5 ms·

Hand sanitisers in offices etc. should be outlawed. There's simply no reason for their existence and using them probably weakens your immune system anyway. They

Hand sanitisers in offices etc. should be outlawed. There's simply no reason for their existence and using them probably weakens your immune system anyway. They are useful for situations like camping but that is all.

sol_remmy 8y ago
They should be outlawed for camping too... the importance of keeping bacteria from growing immune outweighs the small risk of getting a stomach bug while camping Sanitizer should ONLY be legal for use in hospitals
- cup-of-tea 8y ago
  Yeah, you're probably right. We've used soap for centuries and it works very well.
  - mrfusion 8y ago
    We should ban soap too so bacteria don’t get immune to that.
    - mprev 8y ago
      I’m guessing this is sarcasm but soap works through a mechanical process of helping to push the bacteria off your skin, rather than a chemical process of killing them.
      - gruez 8y ago
        stickier bacteria?
        j88439h84 8y ago
        Very creative idea!
      - Fomite 8y ago
        Technically, it does both.
      - droidist2 8y ago
        Interesting. And the FDA banned antibacterial soap? http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/say-goodbye-antibacterial-soaps-fda-banning-household-item/ http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/say-goodbye-antibacte...
        CaliforniaKarl 8y ago
        Yes, because of the additives that make up the “antibacterial” part. Not because of the “soap” part.
- ArlenBales 8y ago
  Alcohol-based hand sanitizers aren't effective against noroviruses, etc. viral gastroenteritis anyway. Campers should be using soap if they actually want their hands clean (and wash for at least 10 seconds). https://www.cdc.gov/norovirus/about/prevention.html https://www.cdc.gov/norovirus/about/prevention.html
- marcoperaza 8y ago
  It is not a small risk. Being stuck in the backcountry while losing fluids and nutrients to a GI infection can be a life-threatening situation. Hygiene is in short supply out there to begin with, so it’s very important to have clean hands when handling food and water.
grimbly 8y ago
Comments full of woo should be outlawed first. The next time you want to comment, consider your argument critically. Yes, there are plenty of reasons for them to exist. No, saying "well, it's probably, like, dumb and stuff, regardless," is not a valid argument. Simply because you think it, you believe your opinion is worth typing out. Fuck off.
chimeracoder 8y ago
> Hand sanitisers in offices etc. should be outlawed. There's simply no reason for their existence and using them probably weakens your immune system anyway. They are useful for situations like camping but that is all. That, or we could just make sure we use sanitizers that have high concentrations of alcohol in these settings. The bacteria referred to here require lower concentrations of alcohol to survive. They're not able to survive 100% alcohol (or close to 100%), and it's very unlikely that they could evolve to tolerate alcohol levels that high. The reason we don't commonly use high concentrations of alcohol is that it's more irritating to the skin (for the same reason that it kills bacteria). But in settings where killing bacteria is necessary, dehydrating the skin is an acceptable tradeoff.
- Fomite 8y ago
  "But in settings where killing bacteria is necessary, dehydrating the skin is an acceptable tradeoff." Only if doesn't hurt hand hygiene compliance.
  - jonhendry18 8y ago
    Alcohol sanitizer dispensers could also have a separate moisturizer dispenser.
- mmt 8y ago
  > They're not able to survive 100% alcohol (or close to 100%) IIRC, there's something of a peak in the effectiveness curve below the close-to 100% [1] point for ethanol, having something to do with too high a concentration not actually penetrating cell membranes fast enough when there isn't enough water in solution already. It's been a while since I read up on it. The papers are out there, for the curious. That said, I also recall the European standard of 85% (w/w?) being far better as a disinfectant, as supported by the evidence, than the US minimum of 62% w/w (or 70% v/v). Perhaps instead of a ban, merely increasing the minimum percentage to something that doesn't encourage resistance would be enough. [1] 96.5% or thereabouts is the highest distillation concentration, above which it would be hygroscopic and come down to that if left open to air.
cowkingdeluxe 8y ago
What about people with compromised immune systems from disease treatments or other? Do you think it should be banned for them? A better solution would probably be to mandate 70% alcohol concentration in all sanitize containers.
- paulcole 8y ago
  If they have a medical need why not have it made available by prescription?
analog31 8y ago
Oddly enough I'm less worried about germs while camping, then when I'm in civilization. Maybe I'm misguided, but I don't expect to encounter human pathogens in the wilderness.
- Fomite 8y ago
  Human pathogens are also other animal pathogens. E. coli, Shigella, Giardia, Cryptosporidium and Salmonella can all very happily live in the wilderness, infect multiple species, and can be carried by other campers and their pets. Combine that with poor refrigeration of food, generally less hand-washing overall (due to the absence of plumbing) and the potentially more serious consequences of those infections (dehydration due to a GI pathogen is a much bigger deal two days from anywhere in the Colorado Rockies than it is curled up on your couch), it's definitely a thing. https://www.avma.org/public/Health/Pages/Outdoor-Enthusiasts-Precautions.aspx#salmonellosis https://www.avma.org/public/Health/Pages/Outdoor-Enthusiasts... https://www.cdc.gov/family/camping/index.htm https://www.cdc.gov/family/camping/index.htm
  - analog31 8y ago
    Okay, now you've got me. Thanks for the info.
    - Fomite 8y ago
      Happy to help.
- gpm 8y ago
  When camping I like having hand sanitizer with the toilet paper. At other times it seems unnecessary, but the toilet paper is probably a bit less sanitary than what you typically experience in a city since there's water near the fine hole in the ground and you have to handle the toilet paper the next person is going to use more than if it was in a bathroom.
marcoperaza 8y ago
Don’t you think banning an extremely common product in response to one study is an overreaction? From the article: >"To our knowledge this was the first time anyone had shown hospital bacteria becoming tolerant to alcohols," says Timothy Stinear, a coauthor of the study and a researcher at the University of Melbourne's Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity.
- joe_the_user 8y ago
  Not really, I think there's a broad consensus that excessive disinfecting across society now has negative rather than positive effects. Bacteria can plausibly develop resistance to just about anything so gratuitously adding antibacterials to the environment is pretty inherently bad - use them when and only when needed (antibiotics in meat being another problem example). Also, it seems there's a threshold below which a lack-of-exposure to bacteria and other immune-vectors is actually bad for a person - by preventing the immune system from acting normally.
  - BoiledCabbage 8y ago
    It's funny, because I remember have arguments with biology majors. And them explaining how alcohol is different and bacteria will never be able to evolve immunity to it unlike anti-biotics. Something I couldn't understand. And they kept trying to describe how it's different, and something about how any bacterium that evolved to survive in an high alcohol environment would no longer be able to survive in a non-alcohol environment. So they would die, just laying on the ground or any surface. I still never got it. Bio majors, is thete any truth to that? This article seems to say no. What phenomena could they have been referring to?
    - joe_the_user 8y ago
      Well, There's understanding what has been experimentally determined so-far about bacteria and organisms and there's understanding that the realm of things we haven't so-far discovered about organisms and their potential evolutions may larger than what we have discovered.

sol_remmy 8y ago

They should be outlawed for camping too... the importance of keeping bacteria from growing immune outweighs the small risk of getting a stomach bug while camping Sanitizer should ONLY be legal for use in hospitals

cup-of-tea 8y ago
Yeah, you're probably right. We've used soap for centuries and it works very well.
- mrfusion 8y ago
  We should ban soap too so bacteria don’t get immune to that.
  - mprev 8y ago
    I’m guessing this is sarcasm but soap works through a mechanical process of helping to push the bacteria off your skin, rather than a chemical process of killing them.
    - gruez 8y ago
      stickier bacteria?
      - j88439h84 8y ago
        Very creative idea!
    - Fomite 8y ago
      Technically, it does both.
    - droidist2 8y ago
      Interesting. And the FDA banned antibacterial soap? http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/say-goodbye-antibacterial-soaps-fda-banning-household-item/ http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/say-goodbye-antibacte...
      - CaliforniaKarl 8y ago
        Yes, because of the additives that make up the “antibacterial” part. Not because of the “soap” part.
ArlenBales 8y ago
Alcohol-based hand sanitizers aren't effective against noroviruses, etc. viral gastroenteritis anyway. Campers should be using soap if they actually want their hands clean (and wash for at least 10 seconds). https://www.cdc.gov/norovirus/about/prevention.html https://www.cdc.gov/norovirus/about/prevention.html
marcoperaza 8y ago
It is not a small risk. Being stuck in the backcountry while losing fluids and nutrients to a GI infection can be a life-threatening situation. Hygiene is in short supply out there to begin with, so it’s very important to have clean hands when handling food and water.

grimbly 8y ago

Comments full of woo should be outlawed first. The next time you want to comment, consider your argument critically. Yes, there are plenty of reasons for them to exist. No, saying "well, it's probably, like, dumb and stuff, regardless," is not a valid argument. Simply because you think it, you believe your opinion is worth typing out. Fuck off.

chimeracoder 8y ago

> Hand sanitisers in offices etc. should be outlawed. There's simply no reason for their existence and using them probably weakens your immune system anyway. They are useful for situations like camping but that is all. That, or we could just make sure we use sanitizers that have high concentrations of alcohol in these settings. The bacteria referred to here require lower concentrations of alcohol to survive. They're not able to survive 100% alcohol (or close to 100%), and it's very unlikely that they could evolve to tolerate alcohol levels that high. The reason we don't commonly use high concentrations of alcohol is that it's more irritating to the skin (for the same reason that it kills bacteria). But in settings where killing bacteria is necessary, dehydrating the skin is an acceptable tradeoff.

Fomite 8y ago
"But in settings where killing bacteria is necessary, dehydrating the skin is an acceptable tradeoff." Only if doesn't hurt hand hygiene compliance.
- jonhendry18 8y ago
  Alcohol sanitizer dispensers could also have a separate moisturizer dispenser.
mmt 8y ago
> They're not able to survive 100% alcohol (or close to 100%) IIRC, there's something of a peak in the effectiveness curve below the close-to 100% [1] point for ethanol, having something to do with too high a concentration not actually penetrating cell membranes fast enough when there isn't enough water in solution already. It's been a while since I read up on it. The papers are out there, for the curious. That said, I also recall the European standard of 85% (w/w?) being far better as a disinfectant, as supported by the evidence, than the US minimum of 62% w/w (or 70% v/v). Perhaps instead of a ban, merely increasing the minimum percentage to something that doesn't encourage resistance would be enough. [1] 96.5% or thereabouts is the highest distillation concentration, above which it would be hygroscopic and come down to that if left open to air.

cowkingdeluxe 8y ago

What about people with compromised immune systems from disease treatments or other? Do you think it should be banned for them? A better solution would probably be to mandate 70% alcohol concentration in all sanitize containers.

paulcole 8y ago
If they have a medical need why not have it made available by prescription?

analog31 8y ago

Oddly enough I'm less worried about germs while camping, then when I'm in civilization. Maybe I'm misguided, but I don't expect to encounter human pathogens in the wilderness.

Fomite 8y ago
Human pathogens are also other animal pathogens. E. coli, Shigella, Giardia, Cryptosporidium and Salmonella can all very happily live in the wilderness, infect multiple species, and can be carried by other campers and their pets. Combine that with poor refrigeration of food, generally less hand-washing overall (due to the absence of plumbing) and the potentially more serious consequences of those infections (dehydration due to a GI pathogen is a much bigger deal two days from anywhere in the Colorado Rockies than it is curled up on your couch), it's definitely a thing. https://www.avma.org/public/Health/Pages/Outdoor-Enthusiasts-Precautions.aspx#salmonellosis https://www.avma.org/public/Health/Pages/Outdoor-Enthusiasts... https://www.cdc.gov/family/camping/index.htm https://www.cdc.gov/family/camping/index.htm
- analog31 8y ago
  Okay, now you've got me. Thanks for the info.
  - Fomite 8y ago
    Happy to help.
gpm 8y ago
When camping I like having hand sanitizer with the toilet paper. At other times it seems unnecessary, but the toilet paper is probably a bit less sanitary than what you typically experience in a city since there's water near the fine hole in the ground and you have to handle the toilet paper the next person is going to use more than if it was in a bathroom.

marcoperaza 8y ago

Don’t you think banning an extremely common product in response to one study is an overreaction? From the article: >"To our knowledge this was the first time anyone had shown hospital bacteria becoming tolerant to alcohols," says Timothy Stinear, a coauthor of the study and a researcher at the University of Melbourne's Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity.

joe_the_user 8y ago
Not really, I think there's a broad consensus that excessive disinfecting across society now has negative rather than positive effects. Bacteria can plausibly develop resistance to just about anything so gratuitously adding antibacterials to the environment is pretty inherently bad - use them when and only when needed (antibiotics in meat being another problem example). Also, it seems there's a threshold below which a lack-of-exposure to bacteria and other immune-vectors is actually bad for a person - by preventing the immune system from acting normally.
- BoiledCabbage 8y ago
  It's funny, because I remember have arguments with biology majors. And them explaining how alcohol is different and bacteria will never be able to evolve immunity to it unlike anti-biotics. Something I couldn't understand. And they kept trying to describe how it's different, and something about how any bacterium that evolved to survive in an high alcohol environment would no longer be able to survive in a non-alcohol environment. So they would die, just laying on the ground or any surface. I still never got it. Bio majors, is thete any truth to that? This article seems to say no. What phenomena could they have been referring to?
  - joe_the_user 8y ago
    Well, There's understanding what has been experimentally determined so-far about bacteria and organisms and there's understanding that the realm of things we haven't so-far discovered about organisms and their potential evolutions may larger than what we have discovered.