Collarchat.com

Join Our Community
Collarchat.com

Home  Login  Search 

RE: Is it true that that several shampoos contain a nerve damaging poison called MIT


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Health and Safety >> RE: Is it true that that several shampoos contain a nerve damaging poison called MIT Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Is it true that that several shampoos contain a ner... - 10/27/2011 11:13:48 PM   
LafayetteLady


Posts: 7683
Joined: 5/2/2007
From: Northern New Jersey
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

Since testing is not mandatory, how can you say that everything has been tested?



Testing on the PRODUCTS has not been done, but there are guidelines about the chemical components individually. That's where most of the bullshit comes from to begin with. Some idiot with no understanding of studies/science/statistics reads a report about, say, chlorine bleach. Now common sense we all know that you don't drink bleach, it smells bad, it can ruin your clothes. But did you know that it is also used (and recommended) for clearing bacteria out of your well? Yes, I intentionally am not using shampoo ingredients, but that isn't the point. So this person reads the article about how much damage bleach will cause if ingested, touches your skin too long, whatever. They immediately jump to the conclusion that if they put bleach in their well, it will kill them. They aren't able to make the conclusion that you aren't filling your well with bleach, merely putting in one or two cups, and then not using the water to drink for a couple of days. After those couple of days, perfectly safe.

Or how about flouride? It's in practically every tube of toothpaste you buy. But if you read something soley on the dangers of flouride, it will tell you that too much is bad for you. So yes, testing has been done on flouride, and toothpaste uses safe amounts, nowhere near the amounts necessary to do you harm.

That's why I used the hair straightening system. I think it is a Brazilian Hair straightening, not really sure. It contains formaldihyde (sp?). For the person getting their hair straightened once a year, the product follows the safety guidelines from previous studies on how much formaldihyde is "safe," and determined this product was safe for people to use to give their hair that sleeky, straight look that lasts for like a year. What was NOT considered, and why these products are being given warnings, I am pretty sure by the FDA or some other government group was the effect that the formaldihyde would have on the stylists, who come in contact several times a week, if not every day.

Look, I know no product is perfect, but I stand by my statement that there haven't been thousands of people damaged by their hair care products. Are there some that have needed to be removed from the shelves? No doubt. But the site you used may present lots of articles by people saying one thing or another are bad, and the sites they direct you to, such as the National Library of Health, HAVE done studies on those components. Your website looks at those studies and then comes up with a number after it looks up all the ingredients. The NLH, with my quick search doesn't list how much of the chemical can be hazardous. However, it does indictate that the studies on those chemicals have been done.

Again, drink bleach from the bottle? Potentially fatal. Put a cup or two (depending on your well) to purify your drinking water? After 24 hours, safe to drink. Drink straight flouride? Bad idea. Don't know what it does, but it isn't good. Use it in your toothpaste, not a problem.

People can, over time become sensitive to certain things. Personally, I'm allergic to most perfumes (including ones I like, which sucks). I wasn't always, but in my early twenties, it developed with Benneton's Colors perfume (loved the stuff). Once I figured that out, I also found out that many women's fragrances cause the same reaction; coughing, difficulty breathing, headache to name a few. Most MEN'S fragrances don't have the same effect, although over the years with men's fragrances changing as they have, a lot more do bother me. That indicates something was in women's perfume that wasn't in men's, but now is starting to be used.

Now am I going to say that fragrances are harmful to ALL? Nope. I will say they can be harmful to me. Over time I have learned which will and won't make me sick, many just by the name (vanilla is a big offender). I also found that Bath and Body works body sprays rarely have that reaction on me. So what does that mean? It means I developed an allergy, not that the products are dangerous.

These tests are done with large doses, and then smaller and smaller until a determination can be made if it is safe. Think about x-rays. Do you receive so much radiation after a chest x-ray, you leave the lab glowing green and suffering from radiation poisoning? Nope. It would seem a person can have about 33 x-rays a year and still be considered "safe."

http://www.chacha.com/question/how-many-xrays-can-i-get-before-i-get-radiation-poisoning-and-die

But the x-ray tech stands behind glass because they are doing 33 x-rays a day, and exposed to much higher levels of radiation. By the way, x-ray tech isn't considered a "high risk" job.

You want to use products that rate ok on that site, go for it. Me, I buy a big bottle of moderately price shampoo and one of conditioner each month, choosing the ones that work best for my hair. But they need to last a month and when they don't, I'm gonna fall back on the "cheapies." Shit when my hair was short, sometimes I would just use plain old soap to wash my hair and no conditioner. Helped it to stand up better. Now, it is down to my butt and I need to be able to get a comb through it when I get out of the shower and with a natural curl wave to my thick course hair, that is not an easy feat without lots of products. Decent shampoo, conditioner, leave in conditioner and...no more tears detangler, cause sometimes there is knots and it hurts without the no ouch stuff.

(in reply to kalikshama)
Profile   Post #: 41
RE: Is it true that that several shampoos contain a ner... - 10/28/2011 3:37:25 AM   
TheFireWithinMe


Posts: 1672
Joined: 10/3/2011
From: The Depths of Hell
Status: offline
quote:

The OP regularly asks questions that the correct information is available, yet she doesn't look for it. Eventually that becomes a bit tiresome. It isn't like she is saying that she read this article, looked around and found others and is asking how to determine which to believe. It is a regular occurance to read something or want to know something and instead of trying to find the answer, simply coming here and posting. That either indicates a lack of competence or complete laziness. If the former, then someone in her life should be helping her with living skills and taking care of those things. If the latter, well, obviously the boards are here to offer advice and thoughts but not to help you keep your life in order.


I've been thinking about this and I wonder if it's just that she is lonely and is asking those questions in order to start conversations. No it isn't the best way and yes it can get annoying but I just ignore them and let those who want to answer answer. There are people who are crap at searching the internet. Her asking about neurotoxins in shampoos is a classic example.

_____________________________

Charter member: Lance's Fag Hags

There is no snooze button on a cat who wants breakfast. ~Author Unknown

(in reply to LafayetteLady)
Profile   Post #: 42
RE: Is it true that that several shampoos contain a ner... - 10/28/2011 5:09:56 AM   
kalikshama


Posts: 14805
Joined: 8/8/2010
Status: offline
While the OP's sites may have been alarmist, the research says:

About METHYLISOTHIAZOLINONE: Methylisothiazolinone is a widely-used preservative; has been associated with allergic reactions. Lab studies on the brain cells of mammals also suggest that methylisothiazolinone may be neurotoxic.

Look, there are reasons so many products are now paraben-free and why the FDA is finally scrutinizing sunscreen.

Myths on cosmetics safety

Myth – If it’s for sale at a supermarket, drugstore, or department store cosmetics counter, it must be safe.

Fact – The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has no authority to require companies to test products for safety. FDA does not review or approve the vast majority of products or ingredients before they go on the market. The agency conducts pre-market reviews only for certain color additives and active ingredients in cosmetics classified as over-the-counter drugs (FDA 2005, 2010).

[snip]

Myth – Cosmetic ingredients are applied to the skin and rarely get into the body. When they do, levels are too low to matter.

Fact – People are exposed by breathing in sprays and powders, swallowing chemicals on the lips or hands or absorbing them through the skin. Studies find evidence of health risks. Biomonitoring studies have found cosmetics ingredients – like phthalate plasticizers, paraben preservatives, the pesticide triclosan, synthetic musks, and sunscreens – as common pollutants in men, women and children. Many of these chemicals are potential hormone disruptors (Gray et al. 1986, Schreurs et al. 2004, Gomez et al. 2005, Veldhoen et al. 2006). Products commonly contain penetration enhancers to drive ingredients deeper into the skin. Studies find health problems in people exposed to common fragrance and sunscreen ingredients, including elevated risk for sperm damage, feminization of the male reproductive system, and low birth weight in girls (Duty et al. 2003, Hauser et al. 2007, Swan et al. 2005, Wolff et al. 2008).

(in reply to TheFireWithinMe)
Profile   Post #: 43
RE: Is it true that that several shampoos contain a ner... - 10/28/2011 5:33:35 AM   
kalikshama


Posts: 14805
Joined: 8/8/2010
Status: offline
quote:

It would seem a person can have about 33 x-rays a year and still be considered "safe."


The amount of radiation a woman receives after having one mammogram a year for 10 years is enough to cause breast cancer, which is partially why, for most women, the recommendation has been changed to mammograms every other year after age 50 instead of every year starting at age 40.

Federal panel recommends reducing number of mammograms

Seeing Deception is Your Only Protection

(in reply to LafayetteLady)
Profile   Post #: 44
RE: Is it true that that several shampoos contain a ner... - 10/28/2011 12:44:14 PM   
searching4mysir


Posts: 2757
Joined: 6/16/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady


You might not agree with the testing, and a bit of your post seems to indicate you lean a little toward the whole conspiracy of "vaccines cause autism" which means you aren't really that good at reading and understanding studies and statistics.



And you would be wrong. I am not a big fan of most vaccines because a) I believe many lose their effectiveness (thus the constant need for boosters) and b) I prefer to have my immune system fight off the real disease if exposed. Many diseases it is possible to avoid contracting with behavior modification.

If I never have sex or swap fluids with a person with HIV, I'm not going to get HIV. I would much rather remain HIV negative that way than to get a vaccine for HIV (were there one available). I believe that for MOST people, the chicken pox vaccine is just stupid (the chicken pox parties of my youth worked just fine). I don't vaccinate myself against the flu for a variety of reasons, one being that they change it every year and hope they've got the right strain they are vaccinating against (the other is that I'm healthy with good hygiene habits and have only gotten the flu twice in 43 years and as long as I eat properly to maintain my good immune system I don't have to worry about it). If a vaccine is developed using embryonic tissue samples, I avoid it for moral reasons.

(in reply to LafayetteLady)
Profile   Post #: 45
RE: Is it true that that several shampoos contain a ner... - 10/28/2011 6:10:47 PM   
Toppingfrmbottom


Posts: 6528
Joined: 6/7/2009
Status: offline
It may be kind of cruel of me, but those people chose to be tested on, animals did not.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tantriqu

Just remember, 'not tested on animals' means tested on lower income humans [students, unemployed and pensioners'.
I *ask* for animal tested products: I'd rather a labrat got cancer than someone's daughter or granny.



_____________________________

One world under lube with vibrators and dildo's for all! quote from the sex toy 101 book

(in reply to Tantriqu)
Profile   Post #: 46
RE: Is it true that that several shampoos contain a ner... - 10/28/2011 6:59:40 PM   
hausboy


Posts: 2360
Joined: 9/5/2010
Status: offline
Hi TFB and other folks

I'm a bit late to the dialogue on this, but here goes.

A few tidbits, odds and ends...

First:
Cosmetics/shampoos/soaps fall generally into two categories.  some are considered cosmetics (in the traditional sense) and others are considered an OTC (Over The Counter) drugs...some are both.  Example: some facial cleaners for acne, dandruff shampoo, foot powders..and so on.  Anything we put on our bodies for cleaning, perfume or beauty is deemed a cosmetic--even deodorant and toothpaste.

In the U.S., the Food & Drug Administration is responsible for the regulations that pertaining to cosmetics (that includes soap, shampoo and other body products)--and federal regulations forbids any toxic, poisonous or contaminated substance, with the exception of hair dyes, of which there are multiple types/categories and all sorts of rules & regs. about those.  It's a bit complex.  This doesn't mean it 's safe to drink the shampoo, but it does mean that shampoo sold in the U.S. will not contain substances that will cause you harm from proper usage. If it does, it's pulled off the market and its sale is forbidden in the U.S.  If a product does not do what it says it does--ie. dandruff shampoo that does not actually contain ingredients proven to help dandruff, it's called "misbranding".

Now that said...and this ties into the animal testing issue.....  the feds do not regulate how the cosmetic industry conducts product safety testing.   From my very limited understanding of the law (I deal occasionally with the FDA, but not usually with cosmetics), they do not have regulations specific about safety testing of products.  what the law DOES require, is that if a product has NOT been tested and their efficacy claims substantiated, they have to indicate that on the packaging.

SO....  a company has to put a warning sticker on their product if they have NOT done testing to prove it's safe.   It doesn't mean it's dangerous....but doesn't exactly mean it's safe either.  An example of this:  supplements that have warning stickers that state that their product claims have not been substantiated by the FDA.   It's a bit backwards, really.

Lots of words....I know. 
so TFB--
your shampoo, assuming you purchased it here in the States legally, is safe and effective for you to use as long as you follow the directions on the bottle. 
Another example?  Bug spray.  You can use bug repellent on your skin.  It does contain ingredients that in larger quantities, are hazardous to your health.  It's why bug sprays always have a lengthy warning label on them.  But in small amounts (and following the instructions), they will not cause you harm.

make sense?

edited for typos


< Message edited by hausboy -- 10/28/2011 7:01:19 PM >

(in reply to Toppingfrmbottom)
Profile   Post #: 47
RE: Is it true that that several shampoos contain a ner... - 10/28/2011 7:29:22 PM   
LafayetteLady


Posts: 7683
Joined: 5/2/2007
From: Northern New Jersey
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

quote:

It would seem a person can have about 33 x-rays a year and still be considered "safe."


The amount of radiation a woman receives after having one mammogram a year for 10 years is enough to cause breast cancer, which is partially why, for most women, the recommendation has been changed to mammograms every other year after age 50 instead of every year starting at age 40.

Federal panel recommends reducing number of mammograms

Seeing Deception is Your Only Protection


You had to do some pretty fancy math to come to that conclusion. Neither of the above articles make that statement. Again, you don't want to have a mammogram, then don't. Personally, I believe they should move the testing to ultrasound since it gives a much clearer picture, not because of radiation. Of course, if they do that, then there will be another group claiming that ultrasound causes cancer.

The only thing those articles support is the theory that annual testing does not improve the rates of finding it early and doing something about it. Funny how you didn't mention that they also think that self exams are useless.

(in reply to kalikshama)
Profile   Post #: 48
RE: Is it true that that several shampoos contain a ner... - 10/28/2011 7:34:52 PM   
LafayetteLady


Posts: 7683
Joined: 5/2/2007
From: Northern New Jersey
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: searching4mysir


quote:

ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady


You might not agree with the testing, and a bit of your post seems to indicate you lean a little toward the whole conspiracy of "vaccines cause autism" which means you aren't really that good at reading and understanding studies and statistics.



And you would be wrong. I am not a big fan of most vaccines because a) I believe many lose their effectiveness (thus the constant need for boosters) and b) I prefer to have my immune system fight off the real disease if exposed. Many diseases it is possible to avoid contracting with behavior modification.

If I never have sex or swap fluids with a person with HIV, I'm not going to get HIV. I would much rather remain HIV negative that way than to get a vaccine for HIV (were there one available). I believe that for MOST people, the chicken pox vaccine is just stupid (the chicken pox parties of my youth worked just fine). I don't vaccinate myself against the flu for a variety of reasons, one being that they change it every year and hope they've got the right strain they are vaccinating against (the other is that I'm healthy with good hygiene habits and have only gotten the flu twice in 43 years and as long as I eat properly to maintain my good immune system I don't have to worry about it). If a vaccine is developed using embryonic tissue samples, I avoid it for moral reasons.




The most important vaccines don't require a booster. Have you had a booster for polio? Smallpox? Scarlet fever? German measles? Based on the age of your profile, your mother didn't have an option for not getting you these vaccines. And your healthy diet won't do a damn thing to stop them.

Do I think everyone should get the flu vaccine? No. But older people and others with suppressed immune systems, regardless of their diet will suffer a lot worse than a week or so in bed should they get hit with the flu.

So I was wrong? No, you are one of those people who are woefully misinformed and misguided regarding things like vaccines.

(in reply to searching4mysir)
Profile   Post #: 49
RE: Is it true that that several shampoos contain a ner... - 10/28/2011 7:38:24 PM   
LafayetteLady


Posts: 7683
Joined: 5/2/2007
From: Northern New Jersey
Status: offline
Thank you hausboy, for once again setting people straight with actual knowledge rather than supposition.

Now if only people would believe it, lol. Maybe once they stop blaming their bug spray, shampoo ingredients and vaccines for what ails them.

(in reply to hausboy)
Profile   Post #: 50
RE: Is it true that that several shampoos contain a ner... - 10/28/2011 7:40:13 PM   
hausboy


Posts: 2360
Joined: 9/5/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady


quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

quote:

It would seem a person can have about 33 x-rays a year and still be considered "safe."


The amount of radiation a woman receives after having one mammogram a year for 10 years is enough to cause breast cancer, which is partially why, for most women, the recommendation has been changed to mammograms every other year after age 50 instead of every year starting at age 40.

Federal panel recommends reducing number of mammograms

Seeing Deception is Your Only Protection


You had to do some pretty fancy math to come to that conclusion. Neither of the above articles make that statement. Again, you don't want to have a mammogram, then don't. Personally, I believe they should move the testing to ultrasound since it gives a much clearer picture, not because of radiation. Of course, if they do that, then there will be another group claiming that ultrasound causes cancer.

The only thing those articles support is the theory that annual testing does not improve the rates of finding it early and doing something about it. Funny how you didn't mention that they also think that self exams are useless.


Kali
the amount of radiation received in a mammogram is low, and the primary belief here:   the benefit of catching breast cancer early through a mammogram far outweighs the risks from a low dose of radiation.  I must disagree with your statement that one mammogram a year for ten years causes breast cancer--breast cancer deaths have decreased as a result of early detection, not increased due to radiation exposure.  Breast cancer has been detected much more since mammography was introduced, but the tests didn't cause the cancer, just detected it.

It is true that x-rays should be limited for the very reason that it is certainly radiation, but the RAD (radiation absorbed dose) you receive once a year from your mammogram is not enough to cause cancer.  If you are concerned, you can always talk to a doctor in the local nuclear medicine dept of your hospital.

(in reply to LafayetteLady)
Profile   Post #: 51
RE: Is it true that that several shampoos contain a ner... - 10/28/2011 7:43:36 PM   
hausboy


Posts: 2360
Joined: 9/5/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady

Thank you hausboy, for once again setting people straight with actual knowledge rather than supposition.

Now if only people would believe it, lol. Maybe once they stop blaming their bug spray, shampoo ingredients and vaccines for what ails them.

and perhaps now I can convince you to get a flu shot. ...

and for those with insomnia who want to read this good stuff....  hang on....gotta go find that link on their website....
...surfing....surfing....surfing...[cut ... paste]  here ya go!  bazinga!

http://www.fda.gov/Cosmetics/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/ucm074162.htm


(in reply to LafayetteLady)
Profile   Post #: 52
RE: Is it true that that several shampoos contain a ner... - 10/28/2011 7:47:53 PM   
Toppingfrmbottom


Posts: 6528
Joined: 6/7/2009
Status: offline
Yes. Hausboy, it does, good to "see you " again btw.
quote:

ORIGINAL: hausboy


make sense?



_____________________________

One world under lube with vibrators and dildo's for all! quote from the sex toy 101 book

(in reply to hausboy)
Profile   Post #: 53
RE: Is it true that that several shampoos contain a ner... - 10/28/2011 8:06:02 PM   
hausboy


Posts: 2360
Joined: 9/5/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: searching4mysir

And you would be wrong. I am not a big fan of most vaccines because a) I believe many lose their effectiveness (thus the constant need for boosters) and b) I prefer to have my immune system fight off the real disease if exposed. Many diseases it is possible to avoid contracting with behavior modification.

If I never have sex or swap fluids with a person with HIV, I'm not going to get HIV. I would much rather remain HIV negative that way than to get a vaccine for HIV (were there one available). I believe that for MOST people, the chicken pox vaccine is just stupid (the chicken pox parties of my youth worked just fine). I don't vaccinate myself against the flu for a variety of reasons, one being that they change it every year and hope they've got the right strain they are vaccinating against (the other is that I'm healthy with good hygiene habits and have only gotten the flu twice in 43 years and as long as I eat properly to maintain my good immune system I don't have to worry about it). If a vaccine is developed using embryonic tissue samples, I avoid it for moral reasons.



Hi searching4mysir....

You're certainly not alone--lots of folks out there are reluctant to take vaccines.  I understand it's a personal choice for adults--but part of my job involves responding to the unfortunate end results when people do not get vaccinated.  I have the unfortunate opportunity to meet with the parents of deceased children.  They have volunteered to help create PSA's to tell parents to get their kids vaccinated.

I hear that quite a bit--the argument  "I haven't had the flu in x number of years...so I'm not about to do a flu shot now.."  One of my colleagues recently responded to that with: "I've never gotten into a serious car accident--but I still wear my seatbelt every time I drive"   I'd also like to point out, that you can carry a virus and shed it (spread to others) without being symptomatic.  Getting vaccinated doesn't just increase your protection--it helps protect those around you as well.

Here's a few studies--cases studies of outbreaks of unvaccinated populations due to "ethical/religious" reasons...  (sorry, yes, this IS a part of my paying job..I was already reading it for something else....but what the heck. here ya go!)
http://www.immunize.org/catg.d/p2069.pdf

a little light bedtime reading...

(in reply to searching4mysir)
Profile   Post #: 54
RE: Is it true that that several shampoos contain a ner... - 10/29/2011 12:29:59 AM   
LafayetteLady


Posts: 7683
Joined: 5/2/2007
From: Northern New Jersey
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: hausboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady

Thank you hausboy, for once again setting people straight with actual knowledge rather than supposition.

Now if only people would believe it, lol. Maybe once they stop blaming their bug spray, shampoo ingredients and vaccines for what ails them.

and perhaps now I can convince you to get a flu shot. ...

and for those with insomnia who want to read this good stuff....  hang on....gotta go find that link on their website....
...surfing....surfing....surfing...[cut ... paste]  here ya go!  bazinga!

http://www.fda.gov/Cosmetics/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/ucm074162.htm




Actually, my dear hausboy, you don't need to convince me. With the diabetes and the kidney failure earlier this year, I'm getting a flu shot. Got one last year, too. I have never had the flu, but I honestly don't have the time to get it either. I know I'm in the "suppressed immunity" group.

By the way, I have horrible insomnia, so now I will be reading an FDA article. Sadly those things don't put me to sleep they wake me up.

So thanks....for nothing!

(in reply to hausboy)
Profile   Post #: 55
RE: Is it true that that several shampoos contain a ner... - 10/29/2011 5:22:35 AM   
LillyBoPeep


Posts: 6873
Joined: 12/29/2010
Status: offline
the FDA's own site says that they don't have the authority to require testing, they just count on the cosmetic firms themselves to "assure" safety, or risk misbranding.
quote:


FDA's legal authority over cosmetics is different from other products regulated by the agency, such as drugs, biologics, and medical devices. Cosmetic products and ingredients are not subject to FDA premarket approval authority, with the exception of color additives.


so uh yeah....  we've all sure been set straight. =p
let me go cower and change all my opinions!

i do not have a favorable opinion of the FDA. they can be bought and sold and fiddled with, just like any other government association. but ooohh i'm probably a paranoid unscientific hippie who can't read statistics. pfft.



_____________________________

Midwestern Girl

"Obey your Master." Metallica


(in reply to LafayetteLady)
Profile   Post #: 56
RE: Is it true that that several shampoos contain a ner... - 10/29/2011 5:42:59 AM   
TheFireWithinMe


Posts: 1672
Joined: 10/3/2011
From: The Depths of Hell
Status: offline
quote:

Personally, I believe they should move the testing to ultrasound since it gives a much clearer picture, not because of radiation. Of course, if they do that, then there will be another group claiming that ultrasound causes cancer.


I don't know how things are done elsewhere but at the hospital where I have my mammos, because my boobs are very dense and lumpy bumpy they did an ultrasound afterwards. It's standard procedure. Women who have boobs that are denser than mind go straight to ultrasound because a mammo isn't good enough.

Kalik the claims that having a mammo each year is utter rot. Breast cancer patients have a yearly mammo it's just common sense. Do you honestly think it would be common practice if these people were coming down with breast cancer because of the mammos? Ditto with repeat imaging to restage/keep track of existing cancers.

_____________________________

Charter member: Lance's Fag Hags

There is no snooze button on a cat who wants breakfast. ~Author Unknown

(in reply to LafayetteLady)
Profile   Post #: 57
RE: Is it true that that several shampoos contain a ner... - 10/29/2011 8:01:52 AM   
kalikshama


Posts: 14805
Joined: 8/8/2010
Status: offline
quote:

You had to do some pretty fancy math to come to that conclusion. Neither of the above articles make that statement.


You're right, neither use that stat. I'll look in "Women's Bodies, Women's Wisdom" to see if I read it there. I was tired of the VA offering me mammograms every time I went in and remembered reading that stat some time back.

http://www.whatwomenmustknow.com/pdfs/BACArt.pdf

More questions are being raised about the validity of mammograms. A mammogram is an x-ray. The only acknowledged cause of cancer by the American Cancer Society is from radiation. When it comes to radiation, there is no safe level of exposure.

"There is clear evidence that the breast, particularly in premenopausal women, is highly sensitive to radiation, with estimates of increased risk of up to one percent for every RAD (radiation absorbed dose) unit of x-ray exposure. Even for low dosage exposure of two RADs or less, this exposure can add up quickly for women having an annual mammography," notes Samuel Epstein, M.D., Professor of Occupational and Environmental Medicine at the University of Illinois School of Public Health. "More recent concern comes from evidence that one percent of women, or over one million women in the United States alone, carry a gene that increases their breast cancer risk from radiation fourfold."8

"Furthermore," says Dr. Epstein, "while there is a general consensus that mammography improves early cancer detection and survival in post-menopausal women, no such benefit is demonstrable for younger women." Still, the American Cancer Society recommends annual or biannual mammography for all women ages forty to fifty-five or earlier.

"Mammograms increase the risk for developing breast cancer and raise the risk of spreading or metastasizing an existing growth," says Dr. Charles B. Simone, a former clinical associate in immunology and pharmacology at the National Cancer Institute. Safer and even more effective diagnostic techniques like infrared thermography has been vigorously attacked by the Breast Cancer Awareness organizations.9

It is also noteworthy to point out that General Electric, a major polluter in PCB's in the Hudson River, N.Y. area, manufactures mammography machines.

(in reply to LafayetteLady)
Profile   Post #: 58
RE: Is it true that that several shampoos contain a ner... - 10/29/2011 12:12:13 PM   
LafayetteLady


Posts: 7683
Joined: 5/2/2007
From: Northern New Jersey
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LillyBoPeep

the FDA's own site says that they don't have the authority to require testing, they just count on the cosmetic firms themselves to "assure" safety, or risk misbranding.
quote:


FDA's legal authority over cosmetics is different from other products regulated by the agency, such as drugs, biologics, and medical devices. Cosmetic products and ingredients are not subject to FDA premarket approval authority, with the exception of color additives.


so uh yeah....  we've all sure been set straight. =p
let me go cower and change all my opinions!

i do not have a favorable opinion of the FDA. they can be bought and sold and fiddled with, just like any other government association. but ooohh i'm probably a paranoid unscientific hippie who can't read statistics. pfft.




Actually that is more the tin foil hat crowd.

Statistics are so easily manipulated for public consumption to show what the author wants them to show it isn't even funny.

(in reply to LillyBoPeep)
Profile   Post #: 59
RE: Is it true that that several shampoos contain a ner... - 10/29/2011 2:23:58 PM   
kalikshama


Posts: 14805
Joined: 8/8/2010
Status: offline
Indeed.

(in reply to LafayetteLady)
Profile   Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Health and Safety >> RE: Is it true that that several shampoos contain a nerve damaging poison called MIT Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2024
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.238