Talk:Deodorant/archive 1

Clean Up

This article is in terrible condition. The entire "Health" section is confusing and difficult to read. It looks as if there is a lot of conflict over ideas, and there is no flow to the paragraph structure. Things keep going back and forth, with several repeats of the same idea, confusing sentence placement, and some confusing section placement, such as the Supporting Evidence section, which completely contradicts the former section. It just doesn't make sense when one reads it.

Charlesblack 12:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

It was in the midst of some heavy revision and content dispute between myself and another editor (Psi-kat) recently, which ended without much resolution. It appears that he has given up on WP and gone away; I just now tried to cleanup and clarify the general CW understanding of the health concerns and internet hype. There is some additional material (the sections on Aluminum Toxicity and Skin Absorption of Aluminum Salts) that is more difficult to cleanup or resolve. While there appears to be some relevant research here, most of the references are citing abstracts without available full-text articles online, so it makes them difficult for anyone but the original editor to work with. Moreover, there is little or no reference to expert analysis of these studies, or their significance in the larger picture. For these reasons, I believe this area constitutes WP:OR by Psi-Kat, who was essentially compiling his own survey and analysis of aluminum salts in antiperspirants -- in the words of the WP policy, an "unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position". I think WP, as an encyclopedia, needs to rely more on sources like the American Cancer Society and National Cancer Institute's FAQs and analyses of these issues and the relevant literature. I'm not sure what else to do with these two subsections, other than delete. You're welcome to take a shot at fixing it up if you're so inclined. Emcee 19:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

As I have a very limited knowledge on the subject, I don't think I'm the one to really clean it up, I just put the notice up. Cool of you to be working on it, thanks for making the site more reliable and easier to read and understand. Thanks a lot!

Something to note, should there be two subcategories under health effects, such as "Deodorant Use and Cancer" and the current one? When reading, it looks as if the article is about cancer, but then another section pops out of the cancer section, having nothing to do with cancer. Is anyone in agreement?

Charlesblack 02:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Enough is, in this case, too much. Why is it every time I turn around I see the "DEGREE" logo? How did WP become a giant billboard? First they "save" a TV show by destroying it (and the artistic integrity of the entire cast and crew into the bargain), now they're going to do the same for WP? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.194.149 (talk) 09:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

This is in the running for the worst-written article on Wikipedia. I quote: "Bacteria thrive in hot, humid, acidic environments..... When adult armpits are washed with pH basic soaps, the skin loses its acid mantel (pH 4.5 - 6), raising the pH to become basic. Bacteria thrive in high pH or base environments." —Preceding unsigned comment added by RLeopard (talk • contribs) 12:46, 3 October 2008 RLeopard (talk) 13:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

revision

The revision from 17:45, 7 Sep 2004 carried out by 203.62.10.3 removes a lot of material, introduces British spelling, and eliminates all internal links, without any comments or discussion. Taken together, this is bad. The material can and probably should be restructured, since the previous revisions discuss three different things: deodorants, antiperspirants, and cultural issues related to body odor. A better structure, perhaps moving some of this material elsewhere, is certainly welcome, but please say something about where this material went, or whether it was removed entirely. The spelling I don't care about. But why get rid of the internal links??? --MarkSweep 05:17, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

After some closer examination of other "contributions" by 203.62.10.3, I've decided to revert. --MarkSweep 05:26, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Antiperspirants vs. Deodorants

Sorry I don't have time to learn how to use wikipedia so maybe this is in the wrong place. I've worked in antiperspirants and deodorants for more than 20 years. The mechanism listed here for antiperspirants - causing pores on skin to contract - is an old, erroneous idea. There are several published reports, including conclusive microscopy studies, that show the true mechanism is formation of an inert aluminum/hydroxide/protein precipitate in sweat ducts. This precipitate blocks the flow of sweat. As the epidermis grows, the blockages are shed with other skin flakes, explaining why the blockages are only temporary. There is no harm to skin or to the sweat glands themselves, which continue to function normally. Al ions do not diffuse into the epidermis, except via sweat ducts. Al ions, and most of their hydrolysis products, bind very strongly to protein, so they could never get past the stratum corneum. Virtually no Al or Zr gets into the bloodstream from topical application, so reports of antiperspirants causing various maladies is bunk. There is much more to know (for example, Al and Zr antiperspirants are also deodorants, but no common deodorant is also an antiperspirant). It is all in the literature. I won't be back here, so don't reply to me. Just thought I'd let you know.

==========================================

Shouldn't there be a separate page discussing antiperspirants? While antiperspirants usually include a deodorant, they are two separate products which should be on different pages. --Raztus 17:36, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the two concepts are distinct. In the US, they are also treated differently by the FDA: deodorants are classified as cosmetics, antiperspirants as drugs. However, since we don't have a lot of information here yet, why split this into two smaller articles at this point? At the moment, antiperspirant redirects here. If this article gets too big, that redirect can be made into a separate article. --MarkSweep 01:00, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

"Antiperspirants, usually combined with deodorants, are drugs which attempt to stop or significantly reduce perspiration. Aluminium chloride, aluminium chlorhydrate, and related aluminium compounds are the most widely used antiperspirants. They work because the Al3+ ion causes pores in the skin to contract. This is a fairly radical approach, frowned upon by some medical professionals, since perspiration is a natural process and not the direct cause of odors."

Does someone have a source for the part about antiperspirants being frowned upon? I'm not so much asking to challenge as I am genuinely curious, I'd never heard anything like that. byped 19:37, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

• [1] [2] [3] [4] --PopUpPirate 11:59, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • These are all dotcom sites and I don't think they would be considered valid support for a statement that "some medical professionals" frown upon them. Undoubtedly some do, but until there's a scientific citation (a survey of studies in a journal that asserts that antiperspirants shouldn't be used; a statement made by a nonprofit health org., etc.) I think the statement should be removed from the article. Calindigo

Alumin(i)um

Someone just changed the American spelling "aluminum" to the British spelling "aluminium," mistakenly (or deceptively) deeming the former a "typo". Rather than reverting right now, I want to ask others whether there is some Wikipedia policy on such spelling issues, which I'm sure are legion. I do note that while all three links to compounds under the American spelling are active, only two are active under the British spelling.

Incidentally, regarding another recent change, I'm pretty sure that it is a fact rather than opinion that most lewd jokes about vaginal odor come from men rather than women. What do I have to do to prove this? -- Major Danby 29 May 2005

The general rule is that both North American and other spelling variants are equally allowed, with a preference for internal consistency and appropriateness (e.g. British spelling may be more appropriate than North American spelling conventions for articles about Britain, and vice versa). The present article uses North American spelling throughout ("odor", "humor"). However, the case of "alumin(i)um" is special: I'm under the impression that the preferred spelling is "aluminium" when talking about chemical properties ("aluminium salts" vs. "aluminum siding"); see also aluminium#Spelling. Anyway, a case could be made for either variant, and I don't feel strongly enough about it to revert. --MarkSweep 04:49, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm a chemical engineering major, and only on very rare occasions have I seen the element spelled "aluminium" in an American textbook or course. Honestly, that spelling of the word is a source of amusement in America, and little else. As I type this, Wikipedia's spell-checker, while by no means the authoritative source on proper spelling, is red-underlining all instances of "aluminium."

In either case, the spelling throughout the article should be consistent one way or the other, and it wasn't -- used aluminium in some places, and aluminum in others. I just changed it to the non-British "aluminum" spelling. Although "aluminium" is used in several of the cited recent studies on aluminum toxicity (appears the main researcher, Dabre, is in England, and most of the rest is done in England or the EU), it is indeed rarely (if ever) written this way in the US (see the FDA, ACS, and NCI citations) -- even in chemistry. Emcee 02:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

According to IUPAC both spellings are correct Benkeboy 12:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Well guys I switched them all, that i could find, to Aluminum. For consistency's stake. Dappled Sage 20:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

In the standard American English dictionary, Merriam-Webster's 3rd edition, "aluminium" merely points to the definition of "aluminum," so there is no difference in American English. Everybody can't make up their own dictionary based on what they've seen someplace or other. We should go my standard references. -- elp1940 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.169.221 (talk) 23:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Alternatives to deodorant/antiperspirant

I wanted to see a section about deodorant/antiperspirant alternatives. The article acknowledges that some frown on antiperspirants. A web search for "deodorant alternatives" yields many articles and products.

This could link to historical use and traditional remedies which would be interesting. Also how do different cultures view it?--Gingerzilla (talk) 01:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I know this can't be used on the article page itself, but I just wanted to share that I personally use virgin coconut oil as my underarm deodorant. It doesn't do much to stop perspiration (although it does seem to reduce it-- but I think that stopping perspiration completely is unhealthy anyway). I just apply a tiny bit and it lasts all day, plus it helps soothe and moisturize the skin. It won't feel greasy or give off a coconut scent if you only apply a little bit, and it's so much cheaper and eco-friendly compared to buying the regular deodorants/antiperspirants. Doesn't stain my clothes either. Other people use "tawas" crystals but that has aluminum too I think, and the crystals are not quite as convenient to apply as a liquid. Feanne (talk) 01:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

a few things

i think a few things need to be addressed. maybe it should be stated that alum crystals contain aluminum and work in the same way as anti-perspirants, as well as their historical use. i think perhaps there should be a section devoted to aluminum, as it seems to be a prominent concern. Dreamer.redeemer 07:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Opinionated

"Some teens see this as a necessary application, some see it as embarrassing, while others believe it to be a "coming of age" event." I felt neither of those. No one told me ahead of time about deodorant or that I would need to start putting it on. But, kids at school told me I smell and need to put on deodorant and that's how I found out that I should put it on. I see deodorant as a nuisance. I know lots of things could be seen as a nuisance such as brushing teeth and showering, however, I do not feel deodorant is as important as those things. Therefore, I rarely put it on, mostly just when I'm going outside with people. My point is, I feel that whole sentence is unnecessary. It could probably be removed. There are a lot of teens who feel a lot of different things about deodorant and it's probably just not necessary to list specific reasons. If anyone has any input about this please say so within a few days, otherwise I guess I'll jsut take the liberty of removing that sentence myself. Jamesters 05:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

It has been done. Jamesters 19:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Since this seems to be the only thing which 'opinionated' referred to, I'm removing that tag. If it's not, could you clarify and add it back in? Apfox (talk) 01:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC) Never mind, this apparently applies to the estrogen argument. Apfox (talk) 01:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It's worthy of mentioning the cultural pressures by including advertising and the effect this has (i.e it's not good to stink - use this to stop it). Although I don't have precise citations at this point, I'm sure someone else could and it could then be brought as a wider discussion about why people feel they need to use such products - which could be social (i.e. who wants to be the smelly one in class?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gingerzilla (talk • contribs) 01:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

History?

We probably need to note who invented modern-day deodorant, where it was first introduced, the spread of it around the globe (I remember not long ago there were some places where it was universally used and others where it was unknown), and what, if anything, people did before there was such a thing (besides stink). It ought to be interesting.  ProhibitOnions  ^(T) 15:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I second this. I find history of everything, even those for individual items like deodorant here, interesting. I recommend a history section be added to this article with sources. --Legion (talk) 19:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Contradiction

"The first commercial deodorant, Mum, was introduced in the late eighteenth century."

The Mum page that this line links to says it was developed and patented by an unknown inventor in Philadelphia in 1888, so that would be the 19th century. I don't know which is correct but just thought I'd point out the inconsistency.

Health Effects

Emcee: you added a "citation needed" link, but I had a citation that demonstrates what I stated. I moved it to the appropriate spot. There isn't original research like you stated, the general case I stated is pretty clear from the articles.

FYI: Some mice have sweat glands, others do not. The study I posted was on mice with sweat glands (Swiss mouse species). Obviously mouse skin is different from human skin. Can we remove all the bits about mice sweat glands?

I want to build something we can all be happy with. But you're contradicting information that's common knowledge in biology (aluminium chloride neurotoxicity has been known for 50+ years), this is stuff everyone learns in 1st year biology (maybe 2nd). I'm sorry, but when it's "you versus all of my biology textbooks", I'm going to have to side with the textbooks.

Try to use peer-reviewed journal articles as much as possible. Websites have varying quality standards, but peer-reviewed journals have standards. Plus they're second nature for academics like us.

Psi-kat 21:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Another correction to a fact you removed: cancerous cells can be repaired, it's called DNA repair. They do not always remain cancerous until killed. Oestrogen also helps to promote cell division in breast cancer.

Psi-kat 21:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Please show me something that talks about a natural DNA repair mechanism reversing cancer.

[5]

From the WP article: "Cancer therapy procedures such as chemotherapy and radiotherapy work by overwhelming the capacity of the cell to repair DNA damage, resulting in cell death. Cells that are most rapidly dividing - most typically cancer cells - are preferentially affected."

You say, "Oestrogen's role in breast cancer is twofold: it both inhibits DNA repair[23] and increases mammary cell division[24]. This means that aluminium salts have a likely role in both maintaining mammary cell's cancerous state and in helping to spread that cancer faster."

The reference that you cite does not talk about estrogen inhibiting DNA repair. It talks about the difference between ER-negative and ER-positive cells in their capability for DNA repair. Estrogen stimulates the growth of the ER-positive cells that are already cancerous, over those ER-negative cells that are healthy.[6] That may lead to more total cells in the body that have a damaged or altered DNA repair capability, but estrogen is not affecting the actual DNA repair process.

You also cannot jump to the conclusion that the natural DNA repair mechanism has the capability to fix a cell that has already become cancerous. DNA repair tries to fix a cell BEFORE it becomes cancerous; a lot of the cells that become cancerous already have damaged or inadequate DNA repair mechanisms. Once a cell becomes cancerous, it does not need any help staying that way -- "maintaining the cell's cancerous state" as you say.

Are you actually reading these articles that you're citing? Based on the abstracts, they often appear not to support the information you're using them to support. It's unfortunate that none of these articles you're citing have the full text available on the web. That's certainly not required, but it does ease verifiability. I'm concerned that you might have a decided hypothesis and are (as is a natural human tendency) looking more for information to support that hypothesis while overlooking the opposing information.

Adding POV notice to this section. Emcee 17:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

More about Oestrogen's role in DNA repair/cell division Estrogen_receptor#Cancer. I didn't write any of that, but please don't mess with it, because it's fairly accurate.

Cancer basics: DNA repair can cause malignant tumours to become benign (phenotype changes). A benign tumour is not cancerous. But, the tumour is still there, so DNA repair doesn't technically fix the cells completely (so no references for that). The article I cited overviewed how ER-negative cells (no oestrogen receptors) have improved DNA repair. This is because the metabolism of oestrogen produces genotoxic waste, which results in a disruption of DNA repair. This waste reaches all cells, not only ER-positive. So oestrogen inhibits DNA repair (and also contributes to sustaining the malignant phenotype). I'll explain/provide citations for any of the above info if you want. I don't mind teaching you all of this, but this taking up a lot of time.

Yes, I'm reading the articles I cite. I'm reading the webpages you cite too. I'm thinking the same thing about you having a decided hypothesis, etc, especially when you question things like aluminium chloride being a neurotoxin, saying no mice have sweat glands, etc. well did you know michael Jackson sings awesome songs I'm sorry my articles don't have full text, but it's better than using ones that are just plain wrong (mice having no sweat glands, etc.) I have the full articles for my citations, if you want any of them, let me know.

What is it you want in order to remove the neutrality dispute? I don't actually care at all about the cancer sections, I was just showing that your contributions have research that indicates otherwise.

Psi-kat 21:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Please do explain/provide refs -- that's what I've been asking for. Editing WP does take time. They're generally useful in an encyclopedic article. Neither the of the WP sources discuss malignant tumors becoming benign, and even your explanation doesn't discuss individual malignant cells (vs. tumors) transitioning from malignant to benign.

I also think it's important to be precise. The goal is to have an article that is readable, supported, correct, and understandable for a general reader. The estrogen itself does not inhibit the DNA repair, but the waste that is produced when it is metabolized by a cell with an ER-positive receptor does. Aluminum chloride is not the neurotoxin; the aluminum contained in it is. If you have all these textbooks that say otherwise in so many words, please cite and quote.

Emcee 23:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Is there any information/findings about the neurotoxic capabilities antiperspirant has applied topically? Does aluminum end up in the bloodstream or something? If it is as dangerous and it seems here, then people using higher concentrations (hyperhydrosis) should have a higher rate of symptoms. 68.110.5.138 11:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Alzheimer's claims

The citations relating to Alzheimer's link seem to claim that there is no causal link. This is what was written when the citations were originally added. the "not currently" was removed at a later date in what may be a subtl case of vandalism! I have reinstated the "not currently" and added a disputed-inline tag. Matt Beard (talk) 13:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm removing "currently" as it makes little sense and is unnecessary. If there is no proof of causation, there isn't any. Adding "currently" inplies that there will be in the future, which is unknown. Apfox (talk) 01:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC) I'm also removing the disputed tag for the fact. If someone can come up with a reputable source that proves causation, feel free to add it back in, since there would be an actual dispute. Apfox (talk) 01:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I think this section really needs to be rebalanced. According to the UK Alzheimer's Society, the "expert opinion" is that any causal link is very unlikely, for reasons described here: http://www.alzheimers.org.uk/site/scripts/documents_info.php?documentID=99 . In addition, the fact that a particular salt is used both in antiperspirants and in experiments is meaningless! It's one of the simplest possible salts of Al, and it shouldn't make any difference once it hits the bloodstream and dissolves. That sentence sounds powerful but doesn't add any useful information, so it (and probably most of those citations) should be removed. Arg (talk) 09:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)...or a non POV overview added of the dispute itself including claims (with citations. If the scientific concensus is significantly in favour of no link with Alzheimers, then this should be presented as so also.--Gingerzilla (talk) 00:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Phermones

"There are other forms of body odor that may not be controlled with deodorant. Certain races such as Caucasian have in addition to sweat glands scent glands which are used subconsciously in sexual communication." This seems to be an allusion to phermones, which, I believe, are still being debated. And, if they do exist, they DO come from perspiration, which would be controlled by anti-p. Also, the idea that only certain "races" have them sounds ridiculous. I'd like to see some references to these claims. Greener grasses 15:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe it's spelled "pheremones." In any case that section was indeed a bunch of garbage, so I deleted it. Emcee 16:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It's pheromones. And there is some debate about pheromones in the scientific community, but just because there is one doesn't mean the section should be deleted completely from the article. Nevertheless, it really is a racist comment to say only caucasians have this.

"The smells which deodorants are used to counter are due to the clothing. This is because without clothes, the sexual scents emitted by the body are powerfully erotic but beneath layers of clothing they can quickly deteriorate and become stale. [1]" SAY WHAT??? Is this to imply that, ordinarily, the "sex scents" would overpower B.O.? That's ludicrous. Clothes may allow bacteria to thrive because the bugs are then somewhat shielded from UV rays, but it's the bacteria, not the clothes, that make the smell. Naked people can and do stink, at times. The idea that wearing clothes eventually results in making us smell stinky instead of sexy is a stupid one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.38.49.51 (talk) 10:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Weight gain from deodorant

I read this in a random book called You on a Diet by Michael f. Roizen, m.d. and Mehmet C.Oz, m.d. They said that some deodorants disrupt your normal metabolism, and that deodorants with the ingredient aluminum or sprays with polychlorobiphenols are most likely the causes. I was just wondering if anyone else had heard this or can cite a medical journal or study. Many of the articles I have found online are usually connected to a "natural deodorant" so I would really like some unbiased evidence—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.115.115 (talk) 00:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Animal Urine as a Deodorant?

The article claims that animal urine, particularly cat urine, was used as an early deodorant. Having smelled cat urine I find this absolutely unbelievable. I think that this claim needs to be substantiated or removed! Matt Beard 09:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree on this. It's absurd to use a component filled with ammonia as a deodorant. Could the author please cite his/her sources? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.84.93 (talk) 05:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I cannot find any evidence to substantiate the claim that any animal urine was used as a deoderant. I am going to remove this. Tiny.ian (talk) 18:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

More than likely, the reason you cant find reference to it is because its not scientific. Its historical. Pre modern deodorant. While the urine is ammonical after it decomposes, its fairly dilute, it would kill off any bacteria quite well, as well as any grease but it wouldn't smell very fresh, it would leave behind an ammonia smell, which is why it would have been followed by a water wash. Bleach has been used by over-zealous people to wash food, so dilute topical usage is not so out there. And the use itself isn't really out there when you consider that people have used horse dung, cow urine and whale sperm on their faces to stay looking young. I haven't left citations here because there are too many and I dont have the time right now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.127.232.3 (talk) 10:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV: Aluminum neurotoxicity

The Aluminum neurotoxicity section seems to be trying to imply that antiperspirants pose health risks, and the "flood of footnotes" is meant to make it look even more "scientific" a conclusion. However nowhere does it state that the amount of aluminum in over-the-counter antiperspirants is enough to be toxic or not, or that any of the researchers in question drew any sort of conclusion about antiperspirants as applies to humans as having any role in this.

As it is, it is, at best, ambiguous, at worst, misleading—like adding a long and dangerous sounding section on carbon dioxide toxicity to a page on plant respiration.

Could someone with knowledge of this (and no axe to grind) indicate in a intellectually responsible way whether or not any scientific or health researchers think that antiperspirants pose any actual neurotoxic risk due to their aluminum contents? --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 14:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

This is sort of in my area and it's not likely to be as straight forward as "proving a single dose will cause X damage". Since Aluminum is a heavy metal, it is bioaccumulative and a small daily dose could build up in the body over a lifetime, arguably to a level required to do damage. This could be a factor especially once a person gets older (and the blood-brain barrier is degraded, as tends to happen).

There is a serious problem for people with renal problems and using normal doses of antiperspirants, I know the FDA was on about this a while ago. Perhaps I'll add that... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.53.52.60 (talk) 04:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I need to find deodorent —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.184.61.154 (talk) 01:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC) The aluminum stuff is nonsense, but I'm not going to change the page and have someone with an axe to grind change it back. The use of deodorants/antiperspirants does not constitute a risk factor for breast cancer http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18829420. People with impaired renal function can't excrete aluminum, so they should all have Alzheimer's as most use antiperspirants. But they don't. Aluminum in the diet does not link to Alzheimer and that is a far greater systemic source. But no point arguing with true believers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Essentially (talk • contribs) 20:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

New Overview Text - Lots of Claims, No Cites

A recent edit added a large amount of text to the overview containing many supposed facts that are not self-evident and need to be backed up. I have added {{fact}} tags to each claim that I feel needs to be backed up by a citation. This does look rather silly as there are loads of them, but this just underlines how badly this text is missing being backed-up by some references. Matt Beard (talk) 08:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Dubious

where are the citations or references to support a claim that underarms have thin absorbent skin and somehow deodorants are dangerous? please offer support as years of use and testing have not proven dangerous to the FDA or Health Canada. EdwinHJ | Talk 18:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Calling them "dangerous" is clearly POV without consistent and conclusive evidence, and a few limited studies do not settle a controversy. Furthermore, the FDA cited in the paragraph are referring to oral ingestion, not topical use. EdwinHJ | Talk 18:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The underam skin consists of stratified squoamous epithelium which certainily is NOT thin OR absorbent. The claims that deoderant causes illness ins unsubstantiated in this context. Statement has been removed --Hyrim (talk) 02:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Contradiction in Overview

Bacteria thrive in hot, humid, acidic environments

contradicts

Bacteria thrive in high pH or base environments

Is it one, the other or both? Do bacteria not thrive in pH-neutral environments? 82.39.206.209 (talk) 14:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It depends on the bacterial species. Bacteria that live in the underarm region are adapted to the conditions there. I would change the 'bacetria thrive in hot, humid, acidic environments' to "The warm, humid conditions of the underarm enable the growth of microbial flora known to produce body odur causing compounds" or something to that effect. --Hyrim (talk) 02:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not quite that simple of course. Most bacteria do indeed prefer basic environments to acidic as seen by the preserving effects of pickling. That said many bacteria thrive and also themselves create acidic conditions, they do tend to be special cases however, such as lactococcus found in many fermented milk products and acidophilus responsible for the formation of the acetic acid in vinegar.

The article, as I read it now, suggest that the bacteria adapted to the skins normal acidic condition do not cause the pungent sweat smells but rather invading bacteria that are able to grow after the use of basic soap that neutralizes that acidity.

Is this true? Sounds logical to me but I haven't looked into the sources....

Dubious, the cited source says that deodorant lowers pH, although it doesn't give a lot of evidence that the pH was lowered by use of soap. I'm tempted to delete the citation altogether as it seems misleading in that context. Sure, soaps are basic, but it's not clear that using soap once or twice a day will lower pH over the entire day. Moosesheppy (talk) 15:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

--Kristoffersson (talk) 20:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Reference 33

in the body of the text, this reference/study is said to demonstrate a link between breast cancer and use of Al based deodorants/anti perspirants but on reading the article it clearly states in its opening paragraphs that its reasearch demonstrated NO link betw them. 124.187.180.180 (talk) 07:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)