Hacker News Reader

Comment by Someone1234 | Hacker News Reader

I'm glad they're doing this.

This is why I moved our household over to the "Method" brand a few years ago (no triclosan). I'd happily move again if something else was safer, but I do enjoy foaming hand soaps.

Also why on our newborn I purchased Waterwipes (wiper + fruit juice only). They massively reduced diaper rash too compared to the Huggies branded wipes we were using before (and can be used on the face because they won't upset stomachs if consumed).

I like the FDA and am glad they exist, but feel like they were slow to act in this case. We've know for almost ten years (via peer reviewed science) that these compounds are unsafe and ineffective.

View on HN

We used waterwipes as well but ended up switching at the time. I don't remember exactly the cause, but the fruit juice (I think it is grape or rapeseed extract) had some problems and was linked to some health problems. I honestly don't remember what it was (been a while) but give it a google, it may have been overblown at the time, or maybe not.

We still use very basic ones but don't really remember the brand, but if you are interested I can ping my wife tomorrow about it.

Our doc (in India) asked us to just use soft cotton and water. That worked really well. I have always found it quite difficult to clean properly with wipes and we use wipes only if we were stepping out. I'm curious as to why wipes are used especially something with juice.

Soft cotton and water would work well too.

People use wipes because they're convenient. The "juice" is 0.1% of the product and exists for its mild natural anti-bacterial properties. It isn't sticky like you're imagining, in fact if not told you would assume it was 100% water.

In general I think soft cotton and water is a great idea. I am contrasting Waterwipes against other "chemical" wipes on the market which often promote diaper rash and cannot be used on the face (e.g. Huggies, Pampers, supermarket own brand wipes).

We used warm water and soft cotton washcloths on our 3 kids. Worked great.

There was a scare a few years ago because Grapefruit Seed Extract was found to be contaminated from some suppliers. But Waterwipes in particular was never impacted, and tested their Grapefruit and found it pure.

As far as I know the only downside/limitation of Waterwipes is that they only last about a month after being opened. That's because mold can grow on them since the Grapefruit is only mildly fighting bacterial growth.

We've never had it be a problem but are also using them regularly. And as I said, they helped reduce diaper rash to almost being a non-issue.

PS - The irony is that Grapefruit Seed Extract was being contaminated with compounds which other wipes contain by design, like Triclosan and Benzethonium Chloride. So people switched away from Waterwipes (because it MIGHT be contaminated) into using a product which is designed with that "contamination." Irony of ironies.

We were relatively lucky since my wife gets access to medical supplies for almost free and we used the individually wrapped 'gauze' (not sure if the right name, basically squares of cotton in a gauze like pattern in layers) and water. If we go out, we researched and found other brands that had little ingredients as well and took those.

We also (if in the house) preferred to wash him over using nappies (small baby, fits well in a sink and its quite quick to clean up)

> We've know for almost ten years (via peer reviewed science) that these compounds are unsafe and ineffective.

Ineffective? Evidence agrees.

Unsafe? Overall evidence does not agree (with exceptions for the very small number of people like me who appear to be allergic).

The main issue is that these things are ineffective and they can have some negative effects for small numbers of people. So, if they are ineffective, why take any risk at all?

FWIW, we found that we can dilute Dr. Brommer's soap with water and it works really well in those same foaming soap dispensers (and it foams!). Pure organic saponified oils for washing my hands... for the win.

Thank you. I'll pick some up and give it a shot.

Are you just re-purposing standard off the shelf foaming soap dispensers or did you buy something in particular (e.g. can I reuse a Method foaming dispenser)?

I've used regular off the shelf foaming dispensers with Dr. Bronner's before and it worked well. I used roughly a 1/5 soap to water ratio.

Your suggestion also works for most liquid soaps: Just add ~50% water (mix well) and they foam in a foam soap dispenser.

I have found that my homemade water-soap mixtures will eventually cause the foam soap dispenser to jam up and stop working. Adding in a small amount of glycerin seems to help keep the dispenser lubricated.

Maybe not...

https://www.reddit.com/r/Frugal/comments/13by00/if_priced_in...

I just want to plug another awesome use for Dr. Bronner's--as a replacement for spray cleaner. We used to get the windex or 409 or whatever it is, the stuff you'd spray on counters and wipe up with a paper towel.

No more, I now dilute a little Bronner's in an old spray bottle with a lot of water, spray it on, wipe up my kitchen debris, stuff smells great, cleans up the counters a treat, and is insanely cheap for the value.

> Also why on our newborn I purchased Waterwipes (wiper + fruit juice only).

This is a tangent, but my wife and I switched to dry wipes and a squirt bottle (the kind you'd use in a kitchen for oil or vinegar) for our daughter. It's cheaper. It's way better at avoiding diaper rash aggravation. And it's nearly as convenient as prepackaged wet wipes. We keep the bottle filled with tap water (use purified if you're paranoid or your tap water is unsafe) and every so often run the bottle through the dishwasher.

meta reply: curious why people are downvoting this? Seems on topic and insightful to me. What am I missing?

I didn't downvote, but some people dislike anecdotes in a conversation that definitely requires data. That being said, sharing one's personal experience can contribute to the conversation.

Thanks, that's interesting and does make sense now that you say it.

My guess is the commenter's use of the word "unsafe" in reference to the antibacterial compounds. I don't believe they have been proven unsafe, rather that they have not been proven safe. There's a difference, and "unsafe" borders on misinformation which often merits downvotes on HN.

Edit: Think of the difference between "lack of safety" and "lack of proof of safety".

To quote the FDA themselves:

> Many liquid soaps labeled antibacterial contain triclosan, an ingredient of concern to many environmental, academic and regulatory groups. Animal studies have shown that triclosan alters the way some hormones work in the body and raises potential concerns for the effects of use in humans. We don’t yet know how triclosan affects humans and more research is needed.

> In addition, laboratory studies have raised the possibility that triclosan contributes to making bacteria resistant to antibiotics. Some data shows this resistance may have a significant impact on the effectiveness of medical treatments, such as antibiotics.

I feel like you're just being pedantic. The FDA has literally banned triclosan from hand soaps because they feel it does more harm than good, but calling it "unsafe" to you is simply "misinformation."

Plus there's a difference between "proven safe" and shown in animal studies to be unsafe. In this case not only has triclosan not been proven safe but animal studies have suggested it is unsafe.

They're also looking at: banning benzalkonium chloride, benzethonium chloride, chloroxylenol, and triclosan from hand sanitizers.

So you can be on any side of this issue you want, but the FDA sides with me. Triclosan is bad, likely unsafe, and definitely never proven safe.

[0] http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm378393.ht...

It's interesting, I don't interpret the FDA excerpts as anything other than "we don't know".

The animal studies indicate that it alters the way hormones work. Is that sufficient to be unsafe? Wouldn't you have to show that the alterations cause negative health outcomes?

I also don't think the bacterial resistance issue is proven to the point where we should be so confident assessing that the triclosan is unsafe.

Rather, we should see it as no known benefit and some cousin-instances where it could be unsafe.

"We don't know" is most accurate in my book.

In cases like this, I wish people would reply with an explanation of why "unsafe" is too harsh a word rather than attempting to bury the post by downvoting it. That conversation could be helpful to others. Not seeing the post doesn't help anyone.

I do agree. Neither the HN Guidelines [1] nor the FAQ [2] are clear about what expectations they have for downvotes (unless I'm missing something). I never saw the original comment when it was, I assume, greyed out, prompting the second poster to ask about the downvotes. It is second-highest ranked now, so I assume the downvotes are a minor component to its rank.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html

People here are very passionate about correctness, and get hung up around technical definitions of terms like "safe" and "unsafe". It's not a bad thing, just an expected outcome around a bunch of engineers.

IMO, its a lot of irrelevant noise. Even if it was safe to human health, its also ineffective, is marketed misleadingly, and has environmental impacts.

Many of the soap brands have both antibacterial and standard soaps available, including both Softsoap and store brands.

I'll also note that the reaction may not have been to triclosan or the like but to methylisothiazolinone, which is or has been used in a very wide variety of products and is often used with at least one other product also known for allergic contact dermatitis. I HIGHLY recommend checking your child's shampoo for this, the significant scalp and palm tingling I was encountering during showers disappeared with a change of shampoo and conditioner.

I will also note the irony of 'wipes' that cause an itchy tingling dermatitis reaction...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com