I want some reputable sources about this.
The use of regular soap for what?
I used some regular (as opposed to anti-bacterial) soap this morning. It was Dove go fresh Energize.
There you have it, a first-hand account supporting the actual occurrence of use of regular, non-anti-bacterial soap.
I used regular soap this morning as well. So that’s two. But this is anecdotal evidence here. We need conclusive proof that people use regular soap. Extraordinary claims, etc.
Agh, literalists. Okay, I mean evidence to support the idea that regular soap is healthier, less damaging, better for our society, whatever-- than anti-bacterial soap.
One of the most common active ingredients - Triclosan - has raised some questions about health and environmental effects. Bacterial resistance hasn’t been shown to be an issue with this particular chemical though.
My understanding is that antibacterial soaps haven’t been shown to do much better (at cleansing skin of bacteria) than non-antibacterial soaps. Water+soap+agitation seem to do most of the work.
Torture, I assume. I used plain ole Dial to get the secret of icthylic telepathy and the location of the Atlantis from Aquagirl.
Relevant Straight Dope articles:
[ul]
[li]What’s more important in cleaning: soap or hot water?[/li][li]Why are men supposed to wash their hands after urination?[/li][/ul]
What I hear and read from (German ) doctors about the use of anti-bacterial cleaning agents (not hand washing soap, but similar) is always the same:
-
Unless one person in your household has a highly infectious disease (not ordinary cold, but scarlet fever and one or two others - in which case your doctor would inform you about all the necessary steps to sanitzeize the household, e.g only with scarlet you need to cook bed clothes at 90 degrees, for normal cold 60 degrees C is enough), normal soap and cleaner is enough to get the dirt off.
-
Using anti-bacteria when they are not needed is A VERY BAD THING. I tmeans you are effectivly breeding restistant bacterias in the wild, who can mutate and combine into super-resistant bacteria, which are a BIG problem for hospital.
-
Keeping your enviroment too clean of normal stuff like dirt and bacteria is usually linked to increased allergies in children. The theroy is that the immune system needs a base amount of dirt and bacteria to have something to do, otherwise it turns on itself or on harmless things like dust.
-
Even for adults, exposure to normal bacteria keeps your immune system on its toes.
So use normal soap, the kind that’s best for your skin and cheapest.
I was being a literalist? :dubious:
Funny, my first guess was that your question was asking “use of regular soap to prevent spread of colds and flu, compared to antibacterial soap”, which was not what you were going for.
Here is one cite about anti bacterial soaps and products http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol7no3_supp/levy.htm
And here is the CDC’s Guideline for Hand Hygiene in Health-Care Settings http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5116a1.htm
The first cite talks about what I think you are looking for, but the cite for hand hygiene seems to feel the advantages of antibacterial soaps outway the chances of resistance issues.
Actually, there have been documented cases of triclosan-resistant bacteria. It’s actually rather easy for bacteria to evolve resistance in a lab setting, and there are strains of nasty pathogens out there with low-level resistance and the ability to evolve stronger resistance. See here, and here.
And antibacterial soap isn’t even slightly better than regular soap for scrubbing hands, until you get to really high concentrations (1% triclosan, vs .2% found in consumer antibacterial soap).
ETA: D’oh, that’s what I get for not previewing. Fact of the Matter beat me to it.
I dont buy the whole “immune system is better when we’re all filthy pigs.” The naturalism crowd loves this stuff, but there’s nothing natural about living in a city, working in an office, shaking hands, etc. This is why we produce products like anti-bacterial soap. I wonder how many people out there who use it dont get MRSA or e.coli because of it. All this stinks of anti-science nuttiness like the anti-vaccine crowd. Thanks, but I’ll keep using antibacterial soap and hand sanitizer as I please.
Triclosan isnt even used by doctors for serious infections. The real problem here is that doctors have been giving patients strong antibiotics (like penicillian and derivatives) for years for viral infections or as a CYA/fear of malpractice action. Now we’re paying for this with things like MRSA.
Of course resistance is a concern but so far they seem overblown.
Here’s my take on antibacterial soap (note: not hand sanitizer, that’s different, I address that issue at the bottom) but it’s just my two cents, nothing to cite.
If you wash your hands using warm running water and antibacterial soap, and there are *still *bacteria on your hands for the Triclosan or whatever to kill off in the first place, then you’re washing your hands wrong.
If you wash your hands using warm running water and do it properly, there’s no need for the Triclosan or whatever, because there aren’t any more bacteria on your hands in the first place.
Right?
Yes, but from the point of view of the mutating bacteria that’s evolving resistance, it makes no difference if the Triclosan is being used by a doctor in a hospital or Sally Homemaker in her friend’s guest bathroom. So your assertion that Triclosan isn’t used by doctors for serious infections isn’t even relevant. It’s still being used by someone, anyone, and that’s how the bacteria start mutating.
Also, it’s not anti-science nuttiness. People who are against antibacterial soap in a general setting where they’re not needed also cite studies. See other posters, above.
I left out hand sanitizer because it serves a totally different purpose: subbing in for situations when warm running water and soap aren’t available. I’m not a big fan of the stuff, but when I picked up work at a big chain bookstore during the pre-Christmas rush, I most certainly used it. I also mail it to my friend who works as a reporter in godforsaken places of the world because sometimes she simply has no access to clean water. So I’m not against the stuff in certain limited circumstances.
Wrong. There is no way you are going to sterilize your hands by washing them normally, no matter how you do it. All you do when you wash your hands is reduce the number of bacteria, etc. on your hands. Many antibacterial agents stick around post washing, continuing to kill germs, which keeps infection probability lower.
No, washing with soap just helps get oils and dirt off your hands. Chances are the MRSA that was living on your hand is still there.
The studies on the wiki link I provided look convincing. Your claims sound like more anti-vaccine, anti-bacterial junk science to me.
Okay, I know you can’t sterilize human skin while it’s still attached to a living person. That’s not what I meant.
But do bacteria really cling to your skin *that *tightly? They don’t have hands or hooks! 
If I wash my hands thoroughly - I mean a good 15-20 seconds of vigorous rubbing with lots of (nonantibacterial) soap under running water as hot as I can comfortable stand - are there *really *bacteria left on my hands after that? Specifically, are there any dangerous or disease-causing bacteria left? If so, how? (Again, no hooks or hands, so how do they stay attached after all that?)
I cook a decent amount. Sometimes I cook chicken. After handling raw chicken meat - and after dumping the cutting board and knife into the dishwasher - I wash my hands. Thoroughly. As described above. I’ve never then gotten salmonella.
Are you saying that it’s impossible for me to rid my hands of the raw-chicken-germs without using antibacterial soap?
(Also … and I hope this doesn’t turn into a hijack … how did vaccines get dragged into this thread? I’m thoroughly confused about that part.)
Serious question: does hand-washing breed bacteria resistant to hand-washing?
Regular soap kills bacteria by destroying the lipid membrane around the bacteria, cause the bacteria cell to lyse. No, it doesn’t kill all the bacteria (after all, nothing short of extreme heat like an autoclave would do that), but it does kill a lot of them.
Not that I’m aware of. Every bacteria has a lipid membrane around it (for that matter, so do your own cells). This is something that can’t be gotten rid of, or it wouldn’t be a bacteria anymore.
Oh, and hand sanitizer is also perfectly fine to use, there isn’t any resistance to it either. Most common hand sanitizers use Ethyl Alcohol (the same thing that gets you drunk when you drink beer) as the sanitizing agent. I’m not aware of any bacteria that is resistant to it, and I know that none of the common pathogens are (one major exception, the spores of C. Diff aren’t removed with it). However, it isn’t a replacement for properly washing your hands with regular soap and water. It is just useful between times you can wash your hands.
I thought hand washing merely removes the bacteria from your hands. It doesn’t necessarily kill it.