"Fact: Germs [including the flu virus] can live on surfaces for up to 
two days.

Fact: Dettol kills 99.9% of gems, including the flu virus."

Uh, yeah, erm...

Fact: Dettol kills 99.9% of bacteria. As does vineger, bleack, salt 
water, soap, alcohol, and actually just about anything with an 
osmolarity different from fresh water. :-P

Fact: Virii are not "alive" in the first place, so it is not possible to 
"kill" them.

It does irritate me when commercial entities pray on public anxiety and 
ignorance to try to peddle their wares.

And it /really/ irritates me when they pretend to be all scientific. 
Seen any beauty products lately? Skin moisturisers have existed for over 
a century, and they're all basically a specific mixture of water and 
various oils. And yet, if you watch TV you see stuff like "Loreal 
Age-Reperfect(tm) derma-active(r) hydro-therapy(tm)". All of which 
/sounds/ really impressive and sciency, but is actually empty marketing 
gibberish.

On reflection, maybe the problem isn't that commercial entities try to 
exploit people. Maybe it's that the general populus are stupid enough to 
not see though this...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Fact: Virii are not "alive" in the first place, so it is not possible to 
> "kill" them.

It think if you have some unicellular organism (without being pedantic about 
"cell" there, which after all just means "room" in latin), and you apply a 
chemical that breaks up the cell and prevents it from reproducing, I think 
it's safe for purposes of that discussion at least to say it was alive and 
no longer is.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message

"As you bite through the crisp, chunky shell, the soft dreamy center 
starts to melt, gently caressing *all* your senses."

I don't know about you, but if a chocolate starts "caressing" my sense 
of proprioception, there's something very wrong...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Le 14/11/2010 20:22, Darren New a écrit :
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> Fact: Virii are not "alive" in the first place, so it is not possible
>> to "kill" them.
> 
> It think if you have some unicellular organism (without being pedantic
> about "cell" there, which after all just means "room" in latin), 

But virii are not unicelluar organism. They are very far from even being
one.
Virii are more like toxin: a chain of molecules, with the added bonus
that when encountering the right cells, they get replicated by the cells
(usually at the cost of the other functions of the cell, which induce
the exhaustion of the cell and its death).

>and you
> apply a chemical that breaks up the cell and prevents it from
> reproducing, I think it's safe for purposes of that discussion at least
> to say it was alive and no longer is.

Breaking a cell is easy, as the OP says.
Breaking a molecule requires to have an actual chemical reaction, which
usually means exhausting the reacting components. Moreover, you cannot
break a molecule and hope that the results will not be a toxic (or you
just lost in another way). You need to identify the molecule, then use
the right chemical to modify the molecule... the sad thing is that what
would break a virus would also usually break far more easily the
components of your cells.

UV-light might be of some help, if the radiation is strong enough, to
tear apart some virii (but not all). But beware also to not create a new
stronger one in the process.


-- 
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.<br/>
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?<br/>
A: Top-posting.<br/>
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

Post a reply to this message

On 15-11-2010 8:54, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> Le 14/11/2010 20:22, Darren New a écrit :
>> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> Fact: Virii are not "alive" in the first place, so it is not possible
>>> to "kill" them.
>>
>> It think if you have some unicellular organism (without being pedantic
>> about "cell" there, which after all just means "room" in latin),
>
> But virii are not unicelluar organism. They are very far from even being
> one.
> Virii are more like toxin: a chain of molecules, with the added bonus
> that when encountering the right cells, they get replicated by the cells
> (usually at the cost of the other functions of the cell, which induce
> the exhaustion of the cell and its death).

Contrary to chemicals they will only replicate if the set of molecules 
is in a specific configuration. If the case is broken they won't work, 
nor if the DNA is broken up in parts or all aminoacids scrambled, etc.
In most cases people like them in the broken form. You might call that 
dead, just as you might call a radio dead when in one tube the filament 
is broken. Or you might prefer to use dead and alive only for 
prokaryotes and eukaryotes.
De gustibus non est disputandum.

This thread is the first time that I consciously saw the plural virii. I 
studied latin when I was younger (indeed at the end of the age of the 
vacuum tube) so this strikes me as odd. Googling it reveals that only 
the pedantic complain that this is wrong to the point of being silly. So 
I won't complain.

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 14 Nov 2010 20:06:06 +0200, Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:

> "Fact: Germs [including the flu virus] can live on surfaces for up to  
> two days.
>
> Fact: Dettol kills 99.9% of gems, including the flu virus."
>
> Uh, yeah, erm...
>
> Fact: Dettol kills 99.9% of bacteria. As does vineger, bleack, salt  
> water, soap, alcohol, and actually just about anything with an  
> osmolarity different from fresh water. :-P
>
> Fact: Virii are not "alive" in the first place, so it is not possible to  
> "kill" them.
>
> It does irritate me when commercial entities pray on public anxiety and  
> ignorance to try to peddle their wares.
>
> And it /really/ irritates me when they pretend to be all scientific.  
> Seen any beauty products lately? Skin moisturisers have existed for over  
> a century, and they're all basically a specific mixture of water and  
> various oils. And yet, if you watch TV you see stuff like "Loreal  
> Age-Reperfect(tm) derma-active(r) hydro-therapy(tm)". All of which  
> /sounds/ really impressive and sciency, but is actually empty marketing  
> gibberish.
>
> On reflection, maybe the problem isn't that commercial entities try to  
> exploit people. Maybe it's that the general populus are stupid enough to  
> not see though this...
>

Are viruses and germs the same thing?

-Nekar Xenos-

Post a reply to this message

Le_Forgeron wrote:
> But virii are not unicelluar organism. They are very far from even being
> one.

That's why I said "for sufficiently loose definitions of unicelluar". 
They're certainly a "cell" in the original sense of the word "little room". 
They have walls, and a content.

> Virii are more like toxin: a chain of molecules, with the added bonus
> that when encountering the right cells, they get replicated by the cells

Well, there's a small collection of chemicals with a distinct boundary that 
self-replicate in the right environment. I think that's close enough to 
"alive" for purposes of advertising.

> Breaking a cell is easy, as the OP says.

Yep.

> Breaking a molecule requires to have an actual chemical reaction, which
> usually means exhausting the reacting components. Moreover, you cannot
> break a molecule and hope that the results will not be a toxic 

They're unlikely to self-replicate after you break them, tho.

> would break a virus would also usually break far more easily the
> components of your cells.

We *are* talking about Dettol, right?

"Like other household cleaners, Dettol is poisonous and should not be ingested."

So, yeah, but that's a *good* thing.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message

Nekar Xenos wrote:
> Are viruses and germs the same thing?

Generally not. A virus is basically a little bottle of DNA that replicates 
by injecting itself (with the help of the "bottle" part) into a complete 
cell. The cell then gets hijacked by the virus DNA into creating more viruses.

A "germ" usually refers to something that includes the ability to replicate 
all by itself.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message

Le_Forgeron <lef### [at] freefr> wrote:
> But virii are not unicelluar organism. They are very far from even being
> one.
> Virii are more like toxin: a chain of molecules, with the added bonus
> that when encountering the right cells, they get replicated by the cells
> (usually at the cost of the other functions of the cell, which induce
> the exhaustion of the cell and its death).

  I wouldn't say they are like toxins, nor are they "very far from even
being a cell". Virii have genetic material in the form of DNA or RNA, as
well as a protein coating. That's way, way more complex than a simple
chemical compound such as a toxin.

  Prions also replicate (well, kind of), but are way simpler than virii
because they are, basically, just one single protein and has no genetic
material at all.

  But even proteins are way more complicated than simple chemical compounds
such as toxins.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 15/11/2010 07:02 PM, Warp wrote:

>    But even proteins are way more complicated than simple chemical compounds
> such as toxins.

Except, of course, for those proteins that /are/ toxins. ;-)

Post a reply to this message

On 14/11/2010 06:06 PM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> And it /really/ irritates me when they pretend to be all scientific.

"New Pantene with amino-peptide serum *nourishes* hair from root to tip."

Well, what a lot of sciency-sounding words. It must be science! Right? 
Right???

1. "serum" refers to a component of blood, or more generally any clear 
bodily fluid. I would be very surprised if hair conditioner contains any 
such thing.

2. "amino" refers presumably to the amino acids, the building blocks of 
life. Quite why these would be useful for making your hair look nice is 
entirely unclear.

3. "peptide" is a short chain of amino acids. In other words, a 
mini-protein. (Actually the distinction between a protein and a peptide 
is somewhat arbitrary.) Again, it is not clear why this is useful.

4. Hair is provably dead. You cannot "nourish" something that isn't 
alive. (Although people do sometimes speak of shoe polish "nourishing" 
the leather and keeping it supple.)

In short, all the sciency words are really there just to make it sound 
more impressive. Since you don't actually /eat/ hair conditioner, the 
manufacturers are not required to state what is actually in this stuff. 
I highly doubt it contains anything as expensive as amino acids or 
peptide chains. And if it did, I'm not sure what useful purpose that 
would actually serve.

I especially like the advert for the shampoo enriched with vitamin-D (I 
think) which promotes healthy hair. And then one of the chemists pointed 
out that /actually/ it's there to make the shampoo emulsify nicely. They 
just use a vitamin because it's naturally occurring and hence easy to 
get hold of. ;-)

Post a reply to this message

> "New Pantene with amino-peptide serum *nourishes* hair from root to tip."
>
> Well, what a lot of sciency-sounding words. It must be science! Right? 
> Right???
>
> In short, all the sciency words are really there just to make it sound 
> more impressive.

IIRC Panthenol actually does something useful regarding hair.

> Since you don't actually /eat/ hair conditioner, the manufacturers are not 
> required to state what is actually in this stuff.

AFAIK they are required to put ingredients on the label.  And as there is a 
real possibility it could go in your mouth there are strict controls on what 
they can and can't put in there (same as why you can only use certain 
approved materials and inks for food packaging).

Post a reply to this message

On 16/11/2010 01:01 PM, scott wrote:
>> "New Pantene with amino-peptide serum *nourishes* hair from root to tip."
>>
>> Well, what a lot of sciency-sounding words. It must be science! Right?
>> Right???
>>
>> In short, all the sciency words are really there just to make it sound
>> more impressive.
>
> IIRC Panthenol actually does something useful regarding hair.

Who mentioned panthenol?

>> Since you don't actually /eat/ hair conditioner, the manufacturers are
>> not required to state what is actually in this stuff.
>
> AFAIK they are required to put ingredients on the label. And as there is
> a real possibility it could go in your mouth there are strict controls
> on what they can and can't put in there (same as why you can only use
> certain approved materials and inks for food packaging).

Oh, I'm sure they aren't allowed to put anything really toxic in there. 
But, as far as I'm aware, they're not required to *tell* the consumer 
what they actually put in. (I'm sure Phil could tell us...)

Post a reply to this message

>>> "New Pantene with amino-peptide serum *nourishes* hair from root to 
>>> tip."
>>
>> IIRC Panthenol actually does something useful regarding hair.
>
> Who mentioned panthenol?

Isn't that where the brand name comes from?

Post a reply to this message

>>>> "New Pantene with amino-peptide serum *nourishes* hair from root to
>>>> tip."
>>>
>>> IIRC Panthenol actually does something useful regarding hair.
>>
>> Who mentioned panthenol?
>
> Isn't that where the brand name comes from?

Apparently Pentene's original shampoo product did contain panthenol, 
yes. However, their current advertisements make no mention of it. 
Instead they waffle on about "pro-vitamins" and "amino-peptide serum" 
and so forth.

Interestingly, if you check out their website, they conspicuously 
refrain from making any statements about what's in the product. And they 
carefully use expressions like "healthy looking" (as opposed to 
"healthy"). One wonders if the website is complying with a different set 
of advertising standards or something...

Post a reply to this message

On 11/16/2010 7:35 AM, Invisible wrote:
>>>>> "New Pantene with amino-peptide serum *nourishes* hair from root to
>>>>> tip."
>>>>
>>>> IIRC Panthenol actually does something useful regarding hair.
>>>
>>> Who mentioned panthenol?
>>
>> Isn't that where the brand name comes from?
>
> Apparently Pentene's original shampoo product did contain panthenol,
> yes. However, their current advertisements make no mention of it.
> Instead they waffle on about "pro-vitamins" and "amino-peptide serum"
> and so forth.
>
> Interestingly, if you check out their website, they conspicuously
> refrain from making any statements about what's in the product. And they
> carefully use expressions like "healthy looking" (as opposed to
> "healthy"). One wonders if the website is complying with a different set
> of advertising standards or something...
Hair care products: The first "altie medicine" product. Pretty much all 
of them work alike, with minor differences, blind tests find the "cheap" 
ones may even work better, without all the crap in them, in many cases, 
but unless you dump useless stuff in, or put "healthish" on the bottle, 
the "I want the $30 bottle!" people won't buy either the product, or 
the, basically, scam.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

And lo On Sun, 14 Nov 2010 18:06:06 -0000, Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull>  
did spake thusly:

> "Fact: Germs [including the flu virus] can live on surfaces for up to  
> two days.
>
> Fact: Dettol kills 99.9% of gems, including the flu virus."

What I dislike is it makes no distinction between harmless and harmful.  
Congratulations you've just removed the competition for the .1% that's  
resistant to this stuff better hope it's not something potentially harmful.

As for claims I do love the creams that boast X% more oxygen. Easily  
achieved - just add water :-)

Ah I knew I'd seen this somewhere  
http://www.cracked.com/article_17606_7-high-tech-products-their-cheap-ass-ingredients.html
 
NSFW

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

On 18/11/2010 11:20 AM, Phil Cook v2 wrote:
> And lo On Sun, 14 Nov 2010 18:06:06 -0000, Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull>
> did spake thusly:
>
>> "Fact: Germs [including the flu virus] can live on surfaces for up to
>> two days.
>>
>> Fact: Dettol kills 99.9% of gems, including the flu virus."
>
> What I dislike is it makes no distinction between harmless and harmful.
> Congratulations you've just removed the competition for the .1% that's
> resistant to this stuff better hope it's not something potentially harmful.

Fact: Dettol kills 99.9% of bacteria.
Fact: 99.9% of bacteria have NO EFFECT on human health in either direction.

Gotta love the way the advert used to talk about how Dettol kills 
/bacteria/, and lately they suddenly changed it to "germs, including the 
flu virus". Every few syllables is "flu virus". Like it's really 
important or something.

> As for claims I do love the creams that boast X% more oxygen. Easily
> achieved - just add water :-)

"NEW! Walkers Crisps, now with 50% less salt."

I look on the back of the package.... aaaaaand what's this? Potassium 
chloride? Hmm, I *wonder* why that's in there? :-P

> Ah I knew I'd seen this somewhere
>
http://www.cracked.com/article_17606_7-high-tech-products-their-cheap-ass-ingredients.html

...your source is cracked.com? Uh, right. ;-)

Hey, while you're here... In the UK, all food products are required to 
list their ingredients, in descending order. But are products such as 
shampoo required to do so?

Post a reply to this message

On 18/11/2010 11:20 AM, Phil Cook v2 wrote:
> Ah I knew I'd seen this somewhere
>
http://www.cracked.com/article_17606_7-high-tech-products-their-cheap-ass-ingredients.html
> NSFW

The ones that get me are shampoos. For the last 10 years I’ve been using 
hand soap and my head hasn’t fallen off yet.

I would like to agree with the Audio ones but from personal experience 
some of them do make a difference. But if you have a crap HiFi then 
nothing will help.


-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

> The ones that get me are shampoos. For the last 10 years I’ve been using
> hand soap and my head hasn’t fallen off yet.

Proper shampoo probably goes on and rinses off more easily. But yeah, I 
wouldn't bother with the expensive ones.

> I would like to agree with the Audio ones but from personal experience
> some of them do make a difference. But if you have a crap HiFi then
> nothing will help.

More amusing are the expensive HDMI cables. The entire point of HDMI of 
course being that it's digital, so it *does not* matter how poor the 
cables are. (Just so long as they're not /utterly/ hopeless...)

I'm told for analogue audio interconnects it can sometimes make a small 
difference. It's not worth £3000 though. My ears aren't that good. :-P

Post a reply to this message

On 18/11/2010 11:51 AM, Invisible wrote:
> Gotta love the way the advert used to talk about how Dettol kills
> /bacteria/, and lately they suddenly changed it to "germs, including the
> flu virus". Every few syllables is "flu virus". Like it's really
> important or something.

You mean they changed it to kills bacteria? Originally it was kills 
99.9% of all known germs, bacteria must have sounded more scientific.

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 18/11/2010 12:16 PM, Invisible wrote:
>> The ones that get me are shampoos. For the last 10 years I’ve been using
>> hand soap and my head hasn’t fallen off yet.
>
> Proper shampoo probably goes on and rinses off more easily. But yeah, I
> wouldn't bother with the expensive ones.
>

The secret to using soap is to rinse it of straight away.

>> I would like to agree with the Audio ones but from personal experience
>> some of them do make a difference. But if you have a crap HiFi then
>> nothing will help.
>
> More amusing are the expensive HDMI cables. The entire point of HDMI of
> course being that it's digital, so it *does not* matter how poor the
> cables are. (Just so long as they're not /utterly/ hopeless...)
>
> I'm told for analogue audio interconnects it can sometimes make a small
> difference. It's not worth £3000 though. My ears aren't that good. :-P

Not £3000 pounds worth, I agree, unless you've spent £50,000 on an amp 
etc. The best upgrade I've done is to put some gasket material under my 
amp. Although I must admit the gasket had a working pressure of 600 bar 
and it is quite thick. The difference in sound quality is immediate.

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

>> I'm told for analogue audio interconnects it can sometimes make a small
>> difference. It's not worth £3000 though. My ears aren't that good. :-P
>
> Not £3000 pounds worth, I agree, unless you've spent £50,000 on an amp
> etc. The best upgrade I've done is to put some gasket material under my
> amp. Although I must admit the gasket had a working pressure of 600 bar
> and it is quite thick. The difference in sound quality is immediate.

The best upgrade I've done was to buy a pair of £100 Sennheiser 
headphones instead of listening to music on the 40-year old speakers my 
bedroom is equipped with.

Post a reply to this message

On 18/11/2010 1:01 PM, Invisible wrote:

> The best upgrade I've done was to buy a pair of £100 Sennheiser
> headphones instead of listening to music on the 40-year old speakers my
> bedroom is equipped with.

That is a good buy.

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> put some gasket material under my amp.


Under the *amp*?   I could understand under the turntable or under the 
speakers, but what does padding have to do with an amp?

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message

On 18/11/2010 4:23 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>> put some gasket material under my amp.
>
>
> Under the *amp*? I could understand under the turntable or under the
> speakers, but what does padding have to do with an amp?
>

It beats me?
My wife is the hi fi buff, I just do the lifting and wiring. If it were 
left to me, I’d still be using bell wire.
I’ve got two mats and when the bearing went on my turntable, I put one 
under the amp. The change in tone was instant, you could place the 
orchestral instruments much better.
The only thing I can think of is by insulating the amp further it 
reduced the sonic feedback which in turn stops the amp microphone-ing. 
(if that is even a word?)


-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> The only thing I can think of is by insulating the amp further it 
> reduced the sonic feedback which in turn stops the amp microphone-ing. 
> (if that is even a word?)

If the amp is on the same table as the speakers or something, I can see it, 
maybe. Otherwise, wtf?  Ask your wife for me. This I have to know. :-)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message

> The ones that get me are shampoos. For the last 10 years I’ve been using 
> hand soap and my head hasn’t fallen off yet.

How long on average does hair need to last on your head before it gets 
chopped off?

Post a reply to this message

Le 19/11/2010 17:51, scott nous fit lire :
>> The ones that get me are shampoos. For the last 10 years I’ve been
>> using hand soap and my head hasn’t fallen off yet.
> 
> How long on average does hair need to last on your head before it gets
> chopped off?

Depend on your length of hair... at about 1cm to 2cm per month, check it
for yourself.

Post a reply to this message

On 19/11/2010 4:25 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>> The only thing I can think of is by insulating the amp further it
>> reduced the sonic feedback which in turn stops the amp microphone-ing.
>> (if that is even a word?)
>
> If the amp is on the same table as the speakers or something, I can see
> it, maybe. Otherwise, wtf? Ask your wife for me. This I have to know. :-)
>

It was a guess and answering for my wife, she would say "It works"
She is not very technical.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 19/11/2010 6:01 PM, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> Le 19/11/2010 17:51, scott nous fit lire :
>>> The ones that get me are shampoos. For the last 10 years I’ve been
>>> using hand soap and my head hasn’t fallen off yet.
>>
>> How long on average does hair need to last on your head before it gets
>> chopped off?
>
> Depend on your length of hair... at about 1cm to 2cm per month, check it
> for yourself.

Mine grows faster than that, about 1 inch per month when short. At one 
point it took about 6 years before it had to be chopped. Not counting 
trimming split ends.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

And lo On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 12:13:07 -0000, Stephen <mca### [at] aoldotcom>  
did spake thusly:

> On 18/11/2010 11:20 AM, Phil Cook v2 wrote:
>> Ah I knew I'd seen this somewhere
>>
http://www.cracked.com/article_17606_7-high-tech-products-their-cheap-ass-ingredients.html
>> NSFW
>
> The ones that get me are shampoos. For the last 10 years I’ve been using  
> hand soap and my head hasn’t fallen off yet.

I used to work at a hairdressing training centre. It was quite funny to  
listen to how they discussed shampoos etc amongst themselves.

IIRC it goes like this

People used to wash their hair about once a week.
As the shampoo was designed at a strength to clean dirty hair it would  
often strip it of it's natural protection. This wasn't a problem as it  
would regenerate between washes.
Then people started washing their hair once a day (or more)
This left the hair unprotected.
So the manufacturers introduced conditioner to put back the protection
And made the shampoo weaker.
The ingredients in shampoo are designed to bond with dirt when they do so  
they don't foam up
Because people were washing their hair every day shampoo would always foam  
because there was no dirt to bond with.
When their hair actually got dirty the shampoo wouldn't foam.
As people had now expected the shampoo to always foam they complained.
The manufacturers added ingredients whose sole purpose was to make it foam.

Gotta love it.

The big tip from them was to never use a combined shampoo/conditioner not  
only do they have different consistencies but the former should be rinsed  
off quickly and the latter left to settle.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

>>> The ones that get me are shampoos. For the last 10 years I’ve been
>>> using hand soap and my head hasn’t fallen off yet.
>>
>> How long on average does hair need to last on your head before it gets
>> chopped off?
>
> Depend on your length of hair... at about 1cm to 2cm per month, check it
> for yourself.

I meant for you specifically.  I can imagine if you only keep our hair for a 
month before it gets cut off you can treat it quite badly and you won't go 
bald.  However if you plan to keep your hair for years then you probably 
want to look after it better.

Post a reply to this message

On 01/12/2010 8:40 AM, scott wrote:
> I meant for you specifically.  I can imagine if you only keep our hair
> for a month before it gets cut off you can treat it quite badly and you
> won't go bald.  However if you plan to keep your hair for years then you
> probably want to look after it better.
>
That does not make sense, to me. What does looking after your hair have 
to do with going bald?
I’ve been told, at various times, that wearing a hat, growing my hair or 
washing it every day would make me lose it. To my certain knowledge I’ve 
worn a hard hat for 11 hours a day for 16 years, kept my hair about 3 
feet long for 6 years and washed it every day for over 30 years; and 
still it grows like weeds.
OK it has lost its pigment but I found my first silver hair when I was 13.


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

> That does not make sense, to me. What does looking after your hair have to 
> do with going bald?
> I’ve been told, at various times, that wearing a hat, growing my hair or 
> washing it every day would make me lose it. To my certain knowledge I’ve 
> worn a hard hat for 11 hours a day for 16 years, kept my hair about 3 feet 
> long for 6 years and washed it every day for over 30 years; and still it 
> grows like weeds.

That's not very scientific though, is it?  Hair naturally falls out anyway, 
and I'd be surprised if nothing you mention affects the rate at which the 
hair falls out.

Post a reply to this message

On 02/12/2010 9:37 AM, scott wrote:
>> That does not make sense, to me. What does looking after your hair
>> have to do with going bald?
>> I’ve been told, at various times, that wearing a hat, growing my hair
>> or washing it every day would make me lose it. To my certain knowledge
>> I’ve worn a hard hat for 11 hours a day for 16 years, kept my hair
>> about 3 feet long for 6 years and washed it every day for over 30
>> years; and still it grows like weeds.
>
> That's not very scientific though, is it?

No but it is RL experience.

> Hair naturally falls out

It does and with different rates for different people. It can also stop 
growing after a certain length.

> anyway, and I'd be surprised if nothing you mention affects the rate at
> which the hair falls out.
>
  I agree but it illustrates the c*ap people say about it.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message