Cancer causing chemical found in 98 shampoos and soaps

Status
Not open for further replies.
SteveWinwood said:
Sounds like he's saying it does work better BECAUSE it doesn't have 40 "artificial" chemicals.

And then he said it works better for me so I use it, cool whatever. That gets called out as being anecdotal, because it is. And now people are on Classy's back because apparently shampoo doesn't give his family dry skin and that apparently makes him drunk.
Click to expand...

Cool his family isn't irritated by SLS. Timedog is. Derp.
 
SteveWinwood said:
And then he said it works better for me so I use it, cool whatever. That gets called out as being anecdotal, because it is. And now people are on Classy's back because shampoo doesn't give his family dry skin and that apparently makes him drunk.
Click to expand...
I only joked that he's drunk because his post is kind of hard to decipher.
 
Femmeworth said:
I only joked that he's drunk because his post is kind of hard to decipher.
Click to expand...
Drunk on chemicals.

I mean there are a lot of variables that make it a subjective choice. So it sucks that some brands can cause allergic or similar reactions or cause dry skin but that does not make it true for everyone.
 
I have been using Biolage for a long time but I started using Organix Coconut Milk Shampoo. Doesn't look like it is on the list.
 
SteveWinwood said:
How on earth can all of you be missing the points so badly?

All he is saying is that this:



Sounds like he's saying it does work better BECAUSE it doesn't have 40 "artificial" chemicals.

And then he said it works better for me so I use it, cool whatever. That gets called out as being anecdotal, because it is. And now people are on Classy's back because shampoo doesn't give his family dry skin and that apparently makes him drunk.

All you have to ask is: Timedog do you believe the shampoo you use works better for you BECAUSE it doesn't have the 40 artificial chemicals or just because it does?
Click to expand...

Because it doesn't have the artificial chemicals that are always used in these shampoos. If I could point to a single ingredient that fucks with my hair, scalp, pores then I'd list that singularly instead of saying "40 artificial chemicals". I'd imagine that it's not a single ingredient though. I think that maybe adding in a bunch of unnecessary complexity with a fuckload of ingredients maybe isn't the best idea if you can achieve the same thing with far less ingredients, for a few reasons, but then again I am not a chemist so I could quite easily be wrong there.
 
Trent Strong said:
I don't see how people can not use soap on at least their armpits and crotch. What about crotch rot?
Click to expand...

Crotch rot is a fungus. If you get crotch rot you'll need an antifungal. Soaps are rarely antifungal, except maybe teatree oil stuff. I haven't verified the antifungal effects of teatree oil, but I have heard that it helps.
 
Timedog said:
Because it doesn't have the artificial chemicals that are always used in these shampoos. If I could point to a single ingredient that fucks with my hair, scalp, pores then I'd list that singularly instead of saying "40 artificial chemicals". I'd imagine that it's not a single ingredient though. I think that maybe adding in a bunch of unnecessary complexity with a fuckload of ingredients maybe isn't the best idea if you can achieve the same thing with far less ingredients, for a few reasons, but then again I am not a chemist so I could quite easily be wrong there.
Click to expand...

You most definatly are not a chemist. Despite what you think, the components in your olive oil shampoo aren't exactly natural either. For example, the olive oil in your products was treated with phosphoric acid, sodium hydroxide, absorbent silica, acid activated diatomaceous earth, enzymes, and preservative most likely extracted from GMO soybean oil. This is all standard vegetable oil refining practice.

There is not a line that defines natural, particularly in an unregulated industry like personal care products and cosmetics, so inferring that the product works for you because it is "natural" and has identifiable ingredients is a bit of s stretch.
 
Timedog said:
The ones I use work better for me than any one's i've used with 40 artificial chemicals listed on the label. I'm still interested in where I've used the naturalistic fallacy. Also where I'm anti-science.
Click to expand...

So are you saying that natural shampoos/chemicals are inherently better than artificial equivalents in everyone's case? Because that is the naturalistic fallacy if so.
 
Timedog said:
LOL. I use Dr. Bronners for soap, and an olive oil shampoo and conditioner where I can actually tell what all the (few) (natural) ingredients are.

Weird how they work better than that bullshit with 40 artificial chemicals.
Click to expand...

I just get my neighbro's cat to lick my hair. So natural
 
This is hardly surprising. People too much faith to government control agencies to control all substances in our products.
It is nice to see research like this moving along at least discovering new things being harmful. Been always skeptical of certain ingredients in our soaps, shampoo and so on. My skin is a lot better ever since I started giving a damn about what I put on my body.

SquiddyCracker said:
*Sees Lush*

Awwww shit.
At least it's just one :/
Click to expand...

To be honest despite my love for Lush I am skeptical about their bold claims of not using proven to be harmful ingredients. Their stuff still use way too many ingredients and perfume. However they are good because they avoid using palm oil which cannot be said for most companies. I am a not too keen on their liquid products using parabens like crazy.
 
iamaustrian said:
good for me that i haven't used any kind of shampoo,showering gels or soap since a decade.

Water. No need for more.
Click to expand...

This is too vague, there's too many variables:

Water temperature?

Hair length?

Do you shave your body hair?

Use hair styling products?

Do you just rinse your mouth with water instead of toothpaste, mouthwash, and floss?

Do you use laundry detergent on your clothes?

Deodorant/Anti-perspirant?

What about washing/sterilizing your hands, just water?
 
Femmeworth said:
The International Agency for Research on Cancer only considers this chemical possibly carcinogenic to humans.

http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Classification/ClassificationsCASOrder.pdf

http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Classification/index.php


FDA isn't too concerned either.

http://www.fda.gov/Cosmetics/ProductandIngredientSafety/SelectedCosmeticIngredients/ucm109655.htm
Click to expand...


I'd like to see where they get their information from. I suppose that experiments are out of the question given that we would not want to possibly give people cancer. If there's a strong correlation I would be inclined to not use products that contain this chemical. I find it a little concerning that one of the products on the list is a baby/children's shampoo.
 
ctrl+F "Nivea", nothing, phew. Another victory for baldGAF.
 
*Ctrl+F "pantene" "l'oreal" "head & sholders" "tresemee" "aussie"* No Results

I'm surprised that many big name shampoo brands aren't on that list.
 
H.Protagonist said:
Mine wasn't on the list, but everything is a fricking minefield these days. I'd like to know what I can eat, wear and shower with that DOESN'T cause cancer. I'm sure it's a short list. :/
Click to expand...

And then you can be like me, avoid the obvious stuff, and get cancer anyway.
 
Having a quick look at the list, it looks like a lot of these are cheap store-brand knockoffs. The usual brands you'll see in every pharmacy seem to be out.

Anyway, I'm safe!
 
None of the usual stuff I use is on the list, and even then, the chemical is only a possible cause of cancer, so...eh.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Gene Hackman and wife found dead, in their home
2 3 4 5
214
14K
Rentahamster replied
Found this in an old box of mine
7
907
ÆMNE22A!C replied
An Ancient Roman novelty souvenir stylus found in London
39
2K
Hookshot replied
OpenAI Whistleblower found dead
15
2K
IntentionalPun replied
Possible signs of life found on k2-18b
News Science  2 3
108
4K
GeekyDad replied
Top Bottom