[HN Gopher] Benzene detected in hand sanitizers
___________________________________________________________________
Benzene detected in hand sanitizers
Author : maddyboo
Score : 168 points
Date : 2021-03-30 20:20 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.valisure.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.valisure.com)
| scottrogowski wrote:
| I'd be curious to see whether we actually see an uptick in
| cancers in the coming months/years. If so, I wonder whether it
| will turn out that using hand sanitizer resulted in a net
| increase or decrease in overall mortality.
|
| Evidence that Covid spreads through surfaces is sparse and that
| route of transmission is no longer emphasized by the CDC
| https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00251-4.
|
| While the IFR of COVID varies, it appears to be below 1% for most
| regions of the world,
| https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.13.20101253v....
| Could anyone who is more informed than me estimate what the
| increased mortality would be for those who religiously use hand
| sanitizer with this level of benzene? My guess is still lower
| than COVID but I have no reference point.
| undefined1 wrote:
| also curious if we'll see whether immune systems have been
| weakened or not by over sanitization.
| userbinator wrote:
| I suspect spending a few minutes near a gas station may expose
| you to more benzene than a year of using this stuff...
| fortran77 wrote:
| There's also a problem with people intentionally drinking hand
| sanitizer to get a buzz:
|
| https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20200817/toxic-methanol-in-h...
| amelius wrote:
| Most hand sanitizers contain a bitter substance to prevent
| exactly this.
| Scoundreller wrote:
| Works for some, but not those that _want_ to drink it.
| bitcharmer wrote:
| I'm getting this strange vibe from your comment that somehow
| sanitizer-induced cancer might be a greater problem than COVID,
| which doesn't agree with common sense if you ask me. What am I
| missing here?
| _red wrote:
| You better double-mask up to be safe!!!
| DennisP wrote:
| They didn't say it's a worse problem than covid. They said it
| might be a worse problem than getting covid from touching
| stuff, since that turned out to be way less common than
| airborne droplet transmission.
| tbabb wrote:
| I think the proposal is that sanitizer induces more risk than
| it mitigates, since it's now unlikely that hand sanitation is
| related to covid transmission.
|
| Nonetheless, other things are transmitted by unclean hands,
| which is almost certainly a greater risk than the benzene.
| CivBase wrote:
| That's because it's not common sense to compare sanitizer-
| induced cancer rates to overall COVID rates. To determine
| whether the use of hand sanitizer is a net positive, you have
| to compare the deaths caused by hand sanitizer to the deaths
| prevented by hand sanitizer. Unfortunately, it would be
| pretty difficult to get accurate numbers for either of those
| figures, even if you just narrow it down to cancer and COVID.
| da_big_ghey wrote:
| But problem is that people getting sanitiser cancer are
| maybe not the ones who would be dying because corona. If
| old people are at great risk you can not tell whole
| population for to do something risking cancers to
| protecting them. I am young enough and at very very low
| risk of deaths from corona so am not desiring for to use
| sanitizer and for to maybe getting benzene cancers.
| RIMR wrote:
| That's not quite what they were comparing.
|
| Comparing deaths caused by COVID to deaths caused by
| contaminated hand sanitizer isn't a fair comparison.
|
| Comparing lives saved by hand sanitizer to lives lost to
| sanitizer contamination is what I'm reading here, though it
| seems pretty difficult to measure either.
| xupybd wrote:
| Limiting action when things fly in the face of common sense
| is wise. Limiting the questions you ask to common sense is
| not always wise.
|
| Some times the world is counterintuitive, and the only way to
| find something out is to test it. While it probably is not
| the case there may be poor outcomes from hand sanitizer.
| Would they be worse than CoVid, probably not. However given
| the scope of CoVid all we have to do to test this is wait. If
| hand sanitizer was to cause that much trouble it would become
| obvious at scale.
| krona wrote:
| What you're missing is relative risk vs absolute risk. Don't
| worry, this is a common mistake.
| VLM wrote:
| Common sense is usually wrong WRT statistics.
| scottrogowski wrote:
| I agree with most of the other replies to your comment. The
| world is full of counter-intuitives and I'm genuinely curious
| about whether this is one.
|
| As I said, my guess is that the risk of surface-transmission
| of COVID is probably still greater than the risk of increased
| exposure to benzene. But I think given the low risk of
| surface transmission, it might still be worth a comparison.
| mnw21cam wrote:
| Why does this page have an "opacity: 0" in the CSS? I mean, why
| would you ever do that?
| skulk wrote:
| They're just showing their dedication to transparency.
| f6v wrote:
| That reminds me of my first N26 bank card in Germany. I got
| one in the mail and immediately called them: "Wtf? Why is the
| card transparent?". 5 seconds later: "That shows our
| commitment to transparency..."
| alphabet9000 wrote:
| so when another class is added that makes the element have
| opacity: 1, it animations a transitions from 0 to 1
| Proven wrote:
| "Detected" doesn't mean we should care enough to read the
| article. It could still be harmeless, or unlikely to be harmful.
| quirk wrote:
| As a distillery owner I was happy to see that this wasn't another
| takedown of craft distillers by the sanitizer industry. Very good
| to see zero US distilleries in their report.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| I wasn't aware of any issues with distillery produced hand
| sanitizer, real or scare tactic. There was an earlier issue
| with methanol in hand sanitizer, but I would have figured
| distilleries wouldn't have trouble with that since they already
| have to deal heavily with preventing methanol getting in the
| final product and it's a well understood thing
| throwawayboise wrote:
| There was a kerfuflle some months back when the FDA was going
| around slapping huge fines on craft distilleries who were
| making hand sanitizer. Don't recall the specifics, it was
| either something about exceeding allowed production quotas
| for ethanol, or taxes, maybe both. I believe that sanity
| prevailed and the fines were not imposed.
| yellowapple wrote:
| Honestly, I'm less concerned about the benzene and more concerned
| by the implication that hand sanitizer makers are trying to make
| their hand sanitizers _taste_ good.
| lostlogin wrote:
| I work at a medical practice. I've seen more than one kid run
| up to a hand sanitizer and do something that blasts it in their
| eyes.
|
| It's instant chaos with screaming and yelling from the kid and
| a frantic search for a bathroom from the parents.
|
| So maybe a taste that ain't completely awful would be an
| improvement.
| hyko wrote:
| _Although Valisure has made a good faith effort to obtain samples
| reasonably representative of the general supply, many brands and
| formulations are not included_
|
| I guess the sampling methodology is key if you're trying to learn
| anything about overall risk to the public. 92% _of the batches
| sampled_ had levels that were within FDA guidelines, but unless
| we know how representative those samples are in terms of market
| share, it really tells us very little. 16ppm seems crazy high
| though.
|
| Always worth bearing in mind the general principle of taking only
| the minimum effective dose of anything; you're trying to sanitise
| your hands, not strip your epidermis away through carpet bombing.
| analyte123 wrote:
| Aside from the benzene and methanol [1] contamination, I've never
| heard anyone else comment on all the sketchy emergency-
| authorization sanitizers at restaurants and other places that
| cause your hands to smell like prohibition era whiskey mixed with
| Pine-Sol for an hour. It's funny but it's also not, given the
| tons of money made selling chemical waste for people to put on
| their skin.
|
| [1] https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-
| availability/fda-u...
| ManBlanket wrote:
| My hope is in the wake of resistant bacteria and diseases
| caused by a tsunami of endocrine disrupting chemical products,
| maybe society will come to the conclusion we ought to
| pragmatically consider data and peer reviewed science when we
| weigh the pros and cons of public policy. Nobody seems to be
| asking whether unprecedented amounts of waste, the sky-
| rocketing rates of suicide and deaths from child abuse, or
| state sanctioned extermination of species were worth it. Nobody
| seems to be asking how effective any of these measures were, or
| whether the goal was ever realistic. Let alone whether all this
| was worth preventing the inevitable spread of a disease that
| when all is said and done will kill around a couple million
| people, average age older than the average lifespan. Begs the
| question when we live in a world where 8 million people die of
| diseases associated with fossil fuel pollution, average age
| around 5 years old. Not going to hold my breath. If growing up
| post 9-11 taught me anything it's that humans just want to live
| their lives in fear of the unlikely and use it to be a jerk
| those they view as outsiders to the tribe.
| amelius wrote:
| I've found that hand sanitizers cause a tingling sensation and
| makes me more prone to RSI-like symptoms.
|
| Could this be related?
|
| Has anyone had a similar experience?
| TedDoesntTalk wrote:
| what is RSI?
| amelius wrote:
| Repetitive strain injury.
|
| I've found that hand sanitizer triggers it. Sounds weird, but
| I'm pretty sure, as I went on and off sanitizer about 4 times
| during this pandemic and I noticed the symptom come and go
| every time.
| aaomidi wrote:
| I use 70% isopropyl alcohol. I hate the smells and weird feelings
| the other hand sanitizers leave on my hands.
| extrapickles wrote:
| If you're doing this, make sure you are not using technical
| grade isopropyl, as that can have a bunch of nasty side
| products in it. Getting the correct isopropyl online is
| problematic as people have been watering down technical grade
| and selling it as 70% medical (USP) grade.
| aaomidi wrote:
| Fortunately I had a few bottles from a few years ago. Was
| able to avoid the buying frenzy.
|
| Good catch though!
| duckfang wrote:
| I'm glad that I've been making our household sanitizer then.
| Everclear is 95% ethanol (food safe)
|
| I take 3 parts everclear with 1 part water. Mix, and put in spray
| bottles.
|
| That's an alcohol concentration of .95*.75 = 71.25%
|
| That's within the WHO's recommendations for concentrations from
| 70%-80%
|
| It can be sprayed on your hands, surfaces, food, etc. And since
| it's all food-grade products, is safe (well, as much Everclear is
| "safe"!).
|
| (You can also modify the recipe by using 3 parts everclear with 1
| part food-grade aloe vera, for a lasting hydrating effect
| especially on the hands. Make sure you're not allergic to aloe
| before doing this. Anaphylactic shock is no laughing matter.)
| Analemma_ wrote:
| This works, but depending on where you live you might be paying
| tons of unnecessary tax by doing it. Many states have "sin
| taxes" on alcohol- in WA, they amount to something like 60% of
| the sticker price! You're just burning that money if you're
| using it on hand sanitizer.
| duckfang wrote:
| When the pandemic first really started, you couldn't find any
| isopropyl anywhere. However the liquor store had 1.75l
| everclear for $30. 1 bottle of that lasted me 4 months,
| including making face shields in bags with this. As time went
| by, iso was gradually back on the shelves.. however the food
| grade benefits of everclear made this choice better all
| around.
|
| We're on our 3rd handle, at a total cost of $90. And
| considering my SO is in the health field working with
| potential covid-positive indivuals, we consider this to have
| been well worth whatever we've paid in taxes. I'm sure other
| states have higher taxes. Thankfully we're not in one of
| those.
| didgeoridoo wrote:
| Vegetable glycerin also works well for hydration in place of
| aloe, and has the advantage of not leaving residue on your
| hands. A bit harder to get your hands on, though.
| Semaphor wrote:
| It's actually pretty easy to get, every pharmacy has it
| (extremely expensive), almost every ecig store that caters to
| DIY (expensive), and many stores for horse supplies (cheap).
| The quality (at least here in Germany) is exactly the same
| for all of them.
| ipsum2 wrote:
| Works if you live in a state that allows 190 proof alcohol,
| which doesn't include California, if other people were
| wondering.
| tyingq wrote:
| Is the 151 proof Everclear they do allow sufficient, that's
| 75%? He's mixing water in anyway, so just mix in less?
| duckfang wrote:
| WHO recommends between 70%-80%.
|
| I'd just keep the everclear 151 as is, since as you
| recognize already is at 75%.
|
| (From what I understand, too high doesn't destroy the rna,
| and too low can't penetrate the lipid layer).
| tclancy wrote:
| >as much Everclear is "safe"!
|
| A weekly argument in college.
| spqr0a1 wrote:
| In case anyone is wondered why there is benzene in hand
| sanitizer: Ethanol forms an azeotrope with water, which makes it
| impossible to dry completely without further processing. Benzene
| forms its own azeotrope with water at an even lower boiling point
| which allows for cheaply drying ethanol by further distillation;
| With the, in this case inconvenient, side effect of residual
| benzene contamination. Now you don't actually need dry ethanol
| for hand sanitizer, but the production capacity for fuel-grade
| ethanol is way larger than pharmaceutical or food grade.
| VLM wrote:
| To extend the factual data, benzene costs about twice as much
| as ethanol does (to one sig fig) so its obviously a
| contamination or production mistake as opposed to a money
| saving opportunity. Wet ethanol is going to be a little bit
| cheaper to make than contaminated dry ethanol, so its a mistake
| or supply demand thing.
|
| As such there is little point in the FDA doing a recall; I
| thought hand sanitizer went out of style around the time masks
| came into style. Use by the general public of both seems to
| have virtually no effect on long term population transmission
| rate. "Feel good" "keep them busy" activities.
| oasisbob wrote:
| Nature news has a nice article from earlier this year
| rounding up some of the data and changes in recommendations
| on the spread of the coronavirus through fomites:
|
| https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00251-4
|
| Seems like an easy case where hindsight is 20/20.
| dimal wrote:
| Except that it never seemed to make any sense, even at the
| time. Early on, we were seeing cases double every three
| days. It seemed extremely unlikely that that level of
| transmission could come from surfaces alone. The most
| reasonable early guess should have been that it's airborne.
| Yet experts were telling people to wash their hands and NOT
| wear masks. Maybe they were conflating "no evidence of
| airborne transmission" with "evidence of no airborne
| transmission"? And we were told not to wear masks, yet we
| also needed to make sure that health care workers had PPE.
| But if masks were bad for us, why were they necessary for
| them? Maybe they wanted to conserve limited supply for the
| front line?
| vkou wrote:
| > Yet experts were telling people to wash their hands and
| NOT wear masks.
|
| Experts were telling people that wearing non-n95 masks is
| unlikely to protect _you_ from other sick people.
|
| They are still correct on that point. You primarily wear
| cloth masks to protect other people, not to protect
| yourself.
| darkwater wrote:
| There is this nugget of wisdom in that article
|
| > Nevertheless, scientists warn against drawing absolute
| conclusions. "Just because viability can't be shown, it
| doesn't mean that there wasn't contagious virus there at
| some point," says epidemiologist Ben Cowling at the
| University of Hong Kong.
|
| So, some actions might actually be "feel good" ones but
| also completely dismissing a possible way of infection is
| not that wise.
| rarefied_tomato wrote:
| The benzene _is_ the money-saving opportunity. Per GP it 's
| added to avoid a costly drying process. The cost of removing
| the trace benzene would nullify those savings.
| pushrax wrote:
| Though 96% ethanol via cheap distillation is fine for hand
| sanitizer, so the only real explanation is they're
| leveraging existing supply chains (as described) or have
| made a mistake.
| [deleted]
| asveikau wrote:
| Anecdotally, hand sanitizer is quite popular in places I come
| across in San Francisco. Some businesses require a squirt of
| it at entry.
| fho wrote:
| It's basically mandatory in every grocery store in Germany
| ... and every other store follows suit.
| asveikau wrote:
| Even not in a pandemic, the grocery store thing
| especially makes sense. You'll be touching products that
| will make it into somebody else's mouth. (Hopefully with
| a wash in between, but you never know.)
| TedDoesntTalk wrote:
| Where I live in the US, I've never seen any business
| require hand sanitizer use.
| wkearney99 wrote:
| In a small sampling of places I've been in the MD metro
| DC area it's not uncommon they have a dispenser at the
| door, prominently placed to indicate suggested use. A few
| places have personnel dispensing it, some in a manner
| that does not suggest it being optional.
| tzs wrote:
| > As such there is little point in the FDA doing a recall; I
| thought hand sanitizer went out of style around the time
| masks came into style.
|
| There are people who have occasion to use hand sanitizer for
| reasons unrelated to COVID.
| [deleted]
| lumost wrote:
| The contamination problem in common household products seems
| like something either the FDA/USDA/EPA should be monitoring.
|
| I can understand someone seeing an opportunity for making
| cheaper sanitizer and not recognizing the benzene risk they
| were passing on to customers. Given that this person probably
| didn't even know they should be testing for benzene - I don't
| see how the industry could self-regulate benzene presence in
| hand sanitizers. Even if this became an issue, I wouldn't be
| surprised to see benzene-free labels slapped on benzene
| contaminated sanitizer by virtue of incompetence.
|
| Are there any agencies currently tasked with randomly sampling
| products that consumers come into contact with for
| contamination?
| hguant wrote:
| >The contamination problem in common household products seems
| like something either the FDA/USDA/EPA should be monitoring
|
| It is - I believe that literally all imports of hand
| sanitizer from Mexico are subject to an emergency order
| requiring sampling/testing because of the prevalence of
| contaminates
| _jal wrote:
| Self-regulation without any compliance verification is called
| a polite request.
|
| If people would like to see this sort of thing actually work,
| that requires real regulation. The kind you see when
| important people actually care about outcomes, not the PR
| management you see for, e.g., the food supply.
| clairity wrote:
| if any regulation should be enacted, it's to restrict
| sanitizer use to waste handling, food prep, and healthcare
| use, which is where it may actually do some good reducing
| infection transmission, not in everyday activities where
| it's merely a potentially dangerous evolution-inducing
| palliative.
|
| instead of regulation, let's just promote soap over
| sanitizer, which is as effective against pathogens without
| the unintended side-effects.
| kens wrote:
| This reminds me of when Perrier water was recalled in 1990 after
| it was found to be contaminated with benzene. The contamination
| was only discovered because a random environmental protection lab
| had been using Perrier instead of deionized water for
| convenience. They were puzzled when benzene spikes started
| showing up in their samples. Eventually they realized their
| samples were find and the bottled water was the source.
| maddyboo wrote:
| I happen to have purchased a large 1 gallon jug of sanitizer
| produced by ArtNaturals, the brand with the highest concentration
| detected, from Costco in October.
|
| I've been using it daily ever since, and have even used it to
| refill the bottle of sanitizer in my car.
|
| Later today I am shipping it off to Valisure to be tested.
|
| They noted high variability in concentrations from batch to batch
| that they tested, so I'm hoping I got "lucky".
|
| Edit: by "lucky", I mean I hope my sanitizer was not contaminated
| or the contamination was minimal, obviously! Odd I even need to
| state this.
| canadianfella wrote:
| What's lucky? Looking to sue?
| hyko wrote:
| Whoever Valisure are, they've never heard of baby Yoda.
| TedDoesntTalk wrote:
| Valisure is an amazing company. I purchase all of my
| prescription and OTC medications from them (except for one
| which they do not carry).
| throwawayboise wrote:
| Hand sanitizer is unnecessary for most people. Washing hands is
| better, and surface contact is no longer thought to be a
| significant vector for COVID transmission.
| Abishek_Muthian wrote:
| Almost every chemical factory which had license to Ethanol where
| I live started making hand sanitizers to meet/exploit the demand
| last year. Most of them where just white-labeled and so I
| wouldn't be surprised if there was other harmful substances in
| it.
|
| Doctors here advise to use soap over hand sanitizers if there's
| water available. But now there's another problem, all these
| obsessive hand wash with soap is making the skin dry[1] and
| causing other skin problems.
|
| [1] https://needgap.com/problems/198-hand-wash-liquid-which-
| does... (Disclaimer: It's a problem validation platform I built).
| mrob wrote:
| Anecdotally, I increased hand washing at the start of the
| pandemic using liquid handwash (containing sodium laureth
| sulfate), and it caused skin irritation. I switched to plain
| bar soap (sodium palmate and sodium palm kernelate), which did
| not.
| analog31 wrote:
| Oddly enough, my family went the other way. If you live in a
| hard water area, soap causes soap scum. I banned it from the
| showers because I was sick of scrubbing out the scum. And it
| has become impossible to find detergent based bar soap, I
| think because there's a glut of tallow and lard. So we use
| liquid body wash now.
| webkike wrote:
| Cold water is just as effective as hot water for washing and
| will prevent your hands from drying out as easily
| Scoundreller wrote:
| Is it? I thought micelles formation improved as temperature
| went up.
|
| Also depends on how cold your cold water is... ours is under
| 10C.
|
| Probably unnecessary to do a perfect job for an unstable
| respiratory virus. Skin-colonizing bacteria is a different
| story.
| stochastician wrote:
| I desperately hope this is the case, but a quick google
| couldn't find a link. Do you happen to have a citation that
| you'd recommend? I say this as someone who is a bit paranoid
| about hand cleanliness _and_ is very tired of cracked skin.
| igneo676 wrote:
| https://meridian.allenpress.com/jfp/article/80/6/1022/20001
| 7...
|
| Beyond the citation though, it makes logical sense. The
| mechanism for sanitation is that the soap itself destroys
| the bacteria. This mechanism works regardless of
| temperature. Cold water + Soap should be just fine as long
| as your hands are otherwise visibly clean.
|
| In the food industry, we were required to use high
| temperature water. This was presumably to remove actual
| surface contaminants (dirt, grease, other food
| contaminants) rather than for actual sanitation. That's why
| you might still see guidelines for using hotter water
| temperatures.
| vkou wrote:
| Does soap actively destroy bacteria, or does it mostly
| wash the oils off your hands, that bacteria are stuck
| to/are covered by, and send them down the drain?
|
| I've always been taught it's the latter. Soaping your
| hands, and not rinsing will not sanitize them, you'll
| just end up with dirty, soapy hands.
| clairity wrote:
| most bacteria have an outer lipid layer than is clung to
| by the hydrophobic end of soaps and pulled apart by the
| hydrophilic forces clinging to water on the other end.
| tasogare wrote:
| It's bit ridiculous to ask for a citation for something as
| simple as washing hands. You could try for yourself during
| a week and see if it change something.
| mattkrause wrote:
| Just to play along here....how do you propose that they
| check whether the cold water removes bacteria more
| effectively?
| e12e wrote:
| > I desperately hope this is the case, but a quick google
| couldn't find a link. Do you happen to have a citation that
| you'd recommend?
|
| Cdc agrees:
|
| https://www.cdc.gov/handwashing/faqs.html
|
| > Is it better to use warm water or cold water?
|
| > Use your preferred water temperature - cold or warm - to
| wash your hands. Warm and cold water remove the same number
| of germs from your hands. The water helps create soap
| lather that removes germs from your skin when you wash your
| hands. Water itself does not usually kill germs; to kill
| germs, water would need to be hot enough to scald your
| hands.
|
| Soap helps break down/encapsulate/dissolve oils/fat that
| aren't readily soluble in just water.
| adkadskhj wrote:
| I too am a curious dry-skin person. I thought i had read
| something to the affect of the interaction between soaps
| and bacteria worked better in warm water than cold.
|
| I'll be really interested if i can avoid warm water.
| deeblering4 wrote:
| Using bar soap has stopped the issue for me, and it's also been
| much cheaper and more readily available (in stock) than liquid
| soaps.
| clairity wrote:
| yes, not only cheaper but you get more cleaning power per
| ounce, since you're not paying for the added water.
| yosito wrote:
| While hand washing is one factor that can cause dry skin,
| another factor that contributes is ambient humidity. I started
| keeping my living space between 40 and 50 percent relative
| humidity, and the dry skin on my hands from frequently washing
| them went away. Keeping your living environment properly
| humidified also keeps other parts of your body like mucous
| membranes hydrated which helps prevent disease, so it's really
| a win-win.
| cultofmetatron wrote:
| use doctor bronners. works extremely well and they don't remove
| the glycerin so it won't dry out your hands.
| jbotz wrote:
| Your skin "dries out" because soap removes the natural oils of
| your skin. The solution is to replace the oils. Coconut oil or
| olive oil are good choices. A few drops on your still-wet
| hands, then spread it around by rubbing your hands together;
| your skin being slightly wet helps spread the oil evenly. The
| oil will be completely absorbed within a few minutes, so don't
| worry about having oily hands.
| 1-6 wrote:
| Kinda glad I went with Purell and GermX during the whole
| pandemic. Can't go wrong with highly recognized brand names most
| of the time.
| nikolay wrote:
| In the beginning of the pandemic, I bought 5 + 2 gallons of food-
| grade ethanol. I also bought Everclear at 60% knowing others
| could be cocktails of chemicals made somewhere abroad.
| Unfortunately, recently I lowered my guard and started to use
| more convenient stuff bought at Amazon, and I started to get some
| irritation with it.
| donut2d wrote:
| Do you know what works great as hand sanitizer? Rubbing alcohol -
| no scent, no additives, no gummy weirdness, and cheaper.
| clairity wrote:
| know what's even better? plain old soap.
| azinman2 wrote:
| Can't easily wash my hash my hands with soap in my car.
| yellowapple wrote:
| What sort of peasant doesn't have an entire lavatory in
| one's automobile?
| Scoundreller wrote:
| My bike has one so I don't know how a car couldn't.
| nikolay wrote:
| Actually, there is dry soap nowadays, but you still need a
| little bit of water.
| devwastaken wrote:
| Soap is great but requires people to go through the much more
| rigorous and unavailable method of washing hands. Hand
| sanitizers are much faster and easier, which makes
| sanitization available in areas where it wasn't previously.
| For example in the office, school, stores, anywhere you're
| handling materials, etc.
|
| You should absolutely wash hands too, but there are a lot of
| reasons for portable hand sanitizers.
| clairity wrote:
| but sanitizer is egregiously overused by the public, and
| most of it is doing nothing but pressing adaptation in
| microbes rather than reducing infections. it's useful in
| certain food-handling, waste-handling and healthcare
| settings, but not in most common situations like
| (semi-)public spaces and handling ordinary materials.
|
| the amount of friction presented by washing likely produces
| a more ideal balance between considerations like infection
| reduction, evolutionary pressure, and
| hypochondria/mysophobia inducement. the simple rule of
| thumb is to wash around waste, food prep/consumption, and
| illness. more than that, especially most sanitizer use
| because it's mostly outside of these situations, is likely
| a net-negative.
| JustSomeNobody wrote:
| Yep. Made a little portable sink for my trunk. After going
| anywhere, we dip our hands in the bucket, grab a bar and
| start scrubbing. Made a rinse hose out of some tygon tubing
| and a clamp. Oh sure, we get some stares, but it sure beats
| the cancer risk!
| devwastaken wrote:
| Isn't that what most of them are? Just ISO + glycol for
| thickness?
| kawfey wrote:
| Most are fuel/technical/food grade denatured ethyl alcohol
| (ethanol) with glycerin (glycerol) as a humectant/thickener.
| IPA is allowable but more expensive.
|
| A number of them have been made from the heads and tails of
| normal spirit distillation process (which are waste
| products), or are distilled with other organic waste products
| (like dog food process waste), which often smell awful and
| are super sticky.
| moftz wrote:
| I bought a gallon of some stuff early into the pandemic
| from a online retailer that sells commercial fog machine
| supplies. It smells likes farts. I felt bad giving bottles
| of it to friends and family but it wasn't like there was
| much else available on the shelves and at the time touch
| contamination was still a big concern. I added some
| fragrances so it smells mostly like lemons now and only a
| hint of farts.
|
| We bought another gallon from a cosmetics supply wholesaler
| and it was much less stinky.
| azinman2 wrote:
| Just make sure it's 70% - that's the optimal number. Also 70%
| alcohol without buffer like aloe Vera will be quite harsh on
| the hands...
| SilasX wrote:
| Wait, what? Rubbing alcohol definitely has a scent.
| aaomidi wrote:
| Nothing that lasts more than a dozen seconds or so.
| moftz wrote:
| The other additives in hand sanitizer can be anything from
| methanol to discourage consumption (and avoid liquor taxes)
| and fragrances. I've bought some little bottles before that
| leave such a strong fragrance you have to go wash your hands
| before eating anything anyway.
| sparrish wrote:
| It's really rough on the hands - dries them out terribly.
| globular-toast wrote:
| You can use glycerin to help with that.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgY04l0CuEs
| r00fus wrote:
| Considering that most hand sanitizer is simply alcohol + aloe
| gel - yes this makes sense, but aloe is in there for a reason
| (alcohol is incredibly harsh on your skin).
| [deleted]
| idlewords wrote:
| Another good reason not to drink hand sanitizer, but this is a
| corporate press release in search of a problem. The first thing
| any minute traces of benzene will do is evaporate harmlessly off
| your hands, likely giving you orders of magnitude less benzene
| exposure than you get filling your gas tank.
| captainredbeard wrote:
| """In June 2020, FDA updated their guidelines for the production
| of liquid hand sanitizer to temporarily allow for the presence of
| benzene of up to 2.0 ppm "to reflect data submitted by fuel
| ethanol manufacturers producing ethanol via fermentation and
| distillation, indicating that at least some of their fuel ethanol
| products have harmful chemicals, including gasoline and benzene,
| which are known human carcinogens (cancer-causing agents).""""
|
| WTF government, this is why many of us don't trust you.
| patcon wrote:
| i mean, what's the alternative here? This feels like just the
| complexity and tradeoffs of living in reality -- a bit of
| perpetual "damned if you do, damned if you don't".
|
| Either they're "preventing life-improving sanitizer from
| reaching citizens in a time of need", or they're "poisoning
| citizens" by letting through just a tiny bit of byproduct that
| would be MUCH more common if they weren't taking a regulatory
| role.
|
| This is an apparatus solving a complex, high-dimensional system
| of equations, not as academic test for which there's a real
| "right answer", no? * shrug *
| stickybandit wrote:
| Hold on with the $10 words and political philosophy. Explain
| the "need" for hand sanitizer for an illness _not transmitted
| on surfaces_. And yet the "deep cleaning" "deep sanitizing"
| is still happening. It's still a guideline! The tiny silver
| lining of this event is its selection pressure on people
| buying rando gallon jugs of hand sanitizer at Costco because
| "germs bad."
|
| What's wrong with everyone??? Wake me up.
| searine wrote:
| >not transmitted on surfaces.
|
| Not transmitted as readily.
|
| >And yet the "deep cleaning" "deep sanitizing" is still
| happening.
|
| Every bit helps, and yeah it is mostly theatre but if thats
| what gets business...
|
| Humans are filthy. If this is what it takes to get people
| to wear a mask when sick (as habit) and wash their
| appendages. Then fine.
| peytn wrote:
| > If this is what it takes to get people to wear a mask
| when sick (as habit) and wash their appendages
|
| That's the noble goal, but in reality it seems this
| strategy has led to enormous divisions, eroded the
| credibility of our institutions, and required the support
| of a censorship appendage clothed modestly by the fig
| leaf of private enterprise.
|
| Telling the whole truth without trying to manipulate the
| behavior of adults feels like it would've been a wiser
| approach.
| searine wrote:
| >it seems this strategy has led to enormous divisions
|
| It's not mask mandates that did that. It is the toxic,
| divisive and largely unregulated media that has been
| lying to people for the last 30 years.
|
| People have been brainwashed. They no longer have the
| capability of trusting in or believing reality.
| yourmom2 wrote:
| This comment is a literal waste of valuable s3 space.
| Daho0n wrote:
| You don't need sanitizer to wash appendages though. Soap
| is better.
| searine wrote:
| Agreed, but a sink and soap aren't always available. So I
| am happy to encourage hygiene by making it more
| convenient.
| yourmom2 wrote:
| Why is this downvoted? It's 100% correct...
| raverbashing wrote:
| The only thing that matters is: what is the risk of 2ppm of it
| in hand sanitizer? My guess is that it's very little
|
| It is volatile. It won't spend much time in your hand. You
| won't breathe a significant amount of it. You aren't ingesting
| it.
|
| "Oh but Benzene is carcinogenic" yes, it's also present in
| Whisky, in a bread slice that was left too long in the toaster,
| etc.
|
| > The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
| has set a permissible exposure limit of 1 part of benzene per
| million parts of air (1 ppm) in the workplace during an 8-hour
| workday
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benzene#Exposure_to_benzene
| Scoundreller wrote:
| > You aren't ingesting it.
|
| That's the problem: people do. Can be an issue on some
| hospital units, even when you add the bitter stuff to it.
| searine wrote:
| Stop being dramatic.
|
| 2ppm isn't a lot, and it is a temporary measure. Benzene can be
| absorbed through the skin but most of it evaporates off (as
| hand sanitizer is intended to do) before it is absorbed.
|
| So yeah. The FDA reasonably updating guidelines to make sure
| people can buy hand sanitizer during a global pandemic is
| probably better than the fraction of a percent increased risk
| of cancer.
| wolfi1 wrote:
| there is a WHO guide for a DIY hand sanitizer:
| https://www.who.int/gpsc/5may/Guide_to_Local_Production.pdf
| sparrish wrote:
| "EPA has set 5 ppb [parts per billion] as the maximum permissible
| level of benzene in drinking water."
|
| Only 4 products of the hundreds they tested had a concentration
| greater than 5ppb.
|
| - artnaturals hand sanitizer SCENT FREE NATURAL ELEMENTS +
| CLEANSING FORMULA - 16.1ppb
|
| - SS LAVENDER & HERBS scented sanitizer ALCOHOL ANTISEPTIC 70% -
| 13.8ppb
|
| - huangjisoo HAND SANITIZER GEL TYPE HAND CLEANSER 62% THANOL 91%
| ORGANIC - 11.4ppb
|
| - TrueWash Instant Hand Sanitizer Natural - 6.2ppb
| emeth wrote:
| Friend, I think you added three zeroes.
|
| Those four hand sanitizers are listed at the below link with
| those metrics at PPM (parts per million), not PPB (parts per
| billion).
|
| https://www.valisure.com/wp-content/uploads/Valisure-FDA-Cit...
| gnulinux wrote:
| Total layman here. Question: if 5ppm in drinking water is safe,
| which would imply we deem it safe to drink unlimited amount of
| water with 5ppm benzene in it for our entire lives; would it
| really be problematic to use hand sanitizers with 15ppm (3x)
| for a few months? (Also considering, as other commenters in
| this thread say, ingesting benzene through skin is less
| efficient compared to drinking, according to some claims).
|
| I've no idea how they determine safe ranges for these
| chemicals, but as an engineer, I'm thinking if I were to do
| something like this, I'd leave some wiggle room. Like if I say
| 5ppm is safe, but if noticeable amount of people get leukemia
| with 10ppm, I would consider my job failed. Because 5ppm,
| although is safe, is too close to the danger zone therefore is
| not practical. So I'd guess small perturbations around 5ppm
| would not have noticeable affects (again, I'm a total layman,
| this is a question, not a claim).
| akiselev wrote:
| Nit: it's parts per billion, million - only OSHA benzene
| exposure limits are measured in the millions and that's for
| industries working with benzene (and only for a short
| exposures).
|
| The kinetics of benzene in drinking water are very different
| than in hand sanitizer. Carcinogens in general have different
| risk profiles than other toxins like heavy metals or poisons
| because localized concentrations can be just as dangerous
| since a tumor can form and metastasize pretty much anywhere.
| Asbestos, for example, is much less dangerous in drinking
| water than in the air because the lubrication provided by
| water significantly reduces the physical damage caused by the
| fibers.
|
| Benzene (probably [1]) bioaccumulates in skin far more
| readily than in the digestive tract where the water is a
| diluting agent that reduces the probability of the benzene
| sticking around in the body. Since there is a lot less volume
| of blood flow in the tiny capillaries near the skin and hand
| sanitizer is designed to evaporate, there's a far higher risk
| of carcinogenic concentrations of benzene building up,
| especially around cuts or lesions.
|
| It's very plausible that a few mL of sanitizer with ppb
| concentrations of benzene can accumulate in small microliter
| pockets of tissue with concentrations in the 10s or 100s of
| ppm if continually applied throughout the day for months on
| end. Throw in the rapid pace of reproduction of skin cells
| and that's a legitimate cause for concern.
|
| [1] last I looked, it wasn't well studied in humans, but
| since benzene is a solvent and known to accumulate in leaves
| and bark, it strongly implies it has the same effect up and
| down the food chain.
| lostlogin wrote:
| The contrast between the product name and the product content
| is just excellent.
| cwkoss wrote:
| How easily does benzene travel through the skin?
|
| Is it worse to sanitize with 16ppm sanitizer or drink 5ppb
| water?
|
| This study indicates that ~0.25% of benzene permeates skin.
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6531855/
|
| Sounds like benzene on skin may be 400x less dangerous than the
| same quantity ingested.
| maddyboo wrote:
| Also keep in mind that along with the other volatiles, much
| of the benzene will evaporate into the air after application
| and you will likely breathe some of that vapor.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-03-31 23:01 UTC)