Joe said:Perhaps Pat in TX will find that he can tolerate Sodium Laurel Sulfate, but why should he not be
informed of the potential for irritation?
I agree with this sentiment. It's probably worth looking into, but the reaction could be any of a
number of other things also. Somebody else suggested the dyes in the jersey. Various formulations
of sunblock might exacerbate the condition. I know somebody who breaks out in hives if he's in
contact with metal that has nickel in it. (ObCycling): I had a tough time cycling yesterday because
the high ozone level and the dust in the air shut down my windpipe. I avoid the Greenway in town in
the spring because of the high pollen levels from all the trees along the river can trigger an
asthma attack.
Quoted message said:As for water, why compare it to a surfactant, when water is neither acid nor alkaline
Water is used in industrial applications because it's a powerful solvent. A surfactant is used
to help lift the dirt. Just because SLS is able to foam up doesn't make it corrosive or
poisonous or scary.
Classifying something as acid or alkaline doesn't make it dangerous. Pickle juice is acidic and a
nasty eye irritant, but that doesn't make it dangerous.
Quoted message said:If any of this doesn't apply to you....ignore it.
Suggesting that SLS might be irritating to some people: that's fine. But I was responding to your
misleading scare-mongering of SLS as an "industrial detergent." The websites you posted about SLS
contain misinformation. The fact that 500 other websites parrot the same misinformation doesn't
make it true.
Several of them cite a study by a Dr. Keith Green on the potential eye damage that SLS can do. This
information came originally from a company called Neways, but now you see it all over the place. It
turns out Dr. Green and the Medical College of Georgia have threatened to sue Neways for defamation
over the issue, because Dr. Green's study on SLS showed that "eyes showed no irritation with the 10
dilution substance used. If anything, the animal studies indicated no risk of irritation
whatsoever." [1]
Several anti-SLS websites also quote an unreferenced _Journal of the American Journal of Toxicology_
report on the toxicity of SLS. It turns the _Journal_, Vol. 2, No. 7, 1983, has a report on a "Final
Report on the Safety Assessment of Sodium Lauryl Sulfate and Ammonium Lauryl Sulfate" which is a
review of dozens of studies that show that SLS and ALS are safe to use. There's nothing at all about
the stuff collecting in the skin, being irritation, or being dangerous. According to toxicologists,
the stuff is safe and non-irritating.
The websites you reference also make unattributed claims about SLS causing gingivitis, a downright
false claim that it's banned in Europe along with the silly supposition "that everybody in Europe
knows" that SLS is Bad For You, a totally fabricated MSDS, and ridiculous chemistry that's straight
out of science fiction.
Here's more information for anybody who's genuinely interested:
pathguy.comsls.htmOpen ↗
RFM
ENDNOTE:
[1] Lens & Eye Toxicity Research 6: 37-41, 1989.
--
To reply, translate domain from l33+ 2p33|< to alpha. 4=a 0=o 3=e +=t