Talk:Bath salts

History of bath salts

test I've got a vague memory that bath salts were originally used to recreate the waters of a particular spa in one's own home, but I can't find any references. If you have any sources for the history of bath salts, please help. --Slashme 07:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Types of bath salts

We need some copy about the types of bath salts. There are fizzy, non-fizzy, and perfumed bath salts. Do any of them actually claim to be good for cleaning? I know some of them contain emollients. Please help. --Slashme 07:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Borax Is Toxic

The Wikipedia article on borax claims that borax is very toxic to people, so why would it be used as a bath salt?24.83.178.11 10:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)BeeCier

Its toxicity has obviously been exaggerated. It has a long history of safe use in bath salts, and is also in Boraxo powdered hand soap, which is for both institutional and home use. Boric acid solution has a long history of ophthalmic use.216.179.3.47 02:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)robgood@bestweb.net

Dump borax into your laundry and get a nice, soft, VERY clean load. BratmanGodzilla (talk) 15:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but this advice is NOT evidence-based; it's psuedoscience (per WikiPolicy). The numbers say that any amount of borax is toxic and is simply unacceptable; besides, all bath salts should be banned because they don't do anything to help people anyway; they're just all "smoke and mirrors". 19:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.28.244.122 (talk)

Somebody doesn't understand toxicology

I don't know what you're talking about. I don't allow Borax or NaCl at my house. Any amount is toxic!!!!!! Thmazing 15:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Since when is an LD(50) of 2.66g/kg very toxic? 24.222.239.212 (talk) 02:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing

How would one cite an ingredients label on a current or discontinued product as a source? It's public material, yet not what one would ordinarily think of as a "publication", and not archived in the usual places. It should be considered authoritative, as it must be substantially true by law, although mistakes and frauds may occur. 216.179.1.18 03:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)robgood@bestweb.net

"Bath salts" drugs

"Officials fear bath salts are growing drug problem" [1]. This article deals with snorting bath salts rather than just inhaling them in a small room with the door closed (ie in the bath tub). However, it is strange how people tend to snort substances that the chemically sensitive complain bother them. However, you are not going to add this to the article because it would piss off your donors. He who pays the piper chooses the tune. 24.77.84.145 (talk) 01:39, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Will be added, but just as a hatnote. It's a misapplied label that's easy for the media to apply, so the appropriate course is to leave this one alone and link to the actual drug. Nate • (chatter) 01:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Copied from my talk page

Just made the mention of MDPV a hatnote in order to direct everyone to the right place. This is one of the times I'd rather the media just name the darned drug than apply a silly 'street name' on it to scare the parents. Nate • (chatter) 02:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I think it is better to point it to designer drug though, because "bath salts" has been used to refer to many different compounds in the last year and certainly not just MDPV. Thinking about it, it might be best to write a section in the designer drug article about why they are described as bath salts and then link there from the bath salts hat note. I'm not sure about in the US, as I haven't been keeping up with most of the media there, but here in the UK, the reason to describe them as bath salts is because it allowed websites to get around the Medicines Act, which prevents selling biologically active compounds for internal use. Are the headlines in the US along the lines of "teens snort toxic bath salts to get high" ?! Oh, I just realised that I didn't actually make a hat note to designer drugs when I removed the other stuff a couple of weeks ago, I meant to, but must have got distracted. Does this sound reasonable to you? SmartSE (talk) 10:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

See, I just learned about it tonight via the AP and all the stories from American media organizations about it (I had not heard about it before), and it's more localized to the South at this point. Yes, it is described the way you said it, though it's more older people than teens so far in the United States that have gotten it. MDPV was the one I found most in these stories so I linked to that as that article already described the 'bath salt' thing in detail. Certainly I'm sure this will come over heavy scrutiny later on though, so if you feel the need to redirect the hat to a more appropriate article, feel free. I just read a message on the talk page before I hatted about WMF 'hiding it under the rug' due to donors (certainly not the case), so I want to make sure we're neutral in this and we're not doing that. Nate • (chatter) 11:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah ok I see. I've been following it here in the UK for a long while now, as we seem a bit of ahead of the US in terms of designer drugs. I've changed the hatnote and added a new section to the designer drug article. I only have sources for the UK (I took these from mephedrone) but I'll try to find some more sources to discuss it from the US POV, though it may not be possible without OR/synth. Do you have a link to the article where you first read about it? I'll copy this over to the bath salts talk page, too just so it doesn't get repeated unneccesarily in the future, and so the IP editor know's for certain that there is no attempt whatsoever to censor anything. SmartSE (talk) 11:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The direct links really need to stay. I can guarantee that at least 90% of people searching for "bath salts" are doing so because it's a drug they've heard about on the news.Varkstuff (talk) 18:15, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

name

test please move to singular —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.170.59.138 (talk) 14:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it is correct to use the plural here because bath salts are a mixture of different salts, rather than only one. SmartSE (talk) 11:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Therapeutic Value of Bath Salts

Several significant claims are made which are unsourced. In particular, the medical claim regarding the effect of Epsom salt on 'muscles and nervous system' deserves more rigorous scrutiny. Any effects of Magnesium sulfate must be clearly identified with the context of the relevant study (e.g. studies of the compound in an intravenous or oral context should not be used to infer its effects as a bath salt) 108.67.71.45 (talk) 07:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

editsemiprotected

Please add a {{wiktionary|bath salt}} to the "see also" section

70.24.251.208 (talk) 11:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Not done: {{edit semi-protected}} is not required for edits to semi-protected, unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages. Mdann52 (talk) 15:08, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

At the time it was protected. I see that it expired before you answered. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 05:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Hatnote

I can almost guarantee that 90% of people who visit this article recently are looking for "bath salts" in the drug sense, because that term has been used in dozens of high-profile news stories in the past month. It's ridiculous that they should have to follow a link to just a sub-section of another article not even about bath salts in the drug sense, and then follow a link from there to the actual compounds in question. The direct links to the compounds with that slang name are what people are looking for, and they need to stay at the top so people can find what they're looking. Without those direct links, I even had trouble finding what I was looking for, let alone someone who doesn't know anything about organic compounds...Varkstuff (talk) 18:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Remove sentence on osmosis

Except for sweating, water doesn't pass through the skin by any method, osmosis included, and no amount of bath salts will change that. This article explains it well: "That swelling of the superficial skin cells is not due to osmosis, but rather to a limited “capillary action” in which water molecules flow into small spaces. (Paper towels absorb liquid the same way.) The stratum corneum is mostly waterproof precisely because osmosis is not a significant factor here. Those cells are dead. They contain mostly just dry keratin — not fluid containing dissolved substances which could osmotically “suck” water into them." The article also links to a bunch of published studies (as well as a few unpublished ones). Since the only evidence for the osmosis sentence is unscientific (often in conjunction with claims about how osmosis also pulls out 'toxins'), and since there's scientific evidence against it, I think the sentence tagged 'citation needed' should be removed. Chap0120 (talk) 13:25, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

References

Hearing no objections after nine days, I'm removing the offending sentence. Chap0120 (talk) 12:01, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Are they edible 😋

Based on the provided sources, bath salts are not intended for consumption. While Himalayan bath salts are edible and safe for consumption when specifically labeled as such, typical bath salts used for bathing contain additives like oils and fragrances that make them unsuitable for ingestion 2605:A200:3000:CBE:97C7:7A9A:8C00:E7A5 (talk) 18:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)