logo
Bad news for hairy hipsters: Men with beards carry more germs than DOGS, scientist warns

Bad news for hairy hipsters: Men with beards carry more germs than DOGS, scientist warns

Daily Mail​4 days ago

From Jason Momoa to Zayn Malik, many Hollywood heartthrobs are known for their bushy beards.
But a new report might steer you towards more clean-shaven men.
Dr Primrose Freestone, an expert in Clinical Microbiology at the University of Leicester, has warned that men with beards can carry more germs than dog fur.
In an article for The Conversation, the expert explained that beards provide a unique environment for microorganisms – including bacteria – to thrive.
And in the most extreme cases, some bearded blokes are carrying more germs than the average toilet.
Dr Freestone analysed the evidence on whether beards really are a hygiene risk.
'Beards create a warm, often moist environment where food debris and oils can accumulate – ideal conditions for microbial growth,' she said.
'These microbes thrive not just because of the warm, moist conditions beards provide, but also because of constant exposure to new contaminants and microbes, especially from hands that frequently touch surfaces and the face.'
Studies dating back 50 years show that facial hair can retain bacteria and bacterial toxins even after it has been washed.
This led to the longstanding idea that beards harbour bacteria and could pose an infection risk to others.
One study, published in 2018, looked at whether it would be hygienic to evaluate dogs and humans in the same MRI scanner.
Analysis revealed most beards contained significantly more microbes than dog fur – including a greater number of harmful bacteria.
The study, published in the Nature journal European Radiology, reads: 'Our study shows a significantly higher bacterial load in specimens taken from men's beards compared with dogs' fur.
'All 18 men showed high microbial counts, whereas only 23 out of 30 dogs had high microbial counts and seven dogs moderate microbial counts.'
Beards can also sometimes spread skin infection such as impetigo – a contagious rash often caused by Staphylococcus aureus, which is commonly found in facial hair.
Sometimes, in rare cases, parasites like pubic lice, which usually live in the groin area, can also show up in beards.
However, other studies have challenged the idea that beards increase infection risk.
One investigation concluded that there is no significant difference in bacteria colonisation between bearded and clean-shaven healthcare workers.
'Neglected beards can foster irritation, inflammation and infection,' Dr Freestone said.
'The skin beneath a beard – rich in blood vessels, nerve endings and immune cells – is highly sensitive to microbial and environmental stressors.
'When sebum, dead skin, food debris and pollutants accumulate, they can irritate the skin and provide fuel for fungal and bacterial growth.'
Bearded men should wash their beard and face every day, experts say, to help remove dirt, oils, allergens and dead skin.
Other tips include moisturising to prevent dryness, using a beard comb to remove debris, and trimming to control loose hairs.
'With daily hygiene and proper grooming, beards pose little risk and may even be healthier than we once thought,' Dr Freestone concluded.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Octopus boom along England's southwest coast down to 'perfect storm'
Octopus boom along England's southwest coast down to 'perfect storm'

Sky News

timean hour ago

  • Sky News

Octopus boom along England's southwest coast down to 'perfect storm'

Why you can trust Sky News Octopuses, sharks and tuna that are booming in the sea around the UK could be part of a fundamental shift in the marine environment, a leading scientist has told Sky News. Dr Simon Thomas, from the Marine Biological Association in Plymouth, said a perfect storm of factors, including climate change and overfishing, is leading to a rapid change in the species being found around the coast. "Since 2016, you've seen a lot of our traditional fish, like cod, ling and pollock decreasing in numbers and pushing northwards," he said. "Then we've seen other fish, especially things like bluefin tuna and blue sharks, being found in huge numbers in the water here. "It's almost like you've seen a complete shift in the regime of the ocean." Fishermen on the south coast of Devon and Cornwall are currently catching huge numbers of a large octopus species that is normally rare in the UK. "I've never seen anything like it in my lifetime," said Dr Thomas. "I've spent 40 years at sea and probably seen three or four of the big octopus over the years. Now they are seen regularly and (crab fishermen) are reporting their pots have been decimated." The octopuses are raiding crab and lobster pots for an easy meal. But there are so many of them, and they are so hungry, that fishermen say they are eating not only the bait and crustaceans, but also, at times, each other. Sam Jago, skipper of the Bosloe, returned to Plymouth after a day's fishing with 11 crates of octopuses - a 400kg bonanza that could fetch almost £3,000 at market rates. But he had just over one tub of crabs and lobsters - when normally he'd have more than a dozen. "They crack the shell and suck everything out of it," he said. "It's a quick buck at the moment, but who knows how long it's going to last for. "They will stay here until they've eaten everything. "But if the octopus go, the crab isn't going to just appear out of thin air. "We won't have a great deal to catch." The Marine Biological Association is studying factors that could underpin the surge in octopus numbers. The sea around the UK is around 2C warmer than normal. But in the southwest of England the temperature is 3C or even 4C above average for the time of year. Dr Thomas said warmer waters increase survival of young octopus fry over winter, and a change to ocean currents could bring them more food. 'The ocean is changing' Overfishing of species that would normally eat young octopuses may also mean more are surviving to adulthood. "There is no doubt that the ocean is changing," he said. "Fishermen are like the canaries in the coal mine, the first to see things changing out at sea." Scientists say protecting key parts of the ocean as marine nature reserves would serve as a buffer against pressures from human activity elsewhere. So far, 50 nations plus the EU have ratified the United Nations High Seas Treaty that commits countries to protect 30% of the ocean by 2030. Another nine need to ratify it for it to become operational.

Parent says no, stop the screen rot in schools
Parent says no, stop the screen rot in schools

Times

timean hour ago

  • Times

Parent says no, stop the screen rot in schools

Bravo to the education committee for finally saying what we all know to be true: for young children, screens are like — and I'm paraphrasing here, but not by much — crack, in terms of rotting their brains and being ludicrously addictive. In its new report, 'Screen time: impacts on education and wellbeing', the committee concluded, 'The overwhelming weight of evidence submitted to us suggests that the harms of screen time and social media use significantly outweigh the benefits for young children.' In other words, it's not social media that's the problem. It's screens themselves. So, boy oh boy, that education committee will be really angry with whoever just made this decision: from September the national statutory tests for five-year-olds, the 'reception baseline assessment', will require at least two touchscreens — one for the teacher and one for the very young child (adult and child, side by side, both on screens, just as God intended.) Who on earth thought it was a good idea to test five-year-olds on tablets? Oh wait, it's written here in small letters, let me get my glasses …It was the Department for Education. Ah. By now, bodies ranging from the World Health Organisation to the NHS have published guidelines about screen time for young children. But these guidelines are arguably too little and definitely too late: a 2020 Ofcom report found that an astonishing 57 per cent of five- to seven-year-olds in Britain have a tablet. As a result of this large-scale outsourcing of parenting to screens, last week a coalition of schools, nurseries and colleges published a letter saying that children were now starting school with speech and emotional difficulties 'that are likely to have been exaggerated by or are even directly attributable to excessive screen time'. And yet the DfE has decided that those same screen-addicted kids should be tested on screens. And just to prove that too much screen time rots adults' brains too, I'm going to respond to this mess with an internet meme: DfE! Make! It! Make! Sense! • Schools issue parents with screen time limits from birth to age 16 So I emailed the department to ask — politely — what it was thinking. Why was it telling parents to give their kids less screen time while telling schools to give the kids more? Alas, to judge from the computer-says-no response I got, the DfE is now run by AI, which might explain its compulsion to test kids online: 'Digital assessments reduce the administrative burden on teachers, freeing up their time to focus more on teaching and supporting pupils' learning.' So young children will get to interact with teachers more by interacting with them less. Or something. Schools switched to digital learning during lockdown, and many found they enjoyed this easing of the 'administrative burden' so much, they never switched back. No surprise, given how much investment has been lavished on it: the UK-based primary school educational platform Atom Learning raised £19 million in 2021 and is now near ubiquitous. In April I wrote about the rise in primary schools of 'ed tech', aka education technology, aka teaching children via the medium of computer games, whizzy apps, tech portals and emojis. You don't need to be Mr Gradgrind to query the benefits of this gamification of education, teaching children from the age of five to expect lessons to be taught in ten-second bite-sized graphics. And we wonder why today's kids have such decimated attention spans. • Book holidays with bad wi-fi to get teens reading, says Winchester head Since then, I've heard some truly fascinating defences of education technology in primary schools. I was told that screens 'enrich students' learning experience', although when I asked if there was any proof of said enrichment, answer came there none. In fact, studies show that primary school kids experience what neuroscientists in one study describe as 'deeper reading' when learning from a paper text, whereas when they learn from a screen 'shallow reading was observed'. I was told that it's important to teach children how to use these devices for their future employment prospects, as though the devices weren't designed to be entirely intuitive, and addictive. And in any case, they will be utterly obsolete by the time these kids are in the workplace. Some argue that ed tech isn't social media, and that's true. But telling young children to do their school projects online is as ridiculous as telling them to do their homework in front of the TV: distraction is always a click away. And my personal favourite: 'The students really enjoy it.' They'd also enjoy eating sugar all day, so let's provide glucose on tap and see how that pans out. The one decent defence schools have for putting young kids on screens is that this is how they will increasingly be tested. Most GCSEs and A-levels will be online within a decade — so why not start them in primary school, seems to be the thinking. But five-year-olds are not 16-year-olds. One educator said to me breezily that this is simple 'market forces'. But schools — and certainly the DfE — should not be uncritical, passive consumers of tech. Mike Baxter, principal of City of London Academy, said last week, 'Over the past 20 years, schools and families have too often blindly trusted technology to aid and even enhance the education and wellbeing of our young people. However, the reality couldn't be further from this.' I have yet to meet anyone who can explain why it's better for children to write an essay online and upload it to Google Classroom than write one by hand in a notebook. If schools can't say how any of this benefits the pupils, they shouldn't do it. Computers aren't the only thing that can say no.

NHS patients battling Alzheimer's WON'T be offered 'miracle' drugs as health watchdog rules they are 'too expensive to justify'
NHS patients battling Alzheimer's WON'T be offered 'miracle' drugs as health watchdog rules they are 'too expensive to justify'

Daily Mail​

time3 hours ago

  • Daily Mail​

NHS patients battling Alzheimer's WON'T be offered 'miracle' drugs as health watchdog rules they are 'too expensive to justify'

Two of the first drugs proven to slow down Alzheimer's disease will be denied to NHS patients from this week - unless they pay to go private. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) has refused the 'miracle' drugs lecanemab and donanemab for use on the NHS as they are too expensive to justify. This means over 70,000 patients in England will be denied the 'game-changing' drugs, found to slow cognitive decline by an average of four to seven months, unless they can afford tens of thousands of pounds a year for private treatment. After a positive drug trial in 2022, lecanemab (brand name Leqembi) made by Eisai, and donanemab (marketed as Kisunla), made by Eli Lilly, were proven to clear toxic amyloid protein from the brain and thus slow the underlying cause of dementia. Campaigners hailed it as 'the beginning of the end' of Alzheimer's. Iain Hartnell, Research Communications Officer at Alzheimer's Society, said: 'The MHRA's approval of the first safe and effective Alzheimer's disease treatment, shown to slow progression, is a defining moment for people with early-stage Alzheimer's disease in the UK and a significant step towards a more hopeful future.' Last year, both drugs were given drug licences in the UK by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). But without NICE's recommendation, the groundbreaking medicine will only be available to those with private healthcare. 'It is the end of the road for these drugs on the NHS,' an insider told The Times. Hilary Evans-Newton, the chief executive of Alzheimer's Research UK described the decision as 'deeply disappointing'. She told the publication that it sends 'a damaging signal to the life sciences sector - undermining confidence in the UK as a leader of dementia research, clinical trials and innovation, with knock-on effects for patients and the wider economy'. She added: 'These treatments are not perfect, and we recognise the challenges they pose around cost, delivery and safety. But scientific progress is incremental, and these drugs represent a vital foundation to build on.' The drugs were shown in trials to slow the rate of decline for those with mild to moderate Alzheimer's by an average of four to seven months. Lecanemab, for example, can slow the decline in memory and mental agility by 27 per cent in those with mild Alzheimer's taking the drug compared to people on the dummy drug. The research team also found that the drug reduced loss of quality of life by up to 56 per cent, according to the Alzheimer's Society. Importantly, the drug reduced the amount of amyloid protein present in the brain. Amyloid protein levels were also reduced in the blood and spinal fluid. Experts have long believed donanemab could herald a new era of dementia treatment, after studies showed it slowed the memory-robbing illness in its early stages Lecanemab has already been given the green light in the EU, US, China, Japan, Hong Kong, South Korea and Israel. It is estimated around 70,000 adults in England could eligible for the treatment if approved for use on the health service. Alzheimer's is the most common cause of dementia in the UK. Around 982,000 are currently estimated to be living with dementia UK - although this figure is expected to skyrocket to 1.4million in 2040. Alzheimer's Research UK analysis found 74,261 people died from dementia in 2022, compared to 69,178 a year earlier, making it the country's biggest killer. Recent analysis by the Alzheimer's Society estimates the overall annual cost of the dementia to the UK is £42billion a year, with families bearing the brunt. An ageing population means these costs — which include lost earnings of unpaid carers — are set to soar to £90billion in the next 15 years.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store