Not that it's to my credit: I think it comes from having lived with OCD Girl, whose compulsiveness was often in slightly different areas from my own—and whose passive-aggressive abilities were far superior.

But it's always nice to be proven right.

The fact is, soap is very effective in getting bacteria off of one's skin. It just <>is. Even water is very, very effective if one uses enough of it.

I've always suspected that a lot of these "antibacterial soap" users were the sort of people who go on antibiotics at the drop of a hat. I've even considered the possibility that some of 'em don't even know the difference between viruses and bacteria.

Which, by the way, is one of two data any given individual needs in order to successfully negotiate the modern world. (The other being the difference between its and it's.)

h/t: Glenn.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 12:49 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 160 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Not so fast, Science Girl! That article proves little, mostly the bias of the author. While proper hand washing techniques may be sufficient, the fact remains that few people employ such methods. Even health professionals, and according to studies, especially health professionals. One should run water over the hands, rub, and rinse before lathering and using mechanical action--rubbing--to dislodge bacteria protected by hand oils and waxes, for fifteen to twenty seconds. That followed by a second lathering and long rinse and avoiding recontamination while shutting off the water, and generally getting yourself out of the washroom. Fact is that 90+% DO NOT do these things, unless they are being observed in those 'studies'. Triclosan makes a difference in the 3-7 second hand washing that most people DO employ. Plus it leaves a shield of protection on the skin that continues to kill bacteria and some funguses. Recent outbreaks of methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections WERE ONLY BROUGHT UNDER CONTROL when hospitals went back to using antibacterial soaps containing triclosan as part of the control program. Chemicals are our friends.

Posted by: Darrell at May 13, 2008 07:57 PM (pE9Mf)

2 Of course, when one is in a hurry, one can just use hand lotion, in a North American counterpart to the "don't shower; just spray" philosophy. Conversely, no one with dry skin should work in any health-related profession. I have a friend who had oily skin, but when she trained as a nurse they washed their hands so many times a day her skin got to be as dry and thin as Kleenex--or, like my skin I have, BTW, been experimenting with harsh language as an antibacterial measure.

Posted by: Attila Girl at May 13, 2008 08:19 PM (Hgnbj)

3 Well at least you have a plan that doesn't keep chemicals out of the hands of people that rely on them. Let me know how it goes! Errrrr...by email, if you can.

Posted by: Darrell at May 13, 2008 08:50 PM (pE9Mf)

4 Actually, in a clinical setting I'd use Phisohex or Betadyne or whatever--particularly if there were superbugs roaming around. It's just that I think in the home environment--and even in some small offices--overuse antibacterial soaps, and therefore may help to create superbugs. And since I know multiple people who have been the victims of resistant bacterial strains, it's actually (all kidding aside) a bit of a concern for me. (Of course, as you know around the house I alternate between bleach solutions and alcohol on any surface that comes into contact with food. And if someone sets something "unclean" on the kitchen counter I have a tantrum!)

Posted by: Attila Girl at May 14, 2008 08:51 AM (Hgnbj)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

It now has the McArdle seal of approval, and I must say my inability to keep my reading material below a few pounds for airplane travel makes it a very seductive option, indeed: I'd love to carry one lightweight item, instead of three magazines, one paperback book, and one hardcover. (Alternatively, I could develop an attention span, but the likelihood of that is not terrific at this stage in my life.)

One potential disadvantage to the Kindle lies in my not being able to write on it (I think—can someone correct me if I'm wrong?), but it isn't as if I go a lot of places without my laptop and/or a pad of paper. And I'm certainly not going to check my laptop in on a plane. Furthermore, the Kindle is so small and so light, I can tuck it into my purse; that's pretty cool.

Of course, it costs 2-3 times what I'd want to pay for something like that, and I have a few other technological needs that come ahead of it (such as the obligatory memory upgrade for the new Mac, a basic video camera for vid-blogging, and finishing my editing/writing site). But it would certainly help me to get rid of a lot of books, and allow me to use my time better when there is an unexpected wait (say, in a line somewhere) as part of my day.

Via Insty. And I'd like to throw in a shout-out (and a bouquet of other prepositions, while I'm at it) to the incomparable Virginia Postrel, who first got me thinking seriously about the Kindle, which initially struck me as the ultimate in techno-frivolity. (It's a source of grief to me that Postrel doesn't write books quickly enough for my taste, so I find myself trawling her bibliographies and endnotes, trying to find more bitchin' reads; that's a bit pathetic, no? But there is another on the way!)

Posted by: Attila Girl at 11:06 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 322 words, total size 2 kb.