|
|
发表于 2004-9-8 05:08:10
|
显示全部楼层
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. |
|
IP卡
狗仔卡
显身卡
发表于 2004-9-8 02:47:01
