Hi Leduc
I think you are over-engineering this. There are very few aspects of life that don't have some risks attached to them. Tens of thousands of men in the developed world wear hair systems and are using these adhesives day-in-day-out, and have been doing so for decades in some cases. Yet there is no buzz out there about them being toxic or having caused injury. I think in this highly communicative networked world that is a pretty reassuring sign. I'm sure if you analyse the contents of toothpaste or hairgel or suncream you could find ingredients to fret about too.
I am pretty sure the "avoid contact with skin" language has been put there by some US lawyer. When you sell stuff in a predatory and litigious environment like the US, you do whatever you can to keep the hyenas at bay, however nonsensical. That is why the shampoo bottles tell you to consult a physician before using, and the ski resorts tell you to avoid slippery surfaces.
Noah
Hey Noah,
Not looking to pick a fight with you as I respect you..and you always speak intelligently. You are also probably the most helpful person on the board.
I'd like your opinion with this perspective in mind.... We have 325 million people in the US ...if we agreed that there's say 10k hair wearers....thats .00003 of the population....
I'm sure we could both agree not 100% of those people are using acrylic bonds... to keep it fair lets say 50% are. That's .000015 of the population that exposed to the acrylic bonds.
Let's make the assumption that half of them got cancer that was directly influenced by chemical adhesives. Now we're speaking of .0000075 of the population.
You'd still take the position that an obscenely insignificantly small amount of people such as that would be newsworthy or noticed by the medical field as being directly caused by one factor such as an acrylic Bond?
I did two years in Hematology Oncology. One thing I can say without a doubt is when one gets cancer we can never put a finger on exactly what triggered it. There are many studies showing that half of lung cancer patients have never smoked.
But we can say, as its proven over and over... Is when we take 1000 non-smokers and 1000 smokers the prevalence of cancer in the smoking group is significantly higher...in some studies 75% higher than the non-smoking group. This is how we conclude that smoking is not necessarily cause and effect meaning that you are guaranteed lung cancer..... nor does not smoking guarantee you will not get lung cancer... but it cannot be ignored that it significantly increases your risk.
That's been my point the whole conversation. I'm not saying everyone's going to get it, but the risks are real.
Yes, I agree there are risks with everything from food, water, environmental exposures, genetics, viruses, bacteria...... NO argument there. My position is certainly not to stay indoors 24/7 as a hermit and eat only organic food............But if we have the ability to limit our exposure to things that we know increase our risk... that's a wise move.... Fortunately enough in the Hair world we have options such as ghost Bond and water based adhesives that don't contain the chemicals that acrylics do.
My concern has been about the long-term effects with regard to cancer. Toxic just means poisonous.... and it's typically acute and noticed/treated quickly.
I'm sure we've all had a bout of food poisoning or sun poisoning. It doesn't mean you're going to die.. and most often you don't.
Typically when you remove the offender causing toxicity the person will recover, with none or minimal long-term effects.
That's not the case with cancer....and that's why I'm stressing the risks are not something to take lightly.
