Revision history [back]

Indeed, this article mentions that "hyperaccumulator" species are used for phytoremediation of contaminated land, but assessment of the risk in a particular locality would require a detailed survey of soil composition and species harvested for wood, which probably ain't gonna happen.

While I agree with John that use of ash from any harvested wood is probably better than nothing, it does pose a direct threat to skin integrity. Anyone who has ever handled an alkaline solution will recall that it feels slippery. This is because it rapidly saponifies the oils in the user's own skin. In other words, the user is producing a small amount of soap from oils in the user's skin instead of from vegetable oil or another source of animal fat. (Remember, we are animals, too, and the Nazis are reported to have manufactured cakes of soap from human fat in extermination camps.)

While "self-saponification" is kind to the environment, it clearly poses a risk to the integrity of users' skin, which could lead to dermatitis or infection by pathogens. I therefore think that users of wood ash would benefit from being advised to use minimal amounts and be vigilant that their skin does not deteriorate. Of course, external application of oil or fat to the skin would help to replace oils stripped from the skin.

Indeed, this article mentions that "hyperaccumulator" species are used for phytoremediation of contaminated land, but assessment of the risk in a particular locality would require a detailed survey of soil composition and species harvested for wood, which probably ain't gonna happen.

While I agree with John that use of ash from any harvested wood is probably better than nothing, it does pose a direct threat to skin integrity. the user's skin. Anyone who has ever handled an alkaline solution will recall that it feels slippery. This is because it rapidly saponifies the oils in the user's own skin. In other words, the user is producing a small amount of soap from oils in the user's skin instead of from vegetable oil or another source of animal fat. (Remember, we are animals, too, and the Nazis are reported to have manufactured cakes of soap from human fat in extermination camps.)

While "self-saponification" is kind to the environment, it clearly poses a risk to the integrity of users' skin, which could lead to dermatitis or infection by pathogens. I therefore think that users of wood ash would benefit from being advised to use minimal amounts and be vigilant that their skin does not deteriorate. Of course, external application of oil or fat to the skin would help to replace oils stripped from the skin.

Indeed, this article mentions that "hyperaccumulator" 'hyperaccumulator' species are used for phytoremediation of contaminated land, but assessment of the risk in a particular locality would require a detailed survey of soil composition and species harvested for wood, which probably ain't gonna happen.

While I agree with John that use of ash from any harvested wood is probably better than nothing, it does pose a direct threat to the user's skin. Anyone who has ever handled an alkaline solution will recall that it feels slippery. This is because it rapidly saponifies the oils in the user's own skin. In other words, the user is producing a small amount of soap from oils in the user's skin instead of from vegetable oil or another source of animal fat. (Remember, we are animals, too, and the Nazis are were reported to have manufactured cakes of soap from human fat in their extermination camps.)

While "self-saponification" is kind to the environment, it clearly poses a risk to the integrity of users' skin, which could lead to dermatitis or infection by pathogens. I therefore think that users of wood ash would benefit from being advised to use minimal amounts and be vigilant that their skin does not deteriorate. Of course, external application of oil or fat to the skin would help to replace oils stripped from the skin.