Forums > Social Discussion > Harming People in Order to Improve Revenue is allright???

Login/Join to Participate
Page: 12
FireTom
Stargazer

Member Since: 20th Sep 2003
Total posts: 6650
Posted:Disclaimer: by reading the following post you might get upset, or paranoid or aware of you resignation - do NOT blame this on me... umm

Ok - this is a discussion, but maybe a pointless one...

1 - a) look on your household cleaner ingredients listing... do you find "Sodium lauryl/ laureth sulfate"? ( bad? or not? or bad or not? or bad???
b) look on your shampoo ingredients list... do you find the same ingredient?
c) now look on your toothpaste: do you find this ingredient again?

2 - a) look on the contents of an average Australian wine: do you find a preservative with an "E" in front of it? bad? or not? listing overview
b) take a look at some imported wine from Spain, Italy: do you find any there?
c) look at an Australian wine outside Australia: do you find any preservatives added there?

3 - a) look on the package of your crisps: do you find any ingredient that says: Mono Sodium Glutamate (wich in fact isn't a "mate") bad? disputed? or harmless?
b) ask your waiter/ cook at this restaurant, whether or not he uses "MSG" in his dishes.
c) note the sensation you get while eating chips/ potatoe crisps (Kellys, Pringles, etc): can you actually stop before the package is finished? How much effort does it take you to stop before...?
d) note the sensation when you're eating out at your local fast food store/ indian/ chinese/ thai - restaurant: do you still have cravings after eating a delicious meal?

4 - a) look on your average drinking water listing: how high is the sodium content? concerned?
b) note the sensation of dry mouth/ gums some after drinking regular drinking water: is your mouth feeling dry? do you get thirsty again?

Do you think it's legal that food, or other manufacturers use ingredients that can potentially harm you or cause unease, in order to make you use more of their products or get any kind of addiction from it?

Same as of the above applies to add for say ingredients in certaain products like tobacco/ cigarettes, that increase the potential addiction to it.

I'm not talking about the top-speed of Porsches or Ferraris, which can only be enjoyed on a German Autobahn, or in the Northern Territory and potentially lead to kill yourself and others rolleyes

I'm talking about the everydays products and their ingredients which are potentially harmful - yet not proven... rolleyes and studies go back and forth and we'll only know in a 50 years when we're about to die (look at the lawsuits against tobacco companies - and the disclaiming health warning now - pathetic I call it!)

Would it be the government's task to protect it's citizens from industries trying to harm them for the profit?

shrug tell me please shrug


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete Topic

Sethis
Sethis

Pooh-Bah
Location: York University
Member Since: 16th May 2005
Total posts: 1762
Posted:I hate you NYC.

After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Delete

jeff(fake)
jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh
Member Since: 15th Apr 2005
Total posts: 1189
Posted:Did you fall for the joke?! ubblol

According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete

Motley
Motley

addict
Location: UK
Member Since: 9th Oct 2005
Total posts: 434
Posted:Written by: andrealee

In regards to an earlier comment about dosage being the important issue with substance toxicity. Yes, but it is not always accurately measured, or considered. We may think the miniscule amounts in so many of our products are " Safe" Yet, the chemical additives are so ubiquitious that you may be getting said miniscule dose repeatedly, layered on yourself in multiple products over the course of a day ( looking at body care products, but issue is similar in food). Other chemical additives , even in small doses, actually remain stored in various tissues of the body , building up over time.

The total dose from *all sources*, *over time* may significantly exceed so called" safe" levels. Or not. Huge individual variances
( consumption levels, body size, gender... ) .




Contrary to popular belief this is actually very carefully considered when bringing cosmetics to market, similar to with drugs you have to submit a safetly profile before it can go to market. of course it is much harder to measure these things in the diet which is why there are strict limits set on the use of, say pesticides, the detection of which in food is very accurate these days, and the amounts you are exposed to are indeed minute. Only certain types of chemicals can be said to accumulate in the tissues, the main reason being that they arnt very water soluble and like to sit in fatty tissue, unfortunatly this is the case with quite a lot of pesticides due to the nature of the chemical structures of these chemicals (eg DDT, caused huge problems anyone over the age of about 10 has a fair bit of this in their body fat, but we live and learn, this problem is well known about now and even more carefully scrutinised when bringing a new pesticide into widespread use).

Written by: andrealee

In addition to dosage, when considering safety with chemicals it is useful to consider interactions. One very mild carcinogen, mixed with another mild carcinogen, and suddenly the carcinogenic effects can start to increase in an exponential fashion.

Like say, the difference between just smoking( which has a lovely multiple range of potential chemical carcinagens) and smoking and drinking alcohol at the same time... The risk does not just double, it increases much more significantly. It always makes me cringe when a friend says dont worry, they only smoke when they are out for a drink!




This is known in the trade as synergism, and while very very difficult to study a lot of effort is put it, usually the decision to investigate synergy is prompted when 2 (or more agents) affect the same target organ via a different mechanism often resulting in the same effect. When this happens it is vigilant to investigate the possibilities of synergy (I myself have studied potential synergy between 2 agents in pancreatic cancer). However it is both economically and logistically impossible to investigate synergy where there is no obvious reason to, there would simply be billions of possible combinations. As i said in my prior post, a lot of aspects relating to mutagens or carcinogens are different because their action is not thought to be thresholded and an ALARP (as low as is reasonably practicable) approach is used when dictating use of these substances. Risk assessment is very important in this aspect.

Written by: andrealee

Considering that the typical North American female layers herself with products containing something like over 138 dubious chemical additives and preservatives, foaming agents etc,daily , it is pretty hard to say what a chemical soup like that will do!

As a society we are aware of many risky substances, yet continue to use them. Talc, for example, a known carcinigen, is still rubbed all over babies, who are hugely vulnerable ( cells dividing rapidly, which one of the likeliest time for carcinogins to cause damage) We can do better than that! We know women using hair dye are at significantly greater risk of developing cancer. Yet now we promote its use for men too ( equal opportunity cancer risks;-)) These are well documented effects, not paranoia, you can do the research and check. Yet, still commonly available. Weird. Are we nuts?




Think I covered the first bit already, to cover the second (tho i'm not talking specifically about talc cos i havnt read the literature) waht are the circumstances under which it causes cancer, is it absorbed through the skin? injestion? inhalation? Is it genotoxic or non genotoxic? to what extent? there are so many questions which have to be answered and to make a logical and reasonable assessment of the risks you must first do a thorough assessment of the literature rather than, as is commonly done, saying "this substance causes cancer, thus is bad and should not be used".

Written by: andrealee

At least if we chose natural products we know that there is a possibility that our bodies have developed a mechanism for dealing with their harmful effects. It is hard to over consume some of them without feeling pretty sick right off the bat. Many of the harmful effects of natural substances are well known over mankinds history, so we can avoid them. Generally, they are just less risky and far better understood. Also, the waste from the production and consumption of organic natural foods and products is better able to circle back into the planetary balance without harm.




It is natural thus it cannot be bad is a VERY illogical arguement, many of the most potent poisons are in fact "natural" or derived from "natural" ingredients. A lot of "herbal remedies" etc are of very questionable benifit and could in fact be harmful, regulation of this industry is in its infancy compared to the drug industry but there are many that have already been banned from use because of their harmful effects. Its also very important to consider that many people self prescribe/administer these remedies without proper consultation, this in its self can be dangerous.

I'll leave you to make your own mind up on the rest, as i think ive written quite enough already, I hope I havnt come across as patronising because that was not my intention, I only intend to add a different perspective hug

Motley


Delete

Sethis
Sethis

Pooh-Bah
Location: York University
Member Since: 16th May 2005
Total posts: 1762
Posted:Yeah, because I know so much about Chemistry... rolleyes

I hate all of you. But only until I meet NYC in person, then he'll have DHMO all over his front wink


After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Delete

BansheeCat
veteran
Location: lost
Member Since: 29th Jul 2005
Total posts: 1247
Posted:
ubblol
Hilarious!


But I must say, for a human to desire to feed themselves with food they can actually recognize as food is not really something I would dismiss as nostalgia!

It goes deeper than that.

hug


"God *was* my co-pilot, but then we crashed, and I had to eat him..."

Delete

Motley
Motley

addict
Location: UK
Member Since: 9th Oct 2005
Total posts: 434
Posted:Oh and DHMO can be very nasty stuff indeed, ask michael barrymoore about his swimming pool :P

ubblol


Delete

jeff(fake)
jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh
Member Since: 15th Apr 2005
Total posts: 1189
Posted:Written by: Sethis

Yeah, because I know so much about Chemistry... rolleyes

I hate all of you. But only until I meet NYC in person, then he'll have DHMO all over his front wink


If ever we meet you will be subjected to the most merciless mocking the world has ever seen.


According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete

onewheeldave
Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield
Member Since: 28th Aug 2002
Total posts: 3252
Posted:Written by: andrealee

As a society we are aware of many risky substances, yet continue to use them. Talc, for example, a known carcinigen, is still rubbed all over babies, who are hugely vulnerable



I didn't know there was a connection with talc and cancer, but did a search after reading your post, and there is quite a lot of stuff on the net about it.

For example-

http://www.preventcancer.com/consumers/cosmetics/talc.htm
br>
Written by: from link above


Q. Why is talc harmful?

A. Talc is closely related to the potent carcinogen asbestos. Talc particles have been shown to cause tumors in the ovaries and lungs of cancer victims. For the last 30 years, scientists have closely scrutinized talc particles and found dangerous similarities to asbestos. Responding to this evidence in 1973, the FDA drafted a resolution that would limit the amount of asbestos-like fibers in cosmetic grade talc. However, no ruling has ever been made and today, cosmetic grade talc remains non-regulated by the federal government. This inaction ignores a 1993 National Toxicology Program report which found that cosmetic grade talc, without any asbestos-like fibers, caused tumors in animal subjects.1 Clearly with or without asbestos-like fibers, cosmetic grade talcum powder is a carcinogen.

Q. What kind of exposure is dangerous?

A. Talc is toxic. Talc particles cause tumors in human ovaries and lungs. Numerous studies have shown a strong link between frequent use of talc in the female genital area and ovarian cancer. Talc particles are able to move through the reproductive system and become imbedded in the lining of the ovary. Researchers have found talc particles in ovarian tumors and have found that women with ovarian cancer have used talcum powder in their genital area more frequently than healthy women.2

Talc poses a health risk when exposed to the lungs. Talc miners have shown higher rates of lung cancer and other respiratory illnesses from exposure to industrial grade talc, which contains dangerous silica and asbestos. The common household hazard posed by talc is inhalation of baby powder by infants. Since the early 1980s, records show that several thousand infants each year have died or become seriously ill following accidental inhalation of baby powder.3





"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

BansheeCat
veteran
Location: lost
Member Since: 29th Jul 2005
Total posts: 1247
Posted:Thanks OWD!



Motley, you can do your own research if curious, particularily if you are studying the field of cancer. You might appreciate it. I am talking about mainstream articles, go on Medline and check into it. Lots of abstracts available. I dont find your opinion patronizing, no worries, much of it is just a longer explanation of what I was saying, using more technical terms that I chose not to use in this forum. You draw one conclusion from that information, and I, another. No problem there!



Talc is one example of a well known risk. Hair dye also, and one of the major components of common over the counter acne medicine( topically applied). These examples are well documented from a variety of mainstream sources. I do know the mechanisms in play quite well , did my oncology research papers in university on two of those, and a friend did his on the third. I also know for a fact that some of the components in typical hair care products do store in the body in levels exceeding those generally accepted as safe. I did research that too... Can not possibily be bothered to try and present it accurately in this forum! But it is interesting to be sure, so you might want to explore some of the available research outlining legitimate concerns on these substances and their carcinogenic and mutagenic potentials.



Obviously, the powers that be have decided they are safe, as they are freely available with no warnings on the labels. That is not to say I or anyone else must agree with their assessment of risk! As you state yourself, issues like synergism are very complicated /intricate to study, as who knows what people are mixing in what quantities etc. etc. I do not see that as a reason to dismiss the possibility.



Regardless of the fact that is is time consuming and expensive for researchers and manufacturers to try to establish parameters of risk with these substances, they may still be interacting. And those interactions may produce an undesirable effect. Why choose a product with the potential, when other much simpler healthier alternatives are readily available?



A obvious example is the harmful synergistic effect of the components with in a cigarette. Multiple trace carcinogens, mutagens and cofactors mingling... Seperately, and small quantities, they were for a very long time thought safe. Or at least safe enough. Together, over time,consumed by a teen in a growth spurt- a disaster. One very slowly revealed. Simple organically grown tobacco is much, much safer.



Also, I think you mis- emphasised my statement- I did not say natural was safe. I said it presented more clearly known and understood risks. And I meant it particularly in reference to food and body care. I stand by that observation.



Herbal medicine is a bit of a different question though, more complex as a safety issue because of the concentrations involved, and other concerns like the fact they are often used by/on already ill/weakened people etc . I am a herbalist, so I could get into that debate, but cant be bothered to at this stage either! It is a different discussion . Herbs,and other nutrients used as medicines, present many of the same concerns as drugs. It all depends how they are used.



However, it is worth noting that readily available, widely considered safe,and very heavily promoted, Aspirin* has caused significantly more (documented) cases of medical harm then that all of the reported cases of harm from herbal medicines put together. ( in Canada ) Look it up...



I just suggest that people use these substances - natural or not- with awareness ! Come to your own conclusions...



Do you really want to slather your baby in a petrochemical by-product, or do you think perhaps a little olive oil will do?


"God *was* my co-pilot, but then we crashed, and I had to eat him..."

Delete

newgabe
newgabe

what goes around comes around. unless you're into stalls.
Location: Bali
Member Since: 3rd Mar 2005
Total posts: 4030
Posted:Written by: mcp

Who cares about salt, salt is just bad for you.



Salt is so VIP that Roman soldiers were paid in it and it was a crucial cargo for centuries on the Silk Road.. which could also have been called the Salt Rd. In warm climates, where we sweat (yep Meg, maybe not so much in Scotland!) it is very necessary to have enough salt. Not too much, enough. Some of my very 'health conscious' friends have come very unstuck on a low salt diet in this part of the world...


.....Can't juggle balls but I sure as hell can juggle details....

Delete

FireTom
Stargazer

Member Since: 20th Sep 2003
Total posts: 6650
Posted:OK - we agree that the dose makes the poison!

What about

- adding all potentially harmful substances up that are in our daily diet?
- that all of these companies (individually) add these substances in order to gross revenue (and that they are allowed to do that)?

OK - we agree upon the fact that the life-expectancy has risen over the past 1-200 years...

What about:

"It's not how old we get, but how we get old"! confused

I have worked in a retirement home and what I have experienced there as just eek What is the need of becoming 99 if one is just liing in bed with wires and hoses attached?

OK - we may think that rich people buy the best food...

What about all the "Trader Joes" in rich neigbourhoods? About all the Jag's and Merc's in front of discount grocery stores? I think this is a myth. People are people and the bankaccount or colour of craditcard doesn't make the difference.

Hence they can afford to buy quality products, which the "average joe" can't. Meaning, if you're already working your time away and a55 off for little to no money - you get at least benefitted with sh1t food! mad2

Sounds like a very civilised and rational society to me... umm

As a consumer we not "just" have to keep up with new inventinos in our very own field, meaning to keep up-to-date with the development in our profession, the technical advances around us, the political situation, our relationships/ families/ children, global issues, the discussions on HoP, benefits and dangers of exercising...... I am sure I forgot 986% of what else there is to care about - we also have to control our everydays intake of toxins... because it's perfectly legal to use potentially harmful ingredients! censored

Personally I do NOT need foam in my mouth to think that it's clean now! Really don't - but the number of toothpaste available without SLS is ..... 0.01%

Personally I can really enjoy the sensation of good food and spices without MSG...

mad2

excuse me smile but that's what is called "life today" I guess.. wink


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

Lurch
Lurch

old hand
Location: Oregon
Member Since: 1st Nov 2003
Total posts: 929
Posted:I used DHMO in a speech class for a persuasive assignment.. Complete with posters, graphs, and a petition passing around the room....

About 3/4 of the way through one of the guys in the class blurts out 'Oh you F*'in [censored]!' and the jig was up frown

Passed though cool


#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored frown

Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals

Delete

Stone
Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne
Member Since: 13th Jun 2001
Total posts: 2830
Posted:I just read this thread and thanks NYC, for the warnings on DHMO, but what is it? I have probably missed something, but the explanations below tell me little, if anything about the stuff except is widely used, potentially dangerous and is force fed to cows?

Written by:
What is DHMO? Dihydrogen Monoxide, or DHMO, is a colorless and odorless chemical that kills or maims thousands each year, primarily through accidental inhalation. It has also been revealed to be a causative agent in many environmental exposure incidents, industrial contaminations, automobile accidents, and property damage. The dollar amount losses caused, and the lives impacted, by the DHMO threat are virtually innumerable.



Written by:
Cows are encouraged to ingest large quantities of DHMO, with studies showing that this practice can lead to increased milk production. The side effects of this practice have not been well studied.






confused


If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

Domino
UnNatural Scientist - Currently working on a Breville-legged monkey
Location: Bath Uni or Shrewsbury, UK
Member Since: 26th May 2004
Total posts: 757
Posted:Written by: Stone

I just read this thread



You missed a spot rolleyes


Give me a lever long enough and a place to stand and I can beat the world into submission.

Delete

jeff(fake)
jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh
Member Since: 15th Apr 2005
Total posts: 1189
Posted:tongue

According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete

NYC
NYC

NYC
Location: NYC, NY, USA
Member Since: 26th Aug 2001
Total posts: 9232
Posted:This is why the internet is depressing.

ubblol

I also posted the DHMO website for the same reason that the guy who started it started it. I thought it was pretty relevant to the conversation.

Bummer Domino ruined the IQ test. frown


Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]

Delete

Domino
UnNatural Scientist - Currently working on a Breville-legged monkey
Location: Bath Uni or Shrewsbury, UK
Member Since: 26th May 2004
Total posts: 757
Posted:frown Sorry frown

I wasn't in a good mood and with people throwing names of chemicals around like bad things I felt the need to smack people in the brain and point it out.

It still works as IQ test, we've seen one example of the answer being spelled out in bold and still missed.

In my defence if people just read it and add DHMO to the list of scarey chemicals in the world and move on then the joke doesn't work. They need to, at some point, realise it's just water so they will hopefully go back, re-read, and concider the spin involved - and them smack *themselves* in the brain.


Give me a lever long enough and a place to stand and I can beat the world into submission.

Delete

Sethis
Sethis

Pooh-Bah
Location: York University
Member Since: 16th May 2005
Total posts: 1762
Posted:But it's not an IQ test, because there is no context in which you can take it to prove someone's intelligence. For example, someone who's a chemist and/or paying attention will instantly recognise the page as rubbish. Someone who only reads the full name once (Dihydrogen Monoxide) and sees it referred to by it's initials the rest of the time is going to forget what the original name was in a few sentences, and therefore not get the joke. You could just as easily write a website about NaCl, call it "NC" and then babble about how it's damaging everyone's bodies and it's put in too much food. That's not an IQ test, it's someone laughing at other people who aren't paying attention.

IQ tests tend to ask questions, hence them being called tests. Not pages of babble specifically designed to mislead you from the word "Go".


After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Delete

Dr_Molly
Dr_Molly

Pooh-Bah
Location: Away from home
Member Since: 4th May 2004
Total posts: 2354
Posted:I think that the 'test' is less about whether people are paying attention and more about whether they believe hype without applying a bit of their own critical analysis to the information.

If it is so simple to convince people of the terrible danger of DMHO simply by using unecessarily complicated language and taking true statements out of context, doesn't it make you wonder how many of the scare stories and suchlike are completely biased to serve someone else's agenda?


Delete

NYC
NYC

NYC
Location: NYC, NY, USA
Member Since: 26th Aug 2001
Total posts: 9232
Posted:I was kidding about the IQ test. Though it would be nice to know before wasting time in a discussion. ubblol

Written by: Molly

If it is so simple to convince people of the terrible danger of DMHO simply by using unecessarily complicated language and taking true statements out of context, doesn't it make you wonder how many of the scare stories and suchlike are completely biased to serve someone else's agenda?



Yay. Logic. Thanks. hug


Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]

Delete

Domino
UnNatural Scientist - Currently working on a Breville-legged monkey
Location: Bath Uni or Shrewsbury, UK
Member Since: 26th May 2004
Total posts: 757
Posted:I found a stream on WinAmp dedicated to to Pen and Teller's Bulls--t. It's brilliant and great at pointing out that kind of thing. They even pulled the DHMO gag at an enviromental gathering and got hundreds of signitures on a petition to get it banned

Give me a lever long enough and a place to stand and I can beat the world into submission.

Delete

jeff(fake)
jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh
Member Since: 15th Apr 2005
Total posts: 1189
Posted:Written by: Domino

I found a stream on WinAmp dedicated to to Pen and Teller's Bulls--t...


Sweet Jebus! Where?


According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete

Domino
UnNatural Scientist - Currently working on a Breville-legged monkey
Location: Bath Uni or Shrewsbury, UK
Member Since: 26th May 2004
Total posts: 757
Posted:You have to get WinAmp to connect to the internet - I'm going to say "Proxy". I have no idea what it means but a comptery friend did proxy things and so I could get radio on WinAmp. Press Alt L to go to the liberary, go to Shoutout TV, there's a couple of channels in there of BS tongue

Give me a lever long enough and a place to stand and I can beat the world into submission.

Delete

BansheeCat
veteran
Location: lost
Member Since: 29th Jul 2005
Total posts: 1247
Posted:It is worth considering that the scare stories,and the " nothing to fear" stories *both* have an agenda. Many people are just more concerned about the ones used to sell products... the financial agendas are fairly obvious ones.

"God *was* my co-pilot, but then we crashed, and I had to eat him..."

Delete

Page: 12