|
http://www.slate.com/id/2245896/?from=rss"Our homes and workplaces, we're told, are trying to kill us. Recently, a University of Arizona microbiologist named Charles Gerba, author of hundreds of scientific papers about household microbes, gave a terrifying lecture at the offices of the Food and Drug Administration. Gerba—who, incidentally, has a child with the middle name Escherichia—that's what the "E" in E. coli stands for—explained that a kitchen sponge and sink are home to thousands of times more bacteria than a toilet seat. Plus, 10 percent of household dishrags contain salmonella. After playing with other children, toddlers have more fecal bacteria on their hands than does a person exiting a public toilet stall. Those toilets, by the way, aerosolize so many droplets with each flush that Gerba compares their dispersion to "the Fourth of July." And every public swimming pool he's ever tested has contained disease-causing viruses.
In response to these kinds of data, more than 700 products promise to help consumers kill bacteria, molds, and viruses in their homes and workplaces, from ultraviolet lights meant to kill toothbrush bacteria, to dishwashers that superheat silverware, to specially treated doormats. Three-quarters of all Americans use six or more antimicrobial products each day.
Even before the H1N1 outbreak, alcohol-based sanitizers like Purell enjoyed 53 percent annual sales growth, and Americans spent $117 million per year on them. With the advent of the H1N1 influenza pandemic last year, national germ-phobia kicked into even higher gear. The Centers for Disease Control's flu information Web site recommends regularly disinfecting kitchen counters, bedroom furniture, toys, and any other "surfaces." (In marketing terms, consumers were asked to increase their daily number of "wiping events.") Public-health authorities advised exhaustive, frequent hand-washing with hand sanitizers to fight flu. Soap and sanitizer manufacturers targeted massive ad campaigns to encourage more frequent hand-washing. Such products, their makers promise, can help families stay safe from the filth around them. Purell's slogan wistfully calls upon us germ-phobes, presumably paralyzed by fear, to "imagine a touchable world."
Yet the data tell a less compelling story about sanitizers like Purell. In 2005, Boston-based doctors published the very first clinical trial of alcohol-based hand sanitizers in homes and enrolled about 300 families with young children in day care. For five months, half the families got free hand sanitizer and a "vigorous hand-hygiene" curriculum. But the spread of respiratory infections in homes didn't budge, a result that "somewhat surprised" the researchers. A Columbia University study also found no reduction in common infections among inner-city families given free antibacterial hand soap, detergent, and cleaning supplies. The same year, University of Michigan epidemiologist Allison Aiello summarized data on hand hygiene for the FDA and pointed out that three out of four studies showed that alcohol-based hand sanitizers didn't prevent respiratory infections. Then, in 2008, the Boston group repeated the study—this time in elementary schools—and threw in free Clorox disinfecting wipes for classrooms. Again, the rate of respiratory infections remained unchanged, though the rate of gastrointestinal infections, which are less common than respiratory infections, did fall slightly. Finally, last October, a report ordered by the Public Health Agency of Canada concluded that there is no good evidence that vigorous hand hygiene practices prevent flu transmission.
..."--------------------------------------------------- Hmm. Maybe vaccines aren't a bad idea, after all. Eating well, and getting enough sleep, probably doesn't hurt either. :hi:
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
