PDA

View Full Version : The no shampoo movement. (are shampoos a danger for us and the environment??)



marialena
April 2nd, 2009, 10:35 AM
I've posted a few posts in my "hallo thread" about this subject but as I saw there's a lot of interest for that, so I move it here in a new thread.
I would like to know what is your opinion about the no shampoo movement.
According to many sites and blogs using shampoo is, ( first of all because there is many other issues) the worst thing that we can do to our hair.

Except the usual google search, where you can find a lot information about the damages that shampoos do to your hair I would like to republish here a very good synopsis that I found to the following site:

http://babyslime.livejournal.com/174054.html


What's so bad about shampoo anyway?
Shampoo is a detergent, just like laundry detergent, dishwashing powder and the stuff you use to clean your bathroom. It cleans out the dirt in your hair, but is very harsh and also takes the natural oils that make your hair shiny, soft and strong. Shampoo wasn't introduced until the early 20th century, before that many people used soap. Soap can wash your hair without removing as much of the natural oils that shampoo does. Unfortunately, it doesn't stand very well in alkaline water. When mineral levels in water began to rise, that made soap a messy, poor item to wash with. It causes 'soap scum' rings around your tub and on your shower doors. Alkali (hard water) makes the scales on your hair stand up, feel rough and get tangled. When washing with water with a higher alkaline content and soap, the "soap scum" gets all tangled up in your hair, is much harder to wash out, and creates a big mess. Shampoo came out on the market just in time, displaying it's only real benefit: it behaves similarly both in hard and soft water. Therefore it was a "Superior" product to an old favorite, soap. But it didn't come without problems. Because shampoo is harsh enough to strip the natural oils from your hair, you need something to replenish them. So, conditioner was born. You need to wash your hair every day not because it gets dirty, but because the oils from the conditioner don't last and need to be replenished.

The oils in your hair come naturally out of your scalp to nourish it. Stripping them away causes damage, and breakage over time. In a way you do need conditioner, if you use shampoo - because it covers up the damage that's been done. But you don't need shampoo in the first place, all you're spending your money on is a big bottle of perfumed detergent.

Most shampoos contain mineral oil. A byproduct of the distillation of gasoline from crude oil, mineral oil is what's left over. It's so abundant that it costs more to dispose of it then it does to package and sell it, so it ends up everywhere. It's added to shampoos and conditioners to give hair an artificial shine caused by coating it with a thick oil. Mineral oil cannot absorb into your skin like other oils do, so it sits on top and forms a barrier preventing oils and toxins from being released as a normal part of your skin's lifecycle. This is one of the reasons you'll find that the more shampoo you use, the more often you need to use it. In the long run, coating your hair with mineral oil makes it weaker, and more prone to damage.

If mineral oil doesn't bother you, maybe the other ingredients will. SLS and SLFS (sodium lauryl sulfate, sodium laureth sulfate) are skin and eye irritants that also acts as a foaming agent in soaps, shampoos, toothpastes, dishwashing liquid... and just about anything that produces a foamy lather. The Materials Safety Data Sheet cautions to avoid body contact with SLS, it also puts infants and children (whose eye are developing at a more rapid rate) at risk for improper eye development when it's absorbed through the skin and accumulates in eye tissues. Because of residual levels in internal organs, it's questioned how safe our current rates of exposure are. "Debunkers", and companies who sell products containing these ingredients claim that the short exposure (shampoo and rinse) isn't enough for it to build up, and that by itself, in the dilution present within the product, the ingredient won't cause damage. This is basically true, however neither take into account recent reports (within the last five years), exposure due to the amount of products which contain SLS/SLFS and how often we use them, and the known chemical reaction with other ingredients commonly found in these products. While not carcinogens, both these substances, when mixed with other ingredients commonly found in shampoo bottles, may cause carcinogenic nitrates to form. Using it in moderation, and even in high amounts probably isn't going to kill you - but it's certainly not improving your health. The suggested safe percentage of SLS or SLFS to be used in products like shampoo and toothpaste isn't adhered to as often as it should be.

In its final report on the safety of sodium lauryl sulfate, the Journal of the American College of Toxicology notes that this ingredient has a "degenerative effect on the cell membranes because of its protein denaturing properties." What's more, the journal adds, "high levels of skin penetration may occur at even low use concentration."

Interestingly, sodium lauryl sulfate "is used around the world in clinical studies as a skin irritant," notes the journal. The publication expressed additional concerns:

* Carcinogenic nitrosamines can form in the manufacturing of sodium lauryl sulfate or by its inter-reaction with other nitrogen-bearing ingredients within a formulation utilizing this ingredient.
* Other studies have indicated that sodium lauryl sulfate enters and maintains residual levels in the heart, liver, lungs and brain from skin contact. This poses the question whether it could be a serious potential health threat from its use in shampoos, cleansers, and toothpastes.
* Still other research has indicated sodium lauryl sulfate may be damaging to the immune system, especially within the skin. Skin layers may separate and inflame due to its protein denaturing properties.
* Although sodium lauryl sulfate is not carcinogenic in experimental studies, it has been shown that it causes severe epidermal changes in the area it is applied, indicating a need for tumor-enhancing assays.
* Additional studies have found that sodium lauryl sulfate is heavily deposited on the skin surface and in the hair follicles. Damage to the hair follicle could result from such deposition.

All the above seem quite worrying but I recently I read another article that I can say that scared me and this is the other issue that I mention previously ( and you can read it here)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1165647/Household-cleaning-products-water-supply-triggers-growth-deadly-drug-resistant-bugs.html


I would like to know your opinion about this. If our cleaning habits can be so disastrous for the environment how disastrous can be for ourselves?

Do the pros of shiny and beautiful hair balance the cons that can be caused from the use of such products?

Do you believe that the companies deliberately keep people in dark for these dangers?

Do or do not have any responsibility in such matters?

My personal opinion is that we ought to be more informed and act with ways that benefit all people. But the crucial question is the following:
Are we available to change our habits or not?

So I think it would be good to discuss about this and if you have heard or read somewhere more about this movement I would be good to put it here as well.

Fethenwen
April 2nd, 2009, 11:30 AM
I answer yes to all of your questions. I have made the decision of not using any shampoo. I also don't use any chemical cleaning methods any more either, or at least don't buy cleaning solutions with harmful chemicals in them. I've noticed that one can do more than fine without that sort of thing.

It's amazing what companies can do just to make one believe that their products are absolutely necessary and safe to use just to get some profit. There is clearly not enough of restrictions on chemicals, and there is also the problem of animal testing which also gives me the shivers. Greenpeace have spoken about this chemical problem for a long time, it seems that they are getting more listeners today.Like their REACH program: "The REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals) regulation became operational in June 2008" That got through here in Europe. Here's one short article: http://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/press-centre/press-releases2/First-REACH-hazardous-chemicals-list-is-a-drop-in-the-ocean

Firefly
April 2nd, 2009, 11:36 AM
What an interesting read. I wonder if there is a way to cleanse via an herbal rinse instead? **stalks off to use the search feature**

mira-chan
April 2nd, 2009, 12:00 PM
What an interesting read. I wonder if there is a way to cleanse via an herbal rinse instead? **stalks off to use the search feature**

There is, the article linked in my signature may help.

As to chemicals, there are chemicals in everything, natural things are made of chemicals too and not all are good either.

I do have a sensitivity to sulfates and silicones so I do avoid these things and have been known to rant about them being in everything, but there are shampoos without them. I can actually give you a list of SDS (Sodium dodecyl sulfate aka. SLS) negative effect it can cause. Some people on the other hand need them (saborrhitic dermatitis control) so nothing will work the same for everyone.

Keep in mind, before shampoos people in many countries used soap, which is alkaline and will mess up the pH of the scalp unless correctly balanced with vinegar or another mild acid afterwards. So that wasn't perfect either.

There are pros and cons to everything. Though I do think in general, speaking for the US here from what I've seen, there is a major over use of these things.

spidermom
April 2nd, 2009, 12:13 PM
That part about "the same detergents that are in laundry detergents ..." blah-blah-blah - it's so misleading. The formulations are very different. As far as what is harmful to the environment, I've been doing my best to make the most nontoxic choices that I possibly can for 30+ years, but until somebody puts the screws to cleaning up industry, what does or does not go down my drain makes very little difference in the big picture.

Firefly
April 2nd, 2009, 12:36 PM
You make some great points, Mira-chan. I do worry about what is in the products we use, but there is so much conflicting info out there; it's good to be reminded to keep it balanced! Aside from that though, I love making my own herbal products, so I look forward to reading the article you linked to. Thank you!

Kirin
April 2nd, 2009, 12:43 PM
Here is my opinion on this topic. I've stated it in a few other threads.

First, a quote from the article: "Most shampoos contain mineral oil."

That is at best, misinformation, and at worst, a flat out lie. Its conditioners, not shampoos that contain mineral oil. SLS detergents are made from petroleum, but not mineral oil, so take this technicality to heart. Though it "sounds" really authoritative, its not, leading the reader into a direction that isn't factual.

Incidentally, mineral oil (and petroleum) is natural. Neither is it synthetic, or chemically engineered. I've seen the arguments, however, no one can disprove that mineral oil is the most innocuous oil out there. It is used in so many products because it is available, cheap, and the least likely to cause an allergic reaction than any other oil. Weather or not you *like* what mineral oil does for you is another matter, but it isn't the devil many claim. I entertain and understand individuals reasons for not using it, such as personal preference against using petroleum based products, but making it a harbinger of doom ingredient is not warranted.

SLS's. This is another "harbinger of death" ingredient, given a really bad rap. Believe me, shampoo makers really aren't hiding whats in their products. The ingredients ARE listed, and anyone can find out what they are, and what they do on the internet. They know this. Also, consider this, they wouldn't make a lot of money on resale of their product to return customers if they willingly gave them "death in a bottle".

Why is SLS prevalent? Simple. Its cheap. We buy it because its cheap. We use it because its cheap. Wait....... its cheap and it works. Maybe that is why its on the market. Do a comparison of a 99 cent bottle of V05 shampoo, and some 20 dollar sls free shampoos of "organic/pure" nature and you will see what I mean.

The idea, that SLS shampoos will "kill" your hair, ruin it and a million other things is actually proven wrong on millions of heads in America alone. I know plenty of long haired indivuduals not wracked with splits and tangling who use shampoo/conditioner daily.

Does SLS shampoo cause cancer? Possibly...... in lab mice. I've done some checking into that coming to find, that mice are pre-disposed to cancerous tumors. In fact ..... rodents in general have a high incidence of cancerous tumors, having never had a shampoo in their lives. The fact remains, no one has died of cancer directly linked to shampoo use. Considering, shampoos of today are gentler and kinder than the originals that first came out, and those "new users" of the sls shampoos on the markets didn't drop like flies, should give some indication.

Is SLS shampoo bad for the enviornment? Yes. Then again, so is soap. I really hate to be the bearer of bad news, but even the best handmade soap, is NOT natural in the enviornment. A small tiny amount of naturally occurring soap does happen when animal fats mix with wood ashes (such as cooking on a fire), but in small miniscule amounts.

Both SLS detergent -and- soap are made through a chemical reactive process. Is soap more gentle than sls detergent? Yes. Better for the enviornment, no. If you don't believe me, put a tablespoon of natural liquid soap into an aquarium and watch what happens. So on this note, soap may be better for your hair, but not your local pond/stream/drinking water.

(on that note, be aware that though soap is made with lye, no lye remains in the soap afterward. I've seen that horror touted around too to frighten people, "OMG its got lye in it!!". No trace of lye remains after the soap making process. This is only to say, sls and soap are both detrimental and not natural to the enviornment, both man made).

I think a lot of the panic attack inducing literature on the subject is because it is our hair!! I really think there is something in the psyche when its about hair care that freaks most of us out. A lot of this literature preys on this fact, and as you go down the list, though there is stuff out there, there is a lot less written about sls's in other things, such as your dishwashing liquid, body wash, facial scrub, and toilet cleaner.

Much I've seen really goes for the jugular that SLS detergents in shampoo are degreasers, or the same as your laundry detergent. The fact is, soap is used for the same things, and very well actually, sometimes better. I can use pure soap to get that oil spot out of my driveway, and the ring out of my toilet, or the grease off my dishes.

What it boils down to is personal preference, and your personal feelings on how each is made. I love that women and men have so many choices in how to care for their hair, and do so with fervor in selecting their routines. However, I am not a believer that scare tactics should weigh in on it either. Just remember, the "media" wether on the news or the internet, says good and bad, to the same items.

WelshLocks
April 2nd, 2009, 01:12 PM
My hair always gets super frizzy and strawlike when I don't use shampoo.is that normal?

spidermom
April 2nd, 2009, 01:21 PM
My hair always gets super frizzy and strawlike when I don't use shampoo.is that normal?

I think it's pretty normal. My hair hates soap - it gets dull and frizzy and gummy-feeling. (but I didn't follow it up with an acid rinse; didn't know about that back then)

jewelotn
April 2nd, 2009, 01:28 PM
Kirin makes a lot of good points. IE: I use a baking soda solution and there are some old threads on LHC questioning the safety of it b/c some posters said baking soda is strong enough to scrub & clean their tubs and toilets. And therefore, baking soda is too caustic to use as shampoo. Yet..here I am along with several others who use it to clean our scalp and hair.







SLS's. This is another "harbinger of death" ingredient, given a really bad rap. Believe me, shampoo makers really aren't hiding whats in their products. The ingredients ARE listed, and anyone can find out what they are, and what they do on the internet.


If the product has fragrance in it, manufacturers do not have to list what constitutes the fragrance. So companies can "hide" behind the term "fragrance" and not list everything. They can just call the ingredients (ones they want to remain unlisted) as making up the "fragrance" of the product.

I do agree though that companies balance between the bottom line and effectiveness/safety. You can't make $ if what you make keeps hurting people. Word gets out pretty fast if you have a product like that.

Bill D.
April 2nd, 2009, 01:48 PM
Quote from the linked article:

"A byproduct of the distillation of gasoline from crude oil, mineral oil is what's left over."

This is flat-out false. Bunker oil (a heavy fuel oil, and the stuff that spilled in San Francisco Bay last year), is the primary stuff that's left over from petroleum distillation. It's a hodgepodge of all kinds of nasty stuff, a lot like crude oil (and looking just like it) but with the gasoline and kerosene taken out. It's black, gooey, and like crude oil it gradually turns into tar as the lighter substances in the oil evaporate off. It's extremely smelly and quite toxic.

Mineral oil, on the other hand, is a highly refined oil, clear, odorless, and reasonably non-toxic. Contrary to what the article claims, it will soak into the skin. It's not so abundant that they have trouble disposing of it; rather, if nothing else it could be added to diesel fuel to make it cleaner.

I can't believe the author of that article was so careless with the facts, and as far as I'm concerned I wouldn't believe a word they wrote. They wrote a polemic to justify a point of view rather than trying to honestly find out what the truth is.

Bill D.

marialena
April 2nd, 2009, 02:01 PM
@Kirin


[..] I love that women and men have so many choices in how to care for their hair, and do so with fervor in selecting their routines. However, I am not a believer that scare tactics should weigh in on it either.

I read very carefully all your post, but I've stayed with the sense that you overact somehow.

I didn't start this thread in order to spread fear in this forum, but in order to discuss if, about and why is dangerous the use of some products (and especially the use of some personal care products ).

I' m sure that for every single article that you can read, there must be an opposite opinion. So I don't say that the articles that I put here are right or wrong in every detail.

But we have to accept that some things are facts. It is a fact that environmental destruction exists and it's caused not only by the big companies but from our way of life as well.

The topic has two sides.
The one is our right to choose and if our choices are done in concience knowing everything about them and
2/ if our choices are good for the environment that we live in, ( even if are indeed good for us - I don't take a position for this, this is something that each of us has to decide for him/ herself), a thing which brings up the issue of our responsibility.

Buddaphlyy
April 2nd, 2009, 05:41 PM
@Kirin



I read very carefully all your post, but I've stayed with the sense that you overact somehow.

I didn't start this thread in order to spread fear in this forum, but in order to discuss if, about and why is dangerous the use of some products (and especially the use of some personal care products ).

I' m sure that for every single article that you can read, there must be an opposite opinion. So I don't say that the articles that I put here are right or wrong in every detail.

But we have to accept that some things are facts. It is a fact that environmental destruction exists and it's caused not only by the big companies but from our way of life as well.

The topic has two sides.
The one is our right to choose and if our choices are done in concience knowing everything about them and
2/ if our choices are good for the environment that we live in, ( even if are indeed good for us - I don't take a position for this, this is something that each of us has to decide for him/ herself), a thing which brings up the issue of our responsibility.

But that's the point I think Kirin was making. The article is NOT in fact "facts" (no pun intended), so there aren't any dangers to discuss because there aren't even any dangers present. Another poster even said that one of their "facts" about how an ingredient (that doesn't even appear in shampoo, so therefore another non fact) is made was incorrect. So how is Kirin providing accurate information about a misinformed and outdated (because this article has been floating around hair boards for some years) article "overacting"?

I use an ALS based shampoo. My hair has not suffered in anyway from doing so. Yes I think about about my potential carbon footprint and whatnot from allowing the plastic and unused chemicals go into the environment, but there are other thing I do that don't hurt the environment. I recycle, try to by local groceries, turn off water and lights when I'm not using them, clean with baking soad and vinegar, etc. For me, it's about the big picture.

marialena
April 2nd, 2009, 05:53 PM
The answer to your post is the rest two paragraphs that you didn't mark with bold letters.

Buddaphlyy
April 2nd, 2009, 06:47 PM
The answer to your post is the rest two paragraphs that you didn't mark with bold letters.

I didn't need to highlight them because they weren't a part of the point I was trying to make because again, the article isn't stating facts. Furthermore, I did my part in the discussion in the second paragraph, which maybe you didn't read.

Nat242
April 2nd, 2009, 07:18 PM
For me, I'm more concerned about the embodied energy costs in making, bottling, and distributing personal care products like shampoo, because I'm yet to see convincing evidence that the damage they do once they run down my drain is any worse than a "natural" soap product. Depending on the ingredients and where and how a "natural" product was manufactured, they might be a better option for the environment. Might.

So, to this end, I heavily dilute my shampoo and one bottle lasts me ages. I'm looking for a place that will refill my bottle with shampoo - I've seen them around but not where I currently live.

Frankly - I would not alter my behaviour based on that article. It's unconvincing and contains misleading, even false information, which I find insulting and detrimental to the credibility of people that are genuinely trying to find ways to live more lightly on the Earth.

EdG
April 2nd, 2009, 07:34 PM
The article is spreading fear and the author has no credibility. One always needs to question things that one reads on the Internet. :bs:

I wouldn't worry about shampoo. :)
Ed

spidermom
April 2nd, 2009, 07:34 PM
For me, I'm more concerned about the embodied energy costs in making, bottling, and distributing personal care products like shampoo, because I'm yet to see convincing evidence that the damage they do once they run down my drain is any worse than a "natural" soap product. Depending on the ingredients and where and how a "natural" product was manufactured, they might be a better option for the environment. Might.

So, to this end, I heavily dilute my shampoo and one bottle lasts me ages. I'm looking for a place that will refill my bottle with shampoo - I've seen them around but not where I currently live.

Frankly - I would not alter my behaviour based on that article. It's unconvincing and contains misleading, even false information, which I find insulting and detrimental to the credibility of people that are genuinely trying to find ways to live more lightly on the Earth.

Thank you nat242 - yes, that's how I think of it, too. I wish that scientific minds would look at the products that are being manufactured as a whole and make honest, intelligent decisions about the risk/benefit ratio. I'd give up anything if it could be shown that the product does more harm to the environment than it does good when used as intended. The stuff that I'm sure about - like wood preservatives (strong cancer link) - I don't use. We pressure wash our natural cedar veranda once every other year; no wood preservative required. And so forth.

marialena
April 2nd, 2009, 07:34 PM
I didn't need to highlight them because they weren't a part of the point I was trying to make because again, the article isn't stating facts. Furthermore, I did my part in the discussion in the second paragraph, which maybe you didn't read.

I read it and I don't have any reason to doubt about that you said. But I think that we loosing the point, which is not this special article ( as I said there are millions of such articles in the net) but how much we are responsible with our personal choices, (which can be done consciously or not and this is one issue), for the condition that our environment and our life is ( which is another issue). :)

The discussion supposed to be more extended than commenting this special article. That's why I asked so many questions..

Buddaphlyy
April 2nd, 2009, 08:36 PM
I read it and I don't have any reason to doubt about that you said. But I think that we loosing the point, which is not this special article ( as I said there are millions of such articles in the net) but how much we are responsible with our personal choices, (which can be done consciously or not and this is one issue), for the condition that our environment and our life is ( which is another issue). :)

The discussion supposed to be more extended than commenting this special article. That's why I asked so many questions..

Well if the discussion is supposed to be about our personal choices, why even include the article about the shampoo? Or just this one article for that matter? And judging by the fact that most other posters discussed or alluded to it, apparently I'm not the only one who was confused.

And again, since I did talk about my personal choices and how they are affecting the environment, the fact that you keep glossing over them (or at least not asking me to expound upon them) makes me think you didn't read it or don't care.

Buddaphlyy
April 2nd, 2009, 08:37 PM
The article is spreading fear and the author has no credibility. One always needs to question things that one reads on the Internet. :bs:

I wouldn't worry about shampoo. :)
Ed

Slightly OT, but what kind of shampoo are you using? Your hair in you siggy is amazing.

EdG
April 2nd, 2009, 08:48 PM
Slightly OT, but what kind of shampoo are you using? Your hair in you siggy is amazing.Thank you!

I use various brands of mild shampoo. I have also been diluting my shampoo to avoid washing out all the sebum. The latter is a technique that I learned on LHC. :)
Ed

freznow
April 2nd, 2009, 09:03 PM
I haven't read the whole thread, but I stay away from shampoo because I want to do the best I can for the environment. Sure, with the frequency I wash, I'd only be dumping, what, a teaspoon of shampoo into the water supply per month? (Plus loads of conditioner... ungh.) But why would I do something that I know is not at least grey water safe (there are a few shampoos, they tend to be derived from coconut, though I'm not exactly sure, that are grey water safe), if not perfectly harmless to the environment in any respects? There are other options - catnip, egg washes, honey, they've all soothed the scalp in no way a shampoo ever has and conditioned the hair to lovely shine. There is something natural and more eco-friendly that fits everyone, IMO.

I try to stay away from things that have proven not to be exactly safe as well as natural but give me no benefit I couldn't get elsewhere, especially if they're coming in contact with my skin.

marialena
April 2nd, 2009, 09:07 PM
Well if the discussion is supposed to be about our personal choices, why even include the article about the shampoo? Or just this one article for that matter? And judging by the fact that most other posters discussed or alluded to it, apparently I'm not the only one who was confused.

And again, since I did talk about my personal choices and how they are affecting the environment, the fact that you keep glossing over them (or at least not asking me to expound upon them) makes me think you didn't read it or don't care.

Let me answer you ( because the time here in Athens is about 5 am and I'm working on the pc from the afternoon) quoting from the first first post..


I would like to know your opinion about this. If our cleaning habits can be so disastrous for the environment how disastrous can be for ourselves?

Do the pros of shiny and beautiful hair balance the cons that can be caused from the use of such products?

Do you believe that the companies deliberately keep people in dark for these dangers?

Do or do not have any responsibility in such matters?

My personal opinion is that we ought to be more informed and act with ways that benefit all people. But the crucial question is the following:
Are we available to change our habits or not?

So I think it would be good to discuss about this and if you have heard or read somewhere more about this movement I would be good to put it here as well.

Are these questions confusing?
The articles supposed to be used as the start for a discussion and I put here some questions.
Kirin said that both articles say lies, or perhaps half truths and that exist to spread fear ( here??? :rolleyes:).

Even if the intentions were these, ( but they weren't ) I think that the questions gave a totally different way to talk .

By commenting just the article I'm afraid that we've missed the point.. ( and I said that previously). And we didn't search or tried to find an answer to the questions. Basically by commenting just the article we just didn't think about the issues that questions asked.

I guess that in California is late afternoon. Here in Greece is already morning. I wish you a good night. :)

EdG
April 2nd, 2009, 09:20 PM
Sorry, marialena for not answering the questions. :o

I think shampoos are harmless to one's body and not bad for the environment.

There are much bigger things that one can do to minimize one's environmental impact: drive less, buy less, use less electricity, re-use, recycle, etc. I would start with the big-ticket items before worrying about shampoo. :twocents:
Ed

Buddaphlyy
April 2nd, 2009, 09:57 PM
Let me answer you ( because the time here in Athens is about 5 am and I'm working on the pc from the afternoon) quoting from the first first post..



Are these questions confusing?
The articles supposed to be used as the start for a discussion and I put here some questions.
Kirin said that both articles say lies, or perhaps half truths and that exist to spread fear ( here??? :rolleyes:).

Even if the intentions were these, ( but they weren't ) I think that the questions gave a totally different way to talk .

By commenting just the article I'm afraid that we've missed the point.. ( and I said that previously). And we didn't search or tried to find an answer to the questions. Basically by commenting just the article we just didn't think about the issues that questions asked.

I guess that in California is late afternoon. Here in Greece is already morning. I wish you a good night. :)

No the questions aren't confusing, but by including the misleading article, you are taking away from your posting intentions, that's all I'm saying. And again, I already alluded to my stance on the questions you did want answered, so the article issue is null and void to me at this point.

And just for the record, I don't live in California.

Honestwitness
April 2nd, 2009, 11:22 PM
What did ancient societies use to clean their hair? I know the Romans had baths. Did they clean with anything besides water?

Hmmm...now you've really got me thinking.

Do Eskimos wash their hair? How about the Hunzas?

Just curious.

marialena
April 3rd, 2009, 05:01 AM
What did ancient societies use to clean their hair? I know the Romans had baths. Did they clean with anything besides water?

Hmmm...now you've really got me thinking.

Do Eskimos wash their hair? How about the Hunzas?

Just curious.

Just with water. Nothing else.
I don't know if Eskimos wash their hair.. I think not.

Hunzas?? Are you talking about these Hunzas??

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/land_of_hunza.htm

http://weblife.org/humanure/chapter7_1.html

http://www.ionmicrowater.com/hunza.htm

Is this a race of super humans?? Just checked the first 10 results of google search and all refer to their ways of dieting and their high scores in long living. What's going on with them??

naturalme
April 3rd, 2009, 05:20 AM
I'm looking for a place that will refill my bottle with shampoo - I've seen them around but not where I currently live.


Nat, is there a university anywhere near you? The one I work at has a food co-op which sells various products (including shampoo) and you are required to bring your own (recycled) bottles.

Nat242
April 3rd, 2009, 05:42 AM
Nat, is there a university anywhere near you? The one I work at has a food co-op which sells various products (including shampoo) and you are required to bring your own (recycled) bottles.

Thanks for the tip - my uni coop doesn't do this, but I should check for other ones. Ta!

Melisande
April 3rd, 2009, 06:18 AM
Dear Marialena, I understand that you question the choices many people make unquestioningly, and this is a good thing. After absorbing the information given on LHC and other sites, I read ingredient lists and I noticed that there are detergents my hair and skin don't like and others I have no problems with. Of course nobody should accept claims made by commercials and advertisements as only information before making a choice. I'm sure we're all in the same boat about critical consumerism.

Environmental concerns are important in my personal life since the 1980s when the green movement in Germany began. I was a young girl then, and for Germans of my generation, it's obvious that we have to minimize electricity and water use, drive and fly less, consume less and minimize package garbage. Again, I don't think many people would oppose the idea of keeping the environment as clean as possible. We are responsible for it, each and every one of us, for the small things and bigger things that we can do.

But the article that you cited does nothing to promote these ideas, just the opposite. And the way you presented it and praised it, you really made it a central argument. That was unfortunate, because the article is a typical example for vague, fear mongering disinformation that makes people angry when they read it. You have all the factual arguments laid out by people who know.

I also don't like the "conspiration theory" tone of such articles. The industry hides it from you! Governments protect the industry! etc. There is no doubt that certain industries hid unpleasant facts and even deadly dangers from the public, asbestos comes to mind. Critical consumerism, yes. Panic attacks and bying into unfounded claims, no. Is there a no-shampoo-movement at all?

I'm sorry you had an unpleasant experience with this thread.

I use gentle shampoo and dilute it. My water is too hard for soap. I try to use as little product as possible. And I save water. This is important for the environment, too.

Melisande
April 3rd, 2009, 06:19 AM
double post... :rolleyes:

marialena
April 3rd, 2009, 07:47 AM
Dear Marialena, I understand that you question the choices many people make unquestioningly, and this is a good thing. After absorbing the information given on LHC and other sites, I read ingredient lists and I noticed that there are detergents my hair and skin don't like and others I have no problems with. Of course nobody should accept claims made by commercials and advertisements as only information before making a choice. I'm sure we're all in the same boat about critical consumerism.

Environmental concerns are important in my personal life since the 1980s when the green movement in Germany began. I was a young girl then, and for Germans of my generation, it's obvious that we have to minimize electricity and water use, drive and fly less, consume less and minimize package garbage. Again, I don't think many people would oppose the idea of keeping the environment as clean as possible. We are responsible for it, each and every one of us, for the small things and bigger things that we can do.

But the article that you cited does nothing to promote these ideas, just the opposite. And the way you presented it and praised it, you really made it a central argument. That was unfortunate, because the article is a typical example for vague, fear mongering disinformation that makes people angry when they read it. You have all the factual arguments laid out by people who know.

Ηi Melisande ( is this your real name?? Μελισσάνθη?:)) Perhaps the article was unfortunate but there was not intention of spreading fear in this forum. ( as kirin said).
On the other hand these two articles are the classic articles that someone can find surfing in the net, which intend to increase people's environmental concerns.
The problem is that though we read every day this kind of things, we don't bather enough, either because that we believe that the articles are inaccurate, and we can "prove" it, or because we think that articles exaggerate in order to fear us.
On the other hand people tend to think that their actions do the less harm in the environment saying for example " is not my shampoo, my laundry, my conditioner, my detergent that can destroy the environment comparing with the damage that some others can do- industries etc. "

But what seem to forget is the fact that in this planet we are already 5-6 billions. So the "our little damage" cumulatively becomes a "huge damage".

We consume and use products but even if the products didn't harm the environment by themselves, the making, bottling and distributing of these products, as Nat242 said, can damage the nature equally.

How we can talk about free choice in a world that very soon won't have enough clear ( but really clear ) water supplies?
As soon as the water will stop being a free good, what will be the chances to have the freedom to choose for what product will prefer for our personal care?
You see if we don't have enough water to drink then we would not have the luxury to choose.
This is not science fiction, and it's not a matter that accepts arguments and doubts.

About Germany I have to say that is million of light years forward about environmental concerns. The rest of Europe is still relaxed and happy believing that nothing is wrong and nothing in danger.



I also don't like the "conspiration theory" tone of such articles. The industry hides it from you! Governments protect the industry! etc. There is no doubt that certain industries hid unpleasant facts and even deadly dangers from the public, asbestos comes to mind. Critical consumerism, yes. Panic attacks and bying into unfounded claims, no. Is there a no-shampoo-movement at all?
The industries hide information from us. I don't like either the conspiration theories but I don't think that industries, who have as their main goal the increase of their profits, care so much for the consumers of their products. As long the people consume and don't ask for more information, (with the "good" or the "bad" way ) it has been proved that industries don't bother at all. That's why great environmental scandals get to light years after they've done.

How many do you think are the critical consumerists? How many of those who fill up the baskets in the super markets think of what is the "story" of each of the products that they buy?
Would you buy a product if you know that for this product there are people dieing somewhere in this world?
I doubt. But you don't know, and you don't ask about, in order to complete your shopping free of any care and free of any guilt thoughts.

Is there a no-shampoo movement at all?
Let me change the question. Do we need shampoos? And not only shampoos. Do we need all these millions of different products, shampoos, conditioners, cremes, and foam baths, detergents, fragrances, cleaners and disinfectants, whatever anyway that claims to make our lives better?

Are our lives better at last, in a world that seems to deteriorate everyday? Did we become beautifuler, or healthier and the most important happier from the things that we can buy? Or perhaps we got into an non ending trip of new desires, which change every week and leave us wanting more "new" and more effective products "δια πάσαν νόσον και πάσα μαλακίαν" ? ( dia pasan nosson kai pasa malakian aka for every disease and every sickness).



I'm sorry you had an unpleasant experience with this thread.

No problem at all. I prefer good arguments than total apathy.



I use gentle shampoo and dilute it. My water is too hard for soap. I try to use as little product as possible. And I save water. This is important for the environment, too.

Everything is important for the environment as long as we live in it. Without it I'm afraid we can't do many things.. :)

Firefly
April 3rd, 2009, 08:20 AM
For me, it is less an environmental issue (I live "greener" than 90% of the people I come in contact with), and more a health issue. I am one of those people that doesn't think these companies are looking out for us. Not that it's some grand conspiracy to dumb us all down with chemical shampoos LOL, just that they do what's cheapest, and sometimes what's cheapest is not necessarily in our best interest. That's part of the reason why I like to make my own cleaning & health/beauty products.

I've been interesting in shampooing with my own herbal rinses anyway, so reading the article just reminded me to get moving on that!

ktani
April 3rd, 2009, 08:40 AM
You bring up some very valid points about environmental issues.

Packaging is an issue. There is too much plastic being used. However glass, the old way of doing things, is not practical. Cutting down on excess packaging is practical. Certain kinds of metal, lined, may be a recyclable option for some liquids.

As to shampoo? It is no worse in most cases than soap for the watersheds. Soap is not a natural product without issues to aquatic life either, whether it is olive oil soap or saponin from plants (which is technically a natural detergent).

These issues are not as simplistic or accurate, as those articles state them and would have people believe. Most of those articles are written by marketing firms with agendas to sell "all natural" products that on closer inspection, are not necessarily all or natural.

Many people prefer shampoo to soap. There are many reasons for this. Conditioners too are not the evil polluting cause of environmenal problems.

It all requires a thoughtful, balanced perspective and reliable, accredited information, to help consumers make informed choices, as to what they purchase and how much product they use, IMO.

ktani
April 3rd, 2009, 10:26 AM
"All soaps and detergents are toxic to fish. Some are more toxic than others, but what product you choose is less important than how and where you do the job." (http://www.watoxics.org/homes-and-gardens/fastfacts/fastfacts-cleaning)

ktani
April 3rd, 2009, 10:40 AM
".... Soaps in general are the sodium or potassium salts of the higher fatty acids (lauric, stearic, palmitic, oleic acids, etc.) occurring in fats or fixed oils ...." (http://www.henriettesherbal.com/ecle...ings/sapo.html)

"Acute and subacute toxicity studies using potassium salts of fatty acids indicate that soap salts are relatively non-toxic to birds. .... are slightly toxic to both coldwater and warmwater fish species. .... potassium salts are highly toxic to aquatic invertebrates." (http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/fac...s/4083fact.pdf)

"... Saponin has been shown to be an effective fish killing agent with a 40 fold margin of safety towards freshwater and marine
invertebrates, especially prawns and shrimps. .... So it does not seem to be a good idea to release it into any kind of
closed system." (http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/193674.html)

Gothic Lolita
April 3rd, 2009, 11:11 AM
In my opinion there are always two sides of the coin. That shampoo maybe isn't the nicest thing for your hair, when used excessively, is, I think, clear to most on this board. But so is everything else. Soap doesn't make a difference, there's always a too much.

I don't believe that the companies a conspiring against us. What are they washing their hair with, cleaning their houses with? The same products. And I think you can count on them to know it if there was an actual danger from them.
Sure, SLS isn't good for everybody but since most wash their hair with this and are prefectly happy with it, there can't be much about it. If it was causing that much trouble, more people would wash sulfate-free.
The impact on the environment is another thing in my opinion. That saponin and detergents are fish killers is alarming, but then: i don't wash my hair in a sea with fish and my used water goes down the drain and not somewhere else. One has other places to work and care about the environment, they were already suggested in this thread.

Forever_Sophie
April 3rd, 2009, 11:24 AM
Thanks, Kirin, for your post!

I don't worry one bit, there are worse things I can do (i.e. smoke), and should I die of something as a result of Herbal Essences, LOL, so be it. I've gotta go someday.

This sort of reminds me of the forwards I've seen about Coca cola.

ktani
April 3rd, 2009, 11:26 AM
"Dr. Green .... stated that he was completely embarrassed by all this. He told me in a telephone interview back in 1997 that his "work was completely misquoted. There is no part of my study that indicated any [eye] development or cataract problems from SLS or SLES and the body does not retain those ingredients at all. We did not even look at the issue of children, so that conclusion is completely false because it never existed. The Neways people took my research completely out of context and probably never read the study at all." He continued in a perturbed voice, saying, "The statement like 'SLS is a systemic' has no meaning. No ingredient can be a systemic unless you drink the stuff and that's not what we did with it. Another incredible comment was that my study was 'clinical,' meaning I tested the substance on people, [but] these were strictly animal tests. Furthermore, the eyes showed no irritation with the 10-dilution substance used! If anything, the animal studies indicated no risk of irritation whatsoever!" That lack of outcome is in fact why, as of 1987, Green no longer pursued this research. When I asked if anyone has done any follow-up studies looking at SLS and SLES in this regard, Dr. Green said, "No one has done this because the findings were so insignificant."
(http://www.cosmeticscop.com/skin-care-facts-sodium-lauryl-sulfate-sodium-laureth-sulfate.aspx)

Oskimosa
April 3rd, 2009, 11:46 AM
I've seen that babyslime.com website before. It was one of the first articles I read after joining LHC. And with all the non-SLS users here, I've got to say I'm rather startled by the overly negative reactions here.

That aside, http://www.cosmeticdatabase.com/ is a great site that addresses safety concerns with cosmetics, including shampoos. It's based on research (and lack thereof concerning certain products and ingredients), and I think there are real concerns surrounding SLS. I seriously do not buy into the "if it weren't safe it wouldn't be sold" theory. That has been proven false in many things that have only later been found to be quite dangerous. After all, people smoked for years without knowing it was dangerous. PPD is still in hair dye while it's banned in other countries, although I understand many people still use it without reactions. High fructose corn syrup is cheap and quite bad for people (although not cancer-causing) and is still one of the most widely used additives in food. While I don't seriously think there is some hat-and-cloak gang out there trying to keep the lid on SLS, I doubt anyone in the industry is interested in overhauling it based on the possible danger of the main ingredient.

Ok now that I'm done with that rant...

I don't use SLS because I don't have to, but I understand why others do. There are concerns about it's safety (that I admit are not conclusive) and I can use other things. I just used some the other night when I hadn't used it in months, and my scalp itches terribly. It makes my scalp produce too much oil, making me need to wash it more. That's no good for me.

And to answer your Qs, marialena, I do think we have an individual responsibility to scrutinize the products we use, espcially cosmetics since they aren't really regulated by the FDA. The decisions we make based on that scrutiny are our own to make, of course, but I definately think those should be conscious and not based on the assumption that "it's available so it's safe." I am not pointing any fingers at anyone, by the way.

ktani
April 3rd, 2009, 11:47 AM
Nitrosamines

2000
"Nitrosamines are a class of chemical compounds .... first described in the chemical literature over 100 years ago, but not until 1956 did they receive much attention. .... that year two British scientists, John Barnes and Peter Magee, reported that dimethylnitrosamine produced liver tumors in rats. This discovery was made during a routine screening of chemicals that were being proposed for use as solvents in the dry cleaning industry.
Do these types of exposure to nitrosamines cause human cancer? An enormous amount of indirect evidence indicates that nitrosamines are human carcinogens. .... tobacco-specific nitrosamines are one of the major groups of chemical carcinogens in tobacco products, and no doubt remains about the causal link between tobacco use and cancer. .... it is difficult to evaluate the risk of cancer from daily exposure of 1 microgram from foods and beverages. The same difficulty applies to the risk assessment of the exposure to minute amounts of aflatoxin, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and heterocyclic amines in a variety of foods and beverages." (http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/f-w00/nitrosamine.html)

2008
"An internationally accepted standard for detecting and measuring that chemical in cosmetic products can help keep those products off store shelves, and perhaps lead to combinations of ingredients that won’t result in NDELA in these products. (http://www.scc.ca/en/news_events/features/featuresindex_139.shtml)
“Clearly contaminants are an issue,” says Secter. “Testing for chemicals is important, as there hasn’t been any serious testing done on cosmetics and the effects of long-term, low-dose exposure.” (http://www.scc.ca/en/news_events/features/featuresindex_139.shtml)
That’s precisely what ISO’s members developing these standards hope to accomplish. (http://www.scc.ca/en/news_events/features/featuresindex_139.shtml)
“For the safety and benefit of all users, contaminants should be avoided in health and personal care products,” says ISO/TC 217 Secretary Mojeh Tabari, “It is the objective of the ISO technical committee to propose sound methods to provide appropriate and relevant data on the absence or strict minimization of those diverse contaminants in cosmetics. Avoidance of all possible contaminant sources is essential for the good quality of cosmetics and relevant analytical methods can insure such compliance.” (http://www.scc.ca/en/news_events/features/featuresindex_139.shtml)
While this standard applies only to tests for NDELA, the committee which develops standards for cosmetics, ISO 217 – of which Canada is an observing member through the Standards Council of Canada – is working on a standard that will apply to other nitrosamines." (http://www.scc.ca/en/news_events/features/featuresindex_139.shtml)

ktani
April 3rd, 2009, 01:23 PM
marialena

I welcomed you in your Hi Athens thread and gave you some olive oil soap thread links but I am welcoming you here too, late as I am to do both.

LHC can be overwhelming at first and I have had difficulty at times, making myself as clear as I would like, too.

So, welcome to LHC! again. Your hair, by the way, is gorgeous!

spidermom
April 3rd, 2009, 01:31 PM
"Dr. Green .... stated that he was completely embarrassed by all this. He told me in a telephone interview back in 1997 that his "work was completely misquoted. There is no part of my study that indicated any [eye] development or cataract problems from SLS or SLES and the body does not retain those ingredients at all. We did not even look at the issue of children, so that conclusion is completely false because it never existed. The Neways people took my research completely out of context and probably never read the study at all." He continued in a perturbed voice, saying, "The statement like 'SLS is a systemic' has no meaning. No ingredient can be a systemic unless you drink the stuff and that's not what we did with it. Another incredible comment was that my study was 'clinical,' meaning I tested the substance on people, [but] these were strictly animal tests. Furthermore, the eyes showed no irritation with the 10-dilution substance used! If anything, the animal studies indicated no risk of irritation whatsoever!" That lack of outcome is in fact why, as of 1987, Green no longer pursued this research. When I asked if anyone has done any follow-up studies looking at SLS and SLES in this regard, Dr. Green said, "No one has done this because the findings were so insignificant."
(http://www.cosmeticscop.com/skin-care-facts-sodium-lauryl-sulfate-sodium-laureth-sulfate.aspx)

I'm so glad you found that. When I find something negative about shampoo, it is usually followed up by a product that a seller wants you to buy instead - like soap.

And Coca-Cola tastes much better than Pepsi; I'm sure we can all agree on that.

ktani
April 3rd, 2009, 01:40 PM
I'm so glad you found that. When I find something negative about shampoo, it is usually followed up by a product that a seller wants you to buy instead - like soap.

And Coca-Cola tastes much better than Pepsi; I'm sure we can all agree on that.

You are most welcome! And I prefer Coke Classic too, whenever I drink pop, which is extremeley rarely!

dancingmegs
April 3rd, 2009, 02:29 PM
I think shampoo (and soap, conditioner, shower gel, lotion, cream, make-up, etc) are overused in general, encouraged by the industries that sell such products. There seems to be an idea in our society that our bodies are somehow inherently dirty and we need to remove all traces of natural oils and bodily secretions. I think that's silly, and probably bad for our bodies.

That said, I don't think that shampoo itself is bad. Using full-strength handfuls every day? Probably not the best thing for anyone's hair. But I can think of a lot of members here, just off the top of my head, who use shampoo regularly, and have stunningly beautiful, obviously very healthy hair. I'm a shampoo user. Some people have a bad reactions to shampoos, especially sulfates. But some people have no trouble at all with them, and find them necessary for a healthy scalp and hair.

As for the environmental concern, just about anything we put down the drain is going to be bad. I'm not saying that therefore it doesn't matter. But we all leave a footprint. It's up to each individual to educate themself about their personal impact on the environment, and then act in a way they see fit. To be honest, I worry more about the fossil fuel required to get a bunch of bananas to my house in North America than a couple cups of shampoo washed down my shower every year. So I make the choice to eschew buying bananas (and most other foods not grown in my region) instead of not buying shampoo.

Norai
April 3rd, 2009, 02:33 PM
I don't think the shampoo companies are necessarily conspiring against anyone, they're just trying to make money. To make money, they cut material cost as much as they reasonably can while still keeping their product up to safety standards. If they can produce a shampoo that works with materials that are cheaper for them, they'll do it. There's no conspiracy in that, it's just how business works. Large companies are not usually in business to help consumers, they're in business to make money by providing something that people want/need. In a perfect society maybe there would be less greed and people could get by with less, but that's not where we are at just yet. :)

Companies list all ingredients on their label, and if people aren't comfortable with what's in the product, they don't have to buy it. If individuals prefer something with 100% natural ingredients that are recognizable, with minimal packaging, they can opt for natural shampoo bars.

I started making my own soap/shampoo for kicks, and it ended up being really fun. Whether or not there is less total packaging is up for grabs, since materials have to be shipped across the world in order to make your own soap in most cases, but it's fun anyway. :p

I think that personal hygiene is something that brought us out of the dark ages (black plague anyone?), so I'm going to go ahead and continue to use soap. Soap is biodegradable. It may kill fish if you immerse them in soapy water, but if it's composted or disposed of properly/diluted, I don't think its an issue.

Eboshi
April 3rd, 2009, 02:49 PM
If the product has fragrance in it, manufacturers do not have to list what constitutes the fragrance. So companies can "hide" behind the term "fragrance" and not list everything. They can just call the ingredients (ones they want to remain unlisted) as making up the "fragrance" of the product.
Generally "fragrance" is way down on the list of ingredients on a bottle of shampoo. I can't imagine that it would be more than 1% of the total percentage of ingredients, if even that. Considering that most shampoo's start at ~70% water.

How much can "those evil manufacturer's" hide in such a tiny proportion, WHAT would they be "hiding' and most importantly, WHY would they be hiding anything at all? :silly:

Centeredgirl1
April 3rd, 2009, 04:14 PM
About 3 months ago, I finally figured out that shampoo was stripping my hair dry. As a Black woman, our hair tends to be on the dry side. For my hair, it was double death. Ever since I quit shampooing, my hair has thrived.:eyebrows:

bjjowett1993
April 3rd, 2009, 04:34 PM
Shampoo is superfluous. However, we CAN wash our hair with 100% organic, 100% environmentally friendly and sustainable priducts, without stripping our hair at all. Here is a link to an *AMAZING* site.

Check out their products, and read all of their information. You will be very enlightened. )

http://www.terressentials.com/haircare.html

marialena
April 3rd, 2009, 04:39 PM
So ktani... Your point is ( if I understand it well), that soap is dangerous too for some species, especially fishes etc, while the whole story about SLS is a terrible misunderstanding of Dr. Keith Green's work back in the 80's, which through Neways web sites become some kind of urban myth for freaked environmentalists .


Now let's say that the whole story with the SLS is an misunderstanding. The article that you cited here says:

While the report on animal models extrapolates concerns about the use SLS, it draws no hard conclusions stating that the amount of SLS used was 10% greater than that used in shampoos and done on animals, not people..

But as we all know, the results from the use of chemicals, are cumulative,( as it's not just you and me who might use products with SLS, but almost a planet of human beings, which as we said are some billions in number).
Where all this stuff of our drains go??
To nature. To our lakes, to our rivers, to the ground and in the end to our seas.
Though there are no clinical studies to prove it, is not completely wrong to think about the real quantities of SLS, which end in our water supplies. So we can say that in real conditions, and in real environment, the SLS that ends to our water is by far more than the 10% that the study used. (of course here we talk about this special substance, but we can extend this to other well known chemicals as well. But I'll stay to SLS for the moment, because is something that most of the people use every day believing that is quite safe to do so).
And the article continues:

"The statement like 'SLS is a systemic' has no meaning. No ingredient can be a systemic unless you drink the stuff and that's not what we did with it.Are you sure that you don't drink a substance that after it's use, in very small quantity of course but from a huge number of people globally, ends to the water?? ( the question is rhetorical.. I don't expect answer. :))

Now
If the simple plain soap is dangerous too, ( which might is, I won't doubt that ), for many species like fishes or whatever, we end up with the following conclusion:

That we, as human beings, produce substances that are in total imbalance with our natural environment from which ( we must not forget that),are totally depended.

So in order to follow a special model of life style,(supported by scientists and academic studies, for those who need proves), created sometimes from need and sometimes from social or ( why not? ) fashion reasons, we don't care at all about the effects that our acts has in nature.

And let me ask you again, do or we do not have responsibility about that? Is every one of us personally responsible, with its harmless and little every day action for the environmental damage or not?
And if the answer is yes which are our options?

ktani
April 3rd, 2009, 05:17 PM
So ktani... 1. Your point is ( if I understand it well), that soap is dangerous too for some species, especially fishes etc, while the whole story about SLS is a terrible misunderstanding of Dr. Keith Green's work back in the 80's, which through Neways web sites become some kind of urban myth for freaked environmentalists .


Now let's say that the whole story with the SLS is an misunderstanding. The article that you cited here says:
.

But as we all know, the results from the use of chemicals, are cumulative,( as it's not just you and me who might use products with SLS, but almost a planet of human beings, which as we said are some billions in number).
Where all this stuff of our drains go??
To nature. To our lakes, to our rivers, to the ground and in the end to our seas.

2. Though there are no clinical studies to prove it, is not completely wrong to think about the real quantities of SLS, which end in our water supplies. So we can say that in real conditions, and in real environment, the SLS that ends to our water is by far more than the 10% that the study used. (of course here we talk about this special substance, but we can extend this to other well known chemicals as well. But I'll stay to SLS for the moment, because is something that most of the people use every day believing that is quite safe to do so).
And the article continues:
Are you sure that you don't drink a substance that after it's use, in very small quantity of course but from a huge number of people globally, ends to the water?? ( the question is rhetorical.. I don't expect answer. :))

Now
If the simple plain soap is dangerous too, ( which might is, I won't doubt that ), for many species like fishes or whatever, we end up with the following conclusion:

That we, as human beings, produce substances that are in total imbalance with our natural environment from which ( we must not forget that),are totally depended.

So in order to follow a special model of life style,(supported by scientists and academic studies, for those who need proves), created sometimes from need and sometimes from social or ( why not? ) fashion reasons, we don't care at all about the effects that our acts has in nature.

3. And let me ask you again, do or we do not have responsibility about that? Is every one of us personally responsible, with its harmless and little every day action for the environmental damage or not?
And if the answer is yes which are our options?

1. Yes, you understand me correctly.

2. There is no evidence anywhere that sls is in drinking water enough to detect, to be considered a contaminant or a health hazzard that I am aware of, other chemicals yes. The same would apply to your soap, and saponins in terms of poisoning fish, in closed waterways and that has been recorded. (I answered you anyway.)

3. Yes, we all have a responsibility. The answers though are not simple. It is about the amount of product used and where and how it is disposed. (http://forums.longhaircommunity.com/showpost.php?p=531639&postcount=36)

marialena
April 3rd, 2009, 06:04 PM
1. Nice.. I'm improving my language skills!

2. Common sense. If they can detect the other chemicals there will be a time that they will detect and this one ( sooner or later but I'm afraid that is would be to late till someone think about it).

3.I think that the problem is that they "disposed". They're not disposed you see out of this planet. They're disposed somewhere on this planet, here or there but always somewhere close to living creatures which can affect them.

ktani
April 3rd, 2009, 06:18 PM
1. Nice.. I'm improving my language skills!

2. Common sense. If they can detect the other chemicals there will be a time that they will detect and this one ( sooner or later but I'm afraid that is would be to late till someone think about it).

3.I think that the problem is that they "disposed". They're not disposed you see out of this planet. They're disposed somewhere on this planet, here or there but always somewhere close to living creatures which can affect them.

You are doing fine with your language skills. Just take it slowly and ask questions (like you just did) if you are unsure about something. I try to make a point of not using expressions someone may have a problem with, but even I have to ask sometimes, if someone uses an abbreviation that I do not recognize.

I would not worry about what has not been detected yet. There is so much to worry about with what has (like arsenic in drinking water in some countries, like Pakistan).

We all need to be aware and do the best we can.

marialena
April 3rd, 2009, 06:27 PM
:) I keep in mind your advices..

Gypsygirl
April 4th, 2009, 01:12 PM
1. Nice.. I'm improving my language skills!



This is totally off topic, but Marialena, your English is great!

ktani
April 4th, 2009, 01:49 PM
This is totally off topic, but Marialena, your English is great!

IMO, a compliment is never off topic and I agree with what you said.

marialena
April 4th, 2009, 02:37 PM
This is totally off topic, but Marialena, your English is great!

Thank you ..:o You're so kind..:)
In fact my relationship with the English language it's in a switch on and of effect. ( and some times side effects).
When I come back from my work, where I speak Greek I find it very difficult to write something in English because I think first the thing I want to write, in Greek. Then during the day, and if I keep on surfing in English sites the things get better for English. But there we go to the side effects. I start thinking in English I write better but if my boy friend asks me something I answer, like this is the most normal thing in the world, in English.
And then he calls me crazy! :D
When I want to wright something complicated I find it very difficult. I'm used to write in Greek language academic essays, so there are thinks that I can not syntax well or sometimes not with the way I'd like to in English language.
And there are phrases that I just don't understand them.
Sometimes you use phrases that I don't know them or I don't get them, usually some phrases of every day use, some jokes or things like that, that seem completely without meaning for me.
So if sometimes I say my own jokes and don't look so funny for you, don't bother to explain it or try to find out any secret meanings in them.
We'll manage somehow to find out a way to communicate, (with a little help from the dictionary! :))

** If you think that I wrote somewhere something completely meaningless and completely out of space please correct me**

ktani
April 4th, 2009, 02:58 PM
In fact my relationship with the English language it's in a switch on and of effect. ( and some times side effects).
When I come back from my work, where I speak Greek I find it very difficult to write something in English because I think first the thing I want to write, in Greek. Then during the day, and if I keep on surfing in English sites the things get better for English. But there we go to the side effects. I start thinking in English I write better but if my boy friend asks me something I answer, like this is the most normal thing in the world, in English.
And then he calls me crazy! :D
When I want to wright something complicated I find it very difficult. I'm used to write in Greek language academic essays, so there are thinks that I can not syntax well or sometimes not with the way I'd like to in English language.
And there are phrases that I just don't understand them.
Sometimes you use phrases that I don't know them or I don't get them, usually some phrases of every day use, some jokes or things like that, that seem completely without meaning for me.
So if sometimes I say my own jokes and don't look so funny for you, don't bother to explain it or try to find out any secret meanings in them.
We'll manage somehow to find out a way to communicate, (with a little help from the dictionary! :))

** If you think that I wrote somewhere something completely meaningless and completely out of space please correct me**

English is the only language I am fluent in. In spite of that, there are times when I reread a post of mine and I have no idea what I just said, lol. I often invert sentences and my grammar is all over the place. I also tend to add things that are not necessary to my central point. All of that is remedied by my taking my time and rereading as I write, and it hopefully will eliminate the need to clarify what I wrote later. My spelling is another issue altogether, lol.

I have no problem understanding you now. I did not understand what you were trying to say at the beginning of the thread, in terms of your point, but that worked out very well.