Re: [OT] Shampoo
- From: Amethyst Deceiver <spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 10:59:41 +0100
In article <h8mdb7$i3b$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
mike_lyle_uk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx says...
"Paul Wolff" <bounceme@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:rbr2zdKtDupKFAva@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Don Phillipson <e925@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
"Vinny Burgoo" <hlunnh@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in messageApart from other cogent reasons offered, the shampoo may be formulated
news:a9e7b03f-b9ef-455c-ba20-034fd47aa8ab@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
. . . a prominent graphic warning the shampooer
to 'Use within 24 months of opening'.
Why? What would happen if I washed my hair with it 25 months after
opening? Or 60 months? Or 600?
Can anyone think of a plausible reason for such a warning?
Many vendors want repeat sales. If this one has any reason
to suppose two-year-old shampoo becomes smelly, solid or
otherwise unappealing, it makes sense to urge that it be
used up before that date.
as a suspension (solid-in-liquid) or emulsion (liquid-in-liquid) which
isn't certain to stay stable after two years. If there's a risk that
it might have started to separate into its different phases after 24
months of being kept in a cupboard over a radiator, the manufacturer
might well wish to disclaim it as its own.
Such a dull explanation!
Not so. For it leads to my realization that if a shampoo contained some
substance harmless, even useful, in dilution but which would be harmful
in concentration, the maker might well be anxious to avoid the risk of
an irritant supernatant in a neglected bottle. I use T-Gel, for example,
and I bet that's got a quite unpleasant ingredient or two.
In addition, the longer you leave an open bottle of liquid/gel, the
greater the likelihood of it starting to grow its own community of
unwanted Things.
--
Linz
Wet Yorks via Cambridge, York, London and Watford
My accent may vary
.
- References:
- [OT] Shampoo
- From: Vinny Burgoo
- Re: [OT] Shampoo
- From: Don Phillipson
- Re: [OT] Shampoo
- From: Paul Wolff
- Re: [OT] Shampoo
- From: Mike Lyle
- [OT] Shampoo
- Prev by Date: Re: "Please do not include 1. Relatives 2. Current or former employers 3. Current or former supervisors"
- Next by Date: Re: you was born
- Previous by thread: Re: [OT] Shampoo
- Next by thread: Re: [OT] Shampoo
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|