5 ms·

"""In June 2020, FDA updated their guidelines for the production of liquid hand sanitizer to temporarily allow for the presence of benzene of up to 2.0 ppm “to

"""In June 2020, FDA updated their guidelines for the production of liquid hand sanitizer to temporarily allow for the presence of benzene of up to 2.0 ppm “to reflect data submitted by fuel ethanol manufacturers producing ethanol via fermentation and distillation, indicating that at least some of their fuel ethanol products have harmful chemicals, including gasoline and benzene, which are known human carcinogens (cancer-causing agents).”""" WTF government, this is why many of us don't trust you.

patcon 6y ago
i mean, what's the alternative here? This feels like just the complexity and tradeoffs of living in reality -- a bit of perpetual "damned if you do, damned if you don't". Either they're "preventing life-improving sanitizer from reaching citizens in a time of need", or they're "poisoning citizens" by letting through just a tiny bit of byproduct that would be MUCH more common if they weren't taking a regulatory role. This is an apparatus solving a complex, high-dimensional system of equations, not as academic test for which there's a real "right answer", no? * shrug *
- stickybandit 6y ago
  Hold on with the $10 words and political philosophy. Explain the "need" for hand sanitizer for an illness not transmitted on surfaces. And yet the "deep cleaning" "deep sanitizing" is still happening. It's still a guideline! The tiny silver lining of this event is its selection pressure on people buying rando gallon jugs of hand sanitizer at Costco because "germs bad." What's wrong with everyone??? Wake me up.
  - searine 6y ago
    >not transmitted on surfaces. Not transmitted as readily. >And yet the "deep cleaning" "deep sanitizing" is still happening. Every bit helps, and yeah it is mostly theatre but if thats what gets business... Humans are filthy. If this is what it takes to get people to wear a mask when sick (as habit) and wash their appendages. Then fine.
    - Daho0n 6y ago
      You don't need sanitizer to wash appendages though. Soap is better.
      - searine 6y ago
        Agreed, but a sink and soap aren't always available. So I am happy to encourage hygiene by making it more convenient.
    - peytn 6y ago
      > If this is what it takes to get people to wear a mask when sick (as habit) and wash their appendages That’s the noble goal, but in reality it seems this strategy has led to enormous divisions, eroded the credibility of our institutions, and required the support of a censorship appendage clothed modestly by the fig leaf of private enterprise. Telling the whole truth without trying to manipulate the behavior of adults feels like it would’ve been a wiser approach.
      - searine 6y ago
        >it seems this strategy has led to enormous divisions It's not mask mandates that did that. It is the toxic, divisive and largely unregulated media that has been lying to people for the last 30 years. People have been brainwashed. They no longer have the capability of trusting in or believing reality.
        captainredbeard 6y ago
        Entertain the notion that you may have it backwards: that accepting the institutions at face value _all the time_ is irrational given the past several decades of Kafkaesque proceedings. This can lead to a general hesitance which may seem ignorant but is actually versed in hard earned wisdom.
        searine 6y ago
        Our institutions are often inept, but only rarely are they malicious. The fact remains that they provide necessary benefits that the free market wont. Healthcare, welfare, infrastructure, law enforcement etc. These systems were always mired in flawed bureaucracy. The thing that changed is talking heads spending 30 years convincing americans of all political spectrums that one or more of those dozens of institutions was the boogeyman. Sometimes it has gone as far as getting politicians elected who then intentionally break these systems simply to gain a propaganda victory (see intentionally inefficient unemployment systems). As is often the case, when people need to actually interact with these parts of the system (those parts that aren't intentionally crippled by politics at least), they realize the benefit and change their view from skeptical to supportive.
  - yourmom2 6y ago
    Why is this downvoted? It’s 100% correct...
raverbashing 6y ago
The only thing that matters is: what is the risk of 2ppm of it in hand sanitizer? My guess is that it's very little It is volatile. It won't spend much time in your hand. You won't breathe a significant amount of it. You aren't ingesting it. "Oh but Benzene is carcinogenic" yes, it's also present in Whisky, in a bread slice that was left too long in the toaster, etc. > The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has set a permissible exposure limit of 1 part of benzene per million parts of air (1 ppm) in the workplace during an 8-hour workday https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benzene#Exposure_to_benzene https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benzene#Exposure_to_benzene
- Scoundreller 6y ago
  > You aren't ingesting it. That’s the problem: people do. Can be an issue on some hospital units, even when you add the bitter stuff to it.
  - lazide 6y ago
    The reality is, no one drinking hand sanitizer out of dispensers at the hospital is going to live long enough to see any real change in cancer risk due to 2ppm benzene in the hand sanitizer though are they?
    - Scoundreller 6y ago
      depends how long they're in the hospital for...
      - lazide 6y ago
        Pretty sure you’re gonna die of straight up ethanol poisoning or cirrhosis of the liver before even 100ppm of benzene contamination in said 70% pure ethanol is going to do it. Just a guess, not volunteering for that study.
searine 6y ago
Stop being dramatic. 2ppm isn't a lot, and it is a temporary measure. Benzene can be absorbed through the skin but most of it evaporates off (as hand sanitizer is intended to do) before it is absorbed. So yeah. The FDA reasonably updating guidelines to make sure people can buy hand sanitizer during a global pandemic is probably better than the fraction of a percent increased risk of cancer.
- captainredbeard 6y ago
  Not everyone who disagrees with you is stupid. You are entitled to your take on my unpopular opinion but it's arguing in bad faith to label my concerns as "dramatic". I simply disagree about the tradeoffs and it doesn't come from an uninformed or non-quantitatively-thinking position, I just weigh health risk mitigation higher than you do (even for long tail risks). In this case, my primary issue isn't with the 2ppm of benzene itself, it's with the race to quickly and quietly change it in the first place. The FDA (and the Feds in general) move glacially on important topics but when their buddies in the ethanol fuel business need something, they jump to loosen regulations to make production easier.
  - searine 6y ago
    What is more likely: A. There is a long standing conspiracy between the FDA and ethanol plants to sell adulterated hand sanitizer. B. There is a global pandemic and given that emergency the FDA set aside normal regulations to expedite local antiseptic production.
    - captainredbeard 6y ago
      False dilemma. This doesn't require a long standing conspiracy (or one at all), just a willingness to benefit big business, which generally doesn't favor the citizenry.
refurb 6y ago
What are your specific concerns with 2 parts per million of benzene? Did you know roasted coffee beans contain similar carcinogenic compounds at similar levels (0.5 to 1ppm)? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4933506/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4933506/

patcon 6y ago

i mean, what's the alternative here? This feels like just the complexity and tradeoffs of living in reality -- a bit of perpetual "damned if you do, damned if you don't". Either they're "preventing life-improving sanitizer from reaching citizens in a time of need", or they're "poisoning citizens" by letting through just a tiny bit of byproduct that would be MUCH more common if they weren't taking a regulatory role. This is an apparatus solving a complex, high-dimensional system of equations, not as academic test for which there's a real "right answer", no? * shrug *

stickybandit 6y ago
Hold on with the $10 words and political philosophy. Explain the "need" for hand sanitizer for an illness not transmitted on surfaces. And yet the "deep cleaning" "deep sanitizing" is still happening. It's still a guideline! The tiny silver lining of this event is its selection pressure on people buying rando gallon jugs of hand sanitizer at Costco because "germs bad." What's wrong with everyone??? Wake me up.
- searine 6y ago
  >not transmitted on surfaces. Not transmitted as readily. >And yet the "deep cleaning" "deep sanitizing" is still happening. Every bit helps, and yeah it is mostly theatre but if thats what gets business... Humans are filthy. If this is what it takes to get people to wear a mask when sick (as habit) and wash their appendages. Then fine.
  - Daho0n 6y ago
    You don't need sanitizer to wash appendages though. Soap is better.
    - searine 6y ago
      Agreed, but a sink and soap aren't always available. So I am happy to encourage hygiene by making it more convenient.
  - peytn 6y ago
    > If this is what it takes to get people to wear a mask when sick (as habit) and wash their appendages That’s the noble goal, but in reality it seems this strategy has led to enormous divisions, eroded the credibility of our institutions, and required the support of a censorship appendage clothed modestly by the fig leaf of private enterprise. Telling the whole truth without trying to manipulate the behavior of adults feels like it would’ve been a wiser approach.
    - searine 6y ago
      >it seems this strategy has led to enormous divisions It's not mask mandates that did that. It is the toxic, divisive and largely unregulated media that has been lying to people for the last 30 years. People have been brainwashed. They no longer have the capability of trusting in or believing reality.
      - captainredbeard 6y ago
        Entertain the notion that you may have it backwards: that accepting the institutions at face value _all the time_ is irrational given the past several decades of Kafkaesque proceedings. This can lead to a general hesitance which may seem ignorant but is actually versed in hard earned wisdom.
        searine 6y ago
        Our institutions are often inept, but only rarely are they malicious. The fact remains that they provide necessary benefits that the free market wont. Healthcare, welfare, infrastructure, law enforcement etc. These systems were always mired in flawed bureaucracy. The thing that changed is talking heads spending 30 years convincing americans of all political spectrums that one or more of those dozens of institutions was the boogeyman. Sometimes it has gone as far as getting politicians elected who then intentionally break these systems simply to gain a propaganda victory (see intentionally inefficient unemployment systems). As is often the case, when people need to actually interact with these parts of the system (those parts that aren't intentionally crippled by politics at least), they realize the benefit and change their view from skeptical to supportive.
- yourmom2 6y ago
  Why is this downvoted? It’s 100% correct...

raverbashing 6y ago

The only thing that matters is: what is the risk of 2ppm of it in hand sanitizer? My guess is that it's very little It is volatile. It won't spend much time in your hand. You won't breathe a significant amount of it. You aren't ingesting it. "Oh but Benzene is carcinogenic" yes, it's also present in Whisky, in a bread slice that was left too long in the toaster, etc. > The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has set a permissible exposure limit of 1 part of benzene per million parts of air (1 ppm) in the workplace during an 8-hour workday https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benzene#Exposure_to_benzene https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benzene#Exposure_to_benzene

Scoundreller 6y ago
> You aren't ingesting it. That’s the problem: people do. Can be an issue on some hospital units, even when you add the bitter stuff to it.
- lazide 6y ago
  The reality is, no one drinking hand sanitizer out of dispensers at the hospital is going to live long enough to see any real change in cancer risk due to 2ppm benzene in the hand sanitizer though are they?
  - Scoundreller 6y ago
    depends how long they're in the hospital for...
    - lazide 6y ago
      Pretty sure you’re gonna die of straight up ethanol poisoning or cirrhosis of the liver before even 100ppm of benzene contamination in said 70% pure ethanol is going to do it. Just a guess, not volunteering for that study.

searine 6y ago

Stop being dramatic. 2ppm isn't a lot, and it is a temporary measure. Benzene can be absorbed through the skin but most of it evaporates off (as hand sanitizer is intended to do) before it is absorbed. So yeah. The FDA reasonably updating guidelines to make sure people can buy hand sanitizer during a global pandemic is probably better than the fraction of a percent increased risk of cancer.

captainredbeard 6y ago
Not everyone who disagrees with you is stupid. You are entitled to your take on my unpopular opinion but it's arguing in bad faith to label my concerns as "dramatic". I simply disagree about the tradeoffs and it doesn't come from an uninformed or non-quantitatively-thinking position, I just weigh health risk mitigation higher than you do (even for long tail risks). In this case, my primary issue isn't with the 2ppm of benzene itself, it's with the race to quickly and quietly change it in the first place. The FDA (and the Feds in general) move glacially on important topics but when their buddies in the ethanol fuel business need something, they jump to loosen regulations to make production easier.
- searine 6y ago
  What is more likely: A. There is a long standing conspiracy between the FDA and ethanol plants to sell adulterated hand sanitizer. B. There is a global pandemic and given that emergency the FDA set aside normal regulations to expedite local antiseptic production.
  - captainredbeard 6y ago
    False dilemma. This doesn't require a long standing conspiracy (or one at all), just a willingness to benefit big business, which generally doesn't favor the citizenry.

refurb 6y ago

What are your specific concerns with 2 parts per million of benzene? Did you know roasted coffee beans contain similar carcinogenic compounds at similar levels (0.5 to 1ppm)? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4933506/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4933506/