Is Your Shampoo KILLING you?

originally posted by: dashen
Have we talked about the common dangerous chemical. Dihydrogen Monoxide?

The industrial solvent oxidane is far worse.

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: FauxMulder
a reply to: seasonal

As a generally skeptical person, just the phrase "generally recognized as safe" is ominous enough...

But then, it's also generally something you'd reasonably be exposed to all the time. Like salt.

But then again you ignored the rest of the post.

Generally Recognized As Safe” doesn’t mean any testing was done
• These substances do not actually need to be reviewed by the FDA
• Submitting new substances to the FDA is a voluntary process
• Consumers who buy food are basically the guinea pigs for its testing

And if you read the OP you would see I said it's all pretty much harmless.

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: dashen
Have we talked about the common dangerous chemical. Dihydrogen Monoxide?

The industrial solvent oxidane is far worse.

if inhaled in sufficient quantities it is fatal

Most of the health warnings in these are at least a little moot, since you aren't eating shampoo. Other than that...did you really need an MSDS to tell you that shampoo is an eye irritant?

Just as a general note. MSDS's tend to be overstated and are written from the perspective of being exposed to the pure chemical rather than a solution, which is clearly not the same thing. Just because a chemical has a long or jargonistic name, doesn't mean it's going to kill you, or even hurt you. Don't buy in to silly phobias.

a reply to: Bedlam

Negative energy is a colloquial phrase used in common parlance that is a nice way of saying you're a prick.
But you knew that.

Plus I think you need to stop prejudging what others think or know, because a lot of us, myself for sure, has taken chemistry physics and even biochemistry for multiple semesters and I personally aced them.

I was telling people that all matter is a chemical in the chemtrail threads to explain that even water vapor is a chemical trail before you even made your account. So you were assuming we didn't know the basics.

Nothing you said added value to the thread except for giving me someone to act pompous and grandiloquent towards (and in such a way that I think I'm justified in my vicious advances).

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: muzzleflash
What's even FUNNIER, to me, is that I, out of pure curiosity, went and did a word search...

Anal much?.

Analytic.
And I like Analogies.

So yes.

originally posted by: hypervalentiodine
Most of the health warnings in these are at least a little moot, since you aren't eating shampoo. Other than that...did you really need an MSDS to tell you that shampoo is an eye irritant?

Just as a general note. MSDS's tend to be overstated and are written from the perspective of being exposed to the pure chemical rather than a solution, which is clearly not the same thing. Just because a chemical has a long or jargonistic name, doesn't mean it's going to kill you, or even hurt you. Don't buy in to silly phobias.

Did you even read the OP? You must have missed all the spots where I said things like:

"Nothing wrong with this one either. Just minor skin / eye irritant and that's the chemical in its raw form."

"Nothing really dangerous at all. Just may sting your eyes and make you curse loudly."

"Still nothing to be worried about. Its not like you have drums of this in your garage making your own shampoo"

"however fatal if severe over-exposure were too happen. I guess that means fall in a vat joker style."

"This is another harmless one"

Try reading the OP next time. And no I didn't need an MSDS to tell me shampoo is an eye irritant. I was more curious about all the chemicals that go into it. Did you already know what Hydroxypropyltrimonium chloride is? If not an MSDS is a good place to start.

a reply to: FauxMulder

No need to get so aggressive. The comment wasn't necessarily targeted at you, it was more of a general statement, or I'd have replied to you directly.

And yes, I did already know what that was. I'm a chemist.

a reply to: hypervalentiodine

Well I'm the only one in this thread who used an MSDS for shampoo ingredients

Not everyone is a chemist. If I was, I sure as heck wouldn't get so curious from the back of a shampoo bottle. So as a chemist do you ever see a chemical used in anything that you avoid?

a reply to: FauxMulder

On the contrary. If you were a chemist, you'd be even more interested!

My comment really wasn't directed at you. I guess I can see how that would be assumed since you are the only one looking up MSDS's, but it really was intended more broadly.

I assume you mean is there anything in common consumer items that I would avoid based on the danger of the ingredients? Off the top of my head, I can't think of anything. I avoid some things out of personal taste, but nothing like what you're asking.

a reply to: hypervalentiodine

Yes that's exactly what I meant. That's very interesting, I would have thought for sure there had to be something.

Moving past the household stuff though, when I worked on helicopters they used copper beryllium for a few components and we were always warned about that. All types of hydraulic fluids, jet fuel, solvents, sealants, etc. so I've never been too worried about the house hold stuff but still always curious when I see ingredients on things.

a reply to: FauxMulder

Actually, and I don't think it's quite in the context of your question, but I would never ever buy Chinese herbal medicine. I worked in a lab once that collaborated with a herbals company. They did QC on Chinese herbal samples and found that many of them did not contain the purported active ingredient, and some even contained things that were dangerous.

SLS has been shown to accumulate in many organs including the brain and liver.
Polysorbate has been linked to infertility in rats, they also put this in vaccines.

a reply to: Dr X

And water causes drownings. Anything can be dangerous in the right concentration and in the right context. It doesn't mean it always is.