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?
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.
instead of regulation, let's just promote soap over sanitizer, which is as effective against pathogens without the unintended side-effects.
Pretty sure that food prep people using only hand sanitizer would be a healthcode violation in many places (e.g. some googling found https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/industry/agriculture-seaf... )
This isn't an antibiotic,its really hard to imagine microorganisms spontaneously evolving to be resistant to alcohol in the near term.
sensitivity to alcohol has some distribution, but there’s relatively little fitness advantage to being on the low end without the artificial environmental pressure.
Murder a randomly chosen half of people who reach sexual maturity at less than the median height for people doing so at their age for a couple decades and people will “spontaneously evolve” to be taller; and microorganisms have much shorter generations.
But its pretty unlikely they would develop bullet proof heads in a couple decades, which i think would be the more apt comparison
Alcohol has been used to sanitize since the 1300s. Evolving resistence to alcohol seems like something that would be difficult to do (but not impossible as evidenced by some types of pathogens are resistant). Anyways i think this concern is overblown for alcohol based sanitizer due to the method of action of alcohol. (My opinion on triclosan based sanitizer otoh is totally different)
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
Number of times I have saved someone's life with this trivia: zero, but still hopeful.
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.
Now I see it at the entrance of most businesses / by checkout registers.
It has not been shown to decrease disease transmission, and there’s good reason to think it increases disease transmission by letting oozy stuff pass in and out of skin.
Put another way, would you rather eat:
- whatever microbes are on a stranger’s hand (probably picked up at the store, and mostly non-pathogenic)
- or whatever toxins are in the hand sanitizer, along with whatever bodily fluids seeped out of said stranger’s dry, cracked skin?
Covid might change the tradeoff a bit, but I’m skeptical.
There are people who have occasion to use hand sanitizer for reasons unrelated to COVID.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00251-4
Seems like an easy case where hindsight is 20/20.
> 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.
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.
> CDC does not currently recommend the use of facemasks to help prevent novel #coronavirus.
Please note the emphasized word.
The CDC is not saying don't wear masks. The CDC is not saying masks fail to prevent the spread of the virus. The CDC is saying that you wearing a mask is not likely to protect you from catching it.
If you are reading that tweet and interpreting that as "don't wear masks", you are not putting enough emphasis on protecting the people around you.
> “Seriously people- STOP BUYING MASKS!” tweeted Dr. Jerome Adams, the U.S. Surgeon General, on Feb. 29. “They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus, but if healthcare providers can’t get them to care for sick patients, it puts them and our communities at risk!” In an interview with Fox & Friends, Adams said that wearing a mask can even increase your risk of getting the virus. “Folks who don’t know how to wear them properly tend to touch their faces a lot and actually can increase the spread of coronavirus.”
To put it another way, they lied to the public to keep the masks where they could do the most good.
https://news.yahoo.com/fauci-confirms-public-health-experts-...
You can equivocate about what is "enough evidence" that masks are effective and whether that threshold had been reached yet (you can always collect more evidence, but when people are dying it's not bad to make some guesses that it probably is airborne/aerosol and masks will help). But the Surgeon-General went as far as to claim that the science showed that masks were not effective. That the science was in and it showed that masks did not prevent transmission among the general public - which is different from "not enough evidence to conclusively say yet".
https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/29/health/face-masks-coronavirus...
The USG's actions here were medically unethical - they misrepresented the benefits and dangers of an intervention in order to manipulate the patient's behavior. Maybe it's justifiable under the circumstances but at best it's shady.
I think under a different president it probably would have gone differently. But it doesn't change the responsibilities of the medical professionals involved here - you don't get to abdicate your ethical vows just because the president tells you to.
At some point you can't understand all the evidence for some given proposition. That's a different point for each of us depending on what we've studied, the proposition etc. At some point we have to rely on some kind of authority in the belief that they won't tell lies because if they did there would be dire consequences for the people involved. Even when we check the evidence we don't personally check the lab to see if the evidence is faked.
Anti-vaxxers and their ilk look at current medical experts as the authority and call bullshit. If I can't make an argument from evidence to them because it won't be persuasive to that individual all I can do is say, well yes, but not /this/ time. They wouldn't lie again this time like they did before. But they would if it suited their purpose, they've shown that. So I don't think they have an ulterior purpose this time. Not super convincing is it? So we're left with attacking the anti-vaxxer "science" as BS. From evidence. Which can be difficult to make convincing to some people. Meh. Anti-vaxxers is just one example in one field that shows the effect. There are so many. "They'd even lie to us about how to be safe in a damn pandemic!" Yeah they would. They did.
I'll put an estimate on the marginal impact on loss of life from that masks don't work lie. More than one life lost that would not have been if the lie was not told. More than one is sufficient. Feel free to tighten the estimate to how much more than one.
Fauci, yep. I'd cross the road to avoid him which he wouldn't care about at all as he soaks up the adulation he so clearly craves. It's easy to criticize from the comfort of obscurity under zero pressure compared to what he must have faced but that doesn't mean we must keep silent. To hell with him. He has no business remaining in public life making and influencing decisions because he is a liar of the worst kind. Disagree with me by all means, but if /you/ see that as an attack on the Democrats in favor of Republicans (or Russia, or China) you're not much better yourself when it comes to undermining the credibility of genuine expertise.
Personally, I've decided to remove most "products" from my life, as much as possible, and I feel much better for it.
Natural agricultural ethanol or distilled beverage grade ethanol is highly taxable by numerous agressive collectors so major obstacles to industrial use have long been overcome by _denaturing_ the otherwise natural grain alcohol, by adding a poisonous or disagreeable substance to discourage consumption and therefore avoiding any beverage taxes.
Different denaturants are expected to be used for different end uses of the ethanol, but fundamentally anything (on the list) will do since the primary motivation is taxation/regulatory not function/purpose.
Here is the list, some in the Specially Denatured Alcohol (SDA) category are also approved for personal use by the FDA:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/27/21.151
Notice that using plain gasoline (leaded) as well as unleaded for denaturant will introduce some benzene to the ethanol since gasoline almost always contains at least a fraction of a percent benzene naturally.
Also, the alternative _High Octane Denaturant Blend_ for CDA20 would be just fine having up to 1.1 percent benzene:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/27/21.112-T3
Now the Acetaldehyde _denaturant_ that could be used to exempt an industrial alcohol from beverage tax is actually often found naturally in lower-grade less-refined agricultural ethanol, so it originates like an ordinary non-beverage solvent. Once this type material arrives in a common bulk fuel terminal, often it will then be further denatured with a few percent of some fairly high-octane gasoline, carefully measured from a nearby tank. Since the Fuel-Grade ethanol they will be distributing has a maximum 2.5 percent additional denaturant allowed, and the gasoline is lower cost per gallon than the raw ethanol.
The final fuel grade ethanol spec allows 0.06 percent benzene or about 600 ppm:
http://www.cvec.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/PRODUCT-DATA-...
Notice that anhydrous ethanol is not a consideration along this supply chain, up to 1 percent water is allowed in the ethanol that is going to be blended with gasoline for clean-air purposes. Also I was the one who originally proposed the use of method E-1064 for this precision measurement when we were drafting this specification to begin with.
Seems to me like some sanitizer formulators are using fuel-grade ethanol sometimes whether they know it or not, or maybe trying to avoid mere automotive products and using a more carefully specified SDA material.
But a version of SDA28A consisting of highly purified ethanol having only pure Heptane as denaturant could be obtained completely benzene-free, while a different version of SDA28A containing conventional gasoline as denaturant would be expected to contain both benzene and lead.