Re: Alum & Aluminum

[Guest guest]

> Connie-

>

> >Potassium alum molecules have a negative ionic charge, making it unable to

> >pass through the cell wall. THEY ARE NOT ABSORBED. This is why THAI

> >deodorants are safe to use and will not cause high levels of ALUMINUM in

> >your system. ALUM and ALUMINUM are two different substances, with

distinct

> >chemical signatures. They possess different chemical properties which

> >create different chemical attributes.

>

> I don't have the requisite biochemistry to know for sure whether this is

> true, but it sounds a bit voodoo to me, and I certainly wouldn't trust the

> health of my brain to the idea that (a) aluminum from alum can't be

> absorbed by individual cells, and ( it would only be harmful if absorbed

> by individual cells but is totally innocuous floating around between cells.

>

> -

I use a deodorant stone, which usually lasts about 5 years. I think any

aluminum problem would be negligible.

Unfortunately, most of the information on deodorant stones is provided by the

people who sell them. That usually raises an red flag for me.

Interestingly, the following exerpt comes from a company that sells a

alum-free deodorant stone.

Deodorant Stones, Aluminium & Alum

Deodorant stones are made of Alum. The chemical formula is AlSO4 or Aluminium

Sulphate. There is no Aluminium in Alum, but its chemical formula is

Aluminium Sulphate. It takes over 30 steps in 3 different processes to obtain

Aluminium.

Both Alum and Aluminium come from Bauxite Ore. Sulphuric acid (H2SO4) is

added to separate many minerals from Bauxite. Alum is easily separated from

the other elements in Bauxite, but Aluminium is not. As mentioned before,

there are some 30 steps required to obtain Aluminium.

In order to see the entire picture, one must understand that aluminium is

present is a variety of forms, ranging from pure solid aluminium to soluble

and insoluble aluminium salts. The critical fact is that only certain types

of aluminium compounds are harmful to humans. For example, if one were to

swallow a pellet of pure solid aluminium, it would pass through the digestive

tract and emerge from the body unchanged. In that situation, no absorption of

aluminium would occur, and no harm to the individual would result.

The question then arises as to which forms of aluminium may be toxic and

which forms of aluminium may be harmless. An extensive review of the

literature indicates that the difference relies upon the solubility of the

aluminium compounds in body fluids.

If an aluminium compound, such as aluminium chlorohydrate, which is very

soluble, is used as an anti-perspirant, that compound is readily absorbed.

Once in the body, the aluminium portion of the molecule ionises, forming free

or radical aluminium (Al + + +). This ion passes freely across cell

membranes, and is selectively absorbed in the liver, kidneys, brain,

cartilage and bone marrow, creating the potential in any of these organ

systems.

On the other hand, potassium alum (KAlSO4) is a compound which is very

insoluble compound and stable. When used on the surface of the skin, no

significant absorption occurs. If any minimal amount of alum is absorbed, it

would not ionise, but would be secreted from the body in an unchanged state.

Therefore, alum appears to be one of the aluminium compounds which is not

harmful to humans.

So AlSO4 is not Aluminium (Al), nor Sulphur (S) and not Oxygen (O). It is

Alum - no more and no less. Alum kills bacteria and is not absorbed into the

skin.

<http://www.cylahigley.co.uk/html/fact_sheet.html>

~~ Jocelyne

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/6/05 3:31:47 PM Eastern Standard Time,

jag14@... writes:

> ~~I think the author here is referring to pure aluminum, which alum does

> " not " have. Take for example sodium chloride (table salt), which is

> composed

> of sodium and chlorine. Sodium is a violently reactive metal, while

> Chlorine

> was used as a poison in WWI (mustard gas). Either of these substances on

> their own would do incredible damage to a body, but in the form of salt, we

> can ingest it not only without harm, but to our benefit. It is not pure

> sodium and pure chlorine mashed together, but a compound with

> charactersitics

> very different from its component substances.

_____

But salt doesn't contain any chlorine in it; it contains chloride. Once the

salt hits the stomach acid we have pure sodium and pure chloride, not the

compound sodium chloride. The fact that we do not get chlorine poisoning from

ingesting salt is just reflective of the fact that it doesn't contain chlorine.

And the health benefits of salt relate not to the benefits of the compound

sodium chloride, but to the benefits of sodium on the one hand, and chloride on

the other, which each play numerous important roles by themselves, while sodium

chloride does not play any role in the body except as a source each of those

two nutrients.

Sodium chloride is particularly not analogous to alum, because alum's

suuposed benignity is claimed to lie in its low solubility, while sodium

chloride has

100% solubility.

I agree with that the low solubility of alum in, say, water (or even an

acidic solution) does not necessarily have any bearing on its dissociation

rate in the many environments of the body, or its ability to cross a cell

membrane, be it ionized or not.

Chris

[Guest guest]

> Message: 11

> Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 16:12:08 EST

> From: ChrisMasterjohn@...

> Subject: Re: >

> In a message dated 1/6/05 3:31:47 PM Eastern Standard Time,

> jag14@... writes:

>

> > ~~I think the author here is referring to pure aluminum, which alum does

> > " not " have. Take for example sodium chloride (table salt), which is

> > composed

> > of sodium and chlorine. Sodium is a violently reactive metal, while

> > Chlorine

> > was used as a poison in WWI (mustard gas). Either of these substances

on

> > their own would do incredible damage to a body, but in the form of salt,

> we

> > can ingest it not only without harm, but to our benefit. It is not pure

> > sodium and pure chlorine mashed together, but a compound with

> > charactersitics

> > very different from its component substances.

> _____

> wrote:

> But salt doesn't contain any chlorine in it; it contains chloride. Once

> the

> salt hits the stomach acid we have pure sodium and pure chloride, not the

> compound sodium chloride. The fact that we do not get chlorine poisoning

> from

> ingesting salt is just reflective of the fact that it doesn't contain

> chlorine.

> And the health benefits of salt relate not to the benefits of the compound

> sodium chloride, but to the benefits of sodium on the one hand, and

> chloride on

> the other, which each play numerous important roles by themselves, while

> sodium

> chloride does not play any role in the body except as a source each of

> those

> two nutrients.

> Chris

By definition, chloride refers simply to a compound containing a chlorine

atom. Chlorine is part of the atomic structure. When a salt dissolves, it

forms ions, which is not the same as the constituent elements that one would

find outside of solution. I was simply comparing this to the deodorant stone

to show that the salts can have very different characteristics than their

constituent elements.

However, I have no personal knowledge of the effect of aluminum ions on the

body and did acknowledge this previously.

~~ Jocelyne

[Guest guest]

Jocelyn-

>~~I think the author here is referring to pure aluminum, which alum does

> " not " have.

Perhaps, but it's an ignorant and misleading way of putting it nonetheless.

>Take for example sodium chloride (table salt), which is composed

>of sodium and chlorine. Sodium is a violently reactive metal, while Chlorine

>was used as a poison in WWI (mustard gas). Either of these substances on

>their own would do incredible damage to a body, but in the form of salt, we

>can ingest it not only without harm, but to our benefit. It is not pure

>sodium and pure chlorine mashed together, but a compound with charactersitics

>very different from its component substances.

True, but that's because both play important roles in the body when they're

in the correct form. I'm not aware of any role aluminum plays, and if

there is one, it would surely be as a trace element. Nor am I at all

confident that the aluminum in alum can never be liberated once it's in the

body, as the body is a very corrosive medium.

>Personally, I don't have enough credible information regarding

>solubility/absorption issues to be able to draw any sort of definitive

>conclusion on this.

Neither do I -- like I said -- but the poor quality of the information

advocating alum's safety, the danger of aluminum, and the general rule of

thumb that substances introduced to the body tend to have some sort of

effect leads me to conclude that safety is the better part of wisdom in

this case.

-

[Guest guest]

Jocelyne-

>However, I have no personal knowledge of the effect of aluminum ions on the

>body and did acknowledge this previously.

Well, on that count at least I can inform you. Aluminum can cause all

sorts of CNS and brain damage (dementia, memory loss, dyskinesia,

etc.). Aluminum ions can interfere with the availability and absorption of

phosphate and can denature proteins, causing who knows what physiological

damage. And metallic aluminum (and aluminum oxide) if inhaled in powder

form is implicated in pulmonary fibrosis.

-

[Guest guest]

As I currently understand it, the deodorant stones inhibit bacteria,

but not fungus. Theoretically, without the bacteria competing with

the fungi, the fungi could overgrow. I used a supermarket brand

of deodorant stone for awhile, and really liked it, until I developed

red itchy rashes on my armpits that got bigger and bigger until I quit

the stone all together. After that the rashes disappeared. Thats

just MY own experience with the stone. YMMV.

Darrell

[Guest guest]

Ah, that explains the summertime armpit rash we occasionally get!!

Interesting....

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

From: Darrell [mailto:lazlo75501@...]

As I currently understand it, the deodorant stones inhibit bacteria,

but not fungus. Theoretically, without the bacteria competing with

the fungi, the fungi could overgrow. I used a supermarket brand

of deodorant stone for awhile, and really liked it, until I developed

red itchy rashes on my armpits that got bigger and bigger until I quit

the stone all together. After that the rashes disappeared. Thats

just MY own experience with the stone. YMMV.

Darrell