|
发表于 2008-7-17 16:25:19
|
科学揭秘[过早死=不睡觉+可乐+洗发水+高路洁] 很可怕的绝对不是恐吓,一定要看完[轉]
[这个贴子最后由Asmin在 2008/07/17 04:56pm 第 1 次编辑]
捞猪的口水:
本猪认为早睡早起同少饮碳酸饮料呢两个观点系对人体健康有帮助的,“早睡早起身体好嘛”,而饮可乐时相信大家滴牙都有软既感觉吧...
而对于 SodiumLaurethSulfate (钠 Laureth酸盐,或简称 SLS),因为唔知系咩东东,于是就google左一下,结果却发现好多唔同既声音,响度同大家分享下:
洗发水会致癌吗?
http://www.xici.net/b830411/d66075533.htm
网上一帖子称洗发香波中含有SodiumLaurethSulfate,此物质是用来清洗车库地板的,如长期使用会导致癌症。
SodiumLaurethSulfate属于表面活性剂,是许多化妆品中的常用添加剂,虽具有刺激性,但并不属于已知的致癌因子。
中国香料香精化妆品工业协会已为国内洗发水全成分标注的实施开始了前期准备工作。
近日,一则在网上广为流传的帖子引起了记者的关注,其内容是提醒人们检查所使用洗发香波的成分说明,看看其中是否有一种被称为SodiumLaurethSulfate的物质。并且说“这种物质在大多数洗发水中都可以找到,而生产厂商用它是因为它可以产生很多泡沫并且它很便宜。但是,事实上SodiumLaurethSulfate是用来清洗车库地板的,并且它的清洁能力十分强大!而且有证据表明如果长期使用它会导致
癌症”。
记者检查了身边常用的几种洗发香波产品,发现都没有相关的成分说明,而一位刚从国外出差回来的同事带回了几种洗发水则都标明了成分,看到其中果然含有前面帖子中所提到的:SodiumLaurethSulfate。那么,这种物质是否可能致癌呢?为此,记者采访了清华大学化学系和北京宝洁技术有限公司的相关专家。
“洗发水致癌”说属于传闻清华大学化学系的麻远博士告诉记者,SodiumLaurethSulfate(简称SLES)与SodiumLaurylSulfate(简称SLS)都属于表面活性剂。早在1983年,美国化妆品协会(CIR)的专家小组经过研究认为这两种物质是安全的,它们在许多化妆品中是常用添加剂。
针对于网上所流传的SLES与SLS可能致癌的说法,麻远介绍说,这种说法大约在2000年时曾在欧美地区流传过一段时间,2000年7月,美国癌症协会曾专门就这一传闻作出过澄清,指出洗发水或沐浴液中的确含有这两种物质,它们虽然具有一些刺激性,但并不属于已知的致癌因子。另外,2001年时,在美国的《食品与化学毒物学》杂志中一篇文章也指出,经研究表明,SLES与SLS具有的刺激性可能会诱发人体红斑的发生,但并没有致癌性。
使用与研究表明:SLS和SLES是安全的。宝洁公司(P&G)是全球最成功的日用消费品公司之一,该公司生产的飘柔、海飞丝、潘婷、沙宣等产品都是被消费者认可和喜爱的洗发水品牌,在网上的有关说法中,就曾提到过“由于‘沙宣’中不含SLS,所以比同类产品较贵”。为此,记者联系了北京宝洁技术有限公司,该公司公共事物部的孙雨净女士表示,对于沙宣成分的问题比较复杂,需要询问宝洁的欧洲公司,但SLS和SLES是一种非常安全和有效的清洁成分,包括宝洁公司在内,在全世界都被广泛使用于工业产品中。宝洁公司也非常仔细地研究过相关的信息,结论是它们用于我们的产品是安全的。宝洁公司表示,没有计划停止使用SLS和SLES,对它安全性的顾虑是没有任何科学依据的。经过很多年的使用和科学研究,SLS和SLES已经被广泛认为是安全的。
国内两年之后将实施洗发水成分标注目前,在国内的洗发香波产品中,还没有采用全成分标注的做法,这也使很多消费者产生了一些疑虑。就此问题,中国香料香精化妆品工业协会常务理事尤先生告诉记者,欧美国家较早开始为洗发水做全成分标注,日本也在去年的4月1日起实行了这一做法。目前,中国香料香精化妆品工业协会为国内洗发水全成分标注的实施开始了前期准备工作,正在修订《消费品使用说明化妆品通用标签标准》,这一标准有望在明年年初通过,大约在两年以后,中国的洗发水也将在上市时做出相关的成分说明。
关于“过早死=不睡觉+可乐+洗发水+高路洁”的讨论
http://topic.csdn.net/t/20020919/09/1035683.html
18楼
喝茶?据报道大部分茶叶农药过量
牛奶?据报道不少牛奶含激素
可乐的碳酸饮料伤害牙齿,仅仅因为它是弱酸性的,也就是说,即使你吃条糖醋鱼,也比它损伤大。而且弱酸的作用仅限于含钙比较多的骨骼....各位,我不是来搅场的,只是说,即使喝生理盐水,长期也会有害,这只是个量的问题。没人含着可乐整个月让自己的牙溶掉。即使洗澡,连续几天也会休克呢。
至于 SodiumLaurethSulfate ,学名是12烷基硫酸钠,是一种发炮剂,就它的化学结构来看,是一种相当稳定的物质,我不敢随便说,它就一定没有问题,但也很希望知道,“有证据表明如果长期使用它会导致癌症”的证据出自何处?
21楼
第一点:楼主极力渲染柠檬酸和SodiumLaurethSulfate的清洁能力,似乎有清洁能力的东西都有害。那么请将自己的小便用来洗拖布,你会发现小便洗拖布甚至衣服都非常好用,只要及时用清水把尿液冲干净,可以代替肥皂和洗衣粉,因为小便里含氨。中世纪欧洲用小便当洗涤剂,每天都在排泄这种东西,看来是不是要把肾和膀胱都切掉呢?
第二点:喝了8瓶可乐致死人的事件。我不清楚这个“瓶”有多大。如果是通常包装的小瓶可乐,我绝对喝过8瓶以上(30分钟内)。如果是2.5升的,那么我想问问:一次喝下20升水的人是被二氧化碳毒死的?还是被水涨死的?
第三点:牙齿泡到可乐里会溶解就说明可乐有害。那么把牙齿泡进胃酸里(主要成分是盐酸),恐怕溶解得更快。看来要把胃也切除掉。
可乐对人体的害处无非是这样几个方面:一、含糖,导致糖引起的不良反映(比如龋齿)。二、碳酸刺激胃。三、喝冷的东西对胃不好。四、含咖啡因,有副作用。五、含防腐剂。不过这些危害并不严重。
洗发水和牙膏都不是食品,换句话说这些东西不能饮用或者吞服。牙膏根本不用吃多,只要你吃下一小条牙膏,保证会出现一种类似感冒的症状,当然这不是疾病,一天内就可以消失。
如果说对人体危害最大的食品添加剂,要属亚硝酸盐。这个东西本身有毒,而且还会生成亚硝胺(强烈致癌物质)。酸菜、火腿肠、熟肉、腊肉制品里都有这些物质存在。因为亚硝酸盐(主要是亚硝酸钠)能凝结蛋白,使肉更好吃。酸菜白肉之所以好吃是因为酸菜里含有这种物质。
和可口可乐的有害程度比起来,这些东西对身体的摧残要强许多倍。
以下系西文辟谣(本猪是看不懂的,不过都分享下啦。。。嘻嘻)
What Is Sodium Laureth Sulfate...
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/weekly/aa090998.htm
And why are people saying those awful things about it?
Dateline: 09/09/98
(Latest update: 04/08/01)
By David Emery
A dire health warning circulating by email since 1998 claims that sodium laureth sulfate, a synthetic chemical found in brand-name shampoos and other personal care products, causes cancer.
As is typical of such warnings, the message is unsigned and cites no references to support its claims.
As also commonly happens with chain letters, this one has picked up false "signatures" after the fact. Such is usually the result of someone with an authoritative-sounding title forwarding the message with their .sig file attached, which is left intact by later forwarders and eventually becomes a permanent part of the text.
As near as I can determine, the name "Michelle Hailey" first began appearing on a version of this message in September 1998, approximately two months after the original (unsigned) version was first sighted. The "signed" version quickly surpassed the original in popularity, but Hailey denied authoring the email in an Oct. 20, 1998 article in the Daily Tennessean.
"This is not a chain letter," the message declares, but in fact 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.
Part 2: Questions and Answers
Here I will debunk some of the more dubious claims in the forwarded email. Please note that this is not a general article about the pros and cons of shampoo ingredients, or even of this particular ingredient. I will address specific allegations in the email text, the main one being that sodium laureth sulfate is carcinogenic. Sources and links for further reading are at the bottom of this page and in the sidebar to the right.
* Q: Is sodium laureth sulfate commonly found in shampoos and toothpastes?
A: Shampoos, frequently; toothpastes, occasionally. (It';s much more common to find the harsher surfactant sodium lauryl sulfate in toothpastes.)
* 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 is used in both industrial cleaning products and, in lesser concentrations, personal care products.
* Q: Is sodium lauryl sulfate commonly found in shampoos and toothpastes?
A: Yes, both. It';s also found in shaving creams and other lathering products.
* Q: Ah. Well, then, is SLS a known carcinogen?
A: No, it is not on any official list of known or suspected carcinogens. But it is a harsher chemical than SLES, which is why SLES is typically used in baby shampoos instead. Sodium lauryl sulfate is well known to be a skin and eye irritant and can cause dermatitis with prolonged contact in high concentrations. Results of some tests on animal tissues indicate that it';s mutagenic — i.e., it may be related to abnormal cell mutations — though the evidence is inconclusive. Even so, scientists familiar with the substance insist it is not dangerous in the concentrations found in personal care products.
* Q: Would a manufacturer freely admit to consumers, as claimed in the message, that it knowingly uses a carcinogen in its products "because we need that substance to produce foam?"
A: Of course not.
* Q: Is it true that my chances of getting cancer are "1 out of 3" in the ';90s?
A: Yes, with a few qualifications. 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 two decades 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 have been falling, though at a fractional rate and there';s no telling if that trend will continue.
* Q: Is cancer a "virus," as alleged in the email?
A: No.
* Q: Is the chain letter a hoax?
A: Most likely. At the very least, it contains egregiously inaccurate information. But we can only guess at the motives of whoever launched it.
* Q: Where did the misinformation come from?
A: Well, if you';re asking who started the chain letter, there';s no way of knowing. As to the misinformation itself, it turns out that there are a good many Web pages containing very similar — and in some cases identical — statements. It';s a good bet that it all came from the same source at some point in time.
Interestingly, all these Websites are maintained by "independent distributors" for 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. Assuming all this information did come from the same source, the author of our chain letter and some of these Web entrepreneurs are sloppy copyists at the very least, and/or intent on slanting the "facts" to suit their purposes.
In the chain letter, for example, the cancer rate in the 1980s is alleged to be "1 out of 8,000"; the Web pages tend to say that was the cancer rate in 1901. That sounds more reasonable, but it';s no cause to assume the Websites are entirely accurate. On some of them, the ratio cited for 1901 is not "1 out of 8,000," but "1 out of 80." Again, some of these authors are either making it up as they go along, or copying the information very carelessly.
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 inaccurate enough. Another page links prominently to a site vending quack cancer cures. In some cases, the texts cite legitimate medical studies, but in a misleading way, making it appear as if the studies prove much more than they actually 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 continues to degrade. One of the more recent variants of the email 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, innocently believed it to be true, and decided to share it with others.
* Q: Do you really think that was the case?
A: I doubt it.
* Postscript: The old adage, "Where there';s smoke, there';s fire," may apply here. While the "facts" stated in the sodium laureth sulfate warning are almost entirely false, there may be other potentially hazardous substances in name-brand personal care products. For more information, see the following:
o Personal Care and Cosmetic Products May Be Carcinogenic
Synopsized as one of the "Top 25 under-reported news stories of 1997"
o Report on carcinogens
From the National Toxicological Program
o FDA guidelines for inspection of cosmetic products
"Non-binding" reference material for investigators
Sources and further reading:
* 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).
* "Study: U.S. Cancer Rates Declining." CNN News, 13 Mar. 1998. URL: http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9803/13/less.cancer/
(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.
* Friedlander, Ed. "Sodium Lauryl Sulfate - Not a Cancer Risk." The Pathology Guy. URL: http://www.pathguy.com/sls.htm (8 April 2001).
* 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). URL: http://www.vwrsp.com/ (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).
* "Sodium Lauryl Sulfate." American Cancer Society. URL: http://www2.cancer.org/zine/index.cfm?fn=004_09231998_0 (8 April 2001).
* 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.
谁是谁非,明眼的各位自己分析好了...嘻嘻~~不过,而家好多商家都因为想稳多滴而沦为黑商,为此提醒各位同学要多注意了...今日警讯到此为此...
另,看左下本帖系7月1日发的,浏览量有200几,虽然广青网唔系咩大网,不过感觉许多同学应该会比较相信在这看到的信息的,而这个帖子上因为关于SLS的内容是不确认的,为免误导别人,请楼主或管理帮忙将这个帖的主题改下...多谢! |
|