Dr, Emerson ends his statement with the following:
Until the requirement and technique of our ordinary conduct of life has gone fay beyond any present common prac-tite, the telephone mouthpiece will continue to create no greater sanita hazard than that of the hand rail, the door knob and articles in frequent cor-fact with human hands and exposed to air borne dust.
No sanitary code authority and no time, money or personnel of health departments should be applied in a vain hope that communicable disease will be to any extent reduced by some theorem tically possible but practically futile Gompulsory anti-bacterial—measure intended to make the telephone instrument even occasionally or intermittently sterile, With the bacteriologist's facts and resources available to us, and no epidemiological evidence running coun-it ought not to re city councils wards of health to be forced into injudicious and profiles sanitary regulation of the public telephone.
These conclusions of Dr. Jordan and Dr. Emerson that the telephone is unimportant from the standı of public health are of interest to many—to the large telephone using public and also to those responsible for providing telephone service. To the latter, it is gratifying to know that the current bacteriological and public health findings confirm the past opinions and experience that the telephone instrument has no greater potentiality in transmitting disease than the many other objects of daily use.
To telephone user, and particularly those to whom this may have been a matter of concern, it reassuring to have authori vice that, as regards the p of transmitting disease, treat the telephone as they do other objects with which they come in daily contact. Furthermore, it is well recognized that such inanimate Objects are far less important in public health considerations than €xpesure to and contact with huma" carriers of infect
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.