How does "Health and safety issues related to travel" translate to a scope?

Question

So the question about hot air hand dryers has had quite some discussion in comments and votes:

How do you use a traditional hot-air hand dryer so your hands are actually dry afterwards?

it's also currently on hold because the scope is not clear. Now, as the creator of the question, I obviously have a bias because I created it, but I don't really see how this is out of scope.

The help center mentions health and safety issues related to travel. Proper hand hygiene is a health issue, that much we can agree on, I hope. I mean, there are questions about squat toilets (which can also be found around the world, even in western nations like France), toilet paper (which is also found around the world), bidets (also found around the world), cold showers (also taken around the world),... I don't really see a reason why all of these would be allowed, yet the hand dryer afterwards isn't.

But related to travel might be harder to defend. My argument for this is that most people are not going to have one of these at home: they're loud, expensive, ineffective and require a power outlet in your toilet. Most people are going to come into contact with them while they're not at home: in the train station, at a restaurant, in their hotel, in a rest stop along the motorway,... And we already established in a previous question (Should we allow questions that fit "what can I ask about here?" that don't come from an intent to travel?) that domestic tourism is also considered helpful:

As long as it's something travellers would want to know (tipping, transport) then yes, I agree, valid.

I would argue that how to dry your hands if you have to use an inconvenient device is something travellers would want to know, especially if they are unfamiliar with the device. I mean, people also wash their hands at home, but they usually don't use one of these devices afterwards.

As it stands, I do not personally see a reason why this question is on hold as out of scope. I am curious to know how others interpret this question and the related scope discussion.

How does the above question and any potential related hygiene questions translate to a scope?

Answer 1

I mean, there are questions about squat toilets (which can also be found around the world, even in western nations like France), [...] I don't really see a reason why all of these would be allowed, yet the hand dryer afterwards isn't.

"Some other question was allowed so mine should be, too!" is a very weak argument. In this case, look. If you're used to sit-down toilets and don't know how to use a squat toilet, your life is going to be very difficult if you visit a place where squat toilets are the norm. You need advice about that. There is no reasonable alternative to going to the toilet. Now suppose that you don't know how to use a warm-air hand dryer (a device which, by the way, couldn't have a much simpler user interface). What happens to you? You dry your hands on your trousers, or wait five minutes for them to dry in the air, and you get on with your day with nothing more than a trivial inconvenience.

But related to travel might be harder to defend. My argument for this is that most people are not going to have one of these at home [...] And we already established in a previous question [...] that domestic tourism is also considered helpful

In that case, everything outside your home is travel, and restricting the site to questions that are "about travel" is essentially meaningless because it's no restriction at all. Something being outside your house does not make it "domestic tourism". For example, most people do not have a secretary at home but questions about what it's reasonable to ask a secretary to do for you are not questions about travel (even though you travelled to get to work) and they don't belong here.