# Hand bacteria study



## Ernest Nagel (Nov 5, 2008)

Kinda gross but very odd. Why would women's hands harbor so much more bacteria than men's? The skin acidity and hormone thing just doesn't make sense to me. 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/04/AR2008110401388.html

*Women's Hands Home to More Types of Germs*

By Amanda Gardner
HealthDay Reporter

TUESDAY, Nov. 4 (HealthDay News) -- Women's hands have a veritable United Nations of germs compared to men's, a new study finds.

But both genders house vastly more bacteria on their palms than previously suspected, according to a new study from University of Colorado researchers that appears in this week's issue of theProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The information may enable scientists to figure out what a "healthy" level of bacteria is, diagnose diseases more precisely, and perhaps even get advance warning that something is going wrong.

"The findings of the last few decades suggest that many diseases are due to many organisms, and it's the concerted change that leads to disease," noted Robert E. Marquis, a professor of microbiology and immunology at the University of Rochester Medical Center.
ad_icon

Microbes are one of the last frontiers for human exploration. In fact, the National Institutes of Health has initiated the Human Microbiome Project, with the objective of mapping human microbiota, most of which is currently unknown.

"With all the bacteria in the world, we probably know of less than 1 percent of them," Marquis said.

The technology used in this study, already used to study ocean waters, will help enable scientists to encounter the other 99 percent, he said.

The skin, particularly the palms of the hands, house thriving bacterial communities. To get a sense of the flora residing there, researchers scrutinized the palms of 51 undergraduate students for bacteria, just after the students had finished their academic exams.

A sampling of the entire DNA of microbes (known as metagenomics) revealed some 332,000 gene sequences, or about 100 times more than was found in previous studies of skin bacteria.

On average, each hand was home to about 150 different species of bacteria. Overall, more than 4,700 bacterial species were identified on all hands, only five of which were common among all volunteers.

Only 17 percent of bacteria types were shared between right and left palms, while volunteers shared just 13 percent of bacteria species with each other, probably due to "environmental" conditions, such as oil production, skin dryness, and what surfaces the hand had previously touched.

Skin bacteria was more diverse than bacteria found on the forearm or elbows or, indeed, other parts of the body including the mouth and gut.

Women had more germ diversity than men, possibly due to different acidities on the hands, different hand-washing regimens, differential production of sweat, variable hormones and how often moisturizers or cosmetics are applied.

In general, hand washing did not seem to affect the diversity of bacteria (though it's still a good practice, the researchers stressed). Either the bacteria come back quickly after hand washing (at least the kind of hand washing practiced by these volunteers) or hand washing just doesn't dislodge bacteria, they said.

More information

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has more on the Human Microbiome Project.

SOURCES: Robert E. Marquis, Ph.D., professor, microbiology and immunology, University of Rochester Medical Center; Nov. 3-7, 2008,Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences


----------



## moore2me (Nov 5, 2008)

I am putting this study in with the mouse fart one. I know exactly why we have more germs on our hands than men do. 

*IT IS BECAUSE WE DO MORE WORK, SUCH AS . . . *

GENERAL CLEANING & DUSTING
PICKING UP USED KLEENEXS & USED TOWELS & USED UNDERWEAR & SOCKS
FISHING STRANGE THINGS OUT OF THE GARBAGE DISPOSAL
CLEANING THE BATHTUB OUT, HAIR AROUND THE SPOUT & RING INCLUDED
CLEANING THE SINK, MOLD & HAIR INCLUDED
KILLING & REMOVING PESTS, FLIES, ROACHES, MICE, SILVERFISH, CENTIPEDS
WIPING KIDS SNOTTY NOSES
WIPING KIDS BUTTS
DOING DIRTY LAUNDRY
VACUUMING, CLEANING OUT THE VACUUM
SWEEPING, 
TAKING OUT THE TRASH IN THE HOUSE AND IN THE CAR
BATHING KIDS
BATHING DOGS & CATS
SHAMPOOING RUGS
PICKING UP DOGGY POO
CLEANING UP DOGGY VOMIT
CLEANING UP KIDDY VOMIT
PICKING UP CHILI OFF THE FLOOR
CLEANING THAT GREEN & BLACK MOLDY STUFF FROM THE FRIG
THROWING OUT THAT HORRIBLE SMELLING SACK OF LEFTOVERS FROM THE CAR
CLEANING THE TOILET
CLEANING THE FLOOR WHERE YOU MISSED THE BOWL WHEN PEEING
GUTTING AND CLEANING FISH YOU BRING HOME
CLEANING OUT THE GOLDFISH BOWL & AQUARIUM
CLEANING OUT THE KITTY LITTER PAN
PICKING UP HAIRBALLS
TAKING STUFF OUT OF JUNIOR'S MOUTH THAT HE IS NOT SUPPOSED TO EAT
TAKING STUFF OUT OF FLUFFY'S MOUTH HE IS NOT SUPPOSED TO EAT

*AND BEFORE YOU MEN SAY "I DO THESE THINGS TOO"
I REPLY, "OKAY, BUT ONCE IN A BLUE MOON."
"WOMEN DEAL WITH THIS DIRTY S**T EVERY DAY . . .ALL DAY"*
*
THAT'S WHY OUR HANDS HAVE MORE GERMS. WE EARN OUR GERMS THE HARD WAY.*


----------



## Santaclear (Nov 5, 2008)

What Moore said was the first thing that came to me when I read your post about these baffling new statistics, Ernest.

Nonetheless it's an excellent thread title and I hope to make this thread my new hangout.


----------



## furious styles (Nov 5, 2008)

moore2me said:


> I am putting this study in with the mouse fart one. I know exactly why we have more germs on our hands than men do.
> 
> *IT IS BECAUSE WE DO MORE WORK, SUCH AS . . . *
> 
> ...



*OKAY BUT WHY ARE WE YELLING?!*


----------



## Santaclear (Nov 5, 2008)

She sounds fed up.


----------



## Shosh (Nov 5, 2008)

Well the solution is to be continuously washing your hands throughout the day, which I do religiously.


----------



## William (Nov 5, 2008)

Hi Susannah

Do not wash your hands with the anti-bacterial stuff, use the alcohol formula ones.

Triclosan the main ingredient in anti-baterial Soaps is too similar to Thyroid Hormone

http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.htm?programID=06-P13-00044&segmentID=1

Now Vicks has us spraying the stuff straight on our bodies

http://www.vicks.com/early-defense/foaming-sanitizer.php


William 




Susannah said:


> Well the solution is to be continuously washing your hands throughout the day, which I do religiously.


----------



## Shosh (Nov 5, 2008)

William said:


> Hi Susannah
> 
> Do not wash your hands with the anti-bacterial stuff, use the alcohol formula ones.
> 
> ...



I actually use natural herbal soaps.

I have to watch every kind of chemical in my home and that I come into contact with, given that I have a neurological condition.

Those chemicals can be toxic. I prefer natural soaps, shampoos and cleaning products.


----------



## William (Nov 5, 2008)

Good idea 


William 




Susannah said:


> I actually use natural herbal soaps.
> 
> I have to watch every kind of chemical in my home and that I come into contact with, given that I have a neurological condition.
> 
> Those chemicals can be toxic. I prefer natural soaps, shampoos and cleaning products.


----------



## Santaclear (Nov 5, 2008)

Soap is good.


----------



## Shosh (Nov 5, 2008)

moore2me said:


> I am putting this study in with the mouse fart one. I know exactly why we have more germs on our hands than men do.
> 
> *IT IS BECAUSE WE DO MORE WORK, SUCH AS . . . *
> 
> ...



I have to give you rep for this girlfriend.:bow:

Of course we also have to look good while we are doing all of this stuff too.


----------



## moore2me (Nov 5, 2008)

mfdoom said:


> *OKAY BUT WHY ARE WE YELLING?!*



I am sorry about the yelling. I have just about had it with all these bizzare scientifc studies about mouse farts being good for lowering blood pressure. And now about women having dirty hands. Try cleaning toilets after the all the family has had the a stomach virus. And the "blockheads" tell me women have nasty hands. 

I read another article this week that a team of guys got one of the Nobel prizes for showing the X-rays were released when Scotch tape (yes, the kind you use to wrap packages!) is ripped of its roll in a vacuum. Now, there's a study that can also proudly take a place in history beside mouse farts, and women having nasty hands.

I am yelling because these researchers are being paid good money and earning scholastic praise for their "brilliant work". In the meantime, I am cleaning dog vomit off the carpet (quick before the other dog eats it). And today I hear cancer killed Michael Crichton at 66. Why don't these we work harder on things that are really important?


----------



## Shosh (Nov 5, 2008)

moore2me said:


> I am sorry about the yelling. I have just about had it with all these bizzare scientifc studies about mouse farts being good for lowering blood pressure. And now about women having dirty hands. Try cleaning toilets after the all the family has had the a stomach virus. And the "blockheads" tell me women have nasty hands.
> 
> I read another article this week that a team of guys got one of the Nobel prizes for showing the X-rays were released when Scotch tape (yes, the kind you use to wrap packages!) is ripped of its roll in a vacuum. Now, there's a study that can also proudly take a place in history beside mouse farts, and women having nasty hands.
> 
> I am yelling because these researchers are being paid good money and earning scholastic praise for their "brilliant work". In the meantime, I am cleaning dog vomit off the carpet (quick before the other dog eats it). And today I hear cancer killed Michael Crichton at 66. Why don't these we work harder on things that are really important?




They say you have to spread the rep around before giving it to M2M again, and all that etc etc:bow:


----------



## SocialbFly (Nov 6, 2008)

tthe thing is, we have always had stuff on our hands, now some hoity toighty in the CDC is going to examine everything....

they have said and i believe it to be true...that we have actually made ourselves sicker by using all the antibacterial stuff, we need to expose ourselves to bugs to build up our immunities...they say that is why kids are actually sicker now than they were and seem to get more viral infections...

i know i am a freak with hand washing, but when you play in the germs i play in daily, it happens...

but simple handwashing with soap and water for 15 seconds with a brisk rub is all you should need


----------



## Shosh (Nov 6, 2008)

SocialbFly said:


> tthe thing is, we have always had stuff on our hands, now some hoity toighty in the CDC is going to examine everything....
> 
> they have said and i believe it to be true...that we have actually made ourselves sicker by using all the antibacterial stuff, we need to expose ourselves to bugs to build up our immunities...they say that is why kids are actually sicker now than they were and seem to get more viral infections...
> 
> ...



They say that you should wash your hands for as long as it takes to sing "Happy Birthday to you" in your head.

Meanwhile what are you trying to say Scott? Us women are all dirty freaks or something?!!!!!!!! Lol!


----------



## Ernest Nagel (Nov 6, 2008)

I certainly didn't post this to disparage womens hygiene! It may not be curing cancer but this is far from junk science. People in my field of Social Network analysis can use this type of data to great advantage in developing predictive models of epidemiology. 

Look a little further and it becomes very intriguing though. Successful bacteria are opportunistic and self-perpetuating. That suggests that there is a Darwinian advantage in evolving to exist in the skin conditions present on a woman's hands. What might that advantage be? M2M's wee rant points to a possible explanation; women do tend to touch more stuff. That provides more opportunities for transmission ergo better survival and propagation. It's not just about touching stuff though. Greater social interaction is necessary to convey a significant edge. Figure out the age of some of the bacteria exclusive to women and you have a possible shadow indicator of how long women have been the primary socializing gender. 

This type of research might suggest a need for gender specific antibiotics or antimicrobial creams. It could also offer clues in forensic investigations, to name just a couple of reasons I don't think this can be automatically labeled a waste of time or money. :bow:


----------



## mossystate (Nov 6, 2008)

Might also suggest a need that women should not have to be the ones who do all the dirty work ( in terms of that aspect of all this ). A new vacuum cleaner...washing machine...etc...while they are nice...don't really address other ....issues... But, why change attitudes, when it is far easier to change soaps ( whatever ).


----------



## Santaclear (Nov 6, 2008)

Ernest Nagel said:


> I certainly didn't post this to disparage womens hygiene! It may not be curing cancer but this is far from junk science. People in my field of Social Network analysis can use this type of data to great advantage in developing predictive models of epidemiology.
> 
> Look a little further and it becomes very intriguing though. Successful bacteria are opportunistic and self-perpetuating.



I see this thread as refreshing - a celebration and rubber-glove high-five to the successful bacteria who've managed to triumph against daunting odds and a salute to the lovely women who've harbored them. 

*_hastily arranges for pre-paid weekly cleaning service at Moore's, Susannah's, Social's and Mossy's places_* :bow:


----------



## Ernest Nagel (Nov 6, 2008)

Santaclear said:


> I see this thread as refreshing - a celebration and rubber-glove high-five to the successful bacteria who've managed to triumph against daunting odds and a salute to the lovely women who've harbored them.
> 
> *_hastily arranges for weekly cleaning service at Moore's, Susannah's, Social's and Mossy's places_* :bow:



Well, it certainly makes a case for knuckle bumps. Hand jobs, not so much.


----------



## moore2me (Nov 6, 2008)

Ernest Nagel said:


> I certainly didn't post this to disparage womens hygiene! It may not be curing cancer but this is far from junk science. People in my field of Social Network analysis can use this type of data to great advantage in developing predictive models of epidemiology.
> 
> Look a little further and it becomes very intriguing though. Successful bacteria are opportunistic and self-perpetuating. That suggests that there is a Darwinian advantage in evolving to exist in the skin conditions present on a woman's hands. What might that advantage be? M2M's wee rant points to a possible explanation; women do tend to touch more stuff. That provides more opportunities for transmission ergo better survival and propagation. It's not just about touching stuff though. Greater social interaction is necessary to convey a significant edge. Figure out the age of some of the bacteria exclusive to women and you have a possible shadow indicator of how long women have been the primary socializing gender.
> 
> ...





mossystate said:


> Might also suggest a need that women should not have to be the ones who do all the dirty work ( in terms of that aspect of all this ). A new vacuum cleaner...washing machine...etc...while they are nice...don't really address other ....issues... But, why change attitudes, when it is far easier to change soaps ( whatever ).



*
Amen, mossystate - Well said. Instead of researching the problem, fix it.*


*Another issue that I did not think about until today is that bacteria & viruses, as plant do, grow best in a nuturing environment. For a typical plant this means good ground, moisture, water, etc. My husband, who works outdoors a lot, has hands that are tough & calloused. The skin is thick and any decent bacteria or virus would have a difficult time getting a foothold on hubby's hand (unless the skin was broken). My hands are the opposite. My skin is soft and I have no callouses. I use lotion everyday and the skin is supple. This type of dermal layers would be much easier to obtain a "foot hold" for a traveling bacteria or virus. I know that some women and some men's hands do not fit these patterns, but many do. And, I believe this is another confounding variable that would have influence in the results of this study.*


----------

