|
Aswad -> RE: Is it true that that several shampoos contain a nerve damaging poison called MIT (11/7/2011 8:04:03 AM)
|
People who are skeptical of established medical knowledge are better addressed without appealing to studies published for a different audience.
For instance,with shampoo, the perceived risk needs to be put into perspective. Refuelling a car introduces a risk of leukemia which outweighs the shampoo. Sitting down while taking a dump, rather than standing up, introduces a risk of having the major vessels in the abdomen fatally damaged, again greater than the risk of the substances added to the shampoo. Of course, to even make shampoo a noticeable factor in any aspect of health, it is necessary to have the right amount of exercise, good nutritional status, no driving of cars, positive air pressure in the home, fire alarms and monoxide alarms, roofing of thick sheets of boron carbide coated tungsten, eating clay crackers on a regular basis (and not just for the fluorine), and so forth. Meat should be cut down to at most one cow per five years per family of two adults and two kids; at least twice as much fish and fowl. Fruit should never be cosmetically intact, and the population must be cut by at least one digit to allow the correct nutrient balance in the soil and the lower yields of untreated crops.
All of those are higher concerns than what's in the shampoo, and I'm fairly certain only a handful of people here even know what's in the air they breathe (in terms of radon, CO, NOx, organic volatiles and so forth). Unless one has everything on that list in order, worrying about the contents of shampoo for any health reason other than established allergy or sensitivity to a specific ingredient cannot be in the realm of the rational.
Incidentally, dermatologic testing on animals is a fading issue.
The EU issued a directive banning it from a certain date, and the industry responded by finding an alternative. Turns out the alternative was more effective and less expensive. Uses human skin recovered from mastectomies in breast cancer patients, grown to a large area on top of a vascularized substrate with all the usual features and subdivided into small squares that are supplied mounted to cubes that have a sterile nutrient bath. As the women here can probably attest, breasts are pretty sensitive. The tests are made more convenient, the results are repeatable, and it takes less time. One can test over several racial groups for realistic skin responses in a decidedly human model. Also, any penetration of the skin by ingredients will instantly be revealed, as those ingredients will be present in embedding matrix of the nutrient bath (and can be quickly identified by chromatography). In short, the industry bitched about it, the EU said "deal with it", they dealt with it, and we're all better off for it, including the four legged rats. The USA benefits from this, as well, since it's more expensive to run two sets of tests than one, meaning the companies that are large enough to care about exports will be running the cloned skin tests, and not spending money on the facilities required to house lab rats (those are specific strains, and their conditions have to conform to certain standards, meaning personell for handling, and so forth).
As for the comments on mammography, we receive substantial X-ray exposure from lightning storms, airplane rides and also local rocks (people forget, those elements that make up our planet were created in the largest nuclear furnaces known to man: stars). Living anywhere near a place that burns coal or wood increases the exposure far beyond the level of having mammograms done on an annual basis, and the cancer risk is not even remotely comparable to the risk from refuelling a car on regular intervals (a well established factor in leukemia prevalence, as such things go). Without positive air pressure and an absolutely airtight house, radon will make a sizeable conribution to cumulative exposure. Indeed, most of the posters here can probably have a monthly mammogram and not get the same risk of breast cancer as that invisible risk of lung cancer from radon they breathe every day.
Feel safer now? About shampoos and mammograms, I mean?
Health,
al-Aswad.
|
|
|
|
