Code of Conduct
Results 1 to 47 of 47
  1. #1

    Question Dangerous scents.......?

    Some scents (in fact many....)contents chemical poison.I was reading on a Greenpeace website and they named some populair brands using wrong chemical ingredients.I was shocked because they named some
    scents wiich I used a lot last years.As an example they named the products from Mugler absolute safe.
    Eternity for instance is made with very wrong stuff.What's your opinion about this sort of information?Because many of us are heavy users its something too think about I guess......

  2. #2

    Default Re: Dangerous scents.......?

    Pure rubbish IMO!


    Dan
    "We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force." Ayn Rand...

    "The essence of fascism is to make laws forbidding everything and then enforce them selectively against your enemies."

    Daily Wardrobe


  3. #3

    Default Re: Dangerous scents.......?

    Ridiculous protectionist rubbish from increasingly nanny-states.

    There's someone allergic to practically any chemical (natural OR synthetic).

    On a totally different note, I have similar problems with governments prescribing what we can and can't put into our mouths (barring addictive substances that circumvent rationality).

  4. #4

    Default Re: Dangerous scents.......?

    Hahahaha! The fools will never know that they're actually hurting themselves when they spray on Angel! Hahahaha! Ignore that rash, it won't go away!
    - Rich
    As always, disregard most of what I say. It's not worth your heart health to actually worry about what a 23 year old guy from Kansas thinks. Even if he is really ridiculously good looking.

  5. #5

    Default Re: Dangerous scents.......?

    I find it fascinating that people would reject useful information. Thanks for the tip, sniff.

  6. #6

    Default Re: Dangerous scents.......?

    Typical Greenpeace politically correct "info".

  7. #7

    Default Re: Dangerous scents.......?

    I know plenty of people who are allergic to many ingredients in "natural" perfumes, including orange and patchouli. I just want to smell good. If Serge Luten is going to kill me, bring it on! What a way to go!LOL!

  8. #8

    Default Re: Dangerous scents.......?

    Quote Originally Posted by MikeFromManhattan View Post
    Typical Greenpeace politically correct "info".
    exactly...you cant believe everything you read. Especially from this organization.

  9. #9

    Default Re: Dangerous scents.......?

    There's always a risk when putting something on, or in, one's body. Just a few that come to mind:
    • Drugs (prescription or over-the-counter)
    • Natural supplements
    • Preservatives
    • Antibiotics
    • Alcoholic beverages
    • Food
    • Water
    • Air
    It's the level of risk that's important, which is based on more than just the ingredient list, imo.

    At least I don't ride my motorcyle without a helmet. Now THAT's crazy!
    Everyone is entitled to his own opinions, but not his own facts. Daniel Moynihan

  10. #10

    Default Re: Dangerous scents.......?

    cow farts are also killing polar bears

  11. #11

    Default Re: Dangerous scents.......?

    Quote Originally Posted by jdnba View Post
    cow farts are also killing polar bears
    Now that's funny!

    Great avatar Ms Lookingglass! And Welcome to BN from someone else "In the South".


    Dan
    "We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force." Ayn Rand...

    "The essence of fascism is to make laws forbidding everything and then enforce them selectively against your enemies."

    Daily Wardrobe


  12. #12

    Default Re: Dangerous scents.......?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lightninrod View Post
    Now that's funny!

    Great avatar Ms Lookingglass! And Welcome to BN from someone else "In the South".


    Dan
    ha ha glad someone caught that one!

  13. #13

    Default Re: Dangerous scents.......?

    This is almost like the Blue State Scents vs. Red State Scents. If something is a known carcinogen and it is an ingredient in something that I may be using on a daily basis, I'm glad to know. What I choose to do with that information is my business, but I have to say that I am grateful for that information. Women used to swallow arsenic in order to have a paler complexion. I guess some people out there think they should still be doing this. To each, his own.

  14. #14

    Default Re: Dangerous scents.......?

    I think it's entirely plausible and very likely that many cologne ingredients are bad for your
    health. But we spray on the skin (and not in our mouths...I hope), there's probably very little
    if any absorption, and if there is, it's in the very top skin layers. Plus, we use relatively little and most of it evaporates.
    Breathing city air is probably worse for you than using scents.
    Last edited by LiveJazz; 11th December 2007 at 01:14 AM.
    "It's not what you look like when you're doing what you're doing; it's what you're doing when you're doing what you look like you're doing."

  15. #15

    Default Re: Dangerous scents.......?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ruggles View Post
    This is almost like the Blue State Scents vs. Red State Scents. If something is a known carcinogen and it is an ingredient in something that I may be using on a daily basis, I'm glad to know. What I choose to do with that information is my business, but I have to say that I am grateful for that information. Women used to swallow arsenic in order to have a paler complexion. I guess some people out there think they should still be doing this. To each, his own.
    Agreed - information is good. As long as it's unbiased and correct.

    Sniff: any chance of providing us with a link to the Greenpeace website article? I'm curious to know which fragrances they consider risky.

    I'm a blue scent guy living in a red scent state...
    Last edited by Snafoo; 11th December 2007 at 01:43 AM.
    Everyone is entitled to his own opinions, but not his own facts. Daniel Moynihan

  16. #16

    Default Re: Dangerous scents.......?

    This isn't so much about allergies, it's about neurotoxicity and carcinogenicity. Natural oils used in perfumery can cause allergic reactions in some people. But the ones commonly used are not neurotoxic, unlike some isolated chemical components used in fragrances.

    Many mainstream fragrances do contain isolated chemicals that could be neurotoxic when inhaled. We live in a chemical age and most of these chemicals have no legitimate, established safety information available, or any studies that have been done on them.

    It makes sense to be open to this kind of information and not blindly discount it.

    Personally, most mainstream fragrances make me gag or give me a headache if I smell them for too long, but niche brand fragrances don't. That alone tells me something about the quality of ingredients used.
    Last edited by Maxwell; 11th December 2007 at 02:58 AM.

  17. #17

    Default Re: Dangerous scents.......?

    I find that my sinuses are affected negatively while wearing fragrances. Some of them make my eye twitch or other muscles in my face contract slightly - a classic allergic response. And while I do enjoy them, I can't help but think that I'm subjecting myself to far more 'air pollution' than even big city smog. It's something like 95% of the chemicals used in the mainstream fragrance industry are derived from petroleum.

    If I'm honest with myself, although I feel some emotional enjoyment from wearing my scents, I tend to feel worse physically. I'm going to look into making my own with essential oils. Yes, I know they can be dangerous too, but at least they are full, naturally occurring compounds and not isolated petrochemicals.

  18. #18

    Default Re: Dangerous scents.......?

    [QUOTE= find that my sinuses are affected negatively while wearing fragrances. Some of them make my eye twitch or other muscles in my face contract slightly - a classic allergic response. .....
    If I'm honest with myself, although I feel some emotional enjoyment from wearing my scents, I tend to feel worse physically. I'm going to look into making my own with essential oils......
    Personally, most mainstream fragrances make me gag or give me a headache if I smell them for too long, but niche brand fragrances don't. That alone tells me something about the quality of ingredients used.....
    QUOTE]
    I wish more of these observations could come forth for the good of everyone. The problem is that most of the perfume does not evaporates, it passes through the skin and into the bood stream and some very big and very stable molecules accumulate in the natural filters ( liver, kidneys, brain ecc..).
    It is enough for everyone to observe that there is not a single chemichal medicine that does not have a full page of side effects listed while the natural plants we eat have about none.
    Not only through our nose these aromachemical reach the core of our nentral nervous system to unsettle it and sometimes disrupt it, but by this road they also reach and affect our endocrine system and can cause grave psychologic problems.
    I also strongly suspect some of these molecules used in mainstreem perfumes to (purposely?) have the capacity to confuse people about their own sexual identity.

    AbdesSalaam Attar

  19. #19

    Default Re: Dangerous scents.......?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lightninrod View Post
    Pure rubbish IMO!


    Dan
    +1...I wouldn't take Greenpeace too seriously, i mean, some of these people are just crazy fanatics.

    Everything under the sun can be dangerous to someone in a right dose.
    So does that mean we have to ban everything too?

  20. #20

    Default Re: Dangerous scents.......?

    Quote Originally Posted by Profumo View Post
    ..I also strongly suspect some of these molecules used in mainstreem perfumes to (purposely?) have the capacity to confuse people about their own sexual identity.

    AbdesSalaam Attar
    Huh?? I'm not a psychologist or sociologist, but I believe there are many factors that can cause one to question their sexual identity, but I doubt that odor is one of them.
    Everyone is entitled to his own opinions, but not his own facts. Daniel Moynihan

  21. #21

    Default Re: Dangerous scents.......?

    Quote Originally Posted by SculptureOfSoul View Post
    I find that my sinuses are affected negatively while wearing fragrances. Some of them make my eye twitch or other muscles in my face contract slightly - a classic allergic response. And while I do enjoy them, I can't help but think that I'm subjecting myself to far more 'air pollution' than even big city smog. It's something like 95% of the chemicals used in the mainstream fragrance industry are derived from petroleum.

    If I'm honest with myself, although I feel some emotional enjoyment from wearing my scents, I tend to feel worse physically. I'm going to look into making my own with essential oils. Yes, I know they can be dangerous too, but at least they are full, naturally occurring compounds and not isolated petrochemicals.
    I feel this way too with most mainstream fragrances. I get the same kind of eye/face muscle twitches. I actually got into niche fragrances because of that (not because I'm a fragrance snob). Most niche brands just seem to use better ingredients and they don't cause negative reactions for me.

  22. #22

    Default Re: Dangerous scents.......?

    Another group is going after A*Men.

    This has been a fairly active thread in the Fragrance Industry Discussion forum:

    http://community.basenotes.net/showthread.php?t=201114
    Two roads diverged in a yellow wood, and sorry I could not travel both and be one traveler, long I stood and looked down one as far as I could to where it bent in the undergrowth; Then took the other, as just as fair, ...... I shall be telling this with a sigh somewhere ages and ages hence: Two roads diverged in a wood, and I -- I took the one less traveled by, and that has made all the difference. - Robert Frost

  23. #23
    Dependent pluran's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    7,005

    Default Re: Dangerous scents.......?

    The Aspartame from one Diet Coke probably has significantly more negative impact than a year's worth of using the average perfume.

  24. #24

    Default Re: Dangerous scents.......?

    http://www.greenpeaceweb.org/lichaam.../parfumgpi.pdf

    Its just something I discovered on the web, so now you can read it for yourself.

    This report is not brand new, so its possible many brands removed the bad ingedients;
    we will never know everything,thats for sure!

  25. #25

    Default Re: Dangerous scents.......?

    Quote Originally Posted by Maxwell View Post
    I feel this way too with most mainstream fragrances. I get the same kind of eye/face muscle twitches. I actually got into niche fragrances because of that (not because I'm a fragrance snob). Most niche brands just seem to use better ingredients and they don't cause negative reactions for me.
    It kind of frightens me, actually. And yet I am addicted to scent, and don't want to give it up. I guess I'll have to look into trying out some niche brands. I don't have a girlfriend or anyone to answer to financially, but if I did, at least I'd have a good excuse for spending so much on juice. :P

    Actually, I really want to start making my own all natural blends, too. I'm creative by nature and would love to wear something I designed myself - not only for the uniqueness and ego gratification, but because using the right essential oils I could not only smell good but feel good, too. If only mainstream fragrances could be both emotionally and physiologically uplifting. But I understand the market, and I understand why that will never happen.

    I enjoy scent like we all do here, but I'm really quite surprised that everyone is turning a blind eye to this. The industry is self regulated. The products are not tested or screened by the FDA here in the States, or as far as I'm aware, any other governmental agency in any country. Fragrances were found to still be using banned chemicals such as polycyclic musks years after they were banned. Nobody knew until finally a few scents were more closely examined. Chemicals once thought safe, or perhaps there was no consideration for the safety of the consumers, are now banned as they are deemed too dangerous. Who's to say that some chemicals they are using now don't also fit that criteria?

  26. #26

    Default Re: Dangerous scents.......?

    Thanks for the article sniff.

    I'm really surprised at how so many people are just making fun of the whole idea that fragrance ingredients can be dangerous without even reading about it. Plenty of chemicals in household items, foods, and pharmaceuticals are found to be dangerous and removed from the markets on a regluar basis, while controversies rage on about other items, which some respectable scientists claim are dangerous, but the government refuses to take any action on.

    It's one thing to be allergic to certain natural essences, but some chemicals are such that the body cannot process them, and they can be carcinogenic or have other serious effects. Nombre Noir contains some chemicals that were populat in the 70's and 80's but have since been banned. Governments today are so utterly corrupt and well trained by the business lobbies who keep them in office, that we can't expect them to regulate these things effectively, so unfortunately it's up to us to read about these things and decide for ourselves.

    Some people are alarmist and have unsubstatiated views and I haven't yet read the Greenpeace aticle, but making jokes about it and assuming it's all just silly is ridicuous and more than anything in my opinion a sign that because we live in a culture where we don't have any say over public policy and we don't have information sources that we feel we can really trust, alot of us would rather just pretend there are no dangers rather than have to think about the posibility that alot of things in our environment that we love may be dangerous, and we don't have the knowledge or resources to find out about it or do anything about it.
    --------------------------------------
    I'm reading the leaflet right now, and it's very reasonable. They don't make claims they can't back up, and they don't pretend to know 100% for sure about many compounds, they just point out that there is evidence that makes certain common frarance ingredients seem like they may well be dangerous, and they're just letting us know so that we can chose what to do in terms of consumption choices and in terms of pushing government to actually give a shit about public safety.

    It's fine to say you don't want to hassle yourself worrying about all this, and that you'll accept the risk, but if you just make a joke about it, think about what that says. You're just copping out of having to make any choices at all.
    Last edited by GAIVS IVLIVS CAESAR; 12th December 2007 at 02:14 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
    CAESAR SEEKS:
    Parfums d'Empire: Fougére Bengale

    CAESAR SWAPS/SELLS:
    Sa Majesté La Rose



  27. #27

    Default Re: Dangerous scents.......?

    Ambient perfumes are even worst, read the Beuc (Bureau européen des unions de consommateurs) document: http://www.profumo.it/aromaterapia/veleni_profumati.htm
    Sorry that it is in Italian only
    AbdesSalaam Attar
    profumo.it

  28. #28

    Default Re: Dangerous scents.......?

    I live in a risk-free bubble and I will sue the pants off of anyone who ruptures it!

    Now, where's that bottle...
    Last edited by Griff; 12th December 2007 at 06:22 PM.

  29. #29

    Default Re: Dangerous scents.......?

    What do you mean? It's not about living in a risk free bubble, it's just about being aware of the risks. If you believe in personal responsibility you would hope people have access to information on which to base their choices.

    Personally, I think that government should pay more attention to things like this so that I don't feel like I have to read a mountain of scientific arguments every time I buy something.
    CAESAR SEEKS:
    Parfums d'Empire: Fougére Bengale

    CAESAR SWAPS/SELLS:
    Sa Majesté La Rose



  30. #30

    Default Re: Dangerous scents.......?

    Quote Originally Posted by Snafoo View Post
    Huh?? I'm not a psychologist or sociologist, but I believe there are many factors that can cause one to question their sexual identity, but I doubt that odor is one of them.
    Dear Snafoo ciao, aromatic molecules have the structure of hormones, and pheromones are aromatic molecules. These last ones control the reproduction process of all living organisms.
    Studies have been done about the toxicity of polyciclic musks, but none has been done on them and on similar pheromonelike molecules regarding their effects on the central nervous system and on the hormonal system.
    Odors do not just enter our system through the skin (as hormonelike molecules) but affect our hormonal system through our sense of smell (pheromonelike molecules).
    If interested to understand the power of pheromone in the sexual life of human beings read:
    http://www.profumo.it/perfume/pherom...pheromones.asp
    AbdesSalaam Attar
    Last edited by Profumo; 12th December 2007 at 06:32 PM.

  31. #31

    Default Re: Dangerous scents.......?

    Quote Originally Posted by GAIVS IVLIVS CAESAR View Post
    What do you mean? It's not about living in a risk free bubble, it's just about being aware of the risks. If you believe in personal responsibility you would hope people have access to information on which to base their choices.

    Personally, I think that government should pay more attention to things like this so that I don't feel like I have to read a mountain of scientific arguments every time I buy something.
    Unfortunately, the truth of the matter is, governments do not protect you, like all institutions, be they religious or financial, they are there to control you. However, consumer advocate groups are a positive force. You can thank them for the mandatory inclusion of airbags in your cars.
    Last edited by Kevin Guyer; 12th December 2007 at 07:43 PM.

  32. #32

    Default Re: Dangerous scents.......?

    Quote Originally Posted by GAIVS IVLIVS CAESAR View Post
    What do you mean? It's not about living in a risk free bubble, it's just about being aware of the risks. If you believe in personal responsibility you would hope people have access to information on which to base their choices.

    Personally, I think that government should pay more attention to things like this so that I don't feel like I have to read a mountain of scientific arguments every time I buy something.
    Don't get me wrong. I am all for access to information, especially accurate information based on real science so that one can accurately assess the risk inherent in the use a specific product. However, I don't count Greenpeace as an authentic scientific source of verifiable information.

    Singling out fragrance is a bit disingenuous given the constant daily chemical bombardment that is the reality of our 21st century wonderland.

    I have actually read as much of of the available information (accurate and inaccurate) about the possible risks involved in using fragrance and here is my choice:

    On my list of "things that contribute to my daily risk quota", I put scents somewhere below rattlesnake bite or lightning strike and given my advancing years, I choose not to obsess over unprovable risk factors (Once you start, where does it end? I have seen some of my friends become stressed out wrecks scanning every product label hunting out possible harmful ingredients).

    So, I will continue to search out and use fragrances that appeal to me. If anyone wants to unload most of their wardrobe on the basis of Greenpeace's (or anyone else's) science, then by all means, knock yourself out (and list them for sale here and on... well, you know where). Your loss is our gain!

    And if I was totally wrong and some fragrances that I enjoy result in some horrible disease and my untimely demise, you can dance on my fabulous-scented grave. But don't dance too hard! You could trip, fall, break a hip and end up in the hospital from where you may never return.
    Last edited by Griff; 12th December 2007 at 07:32 PM.

  33. #33

    Default Re: Dangerous scents.......?

    Thank you for posting that interesting contribution.

    There is too much politics in this thread for my liking. Please stop before I start.

    (If the guys with their fingers in their ears singing "LA LA LA LA" and doing that inane dance wouldn't mind doing it outside so that the rest of us can hear ourselves think, we might actually be able to come to some sensible conclusions.....)
    "Don’t try to be original. Be simple. Be good technically, and if there is something in you, it will come out. ” - Henri Matisse.

    "Wear R de Capucci" - Hirch Duckfinder

    reviews

  34. #34

    Default Re: Dangerous scents.......?

    Quote Originally Posted by hirch_duckfinder View Post
    Thank you for posting that interesting contribution.

    There is too much politics in this thread for my liking. Please stop before I start.

    (If the guys with their fingers in their ears singing "LA LA LA LA" and doing that inane dance wouldn't mind doing it outside so that the rest of us can hear ourselves think, we might actually be able to come to some sensible conclusions.....)
    Seconded. I admit that political issues get my heart racing and I often feel compelled to add my 2 cents worth. But I've found that 2 cents is exactly what my opinion is worth in most instances. One of the things I love most about Basenotes is the civility of the contributors. Toxicity of fragrances seems to be one topic where that civility is sorely tested.
    Everyone is entitled to his own opinions, but not his own facts. Daniel Moynihan

  35. #35

    Default Re: Dangerous scents.......?

    Quote Originally Posted by Griff View Post
    Don't get me wrong. I am all for access to information, especially accurate information based on real science so that one can accurately assess the risk inherent in the use a specific product. However, I don't count Greenpeace as an authentic scientific source of verifiable information.

    Singling out fragrance is a bit disingenuous given the constant daily chemical bombardment that is the reality of our 21st century wonderland.

    I have actually read as much of of the available information (accurate and inaccurate) about the possible risks involved in using fragrance and here is my choice:

    On my list of "things that contribute to my daily risk quota", I put scents somewhere below rattlesnake bite or lightning strike and given my advancing years, I choose not to obsess over unprovable risk factors (Once you start, where does it end? I have seen some of my friends become stressed out wrecks scanning every product label hunting out possible harmful ingredients).

    So, I will continue to search out and use fragrances that appeal to me. If anyone wants to unload most of their wardrobe on the basis of Greenpeace's (or anyone else's) science, then by all means, knock yourself out (and list them for sale here and on... well, you know where). Your loss is our gain!

    And if I was totally wrong and some fragrances that I enjoy result in some horrible disease and my untimely demise, you can dance on my fabulous-scented grave. But don't dance too hard! You could trip, fall, break a hip and end up in the hospital from where you may never return.
    I agree with this statement 100 percent
    --------------------------------------
    Quote Originally Posted by hirch_duckfinder View Post
    Thank you for posting that interesting contribution.

    There is too much politics in this thread for my liking. Please stop before I start.

    (If the guys with their fingers in their ears singing "LA LA LA LA" and doing that inane dance wouldn't mind doing it outside so that the rest of us can hear ourselves think, we might actually be able to come to some sensible conclusions.....)
    with all due respect, by mentioning the very name greenpeace, political wrath was summoned upon the whole board. I am all for freedom of speech and i do understand that this is a limited forum in that it has specific rules, but you shouldnt decide thats its too political when the naysayers throw their hat in the ring. It was political from the time the light turned "green". I also agree that my two cents are not worth much, but i enjoy this forum as a means of escape from daily drek that is spewed forth by the mainstream media...it seems no one can enjoy ANYTHING anymore without effecting something or offending someone. If the Political stamp is to be used then use it at the outset. I mean lets get real, Greenpeace says that methane from cows is one of the greatest threats to our environment, yet i would believe many of these same people are vegeterians who believe that killing cows for food is wrong....lets choose our battles more wisely from now on please. I appreciate the news that greenpeace made this statement, which doesnt surprise me in the least, but until they actually determine that cow farts, bbq grills, and cologne are destroying the environment...this is one basenoter who is going to eat his burgers at a bbq while wearing one or more of his favorite frags. Peace!
    P.S. I used a whole bottle of Eternity(one of the evil frags) over the course of a couple years and i shared it with my brothers....no health problems whatsoever!
    Last edited by jdnba; 13th December 2007 at 04:51 AM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

  36. #36

    Default Re: Dangerous scents.......?

    Quote Originally Posted by jdnba View Post
    I agree with this statement 100 percent
    --------------------------------------


    with all due respect, by mentioning the very name greenpeace, political wrath was summoned upon the whole board. I am all for freedom of speech and i do understand that this is a limited forum in that it has specific rules, but you shouldnt decide thats its too political when the naysayers throw their hat in the ring. It was political from the time the light turned "green". I also agree that my two cents are not worth much, but i enjoy this forum as a means of escape from daily drek that is spewed forth by the mainstream media...it seems no one can enjoy ANYTHING anymore without effecting something or offending someone. If the Political stamp is to be used then use it at the outset. I mean lets get real, Greenpeace says that methane from cows is one of the greatest threats to our environment, yet i would believe many of these same people are vegeterians who believe that killing cows for food is wrong....lets choose our battles more wisely from now on please. I appreciate the news that greenpeace made this statement, which doesnt surprise me in the least, but until they actually determine that cow farts, bbq grills, and cologne are destroying the environment...this is one basenoter who is going to eat his burgers at a bbq while wearing one or more of his favorite frags. Peace!
    P.S. I used a whole bottle of Eternity(one of the evil frags) over the course of a couple years and i shared it with my brothers....no health problems whatsoever!
    With all due respect the poster was simply posting the source of his article as in normal. If you have a problem with the science in that particular piece, say so and say why. If you don't like greenpeace in general, say so on the politics board. If you don't want to read about things which other people are pointing out with your welfare in mind, you don't need to read them.Now if you don't mind, I'm going back to running accross the road in front of fast cars. My mother told me it is dangerous but hey, someone is always trying to spoil my fun.
    Last edited by hirch_duckfinder; 13th December 2007 at 02:41 PM.
    "Don’t try to be original. Be simple. Be good technically, and if there is something in you, it will come out. ” - Henri Matisse.

    "Wear R de Capucci" - Hirch Duckfinder

    reviews

  37. #37

    Default Re: Dangerous scents.......?

    wow...comparing climate change with running in front of fast cars is the worst analogy i have ever heard! Its not that someone posted an article, it was the content which was overtly political in nature. If someone posted something that said republicans have decided that certain frags could not be worn for some reason people would lose their minds....lets get this straight....half of the scientific community still does not believe in carbon footprints or human caused global warming. I am sorry in advance to the moderators, but just because an organization like Greenpeace starts making recomendations based upon science that is abused by certain nobel peace prize winners(private jets, ridiculous energy bill, massive concerts which use tons of energy and oil and gas to get to it) doesnt mean i will blindly follow. Dont play in the traffic my friend because you will probably get hurt....as for global warming and frags destroying the environment, your more likely to drown from watching Waterworld than be affected by toxic frags....sorry again i dont mean to offend anyone, but this board sometimes loses sight of its goals....and by the way, i am pretty sure this thread should not have been in the male fragrance discussion if you want to gt down to brass tacks...it should be in fragrance industry or off topic. I will use one of my fathers addages..."just because your friends are jumping off the Mississippi Bridge, doesnt mean you should do it too"
    But i will be blacklisted by some because my opinion is differnt than the majority...have fun with the witchhunt!

    Joe McCarthy,
    OUT!
    Last edited by jdnba; 13th December 2007 at 03:06 PM.

  38. #38

    Default Re: Dangerous scents.......?

    Questions about the toxicity of aroma chemicals make people nervous. Rightfully so, as they have yet to be proved or disproved and that uncertainty creates stress. Who wants to get stressed out reading about fragrances anyhow? Even with massive liver and kidney failure we just want to smell good.
    Last edited by Kevin Guyer; 13th December 2007 at 04:00 PM.

  39. #39

    Default Re: Dangerous scents.......?

    Quote Originally Posted by jdnba View Post
    ...lets get this straight....half of the scientific still does not believe in carbon footprints or human caused global warming
    Whaoh, where'd you get that? Half the scientific community from where? Atlantis? I'm not kidding, do you have a link to an article that says that? Last I heard, climate scientists who are still skeptical of human caused climate change number about 4 people, and if I remember correctly all four were getting big oil funding.

    All you have to do is go outside and be older than 25 years old to notice the climate has changed alot already in the last 10-15 years. I have no idea why you're getting so upset and defensive like you're going to get witchunted as some kind of oppressed minority! Just defend your arguments, and people will respect your positions.

    Anyhow, you don't have to take the greenpeace leaflet seriously, but if you actually read it, you'll see that aside from the flashy title, it's not even particularly alarmist. It's just saying there are these classes of chemicals which are usually toxic, but whose effects on long term exposure are not well understood. It says that most of the perfumes they tested have these chemicals in them, particularly synthetic musks, and that absorption can take place through the skin, and that small amounts might be toxic since the body doesn't get rid of them, kind of like Nitrites in Hot Dogs which are known less controversially to be carcinogenic,

    All in all, it's not a super informative article, and I wouldn't stop wearing cologne because of it, though I will look up some of those chemical from other sources.

    They're calling for governments to test these things thoroughly before they're just allowed for mass consumption. You don't have to agree with that, and noone will disrespect you for wearing whatever you like, but I think that's sensible for new chemicals, just like it is for new drugs.

    In the past all kinds of toxic chemicals like DDT, and also synthetic fragrance oils were found to be extremely dangerous and removed from the market. No controversy there, and I'd like to think consumer groups or government or whoever was looking out for these things! I'd much prefer that the research be done on chemicals *BEFORE* they're out there in public where I'm spraying them directly on my jugular veins and wrists!

    I wish they'd tested some niche fragrances! Does anyone know if Lutens and Creed use those musks?
    Last edited by GAIVS IVLIVS CAESAR; 13th December 2007 at 03:39 PM.
    CAESAR SEEKS:
    Parfums d'Empire: Fougére Bengale

    CAESAR SWAPS/SELLS:
    Sa Majesté La Rose



  40. #40

    Default Re: Dangerous scents.......?

    I do not have a specific link...i read the news daily on many different site including drudgereport ...i dont keep track of articles to make rebuttals on fragrance boards. What you consistently are getting about global warming and carbon offsets(which are like medeval Catholic indulgences) is coming from Mainstream media which is unabashadly biased. I dont find the reports from Atlantis, but you sir have shown your bias by insisting that these so called "4" people were payed off by big oil...just keep hating on your friendly neighbors to the south and keeping driving your car and flying in planes and such....like one other noter said "just put your fingers in your ears and sing lalalala". I have no problem with people giving info, but i make a compelling arguement by stating that if a group like theGOP made such a statement and it was echoed on this board, peolpes heads would be rolling and the venom would be spewed. As for science, i am no scientist, but i have a minor in geology....i have studied climate change in climatology classes, paeleontology classes, etc. I am also a historian and an attorney. In my major, when studying about certain eras, one always has to enquire about the weather to determine how people lived, died, and conquered(Napoleon was defeated by the Kossaks because of all the snow in Russia). In my studies, we spoke of the little ice age and from there the earth has warmed and cooled itself for centuries. Furthermore, it is a widely held belief that climate shift may have destroyed the dinosaurs....and where were the humans to contribute to that. On that same note, Michael Crichton, world renown author and Harvard MD, also from his own research believes the Global Warming trend to be hysterical and religious in nature....if you dont believe me there just go on his website and look in his archives, there is a an essay somewhere on that page. In the 1970's everyone was cooing over the threat of global cooling, which most of my geology profs believed is the actual state of affairs. You say with conviction that the earth climate has increased drastically in the last ten years and i say prove it....and not with junk science from biased sources like greenpeace, moveon.org, al gore, etc....As an attorney i was very involved in learning about the environment by taking as many classes as possible on toxic torts, international environmental law, etc...No where in any of my studies has it proven to me directly that Global warming is an epidemic. Starvation and AIDS in Africa are epidemics that can be proven, not global warming. Last year alone when conferences were called on global warming to be held in DC, they were not able to attend because of the record setting low temps....oh yeah and what about the cold snaps in california...oh wait global warming and perfume caused mass global cooling as well.

    I only made a joke about the witch hunt because no one wants to hear another side to the story...certain groups are very agreeable an open minded as long as you agree with what they are saying.
    But do me a favor and do not mistake me for ignorant please...im only saying that if other topics are too political to be discussed on this board then so is global warming and bogus toxicity reports from certain organizations.... by the way,Mickey d's just called and they said eating 25 of their burgers a day doesnt have any negative side effects....i gues i will just believe them.

    Moderators please slap me on the wrist if need be, but I cannot sit idly by while some people can speak on any issue ad infinitum and no one says one word and some even sneer and chastise those whos should be using a different board...this topic, imo, is off topic....i appreciate the concern of the intital author of said post because i believe the intentions were pure, but somewhere along the way when people responded with skepticism and criticism, the thread was hijacked. Sorry...i am done...can we now get back to why we like frags and this site?
    Last edited by jdnba; 13th December 2007 at 04:32 PM.

  41. #41

    Default Re: Dangerous scents.......?

    Quote Originally Posted by jdnba View Post
    In the 1970's everyone was cooing over the threat of global cooling, which most of my geology profs believed is the actual state of affairs.
    "Global cooling", where was I while, "everyone was cooing over the threat?" I went to college in the 1970's. Sometimes it's too warm and sometimes it's too cool, would everybody be happier if we just call it "climate pattern change"? Better yet, no religion or politics at the dinner table.

  42. #42

    Default Re: Dangerous scents.......?

    Agreed that noone has time to fish out articles and proof, so I don't expect scientific arguments that are probably above both out heads, but what I'd be genuinely interested to hear from you is what you think the motivation is for all these scientists, and more importantly all these giant for-profit media corporations who get lots of advertising from oil and car companies, and have every interest in downplaying that a climate change emergency, or any other emergency that might dampend consumer spending or advertising revenues. The incentive on the part of mainstream media would be to minimize the threat, which is what they've done as far as I can see.

    You're talking to the wrong guy about mainstream media. The mainstream media is a giant cesspool, and in my view it's completely biased, but in the other direction. The media I listen to and read for example was pointing out that the California electricity crisis was a scam by Enron about two whole years before "mainstream media" garbage channels finally discovered that, and they were also pointing out that the sub-prime lending practices were completely corrupt and unsustainable and that there was going to be a crash, at least a year before it actually happened. Meanwhile the mainstream media only noticed the practices after the crash.

    A few months ago, from the media I listen to, I heard a report that the big networks were consistently making it seem as if climate change skepticism was a widely held position among scientists, about a 50% position, like you just said, when it isn't, it's limited to a handful of scientists. Maybe you think Fox news isn't mainstream media or something, but to my mind all the big channels are variations on the same thing when it comes to economics and politics, and they only differ much on cultural issues.

    When you have a source, you should ask yourself - what's their self-interest in expounding this position? Fox news, and ABC, and CBS, and even PBS all have incentives to downplay climate change, to promote consumer spending, and happy time feelings, and to promote ignorance and passivity in the population in general. I don't know what incentives the scientists have one way or the other.

    Why is it biased to say that the handful of climate change skeptics get funding from oil companies? I've heard many reports from sources that I trust that mention that. To be fair, one of those climate skeptics said that he gets the money from big oil *because* of his views, and he doesn't get his views because of the money, which might well be true.

    Michale Crichton is a famous fiction writer! His ideas about peolpe following trends are well taken, but I don't see him as any kind of authoritative source on the subject.

    If the republican party wanted to ban fragrances, or if the democratic party wanted to ban fragrances, of course I wouldn't trust what they had say. These are completely self-interested and corrupt organizations. If they said the sky was blue, I would assume there was a selfish motive. Then again, just because someone I don't like says something, doesn't mean it isn't true, but I have to go to sources I trust.

    Now about global cooling and cold spells - "global warming" means average temperatures over all are rising, but that's why it's called "climate change" these days, because different areas have different effects. Some get colder, some get warmer, some get drier, etc. So all these cold spells fit in perfectly to climate change theory.

    I'm a rare person who likes it when politics and hot topics flare up on boards like this. I love perfume, but it's trivial stuff in the end, and insofar as it relates to important issues, like toxic chemicals, or using up mysore sandalwood or agarwood trees to extinction, or the working conditions of flower growers, I like to hear and learn about these things.

    I'm not saying you don't have the right to think what you think or believe the sources you believe, but I just want to hear some good arguments. I often respect people I disagree with more than people I agree with.

    I'm an extremely radical person, but for example at university, one of the professors I liked best was very conservative. I liked him because most of the other faculty were all wishy washy liberals, and it wasn't very hard for them to have their views, it was in part confomity. But this guy was unabashed in his conservatism and we got along great and had great arguments and laughs, and never agreed on a thing. But he presented arguments. You're just getting mad and defensive. I'm sorry if I was a bit insulting with the Atlantis comment, but like you, I'm fed up with hearing what I see are the biased views shown on mainstream media about extremely improtant issues like this.

    And no I have no car, I don't want one, I don't need one, and even if I wanted one I couldn't afford it! I happen to live in a city where lots of people don't have cars, like Manhattan. Everything's within a 45 minute walk or a subway.

    But if I needed a car to live I'd get one, even if I think it's bad for the environment because a guy's got to live. That's why we should have sane regulation and public policy, and urban planning so that we don't need cars and to live all spread out away from friends and family, and that way we don't have to emit all that toxic sludge!
    CAESAR SEEKS:
    Parfums d'Empire: Fougére Bengale

    CAESAR SWAPS/SELLS:
    Sa Majesté La Rose



  43. #43

    Default Re: Dangerous scents.......?

    ...
    Last edited by hirch_duckfinder; 13th December 2007 at 05:42 PM.
    "Don’t try to be original. Be simple. Be good technically, and if there is something in you, it will come out. ” - Henri Matisse.

    "Wear R de Capucci" - Hirch Duckfinder

    reviews

  44. #44

    Default Re: Dangerous scents.......?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ruggles View Post
    "Global cooling", where was I while, "everyone was cooing over the threat?" I went to college in the 1970's. Sometimes it's too warm and sometimes it's too cool, would everybody be happier if we just call it "climate pattern change"? Better yet, no religion or politics at the dinner table.
    agreed
    --------------------------------------
    gaius...i respect you opinions, but the whole global warming thing is a political talking point in many circles. I just believe that humans, as a species on this planet, are to insignifigant to cause the planet to be destroyed.....we like many before us will eventually die off and something new will evolve and take our place . I am a conservative, but that is not why I hold the viewpoint that i do. I get angry when people insist on this making this issue apocolyptic . Whether we like it or not, oil and other industries like plastics and rubber are necessary in our world. Im glad that you dont have to use a car to get to and from places, but most people do. I get angry because i have to hear this stuff day in and day out since i attended my university and I come here to get away. I still believe your assessment on the handful of scientists who discredit the popular theory are oil cronies just because they have a difference in opinion. I also have a love of the environment as i am a wetlands conservationist(i am Louisiana born and bred) and i also enjoy hunting and fishing which the environment provides for me...some dont believe that hunting is conservation, but i belong to several organizations that spend millions of dollars in research on environmental defense and species preservation. Sorry that this thing blew up, i meant no disrespect to you or anyone on the forum, i always welcome other opinions and ideas, but all to often, imo, the worst of ideas are brought to fruition by the best of intentions(i paraphrase).

    Again my sincerest apologies, i meant no disrespect to anyone.

    P.S. Michael Chriton is also a non fiction writer and has recieved an M.D. from Harvard University and is very active in the scientific community!

    Peace out everyone, have a Merry Christmas!
    Last edited by jdnba; 13th December 2007 at 06:03 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

  45. #45

    Default Re: Dangerous scents.......?

    Quote Originally Posted by GAIVS IVLIVS CAESAR View Post
    Agreed that noone has time to fish out articles and proof, so I don't expect scientific arguments that are probably above both out heads, but what I'd be genuinely interested to hear from you is what you think the motivation is for all these scientists, and more importantly all these giant for-profit media corporations who get lots of advertising from oil and car companies, and have every interest in downplaying that a climate change emergency, or any other emergency that might dampend consumer spending or advertising revenues. The incentive on the part of mainstream media would be to minimize the threat, which is what they've done as far as I can see.

    You're talking to the wrong guy about mainstream media. The mainstream media is a giant cesspool, and in my view it's completely biased, but in the other direction. The media I listen to and read for example was pointing out that the California electricity crisis was a scam by Enron about two whole years before "mainstream media" garbage channels finally discovered that, and they were also pointing out that the sub-prime lending practices were completely corrupt and unsustainable and that there was going to be a crash, at least a year before it actually happened. Meanwhile the mainstream media only noticed the practices after the crash.

    A few months ago, from the media I listen to, I heard a report that the big networks were consistently making it seem as if climate change skepticism was a widely held position among scientists, about a 50% position, like you just said, when it isn't, it's limited to a handful of scientists. Maybe you think Fox news isn't mainstream media or something, but to my mind all the big channels are variations on the same thing when it comes to economics and politics, and they only differ much on cultural issues.

    When you have a source, you should ask yourself - what's their self-interest in expounding this position? Fox news, and ABC, and CBS, and even PBS all have incentives to downplay climate change, to promote consumer spending, and happy time feelings, and to promote ignorance and passivity in the population in general. I don't know what incentives the scientists have one way or the other.

    Why is it biased to say that the handful of climate change skeptics get funding from oil companies? I've heard many reports from sources that I trust that mention that. To be fair, one of those climate skeptics said that he gets the money from big oil *because* of his views, and he doesn't get his views because of the money, which might well be true.

    Michale Crichton is a famous fiction writer! His ideas about peolpe following trends are well taken, but I don't see him as any kind of authoritative source on the subject.

    If the republican party wanted to ban fragrances, or if the democratic party wanted to ban fragrances, of course I wouldn't trust what they had say. These are completely self-interested and corrupt organizations. If they said the sky was blue, I would assume there was a selfish motive. Then again, just because someone I don't like says something, doesn't mean it isn't true, but I have to go to sources I trust.

    Now about global cooling and cold spells - "global warming" means average temperatures over all are rising, but that's why it's called "climate change" these days, because different areas have different effects. Some get colder, some get warmer, some get drier, etc. So all these cold spells fit in perfectly to climate change theory.

    I'm a rare person who likes it when politics and hot topics flare up on boards like this. I love perfume, but it's trivial stuff in the end, and insofar as it relates to important issues, like toxic chemicals, or using up mysore sandalwood or agarwood trees to extinction, or the working conditions of flower growers, I like to hear and learn about these things.

    I'm not saying you don't have the right to think what you think or believe the sources you believe, but I just want to hear some good arguments. I often respect people I disagree with more than people I agree with.

    I'm an extremely radical person, but for example at university, one of the professors I liked best was very conservative. I liked him because most of the other faculty were all wishy washy liberals, and it wasn't very hard for them to have their views, it was in part confomity. But this guy was unabashed in his conservatism and we got along great and had great arguments and laughs, and never agreed on a thing. But he presented arguments. You're just getting mad and defensive. I'm sorry if I was a bit insulting with the Atlantis comment, but like you, I'm fed up with hearing what I see are the biased views shown on mainstream media about extremely improtant issues like this.

    And no I have no car, I don't want one, I don't need one, and even if I wanted one I couldn't afford it! I happen to live in a city where lots of people don't have cars, like Manhattan. Everything's within a 45 minute walk or a subway.

    But if I needed a car to live I'd get one, even if I think it's bad for the environment because a guy's got to live. That's why we should have sane regulation and public policy, and urban planning so that we don't need cars and to live all spread out away from friends and family, and that way we don't have to emit all that toxic sludge!
    I wishy-washily agree with you 100%
    Much as I love perfume, it's important to keep an open mind about potential health risks. The fragrance industry is part of the chemical industry, and like every other industry, whether food, pharmaceuticals, or TOYS (hello Mattel) their historical record of self-regulation is abysmal, because profit determines everything - this is unavoidable where politics does not fence in unrestrained capitalism. Consumer protection groups are hopelessly outgunned in the long run. Government regulation is thus a necessary evil. It can be a hassle (trust me, I live in the EU) but it is preferable to the anarchy that ensues in its absence (The US is highly regulated compared to most 3rd world countries, or China and Russia - look at de facto safety, health, quality standards in those places. US firms move production to Mexico because of nonexistent regulation there - it's cheaper and who cares if the factory workers die at age 40?). The problem is that many governments in (post)industrial democracies are disproportionately influenced by corporate interests, the political sphere has become a franchise of the economic. Thus much regulatory law these days is written to advance the interests of large producers over those of lobbyless small producers, e.g. absurd hygiene standards regarding cheese or poultry that force family operations to close down while industrial-scale producers can easily adapt. Makes me think of the totally misguided oakmoss ban.
    But as has been pointed out, there is no need for hysteria. Systematic further investigation of such issues and public information is necessary. Anyone is free to ignore it.
    My Wardrobe
    II est de forts parfums pour qui toute matière/Est poreuse. On dirait qu'ils pénètrent le verre.

  46. #46

    Default Re: Dangerous scents.......?

    I knew I should have thrown out that CK Demensia in the mid-90s...

    Grey Lead ?
    Asbestesia ?
    Lanvin Dioxin?

  47. #47

    Default Re: Dangerous scents.......?

    The risk isn't in inhaling the bad chemicals... It's in the exhaustion from having so much sex after wearing Hai Karate! OK, bad joke.

    Risk...

    I knew a guy who stopped eating fries because of the carcinogens produced from flash frying starches. Very high amounts of carcinogens. Unfortunately, he wrecked his car while trying to light a cigarette (smoker for 9 years (At 22. The guy was an idiot, believe me). He crushed his leg, and when the Firefighters levered his truck off of him, he got compartment syndrome, at which point the EMT's (He neglected to tell 911 that it was a rollover, Paramedics didn't get there till he was all strapped in and G2G) decided (wisely) to cut off all blood flow to his left leg, stalling blood loss induced shock. They took off his leg, he's still a smoker.

    I also knew a lady who warned me against using antiperspirant because of an Aluminum compound which had been "found" to increase your risk of Alzheimer's. She was such an overbearing bitch that her daughter stabbed her. Of course, her daughter still gets straight A's, so I'm not sure how well that stabbing went.

    The guy that used to live across the street died of a heart attack. While exercising to lose weight. To decrease his risk of heart disease.

    I don't wash my hands, drive much slower than my age should allow, used to smoke, wear plenty of cologne, have worked a few jobs were transmission of infectious diseases is common, and go outside without sunscreen. In the end, I'll probably die of colon cancer because it's genetic and present in my family.

    Do you really think that analyzing all of the possible risks of your daily life will save you from an untimely death? Being on the cutting edge of health science related news never really helped anyone (evidence those men who were duped into buying prostate warmers, or all the families that use antibacterial soap).

    Yes, I am an asshole, and no, my head is not in the sand. I'm beginning to hate America for all of the stupid hypocritical things we do. All of this "that, but not this", or "this but not the other" is just contributing to your stress level, which is damn harmful to you. If it interests you, then fine, indulge in all of the medical miracles and brand-spanking new discoveries you want, because that's what makes you happy. Worrying about the risk won't make you happy, nor will you live forever for all of your worries.

    And if you don't live in America, be happy that you don't live down the street from 10,000 freakin' stupid ass Labrador Retrievers barking at their stupid middle class owner washing their stupid middle class SUV in front of an ugly ass house on 40 sq ft of land they don't own and can't afford. Screw analyzing risk. There is a lot more for me to do than that. Like making macaroni pictures....
    in fact...
    ...I'll be right back.
    - Rich
    PS - I do sound like an angry person, don't I? Here's a smiley face for your eyes only.
    As always, disregard most of what I say. It's not worth your heart health to actually worry about what a 23 year old guy from Kansas thinks. Even if he is really ridiculously good looking.

Similar Threads

  1. Ethnicity and Scents
    By maisonstinky in forum Male Fragrance Discussion
    Replies: 56
    Last Post: 30th June 2010, 05:42 PM
  2. Any really nice grapefruit scents?
    By sanddrift in forum Female Fragrance Discussion
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 11th November 2006, 08:48 PM
  3. MUST HAVE SUMMER SCENTS: Signoricci
    By scenteur7 in forum Male Fragrance Discussion
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 8th June 2006, 02:25 AM
  4. Propose some scents, I’m really bored.
    By nsamadi in forum Male Fragrance Discussion
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 11th March 2006, 05:37 AM
  5. REVIEW: Miller Harris launches 2 NEW Scents
    By scenteur7 in forum Male Fragrance Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 20th August 2005, 06:50 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  



Loving perfume on the Internet since 2000