Hp Portable Mini 1000

Natural vs. Artificial: Round 1!

VS

I'm sure that this post split minds but it's one of those topics that do not will never all agree. My intention is to create an opportunity for comparison between those who think differently, that there is no presumption to impose their ideas. I myself do not want to take a definite position on this, I will simply highlight some facts, positive or negative, and to make a few observations.

absolutely do not want to generalize because I know that girls are firmly convinced of the benefits and quality of natural products, but I can not even aware that at this time siding with the "organic" seems so out of fashion ... Until a few years ago almost no one cared if your shampoo contain silicones or not, it now seems to be the only criterion that is adopted before buying one. Ben is a greater awareness and information from our consumers, what we do not agree with the mass movement is like a flock of sheep following the wave of the moment without having a clear idea of \u200b\u200bthe point of view that you are sharing. I say unfortunately because this was enough for me to attend the forum to realize the beauty that this tendency to prefer natural products is a choice really felt only by a few girls (or girls less than it seems) while many others simply read a couple of statements written by the most competent to be able to immediately proclaim suddenly experienced and attentive to everything which is natural.

I myself have been part of that flock.

When I signed up for one of those forums beauty, from the beginning has shown that comparison between the girls who preferred to blindly everything that was natural, girls who did not care, and other girls nothing at all to simple ignorance, not even knew that there was an ongoing controversy. I fall into the latter category and I admit it ... read the reviews girls more competent in terms of "natural products" was quick to arise in me a great curiosity, so I have become increasingly concerned with those chemicals most demonized and natural that they should substitute nicely. Goes without saying that the first accused were the silicones, immediately followed by paraffin ...

I never shared the pedantic tone used by many girls "experts" who seemed to look almost with contempt, considering the stupid, those who prefer to use products from the supermarket. Sometimes became almost offensive but that's another story and I repeat once again, I do not want to generalize but unfortunately I have found that this attitude is widespread. However, overcoming this hurdle of saccenza showed the other side, I slowly transformed into a girl I also can to understand something of Inci, the ability to detect the presence of silicone or paraffin and interested to try these great natural products ... In less than no time I bought jojoba oil with which to make refreshing wraps my hair, sweet almond oil to replace the chemical firming creams that I have always used organic shampoo in which the word "silicone" was absolutely banned and I began to realize, with homemade methods and using only natural products, face masks and scrubs made with olive oil, yogurt, honey ... more natural than that!

The result of my initial conversion to bio?

Disastrous. Totally disastrous.

First jojoba oil has made my greasy hair like never before, but this oil (more precisely, it is a liquid wax) is also known for its sebum-regulating and therefore is also often advised to those who have oily skin.

Same bad result obtained with sweet almond oil ... as I used, I tried to convince me of the self-healing properties of this oil not to think about the impact on the skin that I did not like. Now it's official: no absolutely love the texture of an oil on my skin ... no matter how quickly absorbed, always leaves a greasy feeling. The worst experience I had with the shampoo ... before leaving groped by the purchase of any product so natural but expensive, I had the chance to try lots of small samples that the herbalist in my country gave me just to give me the opportunity to try and avoid that would spend money unnecessarily products with which I could not see me well and I must say it was very far-sighted ... after just a few shampoos, my hair was really ugly. Flat, without body, with a glossy mix greasy ... However, I knew that the transition from "chemical" to the "organic" could take some time for your hair get used to these new substances, but my endurance is not was not rewarded.

And what about all those compounds DIY ... without infamy and without glory. My skin seemed to have found some kind of benefit even more, if we really want to be honest, it was the best feeling on the smell of the yogurt and olive oil!

Obviously this is just my personal experience and most likely return to the ranks of the unfortunate few who have seen great improvements in abandoning the use of chemicals. The intent of this post, however, is not so much to put forth my experience staff as to highlight how my head was left so easily swayed ...

passed the initial influence, I began to ask me a question ... but if the products I ever used I was finding good, why change? Why persist necessarily wanting to convert to natural without feeling really need? Just because they tell others and it seems the latest trend of the moment? I do not discuss at all the undeniable quality of natural products that do not understand is why you should marry at all costs if this quality was already satisfied with their habits. In my opinion, first ever, we must learn to listen to those who are the needs of our body and its reactions to the use of certain products ... personally, for example, I avoid shampoos and conditioners containing silicone because objectively weigh down the hair but I had no way to avoid a priori, without knowing why and without paying attention to real signals from my body and my hair. Okay want to at least test the effectiveness of organic products but desperately under exaggerated because it seems to me, I want to emphasize, chemistry is not 'DEADLY MEANS and synthetic products are often heavily criticized and avoided only made their only appearance . Sure, there are girls who reject the use of these products because many times they are tested on animals or are harmful to the environment and this is admirable, but this sensitivity can not be imposed on those who do not or who has is not interested in it.
.

Before writing this post, I wanted to do some research so I could get more reliable data in support of an argument rather than another ... the outcome of my research was very miserable because I have found absolutely no statistics to demonstrate the seriousness of the harmful effects of using products based on chemicals I found statistics that highlight the real benefits of using natural products. Everything was poorly reduced to a purely aesthetic effect.

At this point, what I wonder is this ... is right to alarm around the use of products such as paraffin-based, which is a petroleum derivative, without any reliable statistics about their possible carcinogenic effect? I even read about a girl who claimed that using a cream made of paraffin oil was equivalent to use, so it was the same ... but anyway, if you please. The petrol is a petroleum-derived, does not mean that applied to the body to instead of a moisturizer (absurdly!) to produce the same effect of a paraffin-based cream just because both derive from the same original substance! Derivatives undergo profound processes of change, adaptation to the use for which they are intended ... It is unfair and superficial to say that the paraffin and oil are practically the same thing.

Silicones, then, they are not petroleum based as they are inorganic polymers based on a chain silicon-oxygen, but many girls do not even know and are limited to hastily point to them as "substances to be avoided " like paraffin without really knowing why ...

.

One of the products is the most incriminating 'Johnson's Baby Oil compound as much as 99.18% of paraffin, by Isopropyl palmitate (emollient) to 0.80% and fragrance 0.02%. This oil has been introduced in the U.S. market back in 1935 and during these long 75 years, despite the almost total absence of paraffin, there has been no carcinogenic or otherwise harmful, resulting from its use but now you tend to approach more and more frequently the word "harmful" to this product. Do not believe that if during all these years were found to contain serious side effects resulting from its use, there would be statistical surveys to prove it? I do not believe that such information has been silenced by a multinational company such as Johnson & Johnson only for its power, because if we put it on this floor, even the tobacco multinationals are among the most powerful in the world (both in economic terms and in terms of social influence) but certainly have not been able to prevent the spread of the very evident from the harmful effects of cigarette smoke especially at a time like the present, where you always pay more attention to what are the needs and Rights consumers.

A very interesting research was conducted by Japanese Society for Investigative Dermatology and published in 2007 by Elsevier Ireland (Journal of Dermatological Science). The objective of this research was to analyze the absorption of lipids and occlusion of the skin following the application of oils on the skin of children and adults.

The result of this research was as follows:

• Paraffin oil and vegetable oils penetrate only in the upper layers and the external dermal layer. There is no difference between these two oils.
• Paraffin oil and vegetable oils have the same power that occlusion is significantly lower than that of oil.
• The skin of adult behaves in a similar manner to that of infants after application of oils.

Perhaps you're wondering why I wanted to report the results of this research ... I did it because one of the main reasons-if not-so demonized the paraffin is strongly relates to its power occlusive not leave the skin to breathe. Given the findings of this research, I believe that Now a person can freely choose to be occluding the skin from a vegetable oil rather than a derivative of petroleum, and this choice is entirely understandable and shareable. My intent, in fact, is not to defend the paraffin or someone you but only to convey a message ... When dispensing pearls of wisdom and advice on topics such important and delicate, it must be done only by having a minimum knowledge of the facts. To recall the words used in the beginning of this post ... we are not a flock of sheep following the masses without reason, we have our heads a well-functioning, and then us use. We collect information, do research, listen to the opinion of competent persons and only then can we really say that bit of knowledge he has acquired more which would allow us to draw conclusions more or less correct. About this topic I found a great ignorance to the world of Internet browsing and then, before transmitting the message of this scale, think twice and ask if we are in a position to do so. And then, one last thing, do not professatevi of the great guru of natural cosmetics as well as healthy choices for life if, behind the monitor, you smoke a pack of cigarettes per day or drink alcohol every day aperitif with friends because in that case, I do just a great laugh. Amara.

AND WHAT THE LAW SAYS ABOUT IT?

The European Union also appears to be mobilized in front of the alarmism that involved the wax, more specifically, the Commission Directive 2004/4/EC of 15 January 2004 included paraffin wax among the substances that require a reassessment based on new scientific data as the information available was inadequate to carry out a full evaluation. On the Internet, however, states that the Directive considers the substance of a paraffin cancerogenza when, in fact, the word "carcinogen" is not only contained in the legislative text but this directive does not affect in any way the cosmetics industry as it relates to products used in food hygiene with regard to maritime transport of bulk liquid oils and fats. Once again, therefore, no confusion and we do not distort the information only to better support its case. Surely it is an important signal that the EU is paying due attention to ensure further evaluate the safety of certain substances but that no scientific institution qualified to national or international level confirms the actual risk in human beings that makes use there will be no EU directives that will limit the use of these substances in cosmetic products .