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.)

Comments

  1. 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. 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 recent 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 ex

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

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope