What is toxic and non-toxic?

marsom · Post by **marsom** » Sat Feb 04, 2006 6:00 am

Hi there, here recently I've been really researching the effects of certain chemicals found in various items. I'll stick to shave products for the sake of this forum, but I'm checking out many areas of concern (household cleansers, air freshners, etc...) On the internet many sites are warning people of the toxic impact that substances like Sodium Lauryl Sulfate or Propylene Glycol have on the wellbeing of our health. Strangly, one of my favourite shave products happens to be Proraso which contains both of these chemicals. When one begins to research topics such as this, it opens up alot of confusion and a feeling of not knowing what to believe because there are so many contradictions. Personally, my skin looks much better when I use Proraso as opposed to some of the other "Top Shelf Creams" that cost more and don't contain these so-called irritating ingredients. Many of these top shelf creams are so heavily scented and colored, I can't see how that could be good either. I know everyone's skin is different and what one finds good, another finds irritating. There are some Taylors and Trumpers creams that really dry my skin out and mess with my complextion for a half hour or so after the shave. Not all of them, but I've noticed this with several. Proraso doesn't give me these problems, but contains these ingredients that these naturalists say are killing people. Having cancer as a kid has turned me into a bit of a worrier regarding stuff like this. In any event, I choose to continue to use the Proraso because it works well for me and not worry about it.

Regards,
Marsom

frederick · Post by **frederick** » Sat Feb 04, 2006 6:24 am

If you want a good product that only uses pure ingredients check out the shavinggallery.com web site. The owner is very knowledgeable and will give you all the information you need to make the best informed decesion.

Check out my review I did on this product.

Frederick

baldchin · Post by **baldchin** » Sat Feb 04, 2006 9:24 am

The good Dr got there first.

The Internet is a lousy source for academic research.

javyn · Post by **javyn** » Sat Feb 04, 2006 9:37 am

Also keep in mind dosage determines toxicity. Too much oxygen could kill you, for instance. Shave with your Proraso, and enjoy your genetically modified, synthetically fertilized tomato, while basking in the wonders of modern industrial agriculture. Sorry, but postmodern anti-progress fear mongers are one of my pet peeves.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go hunker down in my bunker and wait for the apocalypse brought on by global warming, or global cooling, or whatever!

dubes · Post by **dubes** » Sat Feb 04, 2006 10:29 am

baldchin wrote:The good Dr got there first.

The Internet is a lousy source for academic research.

Will, your comment is extremely ironic given that supporting academic research was exactly why the Internet was invented in the first place!

Actually, I find the Internet to be a very useful tool for research (it's amazing the amount of economic data that are available on the web). But it is true that not all websites are created equal.

Mike

dcdube · Post by **dcdube** » Sat Feb 04, 2006 10:36 am

I echo these gents. Seeing that Propylene Glycol is used with distilled water for humidifier solutions for humidors, they'd have to make it illegal before I stop using it.
Given your past, it's completely understandable how cautious you are though.

javyn · Post by **javyn** » Sat Feb 04, 2006 10:47 am

Given your past, it's completely understandable how cautious you are though.

Definately. Marsom, have you tried the Omega soap? I'm wondering if it is the same thing as Proraso since they are made by the same company, or if there are subtle differences.

frederick · Post by **frederick** » Sat Feb 04, 2006 11:27 am

That what makes these forums so great everyone has an opinion and trys to help. I would take all sources into consideration and then make an educated decesion. Check out drweils web site. He is a doctor and is a great source for information. He has I believe a section on cosmetics pros and cons of some ingredients. I am a body builder so I watch what goes on and in my body but thats me. Some folks it doesn't matter much.

Frederick !

Moe Joe · Post by **Moe Joe** » Sat Feb 04, 2006 12:32 pm

And now for something different...I believe that emotional stress and worry bring about more long term damage than any shave product could.

f308gt4 · Post by **f308gt4** » Sat Feb 04, 2006 12:33 pm

Thank you Dr. Moss for the great reply.

I am a toxicologist, and I agree 100% with Dr. Moss.

Chemicals are not necessarily bad, and all natural doesn't guarantee it is good. Remember, botulism toxin is all natural...

baldchin · Post by **baldchin** » Sat Feb 04, 2006 2:34 pm

dubes wrote:
baldchin wrote:The good Dr got there first.

The Internet is a lousy source for academic research.
Will, your comment is extremely ironic given that supporting academic research was exactly why the Internet was invented in the first place!
Mike

Ironic but true - The balance of real academic research as opposed to soapbox opinion has shifted a lot in the last 10 years. I find the internet very useful for my subject, Computer Science but then it's particularly easy to test. Code either works or it doesn't and logic is discrete.
Even then I'd suggest that less than 1 in 10 search engine hits are actually useful. IT news sites for instance - ZD Net is a joke, it's Linux headlines are almost never accurate.

Most teaching sites and university published documents are fine though.

The test I tend to apply is if unknown sources (web-documents) provide references which can be verified and provide enough meta-data to be properly referenced themselves.

The Internet may state facts but it sells opinions. (Mine included

)

javyn · Post by **javyn** » Sat Feb 04, 2006 3:38 pm

I'm with you, Will. The last good thing to come from Ziff Davis was ZDTV/TechTV. Now it is a ridiculous computer/video game channel. I miss Leo Laporte and Kate Botello

marsom · Post by **marsom** » Sat Feb 04, 2006 3:46 pm

First of all, I'm not a finatic about any of this stuff. I do inquire about things when I am curious to know about something. I don't buy into everything I read on the internet either. As an ex-cancer patient, I do try to keep an eye on what is being put on or in my body. I'm not a doctor nor do I pretend or want to be one. I don't spend countless hours on the internet researching the long term effects chemicals have on the human body. I have checked into it, but like everything in life, there is no one answer. Opinions are like ass*****, everybody has one and I realize that. I was just stating that these days it's hard for one to know what is good or bad for them with all of these opinions and theories flying around the place. Not only on the internet, but in books and television alike and many of the books I read are written by doctors who have THEIR OWN OPINION on what is healthy.

Regards,
Marsom

baldchin · Post by **baldchin** » Sat Feb 04, 2006 3:53 pm

Marsom,
All too true.

I reckon everything in moderation including moderation.

Your thread got a bit hijacked while we did some ranting - WHOOPS.

javyn · Post by **javyn** » Sat Feb 04, 2006 3:56 pm

First of all, I'm not a finatic about any of this stuff.

I hope you didn't interpret my reply that way, that's not what I meant at all.

Sorry if I came off as kind of assholish

marsom · Post by **marsom** » Sat Feb 04, 2006 4:28 pm

I wasn't offended by any of the replies. If you read my post you'll see that I found it funny that Proraso actually makes my skin look better than other products that are "supposed" to be free of "harmful" ingredients. Like I've stated, some of the Taylors creams that I've tried dry my skin out and really don't work well for me. So, I was actually kind of agreeing with many of you in the first place. That's why I DO continue to use Proraso, because I have no reason nor evidence to not use it.

Regards,
Marsom

English · Post by **English** » Sat Feb 04, 2006 4:43 pm

Marsom,

Everything we do in life puts us at risk. I believe you are more at risk from slipping and seriously injuring yourself in the bathroom than coming to any harm using soap.

javyn · Post by **javyn** » Sat Feb 04, 2006 4:45 pm

Proraso leaves my skin feeling the best too, but surprisingly, the cheap Surrey shave soap is a close second! It is very moisturizing and leaves my skin feeling supple. Even though it says it is unscented, I find it has a very mild, pleasurable smell.

lathermaker · Post by **lathermaker** » Sat Feb 04, 2006 9:06 pm

Final report on the safety assessment of sodium lauryl sulfoacetate
J Am Coll Toxicol Vol:6, 3 (1987) pp 261-77

Abstract:

Sodium Lauryl Sulfoacetate is a detergent used in cosmetic products. A 12% solution of the ingredient was slightly toxic to rats in an acute oral study. No treatment-related effects of significance were noted in rats in a subchronic study at a dose of 75 mg/kg/day. Some effects were observed at 250 and 750 mg/kg/day. Minimal to slight ocular irritation occurred in rabbits when tested with 3.0% Sodium Lauryl Sulfate was nonirritating to the genital mucosa of rabbits. No skin irritation, sensitization, or phototoxicity was noted in guinea pigs exposed to a cosmetic product containing 2% Sodium Lauryl Sulfoacetate. Cosmetic products containing up to 16% Sodium Lauryl Sulfoacetate were nonmutagenic in the Ames Salmonella/microsome assay, both with and without activation. In clinical studies, Sodium Lauryl Sulfoacetate was a mild to strong skin irritant but not a sensitizer at concentratiosn up to 2.0%. The irritant effects are similar to those produced by other detergents, and the severity of the irritation appeas to increase directly with concentration. It is concluded that Sodium Lauryl Sulfoacetate is safe for use in cosmetic products in the present practices of use and concentration.

Hope you find this helpful.

Regards.

Lathermaker

lathermaker · Post by **lathermaker** » Sat Feb 04, 2006 9:16 pm

Final report on the safety assessment of Propylene Glycol and Polypropylene Glycols
J Am Coll Toxicol Vol:6, 13 (1994) pp 437-91

Abstract:
Propylene Glycol is an aliphatic alcohol manufactured as a reaction product of propylene oxide and water. Polypropylene Glycol is a polymer formed by adding propylene oxide to dipropylene glycol. Propylene Glycol is reportedly used as a skin-conditioning agent-humectant, solvent, viscositydecreasing agent, and humectant in thousands of cosmetic formulations. Polypropylene Glycols of various polymer lengths are reportedly used as miscellaneous skin-conditioning agents in far fewer formulations. Acute, subchronic, and short-term animal studies suggested little toxicity beyond slight growth and body weight decreases. Little ocular or skin irritation was observed in animal studies, and no sensitization was seen. Small increases in fetal malformations were seen in mice injected subcutaneously with Propylene Glycol, but a continuous breeding reproduction study in mice showed no reproductive toxicity following oral administration. A wide range of mutagenesis assays were negative, a!
nd studies in mice and rats showed no evidence of carcinogenesis. Clinical data showed skin irritation and sensitization reactions in Propylene Glycol in normal subjects at concentrations as low as 10% under occlusive conditions and dermatitis patients at concentrations as low as 2%. A careful evaluation of skin irritation and sensitization data as a function of disease state of the individual, occlusion, and concentration was done. On the basis of that analysis, it is concluded that Propylene Glycol and Polypropylene Glycol are safe for use in cosmetic products at concentrations up to 50%.

Again, I hope you find this helpful.

Lathermaker

SMF

What is toxic and non-toxic?

What is toxic and non-toxic?

Check Out shavinggallery.com

Research