FDA To Decide Fate of Triclosan, Commonly Used In Antibacterial Soaps

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FDA To Decide Fate of Triclosan, Commonly Used In Antibacterial Soaps

Posted by samzenpus on Monday May 20, 2013 @05:40AM from the washing-their-hands-of-it dept.

kkleiner writes "The FDA is finalizing its review of the antibacterial agent triclosan common to many soaps and other health/household products after four decades of use. Recent studies suggest the chemical may be harmful to animals and could interfere with the human immune system along with increasing the proliferation of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. The agency has been slow to cast a verdict, to much criticism considering its widespread use."

223 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

I sense a great disturbance in the web... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2013-05-20 05:42 · Score: 5, Funny

As if millions of hypochondriacs cried out in terror and suddenly went to check WebMD.
1. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by 0racle · 2013-05-20 05:52 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Not looking forward to listening to the sister-in-law and father-in-law if they do anything other than give it a huge thumbs up.
  
  Not that SIL and FIL are right, but damn they're loud about being wrong. So damn wrong.
  
  --
  "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
2. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by noh8rz10 · 2013-05-20 05:54 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  there is no purpose for antibacterial soap. it is just a gimmick and fud that has bad implications because bacteria build up resistance over time. regular soap kills bacteria just fine. you know how a drop of soap will break up grease? the outside of a bacteria cell is just lipids, so the regular soap has the same effect on them. Good for FDA for limiting the explosion of antibacterial products. next step, eliminate antibiotics in farm food.
3. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by h4rr4r · 2013-05-20 06:00 · Score: 2
  
  While I agree with you, your next step will not happen. They will not give up antibiotics for farm animals. Hell, I would be glad to buy such a product and pay more for them. Producers however will never want to make that trade.
4. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by Belial6 · 2013-05-20 06:08 · Score: 1
  
  If you want meat that is antibiotic free, you can certainly get it. You will just have to go to a much smaller producer. You will probably have to pay a lot more for it too. It is available though.
5. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by pjbgravely · 2013-05-20 06:08 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  You are correct that the soaps should be limited. Even though I am dependant on them. I have a long history of skin infections and nothing made it better until my doctor suggested using antibacterial soap. I am now almost free from them now. If they were banned hopefully I could get a prescription for the soap.
  
  As for the farm animals most use antibiotics because of feeding corn to cows, or the crowded way chickens and pigs are kept. This use could be eliminated but food prices would go up.
  
  --
  Star Trek, there maybe hope.
6. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by noh8rz10 · 2013-05-20 06:08 · Score: 0
  
  producers can kiss my ass, because what's best for america is what's best for them.
7. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2013-05-20 06:10 · Score: 1
  
  Producers however will never want to make that trade.
  Large producers won't but smaller ones do. The critters I eat come from such farms and it is cheaper than buying from the grocery store. Then again those critters also aren't knee deep in their own shit or eating nose to nose like the ones at factory farms and feed lots.
  
  --
  Time to offend someone
8. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by h4rr4r · 2013-05-20 06:14 · Score: 1
  
  I have a source for pork like that but no other animals.
  Beef locally is available, but they admit to using growth hormones and antibiotics. So I might as well go with factory farmed meat then.
  I have never seen it cheaper than a grocery store. For example the pork I spoke of is more than $4/lb for the meat. The price appears lower at first, but once the butchering is done there is substantial loss.
9. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by losfromla · 2013-05-20 06:19 · Score: 1
  
  try the internets that's where I source my grass-fed antibiotic-free no-growth-hormone beef, pastured pork is available too. I get mine out of an outfit in texas. Good stuff!
  
  --
  Only I can judge you.
10. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by h4rr4r · 2013-05-20 06:22 · Score: 1
  
  Shipping seems like it would be rather expensive.
  Which is not that big a deal, I only eat meat at a maximum once a day.
11. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by interkin3tic · 2013-05-20 06:31 · Score: 2
  
  Only the ignorant hypochondriacs. The better informed ones are more concerned about triclosan affecting their epigenetics and giving them multiple drug resistant hand-ebola bacteria.
  
  Source: I am an over-informed hypochondriac. I cringe when I have to touch receipts.
12. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-20 06:32 · Score: 0
  
  Biofilms resist soap, but they resist Triclosan too.
13. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by h4rr4r · 2013-05-20 06:35 · Score: 1
  
  As far as I can tell this is just not true in my area.
  I drive about 2 hours for the pork, if my parents did not live nearby I would never do that. If I have to drive farther for meat, I might as well just buy factory farmed crap or skip the meat.
14. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-20 06:41 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not sure where you're from, but this site might be useful: http://www.eatwild.com/
15. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-20 06:44 · Score: 1
  
  If you have to drive 2 hours to a grocery store, you can probably raise your own meat at home.
16. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by EmagGeek · 2013-05-20 06:46 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  So it sounds to me like what you're saying is that SOAP is also anti-bacterial, because it kills bacteria.
  Obviously the FDA needs to ban SOAP as well. I mean, they hardly use it at all in Europe, and they get along just fine.. except maybe for a little BO now and then.
17. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by hazem · 2013-05-20 06:47 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  If they were banned hopefully I could get a prescription for the soap.
  You could probably still get something like a chlorhexidine - it's antiseptic and antibiotic. One brand name is hibiclens. Vets use it a lot with animals with wounds and someone once told me it was also used as a surgical hand scrub.
18. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by interval1066 · 2013-05-20 06:52 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  regular soap kills bacteria just fine.
  No it doesn't. Soap just serves to make the surface of your skin slippery enough to shed the little buggars. If we all really felt the need to kill germs sans anti-bacterial chemicals we should be washing with bleach, but since that's not really a good idea for your skin our military-industrial complex came up with "anti-bacterials". By the way- researchers were warning us about the rise of superbugs becuase we started down this stupid path 30 years ago. I guess as usual we all refused to listen. Now we have a huge, hideous, monster of a problem looming. Good job, humanity.
  
  --
  Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
19. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by ColdWetDog · 2013-05-20 06:52 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  How do they get that stuff through the Internet?
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
20. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by TwineLogic · 2013-05-20 06:55 · Score: 2
  
  If you live in the U.S., this type of meat is named "organic" and already on the shelves.
  
  Hell, I would be glad to buy such a product and pay more for them.
  
  You can do that already -- unless you object to the use of antibiotics on animals with an infection. Even organic labelling allows that. It's the non-therapeutic use of antibiotics that is prohibited.
21. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by poetmatt · 2013-05-20 06:55 · Score: 2
  
  farmers markets and CSA's exist for a reason, and exist everywhere. it's more common the more rural you are. That's all you have to find. I'd be shocked to find an area of the USA where there isn't a CSA or farmers market within 20-40 miles.
22. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by interval1066 · 2013-05-20 06:56 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know about the hormone additives but eating anti-bacterial free meat now will do nothing for you, you might as well eat it if its cheaper than the other stuff. Heeding the lessons of food additives in this generation can only benefit our children's children. Its already too late for us. All you're doing is spending more money for your food, it will be no safer for you.
  
  --
  Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
23. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2013-05-20 06:56 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  For beef last year I split 1/4 of a cow with my father and it came out to just over $4 a pound with processing and the farmer is one of my dad's long time friends. For pork my neighbor's brother raises hogs so I will split a quarter of a hog with him and that comes out to just under $3.50 a pound. Strangely the two farmers live about a mile apart and know each other. In both cases I end up paying the farmers directly and the processor for the bulk processing. Chickens I have to butcher and pluck them myself but they are small enough that it isn't a long job and I can pick one up on the way home from work for $5 as it is only about a mile out of my way. I get my deer processed at the same place as the hogs and cattle as they do a really good job and have won tons of state, regional, and national quality and cleanliness awards. They charge by finished weight $1/lb for steaks, chops, and roasts, and $0.25/lb to grind the trimmings into burger with sausages carrying extra fees depending on what you want done to cover the additional costs. Unlike some places the critter you bring in is the one you get back which seems to happen a lot with places that process venison. The other nice thing is since I know the farmers I have seen what the critters are fed, how the live, and how they are treated and know if they have been given hormones or antibiotics. It seems that there is a much stronger flavor from these critters when compared to the store bought ones probably because they aren't so over processed (treated with ammonia and packed in CO2) and fed a diet of something other than empty calories and hormones.
  
  --
  Time to offend someone
24. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by noh8rz10 · 2013-05-20 06:57 · Score: 1
  
  don't be a douche. soap already has antibacterial properties, which is why you don't need to include antibiotics such as the chemical in the summary, which just leads to strains of bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics.
25. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-20 06:59 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  I agree with the parent in the sense that there is a use for such soaps, but that doesn't mean it can't be more limited in use. I've had some issues with outbreaks on my shoulders and back, and the typical products I used as a teenage that kept my face pretty much pimple free did nothing. My doctor suggested using antibacterial soap. At first I thought he meant a prescription, but no, he meant just the Triclosan generic stuff. I had usually avoided the stuff before hand, but afterwards it clearly worked (even at one point double checking by only using it on one side and normal soap on the other, with a night and day difference). This doesn't mean everyone should use it, but it definitely has its uses in some cases.
  The grandparent is an idiot, and as lipid layers of cells don't work like that and are much harder to break up. The concentrations, time, and mechanical agitation needed to break up cells using normal soap would be unrealistic for use on the skin, especially if you want to keep the skin intact. The point of soap is not to kill the bacteria, but to make it easier to wash things off the skin that would not wash off with water alone.
26. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-20 07:09 · Score: 0
  
  They cut it into little pieces small enough to fit through the tubes.
27. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by h4rr4r · 2013-05-20 07:26 · Score: 2
  
  Try reading.
  I have to drive 2 hours to get pork from a family farm. A normal grocery store is less than 10 minutes away.
28. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by h4rr4r · 2013-05-20 07:29 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Actually I am trying to vote with my dollars, not improve my own health.
  I would think it worth it if it improved the lives of my grandchildren.
29. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by h4rr4r · 2013-05-20 07:31 · Score: 1
  
  I cannot find organic beef regularly. I can never find organic irradiated ground meat. I like the irradiated as I eat burgers far too rare for good sense. If you are going to suggest cooking them, forget it. I would rather not eat a burger than eat a cooked one.
  I actually do object to that use. Antibiotics should be reserved for humans and pets. Farm animals should be quarantined and if they do not recover, destroyed.
30. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by h4rr4r · 2013-05-20 07:33 · Score: 1
  
  I live in an urban area, and there is a farmers market ~20 miles away. They sell very little meat, and it goes fast. So if you want to get up at 8am on Saturday you do that. I would rather sleep and eat less meat. I will admit I am lazy.
31. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by LordLimecat · 2013-05-20 07:52 · Score: 1
  
  Why not just feed soap to the cows, since it kills bacteria?
32. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by LordLimecat · 2013-05-20 07:54 · Score: 1
  
  XML should be banned too, I hear its just as dangerous as SOAP.
33. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-20 07:57 · Score: 0
  
  I drive 7 hours for good small producer, grass-fed, non-antibiotic beef. What's the problem? Just buy 1/4 beef (~180 lbs) at a time, put it in a freezer and you've got over a year's worth for a family of 4 (2 adults, 2 children). Been doing that for 30 years now (1 time per year, time it with a visit to relatives).
34. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by pjbgravely · 2013-05-20 07:58 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks I will be looking into chlorhexidine soaps.
  
  --
  Star Trek, there maybe hope.
35. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-20 07:59 · Score: 0
  
  FYI - the beef & processing fee for 180 lbs is approx $350, so very reasonable actually (try getting that price at a local store). Although the cost of electricity for a freezer might add another $25-50/yr.
36. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by ImprovOmega · 2013-05-20 08:01 · Score: 1
  
  Strictly speaking soap just traps the natural oils in your skin in which a great many bacteria live which allows your hands to be much cleaner than otherwise. It doesn't make the bacteria directly "slip off" but it makes it so that you can get the nasty oil off of your hands. Also, washing with alcohol would likely be as effective or possibly more so, but the downside is dryness. Bleach, as you said is bad for your skin for multiple reasons.
37. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-20 08:04 · Score: 0
  
  tubes! the internet is tubes, remember?
38. Re: I sense a great disturbance in the web... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-20 08:07 · Score: 0
  
  Not that informed as Ebola is a virus, not a bacterium.
39. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by heypete · 2013-05-20 08:16 · Score: 1
  
  My understanding is that antibiotics are permitted to treat infection, but the meat from that animal cannot be sold as "organic" for as long as they're taking the medication and for a certain period of time afterwards to allow for the medication to be excreted from their bodies.
40. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by Firethorn · 2013-05-20 08:27 · Score: 1
  
  And they won't ship to you?
  Fedex/UPS/USPS and a little dry ice.
  
  --
  I don't read AC A human right
41. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by cmdr_klarg · 2013-05-20 08:33 · Score: 1
  
  Try reading.
  I have to drive 2 hours to get pork from a family farm. A normal grocery store is less than 10 minutes away.
  Then get a freezer and then buy a half or whole hog. One 2 hour trip to the farm once or twice a year is worth it if you want to be certain of what is in your meat.
  
  --
  THE SOFTWARE, IT NO WORKY!!!
42. Re: I sense a great disturbance in the web... by interkin3tic · 2013-05-20 08:39 · Score: 1
  
  Bacteria can get viruses. They have antivirals which show some promise against ebola, but if the ebola is INSIDE OF A BACTERIUM, it would render the drugs useless.
  
  Alternatively I was intentionally making it ridiculous to make the joke.
  
  Third alternative, I'm stupid.
43. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by Firethorn · 2013-05-20 08:42 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  The point of soap is not to kill the bacteria, but to make it easier to wash things off the skin that would not wash off with water alone.
  Yes, but when serious studies show that antibacterial soap is no more effective than non-antibacterial, why use the one with a chemical that potentially screws with your hormones?
  In addition, it seems that nanoscopic metals can be used for antibacterial purposes as well.
  
  --
  I don't read AC A human right
44. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by rts008 · 2013-05-20 08:48 · Score: 1
  
  It's a series of tubes....
  signed, Ted 'the Tube' Stevens
  
  --
  Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
45. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-20 08:49 · Score: 0
  
  3D Printer!
46. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by blackraven14250 · 2013-05-20 09:03 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly. People don't understand that farmer's markets and other sources of fresh produce don't exist everywhere.
47. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by quetwo · 2013-05-20 09:05 · Score: 1
  
  Just about every farmer's market that I've been to in the last four or five years in the midwest have had at least ONE vendor who offers anti-bacterial, "organic" meats. Heck, I don't live in a very large metropolitan area and there are at least 6 different farmer markets within a 25 minute drive each weekend. I'm sure most of the normal grocers in this area don't carry any of this type of food, but that's why I don't go out of my way to shop there either...
48. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by Lehk228 · 2013-05-20 09:16 · Score: 1
  
  I keep a bottle of low test (50%) isopropyl next to my sink just for that purpose.
  
  it also removes "permanent" ink from surfaces and cloth (although cloth tends to smear around rather than come completely out)
  
  --
  Snowden and Manning are heroes.
49. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by newcastlejon · 2013-05-20 09:17 · Score: 1
  
  As it happens, brass (as with many copper alloys) is bacteriostatic, which mades it a good choice for door handles. Much better than so-called stainless steel, in fact.
  
  --
  If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
50. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by Jarik+C-Bol · 2013-05-20 09:23 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  I'm undoing all my mod points in this thread, but my problem with antibacterial soap is the fact that there is virtually NO liquid soaps available that are NOT antibacterial now. Seriously, go look at the soap isle at your grocery store. Virtually all the dish soaps are antibacterial, as are the 'hand' soaps (the ones for your bathroom sink). Short of buying the 15$ for 7 ounces of special organic soap, there is no non antibacterial option available for consumers (no reasonably priced one that is). If the FDA chooses to regulate it, at least a few companies will probably quit using it, thus finally giving the consumer a choice in the matter.
  
  --
  I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
51. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-20 09:24 · Score: 0
  
  Completely wrong.
  Soap is definitely bacteriacidal as many studies have repeatedly shown. The only problem is that the residence time for soap to be maximally effective is relatively long. IOW, soap must be allowed to remain on the skin for 5-10 minutes to do a good job of sanitizing and no one has the patience to regularly perform the practice. Thus, there is a demand for these chemical antibacterial additives.
52. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by Synerg1y · 2013-05-20 10:17 · Score: 1
  
  just out of curiosity what's wrong with meat from animals that are given anti-biotics?
  I mean if you can't cook your meat and get food poisoning as a result... well your immune system should take care of that, as well as a thousand home recipes. I've never heard of somebody being cured with anti-biotics after getting food poisoned (the theory is anti-biotic meats can harbor anti-biotic resistant bacteria. If you eat something that's going to kill you, I believe that process has a relatively short time window to do its work. On the flip side, mass meat producers have the animals in VERY close quarters, not sure if anti-biotics help there, but I'd imagine they'd help prevent a natural disease outbreak that would thin the numbers in nature.
53. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by CrimsonAvenger · 2013-05-20 11:00 · Score: 1
  
  As far as I can tell this is just not true in my area.
  
  If I have to drive farther for meat, I might as well just buy factory farmed crap or skip the meat.
  Can you say "hunting season"? Sure you can.
  Seriously, easiest way to guarantee your meat is antibiotic free is to shoot it yourself.
  
  --
  
  "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
54. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by noh8rz10 · 2013-05-20 11:45 · Score: 1
  
  why is this moderated funny? it's no laughing matter.
55. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-20 12:42 · Score: 0
  
  I'm undoing all my mod points in this thread, but my problem with antibacterial soap is the fact that there is virtually NO liquid soaps available that are NOT antibacterial now.
  Here you go: http://www.amazon.com/Softsoap-Liquid-Butter-28-Fluid-Bottles/dp/B003A4HSVM/
  $15 for six 28oz bottles in the Subscribe & Save program. No Triclosan. I confirmed by checking the ingredients from one of the actual bottles purchased from that page.
  The problem doesn't seem to be in the manufacturer. Softsoap sells a number of soaps without the anti-bacterial additives. The problem would seem to be with your local store. Have you tried asking them to stock the versions that you prefer? Sometimes that works. Or just buy from Amazon. Even at $18, that's still only $3 a bottle. Since one of those bottles will fill three of the pump bottles, that's only $1 per refill.
56. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by ShanghaiBill · 2013-05-20 13:02 · Score: 2
  
  farmers markets and CSA's exist for a reason, and exist everywhere.
  Next time you go to a farmers Market, show up 30 minutes early and watch the "farmers" peeling the "Produce de Mexico" stickers off their fruit. Half the stuff they sell isn't even in season locally.
57. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-20 13:16 · Score: 0
  
  I agree with the parent in the sense that there is a use for such soaps, but that doesn't mean it can't be more limited in use.
  The problem is that the government is incapable of moderation, either enforcement of moderation or enforcement in moderation.
  What will likely happen is a DDT-style blanket ban (DDT in moderation is a perfectly good way to control mosquitoes and protect people from malaria) and grandparent will just have to live with the rashes.
  Or, we keep antibacterializing ourselves to death.
58. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-20 13:40 · Score: 0
  
  if you want to kill skin bateria use peroxide, not bleach. In fact, I don't use bleach at home any longer, prefering to use peroxide.
  The big problem is that people don't bother washing their hands properly after using the bathroom. A proper hand washing takes more the turn the water on, rinse hands, dry hands. You need to run happy birthday through your mind at least 5 times (30 seconds minimum) to properly clean you hands. The other issue is the lack of hot water usage. i'm a firm believer in hot water and soap. Works wonders and if I ever encounter another damn baptist, I'll certainly break out the soap and water and use the damn hot water pressure washer on them 4000 psi works wonders with 180 degree water to clean the filth off things. Course those damn baptists get just a mite upset when I try to bath em while repeating "Cleanliness is next to Godliness"...
59. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by wibblewibble · 2013-05-20 14:53 · Score: 1
  
  Some antibiotics also act as a growth enhancer, and they are dosed at sub-thereputic rates for just this reason. http://www.fao.org/docrep/ARTICLE/AGRIPPA/555_EN.HTM
60. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by Ol+Olsoc · 2013-05-20 15:47 · Score: 2
  
  just out of curiosity what's wrong with meat from animals that are given anti-biotics?
  I mean if you can't cook your meat and get food poisoning as a result... well your immune system should take care of that, as well as a thousand home recipes.
  Antibiotics are used in many farm animals for two reasons. The first is that they gain weight and are ready for market more quickly. The second is that they can be kept in a less clean environment. Both mean less cost and better profits. So far, so good - although I am not accepting of keeping animals under filthy unsanitary conditions
  The bad part is that as an animal takes antibiotics, the antibiotic kills a large precentage of germs, but a few survive. In most cases, there ar etoo few left fo do much harm. But a lifelong administration of antibiotic among large groups means that of those .1 percent of germs that survived, eventually become the dominant type of bacteria, and the once effective antibiotic is innefective. There is a fair chance that this resistant bacteria will make its way into the human population. Yes, cooking th emeat will probably kill the bacteria, but we are constantly shown that this doesn't always happen, and cross contamination is an always present problem
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
61. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by Mashiki · 2013-05-20 15:58 · Score: 1
  
  I cannot find organic beef regularly. I can never find organic irradiated ground meat.
  
  Step 1: Find a farmer
  Step 2: Buy calf
  Step 3: Raise to maturity
  Step 4: ???
  Step 5: Pay for slaughter at butcher that can irradiate
  Step 6: Enjoy tasty beef.
  
  --
  Om, nomnomnom...
62. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by Jarik+C-Bol · 2013-05-20 16:42 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks for the info, I guess its just one of the perils of living at the edge of the civilized world, as I like to call it.
  
  --
  I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
63. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by Khyber · 2013-05-20 19:05 · Score: 1
  
  "People don't understand that farmer's markets and other sources of fresh produce don't exist everywhere."
  Every google search I type in the name of a city and farmer's market and I get tons of results. I have yet to NOT find a city without some sort of farmer's market, even in cities with a population 5,000 people.
  
  --
  Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
64. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by Khyber · 2013-05-20 19:10 · Score: 1
  
  "Strictly speaking soap just traps the natural oils in your skin in which a great many bacteria live which allows your hands to be much cleaner than otherwise"
  Wrong. Soap has two poles. One pole binds to lipids (such as the ones that form bacterial cell membranes) and the other binds to water. Enough of this binds to a bacteria over a long enough period of time (10 minutes or so) and the cell membrane will simply rupture, due to the effects of the surfactant. Without that long period of time, soap just binds to the bacteria, then to water, and then goes away as you wash.
  
  --
  Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
65. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-20 20:14 · Score: 0
  
  It seems that there is a much stronger flavor from these critters when compared to the store bought ones probably because they are .... fed a diet of something other than empty calories and hormones.
  Are you implying, dear sir, that store-bought americans would be mildly flavoured???
66. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by TheLink · 2013-05-20 20:41 · Score: 1
  
  And quite often the antibiotics used in farm animals aren't considered safe for humans.
  See also: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130513095030.htm
  I also wonder about how the concentrations of arsenic vary throughout the chicken - e.g. if you make pate from the chicken livers do you get a higher or lower dose? I suspect significantly higher.
  Some people may also be allergic to the antibiotics or other stuff used and not actually allergic to the meat/vegetable itself.
  --
  
  Too many replies beneath your current threshold
67. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-20 23:24 · Score: 0
  
  Then you live in some shitty ass town. Everywhere I've lived has had a farmers' market supported by farmers who grow locally. Unless they're all lying sacks of shit or something, which is highly unlikely.Why would they even start up farm to pretend that they're growing locally only to import. Seems like a lot of expense for such a scam.
68. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-20 23:25 · Score: 0
  
  Remember, killing all the bacteria on your hand will prevent the beneficial bacteria, which usually outcompetes the harmful bacteria, from living, leaving your skin wide-open to harmful infections.
  There was a study in Eastern Europe where surgeons substituted yogurt for antibacterial handwash and the patients got a lower infection rate.
69. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-21 01:09 · Score: 0
  
  Preventing infectious illness prevention and keeping your hands clean is a rather different case than dealing with specific skin conditions. The former is what most people use the soap for when just washing your hands is what is needed, the latter is what the parent and some others are saying it has a specific, narrow use for.
70. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by h4rr4r · 2013-05-21 01:15 · Score: 1
  
  Please find 1 example of number 5.
71. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by h4rr4r · 2013-05-21 01:19 · Score: 1
  
  I do that already.
  I have not been able to find any wild beef herds to hunt though.
72. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-21 01:20 · Score: 0
  
  Funny thing is, when my doctor did say to use antibaterial soap, I had to actually go to several stores to even find an antibacterial liquid soap that was labeled as a body wash. There are quite a few hand soaps that are antibacterial, although far from all at the supermarkets in my area in the midwest. It usually just amounts to just being another one of the potential varieties up there with other smells and stuff, some of which are not anti-bacterial. But when it came to finding a body wash, or at least a bottle a bit bigger and cheaper than the tiny ones that are meant for sitting next to the sink (assuming the body wash is just repacked hand soap...), it took some looking and there was only one brand I could find.
73. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2013-05-21 01:33 · Score: 1
  
  Probably unless they were smokers. They would probably also be really greasy which is it's own flavor.
  
  --
  Time to offend someone
74. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-21 01:45 · Score: 0
  
  There seems to be two different things called "farmers markets." There is the kind that everyone raves about with great local produce and reasonable prices, and an option to connect with local farmers. Then there is another kind that seems to be trying to sell produce rejected by supermarkets to recoup some money on produce that didn't do well in shipping or get to the supermarket in time. More than once I've end up in an area where the latter was advertised on signs, only to find a bunch of seriously beaten up and/or overripe vegetables, occasionally with bug infestations. And despite being of low quality, they often tried charging prices above what you can get in a supermarket or even the other kind of farmers market (although quite a bit of room for haggling, since it was stuff that probably would get thrown away otherwise). So there have been several times I've moved, and got my hopes up that I saw a farmer's market was only a mile or two away, then realized that I would still need to drive 20+ miles to actually get to a real farmer's market. Depending on the locale and the season, and if you share with your neighbors or not, it is sometimes not worth the effort and gas to drive a ways to get a couple veggies (especially in areas where the supermarkets push harder to get some local produce).
75. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by RevDisk · 2013-05-21 02:03 · Score: 1
  
  I've noticed that as well. Around here, the Amish don't usually do that. Sucker born every minute, I suppose. But it'd be nice for truth in advertising.
76. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by Muad'Dave · 2013-05-21 02:03 · Score: 2
  
  I can never find organic irradiated ground meat.
  Easy - grind your own! Buy the cut(s) of beef you like, and grind away!
  
  --
  Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
77. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by Muad'Dave · 2013-05-21 02:16 · Score: 1
  
  Also, washing with alcohol would likely be as effective or possibly more so, but the downside is dryness.
  Can you say Hand Sanitizer? 60-85% alcohol, typically.
  
  --
  Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
78. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by tomlouie · 2013-05-21 02:18 · Score: 1
  
  http://www.drbronner.com/DBMS/LS.htm
  Dr Bonner's liquid soap. Most stores will have it in their organic section.
79. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-21 02:58 · Score: 0
  
  Some essential oils are also antibacterial. Try finding a soap with tea tree oil or lavender oil.
80. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by losfromla · 2013-05-21 03:01 · Score: 1
  
  Not too expensive actually: A half side of beef (200 lb) is $1,385 shipped, or $1,316 picked up at the ranch. Note that this includes both ground beef as well as some nice (expensive at retail) steaks and ribs... Ground beef is $6/lb, ground grass fed pork is $6.50/lb.
  See pretty far down on this page for a chart:http://www.texasgrassfedbeef.com/beef_cuts_and_prices.htm
  Here's the shipping rates (units are cents) per pound for 65 lbs, which is their first price break:
  I pay the close to the highest rate because I am in Los Angeles, CA.
  Atlanta, GA = 79
  Austin, TX = 41
  Boston, MA = 90
  Columbus, OH = 79
  Chicago, IL = 60
  Dallas, TX = 35
  Denver, CO = 53
  Houston, TX = 48
  Los Angeles, CA = 88
  Lubbock, TX = 48
  Miami, FL = 88
  Milwaukee, WI = 88
  Minneapolis, MN = 88
  Montgomery, AL = 53
  Nashville, TN = 53
  New Orleans, LA = 53
  New York, NY = 88
  Oklahoma City, OK = 48
  Phoenix, AZ = 79
  Saint Louis, MO = 53
  San Diego, CA = 88
  San Francisco, CA = 90
  Salt Lake City, UT = 79
  Seattle, WA = 90
  Tampa, FL = 79
  Texarkana, TX = 35
  Waco, TX = 35
  Wichita Falls, TX = 35
  
  --
  Only I can judge you.
81. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-21 03:22 · Score: 0
  
  Depending on how the particular farmer's market is being run, you don't need a farm to sell produce there. Either you just pay for your stall, or at some of the less organized ones, just show up with a truck full of produce. Sometimes it is just farmers (or some associates, not the farmers themselves) who don't have anything in season locally at the moment, or ones trying to offer more selection instead of just bringing one or two particular items. I'm not sure if they are all liars, as at least ones I've talked to will tell you where some of the things are from if you bother to ask. Maybe they don't lie when it is pretty obviously not local, like crates of bananas being sold at a market in New England.
82. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by Walczyk · 2013-05-21 04:26 · Score: 2
  
  Actually, it doesn't seem like you understand that small farmers still often use antibiotics in animals, but not to make them huge, to make them healthier and safer to eat (have you heard of trichinosis?). Not that there isn't health risks yadda yadda
83. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-21 04:44 · Score: 0
  
  "Soap just serves to make the surface of your skin slippery enough to shed the little buggers". You are wrong and have no idea how soap works. Sorry, but there is no other way to put it. Things work differently at the micro level than they do at macro levels. For example, you'll never imagine capillary action exists if all you look at is one-inch water pipes.
  Soap breaks the surface tension in lipids (fats) and the external membrane of bacteria cells is made of such lipid chains.
84. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-21 06:18 · Score: 0
  
  Do they also sell home irradiators?
85. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by Taibhsear · 2013-05-21 06:20 · Score: 1
  
  I get mine here. Method brand at Target and a few other stores. Otherwise, yes it's in the minority.
  http://www.target.com/s?searchTerm=method&category=0|All|matchallpartial|all+categories&lnk=snav_sbox_method
86. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by sjames · 2013-05-21 06:56 · Score: 1
  
  That doesn't address the issue of breeding superbugs that cross over to human infections.
87. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by sjames · 2013-05-21 07:02 · Score: 1
  
  Unless you're worried about your drains getting an infection, I would say that so long as the germs are no longer on your hands, it hardly matters if they're dead or just down the drain.
88. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by zipn00b · 2013-05-21 08:35 · Score: 1
  
  Nothing wrong with using antibiotics to cure a disease even of a farm animal if it's given a chance to clear its system before being sent to slaughter. The huge issue with antibiotics in "farming" is that they are fed at low levels to the animals in an attempt to PREVENT them from getting sick due to the extremely poor conditions they're being raised in. Sadly it ends up being cost effective for them due to the huge subsidies they get which basically allows them to sell the animals for LESS than what it costs to raise them under normal circumstances. There's no way I can buy chicks and raise them to slaughtering age for 99 cents a pound like you can get chickens for in the grocery store. (or even $1.29 a pound as I just saw in a Publix ad just now)
89. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by zipn00b · 2013-05-21 08:40 · Score: 1
  
  http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/drug-information/DR602405
  
  Just be careful and watch for signs of further irritation. They can be rather harsh with frequent use.
90. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by zipn00b · 2013-05-21 08:45 · Score: 1
  
  I can't lay hands on a link at the moment but I read some info a few months ago that the growth enhancement only applied in the CAFO situations. In an organic situation or pretty much anything else close to natural there didn't seem to be any enhancement to growth. So basically if you're raising animals in a stressful, filthy environment that reduces growth then low level antibiotics are just what you want to make them bigger, comparatively healthier (for that environment) and thus more likely to survive to slaughter time.
91. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by Mashiki · 2013-05-21 09:08 · Score: 1
  
  Please find 1 example of number 5.
  Half the butchers at my local market do, though they all own their own small shops they can send any meat off to a major processing facility to have it done. Then again, I live in Canada...where the fear of "irradiating" things is pretty much moot.
  
  --
  Om, nomnomnom...
92. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by nobodie · 2013-05-21 11:45 · Score: 1
  
  Just yesterday I was reading someone who was terrified that the AB soap she required to have in her home was going to be banned and she was writing a newspaper doctor to ask what she could use around her house to protect her from the new viruses that were going to come and get her when they heard she had run out.
  Let us sit quietly for a moment and remember that there are some real nutcases out in the world who are terrified of ... well everything. They have existed for a couple of hundred years or so and will stay with us unless we let them feed the bugs. Their compromised immune systems might help to weaken the forward momentum of bacterial evolution by providing such easy prey that the bacteria will reverse their evolutionary thrust and become weaker.
  It may be our only hope, really.
  
  --
  Subversion of spatial scale luxury decoration ideas.
93. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by pjbgravely · 2013-05-21 13:45 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks.
  
  --
  Star Trek, there maybe hope.
94. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by Belial6 · 2013-05-21 16:25 · Score: 1
  
  So, in other words, it is available to you, but you don't want to pay the price of getting it.
95. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by poetmatt · 2013-05-22 03:15 · Score: 1
  
  uh, his response just confirmed they do exist, but he's just lazy.
  your statement simply shows either a lack of reading comprehension or unwillingness to accept facts as reality.
96. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by poetmatt · 2013-05-22 03:17 · Score: 1
  
  uh, what?
  maybe you should go to an actual farmers market and not a local grocery store. I think you have them mixed up. Farmers markets are pretty damn proud of growing their own shit, not "we just got the shipment of bananas off the truck from mexico".
Toothpaste by G-News.ch · 2013-05-20 05:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

Personally, I find the thought that we put that stuff in our mouths every day much more worrying than the use in soaps. It's also in fabrics, clothing, plastic tools etc.
1. Re:Toothpaste by guttentag · 2013-05-20 05:48 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Personally, I find the thought that we put that stuff in our mouths every day much more worrying than the use in soaps.
  Perhaps you just need a brand in a shinier box? I suggest you try the new Crest 4D White toothpaste. It has every bit as much fluoride as 3D White, but comes in a new extra-shiny with sparklies box. Those matte boxes will make your teeth rot.
2. Re:Toothpaste by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-20 05:48 · Score: 1
  
  I know what you mean. Most toothpastes even have dihydrogen monoxide in it which is even worse. It's the same stuff used in toilet bowl cleansers!
3. Re:Toothpaste by Synerg1y · 2013-05-20 06:02 · Score: 1
  
  lol Crest... how is that crap not banned by the FDA? Your teeth will go longer without it.
4. Re:Toothpaste by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-20 06:03 · Score: 1
  
  Plus, Crest 4D White cleans your teeth with the power of TIME ITSELF, as opposed to just volume like the old 3D White did. That's not to disparage 3D White; once Crest Toothologists discovered the secrets to cleaning teeth with more than just area like with 2D White, entire new areas of marketing research opened up!
5. Re:Toothpaste by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-20 06:29 · Score: 0
  
  Hitler's water was lousy with the stuff since birth and look what happened!
6. Re:Toothpaste by Jeffrey_Walsh+VA · 2013-05-20 07:39 · Score: 1
  
  I agree triclosan in toothpaste is much more disconcerting, but the widespread use all adds to our toxic burden. Triclosan, while not a dioxin, is derived from dioxins, is chemically similar and sometimes breaks down into dioxins under conditions that do occur with our products that contain triclosan. It provides cheap way for the petrochemical industy to rid themselves of a difficult-to-dispose-of hazardous waste. The manufacturers of products like soap and toothpaste can get a longer shelf life with it, but market it as being better for consumers.
7. Re:Toothpaste by J'raxis · 2013-05-20 10:18 · Score: 1
  
  Then stop putting it in your mouth. You honestly need the government to ban something to stop you from doing this?
  
  --
  Liberty in your lifetime
8. Re:Toothpaste by AK+Marc · 2013-05-21 12:14 · Score: 1
  
  I don't want the government to ban me from doing it. I want to be able to pick any product and know it's safe. I want them to ban makers from putting poisons in products they recommend be taken orally.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
9. Re:Toothpaste by J'raxis · 2013-06-01 20:28 · Score: 1
  
  How about just pick the products you want and let other people pick the ones they want, rather than insisting everyone else be denied their choices in products so you can "pick any product" you want?
  
  --
  Liberty in your lifetime
10. Re:Toothpaste by AK+Marc · 2013-06-03 07:17 · Score: 1
  
  Because the manufacturers lie about the safety, so I can't pick the product I "want" because it's impossible to evaluate the options. Cigarettes are safe. The makers of them have countless studies saying so, and testified to Congress to that effect. An informed consumer should never pick poison. But the consumers are lied to. That manufacturer fraud is not prosecuted, so bans of unsafe products are the result of bad capitalism.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
the scare the women marketing strategy by alen · 2013-05-20 05:43 · Score: 4, Insightful

always works, especially older women
GERMS. OMG, GERMS. my wife used to buy this crap and i refused to use it because there was literature in the 90's about how it made you sicker in the end by screwing up your immune system
1. Re:the scare the women marketing strategy by anagama · 2013-05-20 05:56 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Anecdote:
  I started life as a dirty hippy. There are quite a few photos, by the instamatic standards of the late 60s, of me crawling around naked in river beds next to the campgrounds we lived in or sitting in mud puddles splashing about. In one photo, I'm sitting in the dry part of a riverbed chewing on a stick I must have picked up, smiling like an idiot smile while some dirt and drool seep out of the corner of my mouth.
  Anyway, I almost never get sick and the only thing I have an allergy to is acetaminophen. I do shower almost everyday now though.
  
  --
  What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
2. Re:the scare the women marketing strategy by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-20 06:11 · Score: 0
  
  like those automatic soap dispenser advertising that then you don't get germs from touching it.
  I'd think that normally you touch the soap before you wash you hands ....
3. Re:the scare the women marketing strategy by Maximum+Prophet · 2013-05-20 06:11 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  You're tough, you didn't die, you've lived to post about it.
  
  Every kid that was killed by weird diseases caused by picking things up, isn't posting.
  
  --
  All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
4. Re:the scare the women marketing strategy by dkleinsc · 2013-05-20 06:28 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Sadly, this is a common marketing strategy, for several reasons:
  - Women are a lot more likely to be homemakers than men, so they're easier to bombard with advertising.
  - Women are slightly more likely than men to make decisions using emotion rather than logic (everyone uses both ways of deciding, but where they conflict men are about 60-40 in favor of logic while women are about 60-40 in favor of emotion).
  - Women do most of the shopping in most households.
  - Women are significantly more socialized than men to give presents to each other to cement social bonds.
  All this adds up to advertisers targeting women for common household products, particularly women who grew up before the rise of Second-wave Feminism. And although this is changing a bit, most ads for cleaning supplies, food, diapers, paper towels, etc feature those products being used by women rather than men.
  
  --
  I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
5. Re:the scare the women marketing strategy by ceoyoyo · 2013-05-20 06:47 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  There is evidence, including a large Finnish study, that the more variety of microbes you're exposed to as a child, the healthier your immune system as an adult and the less likely you are to have autoimmune diseases.
6. Re:the scare the women marketing strategy by ceoyoyo · 2013-05-20 06:48 · Score: 1
  
  "feature those products being used by women rather than men."
  Lots of products aimed at men feature women too. If you want to sell something to women, put a woman on it. If you want to sell something to men, put a woman on it. We just all like to look at women, rather than men.
7. Re:the scare the women marketing strategy by newcastlejon · 2013-05-20 06:59 · Score: 1
  
  like those automatic soap dispenser advertising that then you don't get germs from touching it. I'd think that normally you touch the soap before you wash you hands ....
  Either way, the next thing you touch is the tap, then again after you've washed your hands. I can't fathom what practical purpose those automatic soap dispensers serve, besides extracting more money from clean freaks.
  
  --
  If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
8. Re:the scare the women marketing strategy by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-20 07:07 · Score: 0
  
  You know who else isn't posting? The people who died as a result of the overuse of antibiotics.
  
  So the question is, which is better? Unfortunately, I am not suited to answer such a question.
9. Re:the scare the women marketing strategy by dkleinsc · 2013-05-20 07:31 · Score: 1
  
  That's why I focused on who was using the product rather than just who was on the screen. For instance, Axe body spray ads have lots of women in them, but none of those women are actually using it. By contrast, ads for breakfast cereal are much more likely to show a mom serving it than a dad doing the same thing.
  
  --
  I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
10. Re:the scare the women marketing strategy by LordLimecat · 2013-05-20 07:59 · Score: 1
  
  Probably not a good idea to take that too far though.
  I mean, you can feed your kid raw chicken to expose him to a "variety of microbes" if you want, but I think Im gonna opt out of that.
11. Re:the scare the women marketing strategy by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-20 23:40 · Score: 0
  
  I didn't see any women in the ads for the USAPATRIOT Act. Oh, wait, those had kids in them.
12. Re:the scare the women marketing strategy by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-21 04:37 · Score: 0
  
  It is slowing being shown that we are healthier in dirty environments. Infants raised in close proximity to livestock are less prone to allergies. Kids who play in the dirt (and thus eat dirt) have "stronger" immune systems that do not react to normal stuff in our environment like dust. The time you spend between living off of Mom's immune system and your own being fully developed is when your body develops immunities. If simple allergens enter your system before you immune system is developed then you won't be allergic to it. You body assumes it is normal.
  The lesson is to let your kids play outside. Let them eat some dirt. Let them be kids! They will be healthier for it.
13. Re:the scare the women marketing strategy by sjames · 2013-05-21 07:05 · Score: 1
  
  All two of them.
  What GP described was the way of things for most of human history including a significant part of the 20th century.
14. Re:the scare the women marketing strategy by ceoyoyo · 2013-05-21 13:25 · Score: 1
  
  Probably. But the anecdote the OP told was about eating dirt and chewing on a stick. Things that are demonstrably good for children but evoke horror in the average modern parent.
SOAP by stanlyb · 2013-05-20 05:48 · Score: 4, Informative

There is only on kind of soap that works, the one that ALL the doctors are using, the plain, simple, normal SOAP. No artificial ingredients, no strawberry scent (who wanna to eat soap!!!) nothing.
1. Re:SOAP by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-20 05:59 · Score: 0
  
  doctors use some alcohol based cleaning product as far as I know.
2. Re:SOAP by fl!ptop · 2013-05-20 06:00 · Score: 1
  
  plain, simple, normal SOAP
  How simple are you talking about?
  
  --
  When you recognize love in another and realize how precious it is, everything else seems so insignificant.
3. Re:SOAP by evilviper · 2013-05-20 06:02 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  There is only on kind of soap that works, the one that ALL the doctors are using, the plain, simple, normal SOAP. No artificial ingredients, no strawberry scent (who wanna to eat soap!!!) nothing.
  While most medical staff do indeed use plain soap, surgeons at least, are required to use antibacterial soap.
  
  --
  Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
4. Re:SOAP by stanlyb · 2013-05-20 06:22 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, the site got it wrong, originally it was not animal sacrifices, but human ones.... Nevertheless, that's the only ingredients you need: fat, water,lye. Is there anything more simple than this formula!
5. Re:SOAP by stanlyb · 2013-05-20 06:25 · Score: 1
  
  It is fast and easy to use, but if you want to really get rid of the bacteria, plain old soap, 20s at least.
6. Re:SOAP by G00F · 2013-05-20 06:48 · Score: 1
  
  There is only on kind of soap that works, the one that ALL the doctors are using, the plain, simple, normal SOAP. No artificial ingredients, no strawberry scent (who wanna to eat soap!!!) nothing.
  While most medical staff do indeed use plain soap, surgeons at least, are required to use antibacterial soap.
  I thought surgeons scrubbed with iodine.
  
  --
  The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive
7. Re:SOAP by evilviper · 2013-05-20 07:05 · Score: 1
  
  Iodine is the most common antibacterial agent in surgical soap solution, but no, surgeons aren't pouring the standard liquid form of povidone-iodine on their hands. It wouldn't lather, and would leave a horrendous stain on their skin.
  
  --
  Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
8. Re:SOAP by evilviper · 2013-05-20 07:08 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Betadine surgical scrub consists of:
  Active Ingredients
  Povidone-iodine, 7.5% (0.75% available iodine)
  Inactive Ingredients
  Ammonium Nonoxynol-4 Sulfate, Nonoxynol-9, Purified Water, and Sodium Hydroxide.
  http://www.purduepharma.com/PI/NonPrescription/A6910B16.pdf
  
  --
  Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
9. Re:SOAP by AliasMarlowe · 2013-05-20 07:27 · Score: 1
  
  Betadine surgical scrub consists of:
  ...
  Nonoxynol-9
  ...
  OK, so tell me, why do surgeons want to rub a spermicide on their hands. On second thoughts, please don't tell me; I just ate dinner...
  
  --
  Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
10. Re:SOAP by ColdWetDog · 2013-05-20 07:36 · Score: 1
  
  No, you're thinking that because of their personalities.
  (Iodine has been deprecated for most things. It's not terribly effective.)
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
11. Re:SOAP by LordLimecat · 2013-05-20 08:01 · Score: 1
  
  Im fairly certain that adding strawberry scent to soap does not remove its properties as a soap.
12. Re:SOAP by evilviper · 2013-05-20 08:01 · Score: 1
  
  (Iodine has been deprecated for most things. It's not terribly effective.)
  Iodine is quite effective (though not the best), but it's relatively expensive. Chlorine & Alcohol are much cheaper, so they've replaced Iodine in a number of places.
  
  --
  Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
13. Re:SOAP by ImprovOmega · 2013-05-20 08:07 · Score: 1
  
  OK, so tell me, why do surgeons want to rub a spermicide on their hands. On second thoughts, please don't tell me; I just ate dinner...
  Protip: products often have more than one use. It can kill your little swimmers so I imagine it is also good for killing other microscopic parasites. If you read your own link it also mentions its use in shaving cream.
14. Re:SOAP by evilviper · 2013-05-20 08:15 · Score: 1
  
  Im fairly certain that adding strawberry scent to soap does not remove its properties as a soap.
  That depends... Are you using it to wash strawberries?
  
  --
  Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
15. Re:SOAP by Teun · 2013-05-20 08:17 · Score: 1
  
  That's the remarkable part in this story, these soaps are outside of the US generally only used in the medical profession.
  What is it Americans are so much more adverse to bacteria than at least as healthy Europeans, Japanese or Australians?
  I know part of it is our European laws are very much for the protection of the consumer, not to advance the income of manufacturers.
  Working in an international industry I've seen how US companies set up a canteen here in Europe and hung up anti-bacteriological soaps and lotions, the majority of Europeans will refuse to use them as they overwhelmingly consider it unnatural and thus unhealthy.
  
  --
  "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
16. Re:SOAP by Lehk228 · 2013-05-20 09:20 · Score: 1
  
  google "cum in beard" there is spermicide in shaving cream for a reason
  
  --
  Snowden and Manning are heroes.
17. Re:SOAP by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-20 15:04 · Score: 0
  
  Nonoxynol-9 is an industrial detergent. A little goes a long way and sperm are really quite fragile, unlike bacteria.
antibiotics are bad by onyxruby · 2013-05-20 05:51 · Score: 1

Unless your sick you should not take antibiotics as it raises your resistance to them. Save them for when you need them and they will work much better.
1. Re:antibiotics are bad by Maximum+Prophet · 2013-05-20 06:14 · Score: 2
  
  Well, yes. Livestock that are given antibiotics, even when not sick, gain weight faster. We don't know why.
  
  People are getting fatter...
  
  --
  All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
2. Re:antibiotics are bad by PCM2 · 2013-05-20 06:15 · Score: 1
  
  Unless your sick you should not take antibiotics as it raises your resistance to them.
  Why would you want to succumb to antibiotics? Or, if you had no resistance to them, why would you swallow them?
  
  --
  Breakfast served all day!
3. Re:antibiotics are bad by PCM2 · 2013-05-20 06:18 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Actually, on a more serious note, TFA is not talking about antibiotics. The word used is antibacterial, which refers to things that can kill bacteria while not being harmful to humans. For more clarity, a better term would be antimicrobial soaps, because they can also work on a variety of other microbes. But there is no real relationship between these agents and the kinds of antibiotics that come in pills.
  
  --
  Breakfast served all day!
4. Re:antibiotics are bad by alen · 2013-05-20 06:21 · Score: 1
  
  antibiotics are given for a short time
  these antiobiotic soaps are used all the time which is what creates the resistant strains
  with normal antibiocs they kill enough bacteria for your body to finish the job
5. Re:antibiotics are bad by ceoyoyo · 2013-05-20 06:50 · Score: 1
  
  "But there is no real relationship between these agents and the kinds of antibiotics that come in pills."
  Wrong.
  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16922622
6. Re:antibiotics are bad by Artraze · 2013-05-20 06:59 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  The awfulness of this post is pretty remarkable. Sidestepping the wrong "your":
  *) This antibiotic isn't for "taking", it's for things that aren't edible like soap and toothpaste
  *) Overuse of antibiotics doesn't "raise your resistance to them", at best it increases the bacteria's resistance to them, but in actually it just increases the chance of creating an antibiotic resistance strain. Almost all of the time, however, any resistant bacteria that may develop are killed by other means (like your immune system) and don't live on.
  *) One should never save antibiotics, but rather take them when prescribed and as prescribed. While your post could be construed as saying that, the reality is that antibiotics generally require a prescription so it's unlikely anyone will have any to save unless they were sick but are feeling better halfway through the prescription. Saving them at that point is the worst possible thing you can do; not taking a full regimen is what is primarily responsible for resistance.
  All that being said, the first point is the most important: this is an external antibiotic. Since it's not applying evolutionary pressure while the bacteria are in your body, there isn't a combined force to make deadly resistant bacteria: ones that survive the antibiotic may not be as effective in the body and thus no one cares. Further, even if that is not the case, the mechanism of action is not the same as other antibiotics so it can still be killed off effectively. For instance, MRSA which is resistant to basically every internal antibiotic can be killed by Triclosan (the chemical in question).
  It's very important to understand that not all antibiotics are the same. Something like a blast furnace will kill bacteria and they will never develop a resistance to it, period. However, it will also kill all of humanity so it's not a fantastic treatment for infection. Ditto with chemicals like ethylene oxide or other physical means like gamma rays. Something like bleach is also very effective at killing bacteria, and can even do so on human skin, but obviously doesn't leave the skin doing so well on longer exposure. There are many many things that kill bacteria. The only ones that are really 'special' and need careful use are the ones that can kill bacteria without killing people. Triclosan kind of falls in the middle and while it deserves some consideration, that 'ZOMG RESISTANCE" response isn't really appropriate either.
7. Re:antibiotics are bad by ColdWetDog · 2013-05-20 07:39 · Score: 1
  
  Well, that definition would also apply to your classical 'antibiotic'. It appears from the Wikipedia site that Triclosan is not a generic antimicrobial in that it won't affect viruses, protozoa or Scientologists.
  
  At in-use concentrations, triclosan acts as a biocide, with multiple cytoplasmic and membrane targets.[16] At lower concentrations, however, triclosan appears bacteriostatic and is seen to target bacteria mainly by inhibiting fatty acid synthesis. Triclosan binds to bacterial enoyl-acyl carrier protein reductase enzyme (ENR), which is encoded by the gene FabI. This binding increases the enzyme's affinity for nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD+). This results in the formation of a stable ternary complex of ENR-NAD+-triclosan, which is unable to participate in fatty acid synthesis. Fatty acids are necessary for reproducing and building cell membranes. Humans do not have an ENR enzyme, and thus are not affected. Some bacterial species can develop low-level resistance to triclosan at its lower bacteriostatic concentrations because of FabI mutations, which results in a decrease of triclosan's effect on ENR-NAD+ binding, as shown in Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus.[17][18] Another way for these bacteria to gain low-level resistance to triclosan is to overexpress FabI.[19] Some bacteria have innate resistance to triclosan at low, bacteriostatic levels, such as Pseudomonas aeruginosa, which possesses multi-drug efflux pumps that "pump" triclosan out of the cell.[20] Other bacteria, such as some of the Bacillus genus, have alternative FabI genes (FabK) to which triclosan does not bind and hence are less susceptible.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
8. Re:antibiotics are bad by PCM2 · 2013-05-20 17:28 · Score: 1
  
  Wrong
  You're scaring people. The study you cite only suggests that some microbes can develop resistance to antimicrobials. It does not suggest that there is any relationship between antimicrobials and antibiotics, which is what you seem to be suggesting. That's absolutely false.
  
  --
  Breakfast served all day!
9. Re:antibiotics are bad by PCM2 · 2013-05-20 17:43 · Score: 1
  
  Well, that definition would also apply to your classical 'antibiotic'. It appears from the Wikipedia site that Triclosan is not a generic antimicrobial in that it won't affect viruses, protozoa or Scientologists.
  Fair enough. To prove your theory, I propose we infect you with pneumonia and then have you swallow a quart of antibiotic soap. You'll be cured, right? Or, the reason you won't be cured is because too many people have been washing their hands with triclosan soap? Is that right? I propose this ludicrous test because you seem willing to move the goalposts at whim. You call it a biocide, I call it a an antimicrobial -- what's your point?
  Furthermore, though you quoted a paragraph from some paper, I don't believe you understand a word of it. Prove me wrong. Why don't you assume we all have a tenth grade education and explain it to us? You're the expert.
  
  --
  Breakfast served all day!
10. Re:antibiotics are bad by ceoyoyo · 2013-05-21 00:45 · Score: 1
  
  Whoops, wrong paper. Try this one:
  http://aac.asm.org/content/45/2/428.abstract
  You can find more if you like. Sublethal exposure to antimicrobials like triclosan has been shown to select for drug resistant bacteria. If that scares people, good.
FDA Approved it for Toothpaste in 1997 by guttentag · 2013-05-20 05:59 · Score: 1

So if they ban it in soap, will people start washing their hands with Colgate's Total toothpaste? I'm sure there are already people who rub Colgate's "Optic White" in their eyes to whiten their vision.
1. Re:FDA Approved it for Toothpaste in 1997 by drinkypoo · 2013-05-20 09:20 · Score: 1
  
  You can't get that OTC, can you? I've seen Triclosan toothpaste but it was prescribed.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
2. Re:FDA Approved it for Toothpaste in 1997 by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-20 12:55 · Score: 0
  
  Colgate Total is in the mix with all the other standard toothpastes. In fact, most people probably don't know that there's triclosan in it, since most people don't read ingredient lists.
3. Re:FDA Approved it for Toothpaste in 1997 by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-20 16:31 · Score: 0
  
  for me in urban california, it's actually getting to the point that grabbing a random toothpaste off the shelf at the store is more likely to find one full of triclosan and "whitening" agents (abrasives and bleaches). it's actually hard to find plain old toothpaste.
Does anyone actually think this will be pulled, by fredrated · 2013-05-20 06:00 · Score: 1

after 4 decades of profit? Not likely.
1. Re:Does anyone actually think this will be pulled, by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-20 06:38 · Score: 1
  
  Well, if the ruling is only on triclosan, then they'll probably just switch to one of the alternatives like triclocarban (already used in some Dial soaps), or something else.
2. Re:Does anyone actually think this will be pulled, by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-20 07:01 · Score: 0
  
  If a drug company filed for a patent on quadclosan, you'd better believe the old one would be pulled post-haste and the new one pushed out to the market for years before anyone asks whether it's going to kill us.
3. Re:Does anyone actually think this will be pulled, by Tailhook · 2013-05-20 07:31 · Score: 1
  
  Phosphates are being removed from detergents after who knows how many decades of profit. Will that fact impact your distorted world view? Not likely.
  
  --
  Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
4. Re:Does anyone actually think this will be pulled, by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-20 07:38 · Score: 0
  
  I think Dial just filed for a patent on trilithosan.
5. Re:Does anyone actually think this will be pulled, by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-20 08:27 · Score: 0
  
  And phosphate-free dishwasher detergent absolutely DESTROYS anything aluminum you put into your dishwasher, thus, restaurants, schools, cafeterias, and other businesses are still allowed to use the good stuff; only us consumers get shafted with the new garbage that: A. Doesn't clean nearly a well so you have to run the dishes through more than once, wasting energy, water, and releasing more of the non-phosphate chemicals: B. Turns all aluminum or aluminized steel cookware, bakeware, etc, (including most hard-anoidized pots) black and makes them unusable. Furthermore, I live nowhere near any coastline, and our wastewater here doesn't have any real effect on waterways and certainly doesn't cause algal blooms. In addition, there will be phosphates in the wastewater anyway, due to all the aforementioned restaurants and businesses who go through the stuff like gangbusters, so the treatment plants still have to process the water to help remove the phosphates regargless. Thanks a bunch guys.
6. Re:Does anyone actually think this will be pulled, by fredrated · 2013-05-21 01:09 · Score: 1
  
  How does recognizing the overwhelming impact that profit has on behavior give me a distorted world view? Project much?
7. Re:Does anyone actually think this will be pulled, by sjames · 2013-05-21 07:15 · Score: 1
  
  Sure, as long as they can use something else that costs about the same, double the retail price and blame the FDA.
8. Re:Does anyone actually think this will be pulled, by Tailhook · 2013-05-21 18:51 · Score: 1
  
  How does recognizing the overwhelming impact that profit has on behavior give me a distorted world view?
  Recognizing the overwhelming impact that profit has on behavior gives you a distorted world view because the impact of profit does not, in fact, overwhelm. Profitable ingredients have been pulled, are being pulled and will be pulled in the future, as per the phosphate example.
  Here is you: profitability precludes restrictions on the use of a substance.
  Here is reality: many otherwise profitable substances are banned or severely restricted.
  Your world view does not allow for reality and is, therefore, distorted. It's fun and hip to indulge these sort of malcontent views, but it's badly incorrect.
  
  --
  Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
9. Re:Does anyone actually think this will be pulled, by fredrated · 2013-05-22 01:50 · Score: 1
  
  You, sir, are a fucking moron.
Only valid use is in toothpaste by WillAdams · 2013-05-20 06:02 · Score: 3, Interesting

where it is markedly better than anything else, though I wouldn't object to seeing it prescription only.
All other usages should be discontinued.
Further, _all_ anti-biotics should be on a rotating schedule, and only used for a period of time brief enough that it's unlikely bacteria will develop resistance, then some other similar anti-biotic rotated in, repeat as necessary, and new anti-biotics are added into the rotation schedule (and only used when prescribed by a doctor, or injected by a veterinarian).
This could be easily enforced by manipulating the expiration dates of anti-biotics.
William

--
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
1. Re:Only valid use is in toothpaste by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-20 06:41 · Score: 0
  
  Further, _all_ anti-biotics should be on a rotating schedule, and only used for a period of time brief enough that it's unlikely bacteria will develop resistance, then some other similar anti-biotic rotated in, repeat as necessary, and new anti-biotics are added into the rotation schedule.
  I don't get it ... how is this any better than using one until a resistance is developed against it and then switching to another one? It seems like the problem would happen with equal probability.
2. Re:Only valid use is in toothpaste by WillAdams · 2013-05-20 06:46 · Score: 1
  
  I said:
  > only used for a period of time brief enough that it's unlikely bacteria will develop resistance
  as opposed to the current scheme of continuing to use until anti-biotic resistance is pervasive.
  Remove the anti-biotic from the environment and there won't be a selection for resistance (instead there will be a selection for the replacment), but before there's selection for the second, rotate in a third, rinse, lather and repeat.
  But above all, usage of anti-biotics should be minimized to:
  - people who are genuinely ill (prescribed and monitored by a doctor, w/ a rigorous lecture on the importance of completing the entire regimen)
  - small dosage uses with a genuine payoff in societal terms (preventing cavities is the only one coming to mind)
  - animals who are genuinely ill and a veterinarian deems worth saving
  
  --
  Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
3. Re:Only valid use is in toothpaste by omnichad · 2013-05-20 06:55 · Score: 1
  
  Further, _all_ anti-biotics should be on a rotating schedule
  All of medicine already does it. Except for a longer time - and when the patent expires, the medicine never goes back into rotation.
4. Re:Only valid use is in toothpaste by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-20 06:57 · Score: 0
  
  Is triclosan better than xylitol?
  The two together work much better than triclosan alone in reducing harmful oral bacteria, but I can't find a study comparing the two against each other.
5. Re:Only valid use is in toothpaste by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-20 07:02 · Score: 0
  
  > only used for a period of time brief enough that it's unlikely bacteria will develop resistance
  
  as opposed to the current scheme of continuing to use until anti-biotic resistance is pervasive.
  I don't think evolution works like you think it works. Selective pressure is selective pressure -- continuous or not.
6. Re:Only valid use is in toothpaste by Burz · 2013-05-20 07:18 · Score: 1
  
  If you want a long-term antibiotic type effect in your mouth, eat foods or supplements that are rich in vitamin K2. It is chemically/structurally similar to vitamin K, but the 'small' difference makes it play an almost entirely different role in the body. K2 (especially the MK4 and MK7 variants, used with vitamin A/cod liver oil) has a moderating/managing effect on calcium uptake and tooth/bone health and somehow prevents plaque buildup (to the point where I wonder sometimes if I should bother brushing my teeth). More calcium ends up in your bones and less clinging to your arteries.
  Some fermented bean products (like Japanese natto) have tons of K2, and this is where a lot of supplements get their source.
7. Re:Only valid use is in toothpaste by iroll · 2013-05-20 09:23 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, toothpaste is one of the first places that it should be banned, since toothpaste with triclosan loads your body more heavily than any other triclosan containing personal care product.
  When you brush your teeth, you scuff your gums up and the triclosan goes directly into your blood, from where it ends up in your fatty tissues and hangs around much longer than you would like it to. The best part is when nursing mothers end up feeding it to their newborns. This is hardly the case with soaps, unless you're eating them.
  Unless there's a reason why somebody NEEDS triclosan tooth paste (and I can't think of one; having a statistically better chance of good breath isn't what I consider a "need"), it shouldn't be promoted.
  
  --
  Repetition does not transform a lie into the truth. - FDR
8. Re:Only valid use is in toothpaste by lordofthechia · 2013-05-20 10:28 · Score: 1
  
  Further, _all_ anti-biotics should be on a rotating schedule, and only used for a period of time brief enough that it's unlikely bacteria will develop resistance, then some other similar anti-biotic rotated in, repeat as necessary, and new anti-biotics are added into the rotation schedule.
  I don't get it ....
  Don't question the man. The same tactic worked against the Borg.
  
  --
  Georgia Tech, the leader in Chia(tm) technology.
9. Re:Only valid use is in toothpaste by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-21 05:00 · Score: 0
  
  The rotation is to screw with what is considered "advantageous."
  There is bacteria everywhere. For a particular species of bacteria to thrive, it wants to out-compete all the surrounding bacteria. If it develops a resistance in an anti-biotic environment, it will out-perform the competition. However, put that same bacteria somewhere like in the deep jungle and it'll quickly be over-taken. This is because the bacteria species in question spends a lot of metabolic energy to maintain the resistance whereas the competition spends less.
  When put on a rotation, the bacteria eventually lose the resistance to anti-biotic A and pick up the new resistance to anti-biotic B. Do this with a rotation of a large number of anti-biotics and it'll greatly reduce the chance of lingering resistance. However, the current practice is to introduce B while A is still being used, so the bacteria don't lose resistances and accumulates them instead.
10. Re:Only valid use is in toothpaste by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-21 07:07 · Score: 0
  
  I don't think evolution works like you think it works.
  The anti-biotic resistance is only an advantage because the environment for anti-biotics is pervasive. It becomes a disadvantage when it is an unnecessary trait that requires extra upkeep. There is an actual cost to keeping traits in the DNA. The bacterium needs to physically collect more carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and other elements to create the DNA. Reproduction requires more physical material to make the copy of the bacterium.
  The anti-biotic resistance, if it is an incredibly negligible change in DNA, might persist. However, it is an extra burden to maintain. This allows other bacteria to out-compete because the other species do not require as much resources/energy. Over several generations (note that several might be anywhere from 1 to hundreds or thousands), the anti-biotic resistance quickly dilutes in frequency.
Surprise at antibiotics resistance increase? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-20 06:06 · Score: 0

That the widespread use of antibiotics would lead to an increase in resistance to antibiotics is plainly obvious, even to non-experts like me. Certainly the experts that study this know it too. So why are they surprised? Clearly, there must be something that made them think that maybe resistance will not increase. Would anybody please enlighten me?
1. Re:Surprise at antibiotics resistance increase? by dccase · 2013-05-20 06:27 · Score: 1
  
  Pour enough of anything down the drains and something will learn to eat it.
Shouldn't those kids die? by bussdriver · 2013-05-20 06:22 · Score: 3, Insightful

Is it not nature that the unhealthy do not pass on their genes? We evolved too, not just the bacteria... except we stopped. Insensitive? no, realistic - stop living in a dreamworld you can't ever completely win against nature. It is one thing to take precautions by not swimming in your shit pool and quite another to wage an expensive a war against nature.

--
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
1. Re:Shouldn't those kids die? by Maximum+Prophet · 2013-05-20 06:51 · Score: 2
  
  They shouldn't wage an expensive a war against nature.
  
  You shouldn't spend too much just to stay alive.
  
  I will spend whatever it takes to stay alive and comfortable.
  
  Substitute anyone for "They", "You", and "I".
  
  --
  All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
2. Re:Shouldn't those kids die? by DarkTempes · 2013-05-20 06:53 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Just because it's what has worked so far for "nature" doesn't mean that it's the best way or the way that we have to do things.
  
  Ideally we'd figure out what bacteria are in dirt that we need to expose some kids to for healthy immune system development and we'd use that knowledge to more directly influence immune system development. "Nature" can't do that but luckily we might just be rational conscious entities with that potential.
  
  We can afford to keep the "weak" alive as a species and I posit that it's better overall for community emotional, moral, and intellectual health.
  
  I put nature in quotes because it's an idea that we made up and does not necessarily reflect reality (but it might).
3. Re:Shouldn't those kids die? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-20 07:04 · Score: 0
  
  No. we're selecting for intelligence now. The marginal difference of a few kids that were needlessly overexposed is not helping anyone.
4. Re:Shouldn't those kids die? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-20 07:40 · Score: 0
  
  Just because it's what has worked so far for "nature" doesn't mean that it's the best way or the way that we have to do things.
  On a long enough time frame, yes it is the way we have to do things.
  
  We can afford to keep the "weak" alive as a species and I posit that it's better overall for community emotional, moral, and intellectual health.
  But not physical health.
  
  I put nature in quotes because it's an idea that we made up and does not necessarily reflect reality (but it might).
  You're an idiot.
5. Re:Shouldn't those kids die? by tlambert · 2013-05-20 07:43 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Is it not nature that the unhealthy do not pass on their genes? We evolved too, not just the bacteria... except we stopped. Insensitive? no, realistic - stop living in a dreamworld you can't ever completely win against nature. It is one thing to take precautions by not swimming in your shit pool and quite another to wage an expensive a war against nature.
  What about insulin for diabetics? What about glasses for myopic or presbiopic people, or publishing anything at all in Braile, along with the manufacture of white sticks? What about Erucic acid for Adrenoleukodystrophy? What about cyanocobalamin/hydroxocobalamin injections for pernicious anemia? What about iron supplements for women?
  There are plenty of us who would be dead now, had we been born in the 1200's; insulin dependent diabetics (type I diabetes) were pretty much dead until the 1920's, and later than that, if they couldn't afford the private manufacturing costs for ongoing treatment - assuming they were even correctly diagnosed in time.
  We've been "preventing" natural selection ever since we first started dabbling in medicine in prehistory, and earlier than that, if you include appointing "minders" to keep the tribes near-sighted oral history from walking off a cliff.
  Would it be great if we could all be genetically perfect? Yeah. But I'm not willing to buy into the idea of some eugenically managed "naturalist" utopian ideal to get there.
6. Re:Shouldn't those kids die? by LordLimecat · 2013-05-20 07:57 · Score: 1
  
  In which countries do people live longer?
  A) Third world countries with human waste management issues, lack of clean water, etc,....
  or
  B) First world countries where there is proper sanitation?
  You can exclude non-disease-related deaths if you want, even.
7. Re:Shouldn't those kids die? by DNS-and-BIND · 2013-05-20 09:09 · Score: 1
  
  Our fucked-up civilization is why diabetes is so prevalent in the first place. If we all went back to a natural diet diabetes would be greatly decreased. You know the movie "Idiocracy"? That's what happens to a society that abandons natural selection and lets low IQs breed out of control.
  
  --
  Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
8. Re:Shouldn't those kids die? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-20 09:44 · Score: 0
  
  Type 1 diabetes caused by diet? Whatever, go back to your paleo/whatever stupid fad diet, idiot.
9. Re:Shouldn't those kids die? by steelfood · 2013-05-20 09:48 · Score: 1
  
  There are weak, as in the elderly who have survived and children who have not been given the chance, or people who might have just had a bout of very bad luck, and the weak who are unfit to survive by virtue of their inability to become useful, productive members of society.
  Techniques developed to save the former also save the latter, and vice versa. As a species, we would probably be better off with fewer of the latter. But who might be able to judge to whom treatment is given, and to whom it is denied? I don't think any human is qualified. A diety? None such exist, and if one does, it is certainly deferring its judgment until later. Our only choice is to help as many as we can, and hope the person we are helping belongs to the former, and not the latter.
  Also, it's important to remember that while some deaths might be good for the whole, each death is also an individual tragedy for those close to that person. I only wish I could remember who said this.
  
  --
  "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
10. Re:Shouldn't those kids die? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-20 11:45 · Score: 0
  
  Good points... But!!
  We do sometimes see cases where people with actual, known, hereditary illnesses (x syndrome, cystic fibrosis, hereditary pseudo-blindness [sorry, i forgot the name of that one]) go on to have kids well knowing that these kids will have a 50-50 (or worse) risk of contracting the same debilitating disease but just not caring, since modern medicine can sort-of keep the symptoms in check, at least until puppy is all grown up and not so cute anymore anyways..
  And what about the cases where e.g. sperm banks allow 20, 30 or even more children to be produced from the same male without doing proper testing for hereditary diseases (these cases pop up in the news every now and again) - because the company basically understands that there won't be any serious consequences for causing several "mortality units" worth of damage down the line - because society does not view hereditary mortality as avoidable, which it actually _is_, by and large.
  Our control over natural selection should go both ways: Yes, we as a society can and must help people with e.g. type 1 Diabetes, but we should not encourage (via financial aid, legal frameworks or societal attitudes) the perpetuation of well-known, incurable, serious hereditary conditions.
11. Re:Shouldn't those kids die? by bussdriver · 2013-05-21 03:19 · Score: 1
  
  How arrogant. You place yourself above nature and think you can do better - nature may not have any guiding intelligence but it has near infinite variety to experiment with and you have next to nothing to experiment with plus as much understanding as a flea does of the world beyond the dog's back.
  Procreation is not a right; especially not a natural born right! If you keep the sickly alive you shouldn't let them breed. I would have died as a child. so be it. I want no offspring; despite the fact my death wouldn't have been a result of bad genes, I'm likely to die in my 50s even if I eat healthy and so the responsible thing is to not pass that on.
  Nature exists whether or not you believe in it, can define it, or understand it. Just like gravity.
  
  --
  Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
12. Re:Shouldn't those kids die? by bussdriver · 2013-05-21 04:26 · Score: 1
  
  I should have used the word "rite" instead of right.
  
  --
  Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
13. Re:Shouldn't those kids die? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-21 04:48 · Score: 0
  
  You do know that diabetes is caused by the improper function of the Pancreas? That means if you can get diabetes through:
  1.) Improper Diet
  2.) Age/Wear & Tear
  3.) Born with a bad Pancreas
  How does your natural diet fix the last two?
14. Re:Shouldn't those kids die? by sjames · 2013-05-21 07:10 · Score: 1
  
  Few question that sanitation is probably the number one reason for the increased average lifespan in the developed world. However, there i a difference between simple sanitation (don't let the kids crawl in a river of human excrement) and obsessively blasting every bacterium with gallopns of triclosan.
Re:Statism at its "best" by sqrt(2) · 2013-05-20 06:34 · Score: 0

It's telling how difficult this satirical trolling is to distinguish from actual Libertarian ranting. I've heard people defend a corporation's "right" to put nicotine in food, and not even have to label it. A third party business would spring up, specializing in testing and reporting on the contents of food. This business would of course always be accurate and truthful because their reputation is on the line! If they started taking bribes from food producers to lie in their reports then ANOTHER fact-checking business would catch them.
It's libertarians all the way down...

--
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
Other serious consequences by Nethemas+the+Great · 2013-05-20 06:34 · Score: 3, Informative

It isn't just the immune system that it affects. It has been shown to decrease muscle strength--including the heart. It also readily reacts with the chlorine in household tap water to form chloroform, a recognized carcinogen.

--
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
1. Re:Other serious consequences by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-20 07:40 · Score: 1
  
  Did you just google how to create chloroform? TERRORIST!!!!!!
2. Re:Other serious consequences by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-21 05:29 · Score: 0
  
  The doses required for it to affect muscle strength (at least in the studies about same) are far greater than anyone receives from toothpaste or any other products.
  I suspect it probably does more good in toothpaste than not, although its long term effects on us and the environment are worrisome.
Triclosan by the+eric+conspiracy · 2013-05-20 06:58 · Score: 1

In soap really there isn't any evidence that it has a positive effect. Soap itself is a disinfectant, and triclosan isn't known to improve the effect. There is no reason to have triclosan in soap.
However triclosan in toothpaste really does prevent gingivitis.
The question is whether or not there are unintended consequences. I'm skeptical - too many of these studies are not reproducible, such as in the case of bisphenol-a.
http://munews.missouri.edu/news-releases/2013/0102-previous-studies-on-toxic-effects-of-bpa-couldn%E2%80%99t-be-reproduced-says-mu-research-team/
Re:Statism at its "best" by Burz · 2013-05-20 07:30 · Score: 1, Insightful

This is priceless libertarian pro-corporate agita :D
How about saving people from the endless screaming via ads about having to use whatever new chemicals that will make us shiny, youthful and lovable? People are bombarded with advertising crap every day, sometimes all day non-stop. It is absolutely essential to push back on the worst of their getting rich through innovative chemistry schemes. Corporations do not have a right to propagandize (and even force) us into using their products in the absence of skepticism.
Re:Statism at its "best" by Burz · 2013-05-20 07:37 · Score: 1, Interesting

Indeed, it is libertarians all the way down in corporate thinking, and the corporate class are free to do what they want as long they have reached that stage of critical mass and minimal competition. We are supposed to ignore that the producers are free to affect the testing business through purchase of stock, etc. At least with government testing and standards, the regulatory capture should be readily apparent (Citizens United is an attempt to circumvent this, however).
Immune system practice... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-20 07:45 · Score: 0

All the more reason I don't wash my hands! :D
Re:Statism at its "best" by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-20 07:52 · Score: 0

Libertarianism is PROVEN to be the best economic model. Period. Read a book sometime, you leftist moron.
I would agree by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-20 08:08 · Score: 0

If toothpaste did not include the deadly neuro-toxin Fluoride. Fluoride is inbetween arsenic and lead as far as toxicity, and I don't think you'd want to be brushing your teeth with either of those.
I've been using non Fluoride toothpaste for a while now and my dental health has already improved.
Once upon a time... by sensei+moreh · 2013-05-20 08:29 · Score: 1

Ok, I admit to being a bit older than most slashdotters, but once upon a time, there was hexachlorophene. Although I think the possibility of hexachlorophene being carcinogenic was the cause of its ban, I seem to recall concerns regarding bacteria becoming resistant to it as also mentioned.

--
Geology - it's not rocket science; it's rock science
Look at shipping in a different way.. by Firethorn · 2013-05-20 08:31 · Score: 1

Let's do some figures:
1. I'm assuming 2 hours is round trip, and average speed is 30 mph. That's 60 miles. At 30 mpg, that's $8 for fuel
2. Maintenance, accident risk, depreciation, etc... : $4
3. I value my time at around $10/hour for avoiding driving, so there's another $20, actually the single largest expense.
Total cost to drive to your store: $32. If they can get you your meat products for less than that, have it shipped.
If you can afford to buy the stuff in the first place, you probably value your time at more than $10.

--
I don't read AC A human right
Operations by Firethorn · 2013-05-20 08:48 · Score: 3, Interesting

When it comes to operations though, they can spend over 2 minutes washing, easy. While 'plain old soap' is very much a step, to my knowledge they also use a anti-microbial soap that's NOT based on triclosan in favor of some prescription level compound.
But from what I'm seeing from my searches, common anti-microbial soaps are no better than regular soap, and even when it is 'better', the difference borders on 'insignificant'.

--
I don't read AC A human right
Re:Statism at its "best" by cmdr_klarg · 2013-05-20 08:49 · Score: 1

This is priceless libertarian pro-corporate agita :D
How about saving people from the endless screaming via ads about having to use whatever new chemicals that will make us shiny, youthful and lovable? People are bombarded with advertising crap every day, sometimes all day non-stop. It is absolutely essential to push back on the worst of their getting rich through innovative chemistry schemes. Corporations do not have a right to propagandize (and even force) us into using their products in the absence of skepticism.
If I was dictator-for-life I'd ban advertisements for drug companies, lawyers, and politicians. Punishable by putting their heads on pikes.

--
THE SOFTWARE, IT NO WORKY!!!
Not more effective than plain soap by DavidHumus · 2013-05-20 09:35 · Score: 1

According to this: http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/45/Supplement_2/S137.long -
"Soaps containing triclosan within the range of concentrations commonly used in the community setting (0.1%–0.45% wt/vol) were no more effective than plain soap at preventing infectious illness symptoms and reducing bacterial levels on the hands."
Phosphates in detergents by Firethorn · 2013-05-20 09:36 · Score: 1

The trick with this is that while studies have found that triclosan is mostly ineffective at improving the efficiency of soaps, the reports I've read is that there is normally a very measurable cut in the cleaning effectiveness of detergents where the phosphates are removed.
It's taken a bit for people to get used to the new, lesser effectiveness and/or for companies to develop detergents that are effective despite their lack.

--
I don't read AC A human right
Lovely view of libertarianism by Firethorn · 2013-05-20 09:41 · Score: 1

Indeed, it is libertarians all the way down in corporate thinking,
Your view on libertarian belief systems is extremely distorted. Some counterpoints:
1. Libertarians typically don't believe in the 'personhood' of corporations. Ergo a 'corporation' can't misbehave. It might create liability for itself, but for actual misbehavior you should always be able to determine a *PERSON* who made said bad decision. If executives have to worry about prison...
2. "Government testing and standards" - Do you realize that the largest testing organizations are private? UL, Underwriters Laboratories, is independent.
3. Not all companies are publicly traded such that you can purchase stock in them. /Mild libertarian; more because I'm pissed at both the democrat and republican parties than because I toe the libertarian line 100%.

--
I don't read AC A human right
1. Re:Lovely view of libertarianism by Burz · 2013-05-20 10:35 · Score: 1
  
  Corporations are primarily a liability-limitation scheme for executives and shareholders, structured so that profit and growth must push aside other considerations. Corporate personhood or not, there's little reason to create one otherwise.
2. Re:Lovely view of libertarianism by Firethorn · 2013-05-20 10:56 · Score: 1
  
  Shareholders, as they are otherwise uninvolved in the operation of the corporation other than the selection of executives, get to enjoy the limited liability. Executives, as actual decision makers, don't get to enjoy that protection if they decide that dumping toxic waste right into the river is a good money-saving idea.
  I'm outright mean when it comes to this, taking a downright military view of responsibility - IE the idea that 'constructive ignorance' is no excuse. If you WOULD have been aware of the activities if you'd been exercising proper command and oversight, you're still guilty even if you hid in the executive offices snorting coke off of prostitute asses.
  
  --
  I don't read AC A human right
Further info by Dripdry · 2013-05-20 09:41 · Score: 1

Kinksters used this stuff as a topical prep for needles/hooks/scalpels (not common hand soap, the real deal). More prevalently I believe it was a surgical prep, and a damn good one. I heard from a medical professional that it may even have been able to get inside a wound without any badness. Great stuff, worked really well to get rid of almost everything (long story short: no anti-microbial/bacterial gets rid of everything, triclosan is one of the best from what I understand).
So yeah, it vanished off shelves a couple years ago.

--
-
1. Re:Further info by iggymanz · 2013-05-20 14:28 · Score: 1
  
  plain old ordinary soap works just as well for washing out wounds.
  studies confirm there is no difference...
Brass handles... by Firethorn · 2013-05-20 09:53 · Score: 0

I thought silver was also a thing, but it looks like you're right.
I wouldn't be surprised if that doesn't eventually generate tests for copper infused working surfaces.
One interesting thing was that wood handles can harbor bacteria in any grooving, but I also remember studies about wood vs plastic for cutting boards saying that while wood will harbor bacteria more than plastic, unlike plastic the bacteria tend to stick to the wood better - meaning it gets onto your food less.

--
I don't read AC A human right
Non-antibacterial Liquid Soap by Aragorn+DeLunar · 2013-05-20 11:40 · Score: 2

Ivory Liquid Hand Soap. MSDS here:
http://www.pgproductsafety.com/productsafety/msds/beauty_care/personal_cleansing/Ivory_Liquid_Hand_Soap_(99735542).pdf

--
Cynicism, like dogmatism, can be an excuse for intellectual laziness. - Susan Shirk
Resistant bacteria. by leuk_he · 2013-05-20 21:26 · Score: 1

The hospitals here are already asking in their long list of questions if you are living on a farm. In that case they might have to consider you carry bacteria that are resistant to multiple antibiotics. I already heard about cases of these people not getting a bed in the hospital , because the extra quarantine bed that are required for people carrying Multiple Resitant bacteria are not available.
Kills 99.99% of bacteria by ThatsNotPudding · 2013-05-20 23:42 · Score: 1

...paving the way for the true, hardened killers.
Get rid of the junk by omfglearntoplay · 2013-05-21 06:27 · Score: 1

It is pure junk and not useful whatsoever. No need for it to be in soaps.