Dog Almost Dies From Human Hair Dye - What Does That Tell You?

Human hair dye can kill an animal and the long-term effects on humans are not too far from lethal. Those who use hair dye on a consistent basis may increase their risk of developing long-term, chronic conditions, for which there are few adequate solutions.

February 14, 2018

Story at-a-glance

• Products sold over-the-counter are not necessarily safe for you or your pets as a 5-pound Maltese mix demonstrated when her owner attempted to dye her hair purple, nearly killing the dog
• Hair dyes are not safe for use on children, and adults are experiencing greater rates of sensitization and allergic reactions
• Consistent use of hair dye is associated with an increased risk of asthma and bladder cancer, and has now been associated with a significant risk of breast cancer
• Salon workers have a much higher risk of suffering depression, cancers, asthma, dermatitis and neurological conditions than workers in many other job positions, related to the toxic chemicals to which they are exposed daily
• One of the best and healthiest products for your hair may be in your kitchen already, as coconut oil can be used to detangle, condition and even dye your hair with natural herbs

By Dr. Mercola

Just because a product is sold over-the-counter in stores, it does not mean it’s safe. There are nearly 13,000 chemicals found in personal care products sold in the U.S., and only 10 percent have been tested for safety. To compound the problem, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has the ability to regulate personal care products only after a product has demonstrated harm.1

Additionally, the FDA has handed over the responsibility of ensuring public safety to manufacturers whose financial health is dependent upon selling their products, and those manufacturers are not legally responsible to report adverse effects to the FDA.2 What this means is that while you may be health conscious, body lotions, deodorants, soaps or shampoos you use may have harmful chemicals even if the product is labeled nontoxic and safe.

The average American woman uses 12 personal care products daily, containing an average of 168 chemicals.3 Men are exposed to nearly half that amount, but teens, who average 17 personal care products a day, are exposed to an even greater number.

This everyday exposure to toxic chemicals has been associated with a number of health conditions, including early ovarian dysfunction and menopause that may lead to early development of heart disease and osteoporosis. While personal care products may be hazardous for you, using these products on your pet may have lethal consequences.

Violet Demonstrates Dangers of Hair Dye

A 5-pound Maltese mixed dog named Violet recently brought to light the extreme danger owners put their dogs in when attempting to dye their fur using hair dye meant for people.4 The dog was brought to the Pinellas County Animal Services to be treated for her injuries, which included badly burned skin. Once at the facility, the staff washed as much of the chemicals off the dog as possible. Since dogs instinctively lick their coat, there was concern Violet may have suffered internal burns as well.

The next day she was put under anesthesia to have her coat shaved off. It was only at this point the staff recognized the extent of the damage to the dog’s skin, which started to slough off after being shaved.5 The hospital staff bandaged her, gave her antibiotics and intravenous fluids but was unsure if she would make it through the first night. After three months of arduous treatment, including honey, pain medication, continued antibiotics and bandage changes, Violet appears to have made a good recovery.

Violet is now in the care of a new owner who has experience grooming pets. Dyeing animal fur is not only stressful to the animal, but also increases the risk of chemical burns and allergic reactions, in much the same way these chemicals may affect you or your child.

Children and Adults at Risk Using Hair Dye

Many adults who use hair dye seek to cover gray hair or add highlights to their locks. In Europe, hair dye manufacturers warn their products are not designed to be used on children younger than 16.6 However, when a 12-year-old went undercover to test if salons would refuse hair treatment based on warnings, just one of 17 salons told her she was too young to have the color applied. Shirley Davis, industry expert and the Hair Council’s7 representative for Wales, U.K., viewed the results of the secret filming, saying:8

"I am absolutely appalled, they should've all said I'm sorry you're not 16, we can't do it and sent her away. Everyone within the industry is trying to professionalize it and we have salons that are actually contemplating coloring a young person's hair. If they did something with this young girl and she had an anaphylactic shock she could die — that's how serious it is. You have to patch test over-16 and under 16 it's a no-no."

People have been using hair dye to change their look for centuries. The synthetic dye process has been used for decades and continues to remain in practice. When you apply a synthetic-based hair dye, you first combine two chemicals that are not colored, in order to produce a chemical reaction that colors your hair.9

Early in development, hydrogen peroxide was used as a bleaching agent to extinguish your natural color and force a reaction between paraphenylenediamine (PPD) molecules, the basis of many permanent hair dyes on the market today. Other methods have been proposed, but many manufacturers continue to produce hair color with either PPD or a related compound, p-aminophenol.10

One of the issues with how dyes work is in the oxidative stress they place on your hair follicles and skin. The color molecules created in a chemical reaction become electron scavengers as they produce brown coloring. The need for electrons can’t be completely filled by the chemicals so the reaction pulls electrons from your skin. This is the basis for allergic reactions and potential DNA damage.11

David Lewis, Ph.D., emeritus professor at the University of Leeds in the U.K., acted as a consultant for cosmetic companies for years until his discomfort in using the same oxidative formula in hair dye triggered the launch of a company aimed at developing safer consumer products.

Lewis worries the beauty industry has too much power over the safety of consumer products and commented on the process that continues to be used in hair dye, saying,12 “Now, I know a lot about dyes and dye stuffs in the textile industry. We would never dream of using this on textiles. Primitive, archaic, all these things come to mind. Why do they persist on putting it on human heads?”

Progressive Sensitization Increases Your Risk of Injury and Illness

After researchers found women who used permanent hair dye once a month were at a much higher risk of developing bladder cancer,13the European Union (EU) took notice and recommended a reassessment of the safety regulations of distributed hair dye. During the past decade, the Science Committee on Consumer Products (SCCP), a commission mandated by the European Commission to evaluate the safety of consumer products, has evaluated a number of hair dye ingredients.14

Their results show sensitivity to the product ingredients is becoming more prevalent. The EU categorized 27 ingredients as those that are more likely to produce sensitive reactions in users. Initially these chemicals may not produce a reaction, but over time you have a higher risk of suffering skin reactions, even anaphylactic shock leading to death.15

The SCCP evaluation also led to the ban of 22 chemicals used in hair dye in the EU, with more expected in the coming years. Operating differently from the FDA, which bans chemicals only after reports of illness, damage or disease, the European Commission bans chemicals when there is any doubt of safety. In 2006, Gunter Verheugen was the European Union Commission vice-president.

He made a statement in a press release regarding the banning of those 22 chemicals, saying,16 “Substances for which there is no proof that they are safe will disappear from the market. Our high safety standards do not only protect EU consumers, they also give legal certainty to European cosmetics industry.”

Hair Dye May Raise Risk of Breast Cancer and More

Bladder cancer and hypersensitive reactions to the chemicals in hair dye are only two of the reactions women may suffer when using synthetic hair dye. A study at Rutgers University evaluated the use of hair dye in nearly 4,300 African-American and Caucasian women, both with and without a diagnosis of breast cancer.17 The researchers were particularly interested in hair straighteners, dye and conditioners containing placenta or cholesterol.

They discovered African-American women who used dark brown or black hair dyes had a 51 percent increased risk of developing breast cancer and a 72 percent increased risk of developing estrogen receptor positive breast cancer.18 Among Caucasian women, chemical relaxers and straighteners were associated with a 74 percent increased risk of breast cancer. This study demonstrated a link between darker colored hair dye and breast cancer.

However, the National Cancer Institute already states there are over 5,000 known chemicals in hair dyes, some of which are in fact known carcinogens.19 An estimated one-third of women over the age of 18 are using hair dye, exposing themselves and their families to the chemicals in these dyes. Epidemiologist Tamarra James-Todd, Ph.D., a professor at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, who was not involved in the study, told Reuters:20

“I would be concerned about darker hair dye and hair straighteners. We should really think about using things in moderation and really try to think about being more natural. Just because something is on the market does not necessarily mean it’s safe for us.”

This study included the largest population of African-American women examining breast cancer risk and dark hair dye. The research team wrote of about previous studies that had shown an association between long-term use of dark hair dye and a fourfold increased risk of fatal Non-Hodgkin lymphoma and fatal multiple myeloma, as well as bladder cancer.21,22

Get the Lead Out

Women and pets are not the only groups who experience problems with hair dye. Many men may be inadvertently exposing themselves to dangerous lead levels when they use hair dye with lead acetate, used in products designed to gradually reduce the appearance of gray hair.23 Several consumer groups, including the Environmental Working Group (EWG), Earthjustice, Chicago School of Law, Breast Cancer Fund and the Environmental Defense Fund have filed a petition with the FDA requesting a ban on lead acetate.24

Prolonged exposure to lead may lead to brain damage, neurotoxicity and nerve damage. While the FDA approved the use of lead acetate in 1980,25 the chemical has been banned in the EU and Canada for almost a decade.

Results of studies assessing the safety of lead acetate done by American and Canadian researchers are vastly different. While the U.S. study found “no significant increase in blood levels of lead” in the trial subjects, and that “the lead was not shown to be absorbed into the body through such use,” Health Canada stated:

“The results showed that relatively small incremental exposures, such as those which would occur with regular use of hair dyes containing lead acetate, could result in the accumulation of potentially harmful body burdens of lead.”

Personal Care Products Hazardous to Your Health

Although many studies have demonstrated risks associated with using personal care products, from deodorant to body lotions, the Personal Care Products Council, an industry trade group, continues to counter these studies with statements such as:26

"Those who use cosmetics and personal care products can feel confident that they are protected by a combination of strong federal safety regulations enacted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the science-based safety assessments from the companies that manufacture these products.”

Unfortunately, there are no strong federal safety regulations and many independent science-based safety assessments do not concur with industry-funded studies. To discover more about the personal care products you use in your home, search the EWG Skin Deep Database.27 You can also find more information in my previous article, “Dangerous Cosmetics Causing Major Harm to Skin.”

Health Threats to Salon Workers Even Greater

A study published in the International Journal of Epidemiology, researchers found hairdressers had a higher than average risk of cancer than the general population for lung, larynx and bladder cancers and multiple myeloma.28

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization (WHO), concurs that hairdressers and barbers work in conditions that are potentially carcinogenic.29 Individuals working in nail salons may suffer some of the same health conditions, including dizziness, cancer, headaches and asthma.30

Reports of adverse health conditions in salon workers have included reproductive problems, skin conditions and dermatitis.31 Salon workers absorb many of the toxic chemicals through their skin, or inhale fumes from hair dyes, hair sprays and other products into their lungs.

In their report, “Beauty and It’s Beast,”32 Women’s Voices of the Earth detailed some of the issues and challenges faced by salon workers, including exposure to acetone, toluene, ammonia and methyl methacrylate in hair dyes and bleaches, permanent wave solutions and acrylic nail products.

The report documented an increased risk of delivering low-birth weight babies, suffering miscarriages or delivering children with cleft palates and other birth defects. Cosmetologists also experience a higher risk of depression compared to other jobs and have a greater risk of Alzheimer’s disease, pre-senile dementia and motor neuron disease, compared to people working in other job positions.33

Natural Hair Health and Coloring

You don’t have to use synthetic conditioners, shampoos, sprays or dyes as one of the best products may already be in your kitchen cabinet. Coconut oil is not only beneficial to your health and beauty when taken internally, it can also be used topically on your skin and hair. Discover how to use it to detangle your hair, as a deep conditioner and even as a base for natural hair dye in my previous article, “How to Use Coconut Oil For Hair Health.”

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2018/02/14/human-hair-dye-can-kill-animals.aspx

Toxic Cookware Chemicals Have Polluted Drinking Water for Millions

According to a recent Harvard study, 16.5 million Americans have detectable levels of at least one kind of polyfluoroalkyl or perfluoroalkyl chemical (PFASs) in their drinking water.

August 24, 2016 

Story at-a-glance

• PFASs — used to create non-stick, stain-resistant and water-repellant surfaces — are toxic and highly persistent, both in your body and in the environment and likely affecting your health
• 16.5 million Americans have detectable levels of at least one kind of polyfluoroalkyl or perfluoroalkyl chemical (PFASs) in their drinking water
• PFOA was an essential ingredient in DuPont’s Teflon cookware for decades. It’s also used in hundreds of other non-stick and stain-resistant products

By Dr. Mercola

According to a recent Harvard study, 16.5 million Americans have detectable levels of at least one kind of polyfluoroalkyl or perfluoroalkyl chemical (PFASs) in their drinking water. About 6 million Americans are drinking water that contains PFAS at or above the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) safety level.1,2,3,4

These industrial chemicals have been linked to a number of health problems, from obesity and hormonal problems to impaired immune function5 and cancer, and the study's authors warn that PFASs may contribute to illness even below the EPA's safety level. Co-author Dr. Philippe Grandjean told the Charleston Gazette-Mail:6

"The EPA advisory limit ... is much too high to protect us against toxic effects on the immune system. And the available water data only reveals the tip of the iceberg of contaminated drinking water."

Recent research even suggests PFAS exposure may reduce effectiveness of vaccines in children by interfering with their immune function.7

PFASs Have Become Ubiquitous in the Environment

PFASs are used in many industrial applications calling for non-stick or slick surfaces, such as food packaging, stain- and water-resistant fabrics, non-stick cookware and firefighting foam. As reported by CNN:8

"As a result of their ubiquity, the chemicals migrate into air, household dust, food, soil and ground and surface water, and they eventually make their way into drinking water.

The problem with PFASs is that they remain in your body for a long time. Though other chemicals can be excreted within hours, it takes about 3.5 years for your body to get rid of just half of whatever amount you ingest …"

Do You Have Unsafe PFAS Levels in Your Drinking Water?

While toxic water supplies were found in 33 states, 75 percent of the samples with elevated PFAS came from 13 states: California, New Jersey, North Carolina, Alabama, Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, New York, Georgia, Minnesota, Arizona, Massachusetts and Illinois.

Not surprisingly, the highest concentration levels of PFAS were found in watersheds near industrial sites, military fire training areas and wastewater treatment plants. Private wells were also found to be contaminated. According to the authors:

"Among samples with detectable PFAS levels, each additional military site within a watershed's eight-digit hydrologic unit is associated with a 20 [percent] increase in PFHxS, a 10 [percent] increase in both PFHpA and PFOA, and a 35 [percent] increase in PFOS.

The number of civilian airports with personnel trained in the use of aqueous film-forming foams is significantly associated with the detection of PFASs above the minimal reporting level."

Many Americans Face Health Risks From Water Contaminants

As reported by CNN,9 more than 18 million Americans also receive drinking water from water treatment facilities that have violated federal drinking water rules for lead. And, in 9 out of 10 cases, the EPA has taken no enforcement action against the violators.

Disturbingly, many water treatment facilities are actually using incorrect testing methods to avoid detecting high levels of lead, which means the number of Americans drinking lead-contaminated water is likely even higher than that.

An estimated 16 million also have perchlorate — a chemical used in explosives and rocket fuel — in their drinking water.10

Just how severe water contamination may be remains an open question, as the Safe Drinking Water Act only regulates 91 contaminants. Meanwhile, more than 80,000 chemicals are used in the U.S.11 There's really no telling how many of these chemicals, and in what amounts, end up in our drinking water.

Teflon Chemical Is Harmful at Minute Doses

One PFASs, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA, also known as C8), has been revealed to be far more dangerous than previously thought. For 50 years, DuPont used PFOA to make Teflon. Throughout that time, the company defended the safety of PFOA.

Despite the overwhelming evidence of harm, DuPont still to this day resists accountability for health problems resulting from PFOA exposure. However, the truth has finally become too obvious to ignore.

Last year, The Intercept blew the case open when it published a three-part exposé12titled "The Teflon Toxin: DuPont and the Chemistry of Deception," detailing DuPont's history of covering up the facts.

Earlier this year, The New York Times also published an in-depth exposé13 on the legal battle fought against DuPont for the past 15 years over PFOA contamination and its toxic effects.

According to a 2015 report14 by the Environmental Working Group (EWG), the EPA's "safe" level of PFOA in drinking water is likely hundreds, perhaps even thousands, of times too high for safety:

"[T]wo leading environmental health scientists have published research with alarming implications … Their research finds that even very tiny concentrations of PFOA — below the reporting limit required by EPA's tests of public water supplies — are harmful …

Since 2013, an EPA testing program has found PFOA in 94 public water systems in 27 states. These systems provide drinking water to more than 6.5 million people.

... [A]mong the samples with PFOA, statewide average levels ranged between five times and 175 times the level described by the new research as safe."

Safety Level for PFAS Lowered, but May Still Not Be Low Enough

As a sign of progress, the EPA lowered the safety level for PFOA and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) from 0.4 parts per billion (ppb) to .07 ppb in May, 201615 (including a maximum combined level of .07 ppb if both chemicals are present).

The new standard takes into account lifetime exposure that would occur from drinking contaminated water.

Unfortunately, EPA data shows that water systems in 18 states are contaminated with PFOA and/or PFOS above the new federal threshold. Besides, even the new threshold may not be low enough to protect public health. According to the EWG, the safety level really should be 0.0003 ppb.

DuPont Faces Increasingly Serious Fallout From Its Teflon Products

PFOA is now the subject of about 3,500 personal injury claims against DuPont, four of which have already gone to court. One woman who developed kidney cancer after drinking PFOA-contaminated water was awarded $1.6 million in damages.16,17

These legal processes have uncovered internal documents showing DuPont was fully aware of the chemical's danger to the public and employees, yet continued using it while hiding contamination problems.

In 2002, the EPA announced PFOA may pose a health risk to the general public both via contaminated water and Teflon cookware. DuPont's own research shows that when its non-stick cookware is heated it breaks down to 15 toxic gases and particles, mostly fluorine-based.18,19

Three years later, in 2005, the EPA fined DuPont $16.5 million for violating the Toxic Substances Control Act by withholding decades' worth of information about health hazards associated with PFOA.

That same year, a panel of scientists was convened to determine PFOA's effect on human health. After seven years of research, the results of which are detailed in more than three dozen peer-reviewed papers, the C8 Science Panel linked PFOA to:20

• Ulcerative colitis
• High cholesterol
• Pregnancy-induced hypertension
• Thyroid disease
• Testicular and kidney cancer

Its health effects were deemed to be widespread and occurred even at very low exposure levels. Now, residents of Hoosick Falls, New York — where a string of rare cancer deaths, thyroid disease and other health problems have occurred — are suing PFOA manufacturers for contaminating their local water supply.21

Hundreds of Scientists Issue Warning Over PFASs

It's quite clear that the chemical industry cannot be trusted to regulate itself, and DuPont stands as a shining example of this. It can take decades before a dangerous chemical is recognized as such, and then the company can simply switch over to another untested, unregulated chemical, and the whack-a-mole game continues — all because chemicals do not have to be proven safe BEFORE they're used.

In May 2015, more than 200 scientists from 40 countries signed the so-called Madrid Statement,22,23 which warns about the harms of all PFAS chemicals, both old and new. Documented health effects associated with the older, long-chain PFASs, including the following:24

Liver toxicity	Disruption of lipid metabolism, and the immune and endocrine systems
Adverse neurobehavioral effects	Neonatal toxicity and death
Tumors in multiple organ systems	Testicular and kidney cancers
Liver malfunction	Hypothyroidism
High cholesterol	Ulcerative colitis
Reduced birth weight and size	Obesity
Decreased immune response to vaccines	Reduced hormone levels and delayed puberty

The Statement also points out the problem with replacing PFASs known to be harmful with other similar, but less scientifically evaluated, compounds, saying:

• "Although some of the long-chain PFASs are being regulated or phased out, the most common replacements are short-chain PFASs with similar structures, or compounds with fluorinated segments joined by ether linkages.

• While some shorter-chain fluorinated alternatives seem to be less bioaccumulative, they are still as environmentally persistent as long-chain substances or have persistent degradation products. Thus, a switch to short-chain and other fluorinated alternatives may not reduce the amounts of PFASs in the environment. In addition, because some of the shorter-chain PFASs are less effective, larger quantities may be needed to provide the same performance."

How to Avoid PFASs

According to the 1976 Toxic Sub­stances Control Act, the EPA can only test chemicals AFTER it has obtained evidence of harm. This arrangement is a prescription for disaster because it basically allows chemical companies to regulate themselves, and this is largely the reason why the EPA has restricted only five chemicals in the last four decades.

The Madrid Statement recommends avoiding any and all products containing, or manufactured using, PFASs, noting they include products that are stain-resistant, waterproof or non-stick. More helpful tips can be found in the EWG's "Guide to Avoiding PFCS."25Other suggestions that will help you avoid these dangerous chemicals include avoiding:

Items that have been pre-treated with stain-repellants, and opt out of such treatments when buying new furniture and carpets

Water- and/or stain-repellant clothing. One tipoff is when an item made with artificial fibers is described as "breathable." These are typically treated with polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), a synthetic fluoropolymer

Items treated with flame retardant chemicals,26 which includes a wide variety of baby items, padded furniture, mattresses and pillows. Instead, opt for naturally less flammable materials such as leather, wool and cotton

Fast food and carry out foods, as the wrappers are typically treated with PFCs

Microwave popcorn. PFOA may not only present in the inner coating of the bag, it also may migrate to the oil from the packaging during heating. Instead, use "old-fashioned" stovetop popcorn

Non-stick cookware and other treated kitchen utensils. Healthier options include ceramic and enameled cast iron cookware, both of which are durable, easy to clean and completely inert, which means they won't release any harmful chemicals into your home. A newer type of non-stick cookware called Duralon uses a nonfluoridated nylon polymer for its non-stick coating. While this appears to be safe, your safest bet is still ceramic and enameled cast iron. While some recommend using aluminum, stainless steel and copper cookware, I don't for the following reasons: aluminum is a strongly suspected causal factor in Alzheimer's disease, and stainless steel has alloys containing nickel, chromium, molybdenum and carbon. For those with nickel allergies, this may be a particularly important consideration. Copper cookware is also not recommended because most copper pans come lined with other metals, creating the same concerns noted above. (Copper cookware must be lined due to the possibility of copper poisoning.)

Oral-B Glide floss and any other personal care products containing PTFE or "fluoro" or "perfluoro" ingredients. The EWG has an excellent database called Skin Deep27 you can peruse to find healthier options

At-Home Water Filtration Is a Must for Clean Pure Water

Unfortunately, your choices are limited when it comes to avoiding PFASs in drinking water. Either you must filter your water or obtain water from a clean source. Both solutions can be problematic and/or costly.

While many opt for bottled water, it's important to realize that PFASs are not regulated in bottled water, so there's absolutely no guarantee that it'll be free of these or other chemicals. Bottled water also increases your risk of exposure to hazardous plastic chemicals such as bisphenol-A (BPA), which has its own set of health risks.

Most common water filters available in supermarkets will not remove PFASs. You really need a high-quality carbon filtration system. To be certain you're getting the purest water you can, filter the water both at the point of entry and at the point of use. This means filtering all the water that comes into the house, and then filtering again at the kitchen sink and shower.

The New Jersey Drinking Water Quality Institute recommends using granulated activated carbon "or an equally efficient technology" to remove PFC chemicals such as PFOA and PFOS from your drinking water.28 Activated carbon has been shown to remove up to 90 percent of these chemicals.

One of the best filtration systems I've found so far is the Pure & Clear Whole House Water Filtration System, which uses a three-stage filtration process — a micron sediment pre-filter, a KDF water filter, and a high-grade carbon water filter.29

If you have been regularly exposed to PFASs by drinking municipal water, it would be wise to not only implement the above filtering recommendations to limit future toxic exposures but also consider a detox program. The likely most effective form would be to use infrared sauna with niacin as discussed in my interview with Dr. George Yu.

I personally do a version of this program three times a week in one of our infrared saunas — not only for PFASs but for all the other, nearly unavoidable exposures from living in contemporary society.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2016/08/24/drinking-water-pfas-level.aspx