In the two studies, carried out in Chicago and New York, the general procedure was the same, A bacteria ologist went to each of the telephones he had selected, wiped a sterile moistened swab over the mouthpiece of the telephone transmitter, and then in the laboratory made cultures from the swab to determine the kind of bacteria present. In the Chicago study, 100 public telephones were so examined in a general search for various kinds of bacteria, and 100 additional telephones in. a specific search for tuberculosis bacteria. In the New York study about 250 telephones, most of them public tele-the transmitter. There was also some indication that the exposure of pathobenic bacteria on the transmitter mouthpiece causes a material loss in their potency.
It was also shown by both groups of investigators that there was re-natively small chance of) bacteria on the mouthpiece of a transmitter being removed by talking into it or being picked up by the talker. 2 The complete statements as to the public health conclusions of Dr. Jordan and Dr. Emerson are given in the "Quarterly" article. The final paragraph of Dr. Jordan's statement Taking into ce: ly small numbers of bacteria mitted from the mouth to the telephone mouthpieces and their short life in this Situation, and also the evidence that disease germs on the mouthpieces of much used public telephones are certainly not common and probably rare ard. having in mind tongues is a matter within of the individual as compieiciy tongue-moistening of postage stamps, it is my belief that routine cisirfection of all public telephones would not be a Justihable public health 1uquiremens "To be of any conceivable practical value such disinfection would have to be carried out after each use of the instrument, Even so there would remain so many other sources of contact for every active city-dweller that the effect of such disinfection on the spread of disease would in my opinion be negligible.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.