dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
833
share rss forum feed

bt

join:2009-02-26
canada
kudos:1

Anti-microbial soap recalled over microbial contamination

»www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/media/ad···-eng.php



donoreo
Premium
join:2002-05-30
North York, ON

Ironic.



Wolfie00
My dog is an elitist
Premium
join:2005-03-12
kudos:8
reply to bt

Anti-bacterial soap is a scam anyway. Triclosan and related substances used in those soaps can interfere with the body's hormone production and have the potential to promote antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Conversely, the stuff is no more effective than proper sudsing in hot water with any good ordinary soap.



HiVolt
Premium
join:2000-12-28
Toronto, ON
kudos:21

That shit was all a scam and they made bazillions off it during the swine flu scam...


IamGimli

join:2004-02-28
Canada
kudos:2
reply to Wolfie00

said by Wolfie00:

Anti-bacterial soap is a scam anyway.

rofl

said by Wolfie00:

Triclosan and related substances used in those soaps can interfere with the body's hormone production

You're supposed to wash your hands with it, not drink or snort it!

You also failed to mention it's ANIMAL bodies it can interfere with. There is no evidence of any effect on HUMAN bodies whatsoever. From your own link:
"Triclosan is not known to be hazardous to humans."
"FDA does not have sufficient safety evidence to recommend changing consumer use of products that contain triclosan at this time."

said by Wolfie00:

and have the potential to promote antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

No more than antibiotics themselves. It's called natural selection.

said by Wolfie00:

Conversely, the stuff is no more effective than proper sudsing in hot water with any good ordinary soap.

The point of them is to have an option where hot water and soap is unavailable/unpractical. It's not a replacement, it's a complement.


Wolfie00
My dog is an elitist
Premium
join:2005-03-12
kudos:8

said by IamGimli:

You're supposed to wash your hands with it, not drink or snort it!

The fact that you've apparently never heard of systemic absorption doesn't make it any less real.

said by IamGimli:

You also failed to mention it's ANIMAL bodies it can interfere with. There is no evidence of any effect on HUMAN bodies whatsoever.

There is a huge difference between lack of positively conclusive evidence and proof of safety. In fact because of the conservative nature of scientific conclusions, lack of conclusive evidence of health risk is almost meaningless as it can persist for decades even as the evidence builds -- as was the case for many years with tobacco. Even now some claim that there's not enough "evidence" for the health risks of tobacco, while in other circles the argument has moved to the defense of second-hand smoke. There is plenty of evidence for the potential risks of Triclosan and many related phenols, and both the FDA and Health Canada are monitoring the evidence.

I'm not trying to claim that it's any kind of great immediate hazard, based on what we currently know, but it's grossly irresponsible to make a public post suggesting that there's nothing to worry about.

said by IamGimli:

said by Wolfie00:

and have the potential to promote antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

No more than antibiotics themselves. It's called natural selection.

Antibiotics are regulated for just that reason. Polychlorinated phenoxy phenols are not.

said by IamGimli:

said by Wolfie00:

Conversely, the stuff is no more effective than proper sudsing in hot water with any good ordinary soap.

The point of them is to have an option where hot water and soap is unavailable/unpractical. It's not a replacement, it's a complement.

You must be confusing hand sanitizers with soap.
--
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts."
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

IamGimli

join:2004-02-28
Canada
kudos:2

said by Wolfie00:

The fact that you've apparently never heard of systemic absorption doesn't make it any less real.

The fact you have no evidence whatsoever of systemic absorption of Triclosan causing ANY kind of effect on humans DOES make it unreal.

said by Wolfie00:

There is a huge difference between lack of positively conclusive evidence and proof of safety.

And there is a huge difference between actual risk and alarmist propaganda.

Pure water CAN be toxic to humans, yet it's not a toxic product and there's no real safety concern about it's use.

said by Wolfie00:

In fact because of the conservative nature of scientific conclusions, lack of conclusive evidence of health risk is almost meaningless as it can persist for decades even as the evidence builds -- as was the case for many years with tobacco. Even now some claim that there's not enough "evidence" for the health risks of tobacco, while in other circles the argument has moved to the defense of second-hand smoke. There is plenty of evidence for the potential risks of Triclosan and many related phenols, and both the FDA and Health Canada are monitoring the evidence.

...and there is plenty of evidence for the absence of risk of Triclosan in the form of the numerous tests that have been done to assess precisely those risks.

said by Wolfie00:

I'm not trying to claim that it's any kind of great immediate hazard, based on what we currently know, but it's grossly irresponsible to make a public post suggesting that there's nothing to worry about.



I'm sure you know better than Health Canada and the FDA.

said by Wolfie00:

Antibiotics are regulated for just that reason. Polychlorinated phenoxy phenols are not.

The EPA disagrees with you. It's regulated as a pesticide:
»www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/factsh···n_fs.htm

said by Wolfie00:

You must be confusing hand sanitizers with soap.

You must be experiencing difficulties understanding simple English. I specifically mentioned soap in my statement and the fact soap is not always a practical or available solution.

bt

join:2009-02-26
canada
kudos:1

said by IamGimli:

said by Wolfie00:

You must be confusing hand sanitizers with soap.

You must be experiencing difficulties understanding simple English. I specifically mentioned soap in my statement and the fact soap is not always a practical or available solution.

The stuff that's being recalled is soap... If regular soap isn't practical in a situation, neither is this stuff.


Wolfie00
My dog is an elitist
Premium
join:2005-03-12
kudos:8

said by bt:

The stuff that's being recalled is soap... If regular soap isn't practical in a situation, neither is this stuff.

Correct. On the other subject, there are documented risks with systemic absorption of all PCPP's. How big the risk is, and how that should govern its use, is an evolving issue on which each individual can make his/her own decision, until and unless the FDA or HC steps in with an outright ban. I'm not going to waste my time engaging in yet another pointless Internet debate with the previous poster.

mr weather
Premium
join:2002-02-27
Mississauga, ON
reply to bt

I never understood the point of having triclosan in soap. The act of hand washing is simply too fast for it to be bactericidal. Things like alcohols and quaternary ammonium compounds (i.e. benzalkonium chloride) kill on contact. Triclosan needs to be "ingested" by the bacteria for it to work.
--
"It's all coming down!!" - Mike Holmes



agtle

@teksavvy.com

said by mr weather:

I never understood the point of having triclosan in soap. The act of hand washing is simply too fast for it to be bactericidal. Things like alcohols and quaternary ammonium compounds (i.e. benzalkonium chloride) kill on contact. Triclosan needs to be "ingested" by the bacteria for it to work.

I think the assumption is that people are not that great about doing a proper job of washing their hands (duration, temp, rinsing, etc.). Enough sticks around to be (mildly) effective.


neochu

join:2008-12-12
Windsor, ON
reply to bt

This is why alcohol based soaps are always a better idea then a compound that can always have SOMETHING resistant to it.

There is the old wisdom of course; "If it stings its working."

Agtle, Bt, IamGimli:

Even the makers of hand sanitizer products (recalled or not) even say that their products will do nothing if the hands have already not been cleaned properly.

I don't know of any major institution here that doesn't use alcohol based sanitizers anyways. You can tell because of the sensations and sting it has when you do hit a cut.



J E F F
Whatta Ya Think About Dat?
Premium
join:2004-04-01
Kitchener, ON
kudos:1
reply to bt

What happened to washing your hands with soap and hot water for 30 seconds?

Ah well.



D Cures All

@videotron.ca

said by J E F F:

What happened to washing your hands with soap and hot water for 30 seconds?

It doesn't have anti-oxidants and vitamin D


urbanriot
Premium
join:2004-10-18
Canada
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Cogeco Cable
reply to J E F F

said by J E F F:

What happened to washing your hands with soap and hot water for 30 seconds?

Science happened.


donoreo
Premium
join:2002-05-30
North York, ON

said by urbanriot:

said by J E F F:

What happened to washing your hands with soap and hot water for 30 seconds?

Science happened.

Business happened.

graniterock
Premium
join:2003-03-14
London, ON
Reviews:
·WIND Mobile
·TekSavvy Cable
reply to J E F F

I work in a hospital environment. They basically teach that the gold standard in a home environment to use hot water and soap. In the hospital you combine that with the alcohol hand sanitizer between client / patient contact.

One point against the anti-microbial soaps is that their residue can encourage increased microbial resistance. Alcohol hand sanitizers don't because they evaporate. Alcohol hand sanitizers also don't work that great if your hands are soiled. In other words: You still need to use soap and water after eating lunch.



Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4
reply to agtle

said by agtle :

I think the assumption is that people are not that great about doing a proper job of washing their hands (duration, temp, rinsing, etc.). Enough sticks around to be (mildly) effective.

Temperature doesn't even matter, as the temperature needed to have any effect on bacteria would scald you long before there's any benefit. It's all about duration of the scrubbing.


urbanriot
Premium
join:2004-10-18
Canada
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Cogeco Cable
reply to graniterock

said by graniterock:

Alcohol hand sanitizers don't because they evaporate.

So the burning I feel on my hands when using alcohol, that's a psychological placebo effect? Innnteresting.


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4

said by urbanriot:

So the burning I feel on my hands when using alcohol, that's a psychological placebo effect? Innnteresting.

Let's look at the entire line:

said by graniterock:
One point against the anti-microbial soaps is that their residue can encourage increased microbial resistance. Alcohol hand sanitizers don't because they evaporate.
I think the point he was making is that alcohol kills germs and then evaporates before it has the chance to be systemically absorbed and possibly promote resistance.


urbanriot
Premium
join:2004-10-18
Canada
kudos:3

Ahh, thanks, you're probably right, the period disrupted me from connecting the two sentences.



Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4

The whole point of a period is to separate two sentences

A semicolon might have been better, I guess.



Wolfie00
My dog is an elitist
Premium
join:2005-03-12
kudos:8
reply to Gone

said by Gone:

Temperature doesn't even matter, as the temperature needed to have any effect on bacteria would scald you long before there's any benefit. It's all about duration of the scrubbing.

Quite true, and not to quibble, but temperature affects the lathering and cleaning performance of soap so it's important in that respect. Surgical scrubs generally use water that is as hot as practicable for the duration of the necessary 3- to 5-minute scrub.

graniterock
Premium
join:2003-03-14
London, ON
Reviews:
·WIND Mobile
·TekSavvy Cable
reply to Gone

said by Gone:

said by urbanriot:

So the burning I feel on my hands when using alcohol, that's a psychological placebo effect? Innnteresting.

Let's look at the entire line:

said by graniterock:
One point against the anti-microbial soaps is that their residue can encourage increased microbial resistance. Alcohol hand sanitizers don't because they evaporate.
I think the point he was making is that alcohol kills germs and then evaporates before it has the chance to be systemically absorbed and possibly promote resistance.

2 points for decoding my bad grammar! That's exactly what I was trying to say. Alcohol also does a better job of just outright killing the bacteria.

A quick google search and I found this article which echos pretty much what I was taught.

»health.howstuffworks.com/skin-ca···wed4.htm

I think the research is still figuring it out but there is a growing concern that the anti-bacterial soaps do at some level promote resistance and long term wide spread use could build stronger germs. When one considers that soap and water is considered basically "just as good" it makes it my preferred choice for at home.

graniterock
Premium
join:2003-03-14
London, ON
Reviews:
·WIND Mobile
·TekSavvy Cable
reply to Wolfie00

said by Wolfie00:

said by Gone:

Temperature doesn't even matter, as the temperature needed to have any effect on bacteria would scald you long before there's any benefit. It's all about duration of the scrubbing.

Quite true, and not to quibble, but temperature affects the lathering and cleaning performance of soap so it's important in that respect. Surgical scrubs generally use water that is as hot as practicable for the duration of the necessary 3- to 5-minute scrub.

It's also important to recognize that sanitation at a the surgical level has a different goal than sanitizing at home. Some level of bacteria is OK at home (even good). Any level of bacteria in an OR is really bad because you are dealing with compromised immune systems while introducing bacteria to the body via unusual routes.


Wolfie00
My dog is an elitist
Premium
join:2005-03-12
kudos:8

I agree with both your points. Just so it doesn't get lost in the noise, I should re-iterate that triclosan and chemically related substances used in home antibacterial soaps have potential systemic health effects as well as the potential for promoting bacterial resistance, and I personally think the former is even more persuasive than the latter, but studies are ongoing.

Incidentally, while alcohol is an excellent antibacterial agent, its efficacy is greatly enhanced by small amounts of water -- i.e.- anhydrous alcohol that is nearly 100% pure isn't as effective as when there is water present. Just an interesting counter-intuitive fact.



Black Box

join:2002-12-21
reply to Gone

said by Gone:

said by agtle :

I think the assumption is that people are not that great about doing a proper job of washing their hands (duration, temp, rinsing, etc.). Enough sticks around to be (mildly) effective.

Temperature doesn't even matter, as the temperature needed to have any effect on bacteria would scald you long before there's any benefit. It's all about duration of the scrubbing.

Temperature matters as it softens the dirt and helps the soap to bind to the oily molecules better. You can feel the difference after washing with hot water in contrast with cold water.
--
Keep It Safe, Stupid!
Yes, I CanChat. Can You?


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4

said by Black Box:

Temperature matters as it softens the dirt and helps the soap to bind to the oily molecules better. You can feel the difference after washing with hot water in contrast with cold water.

Temperature makes zero difference as far as the ability to kill bacteria. In fact, numerous studies have shown that the bacteria on one's hand before and after washing is the same no matter if cold or hot water has been used. The only time a difference is measured is related to the length of time one scrubs their hands.

In other words, washing for ten seconds with hot water is worse than washing for 30 seconds with cold water.


Black Box

join:2002-12-21

10 for 30 is likely worse, but 30 for 30 is definitely better. It's the removal of foreign material that's making the difference for hot water. More removed means less bacteria left behind.
--
Keep It Safe, Stupid!
Yes, I CanChat. Can You?



Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4

No, it's not "definitely better" - in fact, it makes no difference at all.

»www.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/healt···eal.html

»www.abc.net.au/science/articles/···0122.htm

The whole idea that you need hot water to wash yourself or even clothes has been a myth longer than any of us have been alive, yet even as far back as the 1930s people were starting to figure out that it's washing action, not temperature, that cleans. The one study linked to from the NYT article even mentions that using cooler water is not only beneficial as far as your skin goes, but even has "economic benefits"

I'm obviously not going to convince you otherwise, but regardless of what anyone may think, I have zero issue washing my hands with much more comfortable to me cool or lukewarm water, and am confident knowing my hands are just as clean as anyone else who washes the same way in hot water.