Miscellaneous desk
< November 20	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	Current desk >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 21

Body wash hygiene

For hygienic purposes is there a possible determination of how often you should body wash in shower to meet hygienic results?

What do you mean by "hygienic results"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:01, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Personal hygiene.

You're asking whether soap can help you clean up? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:04, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, shower gel do you have to do it every time you shower in order to stay hygienic or not?

We have an article on Shower, which addresses this to some extent, but it's worth noting that daily showering itself is a very modern practice, and humans seemed to get along pretty well with other approaches to hygiene over the millennia. HiLo48 (talk) 06:30, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, in the 1950s nobody I knew owned a shower and we only had a bath once a week. It didn't do us any harm (my father has just turned 100). Of course a lot depends on how dirty you get from day to day, but there seems to be evidence that showering too often can be counter-productive. See hygiene hypothesis.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:11, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above answers are correct, but we're also missing a definition for "hygienic". This is a largely cultural/situational definition; having B.O. is unlikely to ever have adverse health effects, so long as the hands and face get washed. In some places and time periods it's been perfectly acceptable and healthy for people to essentially never bathe/shower (or, do so so infrequently it amounts to about the same thing). Matt Deres (talk) 19:06, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to read between the lines here: the questioner has moved to a different place, or moved into a different social group, where hygiene standards are different--then someone told them that they should shower more often. If that's the case, then they should shower more often, to help get along better with people. Where I live, the typical practice is to bathe/shower once in the morning, as well as after physical activity, such as labor or jogging or fucking. If the questioner does this, and avoids scented products, and attends to oral hygiene, they are unlikely to receive any complaints. Temerarius (talk) 20:08, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If I read the followup questions correctly, I think the OP is also asking if using a shower gel/liquid soap is necessary or if one can just wash in the shower using exclusively water. --Lgriot (talk) 12:26, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the two respondents above get to a key thing when answering these questions, BOTH of which are important, which is "what kind of hygiene do I need for my physical health" and "what kind of hygiene do I need for my social health" Having positive social interactions is also very important to a person's well being, and learning to adapt to new social norms is important, even if those norms are not strictly about one's physical health. there are several good articles here on the cultural and social aspects of hygiene. --Jayron 32 13:15, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very interesting question. I don't think we even have anything saying even whether washing is better than never washing at all for one's health! Never mind all the practices from washing in asses milk to scraping off olive oil and grit to what many animals do covering themselves in dust. I don't know how one would study it as I think the variuos regimes should be undertaken for six months at least! Dmcq (talk) 15:08, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lead in Canadian municipal drinking water

Recently a team of researchers from a Canadian university, with several media teams, conducted a study of lead levels in drinking water across Canada. However, Global News has no links to the data, The Star's investigation coverage is hidden behind a paywall, and the Concordia University page I just linked to has no raw data either. Where can I find a journal-style article of the actual study? Something that requires university credentials works too, because I am a university graduate. Sincerely, YW 2607:FEA8:1DDF:FEE1:3CB9:26E2:FDE3:ED87 (talk) 05:58, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I found This which may give you a lead? Perhaps? --Jayron 32 12:55, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell, this was a journalist lead study [1] [2]. The data seems to be available to all who were part of the investigation, but it's not clear to me it's been made publicly available yet. There may very well be plans to publish the data in a peer reviewed journal, but again I'm not sure this has happened. It's possible if you ask politely someone will share it with you, but I wouldn't expect a definite yes especially since it sounds like there are plans for more media stories in the near future. Nil Einne (talk) 14:46, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When looking at lead in drinking water, be careful to distinguish "drinking water" from "municipal drinking water" or "drinking water supply". Lead is almost entirely released from the "local loop" piping: the small-diameter per-premises supply pipes which are still plumbed in lead. Lead is almost vanished from the main supply network: there wasn't much of it there to begin with (the big pipes are cast iron, not lead) and they've mostly been renewed and replaced more recently. There might be a health risk, there might even be a localised problem for this (the hardness of the water affects the levels of lead it will dissolve), but that level will vary a lot depending on whether the water is sampled from a house with old plumbing, new plumbing, or from the street supply pipe. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:08, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Equivalents to Kyle Kulinski, The Young Turks, and other left-wing commentators France, Spain, Portugal, Sweden, Denmark others

Are there counterparts to Kyle Kulinski, The Young Turks, Emma Vigeland of Rebel HQ, Michael Brooks of The Michael Brooks Show and others in France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Netherlands, U.K., Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and Germany? I am trying to know if there are such that criticize the mainstream politics and tend to show support the anti-establishment politicians and their policies like Benoit Hamon and Jean-Luc Melenchon in France, Podemos in Spain, Possibile Party in Italy, Left Bloc in Portugal, Left Party in Sweden, Red-Green Alliance in Denmark, Meretz in Israel, The Left in Germany, Socialist Party and DENK in Netherlands, Socialist Left Party in Norway and Jeremy Corbyn in United Kingdom. Donmust90 (talk) 23:53, 21 November 2019 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 23:53, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It appears no frequenters of this Reference desk have the knowledge necessary to address any portions of your rather large-scope multi-question: to do so would require familiarity with at least two different countries' political landscapes.

Speaking from the perspective of an aging Briton: if you think Jeremy Corbyn and/or the Labour Party are "anti-establishment" then I think you don't have a very firm grasp of British politics and society, or of what "anti-establishment" means in Britain. Others' opinions may differ, and hopefully if they want to dispute mine here they might also stay to address some of your query. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.217.209.178 (talk) 17:29, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]