11 replies to this topic

[bobdrake12]

http://news.bbc.co.u...lth/2223928.stm




Sunday, 1 September, 2002, 23:04 GMT 00:04 UK

Handwashing could save millions (excerpts)




Using soap can cut infection


A campaign to promote handwashing with soap in developing countries aims to help save a million lives a year.

It follows research, by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, which found that widespread handwashing could almost halve the number of deaths from diarrhoea-related diseases worldwide.

Diarrhoeal diseases kill 200 children an hour - more than either Aids or malaria.

While most households in the world have soap and water, very few use them together to wash their hands, especially not after cleaning up a dirty baby or going to the toilet.

[bobdrake12]

http://news.bbc.co.u...lth/1378634.stm




Monday, 11 June, 2001, 00:05 GMT 01:05 UK

Dirty hands 'poison thousands' (excerpts)



Handwashing removes harmful germs




The light patches are germs carried on the hands


Almost a third of men and many women do not wash their hands after going to the toilet vastly increasing the risk of food poisoning, says a survey.

Many are transferring germs straight from toilet to plate because they also do not wash their hands before preparing food.

To launch National Food Safety Week on Monday, the Food and Drink Federation stressed that even healthy guts can contain potentially harmful bacteria.

[Chip]

A Science news article within the last couple years found that most handwashing was to brief to do much good. They found that vigorous lathering for 15 seconds greatly improved the process. The nursery rhyme, "Twinkle twinkle little star..." lasts about 15 seconds. I find myself counting out seconds but my kids, you can hear them reciting the nursery rhyme as I've suggested as they scrub their hands before leaving the bathroom.

[Mind]

Diarrhoeal diseases kill 200 children an hour - more than either Aids or malaria.

I couldn't help but notice this little tidbit Bob. You know my sentiments on the subject. Isn't it ironic that we are spending billions of dollars pushing toxic chemicals down the throats of the poor in Africa, when we could be doing so much more good (for much less money) providing soap and multi-vitamins.

[Lazarus Long]

Often the heart of the problem is even simpler and harder to address, it is the water. In this country and Europe potable water is presumed to be a standard. Throughout much of the world what little access to water that is had at all is often polluted. BOTH biologically and chemically.

This is a much harder problem to fix and more fundamental then just sending soap. It is caused by unregulated mining practices, no sewage treatment, poor agricultural methods, no water purification ability, and often simply little or no water at all as in the case of the Sub Sahara. The list goes on and most serious students of resource scarcity analysis usually returns to the issue of access to potable water overtaking access to cheap energy before the end of this century as the leading problem effecting emerging economies.

There are many times that I have said it would be a mistake for the third world to follow our technological example no matter how succesful we appear. By the time they catch, up they will have also failed to meet the needs that the future is creating for them. It would be better for them to jump ahead. New technology like sewage and water treatment involving advances in nanotech would be a way of accomplishing that.

[Mind]

I hear you Lazarus. I am just making the point that we would be better off sending them soap and multi-vitamins than toxic AIDS drugs. I know the water is bad, but forcing toxic chemicals on them makes it even worse.

If we wanted to do more now, in the present, before wonderful nano-advances come along, we could send them simple benficial things instead of poison. Some countries could use a good dose of democracy too!

[Lazarus Long]

What fascinates me is that we are in non-violent agreement yet somehow you both think I am arguing for "Expensive Solutions" I said nanotech, I didn't argue for a WTA((World Trade Authority) built and World Bank Funded boondoggle of a massive desalination and sewage systems everywhere.

A Climus Sewage (sp?) System (75 year old tech?) uses aerobic based microflora and a basically simple containment system to process human waste into relativley safe organic soil. I think you guys have me confused with someone else. Nano should relatively soon allow much greater local application, adaptability and control at significantly reduced cost of infrustructure and less environmental stress brought to these countries.

I just used it as an example. Simple solar water heaters made from our recycled waster products could generate enough heat to kill many bacteria and provide HOT water to go with the soap. I said THEY SHOULDN'T follow us in LOCK STEP. Our example isn't that great or appropriate for them. It also won't allow them to catch up by mandating that they start decades behind and spend vastly higher proportions of GNP per capita to achieve parity.

Wind farms, geothermal, nano derived enhanced solar voltaic colectors. And back to waste products, nano should be based on recycling toxic waste into cleaner products that are environmentally safe. Nano should, relatively soon, provide ways of extracting toxins from ground water, killing bacteria and viruses through catalyctic interactivity with solar concentrators for sterilization quicker at lower cost for larger volumes, at a faster rate, while also generating hydrogen fuels and and desalinating sea water. There are SO MANY BETTER WAYS then what has become our standard operating procedures that we should begin to ask why are we defending white elephants? Whose interest is served by the status quo?

[bobdrake12]

Lazarus Long:

What fascinates me is that we are in non-violent agreement yet somehow you both think I am arguing for "Expensive Solutions" I said nanotech...

Lazarus Long,

Did I say that?

Not only was that not on my mind when I wrote my post. but after I reread my post where I stated;

While I agree with Lazarus Long's point that throughout much of the world, the water is poluted; I still feel that in many instances that some inexpensive steps can still save lives.

I am unable to find where I am stating that you are;

arguing for "Expensive Solutions"

Best regards,

Bob

[bobdrake12]

Mind:

...but forcing toxic chemicals on them makes it even worse.

Mind,

It is my understanding that pregnant women who test positive to HIV in some countries are required by law to take antiretroviral drugs.

Meanwhile, there appears to be an inexpensive answer to prevent the children from getting AIDS (please see the article below).

Best regards,

Bob


http://news.bbc.co.u...ica/2175936.stm


"I think a lot has to do with nutrition."



Tuesday, 6 August, 2002, 11:24 GMT 12:24 UK

Hope for Africa's HIV positive babies




HIV positive and negative children live together



Good hygiene has contributed to the project's success


(excerpts)

An orphanage in Kenya is making many of the HIV positive babies in their care revert to being HIV negative.

Working at their New Life Home for HIV positive and abandoned babies in Nairobi, British Missionaries, Clive and Mary Beckenham, told BBC World Service, how nutrition and love have helped to restore the children to good health.

Nutrition

Out of a total of 350 babies that the Beckenham's have cared for, only 27 have died.

The medical explanation for this is that when a baby is born, it carries the mother's antibodies, so if the mother is HIV positive, the baby will also test positive.

When the baby's own anti-bodies kick in at around a year to 18 months, many revert to being negative.

The majority of HIV babies don't die because they're positive, but because their immune systems have been further weakened by other diseases, poor hygiene and malnourishment.

I think a lot has to do with nutrition," explained Mary.

"We put the babies on formulas straight away and we also give them carrot juice.

We don't give any meat or fish, we just give fruit. They seem to thrive on that."

Determination

For those children who do not recover, the home also offers intensive care and in some cases drug therapy.

Funded by voluntary contributions such care remains a constant financial struggle, but the couple remain resolute in their conviction to help the abandoned and seriously ill children.

[Mind]

A Climus Sewage (sp?) System (75 year old tech?) uses aerobic based microflora and a basically simple containment system to process human waste into relativley safe organic soil.

This would be good also.

[Lazarus Long]

Lazarus Long:

QUOTE  
What fascinates me is that we are in nonviolent agreement yet somehow you both think I am arguing for "Expensive Solutions" I said nanotech...


Lazarus Long,

Did I say that?

Not only was that not on my mind when I wrote my post. but after I reread my post where I stated;

QUOTE  
While I agree with Lazarus Long's point that throughout much of the world, the water is polluted; I still feel that in many instances that some inexpensive steps can still save lives.  


I am unable to find where I am stating that you are;

QUOTE  
arguing for "Expensive Solutions"

I accept what you are countering but I am addressing BOTH you and Mind and have included in my understanding previous discussion points made between us. The reason for my perception of "Opposed" agreement, is a jocular sense of irony. You said:

"I still feel that in many instances that some inexpensive steps can still save lives."

"I still feel" implies also that you see your proposition in "opposition" to whatever I had stated, and by then offering as your perceived alternative "the inexpensive solution" the implication is that my ideas are by contrast the "expensive ones". What I was also doing though is teasing. One reason I prefer discussion here is that as awful as the truth of the topics are that at times we are addressing I think it serves us well to make light of ourselves a little, though my logical inferences are not wrong, they just aren't how you intended your words to be taken.

Basically You, Mind, and I appear in Near VIOLENT Agreement! while the truth is not quite the same. We do agree on the subtext of the problems and the starting point for solutions. I just see us all "armed" with thoughts and ideas. Our mental swords of Damacles swaying back and forth cutting ideas to their core and then trying to splice them back together later like duct taped microtomed Humpty Dumpties.

What I am saying about "Soap" solutions is that on one level it is true, but on another it sounds to those without the water to use it with like "Let them eat cake".

Sorry if it is harder to see me being sardonic without the grin. B) [ph34r]

Basically we are all singing much the same tune as we are members of the same choir, few others appear to be listening. We differ more in tone, I see you as the base, Mind the baritone, me the creaking tenor, and we still need a fourth in our quartet. I bet you know who I would wish for soprano.

[?] [!] [ph34r] :o

Perhaps the web is one way to take this song and dance on the road.

WE need many solutions Bob, and I wasn't arguing against anything you were saying, I was trying to demonstrate how even the simplest and most logical idea can be perceived as high and heavy handed.

But for anything to work it must be vastly more comprehensive in scope and application then just assumed by virtue of its inherent simplicity.

Best regards, friend,
laz/ken

PS. I didn't take your words out of context, I am showing you how even the most "innocently" intended words can be misconstrued. A similar problem haunts us with many if not most pragmatic solutions.