Banishing Bad Hair Days since 1997!™
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Lead Poisoning in Hair Dye
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Forum LockedLead Poisoning in Hair Dye

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
Kathryn View Drop Down
Unregistered
Unregistered
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kathryn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Lead Poisoning in Hair Dye
    Posted: January 12 2000 at 2:32am
I saw an advertisment through the Life Extension company for a haircolor product that is not a dye. They say the product replaces themelanin in the hair shaft. They sent me a list of ingredients and thedirections, which includes applying the product daily for 3 weeks to dryhair, and then 2-3 times a week thereafter to keep the color. One ofthe ingredients listed is pb acetate, which is a lead ingredient. Doyou know about this, or using any other similar product like "Just forMen" on my hair? I have had permanent highlights added to my long,chestnut/brown hair, and have some grey. Will such a product work ontreated hair, or could it be dangerous because of the lead ingredient?Thank you to anyone who knows about this. Attached is a copy of the ingredient list they sent me:"The active ingredients in PG-168 are: (Glycerine, Lanolin, Sulfur,Cheteareth 20, Methylparaben, Propylparaben, Vitamin E, pb Acetate, DIwater, and Allantoin)The formula works only as a result of the exact balance of ALL theseingredients. They do not ‘create hair color’ they simply fill a hollowhair shaft with a pigment like substitute.Additional information on this may be found on the web athttp://www.lifex.com/appear.htmlPG-168 is hypoallergenic. In Double blind tests there has yet to beuncovered any ill side effects or allergic reactions. It will not harmhair. It is used as a conditioner to make hair thicker. It does noteffect the color of your hair, if indeed your hair does have color. Ifyour hair is dyed or if it still has its natural color, applying PG-168will not change this color. However, on hair that has no color (itappears gray or while but in fact is an empty shaft without melanin) itwill slowly replace the melanin until your natural color is restored."
Back to Top
Laura Jane View Drop Down
Unregistered
Unregistered
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Laura Jane Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 12 2000 at 2:33am
Lead acetate is a dangerous compound. I'm very surprised that it's still included in beauty products! Be glad for laws that require labeling.The problem with lead acetate is that it can be absorbed through your skin while you are applying the product. Likewise, a residue is left in your hair. That residue can slowly leach out of the hair and be absorbed through your skin as well.I would not advocate using any product containing lead as an ingredient. The label claims that no ill effects were discovered in double-blind tests; however, without seeing the actual data, you can't be sure they are telling the truth. Plenty of "bad science" makes it into peer-reviewed journals; I certainly wouldn't trust a test conducted by a company in support of its own products, especially without a clear explanation of their methodology.By the way, most hair dyes work by imparting color to the center of the hair shaft. The center is not "hollow", as they claim, just because the hair is grey or white. There is still keratin (a type of protein) present in the shaft.There are technical definitions of what constitutes a dye in a chemical sense. This product may not be one in that sense, but what it claims to do is precisely the same thing a dye does. Anything that opens up the hair and allows access to the inner part of the shaft can be damaging to it; furthermore, the lead can have very serious effects.Laura Janelswanson@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu
Back to Top
Christine View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie
Avatar

Joined: July 29 2001
Location: Dallas,TX
Status: Offline
Points: 5
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Christine Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 12 2000 at 2:33am
This is an interesting topic. I do think hair dyes are dangerous, especially after what Laura Jane said about lead being absorbed into the skin. Since hair dye is applied on the hair and its proximity to the scalp, I have been warned such chemicals could possibly be linked to cancer later on. With such widespread use of hair colour, i wonder if anyone has comments on this. I have been colouring my hair for years now, and the hair appears damaged. I am certainly putting off colour for the good of my hair and health!
Back to Top
Kathryn View Drop Down
Unregistered
Unregistered
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kathryn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 12 2000 at 2:33am
> This is an interesting topic. I do think hair dyes are> dangerous, especially after what Laura Jane said about> lead being absorbed into the skin. Since hair dye is> applied on the hair and its proximity to the scalp, I> have been warned such chemicals could possibly be> linked to cancer later on. With such widespread use of> hair colour, i wonder if anyone has comments on this.> I have been colouring my hair for years now, and the> hair appears damaged. I am certainly putting off> colour for the good of my hair and health!
Back to Top
Kathryn View Drop Down
Unregistered
Unregistered
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kathryn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 12 2000 at 2:33am
(I'm sorry I clicked the "post" button before responding...)Thank you Christine, and Laura Jane for the responses. They were really helpful.I emailed the company again with a similar question and their response follows. However, I will be taking Laura Jane's advise. Thank you again so much!"You are wise to be concerned about the amount of heavy metals your bodyabsorbs.Although PG-168 is not at all the same formula as Just For Men or othersuch products, it does contain ‘some’ of the same active ingredients,including pb Acetate.Some of the things that make PG-168 very different from the products yourefer to, are:1: Unlike the others, PG-168 has no health risk. The “EXACT” amount ofpb Acetate in each 350 gallons is .07%.In other words, the other ingredients (Glycerine, DI water, Lanolin,Sulfur, Cheteareth 20, Methylparaben, Propylparaben, Vitamin E,Allantoin and the fragrance) make up 99.93% of the product.2: This amount of pb Acetate is far, far less than in ‘hair coloring’products. It is actually considerably less even, than the amount of pbAcetate found in a glass of city water.The answer to the unasked question: why have it at all? is that theformula works only as a result of the exact balance of ALL theseingredients.I hope I have answered your questions.Norene Reagan, Ph.D.Life ExtensionProduct Information Service"
Back to Top
Dave View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: February 28 2001
Location: home
Status: Offline
Points: 11
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dave Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 12 2000 at 2:33am
Hi Kathryn,I wonder about the numbers provided by their Ph.D. (not M.D.).She said "The 'EXACT' amount of pb Acetate in each 350 gallons is .07%."This sentence is a bit misleading. 0.07% is a percentage, not an amount.Actually, 0.07% of 350 gallons is 0.245 gallons, or about 31 ounces.The relevance of the specification of 350 gallons is a mystery to me.The other thing that strikes me is that 0.07% is equal to 700 ppm, whichsounds frightfully high. I can't believe that any city's tap watercontains anywhere near 700 ppm of lead.Sorry to sound so negative, but this report does not seem very reassuring.Dave
David M Squires
Back to Top
Dave View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: February 28 2001
Location: home
Status: Offline
Points: 11
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dave Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 12 2000 at 2:33am
Oops!I should mention that by my calculation, those 31 ounces are 31 fluid ounces.But it's not clear whether the percentage given in the report was by volumeor weight. If by weight, the volume would be less as lead is considerablydenser than water.Regardless, whether 0.07% by weight or volume, it's still an extremely highamount of lead.Dave
David M Squires
Back to Top
Jeff View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: August 20 2003
Status: Offline
Points: 3
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jeff Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 12 2000 at 2:33am
> Hi Kathryn,> I wonder about the numbers provided by their Ph.D.> (not M.D.).> She said "The 'EXACT' amount of pb Acetate in> each 350 gallons is .07%."> This sentence is a bit misleading. 0.07% is a> percentage, not an amount.> Actually, 0.07% of 350 gallons is 0.245 gallons, or> about 31 ounces.> The relevance of the specification of 350 gallons is a> mystery to me.> The other thing that strikes me is that 0.07% is equal> to 700 ppm, which> sounds frightfully high. I can't believe that any> city's tap water> contains anywhere near 700 ppm of lead.> Sorry to sound so negative, but this report does not> seem very reassuring.> DaveDave,I would guess that the significance of the 350 gallons is the size of the batch. Thus the .07% is the percentage of that 350 gallons this is the lead. But since the ingrediants may not mix evenly, some bottle might have higher concentrations that others.Just a guess, Laura Jane can probably say more on this subject.Jeff.
xoom!
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down