# Any evidence to support the use of regular (as opposed to anti-bacterial) soap? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [July 22, 2009, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-evidence-to-support-the-use-of-regular-as-opposed-to-anti-bacterial-soap/503895 "2009-07-22T20:23:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![BrandonR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/779978/32.png) [@BrandonR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrandonR)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2009, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-evidence-to-support-the-use-of-regular-as-opposed-to-anti-bacterial-soap/503895/21 "2009-07-23T22:23:55Z")
> [@HorseloverFat](#): > > 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. Uhh, you’re right that all that stuff isn’t natural, but surely you know what is natural, right? Living in the wild, surrounded by insects, germs, feces, and eating raw meat is what’s “natural.” Do you really think that today’s office settings are dirtier than what humans used to deal with? And last I checked, science proved the existence of super-bacteria that are immune to normal products because various strains would mutate… ---
**Author:** ![Shagnasty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9dc877/32.png) [@Shagnasty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shagnasty)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2009, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-evidence-to-support-the-use-of-regular-as-opposed-to-anti-bacterial-soap/503895/22 "2009-07-23T22:37:43Z")
> [@HorseloverFat](#): > > 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. You made such an amazing number of factual and logical fallacies in one short post that it is quite the accomplishment. I would have no idea where to begin because I don’t want to go to the library and look up research papers for the past 100 years and Fed-Ex them to your house. The only response I can come up with is: Do you believe in the theory of evolution? ---
**Author:** ![Troy\_McClure\_SF](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/troy_mcclure_sf/32/4150_2.png) [@Troy\_McClure\_SF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Troy_McClure_SF)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2009, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-evidence-to-support-the-use-of-regular-as-opposed-to-anti-bacterial-soap/503895/23 "2009-07-23T22:45:18Z")
> [@HorseloverFat](#): > > there’s nothing natural about … shaking hands Physical contact is unnatural? You’ve heard of fucking, right? ---
**Author:** ![amarone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e0b2c6/32.png) [@amarone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amarone)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2009, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-evidence-to-support-the-use-of-regular-as-opposed-to-anti-bacterial-soap/503895/24 "2009-07-23T22:58:09Z")
> [@Hirka\_T\_Bawa](#): > > 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. This post indicates a level of science education, which makes me wonder if “a bacteria” (as opposed to “a bacterium”) has reached a level of acceptance in America in the same way that “data” has become commonly used for the singular. ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2009, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-evidence-to-support-the-use-of-regular-as-opposed-to-anti-bacterial-soap/503895/25 "2009-07-23T22:59:29Z")
> [@HorseloverFat](#): > > 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. Is it natural for bees to live in hives? For lions to hunt cooperatively? For dogs to sniff one another’s posteriors upon meeting? If your answer is _yes_, please explain why the human behaviors you name are not natural. If your answer is _no_, please explain what animal behaviors are and are not natural. ---
**Author:** ![Hirka\_T\_Bawa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/db5fbb/32.png) [@Hirka\_T\_Bawa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hirka_T_Bawa)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2009, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-evidence-to-support-the-use-of-regular-as-opposed-to-anti-bacterial-soap/503895/26 "2009-07-23T23:09:56Z")
> [@amarone](#): > > This post indicates a level of science education, which makes me wonder if “a bacteria” (as opposed to “a bacterium”) has reached a level of acceptance in America in the same way that “data” has become commonly used for the singular. Dammit Jim! I’m a pharmacy student, not an english student! (Sorry, couldn’t resist, and yea, I see my mistake. That’s what I get for not proof reading for grammar, only for content) ---
**Author:** ![Deeg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deeg/32/2955_2.png) [@Deeg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deeg)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2009, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-evidence-to-support-the-use-of-regular-as-opposed-to-anti-bacterial-soap/503895/27 "2009-07-25T01:25:44Z")
> [@Telemark](#): > > I thought hand washing merely removes the bacteria from your hands. It doesn’t necessarily kill it. True, but any bacteria left behind might have some mutation that allows it to somehow cling to your skin better than the bacteria that washed away. If you wash your hands enough eventually the bacteria “learn” to stick around. Dunno if that’s remotely possible. ---
**Author:** ![constanze](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f9ae1b/32.png) [@constanze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/constanze)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2009, 6:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-evidence-to-support-the-use-of-regular-as-opposed-to-anti-bacterial-soap/503895/28 "2009-07-25T06:03:31Z")
> [@HorseloverFat](#): > > 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. You seem to misunderstand history here. We didn’t develop antibacterial soap because we live in cities and work in offices. We developed it for use in hospitals after Dr. Semmelweiss discovered the importance of doctors washing their hands before surgery and after autopsies and before touching a new patient in reducing “Childhood fever” which before him had killed mothers after delivery by the hundereds. Despite his numbers backing him up, he had to fight a hard battle to get doctors to wash their hands in carbolic acid. It’s the industry, however, with their marketing machine, that has taken antibacterial soap out of the hospital setting where it’s necessary, into the normal household where it’s not necessary, because scaring people into needing this special soap instead of ordinary soap to kill GERMS is an effective strategy for the companies to make money. > [@](#): > > I wonder how many people out there who use it dont get MRSA or e.coli because of it. The questioin isn’t about poor hygiene, or washing hands vs. not washing hands. I ANAD, but I doubt that you get salmonella when you wash your hands with normal soap and observe proper hygiene, and avoid it by using antibacterial soap. Usually when people get salmonella, it’s because of lack of proper hygiene procedures or caution with raw eggs in summer etc. Oh, and Eschericha coli? Everybody has those in the colon, you do know that? The presence of E coli in drinking water or on surfaces in your home means a lack of proper hygiene or bad cleaning practises that antibacterial soap alone can’t adress. The presence of E coli in a river for swimming in itself is not dangerous but indicates pollution with fecal waste that means that other nasties like diareha or Ruhr could also be in there. If you have MRSA in your normal household, your problems are really big and can not be solved with anti-bacterial soap. > [@](#): > > 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. Wow, way to turn a reasonable argument into wild screaming by comparing it to the anti-vaccine nutters and anti-science. Just because you haven’t heard of the link between allergies in city children who are less exposed to dirt and (as compared to country children more exposed to hay and dirt and animals) doesn’t mean its unscientific. A lot of doctors are dealing with the rise in allergies and doing research to find out the factors that might cause it, in order to effectivly cure or prevent it, and not only treat the symptoms. > [@](#): > > 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. No, that’s one part of the problem. Another big part is that antibiotics are allowed to be used in feeding in the animal agro-industry, because pigs etc. get fatter quickly and there’s less danger of infections under the crowded conditions in the mass production stables. That this is very bad for humans as a whole because of the resistance is something the agroindustry doesn’t care about as long as they can make money and the law doesn’t forbid it. Adding another possible source for resistant bacteria when it’s not necessary is the wrong way to go about it. ---
**Author:** ![Hirka\_T\_Bawa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/db5fbb/32.png) [@Hirka\_T\_Bawa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hirka_T_Bawa)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2009, 6:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-evidence-to-support-the-use-of-regular-as-opposed-to-anti-bacterial-soap/503895/29 "2009-07-25T06:25:15Z")
> [@constanze](#): > > If you have MRSA in your normal household, your problems are really big and can not be solved with anti-bacterial soap. Slight nitpick, Methicillin-Resistant _Staphylococcus aureus_ is actually really common (considering). In fact, approximately 25% of people are colonized by MRSA. The problem only comes about when MRSA gets past your natural body defenses and grows out of control… Plus… Methicillin-Resistant only actually means that the _S. aureus_ is resistant to Beta-Lactam based antibiotics. There are other antibiotics that work on them. The real problem is VRSA (Vancomycin Resistant _Staphylococcus aureus)_ ---
**Author:** ![constanze](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f9ae1b/32.png) [@constanze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/constanze)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2009, 11:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-evidence-to-support-the-use-of-regular-as-opposed-to-anti-bacterial-soap/503895/30 "2009-07-25T11:13:23Z")
I thought MRSA meant multiple-resistant something. I know there are some bacteria strains of super-resistance to more than one anti-bacteria, which are a growing problem for hospitals, but I don’t remember their exact names (IANAD, and I didn’t look them up on the english wikipedia). ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2009, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-evidence-to-support-the-use-of-regular-as-opposed-to-anti-bacterial-soap/503895/31 "2009-07-25T14:00:52Z")
> [@HorseloverFat](#): > > 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. You may wish to cut on the caffeine a bit. The idea is not that “the immune system is better when we’re all filthy pigs,” it’s that “when we live in sterile bubbles, the immune system, not having any reasonable enemies to fight, starts tilting at windmills.” Completely different animal. ---
**Author:** ![Hari\_Seldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hari_seldon/32/5173_2.png) [@Hari\_Seldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hari_Seldon)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2009, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-evidence-to-support-the-use-of-regular-as-opposed-to-anti-bacterial-soap/503895/32 "2009-07-25T15:47:13Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Relevant Straight Dope articles: > > [ul] > [li][What’s more important in cleaning: soap or hot water?](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1935/whats-more-important-in-cleaning-soap-or-hot-water)[/li][li][Why are men supposed to wash their hands after urination?](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1043/why-are-men-supposed-to-wash-their-hands-after-urination)[/li][/ul] I had actually read the second item above when it appeared originally. Ever since I have been bugged by a question about it and here is as good place as any to ask it. How come, if you cannot get rid of th coliforms from your private parts by washing with soap in the shower, can you get them off your hands by washing with soap and hot water? ---
**Author:** ![HorseloverFat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8e8cbc/32.png) [@HorseloverFat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HorseloverFat)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2009, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-evidence-to-support-the-use-of-regular-as-opposed-to-anti-bacterial-soap/503895/33 "2009-07-25T19:26:56Z")
> [@](#): > > If you have MRSA in your normal household, your problems are really big and can not be solved with anti-bacterial soap. Youre 100% wrong. I was a carrier with MRSA and gave it to at least two people who got nasty infections. Lots of people have it with no symptoms. All the more reason to use antibacterial soap. ---
**Author:** ![Hirka\_T\_Bawa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/db5fbb/32.png) [@Hirka\_T\_Bawa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hirka_T_Bawa)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2009, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-evidence-to-support-the-use-of-regular-as-opposed-to-anti-bacterial-soap/503895/34 "2009-07-25T21:06:55Z")
> [@constanze](#): > > I thought MRSA meant multiple-resistant something. I know there are some bacteria strains of super-resistance to more than one anti-bacteria, which are a growing problem for hospitals, but I don’t remember their exact names (IANAD, and I didn’t look them up on the english wikipedia). Nope, MRSA stands for Methicillin (an old antibiotic) Resistant Staphylococcus aureus. What that actually means is that the Staph aureus has a resistance to a part of its cell wall, called Penicillin Binding Proteins, that make it so that Beta-Lactam based antibiotics will not work. It basically makes a couple different classes to not work on it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-evidence-to-support-the-use-of-regular-as-opposed-to-anti-bacterial-soap/503895.md?page=1)