Talk:Purell/Archives/2013

Germs

kills 99.99% of illness-causing germs

Suggest strongly that this be clarified... what is a "germ"?
-76.4.49.201 23:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
A germ is a microorganism.--JSHibbard 22:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Alcohol Test

Is it true that using purell will cause you to fail an alcohol urine test?

1. Not the same kind of alcohol.

2. You don't drink the stuff, you put it on your hands. Prometheus^-X303- 14:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

If you use Purell or any other alcohol rub according to the label you will not fail an alcohol urine test. When you use Purell or any other alcohol rub, the alcohol on the skin evaporates in 15 to 30 seconds and is not absorbed through the skin into the bloodstream and then into the urine.--JSHibbard 22:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The idea is that it will be absorbed by you skin and will be close enought that it will be picked up. This was told to me by a doctor.

I was mistaken. It does contain ethyl alcohol. However, I'm still not convinced that the levels absorbed into the skin will reach the bloodstream and thus cause one to fail a urine test. Prometheus^-X303- 01:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Purell

All advertising should be removed from the Purell article. In my opinion, this is what the Purell article should contain.

Purell is an instant hand sanitizer. Its active ingredient is ethyl alcohol. Purell is the most popular hand sanitizer in the U.S. In 2006, The New York Times reported that Purell is heavily used by politicians during election season, when they have to shake countless hands and remain in robust health.[4] The product is flammable and may discolor fabrics. The inactive ingredients include water, isopropyl alcohol, glycerin, carbomer, fragrance, aminomethyl propanol, propylene glycol, isopropyl myristate, and tocopheryl acetate.

All references to the several multinational companies, the web site, and the picture of Purell should be removed. Otherwise it is blatant advertising.--JSHibbard 20:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

John, while I appreciate your dedication to your product, Germ Out, we cannot allow you to ignore two of the three main tenets of wikipedia: Neutral Point of View and Verifiability. Many products have their product images and logos in their articles. An encyclopedia is meant to be informative. Images can be far more informative than text. The Purell article is written in a Neutral Point of View with verifiable data. You are too close to Germ Out to have even a marginally neutral point of view of either product. ForestJay 21:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

ForestJay, The Germ Out article did not ignore the three main tenants of Wikipedia. The article was written in the same format as the Purell article. Every statement in the Germ Out article is verifiable by independent references. The statements are fact not fiction. They are just as neutral and verifiable as the statements in the Purell article. You are assuming a person cannot write factual and verifiable information just because they are associated with a product. Please try to find one statement in the Germ Out article that is not verifiable, factual or informational. The information in the Germ Out article must be disseminated to the general public concerning the use of hand sanitizers for at least three very important reasons. One, combination antiseptics in hand sanitizers are significantly more effective than single antiseptics alone. Two, liquid antiseptics are significantly more effective than gel antiseptics and three, alcohol concentrations of 70 % are significantly more effective than alcohol concentrations 62% which are minimally effective. This is why the Germ Out article is of the utmost importance to Wikipedia and why these facts need to be available to the general public. --JSHibbard 01:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

References 1 and 3 in this article do not exist. The references should either be updated or replaced. If the references do not exist, the sentences supported by the references should be removed. They are "Purell is the most popular hand sanitizer in the US" and "on June 27, 2006 Johnson & Johnson announced its acquisition of the Pfizer Consumer Healthcare division, which includes the Purell brand, for $16.6 billion". Neither of the sentences are currently supported by their references.--JSHibbard 15:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Isopropyl/Ethyl Alcohol

There's some inconsistency here. If Purell contains enough ethyl alcohol to get you drunk, then why isn't it listed as a main ingredient? It seems by smelling the product itself, I can confirm it is mostly isopropyl alcohol. What's the deal here? Drnathanfurious 23:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Purell By Prescription in Japan?

I work at a soap manufacturing plant in Mid-Eastern US, and I had heard that in Japan (a major client for the company) products like Purell are available only by prescription and sell for something like $50-75 US per 12-ounce bottle. Can anyone verify this and have an explanation why this might be true? If so, it might be an interesting bit of miscellanea for the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.23.84.0 (talk) 18:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Effectiveness against viruses

This article says alcohol hand sanitizers are "poor at killing viruses", indirectly citing an Emory University study about "stomach bug viruses". However, hand sanitizer includes a quote saying "alcohol rubs are approximately 100 times more effective against viruses than any form of hand washing". Mr2001 (talk) 00:16, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Ownership and distribution

The dates in this section aren't chronological. It jumps from 2008 to 2006 to 2010. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.70.3.135 (talk) 02:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Germs

kills 99.99% of illness-causing germs

Suggest strongly that this be clarified... what is a "germ"?
-76.4.49.201 23:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
A germ is a microorganism.--JSHibbard 22:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Alcohol Test

Is it true that using purell will cause you to fail an alcohol urine test?

1. Not the same kind of alcohol.

2. You don't drink the stuff, you put it on your hands. Prometheus^-X303- 14:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

If you use Purell or any other alcohol rub according to the label you will not fail an alcohol urine test. When you use Purell or any other alcohol rub, the alcohol on the skin evaporates in 15 to 30 seconds and is not absorbed through the skin into the bloodstream and then into the urine.--JSHibbard 22:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The idea is that it will be absorbed by you skin and will be close enought that it will be picked up. This was told to me by a doctor.

I was mistaken. It does contain ethyl alcohol. However, I'm still not convinced that the levels absorbed into the skin will reach the bloodstream and thus cause one to fail a urine test. Prometheus^-X303- 01:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Purell

All advertising should be removed from the Purell article. In my opinion, this is what the Purell article should contain.

Purell is an instant hand sanitizer. Its active ingredient is ethyl alcohol. Purell is the most popular hand sanitizer in the U.S. In 2006, The New York Times reported that Purell is heavily used by politicians during election season, when they have to shake countless hands and remain in robust health.[4] The product is flammable and may discolor fabrics. The inactive ingredients include water, isopropyl alcohol, glycerin, carbomer, fragrance, aminomethyl propanol, propylene glycol, isopropyl myristate, and tocopheryl acetate.

All references to the several multinational companies, the web site, and the picture of Purell should be removed. Otherwise it is blatant advertising.--JSHibbard 20:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

John, while I appreciate your dedication to your product, Germ Out, we cannot allow you to ignore two of the three main tenets of wikipedia: Neutral Point of View and Verifiability. Many products have their product images and logos in their articles. An encyclopedia is meant to be informative. Images can be far more informative than text. The Purell article is written in a Neutral Point of View with verifiable data. You are too close to Germ Out to have even a marginally neutral point of view of either product. ForestJay 21:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

ForestJay, The Germ Out article did not ignore the three main tenants of Wikipedia. The article was written in the same format as the Purell article. Every statement in the Germ Out article is verifiable by independent references. The statements are fact not fiction. They are just as neutral and verifiable as the statements in the Purell article. You are assuming a person cannot write factual and verifiable information just because they are associated with a product. Please try to find one statement in the Germ Out article that is not verifiable, factual or informational. The information in the Germ Out article must be disseminated to the general public concerning the use of hand sanitizers for at least three very important reasons. One, combination antiseptics in hand sanitizers are significantly more effective than single antiseptics alone. Two, liquid antiseptics are significantly more effective than gel antiseptics and three, alcohol concentrations of 70 % are significantly more effective than alcohol concentrations 62% which are minimally effective. This is why the Germ Out article is of the utmost importance to Wikipedia and why these facts need to be available to the general public. --JSHibbard 01:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

References 1 and 3 in this article do not exist. The references should either be updated or replaced. If the references do not exist, the sentences supported by the references should be removed. They are "Purell is the most popular hand sanitizer in the US" and "on June 27, 2006 Johnson & Johnson announced its acquisition of the Pfizer Consumer Healthcare division, which includes the Purell brand, for $16.6 billion". Neither of the sentences are currently supported by their references.--JSHibbard 15:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Isopropyl/Ethyl Alcohol

There's some inconsistency here. If Purell contains enough ethyl alcohol to get you drunk, then why isn't it listed as a main ingredient? It seems by smelling the product itself, I can confirm it is mostly isopropyl alcohol. What's the deal here? Drnathanfurious 23:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Purell By Prescription in Japan?

I work at a soap manufacturing plant in Mid-Eastern US, and I had heard that in Japan (a major client for the company) products like Purell are available only by prescription and sell for something like $50-75 US per 12-ounce bottle. Can anyone verify this and have an explanation why this might be true? If so, it might be an interesting bit of miscellanea for the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.23.84.0 (talk) 18:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Effectiveness against viruses

This article says alcohol hand sanitizers are "poor at killing viruses", indirectly citing an Emory University study about "stomach bug viruses". However, hand sanitizer includes a quote saying "alcohol rubs are approximately 100 times more effective against viruses than any form of hand washing". Mr2001 (talk) 00:16, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Ownership and distribution

The dates in this section aren't chronological. It jumps from 2008 to 2006 to 2010. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.70.3.135 (talk) 02:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)