Jump to content

Photo

Reducing Exposure To Chemicals - Recipes, Alternatives, Etc.

vitamin d makeup xenoestrogens chemicals sunscreen natural pthalates money health

47 replies to this topic

#41 alternativista

alternativista

    Senior Member

  • Veteran Members
  • Posts & Likes
    Posts: 11,514
    Likes: 1,093
About Me
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Houston, TX
  • Joined: 13-February 07

Posted 13 March 2014 - 09:45 AM

If you are going to consider a study   to be flawed because it uses rats, then you have to apply that to a hell of a lot of studies into your beloved pharmeceuticals & cosmecueticals.   

 

And one of the biggest flaws in studies that decide chemicals are safe is that they don't study them long enough or study the cumulative affects of the massive amount of chemicals we come in contact with today.  

 

Also, a hell of a lot of things are lumped into alternative medicine.  So yeah.


Edited by alternativista, 13 March 2014 - 11:01 AM.


#42 Michelle Reece

Michelle Reece

    Skin care fanatic and scientific stickler

  • Veteran Members
  • Posts & Likes
    Posts: 877
    Likes: 133
About Me
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Wisconsin. Where else? ;)
  • Interests:Reading, writing, playing video games and bird watching.
  • Joined: 23-November 12

Posted 13 March 2014 - 02:45 PM

If you are going to consider a study   to be flawed because it uses rats, then you have to apply that to a hell of a lot of studies into your beloved pharmeceuticals & cosmecueticals.   

 

And one of the biggest flaws in studies that decide chemicals are safe is that they don't study them long enough or study the cumulative affects of the massive amount of chemicals we come in contact with today.  

 

Also, a hell of a lot of things are lumped into alternative medicine.  So yeah.

 

Yes, rat studies are extremely common. Rat studies are used as a jumping board, not solid, irrefutable evidence that it does the same in humans. One shouldn't imply or claim that results from a rat study would be the same in people, especially all the time. One should also know how to interpret the results, as well as look into the study's quality.

 

Investigators determine whether a chemical is safe by looking at its bioavailiability, how it could accumulate, and what the chemical be used for and it what dosages. Inhaling vs. ingesting vs. topically applying the chemical makes all the difference between dangerous and safe. Again, you must look at study quality.

 

True, there are some treatments called "alternative medicine" because of how the surveys worded it.



#43 alternativista

alternativista

    Senior Member

  • Veteran Members
  • Posts & Likes
    Posts: 11,514
    Likes: 1,093
About Me
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Houston, TX
  • Joined: 13-February 07

Posted 23 April 2014 - 02:32 PM

Just used henna for the first time. The color turned out great. And you don't need nearly as much as many vendors say you do. Which is crazy because the reason I didn't try before now was the expense of the amount one site claimed I needed. Which is 300-500 grams for long hair. And I bought a much cheaper brand on Amazon anyway. . http://www.amazon.co...keywords=henna. $10 for 500 grams. And I didn't measure in grams, but I mixed 1 1/2 cups. less than a third of the bag, and it was still way, way more than I needed.  One $10 bag is going to be enough for many months.
 
No fumes. No "fragrance" that could mean anything.  Smells like dried grass.

I left it on for 4 hours. Next time, I plan to do the roots only and try 3 hours. It is a little drying even though I applied a little coconut oil to the ends. So I applied more afterwards. Other than that coconut oil after the henna, I've had no need for conditioner since I stopped shampooing my hair.

If you are going to consider a study   to be flawed because it uses rats, then you have to apply that to a hell of a lot of studies into your beloved pharmeceuticals & cosmecueticals.   
 
And one of the biggest flaws in studies that decide chemicals are safe is that they don't study them long enough or study the cumulative affects of the massive amount of chemicals we come in contact with today.  
 
Also, a hell of a lot of things are lumped into alternative medicine.  So yeah.

 
Yes, rat studies are extremely common. Rat studies are used as a jumping board, not solid, irrefutable evidence that it does the same in humans. One shouldn't imply or claim that results from a rat study would be the same in people, especially all the time. One should also know how to interpret the results, as well as look into the study's quality.

 
Hmm.  I think "Well Duh!" is the  appropriate response to those comments.  I've no idea why you made them. 
 
However, you claimed an above study was flawed, citing the fact that it was done on rats as a reason.  That's not a flaw.  That's merely "not solid, irrefutable evidence that it does the same in humans."  Although odds are good that it does. Otherwise, there'd be no point in doing rat studies. Most species respond to toxic substances in similar ways. Especially we omniverous mammals. Our skin functions mostly the same and we can metabolize mostly all the same substances. Now, if the study was on a frog with it's amphibious skin that absorbs everything or a Cat that can't metabolize all kinds of compounds we can, then odds wouldn't be quite as good that it is applicable to humans. But that's why they don't do the studies on frogs & cats.
 
And yes, I know what they look for when supposedly deeming something to be safe.  1) They do that in other countries as well. And very often ban things our agencies tell us are 'safe.'  and of course, our chemical and pharmeceutical companies have zero concerns about selling banned substances in countries where they have no such agencies.  And 2) They don't study enough. As I said before "they don't study them long enough or study the cumulative affects of the massive amount of chemicals we come in contact with today. " 
 
In some other countries, like Scandinavian countries, they've begun to measure & consider the body burden.  And many now banned substances were once determined to be safe.  Until they discovered that they weren't.


Edited by alternativista, 23 April 2014 - 03:17 PM.


#44 alternativista

alternativista

    Senior Member

  • Veteran Members
  • Posts & Likes
    Posts: 11,514
    Likes: 1,093
About Me
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Houston, TX
  • Joined: 13-February 07

Posted 23 April 2014 - 02:59 PM

http://www.pbs.org/tradesecrets/problem/bodyburden.html  -  Bill Moyers, for those that don't know, is one of the best, most respected Journalists in the United States, ever. Especially amongst TV journalists.
 

As part of a study of pollutant loads in the human body sponsored by the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York, samples of Bill Moyers' blood and urine were analyzed. Eighty-four distinct chemicals were found.

His test results – much like a chemical fingerprint – revealed evidence of hazardous chemicals in common use – as well as compounds banned for more than a quarter century and others so obscure that almost no public information is available to identify what products might have resulted in Moyers' exposure.
  spacer.gif
prob_body_pullqote.gif
The results are not unusual. Each of us has some load of industrial chemicals stored in or passing through our bodies. These chemical residues – termed the "chemical body burden" – can be detected in blood, urine and breast milk. Most people are unaware that they carry chemical compounds in their bodies.

The health effects of chronic exposure to low levels of chemicals are only beginning to be studied. In addition, scientists have never assessed the effects of exposures to the endless combinations of chemicals found in people.

The chart below lists the broad groups of chemicals detected in Bill Moyers' blood and urine tests. The potential health effects discussed are based on persuasive evidence from studies of laboratory animals and wildlife, as well as some evidence from human studies. More


 
 
Just say no to as much as you can.


Edited by alternativista, 04 June 2014 - 09:44 AM.


#45 alternativista

alternativista

    Senior Member

  • Veteran Members
  • Posts & Likes
    Posts: 11,514
    Likes: 1,093
About Me
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Houston, TX
  • Joined: 13-February 07

Posted 23 April 2014 - 03:54 PM

Interesting thread. 

 

Regarding the homemade laundry detergents, I've been buying grated organic prickly pear soap from a local family who owns a prickly pear farm. They add a drop of cold pressed petitgrain oil. it's been great.

 

I'd like to know more about that soap. I'm growing prickly pear to eat.



#46 alternativista

alternativista

    Senior Member

  • Veteran Members
  • Posts & Likes
    Posts: 11,514
    Likes: 1,093
About Me
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Houston, TX
  • Joined: 13-February 07

Posted 04 June 2014 - 09:34 AM

The Environmental Working Group has published it's report on the sunscreens of 2014.  Found 2/3 either ineffective or contain harmful ingredients. 

 

Summary article with links to sources such as EWGs report

http://articles.merc...t_rid=541340296

 

Your skin has numerous defenses to protect itself.  They come from nutrients that you must eat and from the lipids you need to quit washing out of your skin. 

Get some sun exposure to make vitamin D, then put on a hat & shirt.


Edited by alternativista, 04 June 2014 - 09:45 AM.


#47 dscully

dscully

    Member

  • Veteran Members
  • Posts & Likes
    Posts: 156
    Likes: 49
About Me
  • Joined: 24-December 13

Achievements

     

Posted 08 June 2014 - 07:54 AM

Thought I would add: seasoned cast iron instead of nonstick cookware. I love my cast iron, and some of it is over 100 years old. I've also heard from my doc that it's probably why my iron levels are so good now even though I had anemia in high school. I'm really leery of nonstick stuff due to chemicals. Now if only I could get all my neighbors to stop spraying Roundup everywhere... These people are nuts. I'm weighing the pros and cons of putting a sign in my front yard. They might think I'm batshit, but maybe it's worth it.



#48 alternativista

alternativista

    Senior Member

  • Veteran Members
  • Posts & Likes
    Posts: 11,514
    Likes: 1,093
About Me
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Houston, TX
  • Joined: 13-February 07

Posted 08 June 2014 - 07:32 PM

Thought I would add: seasoned cast iron instead of nonstick cookware. I love my cast iron, and some of it is over 100 years old. I've also heard from my doc that it's probably why my iron levels are so good now even though I had anemia in high school. I'm really leery of nonstick stuff due to chemicals. Now if only I could get all my neighbors to stop spraying Roundup everywhere... These people are nuts. I'm weighing the pros and cons of putting a sign in my front yard. They might think I'm batshit, but maybe it's worth it.


Yes. And you want to get vintage cast iron from family, thrift, antiques store, yard sales, etc. that cheap lstuff lodge makes these days isn't ground smooth like it should be. You'll never get it seasoned. Don't worry if it has rust. Clean it off with salt and oil, then put it in oven or fry something. Just this once because it's a void way to season the pan.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users