Cutting off ash.. Will it return?

[jenneelk]

oh goodness.. your going so much deeper than really is necessary IMO for something that you even said and is widely know.. to wash off once it hits the water.
We're not talking things made with SC so your whole 2nd paragraph really holds no merit.

And I wasn't asking for 'hospital bill proof'.. I was asking for simply a link to 2-3 places with some merit on the whole internet world that has some information how 'surface' 'wash off' ash on soap might be caustic to the user causing them harm. That's it. Nothing else since that's all that is in question here.

I can give you links to all kinds of places that say it's safe.. can you give me the other that says it isn't to back up your claim and basic assumption that those with ash on our soap, even when we take it off you said, might lead to a users harm/irritation/whatever.

Your one person you mentioned was already shown to not say it's harmful.. and he's a chemist.

 

[dagmar88]

Book knowledge vs experience...

 

[jenneelk]

Yes ^

 

[Robert]

One protocol that used to be used in skin irritancy testing was to prepare the area of skin first by applying a solution of sodium carbonate as a keratolytic agent, then rinsing and drying before applying the material to be tested. This was to increase the sensitivity of the test. (It's been supplanted by the method of applying and then pulling off adhesive tape.) It seems reasonable that if sodium carbonate increased the irritancy of various materials that it would likely do so for soap.

How many of you have evidence that one soap is gentler on skin than another? I think you're asking me for a standard of proof that those of you who make such evaluations routinely don't apply.

 

[Robert]

I can give you links to all kinds of places that say it's safe.. can you give me the other that says it isn't to back up your claim and basic assumption that those with ash on our soap, even when we take it off you said, might lead to a users harm/irritation/whatever.

Even when you take it off? When did I ever write that? :crazy: Obviously if you remove it from the soap, it has no further effect on the soap or its users.

Could people have misunderstood me that badly? Why would I have recommended removing ash if I thought doing so had no effect?

 

[dagmar88]

Could people have misunderstood me that badly?

As long as you don't give any straight answers, no one will.
And there's certainly no need to ridicule.

 

[Obsidian]

I think you guys are splitting hairs. One side says the chance of irritation from ash is so low, why worry, while the other side says irritation from ash is possible so why risk it.
I think you both agree that ash can possibly, in certain people, cause irritation. I can see the point of both sides but bickering isn't going to change any opinions.

Robert, you can be difficult to follow on occasion. Sometimes people just want a simple answer and not a chemistry lesson. Either there is or isn't a link to info that states ash can be harmful to some people. I don't consider a bit of irritation or itchy skin to be harmful but I also would never buy soap with ash on it. It looks tacky/unfinished to me and I remove it from all my soaps if I can.

 

[bodhi]

:razz: Book knowledge vs experience...

But which book?

As long as you don't give any straight answers, no one will.

This! :wtf:

I think you're asking me for a standard of proof that those of you who make such evaluations routinely don't apply.

Nope. I asked if you could direct us to some info which backs up your direct inferences of harm from the use of an alkaline product, aka soap, that also has a layer of a similar alkaline substance, aka, ash, on its surface.

 

[bodhi]

It seems reasonable that if sodium carbonate increased the irritancy of various materials that it would likely do so for soap.

No it doesnt. You can not make this comparison and should not offer it to others as evidence - especially with no information to back it up.

You are referring to an unreferenced lab practice which used an unknown concentration of a lab created substance which would have been made at a specific and undisclosed concentration, used at a specific and undisclosed concentration, applied for a specific and undisclosed period of time, and then removed in a specific manner prior to the commencement of another scientific experiment. This would have been done on a select group of individuals, used controlls, included and excluded specific subgroups of individuals and all of which would have followed strict scientific processes. Unless of course this was a backyard garage experiment.

You are also lumping all 'soap' into this equation when each batch of soap, made by each individual making soap, is a distinct and individual product with possible distinct and different topical uses, effects, and ingredients.

If infact sodium carbonate was used for this purpose, it would have been used as a keratolyzing product. It would not directly increase the irritancy of any products, but may as a by-product of its action on the skin, allow more of a given substance to come in contact with and penetrate the skin, thereby allowing an exaggerated response -either positive or negative-to said products. However, again, you are referencing an undisclosed experiment which used a scientifically created substance at an unknown concentration, etc, etc...

Sorry, but with all your supposed scientific background, you are offering information as scientifically based fact with not an inkling of scientific process or evidence involved in your explanations. It is irresponsible - especially for someone with a supposed scientific background.

Sorry all, end of rant. And again Robert, excuse me if i misread you, Im just trying to figure out why you seem to think ash is dangerous.

 

[Robert]

As long as you don't give any straight answers, no one will.
And there's certainly no need to ridicule.

I'm not trying to ridicule anyone, except possibly myself if I'd written something dumb inadvertently. I was just trying to figure out what people thought I'd written. When I went back over the thread afterward, I didn't see anything I'd written that would've given the impression that I thought initially ashy soap was still inferior even after the ash was removed, but apparently some poster got that impression, and I wanted to clear it up.

 

[Robert]

No it doesnt. You can not make this comparison and should not offer it to others as evidence - especially with no information to back it up.

You are referring to an unreferenced lab practice which used an unknown concentration of a lab created substance which would have been made at a specific and undisclosed concentration, used at a specific and undisclosed concentration, applied for a specific and undisclosed period of time, and then removed in a specific manner prior to the commencement of another scientific experiment. This would have been done on a select group of individuals, used controlls, included and excluded specific subgroups of individuals and all of which would have followed strict scientific processes. Unless of course this was a backyard garage experiment.

No, this was a protocol I'd read of years ago.

Are there not many things in your life you learned long ago, came to accept as what people knowledgeable in that area widely shared as fact, and then forgot where you initially got the info from? My head is chock full of things like that, and I suspect yours is too. If scientific papers had to cite all such sources, their references would never end. Unless it's to the main point of the paper (reviewing the history of thinking in such regard), you hardly ever see references to material in biochemistry that's more than 25 years old, because you just take for granted that the reader in a field that active is familiar with such statements.

The concept that soap with sodium carbonate is harsher than without, and that the more sodium carbonate it has, the harsher it is, has been broadly understood in the soap industry for probably over a century. It's one of those things that's so broadly accepted that nobody bothers to cite a source for it, and therefore you can't look it up. Could it possibly be a widely shared misconception? Sure, and it wouldn't be the first time such a thing happened. Meanwhile I'm just passing along the scuttlebutt.

Sodium carbonate is not such a strong irritant that you need be afraid to touch solutions of it, it's just that it's alkaline, and if you asked me to have an ingredient that alkaline in contact with my skin, I'd want you to give me a good reason for it. Bath salts? OK, but the slightly less alkaline sodium sesquicarbonate came to be in more common use for the purpose (and honestly I'd prefer less alkaline material than that). Cleaning scum off tile? OK, but I just accept that my hands will temporarily come in contact with such a solution as a price to pay for the convenience of being able to use it; some users would wear gloves. The surface of a bar of soap? Why, when it could easily have been shaved off?

If in fact sodium carbonate was used for this purpose, it would have been used as a keratolyzing product. It would not directly increase the irritancy of any products, but may as a by-product of its action on the skin, allow more of a given substance to come in contact with and penetrate the skin, thereby allowing an exaggerated response -either positive or negative-to said products.

But isn't that exactly the situation we're discussing? Soap with some sodium carbonate on its surface?

 

[bodhi]

No It isnt what we are talking about. Ill try and reply without getting into all the obfuscation. I wrote about a generally acceptable scientific method. You referenced a specific skin testing protocol in regards to your assertion that ash is not safe-an unknown protocol using an unknown concentration of a lab created substance in an unknown manner.

What protocol? Where is it? Can we see it? Can we see the results that correlate to 'ash on soap' is not safe? Or any documentation of this? No? Because they were done so long ago that no one can even look them up anymore? Seriously?

Scientific evidence gets documented - and it is reproducible. If its not either or both, its junk.

 

[jenneelk]

I'm bowing out of this and will follow that I've read and learned through copious amounts of researching.
I will try to prevent ash, but if I happen to get it and can't wipe it off due a textured top or something like that.. I will steam it.
I still need to research more on that.

I'm done with this convo. It's really just going in circles with no end so I say follow what you have researched and learned hands on to be right.
It's what I plan to do.
Peace out.

 

[bodhi]

Me too. Jeneelk, your soaps are beautiful with and without the ash.

 

[lsg]

I have closed this thread because it has become more of a bickering contest than an informational tool.