The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

Talc Now Linked To Cancer?! Options
MelissaMe
Posted: Wednesday, June 8, 2016 11:34:19 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/10/2014
Posts: 5,400
Neurons: 347,018
Location: Gualala, California, United States
Quote:
The International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies perineal use of talc-containing products as "possibly carcinogenic to humans."


I just heard about this yesterday. I did a little Google search for news research.

Talcum Powder Cancer Lawsuit

This is my only now.
thar
Posted: Wednesday, June 8, 2016 12:55:29 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/8/2010
Posts: 17,143
Neurons: 69,283
I was surprised, when I first heard this story, that it was not commonly known to be a risk. I remember reading about it in terms of using talc years ago, so it must have been in the public domain then.

Of course these cases are claiming cumulative damage over long use, presumably before the risks were known. But I am surprised that this knowledge of potential hazard is not known by everybody today.

I think it does emphasise the need to know what you are using. Just because something is available, does not mean you shouldn't know what it is and what it does, when you use it. Then make up your own mind.

edit -
just realised that might sound bad. Not intended to. A response to the original story, not to you!
CatCat
Posted: Wednesday, June 8, 2016 1:38:50 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/15/2014
Posts: 985
Neurons: 15,410
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
I remember making a conscious decision when my son was born, 23 years ago, NOT to use talc after reading about its possible dangers. But, for many years before that I regularly powdered myself after a bath or a shower. It's a bit frightening to think of the possible consequences of breathing that stuff in year after year.

From Baylor University Medical Center:

Talcosis or talc pneumoconiosis is an uncommon form of pulmonary dust disease first recognized over 100 years ago. Talcosis may follow inhalation of relatively low concentrations of talc dust over a long period or exposure to very high concentrations of the dust over a short time. In an infant, death occurred within 20 hours of accidental inhalation of talcum powder containing approximately 93% talc. Baby powder, consisting mainly of talc powder, is insoluble and, if inhaled in large amounts, dries the tracheobronchial mucous membrane and prevents normal ciliary function. The small air passages then fill with retained mucus.
Hope123
Posted: Wednesday, June 8, 2016 1:42:06 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 7,822
Neurons: 45,150
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
I remember telling my son and dil years ago when I heard about it as they were using it on their baby girls. I hope they stopped.

The greatest pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do. Anon
ithink140
Posted: Wednesday, June 8, 2016 1:49:24 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/4/2013
Posts: 2,453
Neurons: 17,922
There are so many cancer causing claims that the mind boggles. One wonders how such a conclusion with regard to talc being cancer causing is reached. What about all the other variables attendant in those surveyed. I tend to take such surveys with a pinch of salt. Data can be misleading.

In the late seventies the claim made by cancer research collection agencies was that one in four peoples would contract cancer during their life, this was at some point reduced to one in three. I did not believe it. The inference was that folk would be prematurely struck down by cancer. I felt it was scaremongering at its worst.

I discovered the extent of this misleading practice by chance. An eighty-four year old neighbour, Miss Lilly, who live opposite me was admitted to hospital where I paid her a visit. She had a large cancerous lump on the side of her throat and died shortly after my visit. Within a year Stan, who was seventy five, also died of cancer.

My interest was piqued and I enquired of a surgeon as to how commonplace end of life cancers were. It was no surprise to me that they were very common and made up most of the figures for cancer deaths. That one in four figure failed to state that most were end of life cases.

Fear is a good charity weapon.



'Life is too short to be eaten up by hate.'
progpen
Posted: Wednesday, June 8, 2016 5:19:51 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/2/2015
Posts: 1,755
Neurons: 263,543
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States
The talcum powder itself is not carcinogenic, it is the additives 1,4-dioxane and formaldehyde that are known carcinogens.


Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Wednesday, June 8, 2016 5:19:53 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 29,138
Neurons: 167,301
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
From what I understand, anything which can be broken into tiny, rather sharp particles has the same effect.

This is the trouble with asbestos. It's not a chemical reaction or an 'allergy', its just a very sharp fine 'needle' digging into your lungs from the inside. The body tries to reject it or surround it with scar tissue and occasionally it gets out of hand and becomes cancer - but most cases of asbestosis are not cancer. It's nasty enough even when it's not!
It used to be a major cause of death for coal-miners - not cancer, but dust-damaged lungs.

In the instance stated by CatCat, the infant died within 20 hours of breathing in the talc dust. You don't contract cancer and die from it in 20 hours. It could have been any fine insoluble dust or mist - flour, hair-spray, whatever. The small cavities inside the lungs become coated and prevent oxygen from being dissolved from the air.

Cancer is nasty.
However, like everything reported in the media, the dangers are exaggerated, and designed to make the environment seem dangerous.

"Oxygen in the air we breathe may play a role in triggering lung cancer, new research suggests."Daily Mail Jan 2015
Getting too little sunshine raises risk of cancer, scientists find - Telegraph Nov 2014
Most skin cancers are caused by exposure to the sun. Cancer Research UK - 23 Sep 2014

Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
progpen
Posted: Wednesday, June 8, 2016 5:24:17 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/2/2015
Posts: 1,755
Neurons: 263,543
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States
Drago is right, the talcum powder itself is as dangerous as about any other dust that is inhaled over a period of time. The ovarian cancer, however, is linked to the additives and not to the talcum powder.

Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
pitulush
Posted: Wednesday, June 8, 2016 5:42:09 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/30/2012
Posts: 875
Neurons: 408,468
Location: Bucharest, Bucuresti, Romania
ithink140 wrote:

My interest was piqued and I enquired of a surgeon as to how commonplace end of life cancers were. It was no surprise to me that they were very common and made up most of the figures for cancer deaths. That one in four figure failed to state that most were end of life cases.



ithink (or anyone who understands this concept better than me), please tell me, what are "end of life cancers"? I tried searching for it but I couldn't find anything. Or do you just mean cancer in people who are already… "so old" that one might reckon they would have died pretty soon anyway, cancer or no cancer? If so, what would be the... age threshold for that? (I know, that sounds terrible; just trying to figure this out!)


PS: I always knew there was something in the air! So it was oxygen all along!
thar
Posted: Wednesday, June 8, 2016 5:55:24 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/8/2010
Posts: 17,143
Neurons: 69,283
As one example, often when prostate cancer is detected, it is not treated, on the diagnosis that the person will die of old age before they die of the cancer.

Quote:
The advice to detect and treat cancers at the first opportunity may not apply to older men with prostate tumors, according to the latest study.

With a government-backed group advising that most men no longer need regular screening for prostate cancer with the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) blood test, researchers now say that older men who are diagnosed with the disease should not always get surgery or radiation treatment.

That’s because for most men, having a low to moderate risk of prostate cancer is not a major red flag for early death. The cancer is typically so slow-growing, that many of these men will die from other causes, which means the benefits of treatment do not always outweigh the risks. Surgery, radiation and radioactive seed implants can cause disorders such as erectile dysfunction and urinary incontinence. And since it can take many years for the effects of the treatments to emerge, the survival advantage is low in most cases in which the tumors aren’t aggressive.


As for talcum powder - it is crushed rock! On a microscopic scale it has sharp edges, and it will be treated as a foreign body by a membrane it penetrates.
As such, you have to make judgments about how much of it you want getting into your body. Studies and proof will always be problematic (which is a good thing - it means the risk is low - the things that clearly cause cancer have been systematically identified a few years or decades after people are exposed and well-flagged - asbestos/smoking/uv/life....)
pitulush
Posted: Wednesday, June 8, 2016 6:35:55 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/30/2012
Posts: 875
Neurons: 408,468
Location: Bucharest, Bucuresti, Romania
Thank you, thar! I understand what you mean, but it seems to me that in the example you've given, the older men end up dying from something else (maybe other diseases or "old age" or who knows what), while ithink's neighours actually died of cancer… so why would those cases be called "end of life cancers"? It seems to me that cancer actually ended their lives ("life-ending cancer" maybe). Think
Hope123
Posted: Wednesday, June 8, 2016 10:12:17 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 7,822
Neurons: 45,150
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
On the "PSA test for men" quote above, the operative words are 'are not aggressive'. So how does one know the aggressiveness level until it is too late if one does not get the test and a biopsy if indicated? Even just a minimal increase on an annual PSA test, well within normal range, can indicate an early aggressive cancer. Early diagnosis can save lives. In Ontario because of the thinking of the above quote, men have to pay for the test. The 'wait and watch' approach may be fine if it is after the aggressiveness level is determined. (This is not just theory on my part.)

Science is getting much better in the testing and experiments for cancer and in the epidemiological data collection than they used to be when causation and correlation were confused more often. And often it is the press that hypes it up, and misconstrues the actual results of a test.

Yes, optimal levels of vitamin D are needed to help the immune system, and yes, the melanoma incidence has risen dramatically with the hole in the ozone here in Canada. However, exposure to UV rays is only one of eight risk factors for skin cancer, although 90% of melanoma is attributed to UV rays from the sun or from tanning booths.

And it's not as if talcum powder is, as one doctor said, "a must-have" product. Moisturizer would seem to be a lot more important than a drying agent. (So Melissa if you are concerned, just don't use it. And don't worry about previous use. It seems to be a weak link from what I read and you can't change the past anyhow.)

They should be testing cosmetics and body soaps, shampoos, nail polish and remover, perfume, after shave, deodorants, toothpaste, moisturizers, and petroleum from crude oil that is even put on babies. What you put on your skin is absorbed the same as if you ate it. I know I've said that before on the forum. Pure glycerine, shea butter, and even coconut oil are good as moisturizers.


We put all these chemicals in our food, water, air, and on our skin, and then wonder why chronic disease incidence such as for cancer, asthma, and serious peanut/food allergies is exploding. My neighbor says the cancer centre is absolutely jammed every time he has to take his wife in for chemo. I can't even count how many have had it or died of it in this building alone in the last fifteen years.


The greatest pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do. Anon
Hope123
Posted: Wednesday, June 8, 2016 10:23:02 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 7,822
Neurons: 45,150
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
As for age of cancer, here's a UK graph, Pitulush. I know these results cannot be extrapolated for other areas or for any one individual, but I'm sure you can find more results for your area.

Graph - Age of Cancer Incidence UK

Age group with greatest increase in incidence rates since the late 1970s, GB, is the 0 - 24 range.

And yes, although childhood cancer is increasing, the body does usually break down the longer we live. The increase in that graph started around the fifties, really increased around the seventies, and actually went down at the end in the eighties and nineties. Age that half of cancer cases are diagnosed, 2011-2013, UK is 70 years. That is young these days. :)

The rates have steadily increased since 1961 on another graph on that link if you click on rates over time.

We have sent so many "In Memoriam" donations to our local cancer centre in the last couple of years that we could buy a room. Well I exaggerated a little but many more of our friends, 40's, 50`s and 60's are getting or have had treatment for cancer. I will say that the level of care of and education for patients these days is astounding in comparison to what it was even fifteen years ago, so my friends who have experienced it have told me. And more types of cancer are being cured.

They are now working on personalized care - finding out what will work on your specific DNA and type of cancer. Things are actually looking up and Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto has been a pioneer in a lot of studies and breakthroughs in collaboration with other scientists, some from California.


The greatest pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do. Anon
ithink140
Posted: Thursday, June 9, 2016 4:27:39 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/4/2013
Posts: 2,453
Neurons: 17,922
Hello, Pitulush. By end of life cancers I meant that the body is breaking down and reaching its limit and cancer is just one of many symptoms of such. In end of life situations there is less resistance to disease.

Baby's have been exposed to talc for yonks. I am always wary of surveys and there quality.


'Life is too short to be eaten up by hate.'
pitulush
Posted: Thursday, June 9, 2016 11:06:01 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/30/2012
Posts: 875
Neurons: 408,468
Location: Bucharest, Bucuresti, Romania
Oh! Thank you, ithink and Hope! I get it perfectly now. :)

Why cancer rate increases with age:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120702134732.htm

I think the other factors could still be contributing to causing cancer, it's just that when you add in old age, the risk is, of course, greater.



---- back to talc talk

This is the talc entry in a cosmetic dictionary I like to use to check how beneficial/good/bad/safe ingredients in cosmetics are and what they are there for: http://www.paulaschoice.com/cosmetic-ingredient-dictionary/definition/miscellaneous/talc.
I'm not saying they're always right, but they're usually well documented from scientific sources and they add references.

"The Dirty Dozen of ‘Bad’ Cosmetic Ingredients" – talc included:
http://www.paulaschoice.com/expert-advice/myths/_/ingredient-scares-that-arent-true


Other opinions:

http://personalcaretruth.com/2011/01/the-talc-controversy/
http://www.wortheecosmetics.com/blog/cosmetic-science/what-are-the-facts-behind-talcum-powder

I think more studied are needed, but for now play it safe. Not defending talc, btw, I hate it anyway and never use it (as a powder; in make-up products it's fine), because if I do, I breathe it in and it makes me feel I'm choking… yuck! I still prefer oxygen :)

Hope123
Posted: Thursday, June 9, 2016 11:40:00 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 7,822
Neurons: 45,150
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Thank you so much for the links, Pitulush.

Finding out facts always helps one to make decisions and you are the only one responsible for your own health. On my skin and in my home I use only products that are known to be safe, that is tested, and not just GRAS. And I try to use natural products where possible. For instance - Vinegar and baking soda clean most things in a home very nicely with anti bacterial properties being utilized. And there are lots of body products without harmful ingredients.


Digression - Antibacterial soaps are being accused of contributing to chronic problems with allergy and overuse of antibiotics.

So if one of the other dangers doesn't get us, our fears of germs and the overuse of antibiotics just may do so.

Apparently European countries allow far far fewer chemicals in their products and foods than North American governments allow. I don't know actual statistics, but over here hundreds of chemicals are allowed.

The greatest pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do. Anon
MelissaMe
Posted: Thursday, June 9, 2016 12:07:39 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/10/2014
Posts: 5,400
Neurons: 347,018
Location: Gualala, California, United States
Hope123, I am not worried about past use of talc, I never touched the stuff for decades as an adult! I bet my Mommy used it on my little pink baby bottom a lot. I currently have a tiny sample size bottle I'd used about a tablespoon of in about the last five years. But I'd used it in the one area most likely to cause cancer! Oh, well, I will just not put it on my body any longer. And as for makeup, why? I don't need paint on my face!

This is my only now.
Axel Bear
Posted: Thursday, June 9, 2016 3:39:55 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/5/2015
Posts: 981
Neurons: 22,368


For Hope123 over antibacterial soaps:

Read here



Toute nation a le gouvernement qu'elle mérite: Joseph de Maistre
Hope123
Posted: Thursday, June 9, 2016 3:53:24 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 7,822
Neurons: 45,150
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Thanks, Axel. IMHO - They may be good in public places but should not be used regularly at home.

I can only tolerate good old-fashioned glycerine soap. (Unfortunately for me, my doctor used to refer to me as his 'canary in the mine'.)

I was looking up the name 'triclosan' in hand sanitizer as I couldn't remember the name of this alledged carcinogen. While so doing, I came across this website about other ingredients to avoid and why. I have not vetted the site but it is what most health conscious people believe.

My theory - Just read the ingredients and if you can't pronounce one, don't buy it. Whistle I use the Clean Well handiwipes they mention.

http://awakeningwillow.com/2010/04/27/11-toxic-ingredients-to-avoid-in-hand-soap-and-sanitizer-and-safer-options-for-your-family/




The greatest pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do. Anon
pitulush
Posted: Thursday, June 9, 2016 6:52:56 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/30/2012
Posts: 875
Neurons: 408,468
Location: Bucharest, Bucuresti, Romania
Hi Hope,

I've become very passionate about this topic (ingredients in cosmetic products and skin care in general) over the last few years. So without trying to change your mind about anything, I just wanna say that there's a lot of information out there which is based on anything other than science – marketing, the pleasure of scaring others, misinterpreting studies or simply getting their info from other untrustworthy sources and just spreading it without checking the facts first. Of course, "facts" may be too much, since everything is just based on currently available studies, statistics… which are far from being conclusive all the time. It's difficult at times to make up your mind about this stuff when there's so much contradictory and sensationalist info.

Sooo just to show a different side of the story, I'm gonna go back to my bible :D - Paula Begoun's site. Again, I'm sure she's not always right, but at least she makes an effort and actually reads research! And she does sell stuff… but she promotes any brand that uses good ingredients, not just her own. A lot of links below, I know, but there's not really that much to read.

about your "beloved" triclosan:
http://www.paulaschoice.com/cosmetic-ingredient-dictionary/definition/triclosan

about using natural stuff:
http://www.paulaschoice.com/expert-advice/natural-skin-care/_/organic-cosmetics-is-natural-better

natural, easy to pronounce Whistle ingredients that are not so good for the skin (I love this one, I think this is a huge misconception):
http://www.paulaschoice.com/expert-advice/natural-skin-care/_/are-natural-and-organic-ingredients-better-for-your-skin

not to mention alcohol, camphor, sulfur (I didn't see these on the list), which are huge irritants, yet they're present in so many products, and they're simple words.

about sulfates in general:
http://www.paulaschoice.com/cosmetic-ingredient-dictionary/definition/sulfates

of these, SLES is actually gentle:
http://www.paulaschoice.com/cosmetic-ingredient-dictionary/definition/sodium-laureth-sulfate

not to be confused with SLS (I actually try to avoid this one but it's kind of hard to find SLS-free toothpaste – not impossible, just more difficult):
http://www.paulaschoice.com/cosmetic-ingredient-dictionary/definition/sodium-lauryl-sulfate

scary parabens:
http://www.paulaschoice.com/expert-advice/myths/_/parabens-are-they-really-a-problem

I've heard so many people (some of them smart :D) say that parabens are bad just because they've seen the "paraben free" label on the packaging of cosmetics. Why else would they put it there if they're not bad? And not just with parabens.

on propylene glycol - "There are websites and spam e-mails stating that propylene glycol is really industrial antifreeze and that it is the major ingredient in brake and hydraulic fluids." - quote from here:
http://www.paulaschoice.com/cosmetic-ingredient-dictionary/definition/propylene-glycol

colours:
http://www.paulaschoice.com/cosmetic-ingredient-dictionary/definition/fdc-colors

urea:
http://www.paulaschoice.com/cosmetic-ingredient-dictionary/definition/urea


The ones that I left out from the list of 11 are bad in her opinion too, so there's some agreement!

These two are hard to pronounce AND bad for you:
http://www.paulaschoice.com/cosmetic-ingredient-dictionary/definition/methylisothiazolinone
http://www.paulaschoice.com/cosmetic-ingredient-dictionary/definition/methylchloroisothiazolinone


Another ingredient that Paula says is bad is linalool – this one is in a ton of products.
http://www.paulaschoice.com/cosmetic-ingredient-dictionary/definition/linalool

What's worse is it could be cytotoxic https://www.truthinaging.com/review/lavender-and-skin-safety

but this guy strongly disagrees (on the other hand he's in the essential oil industry) http://roberttisserand.com/2011/08/lavender-oil-skin-savior-or-skin-irritant/

Who knows what's true anymore? Brick wall

Don't get me started on sunscreen products that don't actually protect you from the whole range of UV rays – though if you just looked at the SPF number on the package you'd have no idea! Really, don't get me started! Whistle How misleading is that?! Whew! I've mentioned I was passionate about this, right? hehe

And yeah, I like using vinegar and baking soda for cleaning too :)
CatCat
Posted: Friday, June 10, 2016 5:35:38 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/15/2014
Posts: 985
Neurons: 15,410
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
That's it. I'm just going to hide under my bed and only come out for a (healthy!) snack now and then.
Hope123
Posted: Saturday, June 11, 2016 11:46:08 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 7,822
Neurons: 45,150
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Applause But - No, no, CatCat. It's perfectly fine out here if you are a discriminating consumer who does their own research and buys what their body tells them is good for them as an individual. You can't extrapolate research results to one person.

Hi Pitulush.

I understand the point you are making. I'm not passionate like you about this topic. I just do what my body tells me to do. I have learned to listen to what it tells me. As well, I have picked the brains of many health care professionals over many years. Most people do not know why they don't feel optimal, never connecting the dots between always being tired or gaining weight with what they eat and put on their skin, hair, and nails. I'm only sharing what has worked for me in case it can help someone else. (I get no medals - I had no choice but to adopt a healthy lifestyle.)

Except for two, I don't buy the ready made products - baking soda and seasalt are my toothpaste. Glycerine soap cleans my body. No deodorant. Pure vegetable glycerine and pure shea butter are my moisturizers, although I did find one moisturizer available in the US. I finally found a shampoo I tolerate - it is free of all those chemicals on the list on the link I had provided. An application of a lipstick from a health conscious company for special occasions is my only cosmetic. Any meds that are absolutely essential are compounded for me.

Why do we need anti bacterial concoctions for personal use when plain old pure glycerine soap kills germs just as well? Why would we want to cover up smells with air freshener by adding chemicals when we can open the window? It's fear and marketing as always. I disagree with some of the statements on Paula's website. Remember, she too is selling something. Even if it is not her own brand, she still gets a cut. As always it is two points of view - mainstream versus the health food industry.

I know what propylene glycol does to me. Aluminum in colors? I had to have toxic metals chelated. Alcohol does not seem to bother my skin, although I know it is drying. They use it for my injections.

The long names idea was just a generalization. I know most of them now, anyhow. And if I see a long list on a food product I don't even bother to read it any more. I just put it back on the shelf. Actually, I know better than to even pick it up anymore.

And yes, I know Health Canada okayed triclosan 'if used as directed'. What about the fact that small amounts add up when it is in everything? And the numbers of chemicals add up.

Triclosan is suspect in animal studies as endocrine disruptors and Health Canada admits it is bad for the environment. Pesticides with it in them have to be registered. It is implicated in increasing allergy risk, studies on rats show estrogen connections, and it has been found in the excretions of human bodies. And then on the official Health Canada website, they provide safety tips! And maximum levels! Does anyone really want this stuff in THEIR OWN body?

From gov.ca - About 1,600 cosmetics and personal care products and 150 health products that contain triclosan are sold in Canada. soap, deodorant, eye and face make-up, lotion, body wash/shower gel, shampoo, toothpaste, mouthwash, non-prescription medication, health products (including natural health products), hand sanitizer

Triclosan is also used as a preservative in pesticides to prevent odours and the growth of bacteria, fungus, and mildew in textiles (like clothing and bedding) paper, plastic, and rubber.

This is the same Health Canada that won't allow supplement companies to sell Vitamin D over 1000 I U.

This website lists some studies.

http://www.breastcancerfund.org/clear-science/radiation-chemicals-and-breast-cancer/triclosan.html

But if you feel safe in using products with it, that's your decision. I'm just telling you my reasoning why I wouldn't use it even if I could.

As for protection from the sun if you can't use clothing, use sunblock, not sunscreen. Zinc oxide from a reputable company.

Good luck with your research! That is always important.



The greatest pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do. Anon
pitulush
Posted: Sunday, June 12, 2016 8:22:20 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/30/2012
Posts: 875
Neurons: 408,468
Location: Bucharest, Bucuresti, Romania
Hope, I hope my passion was not overwhelming :) Thank you for your response and the info you shared. We'll just continue to agree on some things and agree to disagree on others then.

I believe two things:

1. that you should definitely do what your body is telling you and not use stuff that you know is hurting you, even if it's deemed to be generally safe by any authority. %^&* statistics, every organism reacts differently.

2. that some things can hurt you even though your body can't feel it right then – if it's a bad thing, it will show in time. For example, applying perfume on the skin: maybe you don't have a sensitive skin and it won't sting, but it will do damage even you don't feel it or see it. BTW, who would like using scented creams on their face anyway, and why? I could never understand that! Or, outside of the cosmetics realm: fast food and cigarettes – maybe you feel ok after eating it or smoking, but that doesn't mean they won't hurt you in time. (I mean the generic "you", of course.)

So I think one should find a way to balance these two – trust your body AND science, as imperfect as they both are.

About Paula getting a cut: I should have been clearer when I said she supports other brands. She actually makes a point of not going for a brand, but for a product, based on the ingredients list. I was talking about this page: http://www.paulaschoice.com/beautypedia/, where there are reviews and ratings for many products from many different brands. If a product made by brand X is good/bad, it doesn't automatically mean that all X products are good/bad; far from it! Just an example: La Roche-Posay sunscreens. Many of them are riddled with alcohol, so I wouldn't touch them with a pole. This one though: http://www.paulaschoice.com/beautypedia-skin-care-reviews/by-brand/la-roche-posay/_/Anthelios-Clear-Skin-Dry-Touch-Sunscreen-Broad-Spectrum-SPF-60 seems great, I can't wait till it comes in my country to try it (hear that, LRP?).

Question: aren’t salt and baking soda too abrasive for your teeth? I only dare to use them occasionally, and mostly on my tongue.


Cat: under the bed? Anxious What about the dust bunnies?

"Environmental health experts in the United States and Canada are hunting down dust bunnies, after studies have shown that the seemingly innocuous fluff may contain traces of threatening toxins."
(http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2010/03/08/2839375.htm)

no, i think this is the only way:



MelissaMe
Posted: Sunday, June 12, 2016 10:43:39 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/10/2014
Posts: 5,400
Neurons: 347,018
Location: Gualala, California, United States
Here's who consult for information on ingredients.

Environmental Working Group

Skin moisturizer, hand dishwashing soap, shampoo, anything else I might use that touches my skin, or that I might inhale.

One of my email addresses is ingredients.woman, so I know where you are coming from. Applause

This is my only now.
Hope123
Posted: Sunday, June 12, 2016 12:11:26 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 7,822
Neurons: 45,150
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Thanks for the links, Pitulush and Melissa. We all seem to be on the same length. Loved points one and two Pitulush. Without science always checking and updating we would be no where.

Others may appreciate the Paula links too. I don't need them because in my case all chemicals, even some foods, are toxic.

I use the baking soda to brush with and the salt water to rinse. In fact my dentist and the hygenist tell me every time to rinse with salt water as often as possible. (I use Himalayan seasalt - not table salt with its additives.) But they don't need to - I've been using baking soda and saltwater since around 1980. It has not abraded my teeth but that is not to say it is good for everybody. (What happened with my teeth and amalgam as a teenager is another not-pretty long story. So I always say to take good care of your teeth. They do a better job of teaching children how to brush and most folks with any means or private insurance in Canada have access to a dentist. Teeth affect your whole health. In fact they were the start of major problems for me.)

Once a few years ago I tried to use toothpaste, It lasted for a few days. All around my mouth and even up to one cheekbone was all blistered - a wet form of eczema. Took forever to clear it. So never again. I tried to use fluoride gel painted on my gum area to keep my dentist happy. The worst of the symptoms were nausea and unrelenting canker sores. His concern was not abrasion.

Dust mites can be as toxic to health as chemicals. And not just for allergic people. Read up about them if you have the stomach for it. We removed carpets, keep the scatter rugs clean, the beds and bedding clean, and shower before bed. (gets the pollen out of the hair too before you put your face into the pillow and breathe it in)

I hope all those blankets, the mattress, and furniture in your little bubble are made of organic natural (not man made materials or ones that have been altered) so they don't gas off or you'd be in even worse shape enclosed in a bubble. lol

So if either of you two have any more news from science or otherwise, it would be nice if you keep us posted with new threads. I no longer see a doctor for environmental illness (can't find a good one since the one retired and the other died) so any news is welcomed.

The greatest pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do. Anon
Hope123
Posted: Sunday, June 12, 2016 2:05:38 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 7,822
Neurons: 45,150
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Pitulush, This is only FYI (or for anybody) - I'm not trying to change your mind. It is just info about my choice and a comparison (just as she gets you to think on Paula's website because I was a little concerned for you when I read the list of ingredients.) They both are broad spectrum. Mine does have a disadvantage in the application of it.

Here's a list of the ingredients of that ideal sunscreen you are waiting for - have you checked out every one of them? When we were going to swim in an ECO place near Cancun, we had to buy a natural sunscreen/sunblock from them as the chemicals killed the coral. They used zinc oxide in theirs. One of the chemicals they mentioned was oxybenzone. Is avobenzone related to oxybenzone that kills coral? I'm posing the question to you because I don't know.


La Roche-Posay
Anthelios Clear Skin Dry Touch Sunscreen Broad Spectrum SPF 60

Active Ingredients: Avobenzone (3%) Homosalate (15%), Octisalate (5%), Octocrylene (7%). Other: Water, Silica, Dicaprylyl Carbonate, Styrene/Acrylates Copolymer, Butyloctyl Salicylate, Methyl Methacrylate Crosspolymer, Nylon-12, PEG-100 Stearate, Glyceryl Stearate, Perlite, Beeswax, Ammonium Polyacryloyldimethyl Taurate, Phenoxyethanol, PEG-8 Laurate, Behenyl Alcohol, Sodium Stearoyl Glutamate, Chlorphenesin, P-Anisic Acid, Xanthan Gum, Tocopherol, Disodium EDTA, Arachidyl Alcohol, Diethylhexyl Syringylidenemalonate, Propylene Glycol, Cassia Alata Leaf Extract, Maltodextrin, Stearyl Alcohol, T-Butyl Alcohol, Caprylic/Capric Triglyceride.


::::::::

I have very white skin, freckles, and my hair used to be on the auburn side of blonde. Most of my friends of my age and my husband see a dermatologist every three months and have had multiple surgeries to remove all the different kinds of skin cancer. Two have melanoma that is being controlled. Anecdotal, I know, so it does not prove anything except it works for my skin, but all I've ever had is a spot on my cheek sprayed a couple of times.

Mine - an SPF 35 Sunblock by Badger. (A little different list of ingredients than the 30 SPF on the link.) I got it in the States, but all I can find on the tube is a UK company address. Green Beaver, a Canadian company, says theirs is non whitening, but it is not much better in that regard. The zinc oxide products may be a little more noticeable and not absorbed and creamy as others such as yours above, but I much prefer that to putting chemicals on my skin. Some people do not like it because it is not so easy to apply and others found it blocked their pores if they weren't careful about getting it off.

My understanding is that once past a certain SPF number increasing the number does not make that much difference to protection.

I only use it when I am going to be exposed to a great deal of sun. I have another chemical free moisturizer with a sunblock and a lip balm for general everyday use. Unfortunately I have to import it myself from the States. The company is called DeVita. It's the only one I tolerate, but there are similar ones on the market.

Badger SPF 35 -
Active Ingredient
Non-Nano Uncoated Zinc Oxide 22.5%

Other Ingredients
*Olea Europaea (extra virgin olive oil) *cera alba (beeswax). Shea butter, cocoa butter and jojoba oil are all organic too. I didn't bother to type out the proper terms for those three.
= Certified Organic
Quote is from the link below
"UVA rays damage skin and can contribute to skin cancer. You should choose a sunscreen that offers broad-spectrum protection (from UVA & UVB). The mineral zinc oxide provides full UVB & UVA protection. Zinc oxide is the only active ingredient in all Badger sunscreens."

http://ca.iherb.com/Badger-Company-Zinc-Oxide-Sunscreen-Cream-SPF-30-Unscented-2-9-fl-oz-87-ml/23746?CAWELAID=120225360000027709&gclid=CPm3y5_0os0CFQ-oaQodJNUFxg



The greatest pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do. Anon
Hope123
Posted: Sunday, June 12, 2016 2:08:30 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 7,822
Neurons: 45,150
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
MelissaMe wrote:
Here's who consult for information on ingredients.

Environmental Working Group

Skin moisturizer, hand dishwashing soap, shampoo, anything else I might use that touches my skin, or that I might inhale.

One of my email addresses is ingredients.woman, so I know where you are coming from. Applause


Melissa, I have put this link on my reading list along with a couple from Pitulush.

The greatest pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do. Anon
pitulush
Posted: Sunday, June 12, 2016 3:44:16 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/30/2012
Posts: 875
Neurons: 408,468
Location: Bucharest, Bucuresti, Romania
Hello again Hope, and thank you for your concern, that's kind of you.

I had absolutely no idea about the corals and how they can be affected by oxybenzone. I knew it was a controversial ingredient, but that's it.

I found this on the site Melissa told us about (thanks, Melissa!):
https://www.ewg.org/sunscreen/report/the-trouble-with-sunscreen-chemicals/

Like you, they seem to like mineral sunscreens (zinc oxide, titanium dioxide) more than chemical ones. If their table is accurate, oxybenzone is the worst, while avobenzone is not that bad. I only starting using solar protection daily about 3 years ago. Before that, I thought it was just for going to the beach and stuff – and yes, I have very, very white skin too. I was actually overwhelmed at first by all the info – and sort of envy the majority of people around me who don’t have to worry about sun protection because they don't know about it or they simply don't believe they need it. So I guess I'm still new at this and still learning. Thank you for your input and I hope others reading this will found our talk useful too.

The article ends with "EWG recommends that the FDA launch a more thorough investigation of the safety of all ingredients currently in sunscreens to ensure that none of them damage skin or cause other toxic effects in consumers." Yes, I couldn’t agree more!

All this reminded me of the famous "Wear Sunscreen" song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTJ7AzBIJoI

Don't forget to floss too! :)
Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Monday, June 13, 2016 8:42:43 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 29,138
Neurons: 167,301
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
CatCat wrote:
That's it. I'm just going to hide under my bed and only come out for a (healthy!) snack now and then.

Ah but. . .

Don't forget that Oxygen in the air has been linked to cancer . . .

Hold your breath!


Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
Hope123
Posted: Monday, June 13, 2016 9:40:09 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 7,822
Neurons: 45,150
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Drago,

I remember your study - it was an epidemiological one about mountains, right?

If O2 causes cancer I guess I'm in trouble then, Drago. I have had many hydrogen peroxide IV treatments. It changes into water and oxygen. I did not get any of my everlasting infections while I was getting those treatments.

Hydrogen peroxide is also used in cancer treatment. I would check it out to use it in conjunction with mainstream treatments if the timing were right. (hope I never need it) Oncologists told my friend that cancer loves sugar, so the glucose info below is in mainstream medicine. My doctor who had cancer did vitamin C IV plus the hyperbaric oxygen treatments along with his chemo. He kept himself alive an extra three years to the death sentence given to him when it was in his liver and brain. He got all the lesions to be scar tissue except the one that finally got him. He almost made it. I miss that man!

http://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/hyperbaric-oxygen-therapy/basics/definition/prc-20019167

This is the theory -

"All pathogens, viruses, and parasites are anaerobic. They thrive in the absence of oxygen, but cannot survive with an abundance of oxygen. Even cancer cells cannot exist in oxygen. They depend on fermenting glucose to survive and multiply."

Disclaimer - this is not medical advice.


The greatest pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do. Anon
pedro
Posted: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 8:35:02 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 5/21/2009
Posts: 12,998
Neurons: 60,624
Talc Now Linked To Cancer?!- I suspect it's only a risk if you regularly snort it.

All good ideas arrive by chance- Max Ernst
Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Thursday, June 16, 2016 7:38:37 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 29,138
Neurons: 167,301
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
Hope123 wrote:
. . .


Somehow I never got back to this thread.
Yeas - mountains. "They" found that the incidence of cancer dropped as the partial pressure of Oxygen dropped. People living in the Himalayas at 5000 feet had noticeably less cancer than people in Tokyo near sea-level.

I've heard of peroxide treatment - I just use it as an antiseptic wash and (diluted) as a mouthwash. Great for cuts and scrapes, doesn't sting but really cleans the area.

I hadn't connected peroxide and hyperbaric O₂ treatments, but, of course, peroxide is really just a way of transporting and holding oxygen in an area.

Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2008-2018 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.