Thanks for clearing that up for me :-)

When I said “dozens of unpronounceable chemicals weren’t leaching into my scalp every month”, I meant from chemical hair dyes. Which, yes, do contain harmful chemicals such as p-Phenylenediamine, which the EPA.gov website describes thusly:

“p-Phenylenediamine is primarily used as a dye intermediate and as a dye. Acute (short-term) exposure to high levels of p-phenylenediamine may cause severe dermatitis, eye irritation and tearing, asthma, gastritis, renal failure, vertigo, tremors, convulsions, and coma in humans. Eczematoid contact dermatitis may result from chronic (long-term) exposure in humans. In rats and mice chronically exposed to p-phenylenediamine in their diet, depressed body weights, but no other clinical signs of toxicity, were observed in several studies. No information is available on the reproductive, developmental, or carcinogenic effects of p-phenylenediamine in humans.”

I think it’s fair to say that I don’t want that leaching into my scalp every month. I didn’t intend to imply, either, that something merely being unpronounceable makes it bad.

Obviously, everything on this earth can be broken down into chemical compounds (spoke about this with a friend who’s currently taking some intensive chemistry classes for vet school just this morning) including natural substances straight out of the earth. I’d think it was clear, considering the context, that I was referring to the nasty ones in most store-bought and salon hair dyes.

And yes, I have seen Idiocracy and love it. Though I must say, I don’t see Starre’s comment (or my post, if that’s what you’re referring to) as oversimplifying science. :)

I guess my point was more of a semantic one than you realized. The sentence I quoted in my first comment wasn’t about the safety of henna or its environmental effects. It merely implied (to me at least) through the negatively charged words “leached” and “unpronounceable” that the writer was saying chemicals are bad - without specifying what type of chemicals or where they were from. Would it not have been better for Stephanie to say she was relieved that there were no laboratory-created/manmade chemicals soaking into her scalp? Or that she preferred naturally-occurring chemical compounds?

I have more semantic issues with your comment. Saying that “all kinds” of plants are safer for people is weird - there are plenty that are just plain poisonous whether you’re allergic to them or not. And when you say that ecosystems handle chemical compounds differently depending on whether they naturally occurred or were created in a lab do you mean to say that ecosystems differentiate between the exact same chemical depending on its source? Or did you mean something “invented” in a lab?

It probably seems as though I’m being terribly picky but it bothers me when people advocating the same causes as I (environmentalism, sustainability and all that :-P) oversimplify science. Who else has seen the movie Idiocracy? The one where people of the future water their crops with Gatorade because they’ve been told and told and told that Gatorade is a good thing because “it has electrolytes” and, of course, the crops die.

The chemicals that make up organic ingredients (C6H12O6 looks scary until you realize it’s sugar! Or dihydroxy oxide? Water!!) are, of course, compounds, but they are VERY different from human-created ones, most of which have never been tested for safety! Considering people all over the world have been using henna directly on their skin for thousands of years (like in India, where it is part of traditional wedding ceremonies) vouches for it’s safety. That’s not to say that some people won’t have reactions to all kind of plants (from poison ivy to wheat) BUT they are far safer for both people and the environment. When regular hair dye washes down the drain, where does it go? Will it break down or affect the animals in that environment? Who knows? (and in some cases we do know, and it’s not good). While natural products in excess could create pollution, there is a HUGE difference in the way the ecosystem can handle natural ‘chemical compounds’ which everything from my banana to mud is made up of, and how it handles those created in a lab.

Sasha - at the very least, henna smells a lot better! You know that gross ammonia smell that regular hair dye has? Plus, when I used to use chemical hair dye, I constantly had an irritated scalp and it was always really bad right after I dyed my hair - while the dye was on, my scalp would start to burn, ouch. Once I started using henna, the problem went away all together (shrug). Works for me! I’ve heard of some people using henna to treat scalp issues, too, like dandruff…

I think some dyes are better about that - specifically, Aveda, since they’re plant based…

Henna is a fantastic plant product but it doesn’t seem right to imply (”Once I started using henna I breathed a sigh of relief that dozens of unpronounceable chemicals weren’t leaching into my scalp every month.”) that there are no dozens of chemicals contained in a plant such as henna and that this makes it somehow better for your scalp. Henna is full of chemicals - like every other object on Earth. If you look at the active ingredient in henna (lawsone) you’ll see that it’s made up of 2-hydroxy-1,4-naphthoquinone (Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawsone); not quite unpronounceable but close.

Otherwise, nice article :-)