zlacker

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.

>>Tozen+(OP)
My response to this article was maybe not well formulated. I just wanted to voice that the study observed different effects related to the type of dying: semi versus permanent, dark vs light, which points to the role of the developer formulation. Unless the coloring chemicals are different between semi and permanent too.

I think we agree that we still have no idea about what has been measured here.