Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-12-2014, 06:01 PM
 
16,294 posts, read 28,543,062 times
Reputation: 8384

Advertisements

The wife was big on this for a while, and I finally banned them in our home. The unintended consequences of the fear based marketing mimics that of religion, irrational fear of the unseen. The ads for these products on TV are nothing but scare tactics to sell their snake oil for profit, a lot of profit. Selling a phobia for profit is all it amounts to, but with possibly deadly unintended consequences.

Want to kill a germ in my home, there is soap and water, bleach or alcohol.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-12-2014, 06:17 PM
 
8,483 posts, read 6,937,232 times
Reputation: 1119
This was covered in Dec. Already got patents lined up it looks.
FDA..what was once good is now bad..antibacterial products

Originally posted by CDusr

Well it seems they are just looking to curb particular triclosan usage.

They have increased liability cost.
Triclosan - SourceWatch
quote:
With widespread use of triclosan in personal care products, the Natural Resources Defense Council has called on the U.S. FDA to ban the chemical. In a press release, NRDC Senior Scientist Dr. Sarah Janssen said, "With no proven benefit and many red flags raised for harmful health impacts, the use of these so-called anti-microbials is an unnecessary and stupid use of toxic chemicals."[5] On July 27, 2010, NRDC filed a lawsuit against the FDA for its failure to finalize a ban on both triclocarban and triclosan, which was first initiated in 1978.[6] The lawsuit covers liquid and bar soaps and body washes. With its common household use, triclosan makes its way into the wastewater stream and frequently turns up in sewage sludge.


The over 3 trillion dollar chemical market has also been slumping on and off so this offers an avenue for returns. Antibiotics, biocides and nano are all viable areas to seek returns.
There are already many replacements being promoted like Sensidin, Agion, Zinc Omadine etc...

Outlook for the chemical industry - BASF Report 2012


quote:
We expect global chemical production (excluding pharmaceuticals) to recover in 2013 (+3.6%), putting it back on the growth track expected for the medium term. After the previous year’s near-stagnation in production in the industrialized countries, we anticipate slight growth for 2013 (+0.9%). We expect growth in the emerging markets to remain strong (+6.8%).
The chemical industry in the United States will benefit once again from low gas prices in 2013. However, we anticipate slower growth in the automotive industry, a key customer for chemical products. Growth in the construction industry will also be somewhat weaker than in 2012. We anticipate slower growth overall in the U.S. chemical industry (+1.9%). In the medium term, we forecast annual growth of 2.3%
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2014, 06:32 PM
 
Location: Old Mother Idaho
29,219 posts, read 22,385,232 times
Reputation: 23859
Basic soap has 2 ingredients: lye and oil. Neither promotes the growth of bacteria. A common bar of hand soap has no bacteria growing on it, and the soap, combined with the friction of washing, kills bacteria that is on the skin. All the rest of the stuff in soap is there to make it smell good or to make it foam nicely or to give us a pleasant tingle when clean or to keep it from melting away too fast. None of those ingredients promote bacterial growth either.

If one washes the hands and face 2-3 of times a day, that's enough to do the trick. Immunity takes care of the rest if one abstains from unneeded extra anti-bacterials.

Mamma's rule of washing your hands and face before meals is a sound health rule; eating is the activity that introduces most of the bacteria that surrounds us constantly into the body, where it can do harm. That's also why good cooks always wash their hands before cooking.

Any other anti-bacterial agent that's added is only a sales gimmick and an unnecessary environmental hazard.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2014, 08:26 PM
 
2,003 posts, read 1,169,313 times
Reputation: 1949
I never buy anti bacterial soap. We have regular soap in all of our bathrooms.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2014, 08:38 PM
 
5,652 posts, read 19,357,366 times
Reputation: 4119
Agreed, it is hard to find cleanining products that do NOT have some "anti-bacterial" ingredients in them. Makes me mad.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2014, 08:54 PM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
37,119 posts, read 41,299,979 times
Reputation: 45183
The handiwork of good health - Harvard Health Publications

Liquid soap from refillable containers is often contaminated with bacteria:

Bacteria-Laden Soap Not So Clean : Discovery News

Bacteria can grow on bar soap, though in the home not usually a source of a problem:

A Microbiologist's Take on BJJ | GiFreak


Most hospitals use liquid soap from nonrefillable bags in their dispensers rather than bar soaps. They supplement wiht alcohol based hand sanitizers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2014, 10:07 PM
 
13,305 posts, read 7,876,816 times
Reputation: 2144
[quote=suzy_q2010;32993130][url=http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletters/Harvard_Health_Letter/2007/January/The_handiwork_of_go They supplement wiht alcohol based hand sanitizers.[/QUOTE]

Wonder why not hydrogen peroxide spray hand sanitizers.

Kids could drink the alcohol-based sanitizers.

Peroxide is cool - it bubbles and foams.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2014, 10:17 PM
 
26,143 posts, read 19,856,597 times
Reputation: 17241
Thumbs up *

Quote:
Originally Posted by andywire
People are losing their ability to fight off infections with their own immune systems. When the body is not exposed to germs, because people are religiously washing their hands with antibacterial products, the immune system is not building an arsenal of antibodies. It's akin to a weight lifter who does not lift weights. How is he supposed to build muscle mass? How is the immune system supposed to build strength when it doesn't have anything to fight?

Aside from that, if you put antibiotics in every form of soup, it kills all the bacteria... Except for a few cells that develop a resistance. Those bacteria spread and multiply, and their offspring exhibit the same resistance patterns and traits. At the rate things are going, we'll have to invent an entirely new generation of antibiotics every time a new generation of antibiotic resistant bacteria becomes prevalent. If we're putting those antibiotic products everywhere, this cycle will only accelerate. Never ending cycle...

And people aren't helping when they take antibiotics for mild colds. There is a case to be made regarding the overuse of these antibiotics. Sometimes, you have to allow the infection to run it's course, relying on the body to work it's magic. I know a cold is an inconvenience, but only in rare cases does it become life threatening.
An EXCELLENT REPLY!!!!

I cant edit any of it out!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2014, 10:21 PM
 
13,305 posts, read 7,876,816 times
Reputation: 2144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dude111 View Post
An EXCELLENT REPLY!!!!

I cant edit any of it out!!
Tis better to eat and snort dirt.

I've got a pretty solid dirt source.

Nothing better than Ecuadorian.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-13-2014, 07:34 AM
 
Location: Bella Vista, Ark
77,771 posts, read 104,797,202 times
Reputation: 49248
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
And this one only took them 40 years to change their minds.
The chemical triclosan was shown to affect hormones in rat and could lead to infertility, early puberty and cancer.
The FDA was asked to investigated this in 1972. They arrived at their findings in 1978.
They are now publishing their findings..due to losing a lawsuit that was filed to force them to publish.

Unilever and Dow are not happy about this.

FDA: Anti-bacterial soaps may not curb bacteria
This is why I don't pay a lot of attention to what is and is not recommended by the FDA.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:35 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top