Washing & Personal Hygiene while Bushwalking [split]

[corvus]

Methinks we are all getting a bit anal about what we use or don't use "in the woods",the very nature of us being out there causes pollution or degradation so we all need to be aware and "tread lightly " or just hang around the Urban shopping precincts and polute that area
c

[the_camera_poser]

Actually Corvus, you have inspired me to start a new thread!

[walkinTas]

Methinks we are all getting a bit anal about what we use or don't use "in the woods"

Corvus, are you suggesting we are worrying unnecessarily, or are you saying we don't worry enough? I think people get a bit lazy and complacent about what they use in their day to day lives and some people don't give much thought at all to the amount of pollution it causes, some do care, some don't give a toss and some are just complacent. When going bushwalking there seems to be an added incentive (and rightly so) to think about what we are packing and what we are taking with us and consequences like pollution.

the very nature of us being out there causes pollution or degradation so we all need to be aware and "tread lightly "

You are right, just being there causes problems and I'm sure many bushwalkers have toss it around in their minds. That's why the whole LNT movement got started. The idea is that, for natures sake, we either minimize our impact or we don't go at all.

[Nuts]

ANAL... What a horrible, charmless word for a teenager to use

[corvus]

Methinks we are all getting a bit anal about what we use or don't use "in the woods"

Corvus, are you suggesting we are worrying unnecessarily, or are you saying we don't worry enough? I think people get a bit lazy and complacent about what they use in their day to day lives and some people don't give much thought at all to the amount of pollution it causes, some do care, some don't give a toss and some are just complacent. When going bushwalking there seems to be an added incentive (and rightly so) to think about what we are packing and what we are taking with us and consequences like pollution.

the very nature of us being out there causes pollution or degradation so we all need to be aware and "tread lightly "

You are right, just being there causes problems and I'm sure many bushwalkers have toss it around in their minds. That's why the whole LNT movement got started. The idea is that, for natures sake, we either minimize our impact or we don't go at all.

What I meant was that on this Forum we were getting a bit too intense regarding what we do and don't do and I tend to suspect that the majority of members "do the right thing" most of the time in all aspects of life and pay a bit more care in "the bush".
We are after all only human and by being so a selfish bunch
c

[tasadam]

What I meant was that on this Forum we were getting a bit too intense regarding what we do and don't do and I tend to suspect that the majority of members "do the right thing" most of the time in all aspects of life and pay a bit more care in "the bush".
c

Yeah, but being a public forum it's a good place to discuss it - find out what people do, and so long as we're not flaming people (unless they're using soap in your drinking water), then it's a good place to discuss it. All for the sake of learning from each other eh?
Another thing is that there are many MANY people out there that browse the forum and read our posts without ever joining or contributing or expressing their views - so it's good to cover all aspects of a topic, so long as it's friendly.

What I mean is, intense can be constructive...

[Nuts]

I suspect Corvus is a bit put off thinking that i was having a go at his wipes?
Maybe i'm wrong, cant see much else that was anything but everyone agreeing with each other (and wTas stating the clear summary of MiB/LNT with washing)...? Though I can see how my post could be (perhaps predictably) taken for more than it is....

At the same time, I dont see anything wrong with taking things a step further, even if just for the sake of discussion... and personally i do get a bit tired of always adding IMO's, No Offences, Nothing High Brows or (as with the wipes) Starting with the fact that 'I had them in front of me(s)'.... anyhow, no big deal, and speaking of tired..... yawn...

[walkinTas]

What I meant was that on this Forum we were getting a bit too intense regarding what we do and don't do and I tend to suspect that the majority of members "do the right thing" most of the time.

Corvus, LNT and Low Impact Hiking are ideals. Something to aim for. Like best practice in many industries and jobs are ideals. I know you're aware that these principles have been adopted by many government departments as a best practice concept. Now there is no implied criticism when people fall short of an ideal. The way I see it, talking about what we could do or could aim to do doesn't mean we are "intense", it is just acknowledging that we are aware of best practice and the need for improvements.

Just because people are aware of the ideals doesn't mean they follow them. For example, how many people actually do walk 60m away from a lake or stream before washing themselves or their dishes? How many people really do walk 60m away from a track, lake or stream before digging a cat whole? How many people strain there food scraps out of their dish-washing water and carry these out of the bush? You seem convinced that everyone does the right thing. The evidence in the bush (and all over this site) suggests you're wrong. I have no idea whether forum members are average or above average in this regard, but hope that they are all exceptional LNT practitioners.

As tasadam pointed out, many people read these discussions. If we discuss the concepts and ideals here, then hopefully more people will think about what it means to "leave no traces" and will try harder to live up to these ethics.

Does all that sound too intense? So, let me see - hhmmm! How to be passionate without being intense?

Those interested can listen to a presentation (no reading) about Cameron Crowe and Leave No Traces Australia at Paddy Pallin Podcasts or visit the USA Leave-no-traces web site and the Australian Leave-no-traces website. You can watch a slideshow presentation on Leave-No-Trace in the USA.

[kt700]

I always carry baby wipes, as they are refreshing to wipe your face with at the end of the day. Until this weekend, thought they were okay, until it poured with rain and I got baby wipe fluid in my eyes from the runoff. Quite painful. But will probably still continue to use them

[corvus]

[quote="walkinTas"] How many people really do walk 60m away from a track, lake or stream before digging a cat whole? [quote= walkinTas]


Does all that sound too intense? So, let me see - hhmmm! How to be passionate without being intense?

walkinTas,
Why are you interring a cat ?? or did you mean a cat hole ,did I get it right !!
Touche.
corvus

[corvus]

{quote="walkinTas"]

Does all that sound too intense? So, let me see - hhmmm! How to be passionate without being intense?

Cobber try to see the wood from the trees as a Dominie you should know this ,my comments are related to picky comments about minimum soap use ,toothpaste ,sunscreen, Deet insecticide (for leeches eh!! Adam) arsenal wipes ,personal wipes, deodorants, make-up,lipstick and all the things we mere humans need to feel good .
Can we stop the sanctimonious BS and be honest with ourselves and admit we are not perfect and transgress more often than not in our every day lives unless you are a Saint

[Nuts]

Thats a bid harsh mate... you seem on the wrong track to me....anyhow...Tackle this for starters, i'll get to the other things on your list soon enough (there are alternatives for all of them that are less harmful to the environment (as well as your body)

(warning.... intense stuff to follow, place head in back in sand if likely to be offended )

kt700, There are many things that could be in the wipes that can cause eye irritation (also found in many commercially available soaps/shampoo's...) Other things are equally or even more harmful but the main ones that I gather would be noticed as eye irritation are:

Propylene Glycol (ie found in 'wet ones')

A cosmetic form of mineral oil found in automatic brake and hydraulic fluid and industrial antifreeze. In the skin and hair, propylene glycol works as a humescent, which causes retention of moisture content of skin or cosmetic products by preventing the escape of moisture or water. The Material Safety Data Sheet warns users to avoid skin contact with propylene glycol as this strong skin irritant can cause liver abnormalities and kidney damage.

Other (known) health effects. Eye irritation, skin irritation, skin drying, defatting.

Ethylene glycol

Commonly used in acrylic paints, brake fluid, antifreeze, tile grout, primer, sealant paste, floor polish, tyre sealant and shoe polish.

Known health effects: throat irritation, headache, backache, kidney problems, oedema (swelling), necrosis (cell death). If swallowed, can cause drowsiness, and slurred speech, possibly stupor, vomiting, respiratory failure, coma, convulsions, and death

or, also common:
Sodium Lauryl Sulfate (SLS)

Used in many soaps, shampoos, detergents, toothpastes and is a very effective 'foaming agent' (chemically known as surfactant).

SLS is an ester of Sulphuric acid - SLS is also known as "Sulfuric acid monododecyl ester sodium salt", however there are over 150 different names by which it is known. SLS is commonly contaminated with dioxane, a known carcinogen. It cannot be metabolised by the liver and its effects are therefore cumulative.

A report published in the Journal of The American College of Toxicology in 1983 showed that concentrations as low as 0.5% could cause irritation and concentrations of 10-30% caused skin corrosion and severe irritation. National Institutes of Health "Household Products Directory" of chemical ingredients lists over 80 products that contain sodium lauryl sulfate. Some soaps have concentrations of up to 30%, which the ACT report called "highly irritating and dangerous".

So why is a dangerous chemical like sodium lauryl sulfate used in our soaps and shampoos?

The answer is simple - it is cheap. The sodium lauryl sulfate found in our soaps is exactly the same as you would find in a car wash or even a garage, where it is used to degrease car engines.

In the same way as it dissolves the grease on car engines, sodium lauryl sulfate also dissolves the oils on your skin, which can cause a drying effect. It is also well documented that it denatures skin proteins, which causes not only irritation, but also allows environmental contaminants easier access to the lower, sensitive layers of the skin.

Perhaps most worryingly, SLS is also absorbed into the body from skin application. Once it has been absorbed, one of the main effects of sodium lauryl sulfate is to mimic the activity of the hormone Oestrogen. This has many health implications and may be responsible for a variety of health problems from PMS and Menopausal symptoms to dropping male fertility and increasing female cancers such as breast cancer, where oestrogen levels are known to be involved.

These ^ are a cut and paste there is are a long list of chemical ingredients that manufacturers are only too willing to get through safety standards. It is suprising reading of how many things that were initially not allowed, eventually find a way into the market (driven by cost mainly (or desirable effect at the expense of health)

[corvus]

I will reiterate getting too intense ! one arsenal wipe per day does not a catastrophe induce so why research all those sites for info on that which we know already poison's our lives
corvus

[tasadam]

If swallowed, can cause drowsiness, and slurred speech, possibly stupor, vomiting,

Yeah, I rememba theese....

[corvus]

[quote="Nuts"]Thats a bid harsh mate... \[quote}
What you are a saint !! BS and BS again
C

[Nuts]

I will reiterate getting too intense ! one arsenal wipe per day does not a catastrophe induce so why research all those sites for info on that which we know already poison's our lives
corvus

What?? Have you been poisoning you liver this evening? Where do you get that anyone has mentioned a catastrophe?
As for research, it's either that or blind acceptance... which one are you finding more offensive and why? (Is Monsanto funding your retirement?) If you are genuinely interested there are many alternatives that are better for you (and the ecology), if not then why care? Do you have an 'intensity meter' are you the 'thought police'?

Thats a bid harsh mate... \[quote}
What you are a saint !! BS and BS again
C

What I was reffering to was this comment to wtas:

Can we stop the sanctimonious BS and be honest with ourselves and admit we are not perfect and transgress more often than not in our every day lives unless you are a Saint

Which was what seemed to me to be way off track, not that you were not entitled to your opinion, just that you seem to be taking (what was) a friendly discussion and putting a personal spin on it... Taking Offense, like I said, though it would be interesting (or perhaps not) to have you cut the BS and tell us all why you are offended?.....No one has said 'this is what You should do'?, 'this is what You should think'... though you seem keen to draw the line for others.....?

Everyones comments had been 'on topic' until we now need to digress to deal with this (same old?) attitude once again

[Son of a Beach]

Could you guys please eiher knock it off altogether or find a more pleasant way to make comments that are more worthwhile?

Thanks.

[corvus]

Oh ! I am a naughty boy ,sorry sir mea culpa however just shows what a few well chosen words can achieve
c

[Nuts]

yawn...

[corvus]

Likewise
c

[corvus]

For the record Nuts and corvus are friends both passionate in what we believe in and that there is no acrimony in our posts just friendly (if at times intense) friendly banter
Speaking only for corvus of course, Nuts can add his comments as is his want
c

[photohiker]

For what it's worth (not sure if this thread can be rescued at this point )

Baby wipes, wet ones or whatever else you might call them, do not have to come form the same factory as Chemical Ali's remedies. How does this ingredient list look like in comparison to the one you have been looking at?:

Ingredients: purified water, certified organic aloe barbadensis* (certified organic aloe vera for healthy skin), glycerin, vitamin e, potassium sorbate (a natural preservative), polysorbate 20 (surfactant derived from fruit and berries), citric acid.
*certified organic ingredients

Wot Not Baby Wipes. Made in Australia too. Biodegradeable (yes, yes, I know.)

[walkinTas]

walkinTas,
Why are you interring a cat ?? or did you mean a cat hole ,did I get it right !!
Touche.
corvus

touché idea! Well spotted. But no dead cat jokes, I'll resist the temptation to stray. Perhaps after that effort I should just leave comedy to the comedians.

Cobber try to see the wood from the trees as a Dominie you should know this ,my comments are related to picky comments about minimum soap use ,toothpaste ,sunscreen, Deet insecticide (for leeches eh!! Adam) arsenal wipes ,personal wipes, deodorants, make-up,lipstick and all the things we mere humans need to feel good.
Can we stop the sanctimonious BS and be honest with ourselves and admit we are not perfect and transgress more often than not in our every day lives unless you are a Saint

Dominie is a bit intense! In this field I'm more learner than teacher.

And I'm no Saint mate, I'm a Blues man.

Anyway, I thought I addressed the matter of honesty when I suggested that LNT was "something to aim for" when bushwalking. All the things you mention were targeted in the '80 and '90 and alternatives exist and are discussed in the literature - but this is the place to talk about these things and get more info. This thread is about personal hygiene and and I think that people who walk in the bush should be aware that burying "personal wipes" or baby wipes or tampons or anything other than plain toilet paper is now considered bad practice. These things do not breakdown quickly. Even burying toilet paper is less than ideal practice in alpine environments (world leading Tasmanian research). It is also fact that soap, insecticides and other chemicals are toxic to native marine life and may be introduced into streams in toxic quantities if you wash directly in the stream. It is all interesting and all worthy of being raised and discussed. The 60m (200 ft) from a water body or stream rule is so that chemicals and pathogens will have time to pass through soil and degrade naturally before reaching the water, thus lessening the impact.

[Dominie mode]And if you must use baby wipes, use new types of baby wipes that have on perfume, no alcohol, no chlorine and no harsh chemicals. And please don't bury them, carry them out - they do not decompose fast enough to be left behind.[/Dominie mode] Edit: or consider the photohiker alternative (he posted while I was typing).

In the end people will make their own choices once they have the facts in front of them. Sure Corvus, we are not perfect - I am sure many of us could do better (I include myself). I am also sure we only know we could do better because we talk about these things. That's what I love about this site, you can learn about new things. Even old dogs can learn new tricks.

[corvus]

Still learning and will do till the day they nail down the lid
c

[Ent]

Content removed by poster

[Son of a Beach]

Dihydrogen Monoxide has a 100% mortality rate - everyone that absorbs it eventually dies. And yet they allow huge percentages of it to be included in our drinking water. Apparently they nearly got it banned in the US a while back, but failed.

[tasadam]

Dihydrogen Monoxide has a 100% mortality rate - everyone that absorbs it eventually dies. And yet they allow huge percentages of it to be included in our drinking water. Apparently they nearly got it banned in the US a while back, but failed.

Pure water also has a 100% mortality rate. Everyone that absorbs it eventually dies too.

EDIT Oh I see
Thought we were talking about some chemical.
Huge percentages indeed, like, 100?

[Ent]

Content removed by poster

[Nuts]

My initial posts mentioning the chemical makeup of soaps was just sharing what I had found with a little research. Sure there are many hazards, some not kept in perspective perhaps, many still unknown. Behind all this is the underlying fact that some Very big companies make a huge amount of money from these products. Like most people, i guess, I just trust(ed) that safety standards and regulations will/would act as a buffer from anything too hazardous.

It doesnt take much research (or imagination), however, to realise that this is more an ideal than a fact. for those who have 'been around a while' (especially) you only need to look back at some of the nasties that have slipped through the net in the past.

A bit of reading seems to paint a picture more like 'keeping the wolves (those that stand to profit) from the door'.
After all, using a cheaper, more hazardous alternative can corner the market for its effect or add up to millions saved. This can be (and has been) at expense of some horrible outcomes on both the users and their environment.

There is even no clear evidence to support the fact that many 'natural' alternatives are better.

What I get from this is pretty basic (keep it simple stupid). With a bit more effort and thought less 'complex' products will do.
It doesn't appear to really require detailed research or a thesis citing endless impressive sources? Its good to realise that other people (besides me) will continue to ponder these things.

[Nuts]

ps... yes, Corvus(aka), is a mate... I have a degree in patience