Talk:Triclosan
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I removed the statement "Triclosan has been shown to be safe through extensive testing and 30 years of experience in personal care products and clinical use and is approved by both the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and by the European Union." because it is not accurate and conflicts with another part of the article that says the epa classifies triclosan as a probable carcinogen. User:TitaniumDreads 20:42, 17 Aug 2005 (UTC)
- TitaniumDreads is wrong here - the EPA refers to chloroform as a probable human carcinogen, NOT triclosan. TDs comments across Wikipedia have a marked anti-chemical tendency - no problem with that, but be aware when you read his/her comments. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CidermanRolls (talk • contribs) 7 July 2006.
- Yeah, Triclosan doesn't break down into chloroform in the mouth, although it has been shown to break down to chloroform in chlorinated water exposed to sunlight —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 165.200.87.18 (talk) 10 August 2006
I'd like to read about how Triclosan works and how (or whether) it degrades in the environment. I've done some research but I'd rather see something written by someone with more familiarity with the subject. Notinasnaid 15:39, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Is it just me, or is there a POV issue with having almost all of the external links on the page point to anti-Triclosan advocacy sites? (The one that doesn't just has the chemical structure, and no other content.) The current writeup itself seems balanced, and I don't see much of a POV issue there, it's just the lack of balance in the external references that is a little troubling. -- 14:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- Agreed, the links seem to violate NPOV, although I can't find any pro-Triclosan sites... any ideas? 81.174.135.79 21:22, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
there seems to be some contradiction.. in one paragraph it says that some bacteria are resistant to triclosan, and in the next few paragraphs it says that bacterial resistance is not possible?? Hellznrg 21:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
--Agreed, This should be looked into--it is confusing. Proper citation of sources is needed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.164.178.116 (talk) 17 May 2006
[edit] Article
An article on triclosan: http://www.grinningplanet.com/2005/10-04/triclosan-article.htm --68.239.240.144 15:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Possible Triclosan external link caution
The Triclosan article's external link listed as "Antibacterials? Here's the Rub – campaign site" may be questionable. Currently (Feb 2, 07) it leads at least on my Mac browser to a single pixel graphic which may not be a good thing? Or maybe the linked site is normally ok and useful but has a temporary problem? I've never edited in Wikipedia so I leave any followup to experts, thanks. Plosel2 17:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] NPOV dispute / Resistance concerns
I don't have the time to edit, but this wiki article is deeply flawed (and now has a POV problem with being too pro-triclosan). I suggest starting here for a decent review: http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1089/mdr.2006.12.83?cookieSet=1 Triclosan and Antimicrobial Resistance in Bacteria: An Overview SIAMAK P. YAZDANKHAH,1 ANNE A. SCHEIE,2 E. ARNE HØIBY,3 BJØRN-TORE LUNESTAD,4 EVEN HEIR,5 TOR ØYSTEIN FOTLAND,1 KRISTINE NATERSTAD,5 and HILDE KRUSE6 MICROBIAL DRUG RESISTANCE Volume 12, Number 2, 2006 © Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.
Please note that this is a complicated issue, so don't cherry pick from the literature —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.114.232.165 (talk) 12 February 2007
Research has shown that resistance to triclosan does occur, and that it can be transmitted between bacteria. There is also cause to be concerned in terms of cross-resistance.
Under some conditions tested in some literature resistance or cross-resistance (e.g. dental conditions don't appear to be a problem) do not occur or are not important. However, this is not the case for all conditions, so please don't read one sentence from one article and draw conclusions for the rest of the literature. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.180.255.24 (talk) 13 February 2007
- I've added the cite above to the article, and removed the NPOV tag. If you have specific concerns about the article's lack of adherence to NPOV, please mention them. —Trevyn 20:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)