Antiseptic hand wash

[goldengrain, wallington]

This product is sold in the U.S. and it would not be able to call itself a 'sanitizer' without having to back up the claim with lab tests. It was invented by some Harvard professor and the types of bacteria killed are flagged as being tested by two universities on one web site.

I think it contains colloidal silver, which has antiseptic properties, so much so that a Samsung(I believe) washing machine claimed to sanitize the laundry, which it did with silver. They were asked to stop manufacturing them, though, because the runoff water from the machines was killing certain bacteria that were allowing algae to grow in the waterways.

I also 'heard' that silver (thread) was being used in combat and nursing uniforms to prevent infection. The ancient Egyptians used silver for this purpose. There were people drinking the stuff (which turn some who do a lot of it a weird color - permanently). There was some bottled preparation that was sold for consumption in health food stores around which there was a controversy over quality control (amounts of the active ingredient in each bottle varied considerably) and I may be wrong, but I think there was an expiration date that was not being adhered to. I am not sure of that last statement.

There were mechanisms for sale by which a person could make their own solution. The government was, at one time, wanting to take them off the market, but it was not because they were not effective. I think there were not adequate tests on the results of long termed consumption.

A 'blue man' who drank the stuff regularly was tested medically (Dr.Oz, at NY Presbyterian maybe?) and although he was discolored, he was perfectly healthy.

Ok, I think that's the extent of my knowledge.
I don't think using it topically will turn your skin blue/grey, but I don't really know.

[Luv2cruise, Hampshire]

This product is sold in the U.S. and it would not be able to call itself a 'sanitizer' without having to back up the claim with lab tests.

No, that's not quite correct - floor or surface sanitizers and some other categories do, but handwashes don't. They were exempted in a 1994 document from the FDA, which decided that the form of delivery meant that they couldn't be considered a drug product category, and AFAIK, that's never been superceded. Thus, they only have to pass the cosmetics tests, which are far less rigorous.

It was invented by some Harvard professor and the types of bacteria killed are flagged as being tested by two universities on one web site.

This one? Argentus Bioscience Corporation I had a look at it, and the sales sheet, and although it says it kills 'over 600 bacteria and viruses', it doesn't say what they are, or gives any links to the tests presumably carried out by the two universities.

I also 'heard' that silver (thread) was being used in combat and nursing uniforms to prevent infection.

Silver is used in dressings as well, and there's good evidence to show it works well for burns and for long-term wounds such as ulcers, but again, the effectiveness depends on the concentration. Theoretically, there's no reason why this sanitizer shouldn't work - all four ingredients listed have some antimicrobial action, and it might be very effective. I would just prefer to use products with a track record.

[Santa, Redditch]

So many chemicals... We wipe them on our skin, breathe them in as an aerosol and swallow them down with our food. I yell at the TV whenever I see one of those adverts for a gadget to spay chemicals into the air to stop bad smells. JUST KEEP IT CLEAN. I also cringe when I see someone allowing a dog to lick their face - just think what the dog was licking earlier... I'm reminded of the old joke: Two men watching a dog licking its private parts. One says to the owner - "I wish I could do that." The owner replies - "If you give him a biscuit, I expect he'll let you."

Some people have made comments about asthma being a 'modern' phenomena. I have it and my mother had it and she was born in 1918. One reason that there weren't so many about in the good ole days was that most of them died young.

I am also a believer in the 'peck of dirt' theory. Children should play in mud and fall out of trees.

[hat776, malta]

Has there been any research done as to who is most liable to catch Norovirus ? Young/old, strong/weak, etc. Plus those people who live or work in an enviroment that is scrupulously clean - does that mean they won't have built up resistance ?
While on a Costa ship the English speaking host showed us a video about 'behind the scenes'. It showed what happens when the ship docks. There were the usual H & S checks. One was that they pick at random a few of the crew. These then cover their hands with a gel which turned blue (?) when there was virus on the hands. The crew were all terrified in case they failed this test and so made sure their hands were well washed.
I saw this test being done on local TV and most of the people tested were found to have the virus on their hands.
Quite an eye opener and maybe this gel could be available on board the ships for the general public.

[Gill Nickson, Albox]

I've just come off FO Black Watch, and we had an outbreak onboard (fortunately not me) but as I witnessed one woman exit the toilet without washing her hands, it is hardly surprising. It's a shame when the ship gets the blame when 9 times out of 10 it is the odd careless passenger who is responsible.

[goldengrain, wallington]

I though that you could not make medical claims without backing them up and 'sanitize' had a discrete meaning. It's a shame how for business purposes laws are changed that we assume are protecting us. Thank you for that information.

[hat776, malta]

Maybe the ships could encourage the washing of hands/sanitizing by stressing that by doing so you are protecting yourself not just helping to curb the spread of disease.

[Luv2cruise, Hampshire]

I though that you could not make medical claims without backing them up and 'sanitize' had a discrete meaning. It's a shame how for business purposes laws are changed that we assume are protecting us. Thank you for that information.

That's correct, but some terms have a different legal meaning when used in different products; 'sanitize' and 'sterilize' both mean something very specifc when applied to products used on non-human material, but it's not actually possible to reach those same standards on a person. So it then becomes a question of what is the minimum standard achievable on the skin and how important it is to achieve it. It's obviously got to be a higher standard if the product will be used to clean skin before an operation than it is for one to clean hands after going to the loo. Hence, it may well be decided that for the latter, it can be exempt from those regulations, which is what happened in the FDA document. It probably would have been less confusing if they'd said the term 'sanitizer' couldn't be used, though.

Licensing also partly depends on the ingredients. Usually, products containing a proven antibacterial agent, especially one like alcohol that's been in use for centuries, don't need to have their effectiveness proven again. As long as the active ingredient is in there at the right concentration and it can be shown that any other ingredients in the product won't interfere with it, the product as a whole will be given the same rating as the active ingredient. After that, the product just needs to undergo the cosmetic requirements, i.e. that it's safe to use.

[Luv2cruise, Hampshire]

Has there been any research done as to who is most liable to catch Norovirus ? Young/old, strong/weak, etc.

Yes, it's the usual people, i.e. those with an impaired immune system: the young, the elderly, those with pre-existing medical conditions. Healthy young adults rarely get it - that's why it's mainly a disease of hospitals and schools - but there is a sharp rise in the incidence in young adults if their environment changes, i.e. new school, college, job, because it brings them into contact with a new group of people. Cruise ships aren't unusual in this respect; you have a group of strangers herded togther, generally with a lot of children and/or elderly people, and hey presto!, you have ideal conditions for disease spread. What is unusual about cruise ships is that by law they have to report the infection to the authorities when it reaches 3% of the people (crew + passengers) on board; hotels and resorts do not have to do this.

Plus those people who live or work in an enviroment that is scrupulously clean - does that mean they won't have built up resistance ?

Unlikely - having such an environment is far more likely to reduce disease. What you're probably thinking of here is the evidence that children who are not exposed to a decent range of organisms (the old saying of 'you need to eat a peck of dirt before you die') are more prone to autoimmune conditions such as eczema or hay-fever. Basically, the current thingking is that if a child is brought up in an overly clean environment, their body doesn't get trained to recognise the difference between 'bad' proteins (those carried on viruses and bacteria) and 'good' proteins (carried on the body's own cells), and in addition, it can be a case of 'idle hands' causing mischief, with the underworked immune system turning on what it's supposed to protect, or else over-reacting to every minor intruder, such as pollen.

I saw this test being done on local TV and most of the people tested were found to have the virus on their hands.
Quite an eye opener and maybe this gel could be available on board the ships for the general public.

A very good idea!