# Letter to CDC _Raw Shea



## cmzaha (Oct 13, 2014)

Could not decide exactly where to land this topic so obiviously I chose here since this is where I am the most...
I have been giving a lot of thought about using raw butters from West Africa in my products. I really do not see soap with the lye monster, but whipped butters, scrubs etc make me rethink using raw butters. I know Ghana has not been directly named but not all raw butter is from Ghana, which is a country in West Africa. This is hand made in villages where sanitation is not the greatest. Just kinda thinking out loud
I happen to love raw butters and have been using only raw for several yrs, and I have thought about it in passing before but now I am really thinking about it. Hopefully I will hear back to the CDC, but can imagine they are busy putting out fires with the lastest virus to hit here, so I am sure it will be awhile before I hear back. Tried calling but that was pretty futile. Just wonder what others have for thoughts on this


----------



## pamielynn (Oct 13, 2014)

Are you worried about raw butter containing Ebola or another virus? I'm not sure if that's what you mean.


----------



## LazyUmbrella (Oct 13, 2014)

I think regardless of where an ingredient is sourced, there's always potential for contamination especially where human interaction is involved. While not relevant to soaping, I'm sure we've all heard horror stories about restaurant kitchens! Heck how many of us have waded into "debates" of raw vs. pasteurized milk? 

That being said, you bring up a very interesting point, about the safety of ingredients in general, the conditions in which they are processed, and stored, but also the conditions in which they are used here - for example, if one works in the kitchen among dirty pots and pans, in the moldy basement or outside with dust and bugs galore, it doesn't matter if the product arrives in near-sterile condition!

I think a good first step would be to understand how microorganisms and how our immune systems "work" - what conditions they need to survive, how they can be transmitted, and to what degree our bodies can protect us.

The next step might be to slosh some stuff on a Petri dish, wait a week and see what happens - but even that's not conclusive because without understanding what we see and why we are seeing it, we might overreact to something that's not even there.

Still, it's a great point, and it's one of the reasons I still haven't waded into the creams and lotions pool yet, and I look forward to the discussion here!


----------



## CanaDawn (Oct 13, 2014)

pamielynn said:


> Are you worried about raw butter containing Ebola or another virus? I'm not sure if that's what you mean.



I wondered, myself...and assumed this was the concern.

Raw butters have always been made where "sanitation is not the greatest" (who hasn't picked a bit of random material out of their raw butters?) - I think the transmission risk is vanishingly low for ebola - at least in lab handling protocols I see nothing to indicate it has ever been transmitted other than by close personal contact. If the shipments are irradiated, the risk would drop to near zero, from what I have read. (Note Disclaimer!! I'm not a microbiologist, but I am looking at the Pathogen Safety Data Sheet for ebola to draw these conclusions.)

I would be interested to hear what the CDC response is, if you get one.



LazyUmbrella said:


> The next step might be to slosh some stuff on a Petri dish, wait a week and see what happens - but even that's not conclusive because without understanding what we see and why we are seeing it, we might overreact to something that's not even there.



I work in a university lab, and I would caution against doing this, because of precisely what you state - without understanding what you see, one is likely to overreact to something innocuous and normal. Yeast, staph, molds, etc are all present all around us every day, and will grow enthusiastically on agar (and you'd need to use the correct agar to get what you wanted to check for). They are important to our health, in good ways, but look unsettling when you see them growing on an agar plate (we're just doing a soil lab that uses normal potting soil, and lawn soil, and grows a fantastic array of micro-organisms that look freaky, but are present all around us and basically harmless.)

Your plate would definitely show growth but if you don't know what it is growing, you're no better off.

Also, if you DID grow something unsavoury, you now have an entire petri dish of the stuff...and autoclaves are not common household items (they are used to safely dispose of pathogenic materials in labs).



LazyUmbrella said:


> I think a good first step would be to understand how microorganisms and how our immune systems "work" - what conditions they need to survive, how they can be transmitted, and to what degree our bodies can protect us.



THIS I can get behind 100%, though!


----------



## cmzaha (Oct 13, 2014)

Yes i was thinking the Ebola for the most part. Yep, I know how and where butters are made as far as raw butters and that is what has taken me on this path. I am not trying to be a scare monger which I am not, but I was just thinking this could be another avenue of some of these virus's coming into our country. I am not a very paranoid person but was just thinking. As general public, that does not have lab connections or medical, all the info we can get is from news which is very far from reliable which is why I sent an inquiry to CDC


----------



## CanaDawn (Oct 13, 2014)

cmzaha said:


> Yes i was thinking the Ebola for the most part. Yep, I know how and where butters are made as far as raw butters and that is what has taken me on this path. I am not trying to be a scare monger which I am not, but I was just thinking this could be another avenue of some of these virus's coming into our country. I am not a very paranoid person but was just thinking. As general public, that does not have lab connections or medical, all the info we can get is from news which is very far from reliable which is why I sent an inquiry to CDC



publicly available..

http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/lab-bio/res/psds-ftss/ebola-eng.php

and from here http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/hcp/environmental-infection-control-in-hospitals.html

" There is no epidemiologic evidence of Ebolavirus transmission via  either the environment or fomites that could become contaminated during  patient care (e.g., bed rails, door knobs, laundry)."

(ie there's no evidence it is transmissible, if you don't contact the body fluid directly)

still will be interested in what the CDC has to say.


----------



## lionprincess00 (Oct 13, 2014)

Honestly, I think this is highly highly transmissible. I think we (they) don't know everything about it. I think you have brought up a truly interesting topic of discussion. I didn't even *think* about this....and now....I am _definitely_ "thinking" about the purchase of goods from there. Thank you for bringing this up and opening the door for discussion. Would love to hear the response you receive!


----------



## CanaDawn (Oct 13, 2014)

In specific situations, it is highly transmissible, I agree. I agree that epidemiologists and virologists are still learning. 
The rest......I guess we wait to see if CDC responds (but...if you don't think "they" know...)
Avoiding the butters is right up there with airport screening for me, in terms of risk/prevention...not that useful, but not that concerning as the risk is still very low.
I feel confident that these sorts of vectors would have been carefully considered prior to import.
If we're going to discuss it, I think all aspects should be considered, instead of having to agree with each other in order to participate. It IS worth a discussion, and everyone's risk tolerance will vary. I would not want to suggest someone do something that makes them uncomfortable regarding their product.

oof...ok...I'm trying to edit and re-edit my posts so that my tone is ok, and I am not at all good at it (I have struggled with this in written communication all my life, and don't seem to be able to figure out what I do wrongly) so....I am going to leave this thread so that I don't unintentionally offend anyone in it. 

I am, truly, interested in whatever response CDC might offer, though.


----------



## cmzaha (Oct 13, 2014)

CanaDawn said:


> oof...ok...I'm trying to edit and re-edit my posts so that my tone is ok, and I am not at all good at it (I have struggled with this in written communication all my life, and don't seem to be able to figure out what I do wrongly) so....I am going to leave this thread so that I don't unintentionally offend anyone in it.
> 
> I am, truly, interested in whatever response CDC might offer, though.


 
I enjoyed your answers. Growing something in a petri dish, which I remember doing in High School, is not something I will take on not know what I am looking for. Unfortunetly when I sold my beauty shop the autoclave unit unfortunetly went with it. Who knew I would want one again some day. BTW I found a cricket leg floating in my melted raw shea today. Nope, it did not come from my house, that I can assure you.


----------



## OliveOil2 (Oct 13, 2014)

Yikes a cricket leg! I was talking to my sister a few days ago about possible health issues considering Ebola with the raw shea butter that I purchase directly from Ghana. I may be over reacting since Ghana is not in the middle of the Ebola crisis, but considering the shea butter is cooked outside in the heat, I was worried enough to put off ordering any more for the time being. As Carolyn stated with the lye monster soap is less of a concern, but I also have found that my soap is nice without the shea. I am very interested to hear the response you receive from your letter.


----------



## CanaDawn (Oct 13, 2014)

ok...thanks Carolyn. 

OliveOil2 - 30 min at 60C inactivates ebola. That it is cooked would make me LESS worried, not more.

from the link I posted above "Ebola are moderately thermolabile and can be inactivated by heating for 30 minutes to 60 minutes at 60°C, boiling for 5 minutes, or gamma irradiation (1.2 x106 rads to 1.27 x106 rads) combined with 1% glutaraldehyde"

http://www.sophim-sheabutter.com/manufacture.html

is this not a typical shea process? Is it actually heated in other processing methods?


----------



## OliveOil2 (Oct 13, 2014)

I know that heating will make it safer, I just had some concerns because I have seen the conditions that the shea butter is processed in. I receive amazing butter that is pretty much free from rocks, and twigs. I do gell my soap and it gets pretty hot for a couple of hours. I wasn't extremely worried, just came up when I was thinking about how we are going to make sure the ebola virus doesn't spread to other countries.


----------



## cmzaha (Oct 13, 2014)

CanaDawn said:


> ok...thanks Carolyn.
> 
> OliveOil2 - 30 min at 60C inactivates ebola. That it is cooked would make me LESS worried, not more.
> 
> from the link I posted above "Ebola are moderately thermolabile and can be inactivated by heating for 30 minutes to 60 minutes at 60°C, boiling for 5 minutes, or gamma irradiation (1.2 x106 rads to 1.27 x106 rads) combined with 1% glutaraldehyde"


Thankyou for the info. I had bookmarks for articles from CDC that I am going to read tonight after I get my soaps done. Daughter had a severe asthmatic episode so was at her house all day waiting to see if I needed to take her to emergency. She is like a little kid and won't tell me how bad she is unless I go see for myself. She is 40 so she should know better than now


----------



## CanaDawn (Oct 13, 2014)

cmzaha said:


> Thankyou for the info. I had bookmarks for articles from CDC that I am going to read tonight after I get my soaps done. Daughter had a severe asthmatic episode so was at her house all day waiting to see if I needed to take her to emergency. She is like a little kid and won't tell me how bad she is unless I go see for myself. She is 40 so she should know better than now



omi!  That's a little anxious-making!  I hope she's ok now and you didn't have to turn up the Mom-factor too much!


----------



## sassanellat (Oct 13, 2014)

LazyUmbrella said:


> Heck how many of us have waded into "debates" of raw vs. pasteurized milk?



Oh, yeah! 

[quote}That being said, you bring up a very interesting point, about the safety of ingredients in general, the conditions in which they are processed, and stored, but also the conditions in which they are used here... [/QUOTE] Absolutely. And it's an interesting topic. 



> I think a good first step would be to understand how microorganisms and how our immune systems "work" - what conditions they need to survive, how they can be transmitted, and to what degree our bodies can protect us.


My main class I teach is Pathogenic Micro (which covers these areas). It's a big field, but pretty specialized. I don't recommend everyday folks getting into this because, as CanaDawn mentioned, you don't want to multiply anything pathogenic a trillion fold overnight. 

Fat and oil is really quite a hostile environment for bacteria and viruses (much less so for fungi, but it still needs water around). Ebola, like amny animal viruses, is a coated virus, meaning it has a cell membrane like a cell. This makes it quite sensitive to fats and oils, and at least somewhat vulnerable to alcohol hand sanitizers. It's extremely unlikely that Ebola could be transmitted via shea after all that time. If an oozing Ebola patient had recently touched the shea just prior to you using it, that might be a different story. But hey, Feynman taught us to never say never.



lionprincess00 said:


> Honestly, I think this is highly highly transmissible. I think we (they) don't know everything about it. I think you have brought up a truly interesting topic of discussion. I didn't even *think* about this....and now....I am _definitely_ "thinking" about the purchase of goods from there. Thank you for bringing this up and opening the door for discussion. Would love to hear the response you receive!



It is highly transmissible, but it still has to be transferred by direct contact with (the copious) fluids of an infected patient. If proper protocols are followed, medical staff should be perfectly safe, but as I get to be the one to start training docs and nurses in their first patho experience, it's really tough to break all the habits that we have (particularly touching the face and hair). I actually have a student from Ghana in my class this semester, and she says they aren't panicking about it, just avoiding travel and people that have traveled. And overall, we've been quite aware of Ebola and the risks, etc. The real problem is that everybody is so CHEAP, they refuse to do the proper training that is required. It's kind of a hiccup here in the US, that will quickly go away as folks get properly trained.



CanaDawn said:


> ok...thanks Carolyn.
> 
> OliveOil2 - 30 min at 60C inactivates ebola. That it is cooked would make me LESS worried, not more.
> 
> from the link I posted above "Ebola are moderately thermolabile and can be inactivated by heating for 30 minutes to 60 minutes at 60°C, boiling for 5 minutes, or gamma irradiation (1.2 x106 rads to 1.27 x106 rads) combined with 1% glutaraldehyde"



LOL! I think ordering a gamma irradiator would peak the interest of the NRC (and the FBI). Pass on the glutaraldehyde, too. I've seen someone that glued two fingers together with the stuff, then they had to basically rip the layers of skin apart. It wasn't pretty.

The other stats are interesting. I'll have to mention them in class - the nurses will be interested in particular.


----------



## CanaDawn (Oct 13, 2014)

sassanellat said:


> LOL! I think ordering a gamma irradiator would peak the interest of the NRC (and the FBI). Pass on the glutaraldehyde, too. I've seen someone that glued two fingers together with the stuff, then they had to basically rip the layers of skin apart. It wasn't pretty.
> .



LOL  I had forgotten that little feature of gluteraldehyde....the Cookbook for Geeks actually uses it to glue various protein foods together - sort of riskier than your average BBQ.  

and yes, the gamma irradiator would be a bit...overkill (But I was thinking of irradiation at the various borders)


----------



## sassanellat (Oct 13, 2014)

CanaDawn said:


> LOL  I had forgotten that little feature of gluteraldehyde....the Cookbook for Geeks actually uses it to glue various protein foods together - sort of riskier than your average BBQ.
> 
> and yes, the gamma irradiator would be a bit...overkill (But I was thinking of irradiation at the various borders)


 It was really disgusting. :Kitten Love:

The latest on Ebola suggests that, under optimal conditions, the virus can live for up to six days, but it's sensitive to UV and drying. On dry surfaces, it only lives a few hours, or a couple minutes in sunlight.


----------



## The Efficacious Gentleman (Oct 14, 2014)

Okay, so even leaving diseases out of it, you can keep your raw butters, all full of rocks and twigs and insect parts! Yikes.


----------



## CanaDawn (Oct 14, 2014)

The Efficacious Gentleman said:


> Okay, so even leaving diseases out of it, you can keep your raw butters, all full of rocks and twigs and insect parts! Yikes.



*evil grin*   now may not be the time to point out that food processing companies work to a set "bug parts in your product" limit...


----------



## The Efficacious Gentleman (Oct 14, 2014)

Gah!

I think it would be interesting to know just how refined the refined products are and what the processing regulations are regarding quality and so on. I don't think that a leg would be so bad after all


----------



## CanaDawn (Oct 14, 2014)

Nope.  There's likely been a bug leg or egg in a candy bar you've eaten.  (bonus protien!) lol
You'd definitely need to understand the specific refining process and track down the regulations, but I would not be the least surprised if they will include some percentage of foreign material (twig bits, bug parts, etc)


----------



## pamielynn (Oct 14, 2014)

CanaDawn said:


> Nope.  There's likely been a bug leg or egg in a candy bar you've eaten.  (bonus protien!) lol
> You'd definitely need to understand the specific refining process and track down the regulations, but I would not be the least surprised if they will include some percentage of foreign material (twig bits, bug parts, etc)



Hey, the people want "natural" don't they?


----------



## CanaDawn (Oct 14, 2014)

pamielynn said:


> Hey, the people want "natural" don't they?



Even in the regular, highly processed stuff there's specific limits for bug bit content (obviously they will not be listed on the label....they're sort of incidentals, or collateral inclusions, I suppose....:twisted: )


----------



## sassanellat (Oct 14, 2014)

The Efficacious Gentleman said:


> Gah!
> 
> I think it would be interesting to know just how refined the refined products are and what the processing regulations are regarding quality and so on. I don't think that a leg would be so bad after all


 Unless the product has meat in it, it's pretty much up to the company to create their own standards, execute them, and report them (which means, well, it's pretty lax). There are some much more rigorous rules for meat-containing products, but you'd still be appalled.


----------



## CanaDawn (Oct 14, 2014)

sassanellat said:


> Unless the product has meat in it, it's pretty much up to the company to create their own standards, execute them, and report them (which means, well, it's pretty lax). There are some much more rigorous rules for meat-containing products, but you'd still be appalled.



lol.  Apparently the wildlife branch of the govt here regularly gets requests for replacement deer/etc tags when people discover parasites in their game....even after they are identified as harmless when cooked.

Substantiated rumour has it that there are some great BBQs in that department (wasting game is a criminal offense....), but they do usually give replacement tags because they just can't make people ok with what is ok.


----------



## pamielynn (Oct 15, 2014)

If you can find it, watch Nancy Today's video on soapmaking outside. Even if her ingredients don't come with bugs, she'll add them herself  "Just a little bit of nature" says she.


----------



## CanaDawn (Oct 15, 2014)

wow...ok...so I'm not a vegan or a Buddhist, but finding animals and purposely mixing them into a hot lye solution seems a little over the top....I won't weep about things that fall in accidentally, but.....nope, that's just not for me...


----------



## lionprincess00 (Oct 15, 2014)

CanaDawn said:


> wow...ok...so I'm not a vegan or a Buddhist, but finding animals and purposely mixing them into a hot lye solution seems a little over the top....I won't weep about things that fall in accidentally, but.....nope, that's just not for me...



Bugs in soap is a no go for me. But really, it isn't much different than the bug man coming out here and spraying for crickets and spiders, ants and such. I think the hornet spray I used when two yellow jackets got in and dive bombed me was a slower death than a hot hot lye solution. But I can't speak for certain on that. 
It seems yucky, bugs in body cleaning products, no matter how you put it. And yes I know bugs are used for colorants too...still...yucky. I try not to think about that lol!


----------



## OliveOil2 (Oct 15, 2014)

Nancy Today should come with a warning to new soapers! I think that most of what she does is making fun of how serious most soap makers take measurements etc. I had to stop watching the youtube video where she was dancing around and shaking the full pitcher of lye water.


----------



## CanaDawn (Oct 15, 2014)

lionprincess00 said:


> Bugs in soap is a no go for me. But really, it isn't much different than the bug man coming out here and spraying for crickets and spiders, ants and such. I think the hornet spray I used when two yellow jackets got in and dive bombed me was a slower death than a hot hot lye solution. But I can't speak for certain on that.
> It seems yucky, bugs in body cleaning products, no matter how you put it. And yes I know bugs are used for colorants too...still...yucky. I try not to think about that lol!



I'm not squeamish and don't care about bug bits, but I DO care about what seems to me to be the unnecessary cruelty of specifically seeking a bug to add.  (and nope nope nope to spraying for harmless/helpful things like crickets and spiders, and the collateral damage of pesticide use. sorry, also not on my agenda.)


----------



## CanaDawn (Oct 15, 2014)

OliveOil2 said:


> Nancy Today should come with a warning to new soapers! I think that most of what she does is making fun of how serious most soap makers take measurements etc. I had to stop watching the youtube video where she was dancing around and shaking the full pitcher of lye water.



o. my.  goodness.. ok, the adding of bugs at least now falls under "not that unexpected" though still not "ok"....


----------



## navigator9 (Oct 15, 2014)

I'm finally back on line after a truck rolled by my house and pulled the cable wires off the pole....then unable for some time to schedule a day when I had a *six hour window *available!!! So here I am, anxious to find out what I've missed while I was away, and this is the first thread I read. Well, I guess it's a good thing, since I haven't yet used the beautiful shea butter that a friend from work, who is from Ghana, had his daughters bring me on a recent visit. I have scraped bits off, and rubbed them on my hands, without any ill effects, so I'm guessing I don't have to worry about this particular batch of shea, but I won't use it to make soaps for sale,and I'll be keeping an eye on this thread. What a shame. 

shea.jpg


----------



## CanaDawn (Oct 15, 2014)

um...there's the off-chance that you're kidding so don't be offended....but scraping bits off and rubbing them on your hands wouldn't tell you anything about the safety, ebola- or other similar disease- wise, of any product, especially over such a short timeframe....and is that how you'd want to test, if there _was _a risk?  Plus you mention you will soap with it, which would negate the risk IF it were there.  (It's fairly clear to me by now, from what I've read, that there is no risk).

I think worrying about ebola from raw plant butters is an unnecessary fear, and you can safely use your lovely shea.


----------



## lionprincess00 (Oct 15, 2014)

CanaDawn said:


> I'm not squeamish and don't care about bug bits, but I DO care about what seems to me to be the unnecessary cruelty of specifically seeking a bug to add.  (and nope nope nope to spraying for harmless/helpful things like crickets and spiders, and the collateral damage of pesticide use. sorry, also not on my agenda.)




Lol! Good thing you weren't around when hundreds, literally hundreds, of crickets invaded the farm field behind our home and next to our home with many coming into our home, invading the interior through every crack and crevice they could. Not to mention the massive amounts of spiders that too crawl into the home....finding a wolf spider in your bed isn't a good thing, my oldest can attest to that, and especially with several little one running about. If it wasn't for our bug man coming out quarterly, we would be overrun. it's the best investment we did here, I think! Ah, not to mention the hornets that fly in through the fireplace....that yr we had about 10 in the living room, we had to literally seal the fireplace off. Then there were the ants last yr.......

Living out of city limits does have some down points.....and spraying pesticides around the exterior, I'm sorry, it the only way we keep our home safe for ourselves. So you see, maybe your a tougher person than I and you find them helpful :thumbdown:
I however do not find them helpful (unless they're in our veggie garden. Yes, THOSE ARE helpful!)


----------



## lionprincess00 (Oct 15, 2014)

And that thumbs down was for my opinion of said bugs, not you being tougher....lol, I could use a lesson on bug toughness my hubby would say! So that wasn't meant for you, just for the horrible memories on the bug invasions :sick:
Also, yeah it's totally unnecessary and I agree 100% with you on that!


----------



## shunt2011 (Oct 15, 2014)

Nancy Today is hands down one of the scariest soapmaking videos I've ever seen.  She is wrong on so many levels and thinking of all the new soapers out there who see her videos and may follow her ways is frightening.  She's been the topic of what not to do many times on several forums. She is entertaining though.


----------



## hmlove1218 (Oct 15, 2014)

lionprincess00 said:


> Not to mention the massive amounts of spiders that too crawl into the home....finding a wolf spider in your bed isn't a good thing, my oldest can attest to that, and especially with several little one running about.



Nope, nope, nope! I'd have to move because I think my house would burn down for some mysterious reason..lol. Spiders and I just don't get along. I have some really creepy jumping spiders that like to stalk people. They come in through my front door, so I mainly find them in the living room. If I found one in my bed I'd die.


----------



## navigator9 (Oct 15, 2014)

CanaDawn said:


> um...there's the off-chance that you're kidding so don't be offended....but scraping bits off and rubbing them on your hands wouldn't tell you anything about the safety, ebola- or other similar disease- wise, of any product, especially over such a short timeframe....and is that how you'd want to test, if there _was _a risk?  Plus you mention you will soap with it, which would negate the risk IF it were there.  (It's fairly clear to me by now, from what I've read, that there is no risk).
> 
> I think worrying about ebola from raw plant butters is an unnecessary fear, and you can safely use your lovely shea.



I think you're reading something into my post that wasn't there.  I didn't mean to imply that I had rubbed the shea butter on my hands as a safety test for ebola, or anything else. Just that I had done so when I received it about a month ago, to see what it felt like on my hands. I had never made any connection between shea from Ghana and the risk of ebola until I read this thread today. Just stating that I rubbed the shea on my skin over a month ago, not knowing that there might ever be a question of an ebola connection, and that I've had no ill effects, that's all.


----------



## Susie (Oct 15, 2014)

Listening to ebola nursing forum.  Ebola is transmitted through aerosols as well as direct contact to body fluids.  I will not be getting anything from Africa for the foreseeable future.


----------



## lionprincess00 (Oct 15, 2014)

hmlove1218 said:


> Nope, nope, nope! I'd have to move because I think my house would burn down for some mysterious reason..lol. Spiders and I just don't get along. I have some really creepy jumping spiders that like to stalk people. They come in through my front door, so I mainly find them in the living room. If I found one in my bed I'd die.



We don't NOW, well now that we pay to get the exterior and windows sprayed 4 times a year. But yeah, after we moved in...that first spring was quite a shock to say the least!! I get cha though lol! Little fat round black jumping spiders with a white dot on its back?? We get those too.

Susie, I couldn't agree more.

 You can tell me til your blue in the face you have to physically touch bodily fluids and rub it on an entry eyes, mouth etc. But some studies, mentioned, state it can live in optimal conditions for up to six days on services, there have been studies that have shown that it can be transmitted through sputum with sneezes, and finally viruses adapt! They learn and evolve. I'm not touching anything from Africa until this dies down and I am so greatful to Carolyn for bringing it up! Being a new soaper I didn't even put two and two together when it came to where shea butter and cocoa butter was coming from. I realize after the fact, but I wouldn't have thought of it and I was going to be buying some more pretty soon.

I'm not panicking, but being where I am :thumbdown: this is a big deal to me right now and I don't want to jeopardize my family for anything.


----------



## CanaDawn (Oct 15, 2014)

Susie said:


> Listening to ebola nursing forum.  Ebola is transmitted through aerosols as well as direct contact to body fluids.  I will not be getting anything from Africa for the foreseeable future.



curious...what aerosol will survive the trip from Africa? I'm not sure how that would be a risk? (Nevermind that Africa is quite a large continent, with many countries not part of this outbreak...)

I guess everyone's risk aversion varies, and as I said, I wouldn't want someone to do something they weren't comfortable with doing.


----------



## CanaDawn (Oct 15, 2014)

navigator9 said:


> I think you're reading something into my post that wasn't there.  I didn't mean to imply that I had rubbed the shea butter on my hands as a safety test for ebola, or anything else. Just that I had done so when I received it about a month ago, to see what it felt like on my hands. I had never made any connection between shea from Ghana and the risk of ebola until I read this thread today. Just stating that I rubbed the shea on my skin over a month ago, not knowing that there might ever be a question of an ebola connection, and that I've had no ill effects, that's all.



Ah, could be I assumed since you brought it up in the thread about raw shea butter and its possible ebola risk, that you meant the 'no ill effects" to refer to ebola.  (Not that it would be a risk, anyhow, and I'm still not clear from this post that you weren't thinking there might have been, especially as you then stated you wouldn't use it for soap.  I'm probably still missing your point.)


----------



## CanaDawn (Oct 15, 2014)

lionprincess00 said:


> And that thumbs down was for my opinion of said bugs, not you being tougher....lol, I could use a lesson on bug toughness my hubby would say! So that wasn't meant for you, just for the horrible memories on the bug invasions :sick:
> Also, yeah it's totally unnecessary and I agree 100% with you on that!




LOL no worries.  I probably am, since a few wasps in the house wouldn't get me to spray.  That many crickets would be annoying though!  I don't really mind spiders enough to spray either - they're generally beneficial or at least harmless to humans.

Good thing we aren't room-mates!


----------



## CanaDawn (Oct 15, 2014)

Right about where we start to talk about viruses "learning" you lose me.  Studies show a lot of things, but I like to have a look at them to see if they show salient, relevant, reliable things - and so far I have no particular fear of ebola comin' to get me via an African product shipped into North America.  Will you be avoiding things made in Dallas?  I know that seems a bit random, but I feel like the risk assessment should include some numbers and a few more facts than we're discussing here so far.  The studies I have seen show the risk to be very low for the possible contact we're discussing so far.  Can someone point me to newer ones that show otherwise?

Some of the questions I would have before I boycotted Africa as a continent:

Is your African product irradiated at the border?
Is it dry?  A fat or oil? Made in an affected area? Likely to harbour the virus, outside of "fear of" (as opposed to actual likelihood)?
Any more likely to harbour it than in previous years when there has been ebola?
Does aerosol transmission work if the virus is not kept moist/warm/aerated/what have you (ie, if the aerosol droplet is no more)? (Perhaps I don't understand the use of the term "transmission by aerosol" properly)

If there are more recent studies, I would be interested to see them.  Obviously virologists are the ones that WILL keep learning, so it's great to have up-to-date sources to have a look at.


----------



## CanaDawn (Oct 15, 2014)

shunt2011 said:


> Nancy Today is hands down one of the scariest soapmaking videos I've ever seen.  She is wrong on so many levels and thinking of all the new soapers out there who see her videos and may follow her ways is frightening.  She's been the topic of what not to do many times on several forums. She is entertaining though.



I'm _almost_ curious enough now to look her up, but I don't tolerate fools well, and it starts to sound like she's creeping into that category!  My head is quoting the Berenstein Bears now "This is lesson number two.  This is what you should NOT do"   lol!!


----------



## CanaDawn (Oct 15, 2014)

sassanellat said:


> The latest on Ebola suggests that, under optimal conditions, the virus can live for up to six days, but it's sensitive to UV and drying. On dry surfaces, it only lives a few hours, or a couple minutes in sunlight.



To me, this seems to make a boycott unnecessary, other than for personal reasons, which are valid in their own right.


----------



## shunt2011 (Oct 15, 2014)

CanaDawn said:


> I'm _almost_ curious enough now to look her up, but I don't tolerate fools well, and it starts to sound like she's creeping into that category! My head is quoting the Berenstein Bears now "This is lesson number two. This is what you should NOT do" lol!!



She's a train wreck waiting to happen.  It's good for a laugh but not a beginner.


----------



## CanaDawn (Oct 15, 2014)

shunt2011 said:


> She's a train wreck waiting to happen.  It's good for a laugh but not a beginner.



Funny!  A third degree acquaintance is exactly this in another field - you just can't look away, but it's so darned annoying to watch...and you don't wish harm on another human, but you can't stop anticipating the crash.  AND you know that trying to change the course of the outcome will do nothing but increase the radius of the impact!


----------



## sassanellat (Oct 15, 2014)

CanaDawn said:


> Right about where we start to talk about viruses "learning" you lose me.  Studies show a lot of things, but I like to have a look at them to see if they show salient, relevant, reliable things - and so far I have no particular fear of ebola comin' to get me via an African product shipped into North America.  Will you be avoiding things made in Dallas?  I know that seems a bit random, but I feel like the risk assessment should include some numbers and a few more facts than we're discussing here so far.  The studies I have seen show the risk to be very low for the possible contact we're discussing so far.  Can someone point me to newer ones that show otherwise?
> 
> Some of the questions I would have before I boycotted Africa as a continent:
> 
> ...


Viruses aren't technically alive, so not they really don't 'learn' in the way that was implied. Ebola doesn't share the life strategy of the colds or the flu (as a rapid changer); instead much more like mumps or measles (whic hardly ever change at all, which is why out vaccines almost never have to change). It's not classified as having aerosol transmission for several excellent reasons, including very high infectious dose & strong sensitivities to drying and inactivation by UV/sunlight. If you get directly coughed upon (aka direct transmission of fluid), you can get it. If not, then it's extremely unlikely to get an infectious dose. The current reports from the CDC indicate that two problems have produced the two infections of healthcare workers in the US: improper procedure, and failure of protective gear (specifically the hospital bought cheap-assed holey gloves from China). There is always a disproportionate fear response to these things, so we have to keep calm. The lack of training is a big element, as displayed by the latest worker (bizarrely, and totally contrary to all training and recommendation) worked with an Ebola patient and the took a flight. That tends to strongly indicate the nurses either don't know, or failed to follow proper procedures. It also indicates that the latest infected person really doesn't have a lick of common sense and endangered an entire flight of people because of it.


----------



## lionprincess00 (Oct 15, 2014)

sassanellat said:


> Viruses aren't technically alive, so not they really don't 'learn' in the way that was implied. Ebola doesn't share the life strategy of the colds or the flu (as a rapid changer); instead much more like mumps or measles (whic hardly ever change at all, which is why out vaccines almost never have to change). It's not classified as having aerosol transmission for several excellent reasons, including very high infectious dose & strong sensitivities to drying and inactivation by UV/sunlight. If you get directly coughed upon (aka direct transmission of fluid), you can get it. If not, then it's extremely unlikely to get an infectious dose. The current reports from the CDC indicate that two problems have produced the two infections of healthcare workers in the US: improper procedure, and failure of protective gear (specifically the hospital bought cheap-assed holey gloves from China). There is always a disproportionate fear response to these things, so we have to keep calm. The lack of training is a big element, as displayed by the latest worker (bizarrely, and totally contrary to all training and recommendation) worked with an Ebola patient and the took a flight. That tends to strongly indicate the nurses either don't know, or failed to follow proper procedures. It also indicates that the latest infected person really doesn't have a lick of common sense and endangered an entire flight of people because of it.



Technically the cdc APPROVED her flight after multiple calls to them based on her temp not being 100.4 or higher. So technically those awesome cdc workers, as was just reported, are the ones without a lick of common sense and endangered an entire flight because of it.
The CDC.
http://www.wfaa.com/story/news/heal...las-hospital-worker-diagnosed-ebola/17290677/

Good luck OP with getting a straight an honest answer from them :crazy:


----------



## CanaDawn (Oct 15, 2014)

Thanks sassanellat.  That all lines up with what I knew and have learned.  

Avoiding the disproportionate fear and managing to keep calm and rational are SO critically important to handling any sort of crisis - doubly so when the misinformation and speculation are huge.  Part of it comes from people partly understanding what is being said by specialists, but not understanding enough to avoid misinterpretation of what they are hearing...and with social media and the like, it spreads and gains unwarranted credibility SO darn quickly.

I hope that nurses can quickly get up to speed on level 4 virus protocols so their own fear is diminished as their proficiency is increased, and that administrators take a firm and sensible stance on compliance and accountability amongst their staff (although it is so difficult for the average public to know what is sensible erring on the side of caution and what is cause for alarm...and the media isn't very good at interpreting these kinds of situations without raising the level of hype and fear. All in all, it's a difficult situation, but mostly not due to the virus itself, in North America.)

Ebola doesn't mutate as quickly as the information about it does! :thumbdown:


----------



## CanaDawn (Oct 15, 2014)

lionprincess00 said:


> Technically the cdc APPROVED her flight after multiple calls to them based on her temp not being 100.4 or higher. So technically those awesome cdc workers, as was just reported, are the ones without a lick of common sense and endangered an entire flight because of it.
> The CDC.
> http://www.wfaa.com/story/news/heal...las-hospital-worker-diagnosed-ebola/17290677/
> 
> Good luck OP with getting a straight an honest answer from them :crazy:



HOWEVER...from that same story, and in line with everything sassanellat has been saying "Frieden said. "The level of risk around her would be extremely low, but  because of the extra margin of safety, we will be contacting [all those  who were on the flight].""


----------



## lionprincess00 (Oct 15, 2014)

And knowledge like a sentient entity, no. Splitting hairs on a play of words, apologies for the wrong word.
Won't post articles that lead me to believe otherwise than what we are told face value on the tv because it is a gross deviation from the OP of shea butter from Africa, but I've got articles that lead me to think differently than what I've been told to think.
Finally....
Sass. I have heard, like many many Americans, that anything below 100.4 F  isn't considered a fever by healthcare professionals, Oral temps.
We have been told by the cdc Ebola isn't communicable until fever is reached, as most illnesses. I've been told this numerous times by healthcare professionals. So being 99.5 and not considered a "fever", she wasn't communicable, right??? 

She did nothing wrong. Per these standards the cdc did nothing wrong. Per these standards no one will get ill. She didn't excrete bodily fluids all over people so no one will get ill. 

Your saying she has no common sense, per these standards, is wrong common sense....Per the cdc and healthcare standards......

See why buying things out of this region may make some of us consumers think twice? Didn't you say you were a biologist? So why one thing from you knowing the "rules of biology", and a different thing from the cdc and healthcare professionals? 

I'm not trying to attack you. I want to hilight the double speak and misinformation and mainly the CONFUSION being fed to us as a nation. I don't know if they know their left from right with this unknown not well studied disease, so I'll play it ridiculously safe and avoid all things coming directly from Africa (west), to the best of my abilities.

Cana, you bet your right eye I'll avoid purchases coming out of Dallas IF a handful or two are positive. And yeah, I'm counting the numbers each came in contact with, directly. We will see what comes about of this......


----------



## lionprincess00 (Oct 15, 2014)

Yes, it's low low low risk. Why call her irresponsible, which was my point? She wasn't. It's such a low risk the cdc approved her flight, and we are being too overly cautious right?! See where I'm coming from? Even the scientist here says the patient was irresponsible where you're stating the cdc and risk states it's safe as a kitten (well, cougar in a cage lol). So why get upset with the patient when she was being totally responsible as well as the cdc? Nothing wrong with exposed Ebola persons with a fever below 100.4 waking about in public. At all.    

I would be less than pleased if I sat beside her on a return flight.... but no worries right? It wasn't contagious.


----------



## CanaDawn (Oct 15, 2014)

I'm a biologist, and sassanellat is a microbiologist (please correct me if you identify otherwise, sassanellat).  I don't hear doublespeak from us vs cdc, which is that the risk is very low with asymptomatic patients, that the virus is difficult to contract, the virus doesn't survive being dried, lives up to 4 days in optimal conditions, etc, etc.....what do you see us saying that cdc et al is not (or vise versa)?  

I have never suggested anyone do things they aren't comfortable with, but I honestly believe that avoiding purchases from Dallas would be an absurdly high level of fear-based (as opposed to fact-based) avoidance that would fly in the face of what is known about this virus (one that has been around for a long time, and has been well studied).  My opinion on that is indeed based on the science and the biology of the virus - you are, however, free to believe it or not, and to decide  what level of avoidance makes you comfortable.  That choice will not change either the science nor the biology, but you have to do what you can live with.

Ebola is anything BUT unstudied or unknown.  It has been around for a long time, and has been well-contained many times in previous outbreaks.  Part of the reason it is such a struggle this time is the public's fear reaction and lack of compliance with requests from medical assistance (isolation - the family in Dallas had to be under guard so they didn't wander out because they were "bored" with being quarantined, and in W. Africa there is a belief in some places that the USA is engineering this outbreak (yay conspiracy theories, which are hugely dangerous in these situations because they spread misinformation and cause people to refuse to do the right things) - I have seen comments from Americans that bizarrely blame Obama personally for this - how nuts can you be?

However, I still say that if you personally feel safer with a high level of avoidance, regardless of actual risk, there is no harm in that choice.


----------



## CanaDawn (Oct 15, 2014)

lionprincess00 said:


> I would be less than pleased if I sat beside her on a return flight.... but no worries right? It wasn't contagious.



because the scientists here recognize the difference between a vanishingly low risk with an associated high level of safety margin, and a fear-based amplification of the risk.

Would I be pleased that she had violated protocol?  No.  Would I be afraid that I had contracted ebola?  probably, for a while, despite my knowledge, because I'm human....but would that fear increase my actual risk?  No.  The risk would still be extremely low to the point of being about as near zero as any scientist would want to state (we don't like absolutes very much)


----------



## CanaDawn (Oct 15, 2014)

"extra margin of safety" means there are measures in place that exceed the likely risk, so that containment is more assured.  It does NOT mean everyone under observation is likely to have been exposed or to be at risk..it means they drew a large circle around a small point of small risk.  I don't know how to explain this better, and I see why it causes fear when people don't understand the relative and absolute risks.


----------



## CanaDawn (Oct 15, 2014)

It's gonna be a "fun" flu season in a few weeks.....:roll:


----------



## lionprincess00 (Oct 15, 2014)

I don't hear doublespeak from us vs cdc...
Sass stated
 It also indicates that the latest infected person really doesn't have a lick of common sense and endangered an entire flight of people because of it.
And you say
because the scientists here recognize the difference between a vanishingly low risk with an associated high level of safety margin, and a fear-based amplification of the risk.

Vanishingly low (you cdc) vs a microbiologist you say (sass), who I assume is better versed in the effects of microbiology than a biologist

Ebola is anything BUT unstudied or unknown.
I didn't say this. I said not well studied.
The cdc changed their stance 2 months ago and recommended, 2 months ago, you are 3 feet away from a patient with Ebola. This is new. It isn't as well studied obviously as hiv for example in that, to the best of my knowledge, I haven't heard new recommendations for hiv in the news as recently as Ebola

Part of the reason it is such a struggle this time is the public's fear reaction.....
Who's fear reaction caused the struggle to contain this virus? 

Blaming Obama, or blaming not restricting flights from west Africa which, I think, only he can do? I never said him, though, for the record.

Harm in my choice, nope! Your right....and I'm done.

Too old, too late lol.


----------



## sassanellat (Oct 15, 2014)

lionprincess00 said:


> Technically the cdc APPROVED her flight after multiple calls to them based on her temp not being 100.4 or higher. So technically those awesome cdc workers, as was just reported, are the ones without a lick of common sense and endangered an entire flight because of it.
> The CDC.
> http://www.wfaa.com/story/news/heal...las-hospital-worker-diagnosed-ebola/17290677/
> 
> Good luck OP with getting a straight an honest answer from them :crazy:


And if that's the case, you're right - that person doesn't have a lick of sense, and there was no reason on Earth to either assign personal to that case that needed to travel, or they should have just simply stopped her from traveling for the 21 day window. Either way, it's crazy. 

(The article seems to indicate that she traveled there without permission, but allowed the fight back to hurry the return.)


----------



## sassanellat (Oct 16, 2014)

lionprincess00 said:


> And knowledge like a sentient entity, no. Splitting hairs on a play of words, apologies for the wrong word.



Evolution takes time, and it isn't directed, so it would take a LOT of sick people to provide the replications and selection, and probably not even then.



> So being 99.5 and not considered a "fever", she wasn't communicable, right???



That's mixing a lot of different ideas there. The bottom line would be that a fever indicates that there is viral replication going on, and she is contagious. The virus recognizes no numerical temperatures. You're putting the cart before the horse in this.    



> She did nothing wrong.


There are plenty of indications, including comments from the nurses at the hospital and across the country that they didn't get anywhere near the right training. It's extremely likely that the sick nurses DID do things wrong, as well as the docs, facilities, etc. They should have been trained better. And as far as I understand, it's standard protocol not to travel by mass transit for 21 days after potential exposure. If she had approval, it was a really, really bad idea in the desperately obvious screw-up category. 



> Your saying she has no common sense, per these standards, is wrong common sense....Per the cdc and healthcare standards......



Yup, I'm saying that she has no common sense, and she certainly didn't listen to any of her instructors because it was very bad idea (VBI).  



> See why buying things out of this region may make some of us consumers think twice? Didn't you say you were a biologist? So why one thing from you knowing the "rules of biology", and a different thing from the cdc and healthcare professionals?



No. I am, with a LOT of experience (even helped in an Ebola vaccine trial), and one that trains doctors and nurses better than what we've seen. OTOH, I'm guessing a lot of the fault is the hospital being incredibly cheap and buying bad Chinese gloves or using gloves part their expiration date. There is no inconsistency in what I've said, so if you can be more clear, I might be able to clarify. 

There is indeed a lot of doublespeak being presented in this country (we have an entire news network devoted to it), but I'm not seeing what you are at all. You have the facts and official word, which has been pretty consistent as the information develops, and then you have a whole lot of people that don't know enough to comment and are just blathering in a panic. In this day and age, you have to be able to sort out the real and the whoorah out there. And the internet is full of it and the American news isn't much better.


----------



## CanaDawn (Oct 16, 2014)

Ok...for the record I agree with sassanellat that an ICU nurse working with a level 4 virus really shouldn't have been on a public flight when she had a fever, even one below the cutoff, within the window for ebola after dealing with an ebola patient.  That does show a lack of good judgement, and a low level of good sense....I hope that CDC and medical experts directly dealing with the nurse are correct that the risk is extremely low that she has infected anyone else.  I believe the CDC has been on record saying they fully expect some cases globally, so this isn't really an outlandish situation at this point...but it is one that requires prompt, effective response (and not hysteria)

I'm curious who people think the CDC is composed of, and why, if people don't believe what they are hearing from CDC, they would feel that they, usually with absolutely NO scientific training, can make stronger judgement calls on their own, based largely on media information vs pathogen safety data sheets, and with generous microbiologists who are saying that avoiding imported goods is a non-issue, since ebola will NOT be transmissible in that fashion to a certainty that approaches nil (ie....there's not going to be ebola coming from raw butters and other West African goods).  

I'm not saying my opinion is the be-all end-all, absolutely not, and I would defer easily to sassanellat without rancor, as yes, a microbiologist specifically working in the field of educating medical staff on microbiology and infectious disease protocol would trump my qualifications any day.  I am pretty confident though that mine trump many others who have strong opinions but few facts, and who may find the complexities of the virology or the policies confusing, or who may prefer a much higher level of personal risk avoidance than I feel is necessary, or who are just plain afraid.  I keep saying that I support people choosing a sky high level of risk aversion, but I wish people would understand what that is based on.  (If wishes were horses, my mother would say....)

That said, I doubt the economic impact of boycotting these products will reach a level that is noticeable, and the Type I error in the hypothesis of transmission via imported goods will likely be attributed to accuracy instead of error...so it goes.

And no, specifically blaming Obama for creating and dispersing ebola.  The crazy runs deep in some folks, I guess.  Ebola's been known since 1976..do they really believe that a 15 yr old created it...?  No, because they haven't thought about it with any nod to any facts.....hysteria and conspiracy, but no fact.


----------



## CanaDawn (Oct 16, 2014)

sassanellat said:


> No. I am



actually, yes, I am too, but I am not a microbiologist and have never claimed to be one.




sassanellat said:


> In this day and age, you have to be able to sort out the real and the whoorah out there. And the internet is full of it and the American news isn't much better.



a-MEN.


----------



## sassanellat (Oct 16, 2014)

lionprincess00 said:


> ...Why call her irresponsible, which was my point? She wasn't.



I disagree completely. She was irresponsible as far as I'm concerned. As a nurse, you work with sick people all the time, and microbial control is one of you major jobs each and every day. There are infections that you can acquire and become a carrier for, and they are trained to understand that infection control is there to not only limit patient-to-patient transfer, but also patient-to-healthcare-worker, and patient to those people that the healthcare workers live with and come in contact with (spouses, kids, parents, etc.). Treating a special patient like that and then traveling by mass transit is just a brutally bad idea from the start, and everyone involved should have been trained better. I certainly train my students better from the start - yesterday was, in fact, a day where I observed the class doing lab, and noting how many times people did inappropriate things like touching their faces or hair with gloved hands. It's a great lesson. The people they assign to treat these class A bioterror diseases need to have superior training and understand they might have some limitations.


----------



## CanaDawn (Oct 16, 2014)

sassanellat said:


> I certainly train my students better from the start



Your dedication to properly training medical staff who appear to have gaps in their prior knowledge/practice is greatly appreciated, even if I never come in contact with one of your students.

Your generosity in answering questions and bringing your expertise to this forum is also something I appreciate.  

so.....thanks!


----------



## sassanellat (Oct 16, 2014)

CanaDawn said:


> actually, yes, I am too, but I am not a microbiologist and have never claimed to be one.



Sorry, the first two sentences were to lionprincess. I hope I didn't mess up the attribs there. 

Hopefully, this conversation is helpful to people.


----------



## sassanellat (Oct 16, 2014)

CanaDawn said:


> ...  Ebola's been known since 1976..do they really believe that a 15 yr old created it...?  No, because they haven't thought about it with any nod to any facts.....hysteria and conspiracy, but no fact.



Like HIV, deaths from Ebola have been established back at least to the 1920s. We didn't even know what DNA was the genetic material until 1951, and even today, our ability to create viruses is pretty much nil since they are extremely complicated for being so tiny. Ebola only really exists in Africa because it's a disease whose primary host is thought to be the African green fruit bat. Humans only get it when they are starving due to overpopulation and get hungry enough to eat bush meat.


----------



## CanaDawn (Oct 16, 2014)

sassanellat said:


> Like HIV, deaths from Ebola have been established back at least to the 1920s. We didn't even know what DNA was the genetic material until 1951, and even today, our ability to create viruses is pretty much nil since they are extremely complicated for being so tiny. Ebola only really exists in Africa because it's a disease whose primary host is thought to be the African green fruit bat. Humans only get it when they are starving due to overpopulation and get hungry enough to eat bush meat.



Ah, thanks for the improved information.  I had a hunch mine was dated as to the Ebola origin timeframe (it just seemed unlikely that such a disease only appeared that recently, given its stability).  

I think bush meat is still quite popular in places, with or without starvation, and like the burial customs, it's a tough thing to persuade some people to give up, even if they risk a horrible death.

So, you're saying it's unlikely Obama put this together in his garage as a teen?  :wink:


----------



## sassanellat (Oct 16, 2014)

CanaDawn said:


> So, you're saying it's unlikely Obama put this together in his garage as a teen?  :wink:



I'm sure that will be a lead story on FOX tomorrow, along with all the other 'fair and balanced' insanity they air.


----------



## CanaDawn (Oct 16, 2014)

sassanellat said:


> I'm sure that will be a lead story on FOX tomorrow, along with all the other 'fair and balanced' insanity they air.



I'll probably end up labelled as a "reliable source" and quoted as a "scientist who spoke out recently about Obama".  Both of which are arguably true, but sadly not in relation to his garage, nor his teen years.  Isn't fact manipulation fun?!


----------



## pamielynn (Oct 16, 2014)

shunt2011 said:


> Nancy Today is hands down one of the scariest soapmaking videos I've ever seen.  She is wrong on so many levels and thinking of all the new soapers out there who see her videos and may follow her ways is frightening.  She's been the topic of what not to do many times on several forums. She is entertaining though.



Oh she's great in the entertainment department. I'm not a soap-video-watching type of person (in fact, I wish soapers would stop with all of it), but she is just so scary, funny, crazy to watch. 

But, yes - I wish her videos said "For entertainment purposes only". You gotta give her props in that she will try anything once and films it all for us to see.

But I digress from the topic at hand....


----------



## sassanellat (Oct 16, 2014)

Just an update: the nurse traveled WITHOUT permission to her hometown, where she stayed three days. (bad decision). She was monitoring herself, and did notice a subclinical fever (good job!), and she did ask for permission to fly back. She did get permission, which the director of the CDC now says was a bad decision (der). So, this was a double bad. Schools in the nurse's hometown are closed today out of fear of transmission, with a probably cost of a hundred thousand dollars or more in lost wages, productivity and such. This is why I pointed at the nurse and said it was part her fault; even if her skills are immaculate, she should not have traveled after potential exposure as a safety measure.  And the CDC really goofed here, too. I'm sure that they will get it together shortly, though.


----------



## Jstar (Oct 16, 2014)

I think the best thing to do for us regular joe's is just to practice good sanitary habits..keep your hands washed, avoid those who are obviously sick with any kind of a cold, keep your hands away from your face etc..{especially your eyes, where most nasties are picked up from since they don't have a natural barrier like say, your nose has}

I'm not too worried about this, no more so than I was with the big H1N1 scare...{ppl really freaked out about that}

The CDC says that its not transmissible thru the air, but since it IS transferred thru body fluids eg 'saliva'..then avoiding those who are sick would be wise..{since a cough travels at about 95 mph, and a sneeze at around 100 mph, and can release about 100k germs in water droplets, those can indeed land right on your face if you are close enough to be coughed or sneezed on directly}

I'm not a doctor, and I don't work in a lab..but I'm a former tattoo artist, and I know allll about being safe and sanitary.

The CDC claims it can't travel on food..but seriously..it can I guess if someone infected coughs or sneezes on the food eh? I tend to wash my food as well...all of it {part raccoon?}before I eat it so that's kind of a moot point for me.

With that all being said, and regarding the topic I strayed away from...{duh} I would think the lye would obliterate anything nasty that may be lurking on the butter's surface...just wear your gloves when handling it.

I did find this little tidbit on the CDC website...

http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/pdf/infographic.pdf

And then this bit of info as well updated on the 15th:
-----------------------------------------------------
http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/outbreaks/2014-west-africa/united-states-imported-case.html
*Ebola Contact Tracing, Dallas, Texas*

*Date: 10/15/2014*

*Confirmed  Cases: 3*

*Contacts*: 11*

*Possible Contacts**:  107*

*Total: 118*

_*Contacts – Definite exposure_
_**Possible  Contacts – Possible exposure_
_Note: The number of *possible  contacts* increased significantly Oct. 14 to account for a  group of healthcare workers who were previously self-monitoring and are  now being actively monitored following a healthcare worker's Ebola  diagnosis over the weekend. Another case was diagnosed Oct. 15, which  also impacted the numbers._
_Contacts are defined as people  who had definite exposure to an Ebola patient._
_Updates:  Numbers are accurate as of 5 p.m. the previous day and are updated at  approximately noon each day. Public health officials attempt to reach  all contacts/possible contacts every day to check for fever and other  symptoms. Daily follow-up with contacts/possible contacts will continue  for 21 days from the date of each person’s exposure._
_-------------------------------------_
_Note that there are only 3 confirmed...and only 1 death..the guy that originally brought it over..._
_
_
_Anyway, I'm rambling as I usually do.....sorry 
_


----------



## CanaDawn (Oct 16, 2014)

Jani - the risk of someone getting ebola from raw shea shipped into North America is about as close to nothing as a scientist would ever say...Just use it.  Wearing gloves will make no difference whatsoever. 

I still feel extremely confident that there would be NO ebola on any African import that would have survived the voyage. the time, the drying out, the likely irradiation at various borders, and for shea butter, the fats and oils.  

Ebola is a fairly well known virus to actual virologists who specialise in that sort of infection, because it is a fairly stable virus that doesn't mutate quickly...sadly, the information about it isn't as resistant to hyperbole and hypothesizing by people without quite enough information.  What I have read today in various places (including the Giants reportedly being afraid to play the Dallas football team  - what??  That's absurd in the extreme!) just makes me sad for humanity in their loss of good sense and their insistence on making up their own facts regardless of their level of ignorance.

Why ask for and receive good evidence- and expertise- based advice from CDC (and here from our own sassanellat) if you're just going to ignore it to make things up anyhow?  It's frustrating.


----------



## Susie (Oct 16, 2014)

I watched the subcommittee hearing today on ebola.  You two should go watch it.  Very enlightening.  Has only confirmed my previous concerns.


----------



## Jstar (Oct 16, 2014)

Cana- As I said, I'm not particularly worried about it myself {in fact I would be less than 1% worried about it out of 100%}..those who may be more inclined to be a bit more on the cautious side however..they can wear gloves if it really bothers them.

Really the whole point of my post was to ease fears that we have an 'outbreak' in the US....that word just freaks ppl out and its really unnecessary


----------



## CanaDawn (Oct 16, 2014)

Jstar said:


> Cana- As I said, I'm not particularly worried about it myself {in fact I would be less than 1% worried about it out of 100%}..those who may be more inclined to be a bit more on the cautious side however..they can wear gloves if it really bothers them.
> 
> Really the whole point of my post was to ease fears that we have an 'outbreak' in the US....that word just freaks ppl out and its really unnecessary



Agreed.  There is a lot of fear, and speculation, and people seem to almost enjoy coming up with more and more outlandish concerns...we can "what if" any situation into something horrific, if we let our imaginations go...but it's better to deal with the situation as it IS.  Ebola's nasty, but fear is the big wildcard that can ruin any system's ability to cope.

Remains to be seen what effect sending in the National Guard will have.

I wish people could wrap their heads around what the difference is  between "airborne" and "aerosols".  That would be a great step forward  to stopping some of the more rampant made-up "facts".  That and if they  could get their heads around the NUMBERS we're talking about in terms of  infectious people (currently 3), and the percent of the overall  population they represent (I don't even know...what's the population of  Dallas, just for starters).  Where it's bad, it's really bad, but North  America isn't that place, and I truly don't see it becoming that place.

Let's just say, if I were a betting kinda person, this isn't the end  times on which my money would be placed...it's just not going to play  out that way, in any realistic scenario I can foresee.


----------



## Jstar (Oct 16, 2014)

I guess a good simple way of looking at the difference would be that airborne are 'dry' and aerosols are 'wet'...so you would actually have to be sneezed or coughed directly on in the face, or in an open wound  by a confirmed infected person, to catch it that way.

And yea, the numbers..those are so small its not even funny in the grand scheme of things.

Suffice it to say, will I buy Shea from Africa..Yup. We have to remember that Ebola has been around for a very long time..and in Africa. I mean seriously, if one _were to be able_ to catch it from the Shea, {which just makes me shake my head} we would've caught it long before now.


----------

