I don't like foam soap. DO YOU?! (And another soap-related question.)

What kinds of soap do you prefer to use?


  • Total voters
    54
I usually don't have a problem, but it's close... I've tried adding glycerin, which is what many bars use as a moisturizer. But then it doesn't rinse as cleanly - not worth it.

You can get Castile soaps that aren't as drying, btw. But I doubt they rise as clean. Not sure, though. I can't remember what a 100% olive oil bar is like...

I just mix it up. I keep several different types of soap on hand, so there are moisturizing soaps that I can use sometimes instead of the good but drying soaps. For my face I'll just apply lotion after washing.

There's a goat soap I quite like.

bOoOwvbpjMulKqRry37HYv5NoyNQZLg7arYf91JbHlpbGkf-BRH-dIU4QnTx3zeLbeO7huIQSNEtoKfZ2K4_PBQa07oEPXjVUiEz1WlEL82R2hUYtLBqG3pAYlgWb_XwTmaZZvKRJtbxhw

What is it about this soap that appeals to you?
 
Actually what it does is break open most bacteria. So when you rub it on you're smearing a sort of bacterial slurry all over your body.

....

:vomit:

That's a good thing because the "bacteria guts" stimulate your immune system. When you share a bar with someone you encourage mutual resistances. The more people you share a bar of soap with, the more resistant to disease you become.

Well it's akin to vaccination, isn't it? Bacteria that's been nullified yet your body can still adapt to protect itself against it. Best of both worlds. No actual harm yet plenty of benefits reaped.

...still an icky idea.
 
I don't see any point in adding antibacterial agents to soap when soap is already antibacterial!

Well actually, regular soap isn't anti-bacterial. You're just washing the germs off, not killing them.

That said, it's not a very good idea to mass kill bacteria and the likes, lest you force evolution's hand ;)
 
That said, it's not a very good idea to mass kill bacteria and the likes, lest you force evolution's hand ;)

I really hope this doesn't cause an evolution debate, despite the fact natural selection causing the inherent strengthening of a population is easy to prove. 1/1000 of the original population survives due to immunity. It reproduces; the new 1000 bacteria all have this immunity and survive a second purging. This one reproduces, now having immunity to the agent that killed 99.9% in both cases.

But yes, indeed a good idea not to use antibacterial soap's. You just need your hands clean; no need to help create the super germ.
 
Most antibiotics and antibacterial agents work by retarding the reproduction of bacteria rather than outright killing them. Those that do actually kill them often do so by hindering cell division without hindering cell growth, causing their membranes to burst once the cell reaches too great a size to stay contained. Bacteria that acquire resistance to such agents are those that modify their process of cell division so that they are less dependent on whatever process the antibiotic inhibits. This makes them better suited to their current environment, but actually makes them less suited for their previous environment. Resistant bacteria never reproduce as quickly as their mother strains in the absence of the chemicals that favor their development. If you don't have access to antibiotics anyway, then antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria are actually much less dangerous than the strains from which they mutated.

Of course, most antibiotic an antibacterial agents do not effect only dangerous bacteria, but also the helpful kind. Not having enough good bacteria is often a bigger problem than having antibiotic resistant bad bacteria.

These days some of the most promising research into how to stop or prevent bacterial infections does not involve killing them or inhibiting their ability to reproduce, but rather tricking them into thinking there is no room to grow. Bacteria all produce and detect certain chemical markers to to help in in Quorum Sensing, their ability to determine how many other bacteria are also present in their environment and whether or not they are of the same kind. This warns them not to overproduce when they are approaching their environment's carrying capacity. There is apparently one such substance that is used by all bacteria, and various others produced by different strains. Having large amounts of harmless bacteria producing quorum signaling substances tell both harmful and helpful bacteria that there is little or no room for growth. We could also produce this substance artificially and use it to make bacteria think that a sterile surface is already overpopulated. To be really useful though, we ought to identify and reproduce the quorum signaling chemicals used by harmful bacteria, so that we can make pathogens act as if there are too many of them and deactivate their trigger to reproduce while not inhibiting the growth of those with whom we share a mutually beneficial symbiosis.
 
MagisterCultuum, great stuff, thank you! :)

I really hope this doesn't cause an evolution debate, despite the fact natural selection causing the inherent strengthening of a population is easy to prove.

It won't. Even the YECs accept natural selection. :cool: But, yeah, let's talk about that elsewhere if we're gonna.
 
Back
Top Bottom