Hacker News Reader

Comment by api | Hacker News Reader

Antibacterial chemicals, not antibiotics. But you're right in general. It's something that we do that we have no evidence is actually good for us. We live in symbiosis with bacteria. Sterilizing your gut would kill you.

View on HN

And if you look hard enough, you can find soap that doesn't have antibacterial chemicals (no triclosan). I carry around a small squirt tube of liquid soap for this reason, and also because most soap in public bathrooms is atrocious in other ways (doesn't lather, dries the skin, etc).

Soap, by virtue of being soap, has antibacterial properties because it disrupts fat layers by making them dissolvable in water, iirc.

This. Soap isn't an antibiotic as much as something that fatally disrupts the lipid membranes of bacteria, as well as messing with other oils you happen to have on you.

Yes, I know that, which is why I specifically mentioned soaps lacking triclosan.

Lots of soap has small amounts of antibacterial agents added not so that the soap gains antibacterial properties (I'm talking about regular soap, not the "Kills 99% of bacteria" varieties that have become so popular now), but to prevent bacteria growing in the soap itself. Apparently lots of public bathroom soap is absolutely filled with e. coli and other nasties otherwise, which does seem quite counter-productive.

> to prevent bacteria growing in the soap itself

Only in the liquid soap. That's why I prefer solid soap bars.

Can you name these soaps which supposedly have antibacterials added to them (like triclosan) that don't list it? Is the following one of them?

http://www.amazon.com/Dr-Bronners-Magic-Soaps-Pure-Castile/d...

The citric acid and vitamin E in the ingredients list are serving the purpose as preservatives in liquid Dr Bronners.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com