Tags:


Hand Sanitizers: Friend or Foe?
August 4, 2006 9:13 AM   RSS feed for this thread Subscribe

I have been having an ongoing argument with some friends about alcohol-based hand sanitizers.

They say that it is very important for people to be exposed to germs so that we develop a natural immunity. They say that hand sanitizers prevent that natural process and leave people more exposed than those that don't use them. "People that use them are germ freaks."

I say that people living in an urban environment get exposed to enough germs on a daily basis just eating, riding the train, using the ATM.

I use hand sanitizer to help prevent getting colds and flus from people at work, and passing germs on. I use it when I come back from the bathroom, when I've used someone elses computer, when I sneeze etc.

Am I a germ freak?
posted by SSinVan to health & fitness (29 comments total) 4 users marked this as a favorite
So do your friends not wash their hands ever?
posted by reverendX at 9:18 AM on August 4, 2006


I'm firmly of the belief that oversanitizing our environment is going to cause the eventual ruin of mankind.

OK, I may be overstating, but I think it's important to be exposed to some germs. Sure, wash your hands and clean up your goo, but applying a blanket extermination policy against every germ in your path is going to make you more susceptible to the next strain to come your way. Hell, this was linked from the front page earlier this week.
posted by beaucoupkevin at 9:25 AM on August 4, 2006


Your friends are wrong. You can't force an infectious agent to immunize you before it infects you and causes illness (unless you've isolated and controlled the agent). An infection is caused by doses of an organism that will overcome your immune system, and immunization (without infection) is cause by doses harmless enough to not establish an infection but potent enough to stimulate your immune system. You can't dictate to whatever organism you've got on your hands to do one or the other.
posted by shoos at 9:36 AM on August 4, 2006 [1 favorite]


You are a germ freak.

What you are doing, when you use the hand sanitizer, is accelerate the process of natural selection for the bacteria on your hands. So, if anything, you are breeding superbugs when you do that.

Then again, we all abuse the hand sanitizer
posted by adamrice at 9:38 AM on August 4, 2006 [1 favorite]


Your friends are overstating their case AND you're a germ freak. Use it perhaps right before you eat, or if you have a cold bad enough that you really should be home.

What do you think that you're catching from someone else's computer that you won't catch from your own desk?
posted by desuetude at 9:40 AM on August 4, 2006


Hand-washing is overall the most effective way to cleanse your hands (unless you're using an alcohol wash of 65%+, which no commerical grade is). The alcohol-based hand sanitizers typically contain about 10% alcohol and do not significantly reduce the bacteria on the hands. The FDA and CDC have concluded that the anti-bacterials haven't shown a clear advantage in preventing infection.

If you're worried about germs, wash your hands.

Your friends are right in that using anti-microbial hand-soap is total overkill for people who aren't dealing with body fluids or meat - and there's some debate over whether anti-bacterial soaps may lead to more resistant bacteria.
posted by canine epigram at 9:40 AM on August 4, 2006 [1 favorite]


You and your friends are both correct, in a sense.

The real worry is that bacteria will develop resistance to our modern antibiotics. That is the major concern that most of the educated, forward-thinking scientific community has with put antibiotics into everyday use soap and other products. All of this antibiotic soap is only creating a favorable evolutionary pressure for the bacteria which possess antibiotic resistance. In essence we're killing their competition and making it easier for them to thrive. This is a bad thing, and something that we all should be concerned with. This is why your doctor shouldn't give you antibiotics for your common cold.

Alcohol-based sanitizers, on the other hand, are bactericidal by denaturing their membranes and causing cell leakage. They don't put the same worrisome evolutionary pressure on the bacteria that antibiotics do, since pretty much there is no way for bacteria to escape the deadly effects.

So embrace your inner germ freak, but don't do it with unnecessary antibiotics.
posted by i_am_a_Jedi at 9:41 AM on August 4, 2006


Just to clarify, my understanding is that hand sanitizers are not antibiotics in the sense the above commenters think.

That is, hand sanitizers use salt and/or alcohol to kill off germs, the same things that have been holding them back for a very long time. Antibiotics are something very different, a medicine that kills them (but not us) when ingested.

So using hand sanitizer won't lead to bacterial resistance that they're talking about. The issue there is with using antibiotic medicine when you're not sick. If anyone else who's more of an expert understands it differently, I'll be glad to be put in my place.

That doesn't mean you're not a bit of a germ freak, mind. Just that you're not helping lead to the plague of the millenium.
posted by kingjoeshmoe at 9:49 AM on August 4, 2006


You are not a germ freak... Cleaning your hands with soap and water for 15-20 seconds is highly recommended by the CDC, with alcohol sanitizer as a good backup...

There really isn't a clear answer as to the immunity deal, because we have 10-100's of millions of bacteria over every inch of our bodies, just naturally... our "flora"... Most of what makes us sick is virally based, not bacterial (colds, flus, etc)... Alcohol sanitizer can kill both virii and bacteria, but some are resistant, the jury is still out.

CDC article on anti-bacterial soap effect on resistance here.

A recent NY Times article said that any sanitizer with less than 60% alcohol content can just spread the germs around... So go for a minimum of 60%. Solutions containing 60-95% alcohol are most effective. Higher concentrations are less potent because proteins are not denatured easily in the absence of water. Alcohol gels work by stripping away the outer layer of oil on the skin, thereby destroying any 'transient' microorganisms present on the surface of the hands. (from here -- a big long page talking all about hand sanitation, etc)

And here is a huge resource talking about the history and various facts about hand flora...

Anyway, yes, washing your hands for 20 seconds with a good soap and rubbing vigorously will reduce viral and bacterial threats to your immediate health. I like to avoid flu, stomach viruses, and pathogenic bacterial... I wash my hands a lot, especially first thing when I get to work after riding public transit (Atlanta's MARTA trains)... Keep washing!
posted by wonderwisdom at 9:55 AM on August 4, 2006 [3 favorites]


I kind of think your friend is confusing germs and allergens. Bacteria and viruses make you sick -- you don't want 'em, if you can avoid 'em, right? You develop the immunity by getting sick, don't you? Can you develop an immunity without a full-blown infection? If so, I guess super-OCD hand-washing might make you more susceptible to germ-borne sickness. If not, that idea is bunk. I think what shoos is saying is correct. And if so, you really want to wash your hands. If given the choice between getting (potentially lethally sick), or not getting sick and maybe having no immunity, I'll take the latter. Normal hand-washing would seem to make it more likely that you might have enough germs to stimulate an immune response, but not enough to get you full-on sick.

As for the "natural process," that's a dead give away for silliness. If a lethal, mutated virus shows up tomorrow, you know what the natural process is? For bunches of us to die, until those of us that, by pure dumb luck, have an immune system that figures out a defense, survive. If I were in the former camp, I'd rather wash my hands, and fuck the natural process.

But I have read that a complete lack of exposure to allergens (mainly, by being a super-OCD clean freak with your kids), can make for very bad allergies in some cases.

But my very lay understanding of medicine is that personal sanitation has played a major part in making us healthier in the last century, not the opposite.
posted by teece at 10:25 AM on August 4, 2006


Uh, canine epigram, I'm looking at the bottle of Purell hand sanitizer on my desk right now and it says that it contains 62% ethyl alcohol.

Where are you getting this "typical" 10% level of alcohol in hand sanitizers? I'm under the impression that alcohol-based hand sanitizers consist almost entirely of Purell and knockoffs of Purell.
posted by dbolll at 10:34 AM on August 4, 2006


I just want to take a small sidetrack and discourage the use of antibacterial soaps containing triclosan. Once thought to be a general biocide, it's is becoming clear that this is not the case and we are breeding germs that can survive it. Carcinogenic and breaking down into dioxins when exposed to sunlight triclosan is being found in ground water and women's breast milk.
We now return to the regularly scheduled program already in progress.
posted by pointilist at 10:41 AM on August 4, 2006


dbolll, my bad. I know that an earlier generation of hand-santiziers contained less than that by quite a bit ( I could have sworn I recalled 10% ), but I'm aware Purell is ahead of the pack. Others aren't as good.
posted by canine epigram at 11:03 AM on August 4, 2006


Considering that most of the people on this website who replied to the question about Toilet seat covers with an attitude that if you use one you're a "germ freak"... I would take all answers along those lines with a grain of salt.
posted by RoseovSharon at 11:20 AM on August 4, 2006


If there is a bathroom or kitchen with soap and paper towels? Washing your hands frequently is an effective way to maintain your health. Hand sanitizers are handy for times and places when there is no other handwashing available.

I don't think alcohol-based sanitizers particularly contribute to the creation of resistant germs, but all that alcohol is tough on your skin. Some people think alcohol-based sanitizers are better than handwashing with soap and water, and that's just plain wrong.

If you're worried about antibiotic-resistant germs, eat chicken and beef that are grown organically; the poultry and beef industries use masses of antibiotics.

Keeping keyboards, phone receivers, and other office stuff cleaner is a great idea.
posted by theora55 at 11:46 AM on August 4, 2006


I'm kind of a sanitation freak, but hand sanitizers are a TOTAL SCAM. The only practical effect is that constantly applying all that alcohol will dry your skin out, and possibly release a few endorphins. Fortunately, the conglomerate that owns Purell probably makes moisturizers as well, so there ya go.

I say that people living in an urban environment get exposed to enough germs on a daily basis just eating, riding the train, using the ATM.

This is absolutely correct, and is the reason why. Almost everything you touch is, at the microscopic level, crawling with nasty things. Doorknobs? Filthy. Money? Probably the filthiest thing on the planet. And I hope you don't have pets.

Hand saniziters, anti-bacterial soap, and all that hoo-hah are sold based on FEAR. It's the perfect marketing ploy- how can you say they're wrong? MICROSCOPIC GERMS ARE EVERYWHERE! Meanwhile, people have survived in our current, modern, filthy society just fine for decades without compulsively scrubbing themselves.

Unless your job involves handling large samples of biohazardous material, you're going to be just fine without hand sanitizer. Honestly, if you're looking for ways to improve your general immune health, you can generally get a lot more out of some simple changes to your diet.
posted by mkultra at 12:00 PM on August 4, 2006


I think having the sanitizer stuff near by lets you go a bit crazy with overusing it. "oh oh, I rubbed my nose. better sanitize. I touched some money - sanitize!"

I don't claim to know if that kind of use is bad or good or neither, but it just gets to be a bit much, you know? People have been pretty healthy just by using common sense wrt washing hands. Obviously, wash your hands well after the bathroom, before eating, and other common sense times. Take the alcohol based stuff camping or backpacking when you have no other option. Besides that? Its just a waste of time and money...
posted by rsanheim at 12:12 PM on August 4, 2006


There are theories that over-sanitizing and adding anti-bacterial agents to our soaps and all our cleaning products and tissues is part of the reason we're having more problems with serious allergies and asthma. Basically, if you're not exposed to dirt, grime, and yes, bacteria and viruses as a kid, your immune system doesn't have as much to respond to and goes haywire. (The medical explanation is a bit more complex.)

The world is full of dirt, grime, bacteria, and feces. My pathology professor quotes that "The Earth is covered in a thin patina of excrement," and honestly, it's true. Should you wash your hands before eating, and should you avoid rubbing your eyes after you've just taken the subway? Yeah, it would probably help.

And alcohol-based sanitizers aren't likely to cause resistance, but other anti-bacterial products might.

Should you use hand sanitizers every 5 minutes or everytime you touch something in the public space? No way, in my opinion. It's a total waste of money and will just dry out your hands.

Please realize: immediately after you wash your hands, they're already re-covered with bacteria. You can't win.

Out, damned spots!
posted by gramcracker at 12:52 PM on August 4, 2006


Here is what I've gleaned from the discussion:

My friends are confused with the abuse of anti-bacterial soap (triclosan) which may cause bacteria to build up a resistance, and compound the effect by making the anti-bacterials less effective.

Hand sanitizers are simply a way to wash your hands without water - no harm done.

The hand sanitizer must have over 60% alcohol (I've never seen any with less on the drug store shelves).

If I start using the sanitizer every five minutes - that will make me a gern freak, but if I am just using it occasionally, then I'm fine.

Thanks !
posted by SSinVan at 1:40 PM on August 4, 2006


There are theories that over-sanitizing and adding anti-bacterial agents to our soaps and all our cleaning products and tissues is part of the reason we're having more problems with serious allergies and asthma.

Are you sure that bacteria should be included in that list? Your immune system is supposed to attack bacteria. I thought the distinction with an allergen was that the immune system is getting confused, and attacking something that is really harmless. I was under the impression that a very clean environment might make one more prone to develop allergies, because of a lack of exposure to allergens, rather than bacteria and viruses. Exposure to those can, indeed, be serious, and an immune system response is natural.
posted by teece at 3:27 PM on August 4, 2006


I grabbed this from http://ubersite.com/m/74477:


posted by yclipse at 7:17 PM on August 4, 2006


Oh, and lemme add the prequel, well worth perusal:


posted by yclipse at 7:25 PM on August 4, 2006


yclipse, immunity to any given microorganism is dictated by specific molecular structures in the microorganism that are recognized by the immune system - either an epitope or a pathogen-associated molecular pattern (PAMP). You could take all of the epitopes and PAMPs in the world and mix them into your sewage, and if that sewage mixture you swim in happens to lack any epitopes or PAMPs for one organism that is capable of infecting you, you won't be immune to that organism. The immune system doesn't generically recognize things as being "good" or "bad."
posted by shoos at 4:20 AM on August 5, 2006


Carlin was funnier.
posted by yclipse at 5:01 AM on August 5, 2006


Shoos, if it ever happened that someone introduced a deadly microorganism into our society that had NEVER been seen before, and that therefore NO ONE had any proper immune response to, then that bottle of Purrel ain't gonna save you.
posted by mkultra at 8:46 AM on August 5, 2006


mkultra, that isn't quite true. Innate immunity doesn't operate off of previous exposure to antigens. And although acquired immunity does, it is still often capable of preventing or eliminating an established infection upon the very first exposure.
posted by shoos at 7:34 PM on August 5, 2006


That may be true, but hand sanitizers don't have a positive effect on your immune system. I don't understand the point you're making.
posted by mkultra at 8:07 AM on August 6, 2006


My point was to correct your misunderstanding about immunology.
posted by shoos at 7:44 PM on August 6, 2006


Vancouver's Chief Health official John Blatherwick says there was a marked increase in public paranoia about various illness and viruses etcetera when media outlets started getting health reporters. These health reporters need to produce stories to keep their jobs so they get deeper and deeper into this stuff.
posted by SSinVan at 8:34 AM on August 8, 2006


« Older I have a 3-year-old and 1-year...   |   I've lost the cap to my thumb ... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.