-Caveat Lector-
Here's another viewpoint - SLS may be safe (?)
-Bill
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
from: http://urbanlegends.miningco.com/library/weekly/aa090998.htm
David Emery - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Wed, Oct 7, 1998
What is sodium laureth sulfate
-------------------------------
...and why are people saying those awful things about it?
Dateline: 09/09/98
The latest dire health warning to circulate by email claims that
sodium laureth sulfate, a synthetic chemical commonly found in
brand-name shampoos, causes cancer.
As is typical of such warnings, the message is unsigned and cites
no references to support its claims. "This is not a chain letter,"
the message concludes, but it is one. As you shall see, its purpose
is not to inform, but to frighten:
Subject: FW: SHAMPOO ALERT!!! MUST
READ!!!
Importance: High
Check the ingredients listed on your
shampoo bottle, and see if they have
this substance by the name of Sodium
Laureth Sulfate or simply SLS.
This substance is found in most
shampoo, the manufactures use it
because it produces a lot of foam
and it is cheap. BUT the fact is
that SLS is used to scrub garage
floors, and it is very strong.
It is also proven that it can cause
cancer in the long run, and this is
no joke. Well, I went home and check
my shampoo (Vidal Sasoon), it hasn't
got it, but others such as Vo5,
Palmolive etc..they've got this
substance, so I've called up to one
of the company (u must think I had
nothing better to do, no, I am just
concerned about our health) well, I
told them their product contains a
substance that will cause people to
have cancer, and u know what they
said, they said "Yeah.we knew about
it but there is nothing we can do
about it coz we need that substance
to produce foam, oh, by the way the
Colgate toothpaste also contains the
same substance to produce the
bubbles". Oh my God, I've been using
the Colgate since when I was born,
what the world is that, are we going
to die very soon. They said they are
going to send me some info.
Research have shown that in the
1980s, the chance of getting cancer
is 1 out of 8000 and now in the
1990s, the chances of getting cancer
is 1 out of 3 which is very serious.
So I hope that you will take this
seriousness and pass on this to all
the people you know, and hopefully,
we can stop "giving" ourselves the
cancer virus.
This is serious, after you have read
this, pass it on to as many people
as possible, this is not a chain
letter, but it concerns our health.
Questions and answers:
Q: Is sodium laureth sulfate commonly found in shampoos and
toothpastes?
A: Shampoos, yes; toothpastes, no.
Q: Is sodium laureth sulfate known to cause cancer?
A: No. The chemical does not appear on any official list of
known or suspected carcinogens.
Q: Is sodium laureth sulfate properly abbreviated as "SLS?"
A: No. The correct abbreviation is "SLES." The chain letter
confuses this compound with another: sodium lauryl sulfate,
which is abbreviated "SLS." The two substances are related, but
not the same.
Q: Is sodium laureth sulfate used to scrub garage floors?
A: No.
Q: What about the other one � sodium lauryl sulfate � is it
used to scrub garage floors?
A: No doubt. SLS is a powerful surfactant (wetting agent) and
detergent. It has industrial uses, but can also be commonly
found in shampoos, toothpastes, shaving creams, etc.
Q: Ah. Well, then, is SLS a known carcinogen?
A: No. But it's not as harmless as SLES. Sodium lauryl sulfate
is a skin and eye irritant and can cause dermatitis with
prolonged contact. Results of some tests on animal tissues
indicate that it can cause abnormal cell mutations, though I've
seen conflicting evidence.
Q: Would a manufacturer freely admit, as claimed in the message,
that it knowingly uses a carcinogen in its products "because we
need that substance to produce foam?"
A: Are you kidding? Of course not.
Q: Is it true that my chances of getting cancer are "1 out of 3"
in the '90s?
A: The short answer is no, but that shouldn't necessarily set
your mind at ease. According to the most recent U.S. study,
cancer strikes approximately 1 in 250 people. Of course, that's
the incidence rate, which is not the same as someone's odds of
getting cancer.
The problem with stating probabilities in this case is that
there's no way to generalize accurately. The reasons are: 1)
cancer risks for individuals vary according to a host of
factors, including gender, race, habits, and family history; and
2) the likelihood of any individual contracting cancer is also a
function of their age. For example, if you're 20 years old, the
odds are much greater that you'll contract cancer in your
lifetime than they are if you're 50, simply because there's a
longer time span involved.
That said, the longer answer is: for an "average person" (that
is, someone of no particular age or gender who lives nowhere in
particular and inherited no genes from his or her parents), the
chances of getting cancer over a lifetime work out to somewhere
between 1 in 3 and 1 in 2, at present.
Q: Were the chances of getting cancer in the 1980s "1 out of
8,000?"
A: No, that's absurd. Cancer rates were approximately the same a
decade ago as they are now; if anything, they were a bit higher.
Q: Really? Aren't cancer rates rising?
A: No, in the United States they're falling, though at a
fractional rate and there's no telling if that trend will
continue.
Q: Is cancer a "virus?"
A: No.
Q: Is the chain letter a hoax?
A: Yes.
Q: Where did the misinformation come from?
A: Well, if you're asking who started the chain letter, there's
no way of knowing. But as to the misinformation itself, it turns
out that there are many, many Web pages containing very similar
statements. It's a good bet that it all came from the same
source.
Interestingly, all these Websites are maintained by "independent
distributors" for various multi-level marketing companies
hawking "natural personal care products," etc. As a matter of
fact, the majority of URLs returned in a standard Web search on
the keywords "sodium laureth sulfate" point to versions of the
same propaganda.
Here, take a brief tour and see for yourself:
http://www.pe.net/~genetrix/eochem.htm
http://www.scu.edu.au/lists/futures-l/0873.html
http://www.the-american-dream.com/carcinog.htm
http://www.floridanet.com/
http://www.freeyellow.com/members4/greathealth/
http://www.aimnet.com/~murphyp/health/harmful.htm
There are literally dozens more! Assuming all the information
did come from the same source, one thing that's clear is that
the author of our chain letter and many of these Web
entrepreneurs were very sloppy copyists and/or intent on
slanting the "facts" to suit their purposes.
In the chain letter, for example, "1 out of 8,000" is alleged to
have been the cancer rate in the 1980s; the Web pages say it was
the cancer rate in 1901. That sounds more reasonable, but it's
no cause to assume the Websites are more accurate. On some of
them, the figure cited for 1901 is not "1 out of 8,000," but "1
out of 80."
Misinformation has a way of multiplying.
Many of the pages I looked at were littered with inaccuracies,
deceptive statements, and outright lies. One even alleges that
"In 1993 it was documented that sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS) and
sodium laureth sulfate (SLES) were the leading cause of
blindness in children" � as if claiming they're carcinogens
weren't enough! Another page features a link to a site vending
quack cancer cures. In some cases, the authors refer to
legitimate medical studies, but in a misleading way, making it
appear as if the studies proved more than they really did.
Small wonder that by the time this information made its way into
chain letter form, virtually every statement in it was
outrageously false.
What's worse, as the chain letter circulates, the information
degrades even further. One of the more recent variants gives the
abbreviation of sodium laureth sulfate as "SLY," which is doubly
wrong.
Q: Do you think the chain letter may have been deliberately
started to frighten people into using other products?
A: I suspect it, but there's no way to know for sure, and I
can't prove it. For all we know, someone came across this stuff
by accident, believed it to be true, and innocently wanted to
share it with others.
Q: Do you really think that was the case?
A: Nope.
Sources:
- 8th Annual Report on Carcinogens (1998). National Toxicology
Program. URL:
http://ntp-server.niehs.nih.gov/Main_pages/NTP_8RoC_pg.html
(1 Sep. 1998).
- "Cancer Death Rates Dropping." ABCNews.com/Reuters, 12 Mar.
1998. URL:
http://www.abcnews.com/sections/living/DailyNews/cancer0312.html
(7 Sep. 1998).
- Clayton, R.M., et al. (1985). "The Penetration of Detergents
into Adult and Infant Eyes." Food and Chemical Toxicology 23.2
(Feb. 1985): 239-246.
- IARC List of Chemicals Evaluated for Carcinogenicity.
International Agency for Research on Cancer.
URL: http://www.iarc.fr/monoeval/grlist.htm (1 Sep. 1998).
- Hope, J. "Absence of Chromosome Damage in the bone marrow of
rats fed detergent actives for 90 days." Mutation Research 56.1
(Sep. 1977): 47-50.
- Material Safety Data Sheet for Sodium Dodecyl Sulfate (Sodium
Lauryl Sulfate). University of Utah. URL:
http://www.chem.utah.edu/MSDS/S/SODIUM_DODECYL_SULFATE_(SDS)
(1 Sep. 1998).
- "New Report on Declining Cancer Incidence and Death Rates..."
National Cancer Institute Press Release, 12 Mar. 1998. URL:
http://rex.nci.nih.gov/massmedia/pressreleases/deathrate.html
(7 Sep. 1998).
- UMCP Partial List of Teratogens (1995). University of Maryland.
URL: http://www.inform.umd.edu/DES/ch/terat.html (4 Sep.
1998).
- Winter, Ruth. A Consumer's Dictionary of Household, Yard and
Office Chemicals. New York: Crown, 1992.
� 1998 General Internet Inc. All rights reserved.
At 09:14 AM 4-16-1999 -0500, you wrote:
<snip>
>:
>: this is reprinted as I received it - caveat lector - bel
>: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
<snip>
>: Dear family and friends:
>: Check the ingredients listed on your shampoo bottle, and see if they
>: have a substance by the name of Sodium Laureth Sulfate, or simply
>: SLS.
>:
>: This substance is found in most shampoos, and the manufacturers
>: use it because it produces a lot of foam and it is cheap. BUT the fact
>: is that SLS is used to scrub garage floors, and it is very
strong. It is
>: also proven that it can cause cancer in the long run, and this is no
>: joke. I went home and checked my shampoo (Vidal Sasoon); it
>: doesn't contain it; however, others such as Vo5, Palmolive, Paul
>: Mitchell, the new Hemp Shampoo, contains this substance. The first
>: ingredient listed (which means it is the single most prevalent
>: ingredient) in Clairol's Herbal Essences is Sodium Laureth Sulfate.
>: So I called one company, and I told them their product contains a
>: substance that will cause people to have cancer. They said, "Yeah,
>: we knew about it but there is nothing we can do about it because we
>: need that substance to produce foam.
>:
>: By the way, Colgate toothpaste also contains the same substance to
>: produce the "bubbles." They said they are going to send me some
>: information.
>:
>: Research has shown that in the 1980s, the chance of getting cancer
>: is 1 out of 8000 and now, in the 1990s, the chances of getting cancer
>: is 1 out of 3, which is very serious.
>:
>: So, I hope that you will take this seriously and pass this on to
all the
>: people you know, and hopefully, we can stop "giving" ourselves the
>: cancer virus (I hate wrong information! Cancer is not caused by
a virus!
>: See Part X of my series to understand. - David). This is
serious. After
>: you have read this, pass it on to as many people as possible,
this is not
>: a chain letter, but it concerns our health.
>:
>: Michelle Hailey
>: Executive Secretary
>: University of Pennsylvania Health System Office of Legal Affairs
>: (215) 662-2546
>:
>: I urge you to pass this post on to others, as they may need to
>: understand what is going on. We all have a moral obligation
>: to help understanding and knowledge spread across America.
>: "But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the
trumpet
>: to warn the people and the sword comes and takes the life of one
of them,
>: that man will be taken away because of his sin, but I will hold the
>: watchman
>: accountable for his blood." Ezekiel 33:6 (NIV) <p>
>:
<snip>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
