Talk:Himalayan salt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Health Benefits[edit]

Several websites suggest that these salt lamps can help alleviate symptoms of allergies and asthma due to some sort of ion neutralization. The only scholarly article I found on the subject is here [1], but I was surprised Wikipedia didn't have anything to say on the subject. For something purportedly known for centuries, as several of these sites, including the linked scholarly article, assert, there should be some mention of said benefits. Circ (talk) 04:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Link pops open a pdf titled Exposure to illuminated salt lamp increases 5-HT metabolism: A serotonergic perspective to its beneficial effects, written by Hajra Naz* and Darakhshan J Haleem at the Neurochemistry and Biochemical Neuropharmacology Research Unit, Department of Biochemistry, University of Karachi, Karachi, Pakistan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Circ (talkcontribs) 04:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

WPFood assessment[edit]

Low importance C-class article, regional "health salts" with minimal impact on the global market.

This article needs attention in the following areas:

  • Copy edit for spelling, punctuation and grammar.

--Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 07:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Not rock salt?[edit] [Unreliable fringe source?] This page] says it's produced in Nepal. But it also says it's not a form of rock salt. If it's not a form of rock salt, what is it, and why doesn't the page say what it is, if not a form of rock salt? Badagnani (talk) 17:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

If it is rock salt, mined from the earth (rather than made by evaporating seawater), this should be stated in the article. Badagnani (talk) 07:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not Rocksalt (as in the stuff that is put on the roads), but it is salt from the mountains (as opposed to table salt that is chemically created or sea salt), so some companies might market it as rock salt or rock-based salt. Personally, I don't like the term because it confuses too many people... I think it should be left out to minimize confusion. Burleigh2 (talk) 16:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

German article[edit]

The "Himalayan salt" comes from Pakistan and has nothing to do with the Himalaya. It is an esoteric fantasy name. See the German article [2]. (talk) 19:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Please propose changes to the article (with translations from German Wikipedia, as well as links to the original sources) here before making large-scale changes. Badagnani (talk) 19:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Nepal or Pakistan?[edit]

Some [Unreliable fringe source?] state that it is produced in Nepal. Badagnani (talk) 19:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

It is from the Salt Range in Pakistan. It is a completely normal salt without any therapeutic benefit. It is a cheat and you should not distribut this esoteric nonsense. (talk) 20:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Number one, the source states that the individual procured it from Pakistan. Number two, it is possible that what is sold as "Himalayan salt" may have more than one point of origin. Pink salt is also produced in the U.S. state of Utah and falsification may of course occur. Badagnani (talk) 20:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The Himalayan mountains span across a few different countries and the salt mines span that difference. There is a major mine in Pakistan and I've heard there is one in China and other neighboring countries... not all sources are going to be from Pakistan. Burleigh2 (talk) 16:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, in Germany we have "Himalayan salt" with origin of Poland but the most of the salt with this name comes from Pakistan. In the himalayan region they dont have salt at all. In Germany there are official warnings of ministries because of this salt. It is a cheat and has no positiv effects for the health. (talk) 20:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

If specific companies selling "Himalayan salt" can be shown, with valid sources, to be fraudulently passing off salt that is not from the Himalaya Mountains as "Himalayan salt," this information should be added to the article, with sources. Are there sources showing that the Himalaya Mountains (and/or foothills) do not possess any deposits of rock salt? Badagnani (talk) 20:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Also agreed. There are companies that get a raw material from somewhere, then have it shipped to another country to process it so it can legally be listed as "product of __" or "made in __" for marketing. Granted, that's not a very good marketing practice to me, but it happens with some of the more sketchy companies... or those where the nearest processing plant is across the border just a few miles from where the raw material is procured. Burleigh2 (talk) 16:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
"Himalayan salt" is NEVER from the Himalaya Mountains. It can not be of from the Himalaya Mountains because they dont have any salt there at all! (talk) 20:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

You were asked "Are there sources showing that the Himalaya Mountains (and/or foothills) do not possess any deposits of rock salt?" You did not answer this. Badagnani (talk) 20:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Sourced: Nepal has no salt deposits[edit]

It appears as if Mercola is deceiving the public when stating that his salt comes from Nepal (unless he means that it is produced elsewhere and simply resold, and purchased by him, in Nepal. See [3]. Badagnani (talk) 20:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see which states that Nepal does have salt mines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Also see which talks extensively about native salt in Nepal, which is does not have iodine. It is the reason that the Nepalese import salt from India.

Also see the film, which is a realistic drama, depicting the story of how Nepalese natives take their salt crystals down the mountain, once a year for trade.

These are consistent with Mercola's claim of how difficult it was to get the Nepalese salt. [Unreliable fringe source?] (search for "Nepal"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Sourced: Tibet is a producer of rock salt[edit]

It appears that your unsourced assertion was incorrect. Tibet has long produced rock salt, using it domestically as well as exporting it. See [4]. Badagnani (talk) 20:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Heavy metals[edit]

The German Wikipedia article states that Himalayan salt contains heavy metals, such as mercury, lead, and cadmium. This analysis does show all three of these. Badagnani (talk) 19:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

No, the German Wikipedia article say, that it contains 10 elements (ministrial source) and if it would contain really 84 elements (as Peter Ferreira asserts) than it would contains elements like mercury, lead or cadmium. But it does not. It is a normal salt without any differences to other salts (just the price is much higher). (talk) 20:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Sea salt (and all salt other than refined salt) also contains all those elements, including the heavy metals, though often in parts per million or parts per billion. Badagnani (talk) 20:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Sea salt contains about 15 elements, but all salts (equally "Himalayan salt") contains 97-98 sodium chloride und just a very small part of other elements. (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

That's absolutely incorrect. I study sea salt and can assure you that all unrefined salts produced from evaporated seawater contain detectable amounts of up to 100 or more trace elements. Badagnani (talk) 20:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Another example: [5]. Badagnani (talk) 20:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Section History[edit]

First of all I want to thank for assistance because my English is lousy and so I cannot write parts of the article myself. The article is much better now. Only the section "History" is IMHO still wrong. This salt is (generally) from Pakistan, so it cannot be formed in the foot of the Himalayan Mountains. There are no evidence that this salt was deemed as the “King of salt” and that it has ability to preserve meat at a longer duration than other salt. This are assertions of the sellers without attest. Because of that I would propose to erase the whole selection "Historie". -- (talk) 19:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You're right that "King of Salt" and meat preservation would need a reference. The same is done for marketers of the wolfberry, who claim that it was called "happy berry" in Chinese; no source has ever been found for that. Regarding the Himalayas, the article Himalayas does state that the system includes mountain ranges in other nearby countries, including Pakistan. Badagnani (talk) 20:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Is there any source for the possibility that rock salt mined in Poland has been sold as "Himalayan salt"? Badagnani (talk) 20:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The working idea of how the salt veins got there is that packets of the ancient oceans around that area were caught in the tectonic plates as they rose up into the mountain range, the salt water (with all of its minerals) dried into the veins of salt, and that's how they came to be. Does that help clear up the confusion of how there is salt in the mountain? Burleigh2 (talk) 16:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging[edit]

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 15:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Tagging for neutrality...[edit]

This article is a confusing combination of original research, or possibly fringe theories ("This is why pure sodium chloride causes problems for one's health which are not proven for the use of Himalayan salt"), commercialism, and even, apparently vandalism. ("Tommy is the original founder of Himilayan salt.') Piano non troppo (talk) 07:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Use of *marketing term* to categorize the term *Himalayan salt*[edit]

The first sentence's use of the word *marketing* before *term* is misleading.

The person who undid my removal of the word said this: "It's mined in the Punjab, so Himalaya can only accurately be described as a marketing term."

This conclusion is wrong for three reasons:

1. When a term refers to a thing from one region but is named for another nearby, it is a logical fallacy (appeal to probability; also, a fallacy of exclusive premises) to conclude that the sole reason for this has to be that it was created by advertisers. (a) The term *could* have been created by advertisers, but that does not mean it *was*; (b) The term refers to the Himalayas, and the salt is mined in the Salt Region, but it does not follow without proof that, because the term seems inaccurate, the discrepancy *must have been created by advertisers*.

2. "": "The Himalayas . . . form the northern rampart of the subcontinent, and their western ranges occupy the entire northern end of Pakistan." People draw false distinctions between Pakistan and the Himalayas and the use of *marketing* feeds this idea, particularly since the article stresses that the salt "is mined in Pakistan" to discount the idea it is mined in the Himalayas.

3. Since the only term by which this specifically sourced pink salt is known is *Himalayan salt*, the notion that it is solely a marketing term is therefore false. *Marketing* suggests that the *only* sources which use the term are advertisements and discussions about advertising.

If a contributor can show etymologically that term was originally created by advertisers, then they should add a section to the entry which shows this. A contributor could say that the area is referred to as the "Salt Range" and is next to the Himalayas and add the *theory* that the term was created by advertisers, but to do so legitimately, they'd have to quote a legitimate source.

If the facts presented suggest the possibility that marketing *might* be the source of the term, then the reader is free to draw their own conclusion and no pejorative is needed.

That's why the word *marketing* should be deleted from the first sentence.

However, the following article (which is too anecdotal to use as a source) makes mention of what might be the first use of the term by a marketer, and if the idea is substantiated, a section of the article could suggest there is reason to consider it:

This is the book by Peter Ferreira which is alluded to in the article as being full of false claims. It was published in 2003; the article claims Ferreira began selling and lecturing about Himalayan salt in "the '90s":

Sepium Gronagh (talk) 20:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Pink color[edit]

Which elements does the pink color come from? Badagnani (talk) 18:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Iron(III) oxide. -- (talk) 19:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Possible Health issue[edit]

gioto (talk) 09:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Where is the "non-existent Himalaya Institute of Biophysical Research" referenced in the book?[edit]

I have this book and I can't find reference to this lab that supposedly doesn't exist. When I looked on Yahoo, there are several other websites that seem to use exactly the script that's used in this article, but none lend a reference to the original source. Can anyone point to a page number or a section I can verify in? Burleigh2 (talk) 16:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I just looked at the page that is cited in this article (which is just a page bashing the product) and the reference that they use to cite that the facility doesn't exist is to a non-existent page. In other words, there is no citing for their statement and I can find no mention of this facility in the book. Until I can find some proof that the book references this institute, I'm removing that clip from the article... if it's in the book and someone can point where so it can be verified, we can put that part back in. Burleigh2 (talk) 18:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I think that the passage about the book is dispensable. If the book show a different analysis of the chemical composition of Himalayan salts and don´t reference any source, it is unusable for this article.-- (talk) 07:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry reverted back, should have read here first!!gioto (talk) 08:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the user 85. (not sure what to call someone identified with a number, sorry), but the book does have a lot of in depth info about Himalayan Crystal Salt and deserves to be mentioned as a resource at least. Burleigh2 (talk) 15:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Page 129 of the book (English edition) states "The Institute of Biophysical Research has implemented an extensive study under the guidance of Peter Ferreira". Greenman (talk) 10:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I just grabbed my copy of the book (English version, ISBN 978-3-9523390-0-8)... page 129 talks about the vibration frequencies of various things in the human body. There is no mention of the Institute at all. It looks like you have a different version of the book.Burleigh2 (talk) 14:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Picture of Peter Ferreira (Mr. Ferreira is the director of the Institute for Biophysical Research) This Institute is mentioned here [6] as being in Germany and the following [7] makes for an interesting read. gioto (talk) 10:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
[snip edit: nevermind about the name... it's a different Institute than the Vegas one, but the rest of my statement is still a valid point] ...a web search turned up nothing. Why would they have to have a website? There are some companies that have no phone systems (or no listing in the phone book) because they wouldn't take incoming calls or only work through regular mail or E-mail. It doesn't mean they don't exist necessarily... I'm going to do further research on this. Burleigh2 (talk) 14:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I got some info back on my research. We have a few items from Barbara Hendel (including the book, which is how I've found out a lot of information about this) and I've heard back that the Institute was a project that Peter did, but Dr. Hendel (and all salt-related things) are no longer associated with him. The only reason his name is on the book is because of copyright law... because he was involved and the copyright is put on the whole book, she couldn't legally take his name off. In other words, Peter is no longer associated with the salt except where Copyright law requires his name be associated and should not be held against the product because he helped author a book about it. Similar things could be said about books that Kevin Trudeau has written about various items and topics, but that's a whole different story. Burleigh2 (talk) 18:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I propose because Dr. Hendel has severed ties with Peter that we just delete the reference to the book completely as has already been suggested by other members. Burleigh2 (talk) 21:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
An Institute of Biophysical Research does not exist in Germany and Peter Druf (pseudonym: Ferreira) is not a scientist but a fraudster wanted by the police. You can read this all in the german article. (talk) 12:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

other language references in English article?[edit]

Okay, I am a little new to editing on Wiki, but I didn't think you could reference a page with a different language as a citation in an article. Two of the citations I have looked at were in German and I don't know enough German to be able to verify if the pages actually contain information cited or if they are even on the same topic. Can anyone clarify this for me? Burleigh2 (talk) 19:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course you can reference a page with a different language. -- (talk) 07:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, then I have a stupid question... If people don't speak/read that language, how can they verify it's accuracy or proof? Do the rest of us just have to rely on those who speak the language to translate accurately? Burleigh2 (talk) 14:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Can we just remove mention of the book?[edit]

How about we just remove mention of the book and its authors completely? I'm concerned about WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, and WP:OR issues with what little we have. I doubt that either reference is a WP:RS. --Ronz (talk) 18:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Biographies of Living Persons? How would that come into play with the book? Also, it is quite extensive in original and verifiable research... there is a reference section in the back of the book that is a few pages long of various books and sources that it came from. Why would it not be a reliable source? The bulk of the book is about the history of how salt has been used and lists dozens of uses for the salt (without saying it'll "cure everything that ails you") regardless of whether people think it works for certain ailments. I've read through it and the only claims it makes are general health claims (washing out the eyes or nasal cavity, helping to moisturize where the rinse is used, etc... all of which has been used for a long time and is recommended by various doctors in many cases). Personally, I think it's a good reference just for the uses of the salt and the history if nothing else. Burleigh2 (talk) 19:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
BLP applies to any page of Wikipedia.
Are the two sources reliable? --Ronz (talk) 20:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I know the concepts and ideas of BLP would apply to every page, but this is about salt, not a biography about a person, which is why I was questioning what you meant on that. By having the mention of the book where I put it earlier (with the uses of the salt), I think it avoids the issue because the book is more about how to use the salt and the history of it. Burleigh2 (talk) 20:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I was just looking through the history on the page. Someone took off my edit of mentioning the book with the uses saying it was advertising... how is that advertising when listing the book as it is now (talking about the different analysis of the salt) isn't? I'm not sure if I'm confused or if whoever changed it is. If a consensus can't be reached, it would probably be best to just remove the mention altogether and not put it back in. Burleigh2 (talk) 20:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

You're referring to this [8] edit. I agree. The article is about Himalayan salt. Mentioning the book in passing that way comes across as a promotion for the book, rather than an expansion of the article. Does that make sense? --Ronz (talk) 21:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, after looking over it, I can see how it may look like that. Best to leave it out. Burleigh2 (talk) 22:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that the mention of the book should be removed altogether. I accept that the claim that Peter Ferreira is Peter Druf needs a reliable source, and should go. However, Himalayan salt is basically a brand of salt, and the book is specifically related to and promotes this salt. So the claim in the book that the chemical composition is different should stay, with the correct context. It's the equivalent of Coke claiming Coke Light is good for you. Whether the Coke marketing pamphlet is factually reliable or not is not the point, rather it's reliable in the context of being related to the product and having made the claim. I'd value more research into the disputes about Druf and the Institute if someone can follow the trail in German. I personally can't find any mention online of this Institute, which would be very unusual if it did exist. Basically, the article, to be comprehensive, needs to make mention of the controversy around this salt. The differing views are basically that the salt is either fantastically healthy, or is being excessively and perhaps dubiously promoted. Greenman (talk) 00:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Concerning "dubiously promoted": Stiftung Warentest calls the promotion of Himalayan salt "irreführend" (misleading) and "vorgetäuscht" (faked).[9] -- (talk) 01:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Looks like something that should be in the article. An English translatation would be helpful, but not necessary, to get some context. --Ronz (talk) 14:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Without this book and the initial promotion by Druf, "Himalayan salt" would be unknown in the Western hemisphere. As such, they are an integral and essential aspect of this article. This does not yet become that clear in the article and I think the book / Druf section should be improved / extended to make this better understandable. Part of the problem seems to be that most sources are in German and/or are not available online. But there are enough online translation tools for those who want to check the references in more detail. Cacycle (talk) 16:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Greenman, just because the institute is mentioned in the book doesn't mean that the India Salt cite is unbiased and reliable. With no mention of it on the web, how do we know that it wasn't open and running in 2001 (when the mention in the book is listed) and closed later (lack of funding, moved, or changed the name)? That's like saying my uncle isn't a real person because he's not online yet... that is not verifiable proof. Burleigh2 (talk) 16:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

@Ronz: I´m German and my English is not so good. In Germany there had been many reports in Newspapers and TV abaut the "Himalayan salt" and this reports were all criticizing that this product is a deception. It is a completely normal table salt, mined far away from the himalaya in an industrial salt mine, without any special effect for the health. Also several offices of consumer protection (such as Bavarian State Office for Health and Food Safety or Consumer Center Baden-Württemberg) were warning against the promotion off this salt. It seems that there are no reports like this in English language. The only I now is this page that User:Gioto linked [10]. But this page is not a suitable source. If you want I can provide some German sources and I can translate those for you. But my English is not good enough to edit the article. Here is a machine translation by Google of the German Wikipedia article [11]. But it is a very bad translation. -- (talk) 21:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer to help. Statements from consumer protection offices and other highly reliable sources would be very helpful. Could you provide links to the German articles plus a quick English summary? (Your English seems good). --Ronz (talk) 21:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
There is an article about Stiftung Warentest in the English Wikipedia, so I Think, this is a good source, because you can estimate yourself if this source is reliable.
English summary of [12]: Stiftung Warentest writes that consumers are fooled by statements of the book "Water and Salt". The very slight content of minerals/trace elements is nutritionally extraneous/not appreciable. Neither "higher structur" nor "energetic effects" are scientifically proved/revisable and therefore pure question of faith. But Himalayan salt consist - just like any other table salt - of 97 % of Sodium chloride and no faith can change this fact. (The title of the article means "Question of faith")
Tomorrow more. -- (talk) 22:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
While I agree that there are agencies that don't like how it's advertised, that doesn't change what the salt is. I see that like all the advertising that Acai will cure everything that ails you and make you lose lots of weight... there's no scientific proof, but it's a complaint about the advertising, not the product. There are still many people that call Acai a scam, but it's just a fruit that is sometimes marketed as part of a scam, but it doesn't make the berry itself a scam or something that's going to harm you. The main reason that people have told me they prefer to use it is because it's natural (vs chemically created table salts) and they prefer the more mild taste. From the sound of it, it's been more advertised in a few parts of Europe, which is where the complaints come into play. If we did include mention of this, it really should be listed in a separate section under "Advertising" or "Questionable methods of advertising", not under the basis of the salt itself. Burleigh2 (talk) 14:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Peter Druf[edit]

Since someone reverted to the previous version with the statement about Peter Druf, is there any proof that it is a pseudonym for Peter Ferreira? The link given looks like the German version of Wikipedia (with editing options, so it could easily be changed by anyone) and I for one can't read German to verify what it says... I thought all citations had to be from reliable sources, not one that could be changed by anyone. Isn't this like citing another Wikipedia page? Without proof, that would be defamation and shouldn't be in the article. Burleigh2 (talk) 20:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

My concerns exactly. --Ronz (talk) 20:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm new enough here where I'm not sure how an issue like the book would get resolved (to leave it out or leave some mention in)... is there a vote, or are comments made and someone makes a decision based on the majority? Burleigh2 (talk) 21:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
WP:DR gives a list of ways to go about resolving disputes. Because there's a BLP issue, the information probably should be removed immediately. I'll go ahead with that. --Ronz (talk) 21:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Ah, good to know. Thanks for guiding me along on this. Until now, I've been the one entering new info into controversial topics. LOL! Burleigh2 (talk) 22:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone provide a better website that will translate larger scripts? The link that supposedly proves the link between Druf and Ferriera is too long for the translators I'm using to cover it (including BabelFish), so I can't verify any proof of what they're saying (if it's suspect or if it's validated facts). Does anyone have a translation website we can use that doesn't have a limitation of words or characters? Burleigh2 (talk) 16:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks to user 85, I was able to bring up the link that shows the link between them (thanks to Google Translate, too). The page it refers to is just a link page, but the link referring to the salt is ONLY referring to the salt... the names Druf, Peter, or Ferriera are never mentioned, nor is the book Water & Salt. I have removed the mention of Peter's supposed double identity because it doesn't say anything about it. Burleigh2 (talk) 14:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
After looking at the other links listed with that one link, I looked at the others. The second link on there mentions Druf "Peter Ferreira, born Druf", but has no citation or proof (there is no mention of Druf in the article that is referenced, which was the first part I looked at in the note above). That looks like first-hand research (or just randomly putting something in there and hoping nobody checks it) and isn't verifiable by Wiki's guidelines, so I'm still deleting that part. Burleigh2 (talk) 14:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Dead Sea Salt removed as a "See Also" item?[edit]

This brings up a good point that I hadn't really thought about until someone took it off... should Dead Sea Salt be under a "related topic"? What about Sea Salt and Celtic Salt? I mean, they are all related as far as being types of salts and they are related... Why not have all of those types as "See Also"? Burleigh2 (talk) 23:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Adding Salt Lamp section[edit]

FYI, I'm merging the Himalayan Salt Lamp page into this one per the discussion at If anyone knows how to merge them within the editing system in Wiki (aside from copy/paste like I'm doing), please feel free to do that instead... until then, I'm merging it in the only way I know how because it's such a short snippet. Burleigh2 (talk) 15:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Would it improve the article to add information about Ionization if a reliable source can be found? Also at what heat is necessary for Ionization to occur. DavidR2010 (talk) 17:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)DavidR2010

If you have information to add, please add it... there are enough editors on each of these files that if it's spam or whatnot, it would be removed, but if it's good info, it'll stay on. That is the way of Wiki. ;-)Burleigh2 (talk) 19:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Alright I have some information about the Ionization of salt lamps I am just trying to determine which is the most reliable source a lot of pages trying to sell Salt Lamps. DavidR2010 (talk) 00:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)DavidR2010
I keep finding sources with good information on Ionization but then they have a link to places to shop for salt lamps I want to place information about the Ionization effects of Himalayan salt however I don't want to appear to be selling salt lamps at the same time any suggestions? I did find one source here DavidR2010 (talk) 04:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)DavidR2010
Its a good source with information about Ionization and yet they don't have the best things to say about Himalayan salt Ionization which concerns me as they are a Polish site and may be trying to increase sales of the European Salt Lamps.DavidR2010 (talk) 23:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)DavidR2010
I found another source as well here it looks like the ads on this page are added by google. DavidR2010 (talk) 17:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)DaviR2010
The only problem with these sources would be the lack of citation and sources... it could be anyone writing these as just random thoughts or it may be that they got some of their info from Wiki and are BS-ing the rest.Burleigh2 (talk) 18:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Yeah that's another one of my concerns too DavidR2010 (talk) 19:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)DavidR2010
I cant really find any good info about health benefits of Salt Lamps. Seems all we know for sure is that when heated the rocks produce negative Ions. DavidR2010 (talk) 19:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)DavidR2010

I removed some more unsourced information about negative ions and their purported health benefits, and added a citation to a web site that aims to debunk this myth. Jpp42 (talk) 04:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Punjabi Salt[edit]

The salt is mined from Punjab and dont know why it is named Himalayan_salt. Himalaya is 300 kilometers away from its mines in Punjab. It is requested to use the name from where it is mined. Punjabi salt is appropriate and the present heading should be replaced with the Punjabi salt name.--Khalid Mahmood (talk) 10:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

It's a marketing term for the salt being sold in Europe and elsewhere. The start of the artcle does make this fairly clear.--FDent (talk) 09:58, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Fails to discuss whether healthy or not[edit]

PRACTICAL information seems conspicuously missing. How is it different from the usual table salt we buy from the grocer and use? Is it healthy? Unhealthy? And WHY? If a recipe calls for it, is it just a pompous, pretentious recipe, or is there some taste difference or advantage? Then we read it's "contaminated" by other chemicals, leaving the reader hanging as to whether this is a significant factor in making a dietary decision. Others' talking points infer (it seems) that this salt is little different from the usual (save for the possibly fluoride contaminated); whatever the case, an evaluation of health benefits or risks—and how it differs from ordinary, usual types of table salt—should be addressed. (talk) 19:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)ChicagoLarry~commonswiki

While I agree that this information could be useful, the challenge is finding third-party reliable sources that can be used to support any statements. I tried searching, and found several sources of marginal (at best) reliability - but they disagreed on several points. Some claim there are potential health benefits (lower sodium and higher potassium levels); while others claim the sole reason for lower sodium is that the larger granules (compared to common table salt) have more space between them, so a teaspoon of each would contain more air space - so you could get the same result just be using less table salt. As for the potassium difference, it's so slight as to be meaningless (the amount you would need to consume to see a benefit from the potasium would be offset by the increase in sodium). The sources also disagree on taste difference between the two (some claiming no difference, others claiming a very subtle difference when consumed by itself, but so subtle it's lost when mixed with virtually any other foods).
The only things I could find sources to agree on was that the pinkish Himalayan Salt can be useful for adding color to a dish where the grains are added on top; and that different sized crystals can serve different purposes (common table salt will stick better to surfaces, while larger crystals can add crunch or garnishing appearance to the top of whatever it's added onto) - but if you desire the larger crystals, you're still back to disagreement from the sources on differences between the different larger-crystal options.
There might be better sources out there somewhere than what I found (granted, I didn't dig very deep). So maybe someone else can find a source that could meet WP:RS criteria in a journal of some sort? --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 20:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
"Salt Cave Therapy" has been used for thousands of years, especially in Europe. A recent paper has revealed why the therapy may provide health benefits and explains how it may work:
Salt Cave Therapy: Rediscovering the Benefits of an Old Preservative, by Sala Horowitz, PhD (2015).

"Hippocrates is said to have recognized the therapeutic benefits of salt mines...Health benefits have been attributed to the caves' unique microclimate, which is rich in natural salt microns and ions...In the 1980s, the Russians began to build halochambers lined with halite, which mimicked the microclimate of salt caves. With increased scientific attention, such chambers became certified as medical devices in Russia, and are said to have been adapted for use by the Russian space agency in microclimate optimization devices used by cosmonauts."

Here's another paper, which also talks about salt particles in the air:
Salt: Good for What Ails the Airways?, by William D. Bennett, Journal of Aerosol Medicine. February 2009.
And finally, there is the wiki page for Halotherapy, which shows photos of the caves and mentions the "Effective treatment of asthma and respiratory diseases" from breathing in the air from the unique red salt mines in Belarus.
It seems to me that the research is out there and Halotheraphy has been fairly well studied in many European countries. The one citation given to dismiss salt lamps is just some blogger who says she couldn't find any evidence. She obviously didn't look very hard. I think that dismissing citation should be removed.Drichman39 (talk) 20:36, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
That doesn't seem particularly relevant to this article, which is about salt, not salt caves or halotherapy. Applying an article about a salt cave environment to a garnish or lamp would be an original synthesis. VQuakr (talk) 21:21, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Apologies. I seem to have put my comment in the wrong section. However, there is actually a section in this wiki article about salt lamps, and the article dismisses the lamps without acknowledging that there is research behind them67.255.231.116 (talk) 21:25, 12 March 2016 (UTC).
What research? VQuakr (talk) 21:26, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Your second article is behind a paywall. Not even the abstract is available. (talk) 22:53, 5 January 2017 (UTC)