How Bad Is it to Go Weeks Without Washing Your Office Coffee Mug?

iStock
iStock

Even if you run your dishwasher nightly at home, it’s likely been a few weeks (if not months) since your office coffee mug received more than a casual rinse. But is this more than just a bad habit? According to The Wall Street Journal, your crusty cup isn't a breeding ground for harmful, disease-causing germs. In fact, washing it with a communal kitchen sponge is likely worse for you than letting your mug sit at your desk.

Organisms and bacteria can multiply inside your mug if you fill it with liquid and touch it with your lips and hands—but the good news is that these germs probably won’t make you ill. For one thing, most viruses can’t survive for more than an hour on a stationary object. Also, even if you are feeling under the weather, it’s hard to reinfect yourself with a virus you’ve already contracted.

And while sharing mugs with your coworkers likely won't make you sick, you'd be better off keeping your mug to yourself during cold and flu season.

In short, an unwashed mug probably won’t harm your health or anyone else's (unless it’s moldy, in which case you should scrub it out ASAP). But if you do decide your go-to cup is due for a wash, steer clear of the office kitchen sponge. It’s been used to clean countless dirty surfaces, and it stays wet for hours, allowing germs to thrive and multiply. “The sponge in the break room probably has the highest bacteria count of anything in the office,” Jeffrey Starke, former director of infection control at Texas Children’s Hospital, told The Wall Street Journal. Instead, wash the mug by hand using hot water and liquid soap, and dry it with a paper towel. (Or bring it home and run it through the dishwasher.)

[h/t Science of Us]

Kodak’s New Cameras Don't Just Take Photos—They Also Print Them

Your Instagram account wishes it had this clout.
Your Instagram account wishes it had this clout.
Kodak

Snapping a photo and immediately sharing it on social media is definitely convenient, but there’s still something so satisfying about having the printed photo—like you’re actually holding the memory in your hands. Kodak’s new STEP cameras now offer the best of both worlds.

As its name implies, the Kodak STEP Instant Print Digital Camera, available for $70 on Amazon, lets you take a picture and print it out on that very same device. Not only do you get to skip the irksome process of uploading photos to your computer and printing them on your bulky, non-portable printer (or worse yet, having to wait for your local pharmacy to print them for you), but you never need to bother with ink cartridges or toner, either. The Kodak STEP comes with special 2-inch-by-3-inch printing paper inlaid with color crystals that bring your image to life. There’s also an adhesive layer on the back, so you can easily stick your photos to laptop covers, scrapbooks, or whatever else could use a little adornment.

There's a 10-second self-timer, so you don't have to ask strangers to take your group photos.Kodak

For those of you who want to give your photos some added flair, you might like the Kodak STEP Touch, available for $130 from Amazon. It’s similar to the regular Kodak STEP, but the LCD touch screen allows you to edit your photos before you print them; you can also shoot short videos and even share your content straight to social media.

If you want to print photos from your smartphone gallery, there's the Kodak STEP Instant Mobile Photo Printer. This portable $80 printer connects to any iOS or Android device with Bluetooth capabilities and can print whatever photos you send to it.

The Kodak STEP Instant Mobile Photo Printer connects to an app that allows you to add filters and other effects to your photos. Kodak

All three Kodak STEP devices come with some of that magical printer paper, but you can order additional refills, too—a 20-sheet set costs $8 on Amazon.

This article contains affiliate links to products selected by our editors. Mental Floss may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.

What Is the Citizenship of a Baby Born on an International Flight?

Nadezhda1906/iStock via Getty Images
Nadezhda1906/iStock via Getty Images

It's pretty standard medical advice: a pregnant woman shouldn’t travel via airplane 36 weeks or later into her pregnancy. Despite that precaution, an occasional bundle of joy may still add an unexpected passenger to the flight manifest. As if giving birth at 40,000 feet wasn't already a stressful experience for a new mom, things can get even more hectic upon landing: Depending on the details surrounding the birth, her newborn’s citizenship could be up for debate.

There is no universal rule for how a country determines the citizenship of a newborn. Some countries just follow the jus sanguinis (right of blood) law, which means a baby’s nationality is determined by that of one or both parents. Others observe that rule and jus soli (right of the soil), where a country grants citizenship to a baby that’s simply born on its soil, regardless of the parents’ origin. These countries are mostly in the Americas and include the United States and Canada. And with the expansion of air travel, these laws had to extend to the heavens as well.

If a baby is born over United States airspace, the jus soli rule means the child would be granted U.S. citizenship, according to the Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual. Depending on the circumstances, the child may also be a candidate for dual citizenship if its parents are from a country that grants citizenship based on blood—though that would depend on the countries involved.

This same simplicity doesn’t extend to a jus sanguinis country, though. This means that an American mother can’t attain French citizenship for her baby just because she gave birth over French airspace. The baby would simply revert to the parent's U.S. citizenship, since the United States also generally follows jus sanguinis when a baby is born to U.S. citizens in a foreign country. Since jus sanguinis is the far more common rule around the globe, most babies born on a flight over international waters or foreign airspace will likely wind up taking the citizenship of its parents.

If there’s a case where the child could potentially be stateless—such as when a mother herself has no official citizenship and the baby is born in international airspace—the baby would likely take the citizenship of whatever country the plane itself is registered in, according to the United Nations’s Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness agreement.

Despite all these complex laws, mid-flight births are exceedingly rare—so rare, in fact, that most airlines don’t even keep track of the number of babies born in the air. An expecting mother likely wouldn't even be able to get onto a flight in the first place, since many airlines have rules that prohibit women from flying after they've reached a certain point in their pregnancy.

Have you got a Big Question you'd like us to answer? If so, let us know by emailing us at bigquestions@mentalfloss.com.