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.
I thank you again sir/madame,
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?
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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 ..
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.
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.
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
Borax 20 mule team booster $5.99 (about 9 cups) = $0.67/cup
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.