Jump to content
RemedySpot.com

Re: Digest Number 1449

Rate this topic


Guest guest

Recommended Posts

, I wonder if it is really soap or what they pass off as a soap product?

It would be interesting to know. Also if there is the introduction of tap water

into the product. I have some soap left that my grandmother made and I know

nothing can live on that stuff! LOL She did not believe in what we call

superfatting!

----- Original Message -----

From:

Interesting, Is the general concensus that soap does

not need an anti-bacterial agent? Being associated

with a college, I've heard that in the microbiology

labs they often culture the skum on soap and come up

with quite a variety of bacteria. I don't know if its

because of the soap skum being old or what. But I too

was of the opinion that soap didn't need a

preservative. Any thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> >I for one, would like to hear from others [the 1000 +] members on

> >this list who seldome or never post, rather than just our resident

> >chemist who seems to be the only one answering questions on this

> >group. I am sure there are others who have ideas and references to

> >share with this group.

I'm new here and may be going out on a limb - eek! I feel that Sherry

presented a point to this group that has valid aspects. However, in reading

through the archives, I've noticed that the thread that seems to remain

constant is that everyone wants research that backs a person's words. I

can't blame anyone on this list for requesting data, as we don't personally

know one another or know from what experience a person is speaking.

Maurice is respected because he has much experience in his field and has

earned trust on this list. I don't think that anyone feels that Maurice is

the " only " voice, it's just that when he speaks, he backs up his statement

with data that shows he's not just speaking off the top of his head. This

also doesn't mean that there isn't another side to the research presented,

just that a person that is expressing an opposing view needs to validate

their statements with data links.

I have quite a few friends that I hang out with in R & D who know the scoop

about publishing research and shared some online research hangouts - I'm not

taking sides here, but thought I would give a bit of credence to a few

points that Sherry shared with us, as there are usually two sides to every

issue, even with technical issues :-) I must admit, I was absolutely amazed

at the amount of research, from reputable resources, that exists out there

on the subject of negative affects of chemical additives/preservatives. All

of the research sites I was given are flooded, as this issue is the topic of

the day, so I just picked a few I personally found interesting. I think any

search engine will pull up data on this topic. Though you may have to weed

through sites that make statements without backing them, there are a great

many that substantiate their data with references.

I figured if it's research everyone wants in order to weigh this issue

properly, then lets get some research posted :-) Not that I'm in the biz to

change minds, but hope to validate Sherry's strength in coming forward with

her statements!

Here's a link that is most interesting ... it qualifies a lot of what has

been stated about blindly trusting research.

http://www.doctoryourself.com/history2.html

Here is another interesting link, in which Avon shareholders insist that the

company find safer preservative alternatives to Parabens ... claims made in

this report are substantiated with reputable research links at the end of

the citation.

http://www.bcaction.org/Pages/LearnAboutUs/ParabensResolution.html

Here is a link that has a link to the current report by CDC (Centers for

Disease Control and Prevention) regarding all additives that negatively

affect the body:

http://www.chemicalbodyburden.org/rr_cheminus.htm

This link provides information regarding the toxic effective of chemicals in

toiletries ... after each statement is listed the resource that was used to

validate the statement:

http://www.health-report.co.uk/toxic_toiletries_chemicals_cancer.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

,

Virtually all that's been called " soap " , ever since the

1950's, is not soap. It's detergent.

Soap is made from lye, oils and a liquid. Only this

can be called soap in the stores.

What everyone calls " soap " , if you look, will have the

word " bar " on the wrapper. This is made from chemicals.

hth,

, an avid home soap maker

wrote:

> Being associated

> with a college, I've heard that in the microbiology

> labs they often culture the skum on soap and come up

> with quite a variety of bacteria. I don't know if its

> because of the soap skum being old or what. But I too

> was of the opinion that soap didn't need a

> preservative. Any thoughts?

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

,

Virtually all that's been called " soap " , ever since the

1950's, is not soap. It's detergent.

Soap is made from lye, oils and a liquid. Only this

can be called soap in the stores.

What everyone calls " soap " , if you look, will have the

word " bar " on the wrapper. This is made from chemicals.

hth,

, an avid home soap maker

wrote:

> Being associated

> with a college, I've heard that in the microbiology

> labs they often culture the skum on soap and come up

> with quite a variety of bacteria. I don't know if its

> because of the soap skum being old or what. But I too

> was of the opinion that soap didn't need a

> preservative. Any thoughts?

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

,

Virtually all that's been called " soap " , ever since the

1950's, is not soap. It's detergent.

Soap is made from lye, oils and a liquid. Only this

can be called soap in the stores.

What everyone calls " soap " , if you look, will have the

word " bar " on the wrapper. This is made from chemicals.

hth,

, an avid home soap maker

wrote:

> Being associated

> with a college, I've heard that in the microbiology

> labs they often culture the skum on soap and come up

> with quite a variety of bacteria. I don't know if its

> because of the soap skum being old or what. But I too

> was of the opinion that soap didn't need a

> preservative. Any thoughts?

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...