But Mommy was wrong.

You see, the Food and Drug Administration has always claimed in its medical literature that washing your hands with soap and water as warm as one could handle was the most effective way to ward of those yucky bacteria.

And, given the current and vast paranoia over the Swine Flu, health officials across the country are insisting that we all wash our hands as often and as thoroughly as possible.

So how do we do it right?

Apparently, we can do it any way we want; just as long as soap is involved.

A recent (2005) report in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine claims that the temperature of the water we wash with means nothing.

The study the report draws on, conducted by the Joint Bank Group / Fund Health Services, found that among those participants washing their contaminated hands with soap and water, the temperature of the water which they washed their hands with (ranging from 40-120 degrees Fahrenheit) had “no effect on transient or resident bacterial reduction.”

Proving that washing with hot water has no serious benefit is a big one. The study even takes it a bit farther, suggesting that hotter water temperatures may actually increase the “irritant capacity” of some soaps, causing dermatitis. Yuck!

So what have we learned? Mommy was mislead. And there’s truly no reason to stand around the sink, wasting time, money and water, waiting for the warmth you thought you needed.

Now go wash your hands! After all, it is flu season.

In an amount upwards of $20 million, the Department of Homeland Security is currently funding a project called ‘Future Attribute Screening Technology’ (FAST) which may soon replace current security protocol in airports, convention centers, mass transit centers, federal buildings and stadiums - essentially anywhere there are security concerns.

FAST utilizes cameras and specialized sensors to monitor natural signals coming from one’s body: rather than stripping, searching and patting down a person, the sensors can measure one’s natural bodily signals, such as heartbeat, body temperature, eye movement, fidgeting and breathing patterns.

According to project manager Robert Burns, “Those physiological signs, measured together, will indicate whether you might have the desire or intent to do harm,” drawing on the prevalence of studies connecting such physical reactions to one’s mental state.

Burns also claims that FAST will pick up these physical cues faster and more accurately than a human could, therefore helping security personnel make quicker decisions on moving targets to secondary screening.

Sure, it all sounds a bit far-fetched: how can we trust the science of it? Won’t there be kinks? Critics are indeed raising such questions, questioning the viability of it all, calling it “pie-in-the-sky science fiction,” while civil libertarians deem it a clearcut invasion of privacy.

Honestly, it seems a bit ridiculous. First, consider how many people get anxious when flying; it’s one of the biggest human fears. So, naturally, people’s heart rates, breathing, eye movements and fidgeting are likely to increase while in an airport. And wouldn’t this lead to inconsistent readings of potential danger?

Imagine: a nervous, shaking woman, frightened out of her mind about flying, pulled aside by two brutish security guards and dragged off into a dark, back room for questioning. Upsetting!

Second, consider how the knowledge of such systems may affect the preparation tactics of those intending to do harm in public places. Just like some can find ways to beat Polygraph tests, I’m sure they can find ways to keep their physical signals at normal levels. And if they do, and regular search protocol is put on the back burner, they can slip right by. Creepy!

In theory, the proposed security system seems sound enough to be passable, but upon further investigation, it actually seems a bit problematic. The safety of thousands upon thousands of humans may be too much for a few cameras and sensors to handle on their own.

So, tell me: how do YOU feel about FAST?

The world found out on Friday that Rio de Janeiro, Brazil would be the host of the 2016 Summer Olympic Games. Around the world, most people graciously celebrated Rio’s triumph (because, after all, this was it’s third attempt at hosting the Games) but some Chicagoans were left resentful.

(Sorry to add insult to injury, but I think it should be noted that Chicago was the first city vying for the position to be eliminated. Ouch.)

Obama was quick to boost morale but letting the natives know he was still “proud” of his hometown and that they made “the strongest bid possible”; Michael Jordan claimed he was “stunned” and U.S. Rep. Danny Davis, a Chicago Democrat, said the loss was “heartbreaking.”

Despite Chicago’s heartbreak, Rio partied on. Soccer legend Pele and Brazilian President Lula da Silva were ecstatic, and the president reportedly dabbed the corners of his eyes numerous times during the announcement.

Though I hate to say it at the expense of seeming wildly unpatriotic, I believe they totally deserve it.

Come on, let’s face it: Rio already has more than half of the venues in place, organizers for development are already working, and South America is the only continent that’s yet to host to Olympics. That alone seems warranting enough for the title.

Though they’re more than ready, Rio is still going to undergo considerable construction, especially in Barra, the heart of Rio of which will carry most of the games. World famous Copacabana beach will host various outdoor sports in mostly temporary venues.

So this is like a fairytale for those in Rio, and it’s safe to say that I, too, am pretty happy about it. And furthermore, it’s a nice contrast to London, which will host the 2012 Summer Olympic Games.

What do you think?