you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 42 points 10 months ago* (34 children)

It could also be solved by everybody always putting the seat up ...

But it won't because everybody not agreeing on one course of action is the more fundamental problem.

You're basically just saying "This disagreement could be solved if everybody would agree".

  • source
  • hideshow 34 child comments
  • [–] 48 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (30 children)

    But seat (edit: I meant lid) down is more hygienic when you flush. It isv the morally situation superior position

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 30 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 10 months ago (19 children)

    How is it more hygienic? I can't imagine that extra brim holding off a lot of the shit particles launched into the room upon flushing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 39 points 10 months ago* (17 children)

    It doesn’t make your bathroom shit free or something but it does do this 🤷‍♀️

    Not sure if it’s better or worse in any meaningful way tho

    Edit: I assume commenter meant the whole seat including the lid but that could be a miscommunication

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    yeah i get the picture but the real question is whether this whole topic is even worth discussing or whether the effect size is so small that it practically doesn't matter.

    i mean, handbags and door knobs are some of the worst offenders to hygiene but you never see people getting all worked up about those topics, even though i suspect they're much more significant than whether the toilet lid is up or down. that's why i'm suspecting people are inflating a small issue into a big trouble here.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 10 months ago (10 children)

    I really doesn’t matter tho because poop particles are everywhere regardless of your toilet seat orientation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 10 months ago (5 children)

    While true, quantity of poop particles also matters.
    Your body can fight off loads of bacteria. But once it gets to an infection point, it can't keep up and you become ill.

    So yeh, poop is everywhere. As long as it's small amounts, it's fine.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago (4 children)

    The study where gustofwind got the illustration says it's around 10x reduction of deposited bacteria with the lid down.

    https://www.ajicjournal.org/article/S0196-6553(23)00820-9/fulltext#tbl0010

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    10x reduction doesn’t even make sense. It’s not possible to reduce by more than 1x, as that would be 100% of the bacteria gone.

    And your link doesn’t support what you said at all.

    The floor and the walls of the restroom were contaminated after toilet flushing, but no significant differences were observed between the contamination occurring with lid position up or down. Wall contamination was minimal, regardless of lid position, and there was no significant difference in contamination level between the surfaces assessed, but data indicated that the trajectory of the aerosol plume contamination may have changed. Floor contamination was not found to be reduced consistently by toilet lid closure prior to flushing.

    Am I misreading something?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    I'm not interested in their narrative, I'm talking about their numbers. They measured plaque formation - colonies - of bacteria from surface wipes around the toilet after flushing a contaminated toilet bowl. Depending on the location & lid state, they got, generally 10^3-10^6 plaques. 10^5 with the lid closed, 10^6 open, which is a 10x difference. There's no difference in the surfaces directly facing the bowl; hardly surprising that there's little contamination left by the time you get all the way to the walls - 1/r^2 effect. Look at the surface you sit on.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago

    I’m much more interested in the conclusions and the meaning of the numbers, for two big reasons:

    • It doesn’t matter much if the reduction is 90%, if the remaining 10% is still enough to be a problem. It sounds like a lot, but I have some doubts that it actually makes much difference.
    • I care a lot more about locations outside the toilet than the specific locations in and on the toilet. The toilet is assumed to be contaminated regardless, the question is whether or how much it is contaminating the rest of the room.
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 10 months ago (9 children)

    Sure, but not really the point.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 10 months ago (8 children)

    I think the user meant to say "lid down"

    • seat down: easy for one group, slightly inconvenient for the other, unhygienic when flushing

    • seat up: easy for one group, slightly inconvenient for the other, unhygienic when flushing

    • seat and lid down: slightly inconvenient for both parties (but if it's consistent then you can build muscle memory), and hygienic when flushing

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 10 months ago* (6 children)

    My point is, the entire problem is agreeing to one option in the first place. Which option you pick is irrelevant.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (5 children)

    Well rather OP is pointing out that there is a third option that both parties nay consider to be a fair compromise, and thus be more likely to agree to.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 10 months ago (4 children)

    It doesn't matter if there are 2 or 20 options.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    It does if one of the options leads to a successful compromise. Based on the comments on this post, it seems that this solution has worked for a lot of households

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    I think the idea of “fairness” comes in that everyone has to do something, regardless of whether you use the seat or not. If you don’t use the seat, then you put the lid and seat down (presumably in one go). If you do use the seat, you put the lid down. Either way, you have to lift something before you use the toilet.

    Personally I think toilets should just have their lids closed when not in use, regardless.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago*

    Personally I think toilets should just have their lids closed when not in use, regardless.

    I agree. But the sole reason is that I don't want my cat to drink out of it (and potentially fall in). I'm also an enjoyer of the sit-down-wee, so no arguing there, either.

    There are still good reasons for having other opinions about it, for people in other circumstances. And that's exactly why this is just a disagreement that can't be solved all and for once.

  • source
  • parent