This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I'm not sure if the point of the 5 second rule is that no bacteria gets on your food after five seconds or that there is less so its safer. Regardless, check out this nytimes article on the subject: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/09/dining/09curi.html?em&ex=1178942400&en=69f69e372c952897&ei=5087%0A . They point out in the study that the longer food is left on a contaminated surface, the more bacteria accumulates on the food. Regardless of how fast its removed, there still is going to be bacteria so the bigger question is whether or not that small amount is enough to get you sick versus a larger amount if it was exposed for a longer period of time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.110.141 ( talk) 17:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone else remember the VW commercial - maybe late '90's - I think it was a Jetta commercial (oh, those Gen X'ers)... The conceit was that a young father was shocked at his sudden responsibility, and was relying on his new Jetta to keep his offspring safe. The audio of the commercial, if I remember correctly, was: "It is absolutely ridiculous to think that I am now responsible for another human life. Now I'm the one saying 'Don't eat the cookie on the floor,' when all I'm really thinking is 'Thirty second rule.' That cookie just hit the floor. That cookie is still good."
If I'm not completely cracked and this actually did air on TV, would it be a candidate for a "Media refs" section?
What the heck is an lg Nobel Prize? Is this a joke? Mothperson 20 March 2005
I can't believe there have been so many studies done on this. Cool article; good work, editors. Garret Albright 06:20, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
For some reason this is the funniest article I've read on Wikipedia. I think because it is written in a dead-serious tone. And I like this line: "The five second rule is sometimes called the three-second rule, 10-second rule, or the 15-second rule, to some extent depending on the quality of the food involved or the intoxication level of the individual quoting the rule." ...this is genius. Nice article, good job everyone!-- Bigplankton 00:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
My favorite is "It should also be noted that this rule generally does not extend to fluid food like yogurt." :-) 85.227.226.235 ( talk) 09:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Unless extraordinary measures are taken (e.g. in " clean rooms"), air has suspended dust. Dust contains germs. So contact with air causes germ contamination too. Human skin hosts large populations of germs. Yet the 5-sec rule is only for food that has been in contact with the floor, not hands or air. Perhaps it's only due to psycological (or cultural) factors that we feel the floor as "unclean" and the surronding air as "clean".
I find the following reasoning confusing:
because, earlier, the article says:
Ok, so scientists show people are wrong when thinking dry picks up more germs. But, somehow, this justifies the five second rule after all?
On initial reading, I suppose that I equated sweet with dry which heightens this confusion even more. However, I suppose you can have wet ice cream and dry potato chips.
Still, the "from this" reasoning does not follow. I'm imagining two curves for dry and wet on a graph with axes time vs bacterial count. So, if the dry curve bends upwards more rapidly then, yes, the five second rule does apply more strongly to dry. On the other hand, the dry/wet curves could grow asymptotically closer over time thus making the five second rule apply more strongly to wet.
I do like this article but the reasoning needs to be explained a bit more.
WpZurp 15:02, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I like this article as well. Would a mention of the common act of kissing (fallen food) up to God be appropriate? func (talk) 02:48, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
In the discipline (I'm not keen on calling it a sport) of ice dancing, the term "five second rule" refers to the requirement that partners never be separated for longer than 5 seconds. The article hasn't been written yet, and would probably be a Wiktionary item, but does anyone have any ideas on providing the disambig without damaging this article here? — Bill 12:38, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
At least around these parts ( Toronto/ Canada):
The removal of shoes in homes sometimes observes a variation on the five second rule, where a person will skip through the home hurredly with their shoes on instead of removing their footwear. -- Sy 10:38, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Removed:
Cite please? -- Anon.
How about this? Searching for "Genghis Khan 20 hours" on Google found lots of results. [1]
If you don't object, I'd like to restore this tidbit to the article. -- 134.210.176.166 16:52, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The article " About the five-second rule and Genghis Khan" by Rick Ryckeley connects Genghis Khan and the 5-second rule, but it looks like this is semi-fictional in order to set up a joke/pun involving "Khanned"/"conned". Perhaps someone didn't get the joke and started spreading the story as if it were fact? That would be one urban legend piled on top of another urban legend -- surely worth mentioning in the article. On the other hand, if Genghis Khan really did have such a rule -- that would also be worth mentioning in the article. Alas, I don't know yet one way or the other, or I would have surely updated the article accordingly. -- DavidCary 22:47, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
In the book "Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World", it says that during the festivities, it was a 12 hour rule (although I highly doubt the exact timing). ~ user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 03:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Sam Lehman did a comical short film on the five second rule. Edited by Dan Regner.
A link was present to the Osmosis Jones article under "see also". Osmosis Jones doesn't seem to have that much to do with the Five Second Rule, other than the fact that one character started the main infection in the movie due to it. However, there are references to this all over fiction/literature, it seems odd to have only Osmosis Jones linked, if anything. It doesn't contribute to one's knowledge on the subject either, nor is it directly linked or blahblabhlah. Add it back in if you must, but I thought this looked very out of place in an "Encyclopedia" 24.76.141.132 01:38, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I always thought this was the dictat which stated that a vacated seat is fair game if it has been vacant for five seconds, unless the former occupant of the chair is on a group errand - i.e. they are out of their seat doing something for someone else, e.g. buying a round of drinks, etc. The minimum size for the "group" is 1, provided that single person is not the same person who has just vacated the seat. In the case where the former seatholder is in the group, the minimum size is 2 - e.g. buying a drink for yourself and one other person qualifies as group errand. Under the Imperial system, prior to ISO adopting this rule and metricising it, it was previously the Three-Second Rule. Chris 23:40, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I have rewritten the research section. Before my rewrite, the text was confusing and did not accurately represent the sources cited. For example, the text suggested that two different sets of experiments were performed at the U of I. This does not seem to be the case -- the only experiments the sources reference are those performed by Jillian Clarke.
To me, the experiments performed by Ramu and Barker seem worthless. No explanation is provided for the results, which seem like they could have resulted simply from sloppy experimental technique. Perhaps the explanation of the experiment that we have is faulty? Anyway, I think it should be deleted if we can't find a better source with a more complete explanation.
NoahB 20:28, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
A search of google finds only the article we reference (as well as Wikipedia mirror sites.) I'm going to delete the passage if nobody objects within a couple of days.
NoahB 20:35, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
Okay, no one has objected. I reread the article on the Ramu and Barker experiment, and it still seems extremely dubious. It isn't described clearly, the results seem nonsensical (cheese loses bacteria after it's been on the floor? why?) It also seems to contradict the results found by Clarke in her much more rigorous experiment. Finally, it's not notable -- only one reference on google, and that in what appears to be a university newsletter, not a peer-reviewed journal in any sense (the Clarke study has been peer-reviewed and is referenced all over the internet.)
For all these reasons, I am going to eliminate the discussion of the Ramu/Barker experiment.
NoahB 19:17, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
Are you one of those people who ignore scientific experiments when the results don't confirm your pre-conceived notions? Many kinds of cheese (and yoghurt) are made using bacteria, and food with a few bites taken out of it has some bacteria from not-perfectly-sterile hands and from human saliva. (Do I need to mention Talk:Backwash ?) If such bacteria-laden food slams into a floor recently cleaned with some sort of anti-bacterial cleanser, I'm not surprised that the bacteria count goes down. -- DavidCary 22:47, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
NoahB 14:36, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
NoahB 15:47, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
There's pretty limited research in the burgeoning field of time-delayed food retrieval in the context of bacteria transference, so any research is pretty significant. Why not mention the experiment, but point out where the research seems ambiguous or weak. (And if the experiment was published somewhere, maybe we can get a copy of it to have a better understanding of it.) If we don't mention the experiment, then it's as if it didn't exist. -- cprompt 14:32, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
Strikes me as shockingly Americocentric article. I know for a fact that it is a 'tradition' much wider than North America. It is common among British people certainly. Maybe there shouldn't be an adjective on 'old wive's tale' at the beginning.... ~
This should be moved back to five-second rule. That is the name under which it is most commonly known. -- DropDeadGorgias (talk) 18:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Does anyone have any sort of references for the Brazillian saying? MosheZadka 20:55, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Without references or sources, the entire "related rules" section is suspect. Unless someone cites sources, I shall remove the entire section in a week. -- Perfecto 23:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what the idiomatic expressions are doing in this article. Can somebody elaborate on why they are needed, or else delete that section?
Someone should remove the seating rule. I have never heard of it, I have never been in a public place and seen someone call a seat not even when I was a little kid. Generally if someone vacates their seat at a busy event, their seat is taken immediately.
I needed to say it LOL -- euyyn 23:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Maybe I'm being too anal but ...
It is kind of unclear what this article is trying to do. There are some things that are unsubstantiated "weasel worded" statements (e.g. I don't see references to back up the "unusually invoked" and "seldom applied" statements. One can argue that "everybody knows this" but if that's really true then you don't really need an article). I'm not sure if the author is attempting to be humorous or what. I realize this is not the most serious of subjects but, for the sake of uniform quality in the encyclopedia, it is worth trying to try to clean up a little. Also, the idioms section is somewhat long for a list that, while interesting, is only vaguely related to the topic. Just my opinion ... -- Mcorazao 05:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Its always been the ten-second rule where I grew up and learnt it. I'm guessing the people who claim five seconds are just more paranoid about it. I've picked up and eaten things that have been on the floor for hours before with no harmful effect. ~ SotiCoto 195.33.121.133 11:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
This definitely isnt one 24.175.111.135 06:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
The Clemson U. faculty research page ( http://www.clemson.edu/foodscience/facultyresearch.htm) is currently under construction, so I can only cite the NY Times article that references Professor Dawson's study. Can anyone find a more direct source? Darkfrog24 13:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
According to the urban legend page, an urban legend is (i) a story, (ii) thought to be factual by those circulating it. Neither is true for the five-second rule, is it? It's certainly not a story: there's no narrative, characters or so on. And no one actually thinks that dropped food generally remains clean but only for a specific, brief quantum of time, do they? 198.96.36.131 ( talk) 16:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Should this really be here? It doesn't seem important, there's probably hundreds of references to the five second rule. I think that part belongs on the Smosh page... If anyone disagrees, just kick me. Futuremyst ( talk) 17:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
No, you're absolutely right. I removed it. -- James599 ( talk) 01:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Is it just me, or does the article seem to have shrunk in half since a few months ago? -- cprompt ( talk) 03:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
A variation we had when I was a student was the 'five inch rule'. i.e. it was safe to eat something unless it had been within five inches of the floor (or most other surfaces, given the state of our digs) 91.109.184.157 ( talk) 15:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that someone had changed the description of the rule in the opening paragraph to "5-minute rule." The title of the article is clearly "5-second rule," so I changed the opening paragraph back. I understand that there are variations to the rule, with some people recognizing 3 seconds, 10 seconds, or even 5 minutes. The article addresses these variants later. Sghalltn ( talk) 17:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I removed the section headed "possible origin" because it reeks of a hoax. If anyone can provide a source, please restore it and accept my apologies. Until then, it's original research. ➥the Epopt ( talk) 14:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
An episode of the above show addresses a different rule of the same name: shouldn't there be a see also linking to the article about that episode? 195.189.143.222 ( talk) 19:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Am I mistaken or did they use the 5 second rule on that show after dropping an organ on the floor? Dear lord people are just stupid! Someone should thank them for further implanting stupidity in viewers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.66.214.175 ( talk) 01:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Five-second rule/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
i call it the 1 second rule =) |
Last edited at 06:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 14:47, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I'm not sure if the point of the 5 second rule is that no bacteria gets on your food after five seconds or that there is less so its safer. Regardless, check out this nytimes article on the subject: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/09/dining/09curi.html?em&ex=1178942400&en=69f69e372c952897&ei=5087%0A . They point out in the study that the longer food is left on a contaminated surface, the more bacteria accumulates on the food. Regardless of how fast its removed, there still is going to be bacteria so the bigger question is whether or not that small amount is enough to get you sick versus a larger amount if it was exposed for a longer period of time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.110.141 ( talk) 17:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone else remember the VW commercial - maybe late '90's - I think it was a Jetta commercial (oh, those Gen X'ers)... The conceit was that a young father was shocked at his sudden responsibility, and was relying on his new Jetta to keep his offspring safe. The audio of the commercial, if I remember correctly, was: "It is absolutely ridiculous to think that I am now responsible for another human life. Now I'm the one saying 'Don't eat the cookie on the floor,' when all I'm really thinking is 'Thirty second rule.' That cookie just hit the floor. That cookie is still good."
If I'm not completely cracked and this actually did air on TV, would it be a candidate for a "Media refs" section?
What the heck is an lg Nobel Prize? Is this a joke? Mothperson 20 March 2005
I can't believe there have been so many studies done on this. Cool article; good work, editors. Garret Albright 06:20, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
For some reason this is the funniest article I've read on Wikipedia. I think because it is written in a dead-serious tone. And I like this line: "The five second rule is sometimes called the three-second rule, 10-second rule, or the 15-second rule, to some extent depending on the quality of the food involved or the intoxication level of the individual quoting the rule." ...this is genius. Nice article, good job everyone!-- Bigplankton 00:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
My favorite is "It should also be noted that this rule generally does not extend to fluid food like yogurt." :-) 85.227.226.235 ( talk) 09:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Unless extraordinary measures are taken (e.g. in " clean rooms"), air has suspended dust. Dust contains germs. So contact with air causes germ contamination too. Human skin hosts large populations of germs. Yet the 5-sec rule is only for food that has been in contact with the floor, not hands or air. Perhaps it's only due to psycological (or cultural) factors that we feel the floor as "unclean" and the surronding air as "clean".
I find the following reasoning confusing:
because, earlier, the article says:
Ok, so scientists show people are wrong when thinking dry picks up more germs. But, somehow, this justifies the five second rule after all?
On initial reading, I suppose that I equated sweet with dry which heightens this confusion even more. However, I suppose you can have wet ice cream and dry potato chips.
Still, the "from this" reasoning does not follow. I'm imagining two curves for dry and wet on a graph with axes time vs bacterial count. So, if the dry curve bends upwards more rapidly then, yes, the five second rule does apply more strongly to dry. On the other hand, the dry/wet curves could grow asymptotically closer over time thus making the five second rule apply more strongly to wet.
I do like this article but the reasoning needs to be explained a bit more.
WpZurp 15:02, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I like this article as well. Would a mention of the common act of kissing (fallen food) up to God be appropriate? func (talk) 02:48, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
In the discipline (I'm not keen on calling it a sport) of ice dancing, the term "five second rule" refers to the requirement that partners never be separated for longer than 5 seconds. The article hasn't been written yet, and would probably be a Wiktionary item, but does anyone have any ideas on providing the disambig without damaging this article here? — Bill 12:38, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
At least around these parts ( Toronto/ Canada):
The removal of shoes in homes sometimes observes a variation on the five second rule, where a person will skip through the home hurredly with their shoes on instead of removing their footwear. -- Sy 10:38, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Removed:
Cite please? -- Anon.
How about this? Searching for "Genghis Khan 20 hours" on Google found lots of results. [1]
If you don't object, I'd like to restore this tidbit to the article. -- 134.210.176.166 16:52, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The article " About the five-second rule and Genghis Khan" by Rick Ryckeley connects Genghis Khan and the 5-second rule, but it looks like this is semi-fictional in order to set up a joke/pun involving "Khanned"/"conned". Perhaps someone didn't get the joke and started spreading the story as if it were fact? That would be one urban legend piled on top of another urban legend -- surely worth mentioning in the article. On the other hand, if Genghis Khan really did have such a rule -- that would also be worth mentioning in the article. Alas, I don't know yet one way or the other, or I would have surely updated the article accordingly. -- DavidCary 22:47, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
In the book "Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World", it says that during the festivities, it was a 12 hour rule (although I highly doubt the exact timing). ~ user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 03:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Sam Lehman did a comical short film on the five second rule. Edited by Dan Regner.
A link was present to the Osmosis Jones article under "see also". Osmosis Jones doesn't seem to have that much to do with the Five Second Rule, other than the fact that one character started the main infection in the movie due to it. However, there are references to this all over fiction/literature, it seems odd to have only Osmosis Jones linked, if anything. It doesn't contribute to one's knowledge on the subject either, nor is it directly linked or blahblabhlah. Add it back in if you must, but I thought this looked very out of place in an "Encyclopedia" 24.76.141.132 01:38, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I always thought this was the dictat which stated that a vacated seat is fair game if it has been vacant for five seconds, unless the former occupant of the chair is on a group errand - i.e. they are out of their seat doing something for someone else, e.g. buying a round of drinks, etc. The minimum size for the "group" is 1, provided that single person is not the same person who has just vacated the seat. In the case where the former seatholder is in the group, the minimum size is 2 - e.g. buying a drink for yourself and one other person qualifies as group errand. Under the Imperial system, prior to ISO adopting this rule and metricising it, it was previously the Three-Second Rule. Chris 23:40, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I have rewritten the research section. Before my rewrite, the text was confusing and did not accurately represent the sources cited. For example, the text suggested that two different sets of experiments were performed at the U of I. This does not seem to be the case -- the only experiments the sources reference are those performed by Jillian Clarke.
To me, the experiments performed by Ramu and Barker seem worthless. No explanation is provided for the results, which seem like they could have resulted simply from sloppy experimental technique. Perhaps the explanation of the experiment that we have is faulty? Anyway, I think it should be deleted if we can't find a better source with a more complete explanation.
NoahB 20:28, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
A search of google finds only the article we reference (as well as Wikipedia mirror sites.) I'm going to delete the passage if nobody objects within a couple of days.
NoahB 20:35, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
Okay, no one has objected. I reread the article on the Ramu and Barker experiment, and it still seems extremely dubious. It isn't described clearly, the results seem nonsensical (cheese loses bacteria after it's been on the floor? why?) It also seems to contradict the results found by Clarke in her much more rigorous experiment. Finally, it's not notable -- only one reference on google, and that in what appears to be a university newsletter, not a peer-reviewed journal in any sense (the Clarke study has been peer-reviewed and is referenced all over the internet.)
For all these reasons, I am going to eliminate the discussion of the Ramu/Barker experiment.
NoahB 19:17, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
Are you one of those people who ignore scientific experiments when the results don't confirm your pre-conceived notions? Many kinds of cheese (and yoghurt) are made using bacteria, and food with a few bites taken out of it has some bacteria from not-perfectly-sterile hands and from human saliva. (Do I need to mention Talk:Backwash ?) If such bacteria-laden food slams into a floor recently cleaned with some sort of anti-bacterial cleanser, I'm not surprised that the bacteria count goes down. -- DavidCary 22:47, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
NoahB 14:36, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
NoahB 15:47, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
There's pretty limited research in the burgeoning field of time-delayed food retrieval in the context of bacteria transference, so any research is pretty significant. Why not mention the experiment, but point out where the research seems ambiguous or weak. (And if the experiment was published somewhere, maybe we can get a copy of it to have a better understanding of it.) If we don't mention the experiment, then it's as if it didn't exist. -- cprompt 14:32, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
Strikes me as shockingly Americocentric article. I know for a fact that it is a 'tradition' much wider than North America. It is common among British people certainly. Maybe there shouldn't be an adjective on 'old wive's tale' at the beginning.... ~
This should be moved back to five-second rule. That is the name under which it is most commonly known. -- DropDeadGorgias (talk) 18:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Does anyone have any sort of references for the Brazillian saying? MosheZadka 20:55, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Without references or sources, the entire "related rules" section is suspect. Unless someone cites sources, I shall remove the entire section in a week. -- Perfecto 23:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what the idiomatic expressions are doing in this article. Can somebody elaborate on why they are needed, or else delete that section?
Someone should remove the seating rule. I have never heard of it, I have never been in a public place and seen someone call a seat not even when I was a little kid. Generally if someone vacates their seat at a busy event, their seat is taken immediately.
I needed to say it LOL -- euyyn 23:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Maybe I'm being too anal but ...
It is kind of unclear what this article is trying to do. There are some things that are unsubstantiated "weasel worded" statements (e.g. I don't see references to back up the "unusually invoked" and "seldom applied" statements. One can argue that "everybody knows this" but if that's really true then you don't really need an article). I'm not sure if the author is attempting to be humorous or what. I realize this is not the most serious of subjects but, for the sake of uniform quality in the encyclopedia, it is worth trying to try to clean up a little. Also, the idioms section is somewhat long for a list that, while interesting, is only vaguely related to the topic. Just my opinion ... -- Mcorazao 05:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Its always been the ten-second rule where I grew up and learnt it. I'm guessing the people who claim five seconds are just more paranoid about it. I've picked up and eaten things that have been on the floor for hours before with no harmful effect. ~ SotiCoto 195.33.121.133 11:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
This definitely isnt one 24.175.111.135 06:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
The Clemson U. faculty research page ( http://www.clemson.edu/foodscience/facultyresearch.htm) is currently under construction, so I can only cite the NY Times article that references Professor Dawson's study. Can anyone find a more direct source? Darkfrog24 13:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
According to the urban legend page, an urban legend is (i) a story, (ii) thought to be factual by those circulating it. Neither is true for the five-second rule, is it? It's certainly not a story: there's no narrative, characters or so on. And no one actually thinks that dropped food generally remains clean but only for a specific, brief quantum of time, do they? 198.96.36.131 ( talk) 16:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Should this really be here? It doesn't seem important, there's probably hundreds of references to the five second rule. I think that part belongs on the Smosh page... If anyone disagrees, just kick me. Futuremyst ( talk) 17:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
No, you're absolutely right. I removed it. -- James599 ( talk) 01:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Is it just me, or does the article seem to have shrunk in half since a few months ago? -- cprompt ( talk) 03:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
A variation we had when I was a student was the 'five inch rule'. i.e. it was safe to eat something unless it had been within five inches of the floor (or most other surfaces, given the state of our digs) 91.109.184.157 ( talk) 15:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that someone had changed the description of the rule in the opening paragraph to "5-minute rule." The title of the article is clearly "5-second rule," so I changed the opening paragraph back. I understand that there are variations to the rule, with some people recognizing 3 seconds, 10 seconds, or even 5 minutes. The article addresses these variants later. Sghalltn ( talk) 17:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I removed the section headed "possible origin" because it reeks of a hoax. If anyone can provide a source, please restore it and accept my apologies. Until then, it's original research. ➥the Epopt ( talk) 14:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
An episode of the above show addresses a different rule of the same name: shouldn't there be a see also linking to the article about that episode? 195.189.143.222 ( talk) 19:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Am I mistaken or did they use the 5 second rule on that show after dropping an organ on the floor? Dear lord people are just stupid! Someone should thank them for further implanting stupidity in viewers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.66.214.175 ( talk) 01:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Five-second rule/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
i call it the 1 second rule =) |
Last edited at 06:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 14:47, 1 May 2016 (UTC)