Cyclists urged to slow in parks

[Cab]

But cab, what your saying is that cleaning up after a dog isn't good enough.

Yep, you really need to disinfect. Why carrying a disinfectant spray is too much to ask of dog owners, or instead training them to defacate at a defined location (like the owners own garden) is too much to ask is beyond me.

Your suggesting that the small amounts of material left behind are a serious health risk. Sorry mate that's rubbish.

No it isn't. If it is an area where people eat, or where children play, there is a real risk of transmission of fecal bacteria, causing infection. Don't take my word for it, try it out; go borrow a few plates from someone in the hospital and take some smears from the site where someone has just cleaned up their dogs mess. The counts are huge.

Sure the material left behind will contain bacteria etc. Yes some of it is potentially dangerous. That is why when gardening, you should wear gloves and/or wash your hands afterwards. Very simple.

You should wear gloves and/or wash after gardening for many reasons, not least of which is contact with feces. But in a park, in a street etc. people do touch things, and bacteria from fecal matter spread were people walk and touch objects. Pioneering work was done on this waaaaay back as far as the 1950s with model organisms such as Bacillus gobigii and Serratea marcescens, chosen because the colour of colonies of these bacteria makes them distinctive.

Your suggestion that folk should not be able to keep pets is outragous and ignores the sgnificant benefits that pets provide (I don't have any pets myself).

I don't oppose pet ownership, I oppose irresponsible pet ownership, and leaving smears of feces in public is irresponsible. If its a dog, how hard can it possibly be to carry a disinfectant spray? If its a cat, is it impossible to train it strictly to defacate in a litter tray and not in public? If it can't be thus trained, how is it reasonable to expect other people to clean up the mess for you?

As for only having sentimental value..... guide dogs, dogs for the hard of hearing, dogs that provide real or a sense of security for the vulnerable, dogs that teach children how to look after and respect animals.... etc.[/quote

Working animals? Again, if the owners are responsible, I've no problem with that at all.

Cab, yer on a hiding to nothing here.

Maybe; I'm right though.

 

[magnatom]

Maybe; I'm right though.

OK cab, prove your right and provide statistics on the rates of serious infection which is at least partly attributed or suspected due to fecal contact due to dog poo reminants?

Oh and whilst your at it, why don't you look into the health risks of the increased use of anti-bacterial use, and of the chemicals that such anti-bactericides contain, and focus on the use of these chemicals in places where children may place their hand etc whilst eating their sandwiches.

Oh and will you agree that not all pets are kept for purely entertainment purposes, contrary to what you have now posted on a number of occasions, your definition of working animals leave a lot to be desired!

 

[Jake]

how about horse poo from police horses? loads of it along the towpath, BIG dollops.

 

[Crackle]

how about horse poo from police horses? loads of it along the towpath, BIG dollops.

Generally if eats grass, it's safe i.e. you can put it on your plants. If it eats meat, you can't and it will contain harmful parasites and bacteria so don't go around collecting bear poo as fertilizer for instance.

 

[Jake]

ah yes, great for Roses, so dad said.

 

[Cab]

OK cab, prove your right and provide statistics on the rates of serious infection which is at least partly attributed or suspected due to fecal contact due to dog poo reminants?

I doubt whether anyone has collected data specifically on that for best part of a century; the risk associated with untreated fecal matter has been understood since before Pasteur demonstrated germ theory, and to the best of my knowledge no one has deconvoluted the stats on enteric (and other) infections to that level of detail. But, really, who would? That contact with fecal matter is associated with disease is beyond reasonable dispute, thats why dog owners are required to clean up after their pets; wiping most of it up reduces the unpleasantness, but it doesn't remove all fo the bacteria present. You don't find publications specifically on that, but such is rudimentary bacteriology. Do you honestly dispute that, and do you really doubt that on which the public health acts (and indeed a century and a half of public health) are based?

Oh and whilst your at it, why don't you look into the health risks of the increased use of anti-bacterial use, and of the chemicals that such anti-bactericides contain, and focus on the use of these chemicals in places where children may place their hand etc whilst eating their sandwiches.

Depends on what anti-bacterials you're looking at. My weapon of choice would be 70% alcohol, which when applied in the environment is entirely harmless.

Oh and will you agree that not all pets are kept for purely entertainment purposes, contrary to what you have now posted on a number of occasions, your definition of working animals leave a lot to be desired!

Actually, if you're defining any working animals as 'pets' then it is your own definition that is at fault. A guide dog is not a definition of a pet, nor is (for example) a gun dog. A pet is an animal kept merely for pleasure (like Lazarus, my giant African land snail).

 

[magnatom]

Cab,

Your post doesn't make any sense.

However if you are trying to suggest that antibacterials are used in lots of every day products etc...
I believe there are environmental and health risk that have yet to be fully understood with regards to the use of antibacterial products. That is why I avoid toothpaste, hand washing products etc that contains these chemicals. So I am certainly no hypocrite when it comes to this.

 

[Cab]

Cab,

Your post doesn't make any sense.

Does it make sense now that I've fixed it; it was posted incomplete (and gibberish) in error.

 

[magnatom]

Does it make sense now that I've fixed it; it was posted incomplete (and gibberish) in error.

No. It doesn't.

 

[Cab]

(going back to this post because you still maintain that my post made no sense)

Cab,

Your post doesn't make any sense.

However if you are trying to suggest that antibacterials are used in lots of every day products etc...

I didn't allude to that in any way. I suggested that disinfection should be required after removal of fecal matter, I didn't suggest anything akin to what you have described thus...

I believe there are environmental and health risk that have yet to be fully understood with regards to the use of antibacterial products. That is why I avoid toothpaste, hand washing products etc that contains these chemicals. So I am certainly no hypocrite when it comes to this.

...in which you're referring to, say, SLS and similar? We've got many choices for disinfecting a site without bringing in anything even vaguely contentious, things with short lifetimes in the environment and proven records used as disinfectants where children play and people eat. Like I said, my weapon of choice as a disinfectant in such a situation would simply be 70% alcohol, it works suberbly well.

What don't you get in my post?

 

[magnatom]

Sometimes you just reach a point where continuing the discussion is obviously getting no-where. Personally I've reached that point and I no longer care.

You win.

 

[BentMikey]

Carry on Cab, keep at it. You're just proving me more right.

 

[magnatom]

How do you manage in your hospital then Magna?

I hated that gel stuff when I worked in one. If you didn't wash the layer from each ward you visited off as soon as you got back to the office it started to peel your skin off.

Of course if I need to use it in hospital I will use it. It is vital for patient safety. However, I'd rather keep its use to a minimum at home, especially where the kids are concerned. It's one of those things that I think is completely unecessary. Do we really need antibacterial hand wash, toothpaste etc. I don't know a huge amount on the subject, but I understand that the use of some antibacterials in this way could contibute to increased resistance to antibacterials, and I know that at least one antibacterial contained in some toothpastes has environmental and health concerns.


It's this comment

A comprehensive analysis from the University of Oregon School of Public Health indicated that plain soaps are just as effective as consumer-grade anti-bacterial soaps with triclosan in preventing illness and removing bacteria from the hands.

that swings it for me.

 

[magnatom]

Fair enough.

I have to many bits of knowledege about to many things. One day I'll understand something completely!

 

[col]

OK cab, prove your right and provide statistics on the rates of serious infection which is at least partly attributed or suspected due to fecal contact due to dog poo reminants?

Oh and whilst your at it, why don't you look into the health risks of the increased use of anti-bacterial use, and of the chemicals that such anti-bactericides contain, and focus on the use of these chemicals in places where children may place their hand etc whilst eating their sandwiches.

Oh and will you agree that not all pets are kept for purely entertainment purposes, contrary to what you have now posted on a number of occasions, your definition of working animals leave a lot to be desired!

Our local council once used the fact that dog doo can cause blindness in youngsters and the elderly possibly,so i think thats enough reason for animal owners to clean up properly after them,or teach the pets to do it in their own garden,and to say kids are at risk from antibacterial agents instead of dog doo is really rather silly in comparison,.
Cab makes a good point,if people cant clean up properly after their pets in public places,they shouldnt have them.