Absorption III ** Was: EO Info and Disinfo and Myths

[Guest guest]

Hey David,

 

>>Those folks who have the determination (stubbornness?) of a Pit Bull

>>and insist on sticking to their beliefs while totally disregarding

>>information to the contrary .. are .. in fact .. not using their

>>brains. ;-)

>

> [Dave:] I'm a bright fellow, but I'm not a scientist.

 

I know you're a bright feller .. as am I .. and I am not a scientist ..

I'm a retired military feller, and served for a while as a diplomat, and

trained and operated in anti terrorism and law enforcement and

intelligence gathering .. and liked it. A feller who later learned

to accept (but not like) the role of a corporate executive .. and then

decided to accept (and like) the role of dealing with EO. ;-)

 

> Everyone knows the skin is absorbent.

 

Everyone does not know that. Everyone does not know anything .. some

folks know some things and some know other things .. but we can not say

everybody knows crap when even the edumocated scientific community can't

agree on a lot of basic issues. And absorbency is a matter of degrees.

Some folks have been trying to claim that EO absorb through all the

layers of the body's largest protective organ .. and get into the blood

stream. In fact, they shouldn't be using the term " EO " in any case ..

they should be saying that SOME chemical constituents of SOME EO .. and

some other organic and/or manmade chemicals/solvents CAN absorb to

certain depths .. but so what?

 

> " Patch " meds operate on this principle.

 

Not true Dave .. you've been skimming the posts too quickly. Its not a

matter of disagreement in the world of science as to how patch meds

work. They use certain " enhancers " to cause them to work for SOME meds

and they won't work for all meds regardless of what they use.

 

> What I don't know - and I'm not sure anyone else does either - is which

> components of a substance, and how much, get absorbed.

 

There is a lot of information on this .. but its sort of useless as tits

on a boar hawg for our purposes because .. the scenarios are ringers ..

they set the parameters and conditions for a certain test and they test

certain things .. its costly, time consuming and in almost all cases its

done for a pharmaceutical company that wants to use a particular

chemical that has been isolated. It is totally impractical and would be

financial irresponsible to conduct such research using ALL the potential

variables known .. so any results will only apply to the particular test

variables used at the time.

 

> If they go beyond the outermost layers, capillaries will transfer substances

> to the circulatory system and from there throughout the body.

 

Show me some research on that one. ;-) I have some research on certain

EO that are used for pain relief .. and one that is used to assist (in a

very small way) circulation problems. I have no such research as you

are discussing but would like to have it.

 

> What's the quantity of stuff that gets absorbed that way?

 

Depends on which test you refer to .. there are dozens and dozens and

more dozens of such test results available to those who want to search

for them in libraries and various journals.

 

> I'm sure it's infinitesimal.

 

Not true .. but if it were true .. then the tests would be worthless.

 

> Is there any chance that someone somewhere could react adversely?

 

Maybe .. I believe that that it is likely that what is impossible today

" can be " practical tomorrow.

 

> I'm sure there is. That pretty much sums up where I stand on absorption.

 

I read what you are writing .. but I don't understand it. And this is

not a personal slam .. but I think you are just being stubborn. ;-)

 

> You're absolutely right that I don't have scientific data to back my

> conclusions, and I'm willing to learn. But there seems to be a position on

> the part of some folks that the skin doesn't absorb. That's the part I'm

> saying is a no-brainer. If folks don't wish to use their God-givens, I

> guess they're entitled.

 

Nobody with any credibility .. not since I began on these types of lists

in 1995 .. has ever been so foolish as to make such a statement .. and

if I see someone writing such a thing .. I will challenge them as I am

challenging those who say Essential Oils absorb and enter the blood

stream. There are no hidden meanings in anything I have written .. I am

clear in saying that SOME chemical components from SOME EO do absorb to

certain depths .. but it is rare for any of them to absorb to a level

that one can notice physiological gain .. it is not rare for them to

absorb to a level that one cannot notice negative results .. like

sensitization.

 

>>Anyone who handles CHEMICALS of any kind needs to be aware .. and anyone

>>who drives a car or uses a kitchen knife or dozens of other potentially

>>harmful products must be aware .. but all this awareness is for very

>>different reasons.

>

> [Dave:] True, true and true. Every move we make is a calculated risk.

 

Yes'sir .. and as one of many who spent half his life having to take

calculated risks that sometimes affected the life of others I realize

that some are more reasonable than others .. and we need to make the

decision on when to take them based on good information because we will

often be called to task to justify our actions. Granted, there will be

times when " I believed at the time that it was the right thing to do, "

might be a justifiable defense .. but along with that we better be ready

to show that we had our ducks in line as far as having pertinent facts

upon which we based our belief at that time.

 

>>David .. good it is that you are careful in making your soaps .. but I

>>am sure you do not own a copy of Plant Aromatics so you are .. IF you

>>truly believe that MOST EO can be harmful in wash off products ..

>>playing a game of Russian Roulette. Matter of fact is .. that SOME can

>>be harmful in wash off products.

>

> [Dave:] You're right, and if I ever actually make any money, I'll look for a

> copy of that book. I agree that there's a small risk of using ANY quantity

> of EOs, but I have a lot of experience and the experience of others, to

> guide me. What bothers me is the school that advises using EOs neat or even

> internally. These things MAY be safe, but to me that's counterintuitive.

 

Using EO neat is a great risk .. not very well calculated .. see the

next post. As for taking EO internally (or ingesting) I am not a

medical doctor and would never recommend such a thing .. nor would all

the smart professionals I know .. but we do it from time to time .. and

I don't have a problem recommending someone spice up their lentil soup

with a drop or three of Origanum. ;-)

 

> I'm just a dumb hick, so I won't be the one solving the dilemma.

 

Heck David .. dumb you ain't .. a hick you might be .. I'm still proud

to be a Kuntry Boy .. I'm a Good Old Boy Whut Done Gud and is now trying

to git along in the big city. I was Kuntry when Kuntry wasn't cool ..

thank you Barbara Mandrell. ;-)

 

>>As for the possibility of the least bit of transfer to internal organs,

>>one would have to lounge for a LONG period of time ... even then the

>>odds are 99.999% that the introduction would be via the olfactory route.

>

> [Dave:] I expect you're absolutely correct.

 

Thank you sir .. and I hope you mean that.

 

> In the worst case, the AMOUNT of stuff transferred would have to be

> microscopic, infinitesimal, no more than a few molecules.

 

Matter of fact .. its usually measured in nanagrams .. parts per million

that is .. and we would be shocked at the results of a highly technical

and expensive test of the finest bottled water on the face of the Earth.

 

> The question is whether the amount is small enough to be totally

> ignored.

 

It depends on volume and frequency .. and the health status of the

person who is the subject .. simple as that. This is not a flippant

answer .. its the reality of the situation.

 

>>I'm not willing to do the math on the above because your soaps are not

>>mine .. but if you don't have some credible scientific reference for the

>>percentages you are using .. you are shooting in the dark .. or maybe

>>going on your beliefs based on past luck.

>

> [Dave:] Point well taken. Actually there's a typo there. I doubled the

> amount of patchouli I add to soaps, that should have been a 2-lb batch and

> not per pound. But either way, you're right about the lack of science.

 

Actually Dave .. the information contained in Plant Aromatics is CYA

information.

 

Most essential oils have been tested and safe level of dilution is

known. " Plant Aromatics. " This is a compilation of data researched

over many years by Martin Watt. The primary source of the research

was the R.I.F.M. (Research Institute for Fragrance Materials) and their

sister organization the I.F.R.A. (International Fragrance Research

Association).

 

These organizations collect safety data on essential oils in a number of

ways: they gather scientific information and assess it, member companies

report adverse reactions to materials to them, and if necessary, they in

turn circulate warning notices to member companies.

 

Finally, they have commissioned significant research evaluations for

well over 40 years, and have published their findings on essential oil

safety in the journal - Food and Chemicals Toxicity.

 

So - you have a choice of disregarding safety, shooting in the dark and

keeping fingers crossed .. or going to the library and researching the

back issues of Food and Chemicals Toxicity for the past 40 plus years,

or if you are short on time, acquiring this Safety Manual. ;-)

 

" Plant Aromatics " , New Edition 2001, includes (in one bound copy):

 

Skin Irritation

Sensitization

Photo sensitization

Oral & Dermal Toxicity

 

It goes into:

 

Reactions to Individual Chemicals

Testing for Adverse Effects

Skin Absorption

Oils Not Recommended

Absolute and Concrete Extracts

Maximum Levels of Oils in Perfumes/Cosmetics

Toxicity Levels

Referenced Adverse Effects on the Skin

And many more subjects

 

Why does one need this Safety Manual? I can think of three reasons.

 

1. Ethics and Personal Safety: Why should we use an EO in a dilution

that is larger than that which has been tested as being safe? We have

responsibility to ensure those who use our products - as well as our

selves, are not injured due to our not knowing the safe dilution.

 

2. Legal Liability: When we sell a product, we're considered as being

professionals .. like it or not, we then become liable for any harm we

might cause. Ignorance is no defense. Will use of this safety data get

us off the hook if we are hauled into court for a lawsuit? I don't know

but if we can quote safety data I would think we would be in a better

position to show we took reasonable and prudent care to do the right

thing, we made informed decisions using available information. Intent

can mean much and a good defense can not hurt - methinks. Is it enough

to get us off the hook? Depends on too many variables.

 

3. Professional Development and Knowledge: " Plant Aromatics " is more

than rumor and is quotable as scientifically sound. The date/time/who

conducted the tests are referenced.

 

The old edition of Martin's " Plant Aromatics " was $75. I published his

new, revised edition and offer it for $44.90 .. it can now be seen and

ordered at URL http://www.av-at.com/plantaromaticsavnp.html The new,

revised edition came out in November 2001 and is already in the Fifth

Printing. I am exclusive dealer for North and South America.

 

> Thing is, there's a lot of experience involved, not just mine but plenty of

> others, too. So maybe shooting in twilight, not total darkness. Making

> soap is half art and half science. I guess I rely on the art part to make

> up for my lack of education. That's why I'm cautious.

 

Caution is good .. but caution also includes a bit of CYA. ;-) A lady

who knows better (and is on this list) posted on another list that she

has a slight burn from Bergamot now .. she damn sure knows better but it

happened. Wanna see what a Bergamot burn can do? Go here:

 

http://www.aromamedical.com/special.htm

 

Y'all have a nice Sunday .. and keep smiling. :-)

 

Butch http://www.AV-AT.com