Template:Did you know nominations/Toilet plume
< Template:Did you know nominations
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Revision as of 17:10, 15 May 2017 by 2601:648:8503:4467:bd8d:a6b0:350b:3f11 (talk)
DYK toolbox |
---|
Toilet plume
... that there is evidence that, once contaminated by norovirus, toilets may continue to produce contaminated toilet plumes over multiple successive flushes?
- Source: "Environmental contamination has been shown to be a major source of [norovirus] infection on ships.... This may be due in part to the ability of toilets to continue generating contaminated toilet plume during multiple flushes after original contamination." [1]
- Reviewed: Biological pest control
5x expanded by John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk). Self-nominated at 05:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC).
Length and date fine. A wee bit of good faith will go a long way on the offline source. QPQ done, no close paraphrasing upon inspection, no picture used (thank goodness!). Good to go, pull the chain! (sorry for the crap jokes). The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:59, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- Comment We have a source that says "although as of 2013 their transmission by toilet plume had not been directly studied". So well foilet plumes may transmit norovirus one can equally say "they may" not. This is just a hypothesis without clear evidence yet to support it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- Template:Ping The hook lays no claims that norovirus can be spread via toilet plumes, however with Doc James comment unresolved, this hook is unlikely to get promoted. Would you consider proposing a different hook? Most people will never have heard of toilet plumes, so there is plenty of scope for hooks without mentioning pathogens which may or may not be present. I had a chuckle over the sentence "Disease transmission through droplet nuclei ... is not a concern for many pathogens", wondering what topics most pathogens discuss these days! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:15, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- Template:Re Hi mate, guess you pinged me on this by mistake. This was reviewed by Template:U and I have pinged him for his attention. jojo@nthony (talk) 08:21, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) edits under two names, the other being Template:Ping, and I got confused. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:39, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry for the delay on this. I'd actually specifically pinged Doc James for his feedback here. Template:Ping The following hook should be more balanced; does it meet your approval? John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 01:02, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
- ALT1: ... that while there is indirect evidence that pathogens could be spread by a toilet plume, no direct experimental studies have demonstrated actual disease transmission from toilet aerosols?
- How about "... that while there is indirect evidence that disease could be spread by a toilet plume, this remains unconfirmed?" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:09, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, been without internet for a few days. I approve Doc James' hook as it is sourced inline and fairly hooky. rest of the review stands. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:30, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- Or "... that while there is indirect evidence of disease being spread by a toilet plume, this remains unconfirmed?" Not sure if that flows better. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Or ALT4: "... that there is indirect, but unconfirmed, evidence of certain diseases being spread by toilet plume?" The research makes it clear that not all diseases are prone to be spread this way. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 03:16, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Or "... that while there is indirect evidence of disease being spread by a toilet plume, this remains unconfirmed?" Not sure if that flows better. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- How about "... that while there is indirect evidence that disease could be spread by a toilet plume, this remains unconfirmed?" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:09, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) edits under two names, the other being Template:Ping, and I got confused. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:39, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- Template:Re Hi mate, guess you pinged me on this by mistake. This was reviewed by Template:U and I have pinged him for his attention. jojo@nthony (talk) 08:21, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- Template:Ping The hook lays no claims that norovirus can be spread via toilet plumes, however with Doc James comment unresolved, this hook is unlikely to get promoted. Would you consider proposing a different hook? Most people will never have heard of toilet plumes, so there is plenty of scope for hooks without mentioning pathogens which may or may not be present. I had a chuckle over the sentence "Disease transmission through droplet nuclei ... is not a concern for many pathogens", wondering what topics most pathogens discuss these days! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:15, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
I question the sourcing on this article, one citation has an abstract that directly contradicts what this article says it contains, for example. Please read comments on article talk page. Also, will someone please tell me what primary brain tumors in children have to do with norovirus contaminated toilet plumes on ships! --2601:648:8503:4467:BD8D:A6B0:350B:3F11 (talk) 17:10, 15 May 2017 (UTC)