What's your best alcohol splash, disregarding scent?

[TomG]

The A/S that I use, above all others, for face feel, is Myrsol Plastic. I think about this product more as a face tonic than a A/S.
I'm neutral on the scent. And yes; it contains Lactic Acid.
Works for me.

 

[Drubbing]

I've been looking into research pieces following drubbing's comment. From what I've gathered, lactic acid and glycolic acid are both very good for rejuvenating skin, however they have been found to reduce melanin in two layers of human skin according to one of the reports. I don't have much doubt that this would indeed have some degree of negative affect on your skin in the long run if you were to be fairly exposed to sunlight and have fair skin. All in all I think it would probably be ok for someone like me, who hates sunlight anyway

It depends on where you get the 'research'. Go looking for a specific problem on the net, and it's very easy to find it. As to the quality of the sources, in my searching, I've found dubious ones predominate. In fact, you can find scientific dermatology research that shows how lactic can help treat pigmented lesions. That's minor skin damage, caused by the sun. This is why lactic is in face products.

So you can find stuff on both sides of the argument. But the point is, even if lactic has some negative effect, it's hardly going to be anything as compared to walking around in the sun without protection - which is proven capable of killing you, whether you've lactic-intact skin, or not. This is why I spend no time worrying about stuff like this.

 

[RazorPlay]

Great posts in this thread Drubbing. I totally agree. The most important, medically proven, chemical component of an aftershave routine from a health point of view is.... drum roll.... sunscreen!

Having said that, I wonder at the necessity of including many of the chemicals I see in cosmetic products. I still pursue an ideal to isolate exactly what I am looking for in an aftershave and only put things on my face that achieve my goals. For example:
- Antiseptic? (eg alcohol, stearate citrate)
- Astringent? (eg witch hazel, alum)
- Cooling? (eg menthol - and alcohol for evaporative cooling and to dissolve the menthol)
- Moisturiser? (eg gelatine, aloe vera, olive oil, etc etc - the list seems almost endless)
- Barrier Cream? (eg mineral oil, paraffin / sorbolene etc)
- Emulsifiers? (to mix everything together - unnecessary if you apply things sequentially yourself)
- Scent? (whatever smelly EO etc that you like)

Personally, I find I don't need the antiseptic / alcohol as I'm yet to have an outbreak of skin infections without it - and I believe it must dissolve and dry some skin oils. I also don't need an astringent unless I cut myself, which is a very localised application. I don't think cooling actually does anything really (not a big believer in closing pores etc) but that's fine for whoever likes the feeling, particularly in summer - I get that. I get some mileage out of moisturisers / barriers as I believe shaving is an unnatural act that requires me to add something back to my skin to protect it and I am trialling different versions of these myself to that end. Emulsifiers do nothing for me and scent I do with a real cologne - not through an aftershave. Otherwise they clash.

I don't want to take this thread off topic and have no real suggestions for the OP's question directly, other than to perhaps look at the above list and pick out the things you actually want to achieve from your aftershave routine and think about the option of doing them sequentially, rather than all with one product... The cooling requirement can be done with just your own mix of perfumer's alcohol and menthol, watered down (with water) to whatever level you are comfortable with - leaving you free to apply whatever else you want on the list afterwards.

 

[Bucephalus]

Being a 67-year old, I've got the skin of a 67-year old and I'm too old to give a fekk (think Mrs. Brown) how it looks.
It's got to last me only a few more years anyway!!

 

[alfredus]

My 2 cents: there is almost no money in research for negative proof - ie showing the harmfulness of a compound.

There are some rules guiding medicinal products, but very little for food and even less for cosmetics.

So while there are many companies interested bringing new products to the market, nobody is investing money to stop them.

Hence very little to no research can be found about the negative impacts of compounds...and when you find them, it is usually very late in the game.

Then you have paid research trying to discredit good research (see tobacco industry) and on top of that you have the burden of proof.

While it is relatively easy to attribute lead poisoning to...well lead, it takes decades to do attribute mesothelioma to asbestos...

So while there might be no scientific evidence for the negative impact of many compounds - for me personally the burden of proof is the other way round. As long as there is no proof showing something is harmless for a certain use - I'll try to avoid it.

This is of course especially true for non-essential items, and even more so when I have a choice.

I would never question the dangers of Dad's chemotherapy - not much choice there and the only way of saving his life.

But why use a soap with a bunch of unnecessary ingredients, when there are so many clean choices readily available?

 

[Drubbing]

My 2 cents: there is almost no money in research for negative proof - ie showing the harmfulness of a compound.

There are some rules guiding medicinal products, but very little for food and even less for cosmetics.

This is complete rubbish and I say so from direct experience in two of these industries for most of my life. "Some rules?" Do you know how long it takes for medicines to be approved and the stages of testing they need to go through, before they even get to human trials? Long enough for it to be the domain of multinationals who can afford a research attrition rate of 80% of more, sinking hundreds of millions into products that never earn a cent. The ones that do, have to cover the cost of the failures. Even then, every drug has side effects (or it has no effects), so everything has a risk/benefit ratio, with chemo - essentially a carefully dosed poison - having one of the highest.

Despite the ignorance and fear mongering of fear mongering sites, medicine, food and cosmetics are extremely tightly regulated industries that can only use ingredients that are known to be safe, and have a long history of being so.

In the pharma world, they are wanting to prove new compounds, hence the highest regulations and burdens of proof, efficacy and safety exist. Cosmetics get no free ride in dabbling with unknown substances, just because they're topical. The Paraben saga is a net-fear beat up that grew legs, so that many in the the industry decided to drop it rather than disprove it, as there were other alternatives. The fear mongers will probably move onto one of those next.

As for food, being directly involved in food safety, quality systems and processing via my wife's business, you have no idea of the regulation and quality control that goes on behind the scenes. It is vast and is a whole industry in itself. We have some of the tightest regulations in food production and processing in the world. As in any industry, there are cowboys, but they rarely last, because their lack of diligence usually sees them fail.

 

[alfredus]

Sorry @Drubbing - of course you are right.

I have just made dozens of new compounds, analysed them, reported them to the world for the first time - including toxicology studies - in collaboration with pharmaceutical companies...but what do I know.

 

[todras]

Sorry @Drubbing - of course you are right.

I have just made dozens of new compounds, analysed them, reported them to the world for the first time - including toxicology studies - in collaboration with pharmaceutical companies...but what do I know.

You are also eminently qualified and widely published in highly reputable, peer reviewed journals having worked at a dizzying array of leading Universities and institutions.

Based on your qualifications, expertise, high technical proficiency, recognition in your field, extensive and well documented vocational achievements, in addition to the reasoned, logical post you made here as a professional working in the field it is quite clear that you must be wrong, and are being a bloody pork chop.

 

[SpeedyPC]

You are also eminently qualified and widely published in highly reputable, peer reviewed journals having worked at a dizzying array of leading Universities and institutions.

Based on your qualifications, expertise, high technical proficiency, recognition in your field, extensive and well documented vocational achievements, in addition to the reasoned, logical post you made here as a professional working in the field it is quite clear that you must be wrong, and are being a bloody pork chop.

+1

 

[Anthony Hunter]

THAT is a fine piece of meat.

 

[filobiblic]

Well THAT was an interesting thread! [emoji51]
Alcohol - meat - shaving and bare-knuckle fighting in the chemistry labs...

 

[TomG]

Well THAT was an interesting thread! [emoji51]
Alcohol - meat - shaving and bare-knuckle fighting in the chemistry labs...

Gotta love a robust debate!

 

[Drubbing]

Sorry @Drubbing - of course you are right.

I have just made dozens of new compounds, analysed them, reported them to the world for the first time - including toxicology studies - in collaboration with pharmaceutical companies...but what do I know.

You know your end of things, I know mine, and I did a decade in pharma too. They do a lot more than just release new compounds into the wild after they synthesise them. They just don't get to do that. Some new compounds take 10-20 years to get to market, while they trial them, work on the economic viability, and work out the likelihood of getting TGA approval, and better still Medicare listing. Surely you know this?

Plenty stay in the lab they were synthesised in, as they never look like earning back the money put into finding out if they'll earn any money back, and losses are cut.

 

[Drubbing]

You are also eminently qualified and widely published in highly reputable, peer reviewed journals having worked at a dizzying array of leading Universities and institutions.

Based on your qualifications, expertise, high technical proficiency, recognition in your field, extensive and well documented vocational achievements, in addition to the reasoned, logical post you made here as a professional working in the field it is quite clear that you must be wrong, and are being a bloody pork chop.

If you think being a published scientist is what's required to have the industry experience I have, then you probably don't know the topics. I particularly addressed alfredus' lack of understanding of food processing and safety, and this one seemed to have been let go through to the keeper. He made sweeping statements, and they were challenged. If I didn't have the background to do so, I wouldn't have.

 

[borked]

Oie, the pair of you!
There's no nees to be dicks about your respective qualifications and experience, as I respect you both mutually and am wiser for what you BOTH share within these forums.
So please, don't put me and likely others too, in a position of feeling compelled to choose sides, as no one wins in that game!