Talk:Five-second rule

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 VW Commercial - Media References 2 Ig Nobel Prize 3 Good work 4 Germ contamination notes 5 Confusing reasoning? 6 Ice dancing 7 The shoe connection 8 Genghis Khan removed 9 A short film 10 Osmosis Jones? What? 11 The International Five-Second Rule 12 research rewrite 13 Title 14 References for Brazil? 15 Original research 16 Idioms 17 Seating Rule? 18 How stupid!! 19 Serious or not? 20 Wasn't it 10?

[edit] VW Commercial - Media References

Does anyone else remember the VW commercial - maybe late '90's - I think it was a Jetta commercial (oh, those Gen X'ers)... The conceit was that a young father was shocked at his sudden responsibility, and was relying on his new Jetta to keep his offspring safe. The audio of the commercial, if I remember correctly, was: "It is absolutely ridiculous to think that I am now responsible for another human life. Now I'm the one saying 'Don't eat the cookie on the floor,' when all I'm really thinking is 'Thirty second rule.' That cookie just hit the floor. That cookie is still good."

If I'm not completely cracked and this actually did air on TV, would it be a candidate for a "Media refs" section?

[edit] Ig Nobel Prize

What the heck is an lg Nobel Prize? Is this a joke? Mothperson 20 March 2005

Ig Nobel Prize -- 24.52.142.7 06:17, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Good work

I can't believe there have been so many studies done on this. Cool article; good work, editors. Garret Albright 06:20, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I for one am glad that someone took the time to prove that the 5-second "rule" is untrue. Although that ain't gonna stop me from invoking it! -- Jalabi99 04:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I prefer invoking the 'Sugar rule' or even the 'It's not enough to kill me' rule. --71.225.64.232 18:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

For some reason this is the funniest article I've read on Wikipedia. I think because it is written in a dead-serious tone. And I like this line: "The five second rule is sometimes called the three-second rule, 10-second rule, or the 15-second rule, to some extent depending on the quality of the food involved or the intoxication level of the individual quoting the rule." ...this is genius. Nice article, good job everyone!--Bigplankton 00:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Germ contamination notes

Unless extraordinary measures are taken (e.g. in "clean rooms"), air has suspended dust. Dust contains germs. So contact with air causes germ contamination too. Human skin hosts large populations of germs. Yet the 5-sec rule is only for food that has been in contact with the floor, not hands or air. Perhaps it's only due to psycological (or cultural) factors that we feel the floor as "unclean" and the surronding air as "clean".

Sortof related is the idea that a lot of cultures have about stepping near or over food and even their views of feet. -- Sy 10:44, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I always thought that [dry] air was fairly effective at killing germs. Although I did hear a while back that when one flushes the toilet without closing the lid a "mist" is emitted that floats around and deposits on things... like your toothbrush. As for stepping over food, I haven't found that jumping over it grants any dispensation. Ewlyahoocom 17:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Confusing reasoning?

I find the following reasoning confusing:

demonstrated that dry foods were exposed to more bacteria than wet foods when they were on the floor for equal periods of time, contrary to what one would expect. From this, Ramu and Barker concluded that dry foods follow the five second rule, and wet foods do not.

because, earlier, the article says:

Those who use the five second rule falsely claim ... not contract any germs until five seconds have passed ... seldom invoked in the case of wet and sticky foods

Ok, so scientists show people are wrong when thinking dry picks up more germs. But, somehow, this justifies the five second rule after all?

On initial reading, I suppose that I equated sweet with dry which heightens this confusion even more. However, I suppose you can have wet ice cream and dry potato chips.

Still, the "from this" reasoning does not follow. I'm imagining two curves for dry and wet on a graph with axes time vs bacterial count. So, if the dry curve bends upwards more rapidly then, yes, the five second rule does apply more strongly to dry. On the other hand, the dry/wet curves could grow asymptotically closer over time thus making the five second rule apply more strongly to wet.

I do like this article but the reasoning needs to be explained a bit more.

WpZurp 15:02, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I like this article as well. Would a mention of the common act of kissing (fallen food) up to God be appropriate? func(talk) 02:48, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Ice dancing

In the discipline (I'm not keen on calling it a sport) of ice dancing, the term "five second rule" refers to the requirement that partners never be separated for longer than 5 seconds. The article hasn't been written yet, and would probably be a Wiktionary item, but does anyone have any ideas on providing the disambig without damaging this article here? — Bill 12:38, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've added a disambiguation link to ice dancing, however, someone who knows something about the topic should add info about the five second rule to that article, otherwise the disambiguation doesn't make any sense. If later, someone wishes to write a seperate page for the five second rule in ice dancing, we can add that link here as well, (and the article should be called something like Five second rule in ice dancing or Five second rule (ice dancing)). func(talk) 16:15, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Um... Bill, are you sure about this? I just did a google search for ( "ice dancing" "five second rule" ) and ( "ice dancing" "5 second rule" ), and I got no hits. I'm thinking I should have looked into this before adding the disambig. func(talk) 16:21, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] The shoe connection

At least around these parts (Toronto/Canada):

The removal of shoes in homes sometimes observes a variation on the five second rule, where a person will skip through the home hurredly with their shoes on instead of removing their footwear. -- Sy 10:38, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Genghis Khan removed

Removed:

It is believed by some that the famed Mongol warlord Genghis Khan was one of the progenitors of the five-second rule; his standards, which included the belief that food was safe to eat if it was picked up within 20 hours, were considerably more lax.

Cite please? -- Anon.

How about this? Searching for "Genghis Khan 20 hours" on Google found lots of results. [1]

If you don't object, I'd like to restore this tidbit to the article. --134.210.176.166 16:52, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The article "About the five-second rule and Genghis Khan" by Rick Ryckeley connects Genghis Khan and the 5-second rule, but it looks like this is semi-fictional in order to set up a joke/pun involving "Khanned"/"conned". Perhaps someone didn't get the joke and started spreading the story as if it were fact? That would be one urban legend piled on top of another urban legend -- surely worth mentioning in the article. On the other hand, if Genghis Khan really did have such a rule -- that would also be worth mentioning in the article. Alas, I don't know yet one way or the other, or I would have surely updated the article accordingly. --DavidCary 22:47, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

In the book "Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World", it says that during the festivities, it was a 12 hour rule (although I highly doubt the exact timing). ~user:orngjce223how am I typing? 03:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A short film

Sam Lehman did a comical short film on the five second rule. Edited by Dan Regner.

The Five Second Rule

[edit] Osmosis Jones? What?

A link was present to the Osmosis Jones article under "see also". Osmosis Jones doesn't seem to have that much to do with the Five Second Rule, other than the fact that one character started the main infection in the movie due to it. However, there are references to this all over fiction/literature, it seems odd to have only Osmosis Jones linked, if anything. It doesn't contribute to one's knowledge on the subject either, nor is it directly linked or blahblabhlah. Add it back in if you must, but I thought this looked very out of place in an "Encyclopedia" 24.76.141.132 01:38, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The International Five-Second Rule

I always thought this was the dictat which stated that a vacated seat is fair game if it has been vacant for five seconds, unless the former occupant of the chair is on a group errand - i.e. they are out of their seat doing something for someone else, e.g. buying a round of drinks, etc. The minimum size for the "group" is 1, provided that single person is not the same person who has just vacated the seat. In the case where the former seatholder is in the group, the minimum size is 2 - e.g. buying a drink for yourself and one other person qualifies as group errand. Under the Imperial system, prior to ISO adopting this rule and metricising it, it was previously the Three-Second Rule. Chris 23:40, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree. As far as I'm concerned the three/five second rule has always been to do with stealing someone's seat at a party. Even the 'group errand' exception isn't adhered to in my experience. I'd never heard of it until now. I shall add something to the article. Ithika 16:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] research rewrite

I have rewritten the research section. Before my rewrite, the text was confusing and did not accurately represent the sources cited. For example, the text suggested that two different sets of experiments were performed at the U of I. This does not seem to be the case -- the only experiments the sources reference are those performed by Jillian Clarke.

To me, the experiments performed by Ramu and Barker seem worthless. No explanation is provided for the results, which seem like they could have resulted simply from sloppy experimental technique. Perhaps the explanation of the experiment that we have is faulty? Anyway, I think it should be deleted if we can't find a better source with a more complete explanation.

NoahB 20:28, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

A search of google finds only the article we reference (as well as Wikipedia mirror sites.) I'm going to delete the passage if nobody objects within a couple of days.

NoahB 20:35, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Okay, no one has objected. I reread the article on the Ramu and Barker experiment, and it still seems extremely dubious. It isn't described clearly, the results seem nonsensical (cheese loses bacteria after it's been on the floor? why?) It also seems to contradict the results found by Clarke in her much more rigorous experiment. Finally, it's not notable -- only one reference on google, and that in what appears to be a university newsletter, not a peer-reviewed journal in any sense (the Clarke study has been peer-reviewed and is referenced all over the internet.)

For all these reasons, I am going to eliminate the discussion of the Ramu/Barker experiment.

NoahB 19:17, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Are you one of those people who ignore scientific experiments when the results don't confirm your pre-conceived notions? Many kinds of cheese (and yoghurt) are made using bacteria, and food with a few bites taken out of it has some bacteria from not-perfectly-sterile hands and from human saliva. (Do I need to mention Talk:Backwash ?) If such bacteria-laden food slams into a floor recently cleaned with some sort of anti-bacterial cleanser, I'm not surprised that the bacteria count goes down. --DavidCary 22:47, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Most people have some sort of filter for knowledge -- scientists do as well, and I suspect you do also. Whether mine is particularly faulty is, of course, POV. Be that as it may, the problem with the study was not that it didn't fit my preconceptions (though I see that my original post didn't make this as clear as it might have.) So let me try again. My problems with the Ramu/Barker experiment are: (1) that the study is not described in enough detail to determine whether or not it was rigorous (2) that it appears in only one source -- a (fairly poorly written) student newspaper, from what I can tell -- which means that it is not on the face of it noteworthy (3) that it does not appear to have been peer-reviewed in any way, (4) that, given all of this, the fact that the results contradict a much better known, peer-reviewed study are cause for serious concern, and (5) there is no attempt made to explain the counter-intuitive results. Your explanation of the results might (note I say *might*) be the correct one; however, including it in the article would be (a) totally hypothetical (we don't know whether the floor was cleaned, right?) and (b) original research even if you could somehow confirm that that's what's happening.

Note that in the original wording on Wikipedia, the study was described as "somewhat" scientific, with no explanation of why it was or was not scientific. For me, this was a red flag, and is why I tried to investigate the article further. When I checked the link, I found that the Wikipedia description of the results were faulty and confusing, and, furthermore, that the article was extremely dubious to begin with.

If you have another, better description of the study which addresses these concerns, I'd be happy to see the information reinstated. But as it is, I don't think the study should be included in the article.

By the by, thanks for talking about the issue here first rather than just reverting.

NoahB 14:36, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Because I just can't leave well enough alone...some specific question I had about the Ramu/Barker research that were left unanswered by the source were: why are celery and cheese grouped together as "wet" foods (and note that DavidCary's explanation doesn't seem applicable to celery....]? Was there a control done with food left on surfaces other than floors (that is, do we know that the foods lost or gained bacteria *because* they were on the floor, or was it just their natural tendency to do this)? Were different kinds of floors tested?

NoahB 15:47, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

There's pretty limited research in the burgeoning field of time-delayed food retrieval in the context of bacteria transference, so any research is pretty significant. Why not mention the experiment, but point out where the research seems ambiguous or weak. (And if the experiment was published somewhere, maybe we can get a copy of it to have a better understanding of it.) If we don't mention the experiment, then it's as if it didn't exist. --cprompt 14:32, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

I did that at first, and we could go back to that version I guess if you really think it's best. The problem is that the experiment seems so entirely half-assed as to be really worthless. If you read it, it doesn't even have anything to do with the five-second rule -- they don't time the amount of time the food is on the ground. It doesn't seem to have been published either, as I mentioned before. It's not peer-reviewed and doesn't seem to follow the scientific method -- it seems completely useless to me. Encyclopedias usually don't cover everything -- they cover things which are noteworthy. Leaving the Ramu/Barker experiment out doesn't mean it doesn't exist -- it means it's not noteworthy, which I still believe is the case.

But it's not a life or death matter, or anything. If you still think it should be added back in after my additional defense, go ahead. NoahB 20:02, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Strikes me as shockingly Americocentric article. I know for a fact that it is a 'tradition' much wider than North America. It is common among British people certainly. Maybe there shouldn't be an adjective on 'old wive's tale' at the beginning.... ~

[edit] Title

This should be moved back to five-second rule. That is the name under which it is most commonly known. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 18:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

"[M]ost commonly known" by who? Googling on "5 second rule" might return "about 86,900,000" results while Googling on "3 second rule" returns only "about 83,300,000" results. But Googling on "three second rule" returns "about 74,300,000" whereas Googling on "five second rule" returns only "about 50,600,000". So combined the 3+three crowd clearly beats the 5+five crowd. And that's not even discounting all the ice dancing ^H^H^H^Henthusiasts! Where I come from it's "most commonly known" as the 3-second rule so if anything the title should be moved to 3-second rule. Ewlyahoocom 17:13, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

In the top ten hits for "three second rule", I actually see entries that do not match this topic, including this article on the "three-second violation rule" and this article on a "three second rule" related to prayer. Putting quotes around the term "three second rule" only returns 11,500 results, while the quoted "five second rule" returns 20,300 results. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 17:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Certainly, there wouldn't be many Google results for "N second rule". Any number is better than N. I like "five second rule" because that's what I've heard most. --cprompt 03:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I've always used a 3 second rule as well (apparentlly I'm 2 seconds more concerned about my hygene then everyone else), but would like to point out that this is also a rule in handball, although I believe that basketball has a five second inbound rule as well --T-rex 22:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References for Brazil?

Does anyone have any sort of references for the Brazillian saying? MosheZadka 20:55, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Original research

Without references or sources, the entire "related rules" section is suspect. Unless someone cites sources, I shall remove the entire section in a week. -- Perfecto 23:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Much of it seems either made-up or too uncommon to be notable. —Lowellian (reply) 13:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Idioms

I'm not quite sure what the idiomatic expressions are doing in this article. Can somebody elaborate on why they are needed, or else delete that section?

[edit] Seating Rule?

Someone should remove the seating rule. I have never heard of it, I have never been in a public place and seen someone call a seat not even when I was a little kid. Generally if someone vacates their seat at a busy event, their seat is taken immediately.

• I've heard of and seen rules like this frequently - in high school (five or so years ago), my friends would frequently call "quack quack spot back" in a (usually vain) attempt to retain their desirable seats.

[edit] How stupid!!

I needed to say it LOL --euyyn 23:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Serious or not?

Maybe I'm being too anal but ...

It is kind of unclear what this article is trying to do. There are some things that are unsubstantiated "weasel worded" statements (e.g. I don't see references to back up the "unusually invoked" and "seldom applied" statements. One can argue that "everybody knows this" but if that's really true then you don't really need an article). I'm not sure if the author is attempting to be humorous or what. I realize this is not the most serious of subjects but, for the sake of uniform quality in the encyclopedia, it is worth trying to try to clean up a little. Also, the idioms section is somewhat long for a list that, while interesting, is only vaguely related to the topic. Just my opinion ... --Mcorazao 05:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wasn't it 10?

Its always been the ten-second rule where I grew up and learnt it. I'm guessing the people who claim five seconds are just more paranoid about it. I've picked up and eaten things that have been on the floor for hours before with no harmful effect. ~ SotiCoto 195.33.121.133 11:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)