We have the weapons for germ warfare at our disposal.

Anti-bacterial products are everywhere. Hand soaps, household cleaners, even socks and countertops promise to kill the stuff we can’t see and make our surroundings more sanitary.

But do we really need to live in an anti-bacterial bubble?

Even the experts disagree.

Some say we’re overdoing it. They say soap and water are adequate and fear that overuse of anti-bacterial products might harm us in the long run.

Others scoff at that concern. They argue that anti-bacterial products can be beneficial and there’s no proof of long-term consequences. That makes it tough for consumers to decide what’s best for themselves and their families. But here’s a bright spot: In talking with researchers and industry representatives about the issue, we did discover a couple of areas of consensus:

• Washing your hands is the single most important thing you can do to fight the spread of illness.

• Sometimes extra attention to germ-killing is warranted. We’ll talk about these areas later. First, let’s look at the controversy.

For starters, it’s important to know what we’re talking about.

The word “germs” is generally applied to two types of microorganisms, bacteria and viruses. Many of the products on the market are labeled as anti-bacterial, which means they primarily target bacteria. They have little or no effect on viruses.

The term “anti-microbial” is broader and can apply to various microorganisms, including fungi as well as bacteria and viruses. But a product labeled anti-microbial doesn’t fight all of them.

Most of the controversy swirls around anti-bacterial products, and that distinction is part of the reason.

The most common illnesses — colds, flu and gastrointestinal upsets — are caused by viruses, noted Marcia Patrick, infection control director at MultiCare Health System in Tacoma, Wash., and chair of the communications committee of the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology. Anti-bacterial products don’t kill those common viruses, yet she and other researchers worry that consumers who don’t know that may be lulled into a false sense of security.

They see “anti-bacterial” on a label, and “they immediately think that’s good,” said Julian Davies, emeritus professor of microbiology and immunology at the University of British Columbia.

Davies also is concerned anti-bacterial products target good bacteria as well as bad. Our bodies need those good bacteria, he said: They help us digest our food, for example, and keep harmful microorganisms from entering our bodies through orifices.

Davies believes marketing has fed a greater fear of bacteria than is warranted. While we need to clean our bodies and our homes to keep bacteria levels under control, he said, we don’t always need to try to eradicate them.

“Look at children. They used to play in the dirt. Nobody worried about them,” he said.

A bigger part of the controversy lies with the active ingredient found in many of these products, triclosan, or its close cousin, triclocarban.

Triclosan is used as a disinfectant in health-care facilities as well as in the home. It’s also often used in Microban, the brand for a technology used to embed various types of microbe-fighters in a huge range of products — countertops, paints, towels, computer keyboards, even socks and sandals.

Triclosan has been proved effective in reducing the spread of infection in health-care facilities. But because triclosan can irritate skin, cleaning products contain lower concentrations of it.

Some researchers say it’s too low to be effective. An analysis of research published in September in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases found that plain soap and water was just as effective for hand washing as consumer products containing triclosan, said Allison Aiello, an epidemiologist at the University of Michigan School of Public Health and the review’s lead author.