[HN Gopher] Hair dye and chemical straightener use and breast ca...
___________________________________________________________________
Hair dye and chemical straightener use and breast cancer risk
(2019)
Author : ImpressiveWebs
Score : 62 points
Date : 2023-07-23 16:28 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (onlinelibrary.wiley.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (onlinelibrary.wiley.com)
| Thoeu388 wrote:
| This theory was quite popular in manosphere. Some hardcore haters
| were even making videos to warn women. If you check sources,
| studies like this go back to 1970ties. It will be interesting to
| see, if it gains traction now.
| NBJack wrote:
| Sorry? What do you mean here? Hate on what/who?
| arp242 wrote:
| You can have the right conclusion for all the wrong reasons, or
| the wrong conclusion for all the right reasons. It's really the
| reasoning that matters more than the conclusion which,
| certainly in this case, seems coincidentally similar more than
| anything else.
| karim79 wrote:
| This one caught my attention.
|
| In 2015 my (now ex) girlfriend was diagnosed with TNBC. I
| obviously researched the hell out of it to gain as much of an
| understanding as I possibly could as a non-medical professional
| as I'm sure anyone would, and most of my reading suggested that
| it was mostly African American women and youngish white ladies
| who tend to get this.
|
| As far as I know, she had used permanent die at least once in her
| early twenties. Thankfully less than a year later and after chemo
| and surgery, she fully recovered.
|
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7783321/
|
| Edit: added space after comma, fixed grammo
| [deleted]
| manmal wrote:
| Sorry to hear this. But are you implying one single use of hair
| dye could have caused her cancer?
| chmod775 wrote:
| You're rolling the dice every time you do something that
| increases your cancer risk. Cancer doesn't have some sort of
| threshold where you get it.
|
| So yeah, it _could_ have caused it. Is it the likely cause?
| Maybe not.
| bsder wrote:
| Viral or environmental triggers are _WAY_ more likely in
| someone so young.
| throwawaymaths wrote:
| TNBC is not really a direct category of breast cancer. It's a
| catch all for "any breast cancer that doesn't have one of the
| main three targettable handles associated with breast
| cancer"[0]
|
| In many cases, it could even be a cancer "from some other
| organ" that winds up in the breast and happens to, even by
| chance (not growing in the breast because it's a favorable
| environment), grow there.
|
| [0] could explain why TNBC is more common in African American
| women -- less research done in those populations
| karim79 wrote:
| > TNBC is not really a direct category of breast cancer. It's
| a catch all for "any breast cancer that doesn't have one of
| the main three targettable handles associated with breast
| cancer"
|
| > In many cases, it could even be a cancer "from some other
| organ" that winds up in the breast and happens to, even by
| chance (not growing in the breast because it's a favorable
| environment), grow there.
|
| That would imply metastasis, would it not? By which, the
| originating organ of the tumour could be determined by
| examining the samples from the initial biopsy. The doctor
| said that in the case of TNBC there is no hormone expression,
| which makes it differ from other BC types, and why a more
| aggressive chemo regime is required for this diagnosis.
|
| I was there, at her second-opinion encounter. Nothing was
| mentioned about it possibly originating from another organ.
| She had had repeated body scans, blood work, all that one can
| imagine. I'm not saying you are wrong, I am saying there was
| not a single mention in any part of the treatment nor
| received "coping" literature that this could have come from
| another organ.
| throwawaymaths wrote:
| It doesn't imply metastasis in the way you're thinking
| about it. Just because a cancer cell has moved once doesn't
| mean it will aggressively keep moving to other organs.
|
| Honestly doctors won't investigate too hard because the
| recommended course of action is likely going to be the
| same.
|
| Anyways the longtime leading TNBC model cell line (which
| came from an African American woman, IIRC) turned out to be
| "likely originating from a melanoma".
|
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5515196/
| milsorgen wrote:
| I've used my fair share of dyes since my blue haired teenage
| years and I'm curious as they mention non-professional
| applications of dye in terms of risk. Does this mean the risk is
| elevated during the application phase and not the 'wearing' phase
| of dye use?
|
| >We observed a higher breast cancer risk associated with any
| straightener use and personal use of permanent dye
| karim79 wrote:
| Assuming that the application phase leads to permanence I don't
| really see the difference, yet I get your point. E.g. massaging
| the dye into the scalp vs a pro not going to deep into the
| roots.
| echelon wrote:
| The paper cites endocrine disruption, but that seems like the
| least of your worries.
|
| Dyes have electron delocalization. That's why they're optically
| active. Those bonds will gladly participate in chemical reactions
| within your body. (One of the cited chemicals was a biphenyl, and
| looked particularly nasty.)
|
| Chemical straightener is even worse. They're intended to break
| disulfide bonds, which are of critical importance in biochemical
| structure.
|
| This stuff could percolate to your DNA and introduce deleterious
| changes.
| exceptione wrote:
| "Dyes have electron delocalization. That's why they're
| optically active."
|
| What do you mean by that?
| mchem wrote:
| A flawed model to understand this would be to picture a
| hexagon with nodes on the vertices. Then, consider a hexagon
| with one main node in the centre.
|
| When electrons are tightly bound into nodes in and between
| the vertices, they are energetically 'stable'. They,
| therefore, do not like change.
|
| When electrons are shared equally between all nodes and are
| mobile, they could be considered to be 'more active'. As the
| electrons are not tightly bound, it is 'all to play for' and
| some change in state may be accommodated.
|
| The optical activity described occurs because the equally
| shared, 'central node' electrons are 'free-er' and have the
| flexibility to accept unusual states. This is because in the
| multi-node model, the electrons may be considered tightly
| bound to each node and so any the effect of any change in the
| state of a given electron is highly concentrated and local.
|
| In the shared electron central node model the electrons are
| 'more mobile' and so any change in state has a distributed
| and shared effect across all electrons, rather than only
| those in a given node of the multi modal model.
|
| To emit light, an electron must absorb enough energy to reach
| 'the next level'. In the multi nodal model, the next level is
| extremely far away and may require so much energy that the
| molecule will disintegrate rather than emit light.
|
| In the equally shared central node model, the next level is
| 'accessible' in that, whilst unstable, the mobile bulk of
| electrons in the molecule can accommodate the change and
| radiate the excess away.
|
| The exact colour of light is determined by the energy
| required to reach the next level, in most cases. This is a
| consequence of the delocalisation of electrons in dyes, which
| may be considered as following the shared central node model.
| A further consequence is increased reactivity.
|
| This explanation should be considered poor and ignores a lot
| of nuance and theory (whilst relying on a hazy memory).
| Likewise, it neglects to explain intriguing phenomena such as
| the anion-pi interaction. In any case, I hope it is not 'too
| wrong' and helps!
| dredmorbius wrote:
| OT: hijacking to reply to a past comment:
| <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36147435>
|
| You might find my work based on the HN front page of interest:
| <https://toot.cat/@dredmorbius/110437783957361794>. Note that
| this is a _subset_ of total HN activity, though a significant
| subset.
|
| There's also Whaly.io's retrospectives based on the HN API:
|
| <https://whaly.io/posts/hacker-news-2021-retrospective>
|
| <https://whaly.io/posts/top-10k-commenters-of-hacker-news-
| in-...>
| exceptione wrote:
| From a quick scan the results are a bit surprising. One should
| know that dying ones hair involves 2 components:
|
| 1. developer. Some liquid that breaks open your hair follicles,
| containing usually 3%/6%/9% hydrogen peroxide. This is the
| aggressive stuf.
|
| 2. hair dye. The stuff that contains the color pigments.
|
| The more you have to bleach the hair, the more aggressive the
| developer formulation needs to be. If you have perfectly black
| hair and you want to go blond, you basically going for the
| nucleair scenario: aggressively breaking open your hair follicles
| so that the existing dark pigments will fall out of it (bleach)
| so that the new pigments can enter eventually.
|
| It suggests that black women have higher risks than white women.
| But also that semi-permanent dyes do incur way less risk. Semi-
| permanent dyes work different as in that the developer is way
| less aggressive, as a trade of with doing a less thorough job in
| getting the hair follicles to open.
|
| The strange this is that for black women, the color of the
| permanent dye makes a more drastic difference in cancer risk
| compared to white women.
|
| _" The association with permanent dye use among black women was
| evident for both dark-colored dye (HR = 1.51, 95% CI: 1.12-2.05)
| and, although less precise, light-colored dye (HR = 1.46, 95% CI
| 0.91-2.34). Among white women, breast cancer risk was associated
| with use of light-colored permanent dye (HR = 1.12, 95%
| 1.01-1.23) but not dark dye (HR = 1.04, 95% 0.94-1.16)."_
|
| For me, this leaves the question open if one is comparing apples
| with apples, as I don't see the formulation for the developer
| accounted for.
| Tozen wrote:
| I'm confused by your analysis. For black women, it's not just
| hair dye, but they have hair straightener products that have
| companies putting some very toxic and carcinogenic stuff into
| them. So black women can be putting themselves at greater risk,
| if they use such chemical straighteners (they do have non/less
| toxic options).
|
| It also indicates that black women are less likely to get
| breast cancer than white women, but when they do, they are more
| likely to die from it for a whole bunch of reasons. To include
| factors like time of diagnosis, quality, or cost of medical
| care.
|
| > For me, this leaves the question open if one is comparing
| apples with apples, as I don't see the formulation for the
| developer accounted for.
|
| Here, I agree with you. Clearly what the companies are putting
| into the products vary significantly. That by itself, might be
| worthy of more study as to what's gong on. Dumping more toxic
| and carcinogenic chemicals into the product, would seem to
| clearly increase risk. For consumers, they need a guide as to
| what products and ingredients are safer or more dangerous.
| Looks like certain ingredients arguably need cancer warnings or
| some kind of warning on the label.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-07-23 23:01 UTC)