4 ms·

My guess is the commenter's use of the word "unsafe" in reference to the antibacterial compounds. I don't believe they have been proven unsafe, rather that the

by venning 10y ago

My guess is the commenter's use of the word "unsafe" in reference to the antibacterial compounds. I don't believe they have been proven unsafe, rather that they have not been proven safe. There's a difference, and "unsafe" borders on misinformation which often merits downvotes on HN. Edit: Think of the difference between "lack of safety" and "lack of proof of safety".

godshatter 10y ago
In cases like this, I wish people would reply with an explanation of why "unsafe" is too harsh a word rather than attempting to bury the post by downvoting it. That conversation could be helpful to others. Not seeing the post doesn't help anyone.
- venning 10y ago
  I do agree. Neither the HN Guidelines [1] nor the FAQ [2] are clear about what expectations they have for downvotes (unless I'm missing something). I never saw the original comment when it was, I assume, greyed out, prompting the second poster to ask about the downvotes. It is second-highest ranked now, so I assume the downvotes are a minor component to its rank. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html
Someone1234 10y ago
To quote the FDA themselves: > Many liquid soaps labeled antibacterial contain triclosan, an ingredient of concern to many environmental, academic and regulatory groups. Animal studies have shown that triclosan alters the way some hormones work in the body and raises potential concerns for the effects of use in humans. We don’t yet know how triclosan affects humans and more research is needed. > In addition, laboratory studies have raised the possibility that triclosan contributes to making bacteria resistant to antibiotics. Some data shows this resistance may have a significant impact on the effectiveness of medical treatments, such as antibiotics. I feel like you're just being pedantic. The FDA has literally banned triclosan from hand soaps because they feel it does more harm than good, but calling it "unsafe" to you is simply "misinformation." Plus there's a difference between "proven safe" and shown in animal studies to be unsafe. In this case not only has triclosan not been proven safe but animal studies have suggested it is unsafe. They're also looking at: banning benzalkonium chloride, benzethonium chloride, chloroxylenol, and triclosan from hand sanitizers. So you can be on any side of this issue you want, but the FDA sides with me. Triclosan is bad, likely unsafe, and definitely never proven safe. [0] http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm378393.htm#2 http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm378393.ht...
- jcsvyu789jh 10y ago
  It's interesting, I don't interpret the FDA excerpts as anything other than "we don't know". The animal studies indicate that it alters the way hormones work. Is that sufficient to be unsafe? Wouldn't you have to show that the alterations cause negative health outcomes? I also don't think the bacterial resistance issue is proven to the point where we should be so confident assessing that the triclosan is unsafe. Rather, we should see it as no known benefit and some cousin-instances where it could be unsafe. "We don't know" is most accurate in my book.

by venning 10y ago

godshatter 10y ago

In cases like this, I wish people would reply with an explanation of why "unsafe" is too harsh a word rather than attempting to bury the post by downvoting it. That conversation could be helpful to others. Not seeing the post doesn't help anyone.

venning 10y ago
I do agree. Neither the HN Guidelines [1] nor the FAQ [2] are clear about what expectations they have for downvotes (unless I'm missing something). I never saw the original comment when it was, I assume, greyed out, prompting the second poster to ask about the downvotes. It is second-highest ranked now, so I assume the downvotes are a minor component to its rank. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html

Someone1234 10y ago

To quote the FDA themselves: > Many liquid soaps labeled antibacterial contain triclosan, an ingredient of concern to many environmental, academic and regulatory groups. Animal studies have shown that triclosan alters the way some hormones work in the body and raises potential concerns for the effects of use in humans. We don’t yet know how triclosan affects humans and more research is needed. > In addition, laboratory studies have raised the possibility that triclosan contributes to making bacteria resistant to antibiotics. Some data shows this resistance may have a significant impact on the effectiveness of medical treatments, such as antibiotics. I feel like you're just being pedantic. The FDA has literally banned triclosan from hand soaps because they feel it does more harm than good, but calling it "unsafe" to you is simply "misinformation." Plus there's a difference between "proven safe" and shown in animal studies to be unsafe. In this case not only has triclosan not been proven safe but animal studies have suggested it is unsafe. They're also looking at: banning benzalkonium chloride, benzethonium chloride, chloroxylenol, and triclosan from hand sanitizers. So you can be on any side of this issue you want, but the FDA sides with me. Triclosan is bad, likely unsafe, and definitely never proven safe. [0] http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm378393.htm#2 http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm378393.ht...

jcsvyu789jh 10y ago
It's interesting, I don't interpret the FDA excerpts as anything other than "we don't know". The animal studies indicate that it alters the way hormones work. Is that sufficient to be unsafe? Wouldn't you have to show that the alterations cause negative health outcomes? I also don't think the bacterial resistance issue is proven to the point where we should be so confident assessing that the triclosan is unsafe. Rather, we should see it as no known benefit and some cousin-instances where it could be unsafe. "We don't know" is most accurate in my book.