Tell me more x
, there is a new speed test available. Give it a try, leave feedback!
dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer

Search Topic:
share rss forum feed

IamGimli

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

Re: Anti-microbial soap recalled over microbial contamination

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/RED ··· 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.