A news item stated that four brands of shampoo could cause Alzheimer's. Which brands?
The controversy over toxic and dangerous chemicals being used in consumer beauty, hair and personal use products has been raging on for many years.Before recent claims about methylisothiazoline, or MIT and it’s link to a range of neurological diseases, there are claims about many of the other toxic ingredients in shampoo ranging from but not limited to:ParabensSynthetic colors (Yellow #5, Orange #4, Violet #2 plus more)FragrancePhthalatesTriclosanSodium lauryl sulfate (SLS) / Sodium laureth sulfate (SLES)FormaldehydeTolueneYes, Kelly is correct, those chemicals are found in many shampoo products.Similar toxic chemicals are also included in every type of beauty product on the market from lipstick to skin cream to baby powders.Sadly, none of this information is new in any way. The chemicals may be different, but the toxins used in consumer products have been known for more than 25+ years.There is the point as made below about how much actual exposure of the toxic products need to occur for them to make a substantial difference.Of course the opinion about this varies widely. Some experts believe since shampoo doesn’t remain on the hair for an extended period of time, consumers have minimal exposure.Other experts believe even applying a small amount to the scalp can have an impact.When in doubt do your research. Ask your physician. Read about government findings, recommendations and latest news.Always trust your own instincts and follow your own heart to protect your own health and the health of your family.There are many consumer hair and beauty products being introduced on the market which may have less questionable ingredients. Even better, make your own products at home from high quality brands.Unfortunately we are in a time of misinformation on every imaginable topic. It’s up to everyone to find their own truths.
Sugar substitutes...are they bad for you?
i'll try to help you out here... let's start with the bad: sweetners such as equal contain aspartame, which is believed to increase the risk of brain cancer. sweet-n-low and similar sweeteners contain an ingredient called saccharin, which has been linked to bladder cancer. in both of these cases, there isn't overwhelming accurate evidence, but it's been enough to cause some concern. splenda is another popular one, but because the body doesn't recognize, it won't digest it, and can actually make you GAIN weight. fructose is another extract of sugar. because it's natural, it's better for you than equal or sweet n low, but because the liver can't process it as quickly as pure sugar, it converts into triglycerides, increasing your risk of heart disease. obviously, small amounts of any of these isn't going to seriously hurt you, but a using any for a long period of time can build up and increase your risks. fortunately, there ARE some better solutions... my #1 reccomendation would be stevia. it's a natural herb and is actually sold as a dietary supplement. #2 would be Xylitol. it's a natural sweetener that's actually produced in our bodies... the downside is that it's not calorie-free, although it does have a much lower calorie content. hope that shed a little light on your questions...
Is the animal documentary ''Earthlings'' a sensationalism documentary or is it as realistic as portrayed?
I wish it wasnt, but the USDA's standards are lax: "In the United States, there is the Humane Slaughter Act of 1958, a law requiring that all swine, sheep, cattle, and horses be stunned unconscious with just one application of a stunning device by a trained person before being shackled and hoisted up on the line (chickens are exempt from this Act). ***The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) is opposed to the Humane Slaughter Act, and violations of the Act carry no penalties*** Since stopping the line to re-knock conscious animals causes "down time" and results in lower profits, the Humane Slaughter Act is usually bypassed and ignored by USDA supervisors (Eiznitz 1997). There is some debate over the enforcement of this act. Gail Eisnitz, chief investigator for the Humane Farming Association (HFA), interviewed slaughterhouse workers in the U.S. who say that, because of the speed with which they are required to work, animals are routinely skinned while apparently alive, and still blinking, kicking, and shrieking. Eisnitz argues that this is not only cruel to the animals, but also dangerous for the human workers, as cows weighing several thousands of pounds thrashing around in pain are likely to kick out and debilitate anyone working near them. According to the HFA, Eiznitz interviewed slaughterhouse workers representing over two million hours of experience, who, without exception, told her that they have beaten, strangled, boiled, and dismembered animals alive, or have failed to report those who do. The workers described the effects the violence has had on their personal lives, with several admitting to being physically abusive or taking to alcohol and other drugs.