[HN Gopher] Benzene detected in hand sanitizers ___________________________________________________________________ Benzene detected in hand sanitizers Author : maddyboo Score : 168 points Date : 2021-03-30 20:20 UTC (1 days ago) (HTM) web link (www.valisure.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.valisure.com) | scottrogowski wrote: | I'd be curious to see whether we actually see an uptick in | cancers in the coming months/years. If so, I wonder whether it | will turn out that using hand sanitizer resulted in a net | increase or decrease in overall mortality. | | Evidence that Covid spreads through surfaces is sparse and that | route of transmission is no longer emphasized by the CDC | https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00251-4. | | While the IFR of COVID varies, it appears to be below 1% for most | regions of the world, | https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.13.20101253v.... | Could anyone who is more informed than me estimate what the | increased mortality would be for those who religiously use hand | sanitizer with this level of benzene? My guess is still lower | than COVID but I have no reference point. | undefined1 wrote: | also curious if we'll see whether immune systems have been | weakened or not by over sanitization. | userbinator wrote: | I suspect spending a few minutes near a gas station may expose | you to more benzene than a year of using this stuff... | fortran77 wrote: | There's also a problem with people intentionally drinking hand | sanitizer to get a buzz: | | https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20200817/toxic-methanol-in-h... | amelius wrote: | Most hand sanitizers contain a bitter substance to prevent | exactly this. | Scoundreller wrote: | Works for some, but not those that _want_ to drink it. | bitcharmer wrote: | I'm getting this strange vibe from your comment that somehow | sanitizer-induced cancer might be a greater problem than COVID, | which doesn't agree with common sense if you ask me. What am I | missing here? | _red wrote: | You better double-mask up to be safe!!! | DennisP wrote: | They didn't say it's a worse problem than covid. They said it | might be a worse problem than getting covid from touching | stuff, since that turned out to be way less common than | airborne droplet transmission. | tbabb wrote: | I think the proposal is that sanitizer induces more risk than | it mitigates, since it's now unlikely that hand sanitation is | related to covid transmission. | | Nonetheless, other things are transmitted by unclean hands, | which is almost certainly a greater risk than the benzene. | CivBase wrote: | That's because it's not common sense to compare sanitizer- | induced cancer rates to overall COVID rates. To determine | whether the use of hand sanitizer is a net positive, you have | to compare the deaths caused by hand sanitizer to the deaths | prevented by hand sanitizer. Unfortunately, it would be | pretty difficult to get accurate numbers for either of those | figures, even if you just narrow it down to cancer and COVID. | da_big_ghey wrote: | But problem is that people getting sanitiser cancer are | maybe not the ones who would be dying because corona. If | old people are at great risk you can not tell whole | population for to do something risking cancers to | protecting them. I am young enough and at very very low | risk of deaths from corona so am not desiring for to use | sanitizer and for to maybe getting benzene cancers. | RIMR wrote: | That's not quite what they were comparing. | | Comparing deaths caused by COVID to deaths caused by | contaminated hand sanitizer isn't a fair comparison. | | Comparing lives saved by hand sanitizer to lives lost to | sanitizer contamination is what I'm reading here, though it | seems pretty difficult to measure either. | xupybd wrote: | Limiting action when things fly in the face of common sense | is wise. Limiting the questions you ask to common sense is | not always wise. | | Some times the world is counterintuitive, and the only way to | find something out is to test it. While it probably is not | the case there may be poor outcomes from hand sanitizer. | Would they be worse than CoVid, probably not. However given | the scope of CoVid all we have to do to test this is wait. If | hand sanitizer was to cause that much trouble it would become | obvious at scale. | krona wrote: | What you're missing is relative risk vs absolute risk. Don't | worry, this is a common mistake. | VLM wrote: | Common sense is usually wrong WRT statistics. | scottrogowski wrote: | I agree with most of the other replies to your comment. The | world is full of counter-intuitives and I'm genuinely curious | about whether this is one. | | As I said, my guess is that the risk of surface-transmission | of COVID is probably still greater than the risk of increased | exposure to benzene. But I think given the low risk of | surface transmission, it might still be worth a comparison. | mnw21cam wrote: | Why does this page have an "opacity: 0" in the CSS? I mean, why | would you ever do that? | skulk wrote: | They're just showing their dedication to transparency. | f6v wrote: | That reminds me of my first N26 bank card in Germany. I got | one in the mail and immediately called them: "Wtf? Why is the | card transparent?". 5 seconds later: "That shows our | commitment to transparency..." | alphabet9000 wrote: | so when another class is added that makes the element have | opacity: 1, it animations a transitions from 0 to 1 | Proven wrote: | "Detected" doesn't mean we should care enough to read the | article. It could still be harmeless, or unlikely to be harmful. | quirk wrote: | As a distillery owner I was happy to see that this wasn't another | takedown of craft distillers by the sanitizer industry. Very good | to see zero US distilleries in their report. | mrguyorama wrote: | I wasn't aware of any issues with distillery produced hand | sanitizer, real or scare tactic. There was an earlier issue | with methanol in hand sanitizer, but I would have figured | distilleries wouldn't have trouble with that since they already | have to deal heavily with preventing methanol getting in the | final product and it's a well understood thing | throwawayboise wrote: | There was a kerfuflle some months back when the FDA was going | around slapping huge fines on craft distilleries who were | making hand sanitizer. Don't recall the specifics, it was | either something about exceeding allowed production quotas | for ethanol, or taxes, maybe both. I believe that sanity | prevailed and the fines were not imposed. | yellowapple wrote: | Honestly, I'm less concerned about the benzene and more concerned | by the implication that hand sanitizer makers are trying to make | their hand sanitizers _taste_ good. | lostlogin wrote: | I work at a medical practice. I've seen more than one kid run | up to a hand sanitizer and do something that blasts it in their | eyes. | | It's instant chaos with screaming and yelling from the kid and | a frantic search for a bathroom from the parents. | | So maybe a taste that ain't completely awful would be an | improvement. | hyko wrote: | _Although Valisure has made a good faith effort to obtain samples | reasonably representative of the general supply, many brands and | formulations are not included_ | | I guess the sampling methodology is key if you're trying to learn | anything about overall risk to the public. 92% _of the batches | sampled_ had levels that were within FDA guidelines, but unless | we know how representative those samples are in terms of market | share, it really tells us very little. 16ppm seems crazy high | though. | | Always worth bearing in mind the general principle of taking only | the minimum effective dose of anything; you're trying to sanitise | your hands, not strip your epidermis away through carpet bombing. | analyte123 wrote: | Aside from the benzene and methanol [1] contamination, I've never | heard anyone else comment on all the sketchy emergency- | authorization sanitizers at restaurants and other places that | cause your hands to smell like prohibition era whiskey mixed with | Pine-Sol for an hour. It's funny but it's also not, given the | tons of money made selling chemical waste for people to put on | their skin. | | [1] https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and- | availability/fda-u... | ManBlanket wrote: | My hope is in the wake of resistant bacteria and diseases | caused by a tsunami of endocrine disrupting chemical products, | maybe society will come to the conclusion we ought to | pragmatically consider data and peer reviewed science when we | weigh the pros and cons of public policy. Nobody seems to be | asking whether unprecedented amounts of waste, the sky- | rocketing rates of suicide and deaths from child abuse, or | state sanctioned extermination of species were worth it. Nobody | seems to be asking how effective any of these measures were, or | whether the goal was ever realistic. Let alone whether all this | was worth preventing the inevitable spread of a disease that | when all is said and done will kill around a couple million | people, average age older than the average lifespan. Begs the | question when we live in a world where 8 million people die of | diseases associated with fossil fuel pollution, average age | around 5 years old. Not going to hold my breath. If growing up | post 9-11 taught me anything it's that humans just want to live | their lives in fear of the unlikely and use it to be a jerk | those they view as outsiders to the tribe. | amelius wrote: | I've found that hand sanitizers cause a tingling sensation and | makes me more prone to RSI-like symptoms. | | Could this be related? | | Has anyone had a similar experience? | TedDoesntTalk wrote: | what is RSI? | amelius wrote: | Repetitive strain injury. | | I've found that hand sanitizer triggers it. Sounds weird, but | I'm pretty sure, as I went on and off sanitizer about 4 times | during this pandemic and I noticed the symptom come and go | every time. | aaomidi wrote: | I use 70% isopropyl alcohol. I hate the smells and weird feelings | the other hand sanitizers leave on my hands. | extrapickles wrote: | If you're doing this, make sure you are not using technical | grade isopropyl, as that can have a bunch of nasty side | products in it. Getting the correct isopropyl online is | problematic as people have been watering down technical grade | and selling it as 70% medical (USP) grade. | aaomidi wrote: | Fortunately I had a few bottles from a few years ago. Was | able to avoid the buying frenzy. | | Good catch though! | duckfang wrote: | I'm glad that I've been making our household sanitizer then. | Everclear is 95% ethanol (food safe) | | I take 3 parts everclear with 1 part water. Mix, and put in spray | bottles. | | That's an alcohol concentration of .95*.75 = 71.25% | | That's within the WHO's recommendations for concentrations from | 70%-80% | | It can be sprayed on your hands, surfaces, food, etc. And since | it's all food-grade products, is safe (well, as much Everclear is | "safe"!). | | (You can also modify the recipe by using 3 parts everclear with 1 | part food-grade aloe vera, for a lasting hydrating effect | especially on the hands. Make sure you're not allergic to aloe | before doing this. Anaphylactic shock is no laughing matter.) | Analemma_ wrote: | This works, but depending on where you live you might be paying | tons of unnecessary tax by doing it. Many states have "sin | taxes" on alcohol- in WA, they amount to something like 60% of | the sticker price! You're just burning that money if you're | using it on hand sanitizer. | duckfang wrote: | When the pandemic first really started, you couldn't find any | isopropyl anywhere. However the liquor store had 1.75l | everclear for $30. 1 bottle of that lasted me 4 months, | including making face shields in bags with this. As time went | by, iso was gradually back on the shelves.. however the food | grade benefits of everclear made this choice better all | around. | | We're on our 3rd handle, at a total cost of $90. And | considering my SO is in the health field working with | potential covid-positive indivuals, we consider this to have | been well worth whatever we've paid in taxes. I'm sure other | states have higher taxes. Thankfully we're not in one of | those. | didgeoridoo wrote: | Vegetable glycerin also works well for hydration in place of | aloe, and has the advantage of not leaving residue on your | hands. A bit harder to get your hands on, though. | Semaphor wrote: | It's actually pretty easy to get, every pharmacy has it | (extremely expensive), almost every ecig store that caters to | DIY (expensive), and many stores for horse supplies (cheap). | The quality (at least here in Germany) is exactly the same | for all of them. | ipsum2 wrote: | Works if you live in a state that allows 190 proof alcohol, | which doesn't include California, if other people were | wondering. | tyingq wrote: | Is the 151 proof Everclear they do allow sufficient, that's | 75%? He's mixing water in anyway, so just mix in less? | duckfang wrote: | WHO recommends between 70%-80%. | | I'd just keep the everclear 151 as is, since as you | recognize already is at 75%. | | (From what I understand, too high doesn't destroy the rna, | and too low can't penetrate the lipid layer). | tclancy wrote: | >as much Everclear is "safe"! | | A weekly argument in college. | spqr0a1 wrote: | In case anyone is wondered why there is benzene in hand | sanitizer: Ethanol forms an azeotrope with water, which makes it | impossible to dry completely without further processing. Benzene | forms its own azeotrope with water at an even lower boiling point | which allows for cheaply drying ethanol by further distillation; | With the, in this case inconvenient, side effect of residual | benzene contamination. Now you don't actually need dry ethanol | for hand sanitizer, but the production capacity for fuel-grade | ethanol is way larger than pharmaceutical or food grade. | VLM wrote: | To extend the factual data, benzene costs about twice as much | as ethanol does (to one sig fig) so its obviously a | contamination or production mistake as opposed to a money | saving opportunity. Wet ethanol is going to be a little bit | cheaper to make than contaminated dry ethanol, so its a mistake | or supply demand thing. | | 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. | oasisbob wrote: | Nature news has a nice article from earlier this year | rounding up some of the data and changes in recommendations | on the spread of the coronavirus through fomites: | | https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00251-4 | | Seems like an easy case where hindsight is 20/20. | dimal wrote: | Except that it never seemed to make any sense, even at the | time. Early on, we were seeing cases double every three | days. It seemed extremely unlikely that that level of | transmission could come from surfaces alone. The most | reasonable early guess should have been that it's airborne. | Yet experts were telling people to wash their hands and NOT | wear masks. Maybe they were conflating "no evidence of | airborne transmission" with "evidence of no airborne | transmission"? And we were told not to wear masks, yet we | also needed to make sure that health care workers had PPE. | But if masks were bad for us, why were they necessary for | them? Maybe they wanted to conserve limited supply for the | front line? | vkou wrote: | > Yet experts were telling people to wash their hands and | NOT wear masks. | | 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. | darkwater wrote: | There is this nugget of wisdom in that article | | > 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. | rarefied_tomato wrote: | The benzene _is_ the money-saving opportunity. Per GP it 's | added to avoid a costly drying process. The cost of removing | the trace benzene would nullify those savings. | pushrax wrote: | Though 96% ethanol via cheap distillation is fine for hand | sanitizer, so the only real explanation is they're | leveraging existing supply chains (as described) or have | made a mistake. | [deleted] | asveikau wrote: | Anecdotally, hand sanitizer is quite popular in places I come | across in San Francisco. Some businesses require a squirt of | it at entry. | fho wrote: | It's basically mandatory in every grocery store in Germany | ... and every other store follows suit. | asveikau wrote: | Even not in a pandemic, the grocery store thing | especially makes sense. You'll be touching products that | will make it into somebody else's mouth. (Hopefully with | a wash in between, but you never know.) | TedDoesntTalk wrote: | Where I live in the US, I've never seen any business | require hand sanitizer use. | wkearney99 wrote: | In a small sampling of places I've been in the MD metro | DC area it's not uncommon they have a dispenser at the | door, prominently placed to indicate suggested use. A few | places have personnel dispensing it, some in a manner | that does not suggest it being optional. | tzs wrote: | > 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. | | There are people who have occasion to use hand sanitizer for | reasons unrelated to COVID. | [deleted] | lumost wrote: | The contamination problem in common household products seems | like something either the FDA/USDA/EPA should be monitoring. | | 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? | hguant wrote: | >The contamination problem in common household products seems | like something either the FDA/USDA/EPA should be monitoring | | 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 | _jal wrote: | Self-regulation without any compliance verification is called | a polite request. | | 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. | clairity wrote: | if any regulation should be enacted, it's to restrict | sanitizer use to waste handling, food prep, and healthcare | use, which is where it may actually do some good reducing | infection transmission, not in everyday activities where | it's merely a potentially dangerous evolution-inducing | palliative. | | instead of regulation, let's just promote soap over | sanitizer, which is as effective against pathogens without | the unintended side-effects. | kens wrote: | This reminds me of when Perrier water was recalled in 1990 after | it was found to be contaminated with benzene. The contamination | was only discovered because a random environmental protection lab | had been using Perrier instead of deionized water for | convenience. They were puzzled when benzene spikes started | showing up in their samples. Eventually they realized their | samples were find and the bottled water was the source. | maddyboo wrote: | I happen to have purchased a large 1 gallon jug of sanitizer | produced by ArtNaturals, the brand with the highest concentration | detected, from Costco in October. | | I've been using it daily ever since, and have even used it to | refill the bottle of sanitizer in my car. | | Later today I am shipping it off to Valisure to be tested. | | They noted high variability in concentrations from batch to batch | that they tested, so I'm hoping I got "lucky". | | Edit: by "lucky", I mean I hope my sanitizer was not contaminated | or the contamination was minimal, obviously! Odd I even need to | state this. | canadianfella wrote: | What's lucky? Looking to sue? | hyko wrote: | Whoever Valisure are, they've never heard of baby Yoda. | TedDoesntTalk wrote: | Valisure is an amazing company. I purchase all of my | prescription and OTC medications from them (except for one | which they do not carry). | throwawayboise wrote: | Hand sanitizer is unnecessary for most people. Washing hands is | better, and surface contact is no longer thought to be a | significant vector for COVID transmission. | Abishek_Muthian wrote: | Almost every chemical factory which had license to Ethanol where | I live started making hand sanitizers to meet/exploit the demand | last year. Most of them where just white-labeled and so I | wouldn't be surprised if there was other harmful substances in | it. | | Doctors here advise to use soap over hand sanitizers if there's | water available. But now there's another problem, all these | obsessive hand wash with soap is making the skin dry[1] and | causing other skin problems. | | [1] https://needgap.com/problems/198-hand-wash-liquid-which- | does... (Disclaimer: It's a problem validation platform I built). | mrob wrote: | Anecdotally, I increased hand washing at the start of the | pandemic using liquid handwash (containing sodium laureth | sulfate), and it caused skin irritation. I switched to plain | bar soap (sodium palmate and sodium palm kernelate), which did | not. | analog31 wrote: | Oddly enough, my family went the other way. If you live in a | hard water area, soap causes soap scum. I banned it from the | showers because I was sick of scrubbing out the scum. And it | has become impossible to find detergent based bar soap, I | think because there's a glut of tallow and lard. So we use | liquid body wash now. | webkike wrote: | Cold water is just as effective as hot water for washing and | will prevent your hands from drying out as easily | Scoundreller wrote: | Is it? I thought micelles formation improved as temperature | went up. | | Also depends on how cold your cold water is... ours is under | 10C. | | Probably unnecessary to do a perfect job for an unstable | respiratory virus. Skin-colonizing bacteria is a different | story. | stochastician wrote: | I desperately hope this is the case, but a quick google | couldn't find a link. Do you happen to have a citation that | you'd recommend? I say this as someone who is a bit paranoid | about hand cleanliness _and_ is very tired of cracked skin. | igneo676 wrote: | https://meridian.allenpress.com/jfp/article/80/6/1022/20001 | 7... | | Beyond the citation though, it makes logical sense. The | mechanism for sanitation is that the soap itself destroys | the bacteria. This mechanism works regardless of | temperature. Cold water + Soap should be just fine as long | as your hands are otherwise visibly clean. | | In the food industry, we were required to use high | temperature water. This was presumably to remove actual | surface contaminants (dirt, grease, other food | contaminants) rather than for actual sanitation. That's why | you might still see guidelines for using hotter water | temperatures. | vkou wrote: | Does soap actively destroy bacteria, or does it mostly | wash the oils off your hands, that bacteria are stuck | to/are covered by, and send them down the drain? | | I've always been taught it's the latter. Soaping your | hands, and not rinsing will not sanitize them, you'll | just end up with dirty, soapy hands. | clairity wrote: | most bacteria have an outer lipid layer than is clung to | by the hydrophobic end of soaps and pulled apart by the | hydrophilic forces clinging to water on the other end. | tasogare wrote: | It's bit ridiculous to ask for a citation for something as | simple as washing hands. You could try for yourself during | a week and see if it change something. | mattkrause wrote: | Just to play along here....how do you propose that they | check whether the cold water removes bacteria more | effectively? | e12e wrote: | > I desperately hope this is the case, but a quick google | couldn't find a link. Do you happen to have a citation that | you'd recommend? | | Cdc agrees: | | https://www.cdc.gov/handwashing/faqs.html | | > Is it better to use warm water or cold water? | | > Use your preferred water temperature - cold or warm - to | wash your hands. Warm and cold water remove the same number | of germs from your hands. The water helps create soap | lather that removes germs from your skin when you wash your | hands. Water itself does not usually kill germs; to kill | germs, water would need to be hot enough to scald your | hands. | | Soap helps break down/encapsulate/dissolve oils/fat that | aren't readily soluble in just water. | adkadskhj wrote: | I too am a curious dry-skin person. I thought i had read | something to the affect of the interaction between soaps | and bacteria worked better in warm water than cold. | | I'll be really interested if i can avoid warm water. | deeblering4 wrote: | Using bar soap has stopped the issue for me, and it's also been | much cheaper and more readily available (in stock) than liquid | soaps. | clairity wrote: | yes, not only cheaper but you get more cleaning power per | ounce, since you're not paying for the added water. | yosito wrote: | While hand washing is one factor that can cause dry skin, | another factor that contributes is ambient humidity. I started | keeping my living space between 40 and 50 percent relative | humidity, and the dry skin on my hands from frequently washing | them went away. Keeping your living environment properly | humidified also keeps other parts of your body like mucous | membranes hydrated which helps prevent disease, so it's really | a win-win. | cultofmetatron wrote: | use doctor bronners. works extremely well and they don't remove | the glycerin so it won't dry out your hands. | jbotz wrote: | Your skin "dries out" because soap removes the natural oils of | your skin. The solution is to replace the oils. Coconut oil or | olive oil are good choices. A few drops on your still-wet | hands, then spread it around by rubbing your hands together; | your skin being slightly wet helps spread the oil evenly. The | oil will be completely absorbed within a few minutes, so don't | worry about having oily hands. | 1-6 wrote: | Kinda glad I went with Purell and GermX during the whole | pandemic. Can't go wrong with highly recognized brand names most | of the time. | nikolay wrote: | In the beginning of the pandemic, I bought 5 + 2 gallons of food- | grade ethanol. I also bought Everclear at 60% knowing others | could be cocktails of chemicals made somewhere abroad. | Unfortunately, recently I lowered my guard and started to use | more convenient stuff bought at Amazon, and I started to get some | irritation with it. | donut2d wrote: | Do you know what works great as hand sanitizer? Rubbing alcohol - | no scent, no additives, no gummy weirdness, and cheaper. | clairity wrote: | know what's even better? plain old soap. | azinman2 wrote: | Can't easily wash my hash my hands with soap in my car. | yellowapple wrote: | What sort of peasant doesn't have an entire lavatory in | one's automobile? | Scoundreller wrote: | My bike has one so I don't know how a car couldn't. | nikolay wrote: | Actually, there is dry soap nowadays, but you still need a | little bit of water. | devwastaken wrote: | Soap is great but requires people to go through the much more | rigorous and unavailable method of washing hands. Hand | sanitizers are much faster and easier, which makes | sanitization available in areas where it wasn't previously. | For example in the office, school, stores, anywhere you're | handling materials, etc. | | You should absolutely wash hands too, but there are a lot of | reasons for portable hand sanitizers. | clairity wrote: | but sanitizer is egregiously overused by the public, and | most of it is doing nothing but pressing adaptation in | microbes rather than reducing infections. it's useful in | certain food-handling, waste-handling and healthcare | settings, but not in most common situations like | (semi-)public spaces and handling ordinary materials. | | the amount of friction presented by washing likely produces | a more ideal balance between considerations like infection | reduction, evolutionary pressure, and | hypochondria/mysophobia inducement. the simple rule of | thumb is to wash around waste, food prep/consumption, and | illness. more than that, especially most sanitizer use | because it's mostly outside of these situations, is likely | a net-negative. | JustSomeNobody wrote: | Yep. Made a little portable sink for my trunk. After going | anywhere, we dip our hands in the bucket, grab a bar and | start scrubbing. Made a rinse hose out of some tygon tubing | and a clamp. Oh sure, we get some stares, but it sure beats | the cancer risk! | devwastaken wrote: | Isn't that what most of them are? Just ISO + glycol for | thickness? | kawfey wrote: | Most are fuel/technical/food grade denatured ethyl alcohol | (ethanol) with glycerin (glycerol) as a humectant/thickener. | IPA is allowable but more expensive. | | A number of them have been made from the heads and tails of | normal spirit distillation process (which are waste | products), or are distilled with other organic waste products | (like dog food process waste), which often smell awful and | are super sticky. | moftz wrote: | I bought a gallon of some stuff early into the pandemic | from a online retailer that sells commercial fog machine | supplies. It smells likes farts. I felt bad giving bottles | of it to friends and family but it wasn't like there was | much else available on the shelves and at the time touch | contamination was still a big concern. I added some | fragrances so it smells mostly like lemons now and only a | hint of farts. | | We bought another gallon from a cosmetics supply wholesaler | and it was much less stinky. | azinman2 wrote: | Just make sure it's 70% - that's the optimal number. Also 70% | alcohol without buffer like aloe Vera will be quite harsh on | the hands... | SilasX wrote: | Wait, what? Rubbing alcohol definitely has a scent. | aaomidi wrote: | Nothing that lasts more than a dozen seconds or so. | moftz wrote: | The other additives in hand sanitizer can be anything from | methanol to discourage consumption (and avoid liquor taxes) | and fragrances. I've bought some little bottles before that | leave such a strong fragrance you have to go wash your hands | before eating anything anyway. | sparrish wrote: | It's really rough on the hands - dries them out terribly. | globular-toast wrote: | You can use glycerin to help with that. | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgY04l0CuEs | r00fus wrote: | Considering that most hand sanitizer is simply alcohol + aloe | gel - yes this makes sense, but aloe is in there for a reason | (alcohol is incredibly harsh on your skin). | [deleted] | idlewords wrote: | Another good reason not to drink hand sanitizer, but this is a | corporate press release in search of a problem. The first thing | any minute traces of benzene will do is evaporate harmlessly off | your hands, likely giving you orders of magnitude less benzene | exposure than you get filling your gas tank. | captainredbeard wrote: | """In June 2020, FDA updated their guidelines for the production | of liquid hand sanitizer to temporarily allow for the presence of | benzene of up to 2.0 ppm "to reflect data submitted by fuel | ethanol manufacturers producing ethanol via fermentation and | distillation, indicating that at least some of their fuel ethanol | products have harmful chemicals, including gasoline and benzene, | which are known human carcinogens (cancer-causing agents)."""" | | WTF government, this is why many of us don't trust you. | patcon wrote: | i mean, what's the alternative here? This feels like just the | complexity and tradeoffs of living in reality -- a bit of | perpetual "damned if you do, damned if you don't". | | Either they're "preventing life-improving sanitizer from | reaching citizens in a time of need", or they're "poisoning | citizens" by letting through just a tiny bit of byproduct that | would be MUCH more common if they weren't taking a regulatory | role. | | This is an apparatus solving a complex, high-dimensional system | of equations, not as academic test for which there's a real | "right answer", no? * shrug * | stickybandit wrote: | Hold on with the $10 words and political philosophy. Explain | the "need" for hand sanitizer for an illness _not transmitted | on surfaces_. And yet the "deep cleaning" "deep sanitizing" | is still happening. It's still a guideline! The tiny silver | lining of this event is its selection pressure on people | buying rando gallon jugs of hand sanitizer at Costco because | "germs bad." | | What's wrong with everyone??? Wake me up. | searine wrote: | >not transmitted on surfaces. | | Not transmitted as readily. | | >And yet the "deep cleaning" "deep sanitizing" is still | happening. | | Every bit helps, and yeah it is mostly theatre but if thats | what gets business... | | Humans are filthy. If this is what it takes to get people | to wear a mask when sick (as habit) and wash their | appendages. Then fine. | peytn wrote: | > If this is what it takes to get people to wear a mask | when sick (as habit) and wash their appendages | | That's the noble goal, but in reality it seems this | strategy has led to enormous divisions, eroded the | credibility of our institutions, and required the support | of a censorship appendage clothed modestly by the fig | leaf of private enterprise. | | Telling the whole truth without trying to manipulate the | behavior of adults feels like it would've been a wiser | approach. | searine wrote: | >it seems this strategy has led to enormous divisions | | It's not mask mandates that did that. It is the toxic, | divisive and largely unregulated media that has been | lying to people for the last 30 years. | | People have been brainwashed. They no longer have the | capability of trusting in or believing reality. | yourmom2 wrote: | This comment is a literal waste of valuable s3 space. | Daho0n wrote: | You don't need sanitizer to wash appendages though. Soap | is better. | searine wrote: | Agreed, but a sink and soap aren't always available. So I | am happy to encourage hygiene by making it more | convenient. | yourmom2 wrote: | Why is this downvoted? It's 100% correct... | raverbashing wrote: | The only thing that matters is: what is the risk of 2ppm of it | in hand sanitizer? My guess is that it's very little | | It is volatile. It won't spend much time in your hand. You | won't breathe a significant amount of it. You aren't ingesting | it. | | "Oh but Benzene is carcinogenic" yes, it's also present in | Whisky, in a bread slice that was left too long in the toaster, | etc. | | > The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) | has set a permissible exposure limit of 1 part of benzene per | million parts of air (1 ppm) in the workplace during an 8-hour | workday | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benzene#Exposure_to_benzene | Scoundreller wrote: | > You aren't ingesting it. | | That's the problem: people do. Can be an issue on some | hospital units, even when you add the bitter stuff to it. | searine wrote: | Stop being dramatic. | | 2ppm isn't a lot, and it is a temporary measure. Benzene can be | absorbed through the skin but most of it evaporates off (as | hand sanitizer is intended to do) before it is absorbed. | | So yeah. The FDA reasonably updating guidelines to make sure | people can buy hand sanitizer during a global pandemic is | probably better than the fraction of a percent increased risk | of cancer. | wolfi1 wrote: | there is a WHO guide for a DIY hand sanitizer: | https://www.who.int/gpsc/5may/Guide_to_Local_Production.pdf | sparrish wrote: | "EPA has set 5 ppb [parts per billion] as the maximum permissible | level of benzene in drinking water." | | Only 4 products of the hundreds they tested had a concentration | greater than 5ppb. | | - artnaturals hand sanitizer SCENT FREE NATURAL ELEMENTS + | CLEANSING FORMULA - 16.1ppb | | - SS LAVENDER & HERBS scented sanitizer ALCOHOL ANTISEPTIC 70% - | 13.8ppb | | - huangjisoo HAND SANITIZER GEL TYPE HAND CLEANSER 62% THANOL 91% | ORGANIC - 11.4ppb | | - TrueWash Instant Hand Sanitizer Natural - 6.2ppb | emeth wrote: | Friend, I think you added three zeroes. | | Those four hand sanitizers are listed at the below link with | those metrics at PPM (parts per million), not PPB (parts per | billion). | | https://www.valisure.com/wp-content/uploads/Valisure-FDA-Cit... | gnulinux wrote: | Total layman here. Question: if 5ppm in drinking water is safe, | which would imply we deem it safe to drink unlimited amount of | water with 5ppm benzene in it for our entire lives; would it | really be problematic to use hand sanitizers with 15ppm (3x) | for a few months? (Also considering, as other commenters in | this thread say, ingesting benzene through skin is less | efficient compared to drinking, according to some claims). | | I've no idea how they determine safe ranges for these | chemicals, but as an engineer, I'm thinking if I were to do | something like this, I'd leave some wiggle room. Like if I say | 5ppm is safe, but if noticeable amount of people get leukemia | with 10ppm, I would consider my job failed. Because 5ppm, | although is safe, is too close to the danger zone therefore is | not practical. So I'd guess small perturbations around 5ppm | would not have noticeable affects (again, I'm a total layman, | this is a question, not a claim). | akiselev wrote: | Nit: it's parts per billion, million - only OSHA benzene | exposure limits are measured in the millions and that's for | industries working with benzene (and only for a short | exposures). | | The kinetics of benzene in drinking water are very different | than in hand sanitizer. Carcinogens in general have different | risk profiles than other toxins like heavy metals or poisons | because localized concentrations can be just as dangerous | since a tumor can form and metastasize pretty much anywhere. | Asbestos, for example, is much less dangerous in drinking | water than in the air because the lubrication provided by | water significantly reduces the physical damage caused by the | fibers. | | Benzene (probably [1]) bioaccumulates in skin far more | readily than in the digestive tract where the water is a | diluting agent that reduces the probability of the benzene | sticking around in the body. Since there is a lot less volume | of blood flow in the tiny capillaries near the skin and hand | sanitizer is designed to evaporate, there's a far higher risk | of carcinogenic concentrations of benzene building up, | especially around cuts or lesions. | | It's very plausible that a few mL of sanitizer with ppb | concentrations of benzene can accumulate in small microliter | pockets of tissue with concentrations in the 10s or 100s of | ppm if continually applied throughout the day for months on | end. Throw in the rapid pace of reproduction of skin cells | and that's a legitimate cause for concern. | | [1] last I looked, it wasn't well studied in humans, but | since benzene is a solvent and known to accumulate in leaves | and bark, it strongly implies it has the same effect up and | down the food chain. | lostlogin wrote: | The contrast between the product name and the product content | is just excellent. | cwkoss wrote: | How easily does benzene travel through the skin? | | Is it worse to sanitize with 16ppm sanitizer or drink 5ppb | water? | | This study indicates that ~0.25% of benzene permeates skin. | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6531855/ | | Sounds like benzene on skin may be 400x less dangerous than the | same quantity ingested. | maddyboo wrote: | Also keep in mind that along with the other volatiles, much | of the benzene will evaporate into the air after application | and you will likely breathe some of that vapor. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-03-31 23:01 UTC)