It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Tide detergent contains cancer-causing chemical dioxane

page: 2
14
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 05:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Iwinder
 


I thank you again sir/madame,

Sir would apply but, as much as I appreciate the gesture, I hate it when people call me that.


If you don't mind me asking and if you don't mind a hypothetical question, why do you suppose they changed their shampoo formula? Would that be the the California legislation coming into play with the dioxane levels? Or a more major concern?

That's a more complex question than it appears to be.

First, I seriously doubt any kind of "major concern" lead to the reformulation of their shampoo. I know that chemical companies are not perceived positively here on ATS. While in some cases, e.g. Monsanto, it's completely warranted, what most people forget is that companies like Procter and Gamble are staffed by people who: a.) probably use the products they're involved in development or manufacturing of and b.) wouldn't want to do harm to their friends and family for the sake of squeezing an extra couple of cents a pound in profit out of those products.

I doubt that Prop 65 had anything to do with the reformulation of the shampoo in this case -- 1,4-dioxane was listed in Prop 65 in 1988, the reformulation took place in 2010. More likely it's a result of: a.) pressure from consumers and b.) believe it or not, some chemical companies actually do their best to practice good product stewardship. The regulatory landscape and legislation almost always moves from being less conservative (i.e. more permissive) to more conservative. Any company worth it's salt (or shampoo) is going to be constantly reviewing regulatory inventories like Prop 65, looking for which chemicals are going to likely face stricter guidelines in the future, and then making appropriate changes based on that risk assessment. P&G probably, and rightly so, assumed that 1,4-dioxane will be more heavily regulated moving forward and is making changes based on that assumption.




posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 08:09 AM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 


Thanks for the reply and your opinions, this part of your thoughts caught my attention.




Any company worth it's salt (or shampoo) is going to be constantly reviewing regulatory inventories like Prop 65, looking for which chemicals are going to likely face stricter guidelines in the future, and then making appropriate changes based on that risk assessment. P&G probably, and rightly so, assumed that 1,4-dioxane will be more heavily regulated moving forward and is making changes based on that assumption.


Hopefully with this news coming to light it just might kick some people into high gear and take a closer look at just how dangerous this Dioxane just might be?

Just look at how long it took to ban asbestos, they knew this was evil stuff but it took years and years to finally have it banned in a lot of countries.

Think of the hundreds of millions of people who are in constant contact with this product every day of their life.

Regards, Iwinder



posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Iwinder
reply to post by iterationzero
 

...
Hopefully with this news coming to light it just might kick some people into high gear and take a closer look at just how dangerous this Dioxane just might be?

Just look at how long it took to ban asbestos, they knew this was evil stuff but it took years and years ...

Regards, Iwinder

I hear that.... they are always behind the times it seems, a bit late. Let's just hope this knowledge will do the trick - yeah, wake folk up ! We need to speak out against and ban these 'poisons' .

I truly feel that the folks who ''add'' should be prosecuted .. allowing poisons that goes in or absorbs in our bodies just isn't right. Where are the laws? We have all kinds of pathetic laws but where are the REAL laws that should be? If everyone could or would sue though, do you think that would put a stop to this?

The guy that wrote the book ''What They Don't Want you to Know", forgot his name, sorry, advised that if we cannot pronounce or read the ingredients of a product that is to be consumed or used topically on our bodies to not buy. If they have all kinds of listed chemicals unnatural to body, we should not buy or use. We of course cannot just stop eating or go unbathed lol ...but we can be more knowledgable , the wiser now, in being more responsible to care for ourselves better. Seriously, I'd rather be safe than sorry down the road.. Slowly changing my ways.... Hope you guys are too. We should sTART caring if we don't already.

People are only now beginning to wake up to what has been going on for years and years... It will probably take years and years to get things FOR the people BACK! We are all in this together folks.

ETA: Hope you do not mind me adding this here but I feel folks should take MORE concern on this too. People should start caring! Alert to EMF -RF -Microwave- Electrosmog Dangers www.abovetopsecret.com... This may be off topic but this is another mAJOR concern of mine ..
edit on 29-4-2012 by SeekerLou because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 11:34 AM
link   
I won't be buying tide cold water any longer, but then there are lots of other solutions. If it got so bad that all of them were like this I'd consider making my own liquid laundry detergent. There are recipes online.



posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Iwinder
 


Hopefully with this news coming to light it just might kick some people into high gear and take a closer look at just how dangerous this Dioxane just might be?

This isn't really news, the toxicity/carcinogenicity of 1,4-dioxane has been understood for years. And, relatively speaking, 1,4-dioxane should be somewhere around the bottom of the list when talking about carcinogenic environmental pollutants. There's a reason they have to rely on mathematical models to make the transition from animal studies to human cancer rates based on 1,4-dioxane exposure -- you'd literally have to monitor millions of people to register a handful of additional cancer cases and then find a way to attribute those directly to 1,4-dioxane. The legislation is already there to manage it at safe levels, companies will continue to reduce and remove it from products for both financial interests and for reasons of good product stewardship, and what little there is in the environment will break down fairly rapidly. My suggestion is to continue to be aware of it, but worry about the environmental pollutants that don't biodegrade and are acutely toxic or carcinogenic at much lower levels than 1,4-dioxane.



posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by SeekerLou
 


The guy that wrote the book ''What They Don't Want you to Know", forgot his name, sorry, advised that if we cannot pronounce or read the ingredients of a product that is to be consumed or used topically on our bodies to not buy. If they have all kinds of listed chemicals unnatural to body, we should not buy or use. We of course cannot just stop eating or go unbathed lol ...but we can be more knowledgable , the wiser now, in being more responsible to care for ourselves better. Seriously, I'd rather be safe than sorry down the road.. Slowly changing my ways.... Hope you guys are too. We should sTART caring if we don't already.

Given that literacy rates in this country are down and scientific literacy even more so, I think this solution to the problem is oversimplified and does nothing to actually educate people. Why not try this -- if you see something you don't recognize or can't pronounce, try learning about it. Find out what it is, how it's made, what the associated risks are, etc. instead of just engaging in a knee jerk reaction of "I don't understand it, it must be bad." Scientific ignorance never solved anything.



posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by Iwinder
 


Hopefully with this news coming to light it just might kick some people into high gear and take a closer look at just how dangerous this Dioxane just might be?

This isn't really news, the toxicity/carcinogenicity of 1,4-dioxane has been understood for years. And, relatively speaking, 1,4-dioxane should be somewhere around the bottom of the list when talking about carcinogenic environmental pollutants. There's a reason they have to rely on mathematical models to make the transition from animal studies to human cancer rates based on 1,4-dioxane exposure -- you'd literally have to monitor millions of people to register a handful of additional cancer cases and then find a way to attribute those directly to 1,4-dioxane. The legislation is already there to manage it at safe levels, companies will continue to reduce and remove it from products for both financial interests and for reasons of good product stewardship, and what little there is in the environment will break down fairly rapidly. My suggestion is to continue to be aware of it, but worry about the environmental pollutants that don't biodegrade and are acutely toxic or carcinogenic at much lower levels than 1,4-dioxane.


But it is news it was in the NY Times so that makes it news in my opinion.
The EPA is in charge of the management of this toxin and they have a spotty track record as far as I am concerned.
I just wish the companies will remove this now, not reduce it for financial interests.
This brings me back to asbestos, they new it was a killer and did nothing, but when the lawsuits started and were being successful one after another things went downhill from there for the asbestos industry.
Hit em in the wallet and they concede real fast.
My opinion only here but that is how I see it.

Thanks for the post.
Regards, Iwinder



posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by YogaGinns
 

Hey sweetheart hows it going?
I must let everyone know here in this thread that YogaGinns is my wife and she did go out and buy the stuff for homemade laundry detergent and she did make it today and she did do one load for a tester.
I will let her tell the rest when she posts here.
We have the same IP but she is on her wireless laptop and I am on the desktop here.
Just to clarify we hardly ever have crossed paths here on ATS but this is one of them.
Thanks for the post YogaGinns.
Regards, Iwinder



posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Unity_99
 

You got that right, on the first page there is a link provided for both powder and liquid detergents at a fraction of the cost of store bought.
My wife made a batch of powder stuff today and will be posting here shortly about the results.
Thanks for chiming in here.
Regards, Iwinder



posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by SeekerLou
 




People are only now beginning to wake up to what has been going on for years and years... It will probably take years and years to get things FOR the people BACK! We are all in this together folks. ETA: Hope you do not mind me adding this here but I feel folks should take MORE concern on this too. People should start caring! Alert to EMF -RF -Microwave- Electrosmog Dangers www.abovetopsecret.com... This may be off topic but this is another mAJOR concern of mine ..

Hey SeekerLou!
Not a problem with your link to your thread here and when I have time I will read it and see you there with my comments and questions.
your posts are most appreciated here.
Regards, Iwinder



posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Iwinder
 


But it is news it was in the NY Times so that makes it news in my opinion.

That's a fair assessment, but I'd point to a lack of interest in anything not presented to them by the media on the part of the general public as the reason that it's making the news two decades after it was placed on a significant chemical regulatory inventory. The EPA, FDA, and CA Prop 65 websites are publicly accessible and easily searchable.


The EPA is in charge of the management of this toxin and they have a spotty track record as far as I am concerned.

It's not just the EPA, it's also the FDA. The EPA has nothing to do with limits of chemicals in personal care products, cosmetics, food, etc. That's all under the FDA's purview. The EPA has set, at least in my mind, a reasonable limit. If people want it removed, they need to pressure the FDA.


I just wish the companies will remove this now, not reduce it for financial interests.

I made this point earlier and I'm going to make it again -- companies involved in the manufacture of personal care products are not "putting" 1,4-dioxane in their products. It's an impurity which comes from the manufacture of some of the surfactants used in those products. Companies like P&G, J&J, and Unilever are buying those surfactants from companies like BASF, Huntsman, and Croda. Want 1,4-dioxane removed from consumer products? Legislate the raw material manufacturers. If you force the companies manufacturing the surfactants to remove 1,4-dioxane from their products, there won't be any to find their way into the products you buy at the store.



posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by Iwinder
 


But it is news it was in the NY Times so that makes it news in my opinion.

That's a fair assessment, but I'd point to a lack of interest in anything not presented to them by the media on the part of the general public as the reason that it's making the news two decades after it was placed on a significant chemical regulatory inventory. The EPA, FDA, and CA Prop 65 websites are publicly accessible and easily searchable.


The EPA is in charge of the management of this toxin and they have a spotty track record as far as I am concerned.

It's not just the EPA, it's also the FDA. The EPA has nothing to do with limits of chemicals in personal care products, cosmetics, food, etc. That's all under the FDA's purview. The EPA has set, at least in my mind, a reasonable limit. If people want it removed, they need to pressure the FDA.


I just wish the companies will remove this now, not reduce it for financial interests.

I made this point earlier and I'm going to make it again -- companies involved in the manufacture of personal care products are not "putting" 1,4-dioxane in their products. It's an impurity which comes from the manufacture of some of the surfactants used in those products. Companies like P&G, J&J, and Unilever are buying those surfactants from companies like BASF, Huntsman, and Croda. Want 1,4-dioxane removed from consumer products? Legislate the raw material manufacturers. If you force the companies manufacturing the surfactants to remove 1,4-dioxane from their products, there won't be any to find their way into the products you buy at the store.


Thanks again for your interest in this thread, yes you are probably correct as in the raw materials are the problem.
Here in Canada we are guilty as dog poop for the mining of asbestos and providing it to anyone who is willing to pay for it.

That is such a personal embarrassment to myself and the wife here.
But I must ask why could the wife make a laundry soap today that works just fine without this raw material?

She will be here shortly with her report and I think it will make everyone here on this thread happy indeed.

Regards, Iwinder



posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iwinder
reply to post by YogaGinns
 

Hey sweetheart hows it going?
I must let everyone know here in this thread that YogaGinns is my wife and she did go out and buy the stuff for homemade laundry detergent and she did make it today and she did do one load for a tester.
I will let her tell the rest when she posts here.
We have the same IP but she is on her wireless laptop and I am on the desktop here.
Just to clarify we hardly ever have crossed paths here on ATS but this is one of them.
Thanks for the post YogaGinns.
Regards, Iwinder


Thanks for the introduction Iwinder.

The Sunlight, liquid high efficiency soap I just bought was $15.99 for "64 loads" $0.25 per load. I did not include the 13% tax in my calculations, just used the purchase price of all items.

I did go out and buy the ingredients and made a batch of the "dry" laundry soap. The cost breakdown is as follows:

Arm & Hammer washing soda $6.49 (about 11 1/2 cups) = $0.56/cup
Borax 20 mule team booster $5.99 (about 9 cups) = $0.67/cup
Sunlight pure soap 2 bar/pkg $2.99 (used only 1 bar) = $1.50/bar
I followed the directions in Soulshn's link (please thank your wife) and it made about 46 Tbsp of powdered detergent. Worked out to $0.06 per Tbsp.

www.diynatural.com...

I used one Tbsp to do a load of whites*. Hot wash/cold rinse, heavy cycle on a high efficiency, front load washer. I did add the Clorox as that is how I usually do this type of load. My tester was a white wash cloth with mustard smeared on it fairly thick, and left to set for about an hour. It came out of the wash with a faint ghost of the original stain. Now I did look up removing mustard stains in my handy dandy resource book and found that it did not recommend using alkaline bleach on mustard. Grrrr, should have checked that out first. So now I will need to do another test using my regular detergent and bleach as a marker for comparison. So my testing will continue.

*NOTE: with the front load machine I think less could be used as there were plenty of suds

On the other side I did offer Iwinder two pairs of sweat socks and asked which one he would rather wear. His choice was the pair washed in our new "homemade" detergent as they were softer and had a cleaner smell. So far I'm sold on this do-it-yourself detergent. Will need to test if further, but at almost $0.20 per load savings I'm sold.

Namaste,
YogaGinns



posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by YogaGinns
 

Great post and I would star you if I could, but I will settle for the clean soft socks and maybe some clean soft underwear too.:-)
Thanks for your report and support too.
Regards, Iwinder



posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by YogaGinns
 


Borax 20 mule team booster $5.99 (about 9 cups) = $0.67/cup

You might want to look into the toxicology of borax further if you're viewing this as a "safe" material. Borax was added to the European "Substance of Very High Concern" (SVHC) list a couple of years ago under their "reproductive toxin" category as part of the overall REACh legislation. Anything imported into the EU that contains borax has to have warning labels about how the product may damage unborn children.



posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by YogaGinns
 


Borax 20 mule team booster $5.99 (about 9 cups) = $0.67/cup

You might want to look into the toxicology of borax further if you're viewing this as a "safe" material. Borax was added to the European "Substance of Very High Concern" (SVHC) list a couple of years ago under their "reproductive toxin" category as part of the overall REACh legislation. Anything imported into the EU that contains borax has to have warning labels about how the product may damage unborn children.


Thank you for bring up this point. I don't deny that Borax can be lethal if ingested, I believe I read that it would take 15 - 20 gms to kill an adult and much less for a child. It is listed as illegal to use as a food additive in my "Consumer's Dictionary of Food Additives". And I will monitor to see if there are any topical skin reactions from using it as a laundry detergent.

I can still remember there being a box in our laundry room as a kid growing up, along with the snowy bleach that our diapers soaked in, and I think we all grew up just fine. As a 50 something adult with no children, grand-children, or even pets in the house the risk of ingestion is extremely low. I did however, find a reference to mixing it with honey or sugar as a means of ridding the house of ants and other creepy crawlies, since there have been so many restrictions placed on pesticides these days its good to know that we still can fight back in some ways.

Thank you again and I will take your caution into consideration.

Namaste,
YogaGinns



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 04:59 AM
link   
reply to post by YogaGinns
 


Thank you for bring up this point. I don't deny that Borax can be lethal if ingested, I believe I read that it would take 15 - 20 gms to kill an adult and much less for a child. It is listed as illegal to use as a food additive in my "Consumer's Dictionary of Food Additives". And I will monitor to see if there are any topical skin reactions from using it as a laundry detergent.

Sorry if I wasn't clear on this. Similar to 1,4-dioxane, and just about every other chemical for that matter, borax has two types of toxicity. It has an acute level of toxicity meaning that if you come into contact with enough of it at once you'll suffer some kind of direct and immediate harm. It also has a chronic exposure toxicity associated with it and is classified as a reproductive toxin -- exposure in males can lead to testicular atrophy, exposure in females can lead to reduced ovulation and fertility, and borax can cross the placenta and have effects on fetal development. That's why it's on Europe's SVHC, not because of it's acute toxicity or direct ingestion of the neat material. You may want to look into an alternative for your homemade laundry detergent.


I can still remember there being a box in our laundry room as a kid growing up, along with the snowy bleach that our diapers soaked in, and I think we all grew up just fine.

So do 999,999 out of 1,000,000 people who are exposed to 3 ppb levels of 1,4-dioxane in drinking water for their entire lives. I'm not trying to be confrontational, but you seem to be dismissive of the risks associated with borax just because you "grew up with it" as opposed to the risks associated with 1,4-dioxane, which you also most likely "grew up with" in ways that you don't even realize, just because you only recently became familiar with it.
edit on 30/4/2012 by iterationzero because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Iwinder
 


That's cool you are able to do your own reverse osmosis. This is something I think we all should learn to do. Maybe you could start a help thread on this? Very much interested.

Thankfully... it has been several years now that our little down decided against fluoridating the water. It took time but they woke up to this not being good for us afterall.

Now if everybody were awake ...
I can dream , can't I?

Tide is Proctor and Gamble , right? Have heard of other conspiracies with them btw.
edit on 30-4-2012 by SeekerLou because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by SeekerLou
 

We just bought the system to filter our water, so we did not just do it ourselves but we did decide many years ago to rid our water of almost all contaminants which we did with a 5 stage RO system.
We have been enjoying fresh water for over a year now and no looking back for us.

If you are really serious about an RO system get the five stage and you will be happy.

Yep our city here about 75 thousand or so refuses to remove the fluoride from our tap water here and that has been debated years and years here.
We just took matters into our own hands, we even installed a well to water our gardens and lawn instead of poising them.

Thanks for your link and input, as always it is a welcome addition here.
Regards, Iwinder



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 05:29 PM
link   
To anybody wondering about the borax I just want to say that we will take the short list of ingredients in our laundry soap.
Three only and two are pure, the borax is a toxin for sure but our list is short.
Now go to your laundry room and check out the label on your detergent box/jug and read it.

How many words can you pronounce and how many words look familiar?
Here is a link to what we have been using and it is a PDF but it is rich in content.
Link below
www.sunproductscorp.com...


Read it and weep because it is a huge collection of ingredients and most I cannot pronounce but you will need this list if your little one decides that hell yes this looks tasty.

Just do a search like we did and you can find the actual toxic list for any detergents and these lists are for doctors mostly in the ER.
I tried to read the actual label on our jug here but it was not readable and I am not joking.
I can read the labels on cracker boxes, cereal, any juice product, any food product.
Just try and read the label on a cleaning product.
I am not blind here and even with my bifocals it was not possible, I wonder why that is?
Regards, Iwinder




top topics



 
14
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join