make their money.)

In their advertising, Dettol claims this is a great step forward, because the plunger of a traditional handwash dispenser harbours bacteria, so when you press it you get bacteria on your fingers. However, they seem to have had a bit of a logic fail. What do you do after touching the plunger? You wash your hands. So it doesn't matter if the plunger has bacteria on it. Now if they were offering a way to turn off the tap without touching it after washing your hands, that would be different. But they aren't.

Prices from www.sainsburys.co.uk (I tried to get them from tesco.com, but you have to log in before you see a product. Not very friendly, Tesco.)
Labels:

Comments

  1. Sabine Hossenfelder8 June 2010 at 11:01

    They already have these things in public restrooms. I like them for the following reason: in 50% of all cases the stupid soap dispenser doesn't work. If you have to touch it to find out you've pushed your hands in exactly the same spot three dozen people have pushed theirs after using a public restroom. I suspect that for that reason a lot of people don't wash their hands at all.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Brian Clegg9 June 2010 at 09:41

    Bee, I can absolutely see their benefit in public restroom. But it's a bit different in the home.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp
117 comments
Read more

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor
25 comments
Read more

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense
6 comments
Read more