Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Cancer-Causing Chemical Found in 98 Shampoos and Soaps

page: 1
6

log in

join

posted on Aug, 31 2013 @ 12:46 PM
link   

An independent laboratory commissioned by the Center for Environmental Health (CEH) tested the products to determine how much cocamide DEA was present. CEH purchased these products after June 2013 from online and local California retailers, such as Trader Joe’s, Walmart, Kohl’s, and Babies R Us.


Well, this is damning news. Out of the 98 products listed, I identified at least 1 product I have either used or bought for my children. I noticed the Lalaloopsy bubble bath for kids on the list.


Many of the products tested contained more than 10,000 parts per million (ppm) of cocamide DEA. In all, CEH identified 98 products with cocamide DEA among the ingredients, none of which carried the warning required by state law.

"The state has not set a [safety] level specific to cocamide DEA," says Charles Margulis, Communications Director and Food Program Director of CEH, "but the levels we found exceed levels typical for carcinogens."


Cancer causing chemical found in shampoos and soaps

CEH has launched a lawsuit. the link below lists the products, the companies that makes them and the retailer.

Please check the list and do your own due diligence on these products.
Lawsuit launced - cancer causing agent in products




posted on Aug, 31 2013 @ 12:55 PM
link   
Please note that this article is related to California, the state that believes every product ever created causes cancer.

I know you've all seen the products that say "not for sale in California" "This product is known to the state of California to cause cancer"

You know, about every product ever created. But, it's always possible that a lot of this stuff CAN cause cancer.
edit on 8/31/2013 by eXia7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 04:05 AM
link   
Not that I do not appreciate the info... but breathing the air causes cancer.



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 08:05 AM
link   
reply to post by AmateuRN
 


Mmm hmm. Do you know? ...100 years ago cancer was extremely rare. Now, 1 out of every 2 American men and 1 of 3 women will get cancer in their lifetime.

Obviously something has changed.




posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
reply to post by AmateuRN
 


Mmm hmm. Do you know? ...100 years ago cancer was extremely rare. Now, 1 out of every 2 American men and 1 of 3 women will get cancer in their lifetime.

Obviously something has changed.




And it has everything to do with soaps, and not chemicals laden on foods, in foods, sprayed around homes inside & out, what comes out the backside of vehicles, poor health habits, bad vice choices, etc. It's ALWAYS the soaps at fault, dontcha know?



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 08:16 AM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 


Actually cancer was quite common at that time as well, it just was not diagnosed properly and categorized accordingly.

Same thing with mental disorders, 90% of the stuff was called mental disorders, now we have separate names for each, that does now means they just existed now.

1000 yrs ago, those mental disorders would have been demon possessions.

and im No way defending we use many chemical nowadays.



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 08:20 AM
link   
reply to post by luciddream
 


Not so fast. I just found this article online while fact checking the poster you addressed's claims, since he decided to post some information without backing it up just like you did. Luckily for him this article backs him up.

Growth of Cancer

Here is an excerpt from the Conclusion at the bottom of the article:


We also know quite convincingly, and all nonsensical prehistoric arguments aside, that the incidence of cancer has increased dramatically over the last century. The numbers are there. The data is there. Certainly, doctors can better diagnose tumors now than 50 or 100 years ago, but that's diagnosis before death. After death when the body is opened up, any pathologist in the last century would recognize a grapefruit sized mass in the colon as cancer. The death would be recorded as cancer. Is it 100% certain? No. It's certainly possible that doctors as recently as the 1940's and 50's were totally incompetent and never noticed tumors when they performed autopsies or treated battlefield wounds when soldiers' insides lay exposed before them. It's also possible that the extra 3-7 years that people are living now as opposed to 100 years ago have made a difference. And yes, that's all that life expectancy has really increased over the last hundred years -- once you account for the decline in infant mortality, which dramatically skews the numbers. Perhaps the risk of cancer really does increase fivefold in that small handful of extra years "adults" now live versus 100 years ago. Yes, these things are possible…but not very likely. They can only be argued because as unlikely as they are, you can't prove that they're not true -- like perpetual motion.

And finally, we absolutely know that the dietary and lifestyle choices we make and our exposure to toxins affect our chances of getting cancer. Again, arguments to the contrary are like arguments for perpetual motion. How do we know this? Quite simply, cigarettes! We know for a fact that in any sample population, cigarette smokers have a far higher incidence of numerous cancers as opposed to non-smokers. Can you absolutely prove the connection (perpetual motion) between cigarettes and cancer? Nope. You can always find someone who's smoked two packs a day for 50 years and never got cancer. But any rational person knows that if you smoke heavily, your "odds" of getting cancer are dramatically higher.
edit on 4-9-2013 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 08:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Jaellma
 


OHHHH GREATTTT!!!! I am clean as a whistle, my hair smells nice. buttttttttt.......I'm dead with cancer..... just Great...??



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 08:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 


I don't deny cancer has not increased, i mean, the population increased thus the ratio will increase as well. The article is generally saying "this and this " may cause cancer, but more half of the things it list are not proven.

The article seems quiet anti-science as well.



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 08:33 AM
link   
reply to post by luciddream
 


If cancer and mental disorders were not diagnosed properly 'back then', how do you know they were "common"?

FYI - the smell alone makes cancer hard to miss. Add to that the fact that every doctor had a microscope 'back then' - and used it - those pesky little cancerous cell changes would NOT be overlooked. ...Cancer really was extremely rare.

Also FYI - autopsies were mandatory between 1950-60 in the US. The HUGE difference in cancer incidence then and now is undeniable.

...We have changed our world from the micro level up to the macro - predictably, we are "adapting." Some of our adaptations are not immediately beneficial.



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 08:39 AM
link   
reply to post by luciddream
 



The article is generally saying "this and this " may cause cancer, but more half of the things it list are not proven.


imho - Anything that alters the molecular environment should be proven absolutely safe before it's released aka used. That's because everything else mutates and adapts in response to change. And forget the "dispersion effect."



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 08:40 AM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 


Then you should be able to add "breathing" in this day and age as well to the list.

We can assume as much we want but what % is going to be true?
edit on 9/4/2013 by luciddream because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 08:45 AM
link   
This chemical researches out as bad for a person. I don't know the concentrations in shampoos, if it is very small, it probably wouldn't matter but if there is even an ounce in a twelve ounce bottle it can cause problems. It seems that many chemicals used in our soaps are a problem for health nowadays. This is just one. We take too many showers, it rinses the oils out of our skin and some of the beneficial microbes we need for health are also lost. How do we keep the beneficial ones while getting rid of the bad ones? I haven't figured that one out yet but I do know killing all of them is bad. I don't think we ever had this right, always going to extremes both ways in history.

I think showering with water everyday is fine and using soaps a couple times a week is acceptable. Some of the chemicals we use to stop perspiration also plump the lymph system drains which means that they can not dump their garbage and this is bad. Try leaving your trash in a warm shed for a day. Maybe we are making ourselves smell worse with all these things we do. Backing up the lymphic system sewer lines in a warm environment sounds a little insane



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 09:03 AM
link   
reply to post by luciddream
 



Then you should be able to add "breathing" in this day and age as well to the list.


Already done. A few quick picks...


Air pollution and lung cancer incidence in 17 European cohorts: prospective analyses from the European Study of Cohorts for Air Pollution Effects (ESCAPE).

...Particulate matter air pollution contributes to lung cancer incidence in Europe.


Acid haze air pollution and breast and colon cancer mortality in 20 Canadian cities.

...Statistically significant positive associations were found between these two measures of air pollution and age-adjusted mortality rates for colon cancer in women (multiple r = +.74, p = 0.003), and men (multiple r = +.61, p = 0.03), and breast cancer in women (multiple r = +.69, p = 0.007). ...


Lung cancer and indoor air pollution in Xuan Wei, China


www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...]Traffic air pollution and lung cancer in females in Taiwan: petrol station density as an indicator of disease development.

...The results showed that there was a significant exposure-response relationship between PSD and risk of lung cancer in females after controlling for possible confounders. ...


Health, wealth, and air pollution: advancing theory and methods.

The effects of both ambient air pollution and socioeconomic position (SEP) on health are well documented. A limited number of recent studies suggest that SEP may itself play a role in the epidemiology of disease and death associated with exposure to air pollution. Together with evidence that poor and working-class communities are often more exposed to air pollution, these studies have stimulated discussion among scientists, policy makers, and the public about the differential distribution of the health impacts from air pollution. ...


Recent studies have linked air pollution to tens of thousands of premature cardiovascular deaths per year.


Air pollution and children's health.

Children's exposure to air pollution is a special concern because their immune system and lungs are not fully developed when exposure begins, raising the possibility of different responses than seen in adults. In addition, children spend more time outside, where the concentrations of pollution from traffic, powerplants, and other combustion sources are generally higher. ..


Protecting human health from air pollution: shifting from a single-pollutant to a multipollutant approach.

To date, the assessment of public health consequences of air pollution has largely focused on a single-pollutant approach aimed at estimating the increased risk of adverse health outcomes associated with the exposure to a single air pollutant, adjusted for the exposure to other air pollutants. However, air masses always contain many pollutants in differing amounts, depending on the types of emission sources and atmospheric conditions. Because humans are simultaneously exposed to a complex mixture of air pollutants, many organizations have encouraged moving towards "a multipollutant approach to air quality." Although there is general agreement that multipollutant approaches are desirable, the challenges of implementing them are vast.



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by luciddream
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 


I don't deny cancer has not increased, i mean, the population increased thus the ratio will increase as well. The article is generally saying "this and this " may cause cancer, but more half of the things it list are not proven.

The article seems quiet anti-science as well.


Actually if what you are claiming to be true the ratios would have to stay the same with the increase in population. This is because all a ratio is is another form of saying percentage. When the ratios increase with the increase in population it says that the rate of cancer has gone up faster than the rate at which the population has increased. This correlates to a higher chance of getting cancer in this day and age as opposed to 100 years ago.



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Nyiah
 



And it has everything to do with soaps, and not chemicals laden on foods, in foods, sprayed around homes inside & out, what comes out the backside of vehicles, poor health habits, bad vice choices, etc. It's ALWAYS the soaps at fault, dontcha know?


Rats. I always wing off and forget the topic. See here and here.



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 03:47 PM
link   
My deodorant stick most definitely is carcinogenic.

Something that is suppose to make you smell better or keep you dry in the case of antiperspirants does seem overly good for..

Just saying



posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 06:48 PM
link   

soficrow
reply to post by AmateuRN
 


Mmm hmm. Do you know? ...100 years ago cancer was extremely rare. Now, 1 out of every 2 American men and 1 of 3 women will get cancer in their lifetime.

Obviously something has changed.





Right. We're living longer (most cancers occur later in life) and our diagnostics are much better. What's so mysterious about that?

To the OP:

I read the article that the Yahoo one cites. It's interesting that CA law is based supposedly off this one review, when the results in the review about whether or not it causes cancer are inconsistent across the organisms it references. It mentions that mice experience similar survival rates, but that those given high and sometimes low doses of cocamide DEA had typically had greater cancer incidence. When you move to rats, however, there is no statistically significant difference at all. How can you logically extrapolate the results of that study in mice to humans when you can't even extend it to rats? Additionally, when we use shampoo, we don't leave it there. Though I couldn't find anything in the article, my assumption is that they left the cocamide DEA on the dermis of the mice and rats without washing.



posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 07:53 PM
link   
Funny how the FDA forgets to inforce telling you on the label it causes cancer
Just like Sodium Phosphates, Sodium Nitrates, and Sodium benzoate.
cancer, kidney failure, heart complications, leukemia..ect ect ect

kinda like a slow extermination process plus it feeds the money machine for more research






top topics



 
6

log in

join