Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Health & Wellness

Is Our Fear of Germs Bad for Our Health?

By Stan Cox, AlterNet. Posted February 2, 2008.


The chemical industry has helped fortify our homes against microbial invasion. But is our fear of germs making us even sicker?
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

The "vomiting virus" now sweeping across Britain may be headed our way. At the same time, San Francisco is being hit with a new strain of the nasty bacterium known as MRSA (methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus) -- this one responsible for "flesh-eating pneumonia."

Meanwhile, four patients were recently isolated in the University of Maryland Medical Center, infected with a multidrug resistant bacterium called Acinetobacter baumannii, which has attacked a number of Afghanistan war veterans. As one doctor said of the that bug, "When these people get infected ... you sort of say this is the last straw."

Those new menaces, and more, are joining the usual biological villains that lurk everywhere in midwinter.

Even more than in past years, we're turning to the chemical industry for help in fortifying the American home against microbial invasion. Few go as far as Jacques Niemand, a reclusive Briton who was killed last May by fumes rising from vast quantities of disinfectant that he kept in open buckets around his house to ward off infection. But lower-intensity chemical warfare on our invisible housemates is in full swing.

Many hospital patients and people with compromised immune systems depend for their very survival on large quantities of not-entirely-benign antimicrobial products. However, there appears to be widespread scientific consensus that for most routine home uses, thorough washing with soap provides sufficient protection.

In domestic use, there's the possibility that some antimicrobial products could induce disease-causing bacteria to evolve antibiotic resistance. Then, as they flow down the drain into sewers and beyond, significant tonnages can accumulate in the tissues of wildlife and people with potentially toxic consequences. And it could be that dramatic increases in asthma and allergy rates are related to immune-system distortion that comes from living in microbe-poor bubbles.

Homeland sterility enforcement

Brian Sansoni, vice president for communication and membership with the Soap and Detergent Association, cites a body of research showing that antibacterial soaps reduce the numbers of harmful bacteria on the skin or other surfaces and are especially useful when you're caring for elderly or immunosuppressed people, dealing with an infectious illness in the house, or preparing food.

"The bottom line," says Sansoni, "is that consumers can continue to safely use antibacterial soaps and hygiene products with confidence - as they already do in homes, schools, offices, hospitals and health care centers, day care centers and nursing homes - every single day."

Among family members who do most of the housecleaning, 71 percent say they prefer to use antibacterial products when available. And germ-killing products are more widely available than ever. As of 2001, 76 percent of liquid hand soaps and 29 percent of bar soaps contained antibacterial chemicals. Mintel's Global New Products Database has seen introductions of new antimicrobial products grow from fewer than 200 in 2003 to more than 1600 last year.

Once you've strategically placed chemical hand cleaners in the kitchen, bedroom, car, and office, you can stock up on antimicrobial toothpaste, cosmetics, kitchen counter wipes, cutting boards, knives, chopsticks, dishrags, gloves, underwear, bath towels, computer keyboards, toys, dog ear wipes, laundry detergent, and paint. The Amana Corporation is promoting a washing machine whose drum is impregnated with an antimicrobial chemical, and several manufacturers offer vacuum cleaners that are chemically resistant to bacteria or bathe your carpet in germ-killing ultraviolet light. And, if you're intent on leaving no bug unturned, you can subscribe to an antibacterial garbage can-cleaning service.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has registered 8,000 disinfectant products to date. That's required, because the law says they're pesticides. Whether it's referred to as "disinfectant" or "antibacterial" or "antimicrobial" or even the somewhat disturbing term "biocidal," each compound kills a range or organisms -- bacteria, fungi, yeast, or even the viruses that cause colds and flu -- but none fully eradicates them.

The most popular of these weapons are still products of pre-1970 "better living through chemistry." There are standbys like ammonia, pine oil, and chlorine bleach, as well as types of germ-killing super-detergents called quaternary ammonium compounds; most prominent in that latter class is benzalkonium chloride, the active ingredient in many disinfectant wipes and sprays.

The compound drawing the most recent attention has been triclosan, along with its cousin triclocarban. Those chemicals, 1960s-era spinoffs from weed-killer research, are considered safe enough to come into very close contact with the human body: in food preparation, bathing, and even for cleaning sex toys.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: health, sterility, germs, antimicrobials, antibacteria, immune system

Stan Cox is a plant breeder and writer in Salina, Kansas. His book, Sick Planet: Corporate Food and Medicine, will be published by Pluto Press in April.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Health and Wellness! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
If you continually bitch at your local physician...
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Feb 2, 2008 12:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...until he or she gives you and your screaming toddler a script of antibiotics to cure an obviously viral infection, then stand in line for your Darwin Award, lady or gentleman.

They evolve, those bugs. What the hell do fundies expect them to do, remain static?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Screaming Toddler Posted by: SaraCole
» Wow. Posted by: ABetterFuture
» RE: Screaming Toddler Posted by: blitzmesser
» The parents fault? Posted by: heid
Paranoia
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Feb 2, 2008 3:03 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What doesn't kill you probably does make you stronger. But it can also make you really sick for a few days. So you tend to wash your hands a lot and avoid that soccer mom who brings all her kids' illnesses to work with her. You just don't have time for this week's cold, but maybe you'll get in on the next one, if your schedule will allow it.

If I didn't have work and other responsibilities, I would embrace every germ that came my way, and build the perfect immune system.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Paranoia Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line
» Soccer Mom Posted by: SaraCole
» RE: Soccer Mom Posted by: hagwind
Timely Stuff
Posted by: Squarehead on Feb 2, 2008 4:14 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree completely with the various arguments within this article.

Its now several years since I stopped using deodorants or antiperspirants, seeing that my endocrine system was having a problem with them (pimpling underarms, general itchiness), and while that has been very satisfactory, though I wash with greater frequency (2 - 3 times per day; I live at 54 degrees North, so its not usually a very hot environment).

However, just this past summer, on a camping trip, I discovered quite by the accident of forgetting to pack soap or detergent that even a smelly adult male can control one's personal hygiene adequately, simply with warm water.

And I can report that rather than more sweat and smell, the body seems to produce less, less product to process out, less disturbance of one's natural flora & fauna.

As regards the paranoia and unreality of modern industrial society, I recall a couple of years ago being in the presence of two friends, women, both physicians. One of the children vomited on the carpet. No big deal. Now I would say that in that circumstance, the proper response is firstly dilution (with water) then simple mechanical cleaning (rub with cloth) and lastly final use of detergent and rinse with water.

My friends, both expert in their medical fields, response was to spray on some anti-bacterial product more properly reserved for the surgical ward. Not a good idea.

In fact I recall being incapacitated with inflamed cartilage (lower back) consequent on eating of kitchen surfaces which were 'cleaned' with such products. Subsequent examination showed that they contained organo-phosphates as the anti-bacterial agent.

These corporations should have the ass sued off them; but that is probably some time away.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Natural is better Posted by: medusa
» RE: Timely Stuff Posted by: Talleyrand
what's bad about natural immunity?
Posted by: bomec on Feb 2, 2008 4:36 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Having studied, worked, traveled and lived in France a good bit of the time since 1958, I have always been appalled by Americans being appalled by the French wrapping fish in a newspaper or carrying their baguette home under the arm or on the back of a bicycle. In deference to American microbe paranoia, wrapping everything in layers of plastic wrap and injecting everything with preservatives because nothing is grown locally but transported hundreds and thousands of miles... Well, natural immunity simply is no more. Oh my god, there's a fly in the kitchen! Quick, kill it or we'll all die!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Land of the Free, Home of the Brave? Muwahahaha . . .
Posted by: hagwind on Feb 2, 2008 5:03 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This drive to germ-proof the home, the human body, and the political environment has been on since I was a kid in the 1950s. Remember the old poster "Is your bathroom breeding Bolsheviks?" Unhygienic washrooms bred discontented employees who would then turn Red (or organize a union! or report you to OSHA!) while you were out making more money.

This idea that life can ever be 100% clean, 100% pure, and 100% safe -- and that the 100% safe life is worth living -- has made USians patsies for every political, pharmaceutical, educational (etc.) snake-oil salesman to come down the pike, including those hawking the [drumroll, please] War on Terrorism. Maybe more important, it's made us gullible: we're freaking out about microbes skittering across the pristine linoleum floor while paying not enough attention to the corner-cutting, profit-enhancing business practices that lead to contaminated food, contaminated drugs, contaminated toys. The biggest threat to our health, welfare, and security is less likely to be a bearded guy with shifty eyes and a foreign accent than a close-shaven white guy in an expensive suit.

Some days I think that the popular middle-class-and-up lament that the world is much too dangerous to let kids go unsupervised for a few hours has less to do with the fear that they might get kidnapped, molested, or murdered and more to do with the fear that they might get dirty.

My country, Land of the Slave, Home of the Scared Silly, but still -- my country.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What the........?
Posted by: funnyfarm12 on Feb 2, 2008 6:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article starts out supporting the very paranoia it is supposed to be arguing against. The sweeping 'vomiting virus' in the UK is actually quite common, has been around practically forever, and goes away without treatment most of the time within two days. Get a grip people. You cannot and should not live in a bubble. Ever hear the old saying, "a bushel of dirt in a lifetime"?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What the........? Posted by: hagwind
» RE: What the........? Posted by: lepidopteryx
Environmental pollution is a greater threat than bacterial infection to most kids.
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Feb 2, 2008 7:35 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It wasn't always that way - if you look back a hundred years, among the greatest killers in the U.S. were infectious diseases like tuberculosis and influenza. In 1900, around half of all deaths were due to infectious diseases - and the death rate due to cancer was 1/3 what it is today.

Cancer rates have been in slow decline since 2000, indicating that many people are more aware of the causes of cancer, which include environmental exposure to carcinogens and different levels of hereditary susceptibility to carcinogens. Damaged immune systems also make people more susceptible to cancer. Some viruses and various toxins can damage the immune system (and many other systems, such as the reproductive system.) However, environmental pollution is the new main culprit.

That means that the threat from "playing in the dirt" is more likely to be exposure to things like lead, cadmium, petroleum residues, industrial chemicals, etc. That can lead to childhood leukemia, asthma, developmental damage, and so on.

Triclosan manufacture is interesting - it is reported to produce dioxin as a side product. That's the side ingredient that was primarily responsible for the effects of Agent Orange on the Vietnamese and on U.S. soldiers. No, you wouldn't want to use that on a regular basis - dioxin enters your cells, especially in the liver, and interferes with gene regulation - leading to all kinds of nasty effects. Someone used it to poison Ukranian politician Victor Yuschenko in 2004.

Triclosan - not exactly a health-enhancing product. However, it does slow the growth of microbes, so it's heavily marketed to people who don't know any better.

In fact, the whole idea is misleading. If you ever had to actually decontaminate a building that was full of, say, mouse droppings and hantavirus, you'd have to use something like 10% bleach/water or a formaldehyde solution. That's how the Hart Senate Office Building was decontaminated after someone sent letters filled with dry, powdered anthrax spores to Daschle and Leahy on Sept 18, 2001.

As far as antibiotic resistance, the main culprit there is the agriculture industry, which is the main market for antibiotic manufacturers. Antibiotics are needed in factory farming operations to prevent disease outbreaks in the confined quarters, and they also lead to increased growth rates in corn-fed cattle.

In any case, it's a bad idea to buy anything that has a "bacterial growth inhibitor" in it. If you need to take antibiotics, observe the rules - take all the antibiotics, even if you think you're healthy. Eat live yogurt, because the antibiotics will wipe out your intestinal microbes and that will damage your digestion, and yogurt replaces them. Don't take antibiotics unless you absolutely need them. Wash hands frequently. Etc.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

LET'S DECIDE WHAT'S IMPORTANT
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Feb 2, 2008 7:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's not about wpraying & wiping. Between the source of your food and the table or res-taurant, how many people are involved? How much care is taken? The spike in mysterious infections is right in line with the increased amounts of everything that we import. It's expensive to be 'careful'. So they use additives instead. We don't have the same strict inspection of everything that we once had. And even 'busy' doctors must wash their hands. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

US Obsession with Cleanliness is Dangerous
Posted by: drricklippin on Feb 2, 2008 7:58 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So what is the hospital industry's response? Wash your hands more??

I agree that the overuse of antibiotics and the overuse of chemicals to "sterilize" everything IS indeed making us sicker.

By the way, America's cultural germ phobia is linked psychodynamically to our US puritanical "sex is dirty" heritage. Someday we may grow up?

Dr. Rick Lippin
http://medicalcrises.blogspot.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Finally, someone said it!
Posted by: Scientz on Feb 2, 2008 9:50 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
. . . this is an off-the-cuff reactionary statement (as I'm sure this community has come to expect from me) but I am of the opinion that we as a species survived some 15,000 - 30,000 years before we invented soap.

Destroying the benign bugs reduce the chances of your immune system learning to cope with them, and then the malignant ones will kick your ass.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Lab rats
Posted by: Darkly on Feb 2, 2008 11:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
this article reminds me of a study I was reading the other week. according to it sewer rats have stronger immune systems than domesticated rats. apparently the immune system is like a muscle that needs to be used. use it or lose it they always say. this would explain why people in antartica coming back to their home countrys get very sick. antarticas enviroment cannot support microorganisms therefore the persons immune system atrophys (weakens)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Lab rats Posted by: benzene
Antibiotics Are Not All Bad
Posted by: sofla100 on Feb 2, 2008 12:01 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Of course, stronger bugs could emerge from incessant exposure to antibiotics and antibacterial agents. But, no one wants to put their defenses down either on the supposition that this is necessary to prevent the evolution of bugs into more virulent forms. First of all, antibiotics and antibacterial agents are already widely used across the world. Next, these agents are credited with saving the lives of millions of people. The greatest advances in medicine and public health came about when antibiotics were discovered and also when widespread immunizations were put into place. So, some balance is required when it comes to the use of antibiotics, yes, certainly so. But, I don't think it's all doom-and-gloom either and a lot of good is still being accomplished by these drugs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wow! Is "Common" Sense Coming Back?
Posted by: Liberty G on Feb 2, 2008 12:10 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hallelujah and thank you, thank you! The germophobia we live with is indeed a killer!
As the director of an organization that educates people about chemicals like the ones in commercial cleaning products, I applaud this article. Also, what a great series of comments, including the one comparing the war on microbes to the "war on terrorism" (both of which have the purpose of creating terror in us). I also have - and love - the article about the healthy sewer rats.

For some interesting articles on "being clean", check out these and other articles on our website at: www.toxicsinfo.org/TIPS_house.htm

Study: Anti-Bacterial Soaps Don't Deliver
TIPs on Cleaning Product Ingredient Mysteries
Common Sense Talk about Antibacterial Products
12 Facts About Chlorine Guaranteed To Scare You
Tips on Cleaning Product Ingredient Mysteries

The bottom line really is, you can do most of household cleaning with vinegar and baking soda:

28 Practical Uses for Vinegar, Nature's Magic Cleanser, www.toxicsinfo.org/house/28Vinegar.htm
Good Housecleaning: Five Non-Toxic, Get-the-Dirt Out Basics, www.toxicsinfo.org/house/5Basics.htm

Whatever you do, don't seek the "smell of clean" with "air freshener". It is on the EPA website list of "Indoor Air Pollutants". Also, see: Toxic Effects of Air Freshener Emissions www.toxicsinfo.org/house/AirFreshenerEmissions.htm

Mother Nature really does know best!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The immune system is our ally
Posted by: flapdoodle on Feb 2, 2008 12:37 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To me, the most important thing to understand about the immune system is that it constantly works on our behalf, and in order for it to do its work effectively it needs to be exercised. If we try to intervene by using designer chemicals, for instance, the immune system does not work to design its own responses to threats against our well being, so to some extent we disable it. Just as our muscles and our minds need exercise in order to avoid atrophy, so does our incredible and amazing immune system.
I'm just putting this out as an idea one might consider, if they haven't already. It may be important to remember that like a muscle, for instance, a lack of exercise cannot be made up for by going to an excess in the other direction. Thinking of the immune system as an ally is a way to begin to establish a working relationship with it. Of course, nature is always full of tricks, so proceeding with caution is usually a good idea.
Be a friend to your immune system and it will be a friend to you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Industry Straw Men
Posted by: benzene on Feb 2, 2008 1:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Proctor and Gamble spokesman in the article consistently tried to draw an imaginary distinction between "antibacterial products" and "antibiotics". They're the same thing. Both kill, damage, or otherwise inhibit the growth of bacteria. While it may be true that ampicillin has a different modus operandi than triclosan, they're both still killing bacteria, and therefore bacteria have an evolutionary impetus to find ways around them. It's a simple numbers game. If there are trillions of bacteria in a given space and a single bactericidal agent is applied, it is statistically probable that one of those bacteria will have a mutation that allows them to not die. As such, that bacterium will replicate and be resistant.

Furthermore, bacteria won't grow where there are no nutrients to fuel growth. It's not like bacteria are just laying around everywhere waiting to infect people. The only catch is that bacteria can metabolize a whole crapload of different things. Bacteria cannot survive on metal, enamel, linoleum, etc., but can survive on cloth and painted surfaces.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Pleomorphism, Its Discovery and Suppression
Posted by: Global Researcher on Feb 2, 2008 3:56 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hi everyone,

For the past few months I've been reading about causes of disease and their cures. What I am finding intriguing is the work of RIFE in the 1920s-1930s see: www.rife.org. His work supported the theory of pleomorphism, which allows for the emergence of diseases depending on the pathogenic conditions within the individual. See http://educate-yourself.org /cn/pleomorphismdiscoverysuppresion16nov03.shtml for a proper explanation.

What is amazing is the medical research initiated in the early to mid-1800s using electro-medicine. Much later, Rife (http://users.navi.net/~rsc/rife1.htm) built a microscope that could see live viruses, then used a frequency generator to kill them.

For those of you interested, this information may bring you closer to understanding health, disease, and our medical profession.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Relativism Posted by: benzene
Doctors and Big Pharma: in Cahoots
Posted by: dayahka on Feb 2, 2008 7:08 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
90 percent of Americans flock to doctors and get prescriptions for diseases they don't have. This whole situation is a marketing (and advertising) gimmick to make people lose their natural immunities to diseases (by trying to avoid normal and good bacteria, for example) and thus giving big pharma the chance to charge in with "remedies" (that cost a bundle) to newly discovered diseases. Doctors go along and prescribe. Its a major scam. But then, isn't America just one big scam after another?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Yay!!! I can now stop cleaning everything in sight.
Posted by: lwbaby on Feb 2, 2008 8:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have always suspected the constant push by advertisers to disinfect everything we might possibly touch/breathe/brush against within 99.9 percent a total crock designed to addict us to sterility.

As my grandfather used to say, we all have to eat a peck of dirt before we die. Too bad he died before said dirt was filled with chemicals.

From now on I'm gonna slack off and cite this article to anyone who dares challenge me!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

99.9%
Posted by: benzene on Feb 3, 2008 7:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This claim is misleading. If you read the fine text, it usually says it kills 99.9% of Staphlyococcus aureus or some other Staph. strain within 30-60 seconds. Staph. is Gram-positive, which means it only has 1 cell membrane. As such, it is easier to kill. Also, most Gram-negative bacteria are those that make us most sick (Yersina, Escherischia, Cholera, etc.) and are harder to kill. 10% bleach and/or 70% ethanol will work a lot better than most of the products on the market today.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Can anyone say
Posted by: rhbee on Feb 3, 2008 8:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
George Carlin?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No exposure = no resistance
Posted by: Hans B on Feb 3, 2008 4:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I grew up in India and well remember how we used to (gently) mock new arrivals from the States or Europe, always coming down with turista. To this day I can travel anywhere in the world without paying attention to all the paranoid "don't touch that!" advice and never falling ill. Thank you, germs of my childhood.

On a related note, when our first child was born, her mother and I took her outside into the winter cold after only 24 hours, because we had read that the body's thermo-system is "programmed" during the first days of life. Our daughter can now run into the snow in a T-shirt without falling ill. Her little brother was less lucky: the hospital where he was born wouldn't let us take him outside. He comes down with a flu or a cold very easily.

In short, our increasing distance from nature is not just harming nature, it is also harming us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We need an all-out.......
Posted by: steven w on Feb 4, 2008 6:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Wash Your Hands" public service message on the MSM and billboards nationwide. But, no, that might cut into the health care and pharma corporation's profit. God forbid!

The cleanest person in the world could use a reminder to wash their hands. You would be AMAZED at how much illness would go down.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wrong Issue
Posted by: Jeff Hoffman on Feb 4, 2008 6:43 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article asks the wrong question, though it's probably correct that killing all bacteria is bad for one's health. The problem is that even if it weren't, these chemicals are very environmentally harmful. Bacteria are just another form of life and part of the web of life. There wouldn't be life as we know it without them. Trying to kill them is just another aspect of the anti-environmental human psychosis that kills everything not human.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]