Talk:Toilet plume

Suggest deletion

I suggest deletion of this article. It has been around as a stub for a long time. There is not enough content to create a full article. Simply merge content into flush toilet and delete this article. EMsmile (talk) 23:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree. In the unlikely event that a lot more material is found, it can always be split off later. As it is, this article is so isolated that hardly anybody sees what little content it has. Reify-tech (talk) 00:42, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

EMsmile, Reify-tech, I think it would make sense to merge the content into another article such as toilet. Any recommendations? James Hare (NIOSH) (talk) 17:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

the article to merge to would be flush toilet but the same content is already there anyhow (except for that video). I don't think the video adds much, so I don't think we need that one. Reify-tech, User:James Hare (NIOSH) EMsmile (talk) 21:00, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

We should just merge what little worthwhile content there may be here into the article on flush toilet. Any useful references from this article should be brought over, but there really isn't much content here. Reify-tech (talk) 13:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

there is no additional content or references that isn't already in flush toilets, apart from the video (which I don't find useful), unless I have overlooked something? EMsmile (talk) 14:37, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

A quick search of the flush toilet article shows only 1 out of 5 of the refs/extlinks listed here. Somebody should evaluate whether the remaining ones are worth moving, or should be discarded. As a side note, this article probably should have been tagged for merging, rather than deletion, but it isn't worth restarting the process for this technicality. Reify-tech (talk) 15:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

The article as it exists is quite insubstantial, but there are definitely enough reliable sources (including peer-reviewed journal articles, including a review article) to fill out a full article, so it meets the general notability guideline. Furthermore, simply being a stub is explicitly not grounds for deletion, and is specifically listed in Arguments to avoid on discussion pages. I'm potentially going to expand this article to DYK standards, so let's hold off on merging/deletion for now. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 16:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me, looking forward to seeing what you can do with the topic. Reify-tech (talk) 17:05, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I suggest to rather go the other route: build up the content in the existing article on flush toilets under aerosols. If it ever gets too big there (which I doubt) then you can move it to a stand-along article again. Please keep in mind that if you're going to talk about health-related topics you need to use a higher standard of referencing, i.e. WP:MEDRS. I highly doubt that you can turn up anything that would qualify as being good enough. It's more likely to be one of these urban myths. User:Doc James might have an opinion about it, too. - In any case, if the article gets deleted, you can easily copy the content to your sandbox (before it is deleted), then build up the article and when it is ready, move it back into the open area.EMsmile (talk) 19:54, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Yup agree. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, so I have just sorted out the references. The content of this article is now the same as the content in the article on flush toilets. So merger is complete. If it was deleted now, nothing would be lost, except for the video which is not adding any value, but just takes a long time to view - in my opinion. EMsmile (talk) 20:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Just give me a few days, and I'll expand it. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 02:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

When you do, please use headings that follow the Manual of Style (Sanitation), see here. For example the current heading called "Studies" is not appropriate. EMsmile (talk) 11:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Updated version

@EMsmile: Does the current version meet your standards? John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 00:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for putting in all this work. It does look quite a bit better so that's great. However, I would still like to know from a Wikipedia expert if the information on health aspects meets WP:MEDRS so I am pinging :@Doc James:. To me it still seems very much unproved and more of an urban myth, compared to spreading diseases via a more direct method such as continaminated door handles or simply lack of hand washing, rather than breathing in aerosols... (maybe we rather move this content to the article on hygiene and put things into perspective? This sentence here would need a reference: "Evidence suggests that a toilet plume might promote disease transmission through a fecal-oral route from contamination of nearby surfaces.". Reference number 2 gets called up 11 times, so it's pretty much all based on that reference... - Also I have a problem with the video in the lead. Why not rather put a suitable image in the lead (like a flush toilet during flushing with the lid open). I've watched the video a few times and it gives me zero information and is boring to watch. I would get more information from reading the WP article or the reference by Johnson on which the video is based. EMsmile (talk) 20:33, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

This source is okay but very tentative[1]

This is a primary source[2] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:24, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

what does that mean? The first reference that you mentioned is that one that got called up 11 times (reference 2). And if the second one is a primary source then it means it cannot be used, right? EMsmile (talk) 21:32, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS says that primary sources can be used if they are cited in the context of secondary sources, which is done here. It would be nice to have a second review though. It would also be nice to find a reliable source, secondary or otherwise, that takes the countervailing view. Such sources are easy to find in the popular literature, but it's of course less likely to find negative results in the scientific literature. (Perhaps there should be a "Cultural aspects" section about the debate in the popular media?) Doc James' edits calling more attention to the tentativeness of the findings are an improvement—I appreciate the feedback from both of you. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 16:13, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@EMsmile and Doc James: FYI, I have the article up at DYK at Template:Did you know nominations/Toilet plume, and I'd welcome feedback on the hook. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 17:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for all your work. As I've said before: I really think we should delete the video. It is adding no value whatsoever. Overall, I find the topic a bit of a "storm in a teacup". As you say popular literature talks about it, scientific evidence is not there, though. It makes people unnecessarily scared of something that is no real risk. Just close the lid of your toilet before flushing if you're worried. But really you should rather be worried about washing your hands after using the toilet! I have no reference at hand for these statements but to me it's common sense. Perhaps you could try and search for this kind of literature, too? And by the way, how about putting up something really relevant at "did you know" like "did you know that 2.6 billion (yes, billion) people do not have toilets?" (see here sanitation or here on open defecation. That's where we should put our efforts into (including Wikipedia efforts), not if some aerosols might perhaps make someone sick or might not. Sorry if I am sounding negative but the real problems with sanitation lie elsewhere, and it would be great if Wikipedia also reflected that to some extent. EMsmile (talk) 22:52, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Are these references about toilet plumes?

"Epidemiological studies of norovirus in passenger airplanes[3] and ships,[4] and building sewage system contaminated by SARS coronavirus,[5] indirectly indicate transmission via contaminated toilets rather than other routes.[1]"

4 is about brain tumors in children, how do you get to toilet plumes + norovirus + ships? --2601:648:8503:4467:F5BC:4C98:3C7C:66D6 (talk) 09:10, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Good catch, somehow the wrong paper got cited. I've replaced it with the correct one, which is doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(89)90964-1. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 19:37, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Is this a real hook

This article sounds like OR. Can someone explain, maybe give page and paragraph numbers or quotes, how this came about?

1.) There is indirect evidence indicating that toilet aerosols could promote disease transmission through a fecal-oral route via contamination of nearby surfaces.

2.) The feces and vomit of infected persons can contain high concentrations of pathogens, many of which are known to survive on surfaces for weeks or months, although the combination of cleaning and disinfecting surfaces is usually effective at removing contamination.[1]

3.) Some pathogens such as norovirus have an apparent resistance to these techniques,[1][2] and toilets may continue to produce contaminated toilet plumes over multiple successive flushes.[1]

Toilet aerosols, surfaces but nothing about toilet plumes, disinfectant resistance, then contaminated plumes. But nothing ties contaminated feces and vomit to toilet plumes, or puts any contaminants in the plumes. Is this OR?

4.) Epidemiological studies of norovirus in passenger airplanes[3] and ships,[4] and building sewage system contaminated by SARS coronavirus,[5] indirectly indicate transmission via contaminated toilets rather than other routes.[1]

5.) Whether or not aerosols can contain SARS coronavirus or norovirus, however, has not been directly measured as of 2015.[6]

Are these articles about norovirus in toilet plumes? Do the articles mention toilet plumes, of just contaminated toilsts? The book chapter is about children's brain tumors. If no one knows if the plumes can contain norovirus why did the authors speculate they do? Especially in a chapter on children's brain tumors?

6.) Disease transmission through droplet nuclei, which are dry particles that stay in the air longer, is not a concern for many pathogens, because they are not excreted in feces or vomit, or are susceptible to drying. 7.) Some pathogens of concern include gram-positive MRSA, mycobacterium tuberculosis, the pandemic H1N1/09 virus commonly known as "swine flu", SARS coronavirus, and norovirus, although as of 2013 their transmission by toilet plume had not been directly studied.[1]

So now this paragraph seems to say there are no studies of norovirus in toilet plumes, so what is the first paragraph about?

And what does any of this have to do with primary brain tumors in children? "Allen, E. D.; Byrd, S. E.; Darling, C. F.; Tomita, T.; Wilczynski, M. A. (1 June 1993). "The clinical and radiological evaluation of primary brain tumors in children, Part I: Clinical evaluation.". Journal of the National Medical Association. 85 (6): 445–451. ISSN 0027-9684. PMC 2571872 Freely accessible. PMID 8366534.--2601:648:8503:4467:F5BC:4C98:3C7C:66D6 (talk) 09:25, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

1.) About plumes, but 3.) is about surfaces contaminated by feces and vomit, did the pathogen derive from feces and vomit deposited into toilet then ejecected onto the seat via a plume, and are the surfaces being discussed toilet seats? 4.) Are these transmission to toilets from toilet plumes? Source [4] in this sentence is about primary brain tumors in children, are the children getting tumors from using plume contaminated toilet seats? 5.) Did the source mention toilet aerosols, or aerosols in general? Is this synthesis? 6.) Is this from a source about toilet plumes? 7.) Does the source say this? This sentence is one of the few about pathogens in plumes from a source on the topic. The others appear to be synthesis, but I dont know because of the way this sectiin is written and the odd sources. -2601:648:8503:4467:F5BC:4C98:3C7C:66D6 (talk) 15:05, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I also have my strong doubts about this article. I had suggested deletion but was overruled and haven't had time to delve any deeper. I was hoping that some medical person can come along and tell us if this is really valid or more of an "urban myth". Already the term "toilet plume" is really strange in my opinion. EMsmile (talk) 15:14, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

No worries, we appear to be synthesizing the urban myth for you! Seriously, is the term uncommon, and that's why I don't see it in the sources? --2600:387:6:803:0:0:0:A4 (talk) 15:20, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

3.) This sentence is tied to an article whose abstract appear to say the opposite, "Some pathogens such as norovirus have an apparent resistance to these techniques." Abstract is about fecal contamination on fingers, but last paragraph: "In contrast, were surfaces where contaminated with NV-infected faecal suspension diluted to 1 in 10 and 1 in 80, intended to simulate surfaces that have become contaminated after secondary transfer, treatment with a combined bleach/detergent formulation, without prior cleaning, was sufficient to decontaminate surfaces and prevent transfer."--2601:648:8503:4467:BD8D:A6B0:350B:3F11 (talk) 15:27, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

This article is mostly based on the review [1] and the articles it cites, so there's no synthesis or OR going on beyond what the review says. If you can find a WP:MEDRS giving an opposing view, or even saying something like "toilet aerosol is less of a concern than skipping hand-washing", I'm happy to include it. I did a brief search but didn't find anything substantive to that effect, though of course negative results tend to be underrepresented in the literature.

On sentence (3), Ref. 2's abstract says "In order consistently to achieve good hygiene, it was necessary to wipe the surface clean using a cloth soaked in detergent before applying the combined hypochlorite/detergent. When detergent cleaning alone or combined hypochlorite/detergent treatment failed to eliminate NV contamination from the surface and the cleaning cloth was then used to wipe another surface, the virus was transferred to that surface and to the hands of the person handling the cloth." So it's difficult to clean up norovirus contamination. The final sentence of the abstract that you cited only applies to artificially diluted samples to simulate secondary contamination.

For the epidemiological studies, the implication is that there was no direct contact with feces or vomit outside of a toilet, so the contact is likely to have happened through the aerosol. It's not certain though, which is why the article says these studies "indirectly indicate transmission via contaminated toilets" and doesn't make a claim about aerosols directly.

Lastly, as I mentioned above, [4] originally had the wrong reference cited, so you're correct that there's no connection between toilet aerosol and brain tumors. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 20:04, 15 May 2017 (UTC)