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 103-106 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.
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.
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 103-106 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.
I’m much more interested in the conclusions and the meaning of the numbers, for two big reasons: