Biometric finger readers unsanitary???

[EvilEmperorZurg]

With all of the ways to spared germs today does anyone else think that the biometric finger readers are a way to spread germs faster? It does not seem like they are sanitized anyway after each use. I know that I feel uncomfortable using them especially when I see someone in front of me sneeze in their hands and then put their fingers into the reader. Yuck...Another reason that they should be gotten rid of...Any thoughts???<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o></o>
<o></o>

 

[mousermerf]

No less unsanitary than the handrails in every queue or the doorknob on any door.

Wash your hands before you eat

 

[EvilEmperorZurg]

unsanitary

Agreed...however you do not have to touch the hand rails, you must use the finger readers...yuck

 

[mousermerf]

You have to touch door knobs to open doors - you're just trying to find an excuse to get rid of biometrics. Purel sells hand sanitizer in convienent little bottle, which i typically clip to my belt loop when i goto the parks.

 

[peter11435]

If we got ride of everything that can spread germs there would be nothing left. As Mousemerf pointed out it is no worse than a handrail. And while your right you can avoid touching handrails there are hundreds of other things in the world and at Disney you can't avoid touching. Think about it. Door knobs, seat belts, safety bars on many rides, head rests on RnR and M:S. You just can't worry about that type of thing. Just wash your hands often. Funny thing is that most times the things we think are clean have far more bacteria than those we think are unsanitary

 

[wannab@dis]

<img src="http://www.write-stuff.com/images/products/00972.jpg">

OR

<img src="http://www.americarx.com/ProductImages/skincare/purell/444919.jpg">

:wave:

 

[ofquietstars]

The readers are the same as handles and railings, as others said. I just carry a small Purell hand sanitizer bottle in my purse. They sell tiny travel sizes -- if you really wanted, you could just stick one in your pocket.

 

[dolbyman]

the activated those shape scanners now ? ....


wasn't active on my last years trip ..

 

[peter11435]

the activated those shape scanners now ? ....


wasn't active on my last years trip ..

They have been using them for AP holders for about 10 years now. They started using them for all tickets January 2, 2005.

 

[Merlin]

I thought the exact same thing when I was there a few weeks ago. In fact, I've had a wicked cold ever since I got back. Maybe that's why.

I'm a bit of a germaphobe and I do manage to avoid touching things like handrails for that very reason. The scanners are not something that I have the choice to avoid touching, so I agree with the OP 100% on this concern. Also, those hand sanitizers like Purell, have been found to be completely ineffective in warding off germs.

 

[billybluenose]

Cleanliness is next to Godliness? Not so fast ice machine!

Did you know...

... that the water in an average restaurant's toilet is cleaner than it's ice?

... that toilet seats are cleaner on average than the counter around you sink?

I don't worry so much about bio-metric readers.

-Billy

 

[Merlin]

Did you know...

... that the water in an average restaurant's toilet is cleaner than it's ice?

Not a 100% validated "fact". This is the latest story to be sweeping the Internet, and lot's of people are jumping on it as highly reliable scientific fact that applies to ALL restaurants. It's based on a school project that was done by a 7th grader named Jasmine Roberts. She took samples of ice and toilet water from 5 fast food restaurants all within a 10-mile radius of the University of South Florida. She had the samples professionally tested by a lab and the tests showed that the toilet water was cleaner 70% of the time.

Considering it only involved 5 restaurants, that they were all within a relatively short distance from one another and it still came out as only being true 70% of the time, I think this "fact" is one that has been blown way out of proportion.

That's the contradiction that is the Internet though....It can be a great source of information, but can also be a dangerous source of misinformation.

 

[mousermerf]

Quick notes...

Hand sanitizer is found inffective for removing "dirt" from hands. It does however still function very simply, it's alcohol gel. It's the equivilent of using rubbing alcohol.

Its said not to replace soap and water because soap and water removes "dirt" from the hands, which in food service often means grease, which the gel will not remove - thus any bacteria within it still remains.

How would they clean the biometrics? With rubbing alcohol pads.

Merlin your facts aren't all straight either, as you took one report and blew it just as far out of proportion as you're accusing another of doing.

 

[Merlin]

It's the equivilent of using rubbing alcohol.

Incorrect. It's not the "equivilent" of rubbing alcohol by any stretch of the imagination. It contains rubbing alcohol, but since it's mixed with other ingredients, the alcohol's potency is diluted down to almost nothing.

 

[mousermerf]

Purell is 62% alcohol - anyhting 60-95% considerd the "most effective."

Hence, 59 is bad, and so is 96. 62 is in the middle and most effective.

 

[Merlin]

Purell is 62% alcohol - anyhting 60-95% considerd the "most effective."

Hence, 59 is bad, and so is 96. 62 is in the middle and most effective.

The potency of rubbing alcohol is generally between 70% and 90%. Hence, Purell is not the "equivalent". Purell has to be diluted with moisturizers, otherwise the alcohol would dry out your hands. Unfortunately, the trade off is a substantially less effective hand sanitizer.

When I go to a theme park, I avoid touching handrails, door knobs, etc with my bare hands as much as is humanly possible. And I wash my hands frequently. I am on the same side as the OP on this one. I was annoyed at being required to touch the biometric readers that countless other people had touched already.

 

[loriwdunn]

I'm really surprised to hear that Purell has been found to be ineffective against germs. At Columbia Children's hospitals, Purell foam is pretty much all they use (even more so than soap and water).

 

[wannab@dis]

Maybe this would work better?

<img src="http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/touchstone_pictures/bubble_boy/_group_photos/jake_gyllenhaal8.jpg">

Bubble Boy... :lol:

 

[peter11435]

I'm really surprised to hear that Purell has been found to be ineffective against germs. At Columbia Children's hospitals, Purell foam is pretty much all they use (even more so than soap and water).

Don't believe everything you read on the internet as fact.

 

[Merlin]

I'm really surprised to hear that Purell has been found to be ineffective against germs. At Columbia Children's hospitals, Purell foam is pretty much all they use (even more so than soap and water).

If you think it about it though, it makes sense at a children's hospital. As disgusting as it sounds, a lot of research has shown that it's a good idea to expose children to more germs when they are still children. This helps them to build up their immunity system. So it actually makes sense that they would use a less effective method of fighting off the germs.