A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » General
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Prickly Heat?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 9th 03, 04:06 PM
Pat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Prickly Heat?

x-no-archive:yes


Using a long-sleeved jersey and no sun-block on the arms sounds like
the obvious thing to try. If that works OK then maybe try other
sunblock preparations to see if there's one that doesn't irritate you.
Maybe also try taking a shower before the ride.

--Paul


I tried using a sleeveless Coolmax shirt and no sun-block on the upper arms
as it was slightly overcast and a bit cool after the thunderstorms the night
before. I wound up with bright red upper arms, but no bumps--well, no new
bumps. In fact, I think the old bumps have flattened out. And, when the red
turns to tan, maybe my arms will all be one color. I am wondering if the
tight band on the short sleeves contributed to this problem. I noticed that
some other people were wearing jerseys with the band on the sleeves not
being so constricted. OTOH, I liked wearing sleeveless, so maybe I will go
out and buy a new sleeveless jersey.

Thanks for the suggestions.....

Pat in TX


Ads
  #2  
Old July 9th 03, 05:36 PM
Fritz M
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Prickly Heat?

Joe wrote:

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.

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.

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:

http://www.pathguy.com/sls.htm

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
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:00 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.