Germ-killer found in soap may cause liver damage

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2014 7:44 PM GMT
    I know folks who use Dial bar soap because it's antibacterial. This is sobering.

    http://www.foxnews.com/health/2014/11/18/controversial-germ-killer-found-in-soap-may-also-cause-liver-damage-study/?intcmp=latestnews

    A chemical found in most antibacterial soaps may be fighting off germs at the cost of causing liver damage. There have been question marks around triclosan for some time—the FDA warned last year that antibacterial soap could be harmful, and Minnesota banned the ingredient this year—but new research finds it could be a lot more dangerous than thought, the Atlantic reports.

    The study linked the chemical to liver damage and tumors in mice, the Independent reports, and though it wasn't found to actually cause cancer, the changes observed in the mice's bodies "resemble the environment within which human liver cancer forms," the researchers say.

    Triclosan is found in around 75 percent of germ-killing soaps, as well as in products like floor waxes, toothpaste, and cosmetics. The study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal, says triclosan—which some manufacturers have already started to phase out—appeared to make the mice more susceptible to liver disease, and promoted the growth of tumors once they appeared.

    Researchers say the chemical is of concern because it is so prevalent and suggest many of its uses should be eliminated. Exposure could be limited by removing triclosan from uses of "high volume, but of low benefit," like hand soap, a study co-author says, while retaining "uses shown to have health value—as in toothpaste, where the amount used is small." (The FDA took 40 years to consider the use of triclosan, leading to calls to completely change how we regulate chemicals.)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2014 8:54 PM GMT
    Republicans oppose any regulations on industry. Now that they have total control of Congress beginning in 2015, corporations will have free reign to do as they wish, with little restraint and regard to public safety and health. You won't see any action on this issue in the US for at least the next 2 years, if not longer. Profits first, people second.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2014 9:06 PM GMT

    Triclosan takes ten minutes of exposure to actually work. All it does is stop bacteria from replicating. It doesn't kill bacteria. Hand gel (isopropyl) does.

    Now there's another danger on top of what it does once flushed into the environment.

    However, here's something to get behind:
    http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2010/04/12/federal-inattention-triclosan-sparks-grassroots-and-legislative-action


    ...and Minnesota already did.


    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20140519/us-triclosan-ban/

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 19, 2014 3:15 AM GMT
    meninlove said
    Triclosan takes ten minutes of exposure to actually work. All it does is stop bacteria from replicating. It doesn't kill bacteria. Hand gel (isopropyl) does.

    Now there's another danger on top of what it does once flushed into the environment.

    However, here's something to get behind:
    http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2010/04/12/federal-inattention-triclosan-sparks-grassroots-and-legislative-action


    ...and Minnesota already did.


    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20140519/us-triclosan-ban/

    Live links:

    http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2010/04/12/federal-inattention-triclosan-sparks-grassroots-and-legislative-action

    More information:

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/11/141117154612.htm

    Note that the commondreams, self-described as providing views for the progressive community, noted government inaction beginning in 2009. I really should not give any attention to the moronic message by Art_Deco, but the inaction involved agencies under Democratic control. Not to say it would have been different under a Republican administration, but some things don't fit the Democratic-Republican divide. Disingenuous and moronic point made, but not to anyone's surprise.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3287

    Nov 19, 2014 4:00 AM GMT
    it is in colgate total.

    the soaps shown in the picture contain benzylkalonium , which does work.

    the phase out started years ago mainly because of studies that showed childrens toys impregnated with triclosan had no effect, and IV catheters impregnated with them showed no extra benefit.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 19, 2014 4:58 PM GMT
    musclmed saidit is in colgate total.

    the soaps shown in the picture contain benzylkalonium , which does work.

    the phase out started years ago mainly because of studies that showed childrens toys impregnated with triclosan had no effect, and IV catheters impregnated with them showed no extra benefit.

    Dial bar soap contains Triclocarban 0.30%. Previous studies have raised concerns about both Triclocarban and Triclosan but the current study only mentions Triclosan. It seems unclear whether the liver cancer issue also relates to Triclocarban. My guess is they are close enough so the answer is most likely.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 19, 2014 5:00 PM GMT
    this is bacterial only folks.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 19, 2014 5:36 PM GMT
    Art_Deco saidRepublicans oppose any regulations on industry. Now that they have total control of Congress beginning in 2015, corporations will have free reign to do as they wish, with little restraint and regard to public safety and health. You won't see any action on this issue in the US for at least the next 2 years, if not longer. Profits first, people second.


    Emperor Obama's FDA and EPA set regulations at will as directed by the White House to garner votes from "stupid voters". You've been grubered and you don't even know it.

    Whose letting unsafe railcars transport crude oil through the northeast: emperor Obama

    Whose trying to substitute toxic truvada for condoms: emperor Obama.

    Whose negotiating a free trade agreement with his "good friend" the sultan of brunei who passed a law to stone gays to death: emperor Obama.
  • FRE0

    Posts: 4865

    Nov 19, 2014 7:48 PM GMT
    Art_Deco saidRepublicans oppose any regulations on industry. Now that they have total control of Congress beginning in 2015, corporations will have free reign to do as they wish, with little restraint and regard to public safety and health. You won't see any action on this issue in the US for at least the next 2 years, if not longer. Profits first, people second.


    That behavior could cause a backlash resulting in even more regulation later.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 19, 2014 10:37 PM GMT
    mx5, your GOP has just passed a bill that stops scientists from advising your EPA. They are apparently also cutting funding for your FDA. Looks like triclosan is there to stay for while, wouldn't you say?

    btw, find out where your drinking water comes from, because if it's reclaimed water then you're drinking triclosan.
  • mwolverine

    Posts: 3386

    Nov 24, 2014 7:45 AM GMT
    All soap is anti-bacterial. Redundancy in "anti-bacterial" doesn't make your soap any better.

    My family has avoided Dial and other such for decades.
    Dad (a chemist) also cut us off artificial colors before many of them were banned.
    He's not convinced that many of those still in use shouldn't be banned, too.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 24, 2014 4:27 PM GMT
    FRE0 said
    Art_Deco saidRepublicans oppose any regulations on industry. Now that they have total control of Congress beginning in 2015, corporations will have free reign to do as they wish, with little restraint and regard to public safety and health. You won't see any action on this issue in the US for at least the next 2 years, if not longer. Profits first, people second.

    That behavior could cause a backlash resulting in even more regulation later.

    We both remember what happened with the deadly pollution at Love Canal, or the publication of Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring", or the discovery through satellite photography of the destruction of entire forests downwind of coal-fired power plants.

    But Republicans have since learned how to effectively deny such problems. Assisted by the Right Wing propaganda machine from Fox News and Murdock publications, and conservative talk radio, which didn't exist back then.

    If they're successfully convincing the US public that things like Global Warming and evolution don't exist, which the rest of the developed world accepts, then they'll be able to misrepresent polluted food supplies and other threats to public safety. And prevent action to protect the American people, while enriching Republican corporate political donors. It's gonna be a tougher fight this time, and meanwhile we'll have lost much ground in the next 2 years.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 24, 2014 4:32 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    FRE0 said
    Art_Deco saidRepublicans oppose any regulations on industry. Now that they have total control of Congress beginning in 2015, corporations will have free reign to do as they wish, with little restraint and regard to public safety and health. You won't see any action on this issue in the US for at least the next 2 years, if not longer. Profits first, people second.

    That behavior could cause a backlash resulting in even more regulation later.

    Yes it could... if it was true. Fortunately, Mr. Deco's entire post is untrue.

    See, FRE0? Deny, deny, deny.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 24, 2014 4:44 PM GMT
    caesarea4 saidAll soap is anti-bacterial. Redundancy in "anti-bacterial" doesn't make your soap any better..

    I'm not so sure. In 1984 I was judging a high-school science fair, and a student had done a study on the bacteria present in public restroom soap. In those days liquid soap dispensers were rare; on sinks and also in locker room gang showers there would be bars of soap everyone shared.

    So the student studied the bacteria present in newly opened, unused soap bars, versus the bacteria present in soap the student had placed where it could be in use for several days.

    The results were astonishing. You'd assume as the bar soap melted away in use it would constantly be presenting a clean surface. Not so. The new bacteria from contact with people were always present. Apparently the hands of people kept recontaminating the bar, that it wouldn't flush away in routine use, and perhaps there were bacteria where the soap rested on the sink or shower holder. Maybe the bacteria could even penetrate the soap to some degree.

    I think here the issue may be about WHICH anti-bacterial agent to use. But soap on its own may not be sufficiently anti-bacterial to prevent the spread of germs among people. Less a problem today in public places in the US, but perhaps among families and their guests in private homes.
  • crosswinds

    Posts: 67

    Nov 24, 2014 5:01 PM GMT
    I'll admit to not reading the entire thing, comments as well.

    But I just have to say I hate how these days there is research and discoveries which mean basically that you can't touch or eat or drink or smell ANYTHING, since it may cause cancer or diabetes or Alzheimer's or this or that.

    Sheesh.
  • mwolverine

    Posts: 3386

    Nov 24, 2014 5:47 PM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    caesarea4 saidAll soap is anti-bacterial. Redundancy in "anti-bacterial" doesn't make your soap any better..

    I'm not so sure. In 1984 I was judging a high-school science fair....

    That's a great project for a high school kid, but given the results I'd have to question the methods (or equipment).

    http://www.webmd.com/cold-and-flu/news/20070817/plain-soap-as-good-as-antibacterial

    || Researchers from the University of Michigan School of Public Health reviewed 27 studies examining the safety and effectiveness of antibacterial products containing the active ingredient triclosan.

    || Soaps containing triclosan at concentrations commonly seen in products sold to the public were found to be no better for killing bacteria and preventing infectious illness than soaps that did not contain triclosan.

    || An FDA advisory panel considered the question of the effectiveness of antibacterial products in the fall of 2005; the panel overwhelmingly concluded that there was no evidence proving that antibacterial soaps were more effective than regular soaps for preventing infection.

    (We may not be winning all our football games like we used to, but we're still one of the top research institutions in the world. Go Blue.)
  • FRE0

    Posts: 4865

    Nov 28, 2014 11:11 PM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    FRE0 said
    Art_Deco saidRepublicans oppose any regulations on industry. Now that they have total control of Congress beginning in 2015, corporations will have free reign to do as they wish, with little restraint and regard to public safety and health. You won't see any action on this issue in the US for at least the next 2 years, if not longer. Profits first, people second.

    That behavior could cause a backlash resulting in even more regulation later.

    We both remember what happened with the deadly pollution at Love Canal, or the publication of Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring", or the discovery through satellite photography of the destruction of entire forests downwind of coal-fired power plants.

    But Republicans have since learned how to effectively deny such problems. Assisted by the Right Wing propaganda machine from Fox News and Murdock publications, and conservative talk radio, which didn't exist back then.

    If they're successfully convincing the US public that things like Global Warming and evolution don't exist, which the rest of the developed world accepts, then they'll be able to misrepresent polluted food supplies and other threats to public safety. And prevent action to protect the American people, while enriching Republican corporate political donors. It's gonna be a tougher fight this time, and meanwhile we'll have lost much ground in the next 2 years.


    The following link shows how public opinion regarding climate change has shifted over the last few years. Even though the public still supports anti-climate change measures, the amount of support has declined.

    http://climatepublicopinion.stanford.edu/sample-page/research/does-the-american-public-support-legislation-to-reduce-greenhouse-gas-emissions/
  • FRE0

    Posts: 4865

    Nov 28, 2014 11:16 PM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    caesarea4 saidAll soap is anti-bacterial. Redundancy in "anti-bacterial" doesn't make your soap any better..

    I'm not so sure. In 1984 I was judging a high-school science fair, and a student had done a study on the bacteria present in public restroom soap. In those days liquid soap dispensers were rare; on sinks and also in locker room gang showers there would be bars of soap everyone shared.

    So the student studied the bacteria present in newly opened, unused soap bars, versus the bacteria present in soap the student had placed where it could be in use for several days.

    The results were astonishing. You'd assume as the bar soap melted away in use it would constantly be presenting a clean surface. Not so. The new bacteria from contact with people were always present. Apparently the hands of people kept recontaminating the bar, that it wouldn't flush away in routine use, and perhaps there were bacteria where the soap rested on the sink or shower holder. Maybe the bacteria could even penetrate the soap to some degree.

    I think here the issue may be about WHICH anti-bacterial agent to use. But soap on its own may not be sufficiently anti-bacterial to prevent the spread of germs among people. Less a problem today in public places in the US, but perhaps among families and their guests in private homes.


    In my house, there is only liquid soap, but not just for hygienic reasons. It's less messy, easier to use, and is less likely to form soap scum. It seems that liquid soaps are becoming more popular.

    The findings about bar soap are surprising. In slightly earlier times, some gang showers had a large tank of liquid soap connected by metal tubes to soap dispensers at each shower installation. I wonder what happened to them.