Posted By Zoe Barnett In today's Daily Telegraph there is a letter to the education correspondent from a primary school teacher. This person writes that he or she is no longer allowed to use loo rolls in design technology lessons for five year olds. (I would put a link but, this being the Torygraph, I have to register first and I can't be bothered.) The reason for the ban is...you guessed it...Elf and Safety. I want to write back and say that so far as I can see there is no good reason for such a ban and that it's the sort of thing that gets our profession a bad name. However, I thought it would be more fun if we all joined in. So, please post your suggestions for the letter, preferably by Tuesday so I can email the finished version to the paper in good time. Of course, if you know of a significant hazard associated with loo rolls please let us all know! Oh, by the way, the suggested response from the education editor was that the offending objects should be microwaved (or at least that the teacher should claim that they had been). Is this a suitable response, or do the microwaves pose an even bigger risk than killer loo rolls? Discuss.

Posted By Ken Taylor I am registered, Zoe but the latest letters do not seem to be on the electronic version - so could you tell us why the loo rolls have been banned? I would like to get to the bottom of this.

Posted By geoff2 The simple answer would be to use a kitchen roll cut in half.......or are there similar issues here with stale food and multiple handling. ???

Posted By Micky There is a real issue of contamination from used rolls, but I don't think it would be an issue if we were talking about new clean ones Merv.

Posted By David J Bristow Hi Zoe Would not the re-introduction of the little square IZAL papers remove the risk of the toilet rolls? Or would this change bring about more hazards? Such as (no not going there) Regards David B

Posted By Andrew Cartridge Hi Zoe Perhaps the danger could be from contracting "Distemper" from that b****y puppy that keeps chasing them !!! Regards Andy

Posted By Nigel Souster At my son's school, egg boxes as well as loo rolls centres were put on the no.. no.. list.

Posted By Jonathan Breeze I'm surprised nobody has mentioned washing powder boxes. Here we have a product that deliberately uses enzymes to dissolve proteins. Yet we are quite happy to let kiddies handle these in spite of the fact that muscle tissue and little fingers are mostly made of protein. Quite frankly I'd rather take the risk wth the loo roll holders.

Posted By John Webster Most of the offending bugs do not survive very long on dry paper - like loo roll centres and egg boxes. I wonder if there are any recorded instances of infection being spread this way - I have my doubts.

Posted By Di Mason Never mind the kids, what about the school gerbil ?

Posted By Lilian McCartney How far does everyting have to go before some applied common sense kicks in? I once heard on the radio that flushing the loo with the lid up spreads thousands of germs to everything in the room. So, everything in the same room as flushing toilets can be 'contaminated'. Towels, tooth brushes etc etc. Maybe we should live in sterile bubbles! Seriously, once looked at germs being spread by library books, 'Infection Control' people said very little chance as most of these types of things need organic matter to live.

Posted By Richie The brass tacks issue here is the precautionary principle introduced into arenas unsuitable for such consideration. Theoretical possibility is a far cry from reasonable foreseeability, however in the safety world they are merging fast. In my view the safety profession needs to get it's act together and provide practitioners with outline guidance regarding this blurring of issues. The problem tends to be multiplied when workers are risk - averse, choosing to err on the side of caution. Not a bad thing, but when you err on the side of caution regarding a mere theoretical possibility then there is a risk of throwing babies out with the bath water (no pun intended - honest). I have to ask why such a trivial risk is being risk assessed anyhow. The HSE guides us to merely look at significant risks which are reasonably forseeable. I can only assume the intention was to ensure such obscure assessments are not entered into. From memory BS8800 gives "significant Risks" as a risk that is not trivial, eg one which is very unlikely to cause injury, and if it did the injury would be only slight. The other thing to consider regarding the toilet roll hygiene link is that where a toilet roll harbours enough pathogens to affect a person as a fomite, the likelihood would be that a mass outbreak of the pathogen would already be underway, as such pathogens would rip through a community such as a junior school by direct contact. Toilet roll centre use would be the last of the schools problems!

Posted By Jack I just hope no one from the press is following this thread. They'd have a field day.

Posted By Merv Newman A lot of disagreement between the professionals here. Some are with Zoe, some are without. Before everything goes completely down the pan, can we have a vote on this ? Please make the best use of your experience and/or qualifications and, using the "Conker" scale and scoring from 1 to 10, assess the relative importance of banning the use of toilet roll centers in school graphic design classes ? 1 = the exposure is insignificant and a case of the runs is sometimes good for you 10 = Completely Conkers Bonkers (YOU ARE ALL GOING TO DIE !) Results will be analysed and used to develop our recommendations to IOSH on the Insitute's future position on this matter. Should anyone ask for the Institute's position.

Posted By Andy Petrie I think the loo roles prepare the kids for big school. As every child knows the minute you do actually get to secondary school you are subject to constant 'bog-washing' for the first few years (does this rumour still exist? I hope so). Therefore exposure to loo roll willl help prepare the immune system for the remainder of their educational life.

Posted By JJ I have noticed that, increasingly on these forums, the subjects that seem to get the most responses are those of the least consequence. Many people it would seem are happy to while away the hours writing reams of 'piffle'. Hope Clarkson doesn't read them !

Posted By Heather Aston JJ That's because the answers to most of the "big issues" can be found by using "search". Despite the seemingly trivial subject matter here, the principle of whether the profession is being dragged down into the mud by overzealous application of "elf & safety" by all and sundry is a most important one for us to discuss. I particularly liked the way Richie put it earlier in this thread about the merging of theoretical possibility and reasonable forseeability becmoming ever more common in today's world. Do you really not think this is a subject of importance to safety pracittioners - I know I do. Oh and Merv - 1 from me. Heather

Posted By Ken Taylor I'm a bit worried that the Merv scale of risk assessment may catch on - so I'll just call it a 'low'. However it might be prudent to exercise some control over the exchange of rolls in case a child goes down with some disease and the parent decides to take issue with the school for supplying contaminated educational material - just to avoid the associated stress and paperwork.

Posted By Zoe Barnett Morning all! Having been off on a course for a couple of days I am gratified by the response. As I understand it from what I see in other schools the issue is around the cardboard centres of the loo rolls. These are usually brought in from home. To my mind this means that any bugs present on them will already be in the school population as they will have been brought in by the child from the affected home and therefore lessens any possible hazard even further. I think a response discussing the problems of theoretical risks being taken too seriously is in order. That was the main thrust of my post really; that we really need to get a grip on this before the world grinds to a halt. And just to be awkward, I give the problem 1 and a half on the Merv Scale (which I think should be adopted nationally. After all, it's concise, realistic and comprehensible. What more do we need?!)

Posted By Andy Petrie I doubt very much that replacing a free resource, loo roles, with bought ones would have a low cost. Given the budget of most schools I see it as an unnecessary cost. Also if you store loads of these roles in the school aren't you increasing the fire risk?