979
[Evidence Inconclusive] Germ Blaster (mander.xyz)
submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by to c/science_memes@mander.xyz
139 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 112 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

Unfortunately it is very much true.

Edit: here's a more recent source.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 47 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

    This is not hot air though, so the cited source does not apply.

    Edit: but it does link to more relevant study towards the end, comparing different means of hand drying.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 20 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Findings: Air bacterial counts in close proximity to hand drying were 4.5-fold higher for the jet air dryer (70.7 cfu) compared with the warm air dryer (15.7 cfu) (P=0.001), and 27-fold higher compared with use of paper towels (2.6 cfu) (P<0.001).* Airborne counts were also significantly different during use of towel drying versus warm air dryer (P=0.001). A similar pattern was seen for bacterial counts at 1m away. Visualization experiments demonstrated that the jet air dryer caused the most droplet dispersal.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago

    Isn't the point to get bacteria off your hands? Isn't it better to have them in the air than on your hands?

    It's a lot more likely I'll eat something I touched than something that's been sitting in bathroom air.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago

    They used a jet air dryer, those are the shitty ones that spray everything everywhere. Of course it'll be worse. I'd like to see how a dyson air blade hold up under that kind of test.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent