Talk:Deodorant/archive 2

Alzheimer's

The opening paragraph of the article states deodorants containing aluminium increase the risk of Alzheimer's, yet later in the article the Alzheimer's society state there is no causative link between Aluminium and Alzheimer's. The association between Alzheimer's and Aluminium must be one of the most studied areas in Alzheimer's and has been repeatedly and redundantly disproved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.237.104.137 (talk) 08:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Just to add, the citation given in the article in the sentence where Aluminium is said to increase the risk of Alzheimer's is absolutely ludicrous!

"Aluminium is a ubiquitous, though paradoxically non-essential, metal that is used by man in a burgeoning and diverse number of applications. Despite the fact that it is known to be toxic and has been implicated in Alzheimer's disease[1], it is widely used as an antiperspirant. But are we, in our vanity, being almost as foolish as the Elizabethans who used arsenic as a cosmetic? In this article I critically examine the contention that aluminium in antiperspirants has implications for human health."

This is the opening paragraph and the quality of the work drops even from there! It is certainly NOT evidence of a causative role for Al in Alzheimer's. It is a terribly badly written piece of vanity publishing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.237.104.137 (talk) 08:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I removed the Alzheimers part due to unverifibility and it being possibly debunked. http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/08/dont-sweat-it-a/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.167.141 (talk) 03:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Aluminium paragraph

Regardless of the merits around whether aluminium presents health risks or not, that section does not fit in the general introduction to deodorants. I suggest that it is moved to a more appropriate section Faweekee (talk) 18:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

ExpertResearcher POV pushing Alz link by repeatedly removing any RS supporting the opposing view

ExpertResearcher has deleted reliable sources from this article - e.g. links to information from the Alzheimer's Association, in order to strengthen the apparrent case for what is now a thoroughly-discredited causative link. ExpertResearcher hid most of the discussion by shunting it to an archive page s/he set up. S/he undid my edit restoring the reliable sources with this edit summary: "...removing unreliable sources including Tom's of Maine website, American Cancer Society and the Alzheimer's Association" This is insane. Certainly, the ACS and AA are reliable sources! --Elvey (talk) 16:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Consensus View

The weight of consensus (per comments from Essentially, Gingerzilla, EdwinHJ, Hyrim, Emcee, Captain Ref Desk, all supporting the conclusion that Al does not cause Alzheimer's) is strong, yet not reflected in the article.--Elvey (talk) 16:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The Alzheimer's Society advises that "environmental factors have been put forward as possible contributory causes of Alzheimer's disease in some people. Among these is aluminium. There is circumstantial evidence linking this metal with Alzheimer's disease, but no causal relationship has yet been proved. As evidence for other causes continues to grow, a possible link with aluminium seems increasingly unlikely."

It is still there. Check number 8. I don't see what is missing. What do you think is missing? ExpertResearcher (talk) 02:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

FFS! It's what's there, more than what's missing. E.g. 3 entire sentences in the lead OPPOSING the conclusion that Al does not cause Alzheimer's! I've removed 'em, per UNDUE. As the article STILL does not reflect the weight of consensus view that Al does not cause Alzheimer's, I have restored the flag that you removed. DO NOT REMOVE IT AGAIN. --Elvey (talk) 20:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and what's missing? The American Cancer Society and the Alzheimer's Association citations (removed by ExpertResearcher, as noted above) are still missing. I am starting to question whether ExpertResearcher is editing in good faith. --Elvey (talk) 20:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

A not-neutral opening ref/allergy information.

Below is a quote from the opening section.

"A small percentage of people are allergic to aluminium and may experience contact dermatitis when exposed to aluminium containing deodorants.[6] Aluminium-containing antiperspirants are generally safe according to current research."

The 6 reference (http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art7739.asp) doesn't look very authoritative at all, and does not seem to support the sentence it follows in any way. That said, I have never had allergies in my life that I am aware of, however about 6yrs or so ago when I was around 23yo (give or take a few years) I found that I could no longer use any products marketed as anti-perspirants because within only a few minutes after application my skin develops burns not unlike a sunburn and begins to develop deep bleeding wounds if not attended to in short order. Nowadays the reaction is nearly immediate.

Seems strange to me, so I would like to know if I am alone in this is all. Deoderants do not give me trouble. I try to avoid deoderants with metals in the ingredients, I've seen silver, titanium, and of course aluminum. I don't know if the sensitivity developed later in life or if the contents of anti-perspirants simply changed one day. Anyway, some information with a reliable source that would address this would be good to see. Even if its just a mention of what people tend to be allergic to in these products with a non-controversial source. --12.213.80.55 (talk) 21:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Deodorant vs. aluminum wikipedia entries

This article states, "Aluminium, present most often in antiperspirants, but not usually present in non-antiperspirant deodorants, has been established as a neurotoxin". Wikipedia's entry about Aluminum doesn't support that. One of these two articles isn't holding up to the scientific standard. I think we should note that there are controversies surrounding Aluminum, but not jump to conclusions if the scientific community hasn't come to one. I also noted that there's nothing addressing concerns about Propylene Glycol or any other number of chemicals that may need examining. I'm not sure what variants of Propylene Glycol are used in deodorants, but it's worth taking a look at since propylene glycol mono-t-butyl ether is a proven carcinogen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.0.107.170 (talk) 02:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Citation number 8 does not exist

This should be removed or corrected. 107.202.140.71 (talk) 22:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Aluminium chloride neurotoxicity section is full of misunderstanding and bad citations

There is no aluminium chloride in deodorants. Deodorants contain aluminium chlorohydrate. Different thing. Also some cited studies are not about aluminium chlorohydrate or about exposure of aluminum via skin. They don't have value in this topic. 80.231.220.128 (talk) 11:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

This makes no sense

In the "overview" section, the current statements seem to imply that hairy, unwashed armpits are the least smelly, when in fact, the opposite is true--hair creates more surface area for bacteria to grow on, and not washing increases the number of bacteria present. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.22.96.102 (talk) 22:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, it now says that the hair itself is not an ideal surface for germs to grow on. What troubles me more is the statement that hair wicks the sweat away from the body. This may be true in the nude, but inside a sleeve there's really nowhere for it to be wicked to, and the hair is pressed flat against the skin.--Humphrey20020 (talk) 12:48, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Alz aspect of aluminum as of 1/5/12

Seems fine, comprehensive, and objective as of this date. Both sides are getting their fair shake. It's also important to notice that estrogenic compounds just in common lotions, at far lower concentrations and frequencies of use than antiperspirants (enough to offset the wider surface area of use), have now been linked to increases in estrogenic compounds in the blood. Certainly a single study showing one-time use of antiperspirants not causing a significant increase in aluminum in the blood is not as strong as the increasing totality of evidence showing just how permeable human skin actually is to compounds in general. The study on aluminum in soy products being processed in Hawaii and its connection to alz further weakens the opposing viewpoint substantially. So first: aluminum has a connection to alz. Second: Antiperspirants' main ingredient is an aluminum compound. Third: In just the last few years, there is mounting evidence human skin absorbs much more of what we put on it than was ever previously known, and this is only becoming more apparent with each additional study. So be very wary of moneyed interest who are going to attempt to diminish these findings and this trend. 71.65.115.103 (talk) 04:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Usage

Oh, and one more thing. You might want to mention that the major manufacturers of antipersperents, including the prescription ones, claim they work best when used at night, after your shower, before you go to bed. This allows the aluminum compound to absorb best and keeps it from being sweated off, since you sweat the least while sleeping (most of us, anyway) and you will have the least sweat on the underarm at that moment of application. I just thought you should know that and it'd be useful for the article... for people that are not bothered by the Alz connection. It also supposedly requires fewer applications. Ask P&G, Colgate-Palmolive, and some of the script brands. Same thing from all. - Reticuli 71.65.115.103 (talk) 04:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

History

It starts off telling us that the first under-arm deodorant was invented by a black Moor and gives us the date and location, but fails to go into what it was made of, how it was dispensed, if it was sold or available to the masses. The history also failed to go into ancient times as I am sure that this issue came up earlier than Moorish times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.26.152 (talk) 19:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The Smithsonian claims Odorono predates Mum & was the first commercial deoderant. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/How-Advertisers-Convinced-Americans-They-Smelled-Bad-164779646.html?c=y&story=fullstory

Aluminum toxicity should be removed

This section is full of facts placed out of context, with the implication being that Al toxicity remains a concern with antiperspirant use. It does not state that explicitly, but it is implied by its very presence in the article with no explicit statement to the contrary. Besides being a toxin at large doses, Al is a required nutrient. Of course it can be absorbed from the digestive system. This is not newsworthy or relevant to this article. The fact that it can also be absorbed through the skin is irrelevant unless there is an actual context of toxicity or other health effect with antiperspirant use, which there is not. This section needs to 1) state clearly & unambiguously that there is no concern based on evidence for Al toxicity via antiperspirant use, 2) be removed entirely because it simply consists of irrelevant facts that don't support any claim at all (though they imply that somebody somewhere is actually concerned), or 3) state clearly why toxicity is of sufficient concern to be included in this article, providing supporting references. The notion that Al toxicity is a risk from antiperspirant use is a minority viewpoint (a fringe theory) and should be treated as such if it's treated at all in this article. If there is no specific reason to cover this topic in the article, it should be deleted. Dcs002 (talk) 22:42, 26 July 2013 (UTC)