By David Emery
Disclaimer: HiddenMysteries and/or the donor of this material may or may not agree with all the data or conclusions of this data. It is presented and reported here 'as is' for your benefit and research. Material for these pages are sent to HiddenMysteries from around the world. If by chance there is a copyrighted article posted which the author does not want read, email the webmaster and it will be removed. HiddenMysteries and/or the donor of this material does not offer or provide any medical opinion, medical endorsement and/or medical advice as would be defined in law, legal code, legal policy, administrative rules and regulations.
The latest dire health warning to circulate by email claims that sodium
laureth sulfate, a synthetic chemical found in brand-name shampoos, causes
cancer.
I have read this article and the so called Hoax.
Both the replay from David Emery and the so called hoax letter are not
given enough reason to believe or take one of them for real/truthfull. In
both are statements that are not wright or seemes to be right.
I have contacted some companies/ experts.
David Emery states that SLES is not used in toothpaste.
Sodium Laureth Sulfate is used and still will be used in Shampoos,
toothpaste and soaps. I'm speaking of products in the Netherlands.
Sodium Laureth sulfate is both. A synthetical chemical and also natural.
Beneath a reply email from Urtekram from Denmark.
We use Natrium Laureth Sulfat derived from palm oil and non-preserved.
Unfortunately it has the same chemical name as derived from
petrochemicals + perservation.
Please check our website
(www.urtekram.dk) for more information.
Kind Regards
Ronnie McGrail
Urtekram A/S
The only difference is that they use natrium instead of sodium.
But I have seen both SLS and SLES in toothpaste and Shampoos.
I have the following question.
What is the difference between Sodium Laureth Sulfate and Natrium, Amonium
and so on. What is the reason that companies are not given direct answer
on my question about this sub
stance? Why are they using different names
for the same substance?
In his article on about.com David Emery says that the letter from Michelle
is a Hoax.
I have done some investment but nobody is given a clear/direct answer. So
who do I have to believe.
Beneath a quote from the article by David Emery on about.com.
[UPDATE: As also commonly happens with chain letters, this one has picked
up false "signatures" after the fact. This is usually the result of
someone with an authoritative-sounding title forwarding the message with
their .sig file attached, which then 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.]
Greeting Gerard.
The Hoax Letter Below ---
This is very serious read:
Please read the message carefully. Go home and check your
shampoo. Change it before it's too late.
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 from Body Shop etc .
contain this substance.The first
ingredient
listed (which means it is the
single most prevalent ingredient)
in
Clairol's Herbal Essences is
Sodium Laureth Sulfate.
I also
found it in
Revlon Shampoo's Flex.
So I called one company, and
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.
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 is in deep
concern with
our
health.
Michelle Hailey
Executive Secretary
University of Pennsylvania
Health System
sent in by Simon Gerard
12-19-00