|
Post by nightangel1282 on Jul 15, 2011 12:56:20 GMT -5
This SUCKS! I was hoping to go to Vancouver and give this a try one of these years when I had money... ca.news.yahoo.com/health-authority-orders-no-more-nibbling-vancouver-island-083727468.htmlSeriously, Health Canada... FUCK OFF! What next? Shutting down beaches and public swimming pools? Banning people from having aquariums in their home? Oh wait, you don't like natural, viable ways to treat ANY condition, no matter how minor, outside of a doctors office because you'll lose precious money. Just fuck you Health Canada! Edit: I wasn't sure where to put this. If it's in the wrong place, feel free to move it to where it belongs...
|
|
|
Post by DeadpanDoubter on Jul 15, 2011 19:41:33 GMT -5
I dunno, some of the worries seem legit...not sure what sort of human-loving viruses or bacteria could survive in the fishies, but if there are some, then it's very possible for someone to catch some nasty shit, right? So unless you have individualized tanks with fish that aren't ever used for more than one person in particular (and really, how feasible is that?) I'm not sure how this could work.
...I wonder if the nibbling tickles?
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Jul 15, 2011 20:05:36 GMT -5
I've heard it does.
I think you're following slippery slope logic here, nightangel.
|
|
|
Post by shykid on Jul 15, 2011 20:22:13 GMT -5
Health Canada has always been a little too paranoid (though I'd prefer that to being under-paranoid). The health worries here are possibly legit, though.
However, as far as I know, so far nothing bad has happened from this "treatment" in Canada or elsewhere, and there is very little to no serious medical or health research on it, so I can't say a ban is appropriate until something bad does happen (if it does) or there is adequate research showing a significant public-health risk. In the meantime, I think accommodating routine health inspections for this fad is sufficient—swab the tanks, take vials of the water, and scrape off some fish scales for analysis or something. (I fail biology forever, so I don't know what exactly would be adequate.) Clients could also sign waivers saying they can't hold the salon owner or workers liable for the consequences of this "treatment."
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Jul 15, 2011 20:58:49 GMT -5
Shykid, that sounds reasonable at first, but that is a poor method to test for microbes. The biggest problem is that it takes 48 hours before you know the results of a test. And for something like that to be effective you need to test daily. As the article said, the UV method still leaves nasty things in the water. There is also the issue of microbes traveling from fish to humans directly instead of them just being present in the water and there are known issues with aquariums.
My thought is, since this is different than a typical aquarium, to issue a temporary ban (prudence is a good thing with public health) and study the health risks. If the risks are comparable to other pedicures, let them continue. This isn't some big health benefit, it's a fad for people with too much money.
|
|
|
Post by shykid on Jul 15, 2011 21:23:48 GMT -5
This is why I am not a public-health inspector.
I also just don't understand why people would want to do this anyway.
|
|
|
Post by RavynousHunter on Jul 15, 2011 22:51:59 GMT -5
Because river water is dirty.
|
|
|
Post by Tiberius on Jul 16, 2011 0:03:04 GMT -5
I would state my opinion, but deadpan just about covered it, so just read what he said in my voice.
Also. Might help your case if you mentioned what you were talking about in the thread title.
|
|
|
Post by The_L on Jul 16, 2011 6:13:06 GMT -5
Because river water is dirty. My sediments exactly.
|
|
|
Post by nightangel1282 on Jul 16, 2011 11:05:10 GMT -5
Well, personally, I'd rather have fish tickling my feet and getting all that hard skin off THAT way than by using the conventional methods with a coral stone and all that crap that people use these days.
BTW... Please tell me what "slippery slope" means? I've seen you guys use that term lots, but I'm not clear on what exactly it means.
Going out for the day with a friend, so I won't be able to respond until sometime tonight.
|
|
|
Post by DeadpanDoubter on Jul 16, 2011 18:41:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by nightangel1282 on Jul 16, 2011 19:04:26 GMT -5
Ooooohhhh... ok, thanks for the link. But the problem I have is that they are primarily concerned about the spread of germs and the spread of disease. But you can go into a crowded elevator and catch the flu from someone. Going to a public beach can get you sick, etc... My problem with the situation is... where do you cross the line? I can see them asking the woman to hand out pamphlets to tell her clients the RISKS involved, but shutting her down entirely? That's just stupid. It should be up to the individual person whether or not they want to use that method, not the government. They have the same technique in use in several countries around the world, and the cases where someone actually gets SICK from it are very few and far between. You stand a higher chance of getting sick by visiting someone in a HOSPITAL than you do going to this place. I just don't know. It doesn't sound right to me. It sounds like Health Canada is just afraid of losing money over this, and are hiding behind the argument that people's health might be at risk.
|
|
|
Post by DeadpanDoubter on Jul 16, 2011 19:28:52 GMT -5
Ooooohhhh... ok, thanks for the link. But the problem I have is that they are primarily concerned about the spread of germs and the spread of disease. But you can go into a crowded elevator and catch the flu from someone. Going to a public beach can get you sick, etc... My problem with the situation is... where do you cross the line? I can see them asking the woman to hand out pamphlets to tell her clients the RISKS involved, but shutting her down entirely? That's just stupid. It should be up to the individual person whether or not they want to use that method, not the government. They have the same technique in use in several countries around the world, and the cases where someone actually gets SICK from it are very few and far between. You stand a higher chance of getting sick by visiting someone in a HOSPITAL than you do going to this place. I just don't know. It doesn't sound right to me. It sounds like Health Canada is just afraid of losing money over this, and are hiding behind the argument that people's health might be at risk. The problem is that communicable diseases, and especially terminal, communicable diseases, might can be spread in this way, especially if blood or other bodily fluids are involved. I mean, no, the fish don't seem carnivorous, but people do and can get cuts/splits on their feet and lower legs, which could introduce fluids into the water/fish, which could then spread the disease(s) to others. So, basically, like Vene said, it needs more study, but I personally think it sounds dangerous.
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon the Clown on Jul 16, 2011 21:49:51 GMT -5
There's a reason swimming pools have chlorine in them, and it's not just to prevent algae from growing. It also reduces microbes that can harm you. Chlorine? Surprisingly enough, it sorta kills fish.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Jul 16, 2011 21:51:05 GMT -5
Wouldn't Health Canada make more money from having to treat the diseases? How would they make money from pedicures?
|
|