Gentlemen,
This topic has been addressed extensively on other threads, with much passion and (virtual) ink spilt on both sides. A brief search will get you ample reading for a week. If I may sum; the oil contingent considers it a potential benefit with no demonstrated risks. The contrarians counter with pictures of healthy torts raised without it (so not needed) and suggest any risk is too great for something unnecessary.
I comment for two reasons; first, neither of the arguments (in this thread anyway) are valid. As mentioned, something being 'unnatural' is not the same as being problematic. On the other side, someone 'not feeling' something is a problem ' is not informative.
Second (and this is most important), somehow the 'wet method ' was brought up as a similar controversy and cause of respiratory infection. This is completely incorrect and a false equivalency. I've raised enough to know this but plenty others can speak to this with more authority.
Finally, as to the passion folks bring to this, and other discussions, I suspect it follows from the vast amounts of bad advice that have been overcome. No one wants anymore to take root.
Whew! Maybe I need to find a drink and relax.
Cheers!
I simply brought up wet method as a newer method, which many people believed would be risky. Not that it actually caused respiratory infections. Simply that before it was done, people did (and still do) argue it's risky.
Love your post though!
(Also a lady, but not offended by being called gentleman. )