The popular notion that urine is sterile is a myth, new research finds. http://www.foxnews.com/health/2014/05/23/confirmed-urine-is-not-sterile/

This is odd. We cultured bugs out of our own urine in my microbiology course some 45 years ago.

I certainly have known this for all that time and it is so simple it must have been done by plenty of others in that time and indeed it was a standard lab experiment for the course.

Aah..Did you do a CLEAN CATCH?

The protocol involves cleaning to sterilize the skin.
Start urinating and in MIDSTREAM collect some urine for culture.

All of that, plus the rest of the best practice for such sampling. It was a university microbiology degree course so we were not just playing at it.

I recall mention that the only sterile urine is that first passed by a newborn baby.

I am at a loss to understand why urine should be considered sterile. How do people explain how one can get a bladder infection. If that bug can get in so may others.

I assume this relates to the business of flushing a wound with one's own urine?

I can certainly attest that the vigorous flushing of wounds (with soap and reasonably clean water) speeds healing and reduces/prevents infections. 10x more effective than chemical sterilants alone, IME.

The question isn't whether urine is sterile (of course it's not). The question is whether or not flushing a wound with urine, in the absence of any other reasonable option, might be more beneficial than not flushing at all.

The use of urine for this purpose is is stuff of legend, of course, as best practice (?) for WWII POW's in jungle environments. My understanding is that open wounds in jungles are instantly infected by a wide range of dangerous nasties. In this extreme case, I can see where vigorous flushing with whatever you have might be the best option (and only option, which makes it easier to choose).

I don't know that that question of benefit vs. harm can be answered with certainty. Too many variables. I am glad that I have never had to do this, but I would if I needed to.

When in civilized locations I generally try to confine my urination to proper restrooms. When out in the boonies, I usually just urinate on the ground. In neither case is sterility of urine (or lack of therof) an issue. However, in both situations I gennerally try to avoid peeing into my wounds. But that's just me.

I hope this comment doesn't p!ss anyone off?

Mind the breeze, my friend. Blowback respects neither age nor beauty.

Question the intelligence of applying a solution, which one's body is trying to excrete.

I would think that the fact that if urine can carry and transfer disease would be ample proof that it is not sterile.

I believe the rumor was spread by the " Modern Primitive" and piercing communities.It related to certain descrete piercings as being self cleaning generally.....

Boatman
John

In that vein, I remember reading that a certain country taught their soldiers to wash in urine after sexual relations to prevent contracting social diseases.

Is this a bacterial colonization of the bladder without symptoms? Are the scientists arguing that these are normal bladder flora, in the sense that the colon has lots of symbiotic bacteria present? Are they saying that subclinical bacterial infection is widespread?
The bugs identified are not familiar UTI culprits. I understand the finding, but not the pathophysiology.

Well, they're saying both. The popular idea was that in healthy people, urine (and by association, the bladder) was devoid of bacteria because studies (or who knows, maybe just one study) were not able to culture anything. But they tried culturing urine in various ways and found multitudes of bacteria in healthy urine.

They're also saying that after they were able to successfully culture bacteria from urine, some strains seem more common in people with certain bladder conditions, raising the possibility that there is connection with the condition, such as "overactive bladder". If H. pylori bacteria can cause ulcers, it's not a stretch to believe that certain bladder problems can also have a bacterial cause.

IIRC, all the urine that goes into the bladder is filtered at the molecular level by the kidney; absent kidney infection, it ought to be bacteria-free. The bladder is emptied, mostly, on a regular basis, though many folks have some residual urine after voiding, and some have a lot. Bacteria can get into the bladder moving up the urethra, hence bladder infections, honeymoon cystitis, and the like. So, some bacteria are moving upstream, setting up housekeeping in the residual urine, sometimes irritating the bladder enough to cause spasms, sometimes not causing any symptoms at all. And these bacteria are stealthy enough to escape detection in routine microscopic urinalysis and routine urine culture. Interesting!

Interesting. Do probiotics work to help control these bacteria?

There is some evidence that probiotics can improve bladder issues, but it's still an open question. The reason they help may not be so obvious. The bacteria in the probiotic don't somehow travel from your digestive system into your bladder.

Probiotics may help by doing things like improving the body's immune system so it regulates the bacteria in the bladder more efficiently or helps minimize unnecessary inflammation (our immune system seems to be powerfully related to our gut bacteria). Or since many pathogenic bacteria are introduced to the bladder from bathroom wiping technique, probiotics can help reduce the number of pathogenic bacteria in the colon, meaning there are fewer of them around to get inadvertently introduced into the bladder that way.

I'm not sure I would describe them as "stealthy" as I would say that their optimal growing conditions seem to be pretty limited. Which is actually encouraging. Although these scientists debunk the idea that urine is sterile, the bacteria do seem few in number initially (which is partly why people thought urine was sterile) and only grow in certain conditions.

May we conclude that, since the bacteria do not grow optimally in common conditions, are few in number, and do not appear to be common wound pathogens, that using urine for hygiene applications is no worse an idea now than it was heretofore-granting that it was a moderately stupid idea in the first place, urine being HUMAN WASTE and all.

I just had to consult my bible, "Medicine for Mountaineering" by Wilkerson et al. -

"Obviously, only disinfected water is suitable for such cleansing" - p.124

I think I will follow AKSAR's wise counsel and avoid peeing into my wounds. What great things we learn on this forum....

We've covered the wound issue fairly well. What about drinking your urine in a dehydration scenario.

I always thought it was OK because I saw Bear Grylls do it on TV.

Whatever BG does...I would rather distill my pee first, before drinking, and I would do the same with sea water. The feasibility of imbibing sea water has been advocated from time to time, and the notion just doesn't hold water (so to speak).

If I were in an actual wilderness survival situation 'd much rather have Cody Lundin along that Bear. Cody at least is mildly amusing. Bear would be trying to sell me all his officially licensed products andI tend to find the man generally annoying.

I would take Les Stroud over anybody. Mr. Lundin offers a lot as an author and presumably as an instructor, but I respectfully disagree with him on the footwear front.

As for Mr. Grylls, I expect that if you were in an actual wilderness survival situation with him he'd offer you a meal from craft service and give you a ride in his helicopter to a nice hotel.

Lmao! He has some interesting tips. But I agree about the lack of footwear despite spending my formative and teen years mostly barefoot.
A nice plate of shrimp and melon balls would be a nice treat before the helicopter ride back to the Hilton lol.

If you have disinfected water available, that's great. Hypothetically, suppose I was marooned somewhere and had (a) a small amount of drinkable water I'd carried with me; (b) some found water that I'd consider too contaminated to drink; and (c) fresh urine. I suspect that the urine would be a better choice for cleaning wounds than the found water. It'd be nice to use the carried water to rinse out the urine at the end, but I wouldn't use it for that if I felt I needed it for drinking.

If I had the means to purify the found water, that changes things. The point is, urine isn't always the worst choice.

This is probably a rather theoretical discussion. I have been present as part of a first responder team in somewhere over 100 situations, and we have never cleaned out the wound by flushing with any liquid.Just stop the bleeding, stabilize, and transport. Most of these have been back country or wilderness situations in an arid environment; rarely has there been water "too contaminated for drinking."

Peeing is for local soil enrichment......

I agree with Hikermor. Stop or slow bleeding, stabilize, and MedEvac has been the response of those on scene.

As I remember the training I received (many years ago), urine was only considered as a possible method to clean a wound in a situation where medieval was not an option and you had to provide long term care. It was never considered sterile (probably a more recently developed myth) and only a last resort for cleaning dirt and debris out of a wound. We were told to use the person's own urine, and to further cleanse the wound with alcohol or peroxide if it was available. Clean water was always a first choice, and taking the time to boil the water, or purify it in any other way, was worth the time and effort as the dirt and debris will take time to begin an infection. Of course there are many variables involved in this. The dirt and debris need to be removed before the wound is bandaged up for long term care. Understand that this scenario was taught at military survival schools for a long term evasion or isolation situation only. It also did not receive more than a brief mention as a possible alternative to flushing the wound with clean water, it was never considered a primary method of cleaning a wound.

clearly your urine needs a higher ALCOHOL content!!
Hahahaha!

Pete

LOL, I am trying!