I had a similar thought, something like varying levels of ambient humidity closer to the washroom. The experiment needs to be repeated in more controlled conditions. Surprised to see the HN crowd taking this obvious pseudoscience at face value.
No, experimenting is not pseudoscience, but taking a single flawed experiment communicated anecdotally with no mention of setup or control and then moving into discussion about the "results" as if it was performed in any way reproducibly is pseudoscience. It presents itself as science but when you pick it apart it's actually lacking many mainstays of what we'd call scientific methodology.
Calling for more rigorous experimentation is not a dismissal of experimentation. It's healthy to be critical about experimental methodologies and to call for more rigour before conclusions are drawn.
There have been several experiments that have showed similar findings, and I looked through half a dozen or so and didn’t find any that showed otherwise. Here’s one that you can browse: