Researchers at the University of Bradford have discovered that when it comes to reducing the amount of bacteria on your hands, not all drying methods are created equal. In comparing paper towels, standard blow dryers and a new-fangled, high-velocity dryer, one method emerged as the clear winner. And it wasn’t the one we use most when away from home.

The standard hand blow dryer that can be found in so many public restrooms is supposed to be more hygienic than paper towels. But while these dryers certainly reduce the amount of trash on the floor, they can actually increase the amount of bacteria on your hands. It turns out that all that rubbing of your hands under the warm, blowing air actually brings the bacteria that lives within the skin to the surface.

The most effective way to dry your hands was determined to be the old-fashioned paper towel method. Second best was the high-velocity dryers that don’t require hand rubbing.

But all methods fail to stop the spread of germs if you don’t dry your hands thoroughly. Because bacteria cannot be completely washed away with soap and water, some of it remains even after a good scrubbing. And if your hands are damp, that bacteria can more easily spread to other surfaces than if your hands are dry.

So, the next time you are faced with a standard blow dryer as your only hand-drying choice, don’t follow the directions. Avoid rubbing your hands together and make sure you finish the job properly. And if you don’t have the time or inclination to spend that kind of time in front of a blow dryer in a public restroom, you might be better off just skipping the wash altogether.

Photo

Just because parents of girls are 5 percent more likely to divorce than parents of boys doesn’t necessarily mean that girls cause divorce, does it? Depends on whom you ask.

“All over the world, boys hold marriages together, and girls break them up,” wrote Steven E. Landsburg in Slate in 2003. Landsburg concluded that “parents prefer boys — by enough that boys hold a lot of shaky marriages together.”

It’s just one theory to explain the 2003 findings of the economists Gordon Dahl (at the University of Rochester) and Enrico Moretti (at UCLA), who also found that the more daughters a couple has, the greater the effect. For instance, the parents of three girls are close to 10 percent more likely to divorce than the parents of three boys.

But at Psychology Today, Anita E. Kelly has a different hypothesis. She concludes that women who have daughters are less likely to stay in unhappy marriages because they know they’ll never be lonely with a daughter. “They may be less willing to tolerate any bad behaviours from their husbands (and less willing to stay married) because they don’t need their husbands as much,” writes Kelly.

Amazingly, unmarried couples who are expecting a boy are more likely to get married than those who are find out they’re having a girl. Kelly explains this by saying that “a woman carrying a girl anticipates that she won’t need a husband.”

Not only do parents of girls divorce more, but divorced women with daughters are substantially less likely to remarry than divorced women with sons. Is it because they already have a soul mate? That doesn’t entirely make sense to me since we all know that mothers and daughters don’t always get along.

So what else can explain the statistical difference? Are girls so difficult to raise that it drives couples apart? Or do couples simply stay together for the sake of the boys?

As the mother of two girls, I should be concerned, but mostly, I’m baffled. Can you think of any reasons parents of girls are more likely to divorce than parents of boys?

Photo: flickr/martintoy

Everyone knows that a winning smile is priceless, but in order to make sure you’ve got a set of bright white pearls, top notch oral care and hygiene is essential. That’s why we’re giving you the chance to win a Macleans Bright Sparks pack!

Babble has three Family Prize Packs to give away, each valued at over $130. The prize includes a Science book, a Science kit, an Invisible Zinc junior clip on, Macleans Advanced toothpaste, Macleans Junior Jaws toothpaste, Macleans Junior Jaws toothbrush, Macleans Flex toothbrush — basically everything you need to make sure your kids will actually want to brush their teeth!

Why all the science merchandise? It compliments the Macleans Bright Sparks website, which is a fun little site where kids can learn interesting science facts, jokes, play games and more. Perfect for their education and their teeth — what could be better?

To be in with a chance to win one of the Family Prize Packs, all you have to do is tell us in the comments section if your child still believes in the Tooth Fairy, and what you’ve done to keep it that way. If they’ve worked out the truth, how did they?

Terms and Conditions apply.

Researchers studied the ovulation cycles, frequency of intercourse and diets of women who hoped to be getting pregnant within a few months. One thing the scientists found was support for a frequently touted strategy: couples trying to have a girl increased their chances with more frequent sex, as long as they abstained immediately before or after ovulation.

More interestingly was the diet, which appeared to play a more dramatic role.

Of the 172 women in the study who were hoping for a girl (they had all previously given birth to boys), 80 of those who cut out salt and ate at least a pound of dairy each day went on to conceive girls.

An article in the UK Mail listed the girly foods, which are high in calcium or magnesium: yogurt and hard cheese, almonds, rhubarb and spinach, beans and Brazil nuts among others.

Salty and potassium-rich foods to cut out, unless your trying for a boy, are anything processed, bananas, anchovies, olives and potatoes, among others.

The fact that 80 percent of the women who were on the girl-making diet got pregnant with girls is pretty compelling. But I’d also like to know whether they were using timing method. And what percent of those on the timing method only got pregnant with girls. Can diet really make that much of a difference?

Photo: babble.com

A controversial researcher, one who claimed long hours of daycare made babies feel less loved, claims in his latest work that a girl’s march toward puberty starts in the sling. The more securely attached a girl is to her mother, the more time she’ll take going through puberty. But weak or insecure attachment means the hormones will kick in significantly sooner.

Jay Besky, of Birbeck University London, and researchers from Duke say that once-insecurely attached baby girls may account for the alarmingly young age an increasing number of girls is going through puberty. Does that make you want to quit your job? Well, let’s first try to make sense of some of their assumptions.

A recent study in the journal Pediatrics, among other articles, claim girls are undergoing puberty at a far earlier age than just a generation ago. Some claim better nutrition — even obesity — or hormone-mimicking chemicals account for this. Besky and his fellow researchers want to say the mother-child bond influences this.

But the whole business of determining the onset of puberty is very subjective. Researchers have typically said puberty starts when breasts begin to develop. But when a girls chest starts developing? There’s hardly a scientific standard. Other problems with how we’re determining at what age individuals in a population have undergone puberty our wonderfully outlined here. And the lack of diversity in the data used in the most recent panic trigger is here (hint: only white girls’ data was counted).

An even worse problem for Besky’s study are all the assumptions about how an attached child behaves (or, more poignantly, how an emotionally distant child behaves). And what, for crying out loud, attached means.

Their description of an emotionally distant child reads exactly like the behaviour of my first child, who was so inseparably attached to me that anytime I wasn’t there — say, she was with her grandmother — when I returned (after 10 minutes, people!) she would look away and ignore me. What I’m saying is that determining the attached-ness of a child to his mother is just as subjective as eyeballing chest tissue and deciding whether or not it’s breast tissue.

The Los Angeles Times tries to succinctly summarise these findings — a secure bond with your baby is good for emotional AND physical health. But don’t quit your day job if you don’t want to. Secure and happy bonds come in all shapes and sizes. Just like little girls, their pituitary glands and the internal clocks that operate them.

Photo: aboutmyplanet.com

The brief, exciting period between meeting your beloved and that first kiss is the stuff of legend. Everything after “I do” is summed up in one line: “And they lived happily ever after.”

We all know nobody gets the fairy tale happy ending. Marriage is hard work, and always a mixed blessing. Some marriages are happier than others, though. Is it love that makes the difference?

No.

Research from the journal Social Science Research shows that marriages based on practical concerns like financial stability and shared values trump those based on intimacy and love. At least in the longevity department. There’s a catch, though: people who marry their “soulmate” are happier in their marriages. At least until everything falls apart.

The research looked at what they called “soulmate” versus “institutional” viewpoints on marriage, and found that those who viewed marriage as an institution got more of what they wanted from it than the happily-ever-after-crowd.

What made the difference wasn’t the couples expectations about each other or their married life. It was the community around them. As the researchers put it:

…couples are most likely to enjoy a long-term marriage that comes close to approximating the soulmate model when they build their marriage on a firm institutional foundation that encompasses, among other things, a normative commitment to marital permanency, friends and family who support their marriage, and a religious community that lends transcendent power to their wedding vows.

In other words, a strong community supports a strong marriage. It may even count for more than the quality of your love for your spouse.

What do you think? Were you wildly in love when you got married, or thinking practically about the future? How have your feelings changed over time?

Photo

But while it is fairly easy to censor yourself and what you talk about in front of your kids, it’s much more difficult to shield them from the sexual innuendo and double entendre so prevalent in television shows and movies. Even those intended for children often contain jokes and gags that are meant to entertain the parents who are watching alongside them.

And according to a new report by the American Academy of Pediatrics, their comprehension of what they are seeing and hearing may be more than embarrassing for all involved. Recent studies have found that exposure to sexual content in television and other media in early adolescence can double a child’s risk of early sexual intercourse. How’s that for awkward?

The report, “Sexuality, Contraception, and the Media”, also finds that just as damaging as what kids are seeing in the media is what they aren’t seeing: Consequences for risky behaviour.

Keeping the television out of kid’s bedrooms and limiting how much and what they watch is the best way to protect an impressionable mind from inappropriate media content. But when hugely popular, mainstream and kid-rated movies like Toy Story 3 are slipping in M-rated zingers, what’s a parent to do?

I like to use those opportunities to talk about things that might not otherwise get talked about. A recent Back to the Future showing on television provided lots of opportunities to talk to my 10-year-old about how hormones make boys and girls act a little weird and what to do if a boy ever tries to force a kiss on her.

How do you deal with inappropriate content in what is supposed to be kid-friendly entertainment?

Photo

Do they work?

Almost, it seems.

The Boston Globe has a piece out in last week’s G Magazine about how texting, instant messaging, Skype and e-mail have changed the landscape of the long-distance love affair. Obviously, a romantic relationship is different from a parent-child relationship. But keeping in touch while far apart has some things in common no matter who you’re keeping in touch with.

The article on long distance couples suggest modern technology, especially texting, has really changed the face of the long-distance relationship.

It’s not only for the good. There are signs that absence really does make the heart grow fonder. The constant contact of texting all day long can wear down even the most ardent lover’s enthusiasm.

Can our technology really stand-in for the intimacy of face time? What does this mean for parents using modern technology to keep in touch with their kids?

Photo

Well, don’t be! If you and your son are anything like a bonobo, one of our closest primate relatives, your overbearing ways are going to push him right to the top of the ladder of success! What’s more, once he’s up there, he stands an excellent chance of finding a fertile female who will give you lots of wonderful grandchildren.

This weird bit of information, courtesy of The Daily Mail, comes after a recent study found that in the bonobo world, mid and low-ranking males tend to have more mating opportunities when their mothers get involved. Bonobo mums who chase away rivals and take an active role in their son’s social lives are rewarded with successful sons. And the aforementioned grandchildren.

As an example, the Daily Mail points to tennis champion Andy Murray. His mum is a notoriously pushy parent who stands on the sidelines and eggs her son on during matches. And Murray’s career is on fire.

So go ahead and push, but beware. If you are going to raise your son like a bonobo mother, you should also know this: Male bonobos are known for more than staying close to their mothers. They are also famous for enjoying intimate relations in group settings with whoever happens to be handy. So, there’s that.

Photo

They found that men with reported insomnia (verified in a sleep lab) were four times as likely to die during the course of the study. When hypertension or diabetes were added to the picture, the men were seven times as likely to die as the ones who reported no sleep difficulties.

It’s no surprise that sleep affects health — not getting enough zzz’s has been linked to memory loss and other chronic medical conditions. But the researchers say they were astonished to see such a big difference in mortality rates.

What did the scientists deem as “insomnia” — how many hours of rest did the men need to be considered good sleepers? And what about women?

The men who slept fewer than six hours were considered to have insomnia. Even though doctors recommend getting seven or eight per night, the cutoff at six was where researchers found the big jump. Again, they tested the subjects in sleep labs to see just how their night progressed.

Meanwhile, women showed no increased mortality when their sleep was sub-par. The scientists say they don’t know why, but they suspect women’s insomnia may not be as severe. They also studied them for 10 years, whereas they tracked the men for 14.

It’s kind of scary for me to read, because both my dad and husband have what I would call chronic sleep problems. For my dad, it’s waking up really early in the morning (he’s been known to go into his university lab at 3:00 a.m. when he can’t sleep). My husband is just a night owl and regularly goes to bed at 1:00 a.m. or later. That used to be fine, but now that we have a little built-in-kid-alarm, he’s up way too early in the morning to catch up on sleep.

Needless to say, I’ll be forwarding this study to the two most important men in my life.