Like most people, I just assume that paper products — Kleenex, paper towels, toilet paper — are absolutely clean and safe. For example, I’d have no hesitation at all about using them on an open wound to slow blood flow. I know from bitter experience that Kleenex isn’t good to try to get something out of your eye, because it can get stuck in there itself, but that’s a cohesiveness issue, not a cleanliness issue. Most people grab a Kleenex when they have a bloody nose, and that’s a pretty vulnerable area.
But do we know that they are really safe for all bodily contact? A lot of green companies are recycling paper, and some of it must be pretty nasty. Even if the papermaking process heats it enough to kill most germs, do we know they kill them all?
And even if it’s sterile, do we know that it has no bad chemicals in it? Does the government test it?
Excellent questions. I’ve wondered about this too.
Just one comment I’ll make:
There is definitely no claim that the tissues and paper cups are sterile. Sterility is a level higher than simply clean. Even band-aids have a notice that “Sterility not guaranteed after package is opened” (or something like that).
But we do make a presumption that our tissues and paper cups are clean. I really wonder how justified we are in presuming that. I also wonder exactly what “clean but not sterile” means.
Seriously? Why should the government test it? Are you eating it? Has there been an outbreak of ass infections from new, unused toilet paper? Does anyone really expect toilet paper that comes in a flimsy piece of plastic to be sterile?
I don’t see the problem. From what I’ve heard, the paper-making process is nasty and can be quite unhealthy for workers and the environment, but I’ve never heard that the paper products themselves are problematic for the consumer. Why would recycled products be any nastier than virgin wood products? You do know they aren’t recycling used tissues and toilet paper, right?
What does *clean * actually mean? Free from dust, debris, insect parts, stains? So far, so good with all the toilet paper I’ve ever bought: everything from Charmin to Trader Joe’s 100% Recycled/Chlorine-free. The only health warning I’ve ever heard wrt to toilet paper is that women should avoid heavily perfumed toilet paper as there seems to be a link to increased risk of candidiasis.
So, I guess the answer to your question is we know because there isn’t any evidence of health problems or contamination associated with unused toilet paper, tissue, or paper towels.
I just want to say that the reference to “is the Government testing it” lies at the root of our current big-gov problem. Must we always rely on government to take care of us?
ug.
In several first aid courses I’ve been told by instructors that fresh newsprint is about as clean as you can find if you don’t have other clean materials. I wouldn’t hesitate to use fresh paper towels or toilet paper for medical purposes if needed.
I don’t mean to derail the thread, but I’ve often thought about how dirty soda cans may be, but most people have no problems with the tab dipping down into their beverage or putting their mouth on the can.
My lay guess is that:
(1) the paper-making process kills off practically all micro-organisms in the wood pulp.
(2) the micro-organisms that are harmful to humans can’t live off paper, so won’t multiply in that environment.
(3) paper products are generally sealed off from the environment until you unwrap them.
So, even though they aren’t guaranteed to be sterile, for all practical purposes they are sterile.
Well, from a bacterial point of view, you should be reasonably safe, particularly if you’re using a bleached paper product. Between the bleaching and the drying of the paper, most pathogens would be eliminated or greatly reduced. The water content of properly stored paper is far too low to support bacterial growth. So even if something slipped by in the processing phase, it’s pretty much a numbers game, and those numbers are going to be low.
As far as chemicals go, I’d say it’s a bit chancier as they can put a real witches brew of stuff in there depending on what they want the paper to look like. But the kind of stuff you’re slapping over your wounds (paper towels, tissue paper, napkins) probably have the least amount of fillers and additives. Maybe bleach and de-inkers, but again, those are probably not going to be present in toxic or maybe even measurable quantities after the washing and drying phases of the paper making process. It’s the glossy, slick papers that have the most additives.
I’d say that if don’t plaster a copy of the cover of Vanity Fair on your gaping wound, you should be OK.
Don’t see why not. If they’re going to spend so much effort and resources on liberating third world nations whether they like it or not, the least they can do is take care of their own citizens.
That said, I don’t see any reason for the government to test paper products, bed-wetting liberal though I may be.
I was given a pad of paper made from elephant dung. I have used it, but only for writing, not for staunching blood flow. It’s not actually that good for writing. I wonder how it is as toilet paper…
The government is us. We (our ancestors) created it to do things, like safety testing, that are impractical for individuals to do. If you dislike the current operation of the government, it’s either because you (and others) have grown complacent and let other people control it, or more people disagree with your opinion than agree.
From many years of visiting Mexico and drinking soda and beer from bottles/cans there, it’s become a habit to wipe clean the part of the container that comes into contact with my mouth, even here in Japan.
There is an alternative. 100+ years of millions of human test subjects since the invention of the Dixie cup with no ill side effects is a great alternative to the government wasting money to prove something that is in effect, already proven.
Would you have the manufacturer of said product test the material’s safety? Here’s a hint: they have a strong incentive to say, “Yep! It’s perfectly safe!”
An independent testing lab? Well - who pays them to do this work?
I’m not saying government is perfect, and it’s not. But for something like consumer safety I think it’s the best of several bad alternatives.
Look at the history. Every food safety and consumer safety regulation ever enacted by the government (there may be an exception in our long history, but I can’t think of any and I bet you can’t either) came about solely because of the public outcry over the lack of industry doing anything about the problem.
If you’re saying that the alternative is to use only those products that haven’t led to public outcries, how many products would be left?
Take a look around you. You encounter thousands of products every day in your home, your work, and in the public places you visit. There are tens of thousands of products in a supermarket. Why do you feel safe using those tens of thousands of products? Because of government guarantees. Strip all the government-protected ones out and tell us what’s left among all those empty shelves.
Enjoy your alternative. The rest of us want supermarkets.
There are contentions that bleached paper products aren’t especially salutary for prolonged physical contact, especially contact with mucous membranes, leading many women away from using standard paper tampons and sanitary napkins. Otherwise, grabbing a kleenex (maybe not toilet paper hanging right above a toilet) or paper towel to deal with a cut or a bloody nose doesn’t seem likely to be a problem.
Well, in the case of paper cups that hold scalding hot coffee, you may be drinking it. In the case of stuffing a Kleenex into a bleeding nostril, you may be introducing it directly into your bloodstream.
And the fact that people don’t collapse in agony the second they drink coffee from a paper cup doesn’t mean that no dangerous chemicals are leaching into the coffee. Some cancers take decades to manifest themselves.