Talk:Earwax/Archive 1

Archive 1

older entries

Why is this not at earwax? Titles should be at the most common name, and I don't hesitate to assert that earwax is much more common than cerumen? It's a great article, though... Kudos to whoever wrote it.Tuf-Kat 18:50, Jan 10, 2004 (UTC)

---

I had read that one of the functions of earwax is to prevent insects from nesting in the ears. (They get stuck in the wax, and eventually ejected.) Is this correct? The article hints at it ("...also provides a degree of protection from... insects.") but does not go into detail. -- Dominus 15:05, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Besides the technical proceedure, there are a couple of old-fashioned ways of removing earwax which might be worth mentioning. One is to put olive oil in the ear, let it sit long enough to loosen the wax, then squirt out the olive oil with warm water. My girlfriend performed this proceedure on me a couple years ago and it worked very well. My hearing improved dramatically.

The other method involves specially made paper and wax tubes and burning, but that's a little more expensive and a little more dangerous. -- 64.81.175.9 17:13, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

And also ineffective - [1] 16:43, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

What about basic non-instrumental removal such as after taking a shower or swim, placing your finger in your ear rotating downwards and pulling? It creates a tiny vacum and pulls some of the cerumen out, if you repeat it, you should be remove it safely and slowely? -- Sepht 17:15, 4 June 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. JFW | T@lk 23:45, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am feeling so PROUD to be having such an intulectualy inspiring disscussion about "earwax".

As an encyclopedia, we need an article on earwax. If this does not inspire you, there are 6,912,945 (minus one, then) articles that may. JFW | T@lk 23:34, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

No mention in the article of how disgusting it tastes. I think this important fact should be included! Graham 03:42, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

As someone with jackass friends that do jackass things like drop used Q-tips into soda cans, I feel your pain. Good lord is that stuff awful. Kingoomieiii (talk) 14:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Earwax: Wax or not?

Is Earwax really wax? I came to Wikipedia to find out after reading about wax as rocket fuel.. --66.68.138.69 02:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

You bet it is! "First of all, it's not at all unusual that we would secrete a wax. What's the difference between an oil, a fat, and a wax? Nothing but the melting point. All are esters (the products of condensation reactions between carboxylic acids and alcohols) with an aliphatic chain of carbon molecules. The length of the chain determines the volatility of the molecule; short chains are more fluid, long chains more solid. Something like olive oil will have shorter chains than something like beeswax, but all are fundamentally similar. They are all classified as lipids. So earwax isn't that unusual—it's a compound on a continuum of perfectly normal lipid products produced by cells." <http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/that_revolting_article_about_earwax_and_smegma/P50/> <http://www.lipidlibrary.co.uk/Lipids/waxes/index.htm>

---

Removal section

I posted up a part about how peroxide dissolves earwax in the ear but it was taken down. My mother performed this method on me as a child and I have done it ever since to clean out my ears if they are especially blocked up. It works surprisingly well.

Well, that would qualify as original research, unless you have a reference. Furthermore, I very much doubt you poured pure hydrogen peroxide into your ears. http://www.dizziness-and-balance.com/disorders/hearing/wax2.html states "Hydrogen peroxide is present for the mechanical effect -- it does not dissolve ear wax (Burkhart et al, 2000)." AxelBoldt 14:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The word dissolve [2] has more than one meaning. It can mean "to cause to pass into solution", i.e. the action of a solvent. It can also mean "to break up or disperse". The Burkhart reference does not deny the efficacy of peroxide for earwax removal; it only states that it is a mechanical effect, a byproduct rather than a direct effect of the chemical reaction itself.

The following source outlines the efficacy of peroxide and various earwax removal agents: [3]

Drops made of water alone have been demonstrated to be more effective in clearing earwax than have olive oil4 and various ear drop preparations, but not more effective than the combination of hydrogen peroxide and glycerol.2 . . .

Hydrogen peroxide is common in many ear drop preparations for cleaning wax. It is usually mixed with acetic acid (vinegar)12 or urea and glycerol, or it comes as a 3% solution.11 The urea in this preparation acts as a keratolytic agent, easing dislodgment of cerumen stuck to the ear canal. Mixed with glycerin, the peroxide gets into the cerumen, and the expanding oxygen bubbles in the bulk of cerumen causes its disintegration. The mixture of urea with peroxide and glycerol has been demonstrated to be superior to oil mixed with chlorobutenile and chlorobenzene.22 Wilson and Fahmy recommend it as the combination of choice for at-home use for a couple of days.22,25 However, the combination is used less than other commercial preparations because of its high cost.5 There is also a risk to consider: A high peroxide concentration causes local burn.

I recommend this source for expanding the section about earwax removal agents. --Dforest 15:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• I have expanded the removal section, but have not incorporated that source. Feel free to do so, though, or to add that source to the external links section - Gobeirne 19:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

My ENT used and recommended a preparation that contained diluted preparation containing hydrogen peroxide when he had to clean out my ears. This bit needs a closer look. Bdelisle 08:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

what about expanding on the 'curette' method of removing earwax. I think it used to be on here, but it seems to have dissapeared... the most common method of this is simply the hair pin (the thin black one; the ear wax is caught in loop) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.5.13 (talk • contribs)

God, that seems extremely dangerous! I don't think such dangerous and debatably ineffective (because of the ram-rod effect) advice should be included in Wikipedia. 80.2.194.3 12:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Because this is an encyclopedia and much of the discussion is very scientific based, the word "dissolved" should be defined in the strict chemical way "to cause to pass into solution", i.e. the action of a solvent.Satanorsanta 19:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I had a severe problem with ear wax as a result of prolonged exposure to arctic air (on top of MS). Two military audiologists and a military doctor recommended using hydrogen peroxide (HOOH, 3%) not more than once per month to remove the wax. It works very well. Hydrogen peroxide reduces the wax to CO2 and water. The wax fizzes as it is destroyed. (HOOH is a base like lye, NaOH. It destroys wax the way lye destroys grease in a drain. It is limited to once per month because it is so chemically reactive. It does leave a rash in the ear.) My Flatley (talk) 03:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Ear hair?

Here's Earwax. There's Nasal hair. But where's Ear hair? Ewlyahoocom 15:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Neural or Epithelial control

Is earwax secretion neurally mediated, or locally mediated by the cartilaginous portion of the ear canal? That is, in cases of excessive cerumen is the overproduction likely to be caused by an abnormal neural activity, or due to abnormal epithelial transport? Are there any cases where excessive cerumen production is treated by blocking the neural activity in the ear canal? --130.95.34.213 02:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Pictures of dry earwax

Are there any pictures of dry-type earwax?

hm. I (photographer of the wet-type earwax on the article) have dry-type earwax... I would like to photograph it, but it is not very visible (it's nearly clear in small amounts), and I produce very little of it... which I think is typical for dry-type folks. A similar picture of it on a swab is probably not going to work. --Gmaxwell 00:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see it too; before reading this article I thought all earwax was yellow and sticky. Maybe it would show up better on a black surface? —Keenan Pepper 23:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Who's the sick f*** who took a pic of their earwax on a swab? Ewwww. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.165.46.78 (talk • contribs) .

What did you expect for an article about earwax? Would you rather there be no picture? It's not as bad as Image:Meconium.jpg anyway. —Keenan Pepper 23:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep on the lookout. It looks like yellow dead skin kinda.70.132.31.72 06:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It's somewhat of a mixed message that the illustration shows a cotton swab, yet the article specifically warns against using them. Perhaps the photo needs an additional caution: Do not try this at home. MDonfield 03:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I also believe the pictures should be removed. I mean, nice picture, and effort appreciated, but they do suggest to people that its OK to put things in your ear. See other comments under Q-tip below, 80.2.194.3 12:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

At last, I found a worthy picture of dry earwax. It's usually hard getting photos of normal dry earwax. This however is a special case in that its a HUGE piece. Some nice Asian lady was nice enough to have me remove it via curette. The size reason was that she never had her ears cleaned before. Her hearing improved also. I just need to find a way to upload it. The last mystery is if dry earwax flouresces or not under UV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.132.23.185 (talk) 22:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• For tips on uploading your image to Wikimedia Commons, see Contributing your own work. - Gobeirne 23:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Please do not give up on your efforts to upload a photograph of "dry earwax." I think the distinction is fascinating. The genetic science behind it is relatively new -- January 2006 -- and places earwax as a "genetic marker" on the same level as blood type and other human attributes that fall within the common knowledge of the general populace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.8.107.201 (talk) 18:46, 16 November 2007

Okay you can all gross out now, because I just uploaded a photo of my very Asiatic earwax.  ;) Kelvinc (talk) 18:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Headphones and earwax

I heard somewhere that listening to music on headphones very often increases earwax production. I came to this article to see more info on it, but I don't see anything. More specifically, I was wondering if plain old loud music (like a concert) can plug up your ears with ear wax. It could just be my imagination, because the fuzzy feeling in my ears is similar to when it's plugged up. Hmm. Nuggit 16:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

You may want to look at noise health effects, and specifically a concert would likely induce temporary tinnitus. (I'm an engineer, not a doctor, just an educated guess.) — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 18:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Whales

Yep, I thought it odd too. Found the ref I added to the aricle, and this one from the Japanese Embassy in South Africa. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 18:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Is earwax in whales of particular significance in comparison to all other mammals? If not, a specific section for it is probably not warranted.--Jeffro77 12:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't put it in, I was just "defending" it. Do you know of any other mammal whose earwax you can examine to tell its age? :) — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 13:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The article cited for this trivia about earwax in whales seems to be related to justification of Japanese whaling. A cursory search seems to indicate that the age of dolphins can also be determined by this method. Bon appetit!--Jeffro77 04:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I don t know if things have been edited since this discussion started, but what was in the article sounded ludicrous and not referenced in the links. I removed it 84.74.138.22 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC).

Lubrication?

Earwax for lubrication??? Of what - sound waves? ;-) --Janke | Talk 17:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It lubricates the skin which lines the ear canals - preventing it from drying up, itching, cracking and becoming prone to infection. Sionman uk 11:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

What about "dry" earwax like me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Techdawg667 (talk • contribs) 06:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

q tip

this artical says :It is generally advised not to use cotton swabs (Q-Tips or cotton buds) as these will likely push the wax further down the ear canal and, if used carelessly, perforate the eardrum or worse. Cotton swabs should be used only to clean the external ear:

Then if this is true why is there a picture of ear wax on a q tip dosen't this contradict itself68.48.5.139 23:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Because people are stupid? Read the box that your Q-Tips come in; it very clearly instructs you (the end user) to ONLY use it on the outer ear, and to NOT use it inside the ear canal, for the reason stated above (it cimpacts and pushes the wax further down the canal, which can cause problems and etc).

My box of q-tip clones say nothing about this. Even stupid people deserve not to have their ears damaged.

My doctor has also instructed me on several occasions to avoid sticking Q-Tips into my ear canals. 147.144.65.148 23:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)kazuo.

I think the pictures of the q-tip should be removed, as the external links advise against putting anything in your ear. Putting a q-tip in can make things worse by acting as a ramrod. I recall hearing about a man who was q-tipping his ear in a shower, slipped and destroyed his inner ear. With the number of readers around the world, there is a high chance someone will do this again as a result of reading this article. Plus I'm not sure that a q-tip is the same thing as a cotton swab. I also think there ought to be a warning against putting anything in your ears. 80.0.109.199 12:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

thanx

Thanks for that descriptive and graphic picture. 67.185.99.246 02:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Amendment required

This statement: A cerumenolytic should be used 2-3 times daily for 3-5 days prior to the cerumen extraction.[17] Although most commercially available cerumenolytics available in the U.S. are identical, containing carbamide peroxide (6.5%) and glycerine,[17] a 10% solution of sodium bicarbonate was found to be a more effective cerumenolytic than several commercially-available solutions (Cerumenex, Auralgan) and ... should be made less US-centric. Perhaps a medicl person could do so? Arcturus 15:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Docusate from Colace?

The article says, "Docusate may be extracted from liquid preparations of laxatives, such as Colace." Shouldn't the article tell how to do that?

Steve Wise 13:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Steve Wise

Why on earth would you want to do that?

Cerumenophagia - eating earwax?

This form of pica does exist, just like nose picking. It is not mentioned in the article.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[4] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HisSpaceResearch (talk • contribs) 14:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

Cats dig eating ear wax. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.124.203 (talk) 11:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

In the section under 'Cleaning' last line reads: "Tastes like dog ear wax" Wha??!

Ear wax or earwax?

"earwax" - 540000 Google hits

"ear wax" - 605000 Google hits.

Most of the external links refer to it as ear wax.

On the Wax category page, all the other waxes except beeswax are seperate words.

And one does not refer to candlewax. 80.0.109.199 12:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Why do people make these elaborate arguments instead of just looking in an authoritative text written to answer questions just as these.

Merriam-Webster:

earwax One entry found.

earwax

Main Entry: ear·wax Pronunciation: \ˈir-ˌwaks\ Function: noun Date: 14th century

The Oxford compact English dictionary has a similar result. Usage dating back to the 1300s ought not be changed without good reason.

brand names?

I think that perhaps the brand names of the various wax-softening agents should be removed. It seems like unnecessary advertising for these companies' products. A small point, though.

Stupid question...

I don't understand - why are special solutions used for softening earwax? It always seemed to me that simply filling the ear with warm water under the shower and emptying it a few times would really soften and flush things. And I really don't understand why doctors would risk a 1/1000 chance of perforation just to ram a syringe in there. It's smaller than my elbow. 70.15.114.89 04:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The special solutions are needed. I had my ear irrigated and "dug at" with an ear pick by a doctor and she wasn't able to get it all. It needs to be softened so the rest of it will make its way out. I tried the shower method and it doesn't work for me- the wax is too hard. It might have worked if the wax was not so compacted and hardened. I was advised to use the drops to first soften the wax and then let water run in my ear during a shower. I hope it works, hearing loss is no fun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.147.174.169 (talk) 14:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Best luck is getting it vacuumed. I had the same problem, the vacuum was great... you try the sodium bicarbonate, which is recommended in the article? ImpIn | (t - c) 23:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's best to fill up with water at the beginning and the end of the shower... and then be patient. If you're like me, an hour later you'll wonder where all that wax came from. 24.115.70.45 (talk) 03:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Comedy gold

An earwax-like substance does indeed collect inside the ear candle as it burns - but it collects there even if the candle is placed in a clean, dry drinking glass instead of on an ear.

Yeah, heads up, that substance is called "candle wax". Shocking, I know. --75.49.222.55 00:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Q-tip picture

I think it is somewhat innapropriate to show a photograph of earwax on a cotton swab, as the article itself specifically states not use them. Someone who is merely skimming the article might come away with the impression that it is okay to use cotton swabs to remove wax. Asarelah 02:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't most people (ie N.A., USA) use cotton swabs to remove wax? First time I've ever heard this; been doing it my whole life, as did my parents, who taught me. AnarchyElmo (talk) 01:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

People who skim articles and then stick things in the ears are not likely to heed warnings. More seriously, Wikipedia articles could degenerate into an encyclopedia of warnings. In the article about "jet fuel," the reference to its flash point might include a warning: "Do Not Measure Flash Point in Your Bedroom!" Who wants that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.8.107.201 (talk)

Elevate importance rating

The note to Wikipedia guidelines For "Importance Rating" states:

The criteria used for rating article importance are not meant to be an absolute or canonical view of how significant the topic is. Rather, they attempt to gauge the probability of the average reader of Wikipedia needing to look up the topic (and thus the immediate need to have a suitably well-written article on it). Thus, subjects with greater popular notability may be rated higher than topics which are arguably more "important" but which are of interest primarily to a student or an expert.

Clearly, by the criteria of the "probability of the average reader of Wikipedia needing to look up the topic" this article deserves a higher importance rating. Indeed, the numbers of people who were treated medically for air wax buildup, as cited in the article, supports this assertion.

Yeah! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.8.107.201 (talk) 18:56, 16 November 2007

Elevate Quality Assessment

This article appears to meet all the criteria for a class A or FA article. The only thing that it appears to immediately require is an illustration of the ear relevant to the article. The weird thing about Wikipedia is that "original research" is unacceptable, but original high-quality illustrative material is rampant. In any event, does anyone disagree? Any ideas for sources for a good copyright-free illustration? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.8.107.201 (talk)

Eating Earwax

I agree with the anon user (was not me) who deleted the section. It is not notable, irrelevant. If it caused a political backlash, maybe or if it became a new fad. But I don't see any of that happening, so would support removing the section from the article. (John User:Jwy talk) 08:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Whilst it did not cause a political backlash, per se, it was noted by an extraordinarily large part of the world media. Further there is some discussion regarding eating earwax in section 14 of this same talk page, under Cerumenophagia_-_eating_earwax. Maybe the section could be expanded to more general earwax eating, as well as mentioning other incidents, as this particular incident is certainly the highest profile (and only) one that I know of. Karl2620 (talk) 08:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Unless other examples of this practice can be cited, along with some solid data in the primary literature with regard to its frequency and implications (if any) I would support the deletion of this section. The incident with the Australian PM should at most be mentioned in passing. Media and political responses to it are completely irrelevant to an article about ear wax. That the PMs political affiliation (Labour) is apparently worth mentioning smells strongly of someone's political position making its way into Wikipedia. DoktorDec (talk) 17:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

DoktorDec, I like your reworking of that section, and have no qualms. Thank-you. Karl2620 (talk) 23:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

this section is not notable, and i was convinced it was vandalism. i went to the trouble of checking the references because the section seems so extraenous that i thought a book from the 1800's by Thomas Thomson was obscure enough to be suspect. the fact that it isnt, and is, in fact, an attempt to make encyclopedic something that isnt, is even more disappointing. i suggest its removal. Skp2y F thorax (talk) 08:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Light my fire.

Wow, dry earwax burns pretty fast and long. Is it the lipid content? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.231.228.0 (talk) 10:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

"fast" and "long" seem to be contradictory in this context. Plus, this sounds like a question regarding original research. How does this apply to editing/improving the article? -Verdatum (talk) 14:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Lip Balm

I've removed the following section about earwax being used as lip balm:
The first lip balm was actually made out of earwax. It was functional, but the taste was undesirable. However, its popularity has grown in recent years. A small but growing fan base, committed to the use of all-natural products, touts its use as a superior organic alternative to other varieties of lip balm.
The reference cited (http://beauty.about.com/cs/facialskin/a/lip_care.htm) doesn't cite any references itself, and doesn't strike me as a particularly reliable source in itself. Very happy for anyone to reinstate it if they can provide a better reference. - Gobeirne (talk) 04:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The "Earwax: What You Should Know" link given for the section about eating earwax has no information whatsoever about this. I accessed the article via the ProQuest database and found this article in Vol. 75, Iss. 10, p. 1530 If this statement is indeed true the link needs to be corrected. Otherwise this section should be removed. TS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.90.1.23 (talk) 08:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed. The fraudulent reference has now been removed. - Gobeirne (talk) 19:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I found a citation for this, whilst reading an Uncle John's Bathroom Reader, of all things (don't ask where I was). The American Frugal Housewife, 1832. Confirmed at page 116. –xenocidic (talk) 15:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

This citation says it can be used for lip balm, not that it was the first lip balm. Someone else just removed the claim from the article, and I'm quite alright with that. -Verdatum (talk) 15:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I have removed it yet again. I didn't find any mention in the latest source provided, American Family Physician. That would likely be considered a RS, depending on how it was presented. The other sources found on the internet that I'm checked are not reliable sources for such an unusual claim. It sounds more like a very obscure urban legend. Please provide a RS and quote from that source on talk page before restoring.

Flavor?

>It has a bitter flavour.

You're kidding, right? No, I suppose not. Who actually tested this? Why isn't there a citation?

(shudder) --UnicornTapestry (talk) 03:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I can guarantee you there has been a study been done testing various environmental influences and their effect on earwax flavour. I know there has, but I just don't have the stomach to look for it.--Lakkasuo (talk) 17:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Article Hypocrisy!

from the article: "Use of Q-tips or cotton swabs are not recommended" yet, nearly all the pictures in this article have earwax on cottons swabs in them. anyone? Techdawg667 (talk) 06:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The cotton swabs were used for sampling purposes, not for general cleaning, presumably.

cilit bang

cilit bang doesn't really work to remove ear wax does it? --90.213.64.180 (talk) 20:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

It is an Internet meme to claim that Cillit Bang can do most anything. It's vandalism, and already gone. -Verdatum (talk) 07:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

for real, now?

"As mentioned above, movement of the jaw helps the ears' natural cleaning process, so chewing gum and talking can both help. "

Talking and chewing gum help with earwax? Citation, please? --98.217.8.46 (talk) 00:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The "As mentioned above" statement refers to Alberti, P.W.R.M. (1964). "Epithelial migration on the tympanic membrane". J.Laryngol.Otol. 78: 808–830. PMID 14205963.. I can't say if this paper specifically mentions talking or gum chewing, but jaw movement does cause earwax migration. I wouldn't doubt that a reputable source exists reccomending actions such as gum chewing to clear earwax buildup. Still, I wouldn't miss the sentence terribly if it were removed. -Verdatum (talk) 07:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

lemon juice

I've seen reference on the web to a few drops of 100% lemon juice being used to soften the wax. Have tried it out and it works, there is a slight fizzing and bubbling similar to the details about peroxide. Not added to article but posting here for future consideration.

203.206.124.203 (talk) 11:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Lead

The lead doesn't follow WP:lead.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Excessive production of ear wax

I think the article tells me everything about ear wax except what may cause excessive production of ear wax. I remember this guy in college we called the sponge, for soaking up knowledge. Base class sponge as he also was referred to had ear wax over production. You could literally see wax dripping out of his ears from time to time. Perhaps this was related to the sponge effect; his brain was filling with knowledge but resulted in overflow, ear wax in this case. 70.211.202.98 (talk) 04:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC) (uj@

Earwax

This article is obviously inaccurate. As an avid reader generally but especially of genetics, one can find books easily anywhere related to this topic. This same Japanese study did not state that ear wax was related to the genes involving "race." Their study was related to "climate." The study stated that the northern climates produced evolutionary dry ear wax and the arctic and southernmost parts of Asia produced wet ear wax. This study did not relate "dry ear wax to Asians, East Asians, etc." Who ever wrote this article has some nerve putting this on the web where this info can easily be discovered as inaccurate by anyone who reads or cares to check the accuracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.32.127.230 (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Not GA

This article does not satisfy GA

• does not meet WP:LEAD
• symptoms section missing
• causes need discussion

--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

composition

If someone wants to write about the composition, this paper may be of use: "Cerumen Composition by Flash Pyrolysis-Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry", Craig N. Burkhart, Michael A. Kruge, Craig G. Burkhart, and Curtis Black, Otology & Neurotology 22:715–722 © 2001,

'Abstract Objective: To assess the chemical composition of cerumen by flash pyrolysis-gas chromatography/mass spectrometry.

"Study Design: Collected earwax specimens were fractionated into residue and supernatant by means of deoxycholate. This natural bile acid produces significantly better disintegration of earwax in vitro than do presently available ceruminolytic preparations, and also has demonstrated excellent clinical results in vivo to date.

Patients: The sample for analysis was obtained from a patient with clinical earwax impaction. Results: The supernatant is composed of simple aromatic hydrocarbons, C5-C17 straight-chain hydrocarbons, a complex mixture of compounds tentatively identified as diterpenoids, and steroids, in particular cholesterol. The residue, on the other hand, produced simple aromatic compounds (including benzenes, phenols, and benzonitriles), C5-C25 straight-chain hydrocarbons, greater relative quantities of nitrogen compounds and phenol, and lesser importance of the (tentatively identified) diterpenoids.

Conclusions: Through the use of the detergent deoxycholate, squalene and a tentatively identified diterpenoid were revealed to be present in a free, unbound state, whereas some steroids and hydrocarbons appeared to be bound to a macromolecular structure by nitrogen linkages or other bonds. Additionally, this study reintroduces detergents as a viable method of earwax removal, specifically the bile acids. Key Words: Cerumen—Ceruminolytic— Flash pyrolysis—Gas chromatography—Mass spectrometry."

The article goes on to list the components of earwax and discuss it's properties.YobMod 07:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Ear candling

I don't that there are practitioners of this technique who have harmed their clients, however, I will take issue with the assertion:

"Claims that the practice removes earwax have been thoroughly debunked."

I can contest this easily enough as I had ear candling carried out today and a good deal of wax came out as a result. I suspect there's a medical practitioner who mistrusts "natural" remedies behind the quote. I propose the remark be removed.

Reenie (talk) 20:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

You're right that "debunked" really does not sound encyclopedic, nevertheless the main assertions on ear candling is true: it does nothing. What you see in the ear candle at the end of the candling session is not ear wax, it's just gunk from combustion that appears whether or not you put the candle in the ear. Just palm the candle end while it is burning and you'll see what I mean. As well, take a look at the ear candling article, it elaborates more on this matter. Sjschen (talk) 18:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Uses for earwax

I was looking to see if there was definite info on what was in earwax, but only read that it was produced int he ear and has some anti-bacterial and anti-fungal properties, but has anyone checked anti-viral properties? This may sound gross but I have been told and I've tried it, with success that applying a little of this natural stuff to a cold sores helps to either prevent it coming up or decreasing the time it takes to heal. As soon as u get the tingle you apply it to the area, a bit bitter but it works. I would like to know if anyone is interested to find out if this can be backed by research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.27.184.157 (talk) 22:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Earwax and water inside the ear after swimming

I have suffered from blocking earwax which have been very annoying (temporary hearing loss, not being able to sleep because every movement of my body causde sound of the moving wax) until I started to clean it every now and then with a hook which has been designed for this purpose. Also I always get a lot of water inside my ear after swimming and it stays inside my ear for the rest of the evening (over 6 hours). It's absolutely not my intention to ask advise, i'm writing this because it makes me wonder if people who produce too much wax of whose ears don't remove it properly have more problems with water in their ears after swimming. I'm also wondering if there's any practical solution for this. Shouldn't this wiki mention something about this? 193.190.253.160 (talk) 00:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't go prodding around in your ear, that is really not going to help. Use cleaning solutions or just plain oil and get them cleaned by the nurse or whoever does that procedure in your local health centre. Also, don't many swimmers plug their ears for this very reason?--Lakkasuo (talk) 17:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

percentages don't add up

in the 2nd paragraph in different sentences it says that earwax is 60% keratin, and that it is also 50% lipid. Since keratin is not a lipid, that alone adds up to 110%. This can't all be accurate at once, something here is wrong. someone who knows which is right and which is wrong, pls fix it. Roidroid (talk) 10:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Smell?

Does or should earwax have a smell? Mine has an almost vinegar smell to it but is of normal color viscosity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.66.59.170 (talk) 13:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Smegma

I believe Smegma should be added under the See Also section, considering they are high-lipid substances naturally produced by the human body as an accumulation of dead skin.

66.69.57.236 (talk) 10:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Earwax is a funtional secretion of the human body. Smegma is an accumulation of sebum and exfoliated cells. Sebum is a functional secretion. In fact, the category "Body fluids" (which is appropriate on Earwax) apparently does not belong on Smegma. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Better Image?

I woke up Sunday morning unable to hear out of my right ear. It was badly impacted. My wife tried using olive oil to soften it, then a warm water flush with a syringe (no needle on it, of course). This failed to do anything. I ended up at the Hospital Monday morning.

I was examined by a nurse, given some drops (Cerumol), and ordered to return 4 hours later. The doctor performed a series of warm water irrigations, and out came a marble-sized blob of wax! I could hear again. The wax blob was disposed of in a bio-box and then I relized there wasd a significant loss of hearing in my other ear.

The other ear was treated with Cerumol, and I was again instructed to return (in three hours) after work to have the wax in this ear removed. Good, bad, and best news: Good News: The blockage in my right ear was smaller and came out a bit easier. Bad News: It was smaller, so it wasn't as cool looking. Best News: I kept it, they put it in a sample jar, and I took it home to gross out my wife and take a picture for the Wikipedia!

Picture to follow (I think it is better than the one presently on the page, but I suck at adding images to pages): Weaponofmassinstruction (talk) 04:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Uploaded to the Commons: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ear_Wax-Large_-_March_07-2011.JPG If someone wouldn't mind adding the image to the article. Weaponofmassinstruction (talk) 04:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Syringing - controversial

Hi. I'm a doctor and a law student, and I am forever caught between the two professions, who constantly misunderstand each other.

Ear syringing is commonly done by medical practitioners. Yet, there is a substantial body of opinion that it should not be done, since it can perforate the ear drum. There has been much litigation about this, and many ENT surgeons will use vacuum/picking techniques in place of syringing.

This article makes no mention of this. I am particularly concerned because people will rely on the medical information in Wikipedia. They shouldn't, but they will. - Richard Cavell (talk) 02:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Great do you have a review article? Maybe you could write something on this? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

At the moment, the article says, absent any problems, that the American Academy of Otolaryngology discourages earwax removal. It also weakly alludes to the "I know it's obviously designed to go in your ear canal, but it's a bad idea to put a Q-tip in your ear" idea (seriously: despite what the packaging says, they're designed to be used in a way they shouldn't be used). Other than that, it discusses methods which are commonly used. There doesn't seem to be anything to remove. (The "don't put that @#$% Q-tip in your ear" recommendation should probably be punched up a bit.) It seems the situation is more of a problem of not saying enough, rather than saying the wrong things.

As to what you are saying, we'd need a source for the "substantial body of opinion" that the common practice of syringing is unreasonably unsafe. Certainly there would be journal articles covering this, I would guess. As to the litigation, if it isn't discussed in the medical literature, we'd need law journals discussing litigation related to ear syringing in general (not individual cases), which might be a bit more difficult to find. I'm guessing the medical lit is probably a more fruitful avenue to pursue and probably sufficient to get the "probably not a good idea" message in. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Not quite what you're looking for, but here's a BMJ article estimating complications at 1/1000 and suggesting more careful syringing and training of staff. Several other articles (other than those merely citing this one) turn up with similar conclusions. I'm not finding anything useful in support of your take. Medicine is not my field so a more skilled search may turn up more. Good luck. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I can't be stuffed writing a proper review of it for Wikipedia's sake, particularly when I expect my work will just be ignored. I might put it on my todo list for a journal article. - Richard Cavell (talk) 07:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

This page gets nearly 50,000 page views a month [5] Which is nearly half a million a year. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)