Slashdot Mirror
Antiperspirants Could Contribute to Particulate Pollution
MTorrice writes: Environmental scientists monitor particulate matter pollution because it poses risks to human health and can affect the climate. Ultrafine particles, up to 100 nm in diameter, are produced by vehicle exhaust and other combustion processes. They also form when volatile chemicals from other sources condense in the atmosphere, often through reactions triggered by sunlight.
Now atmospheric scientists propose that personal care products, such as antiperspirants, could be a potential source of ultrafine particulate matter. On the basis of data from the U.S. and Finland, they find that airborne nanoparticles in highly populated areas often contain silicon. They hypothesize that organic silicon compounds found in cosmetics waft into the air, get oxidized, and contribute to the growth of nanoparticles.
Now atmospheric scientists propose that personal care products, such as antiperspirants, could be a potential source of ultrafine particulate matter. On the basis of data from the U.S. and Finland, they find that airborne nanoparticles in highly populated areas often contain silicon. They hypothesize that organic silicon compounds found in cosmetics waft into the air, get oxidized, and contribute to the growth of nanoparticles.
Not using antiperspirants ain't so good for the air either.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
The Slashdot audience is probably contributing less than average to the environmental problem of antiperspirants being used.
Will these wackos ever stop finding shit that is supposedly screwing everything up? If we all lived in faces they'd bitch about the fact the fucking cave dwelling animals had no home because we kicked them out.
Human haters is what they are.
I gave up spray deodorant and switched to stick years ago, simply because I didn't want to be inhaling aluminum chlorohydrate and other goodies. That it isn't good for the environment is secondary to that.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
Remember: if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
This stuff is also heavily used in building materials -- sealants that keep water from soaking into concrete, for instance. I'd be curious to see why they dismiss such building materials as a source, focusing only on personal-care products. It's possible that there is simply so much more used in personal care products. But the one link that isn't slashdotted doesn't explain why the focus on personal-care products.
Have you read the article?
I know... stupid question.
The hypothesis is that evaporated siloxanes photo-oxidize (in the presence of hydroxyl radicals), then condense onto nanoparticles (that have been separately created by different sources), causing them to grow into the size range that's harmful for humans.
I use deoderant, not anti-perspirent. Not only have I heard other bad things about anti-perspirent, but I figure if my body wants to sweat then it wants to sweat for a reason.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
I switch to alum crystal type deoderant years ago.
http://www.bodycrystal.com.au/...
They work well and last about 2 years per stick.
46137
This is /.
Slow down, I'm trying to take notes.
You are welcome on my lawn.
You know what also contains silicon? The material in roads. Cars drive over this material, breaking it up and wearing it down. Perhaps not all of it winds in topsoil and the water system?
Environmentalist investment clubs short-selling deodorant manufacturers, thus killing two birds with one stone. Three, if you count personal hygiene objectives.
Guilt from killing the virtual birds was quickly worked through by holding a group handwringing session.
(Apologies to anyone reading this. Once I started typing, I couldn't stop myself.)
It needs a slight rewrite, but imagine the headline being read by Daffy Duck:
Antiperspirants Perhaps Partly Partake in Prolonging Particulate Pollution
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Because we're not all fat and sweaty like definitely every American.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Coughing, sneezing, farting, breathing all contribute particulates. So, from now on, everyone has to have a recyle/catch basin attached to the faces and a tube connected from their ass to a conrtainer to catch farts.
Was this leaked by the W.H. to drum up votes in November? Sounds that ridiculous.
Grasses accumulate silicates in their leaves. That's a more likely source of airborne particulates than a few armpits.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
Yes dumbshit. We are ALL fat. None of us are at or below normal weight, unlike you "superior" Europeans. Just don't call on us the next time someone starts a war over there.
... and THANK YOU for making Americans seem so reasonable, and not reinforcing the stereotype that Europeans already have.
I've learned that they're worthless, so I don't read AC comments anymore.
Should be hunted down,captured and tried at the Hague for crimes against Nature, Humanity and Decency. Do we really need to smell you from a block away?
You will likely be involved on your own anyways, probably as the agressor.
I know you are trying to be funny, but human beings breathing does not contribute to global warming. This is because the CO2 produced is from combining O2 with biologic sources, which are produced by systems that remove the same or more CO2 from the air.
Fine particles are also made by natural events - wind erosion - wave erosion - water freezing - form long before man walked on earth. Why is everything man does seen with 'brown-colored-glasses?
"could be a potential source."
This sure sounds like grant seeking behavior rather than science.
If they ever figure out how to turn cellulite into energy it'll be awesome because America is the Saudi Arabia of cellulite.
Just think of the amount of silicon in the air in the Silicon Valley: It's in the US, it's in the state of California, it's in the same state as Los Angeles and there is some silicon there, in the valley.
The world can burn if it comes down to a choice between that and my antiperspirant.
And, yes, I'm aware of the distinction between an antiperspirant and wholly inadequate deodorant-only.
Nanosilicon particles are probably from Nano-boobs jobs.
The areas shown corelate well with the places where nanoboobs jobs are done - so this is proven this is the cause.
Yeah, the real problem is the methane we produce.
You can't take the sky from me
And don't forget all the computer chips: Silicon. Worst ... material ... ever.
Deodorant sure, antiperspirants? Never.
Consider your health when you smear that chemical crap, then consider a diet change.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
What a kind and compassionate European you are. Now that I've learned that Europeans have no class and prefer to smell bad all day, well I think I'll just stay here.
I was being ironic.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Color me surprised, more FUD from Slashdot. "NOW IT'S IN YOUR DEODORANT, ZOMG! Everyone quick, stop using deodorant and shaving your armpits and put your hair into dreads or the Earth will be destroyed ERMAHGERD"
Settle down, Beavis.
How does anything photo-oxidize when it's in my armpit? I tend not to spend my days running around with my arms flailing wildly.
I'm forced to wonder if "environmental scientist" is now a euphemism for "60s flower child."
If they ever figure out how to turn cellulite into energy
Easy. You cook the fat off and collect it for fuel. It's called Mississippi.
Have gnu, will travel.
you should STFU until you can write "does".
This latest new in science. "Cancer might be caused by the exposure to moon gravity!"
First it evaporates. It photo-oxidizes once's its freely floating in the air.