Nike PerformanceFREE RN 2018 Trainers gunsmoke/crimson pulse/atmosphere au4q8n1X

SKU-56002-dli61912
Nike PerformanceFREE RN 2018 - Trainers - gunsmoke/crimson pulse/atmosphere au4q8n1X
Nike PerformanceFREE RN 2018 - Trainers - gunsmoke/crimson pulse/atmosphere

. For an active version of this wiki visit Uncyclopedia.co . For other language Uncyclopedias visit Uncyclopedia.info . For a good time, visit your mum.

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation , search
A international symbol of power, income and strength. The original "Ear Hole Poker" is still going strong after 150 years

Contents

[ hide ]

In 1846 Mary Jane Lonley was working as a waitress in a Cocktail Bar when she discovered that she had a clogging of the ear. As Mary had unfeasibly large fingers she found it very difficult to get at the impeding and obstructive wax and presided to search the bar for a suitible implement to get at the pesky wax. What she came up with was a cocktail stick with Rabbit fur attached to the end, therefore she could easily remove the wax that was causing her such discomfort. A few weeks later she had a Eureka moment when she heard some of the bar customers complaining that their were also getting blocked. Mary began to make more "Ear Hole Pokers" as they began to be known and patented her idea as Scary Mary's Ear Hole Pokers and sales went astronomical in the winter of 1847.

Cotton Bud Union......commies

During the summer of 1910 while Britain was preparing for invasion of foreign lands, Marys Ear Hole Pokers were selling millions by the week and a factory to mass produce them had been built in Seaton Carew, Hartlepool . The new government at the time did not wish to sound common and so decided to re brand the product following a government sponsored buyout. The new product was called Cotton Buds and housewives and immigrants throughout the UK lapped them up. Sales increased steadily and profits soared as Cotton Buds became the UK's second major export (the first being child molesters and criminals) by 1967.

The NCWU (National Cotton Buds Workers Union) was established in 1956 as a trade union in support of the many communists that now wrorked in the sector. Fearing a backlash from the Red Commies, the UK government decided that the Cotton Bud industry was becoming a source of contention between rival political parties and foreign governments and in a move that was sorely critised at the time sold off the company to Saudi Arabia in 1970.

For over thirty years the Saudi Arabian government employed large quantities of underage boys the 1970 Cotton Bud deal sparked world condemnation. The reported fee for the deal was close to £2billion of which most was paid in Steak Pies]]and girls to work in their Cotton Bud factories, it was claimed that as well as exporting arms to despot countries and price fixing , the Saudi's sought to impose their fundementalist views via anthrax tipped Cotton Buds to poision millions. This plan came to a head on September 11 2001 when Cotton Buds were used by Saudi terrorists to hijack the planes that caused . The world had now changed and the future of Cotton Buds seemed bleak a backlash against the product witnessed sales plummeting to pre 1910 figures.

Twenty-two hearts from various popes—from Sixtus V in 1583 to Leo XIII in 1903—are kept in marble urns at Santi Vincenzo e Anastasio a Trevi in Rome. Traditionally, the hearts were removed with the rest of the organs as part of the postmortem preservation process, and kept as relics just in case the pope became a saint .

Romantic composer Frédéric Chopin died in Paris in 1849, and most of him is buried in that city’s Pere Lachaise, but he asked for his heart to be buried in his native Poland. His sister carried it back to their home country, where it is preserved in alcohol (some say cognac) within a crystal urn inside a pillar at the Church of the Holy Cross in Warsaw. In 2014, scientists conducted a late-night examination of the heart to make sure the alcohol hadn’t evaporated, although their secrecy frustrated scientists who hope to one day examine the organ for clues about what killed the composer.

Visit Britain, Flickr // CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

The English poet and novelist Thomas Hardy wanted to be buried in his hometown of Stinsford, Dorset, but friends insisted that a burial in Westminster Abbey was the only appropriate choice for someone of Hardy’s literary prominence. But when town officials found out that Hardy’s body was destined for the abbey, they threw a fit, and so a compromise was reached—most of Hardy went to Westminster, but his heart was buried in Stinsford churchyard (where it has its own grave marker ). A persistent, but unproven, story has it that a cat ate part of the heart when the doctor who was removing it got distracted; a gruesome addendum says the animal was killed and buried alongside the organ.

When the poet Percy Shelley died sailing the Mediterranean in 1822, local quarantine regulations dictated that his body had to be cremated on the beach. But his heart allegedly refused to burn, and a friend, the adventurer Edward Trelawny, supposedly plucked it out of the flames. After a custody battle among Shelley’s friends, the heart was given to Percy’s wife Mary, who kept it until she died. Her children found it in a silk bag inside her desk, and it is now said to be buried with her at the family vault in Bournemouth, England.

The powerful House of Habsburg practiced heart burial for centuries, with many of the organs buried in copper urns in Vienna's Augustiner Church. In 2011, Otto von Habsburg, the last heir to the Austro-Hungarian Empire (which was dissolved in 1918), had his heart buried in the Benedictine Abbey in Pannonhalma, Hungary. The rest of him was buried in Vienna. The erstwhile crown prince said he wanted his heart buried in Hungary as a gesture of affection for the country—one half of his former empire.

Additional Sources: " Heart burial in medieval and early post-medieval central Europe"; Body Parts and Bodies Whole .

Opinion on Polyaminopropyl Biguanide (PHMB) - Submission III

Skechers SportFLEX APPEAL 20 Slipons taupe TYnjJ
U. Bernauer, L. Bodin, L. Celleno, Q. Chaudhry, P. Coenraads (Chairperson), M. Dusinska, J. Duus-Johansen, J. Ezendam, C.L. Galli, B. Granum, E. Panteri, V. Rogiers (Rapporteur), C. Rousselle, M. Stępnik, T. Vanhaecke, S. Wijnhoven [email protected] European Commission SCCS/1581/16 7 April 2017

Conclusion of the opinion:

In the previous opinion, the SCCS stated that the Polyaminopropyl Biguanide (PHMB) is not safe up to maximal concentration of 0.3%. The safe use could be based on a lower use concentration and/or restrictions with regard to cosmetic products' categories. In order to ensure the safe use of PHMB at a lower concentration than 0.3%, the applicant presented new dermal absorption studies on additional representative cosmetic formulations.Based on the data provided, the SCCS is of the opinion that the use of Polyaminopropyl Biguanide (PHMB) as a preservative in all cosmetic products up to 0.1% is safe.

Not applicable.

As no new safety data on inhalation is available on PHMB, its use in sprayable formulations is not advised.

/

Keywords:

SCCS, scientific opinion, Polyaminopropyl Biguanide (PHMB), Regulation 1223/2009, CAS 32289-58-0 / 27083-27-8 / 28757-47-3 / 133029-32-0, EC: 608-723-9 and 608-042-7

Opinion to be cited as:

Opinion to be cited as: SCCS (Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety), Opinion on Polyaminopropyl Biguanide (PHMB) - Submission III, SCCS/1581/16, 7 April 2017.

Print

Ethylzingerone – ‘Hydroxyethoxyphenyl Butanone’ (HEPB) (Cosmetics Europe No P98) Abstract

SCCS/1582/16 - 23 December 2016 - Final version of 7 April 2017

Opinion on Ethylzingerone – ‘Hydroxyethoxyphenyl Butanone’ (HEPB) (Cosmetics Europe No P98)

Link to opinion U. Bernauer (Rapporteur), L. Bodin, L. Celleno, Q. Chaudhry, P. Coenraads (Chairperson), M. Dusinska, J. Duus-Johansen, J. Ezendam, C.L. Galli, B. Granum, E. Panteri, V. Rogiers, C. Rousselle, M. Stępnik, T. Vanhaecke, S. Wijnhoven J. van Benthem, G.H. Degen [email protected] European Commission SCCS/1582/16 7 April 2017

Conclusion of the opinion:

Based on the information provided by the applicant, the use of Hydroxyethoxyphenyl Butanone (HEPB) as a cosmetic preservative in rinse-off, oral care and leave-on cosmetic products with a maximum concentration of 2.0 % under an aggregate exposure scenario for cosmetics is not considered safe.It is of note that a maximum concentration of 2.0 % under an aggregate exposure scenario for cosmetics could be considered safe if more reliable and supporting data on in vitro dermal penetration was provided.

Based on the information provided by the applicant, a maximum concentration of 0.7 % of Hydroxyethoxyphenyl Butanone (HEPB) as a cosmetic preservative in rinse-off, oral care and leave-on cosmetic products can be considered safe.

The SCCS is aware that Hydroxyethoxyphenyl Butanone (HEPB) is also used as skin conditioning agent. According to the Cosmetics Regulation 1223/2009 a substance authorised as preservative at specific conditions of use (e.g. maximum concentration) can only be used for other purposes at the same conditions of use set up for the preservative function. In the specific case of Ethylzingerone, this substance cannot be used as conditioning agent at concentrations higher than that one authorised for the preservative function.

Keywords:

SCCS, scientific opinion, Ethylzingerone - ‘Hydroxyethoxyphenyl Butanone’ (HEPB) - Cosmetics Europe No P98, Regulation 1223/2009, CAS 569646-79-3

Opinion to be cited as:

Opinion to be cited as: SCCS (Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety), Opinion on Ethylzingerone - ‘Hydroxyethoxyphenyl Butanone’ (HEPB) - Cosmetics Europe No P98, SCCS/1582/16, 7 April 2017.

Print

preservative EcoG+ Abstract

SCCS/1577/16 - 16 March 2016 - Final version of 6 October 2016

Addendum to the scientific opinion on Zinc pyrithione (P81) ref. SCCS/1512/13

Link to opinion U. Bernauer (Rapporteur), L. Bodin, Q. Chaudhry (SCCS Chair), P. Coenraads (SCCS Vice-Chair and Chairperson of the WG), M. Dusinska, J. Ezendam, E. Gaffet, C.L. Galli, B. Granum, E. Panteri, V. Rogiers (SCCS Vice-Chair), C. Rousselle, M. Stepnik, T. Vanhaecke, S. Wijnhoven A. Simonnard, A. Koutsodimou [email protected] European Commission SCCS/1593/18 21-22 February 2018

Conclusion of the opinion:

The newly provided studies on fertility and developmental toxicity did not lead to changes of point of departure for risk assessment compared to SCCS/1512/13. Further additional studies mentioned in the Swedish CLH proposal confirm neurotoxicity as a sensitive endpoint of ZPT toxicity. In view of the additional studies SCCS confirms the LOAEL of 0.5 mg/kg bw/d that was derived in SCCS/1512/13 as a conservative value for risk assessment of ZPT.

Therefore ZPT is considered safe when used at a concentration up to 2.0% as an anti-dandruff agent in rinse-off hair care products.

The conclusion from SCCS/1512/13 was specifically targeted to risk assessment for the particular use of ZPT in a concentration up to 2.0% as an anti-dandruff agent in rinse-off hair care products. Aggregate exposure from non-cosmetic sources has not been considered.

In view of apparent further (non-cosmetic) uses and in view of the fact that classification as Repr 1B is currently proposed, the SCCS recommends risk assessment taking into consideration all possible sources of exposure in line with Art 15 of Cosmetics Regulation (EU 1223/2009).

Not all relevant toxicological studies performed with ZPT have been made available to the SCCS (see section 3.1. Introduction of SCCS/1512/13).

Keywords:

SCCS, scientific opinion, addendum, preservative, P81, Zinc pyrithione, Regulation 1223/2009, CAS 13463-41-7

Opinion to be cited as:

SCCS (Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety), addendum to the Opinion on preservative Zinc pyrithione (P81) ref. SCCS/1512/13, 21-22 February 2018, SCCS/1593/18.

Print

Addendum to the Opinion on the use as preservative o-Phenylphenol, Sodium o-phenylphenate and Potassium o-phenylphenate ref. SCCS/1555/15 Abstract

SCCS/1597/18 - 21-22 February 2018

Addendum to the Opinion on the use as preservative o-Phenylphenol, Sodium o-phenylphenate and Potassium o-phenylphenate ref. SCCS/1555/15

Link to opinion U. Bernauer (Rapporteur), L. Bodin, Q. Chaudhry, P. Coenraads, M. Dusinska, J. Ezendam, E. Gaffet, C.L. Galli, B. Granum, E. Panteri, V. Rogiers, C. Rousselle, M. Stepnik, T. Vanhaecke, S. Wijnhoven [email protected] European Commission SCCS/1597/18 21-22 February 2018

Conclusion of the opinion:

Due to the lack of relevant information, the SCCS is unable to answer the question on the safe use level of sodium-OPP, potassium-OPP and MEA-OPP. In SCCS view, a direct comparison between the safety of o-phenylphenate (OPP) and its 3 compounds cannot be made due to the following concerns:

• From the limited available information, it is clear that both sodium and potassium salts of OPP have much higher water solubility than OPP (no information available on MEAOPP). This can potentially alter their absorption and biokinetics, compared to OPP.

• From the available information, the SCCS has noted that, compared to the strongly skin irritating nature of OPP, both sodium OPP and potassium-OPP are corrosive to the skin, and sodium OPP is also corrosive to the eye. This indicates that both sodium and potassium salts of OPP may have greater skin penetration and potentially more potent toxic effects than OPP due to higher systemic exposure. No relevant information on skin irritation is available for MEA-OPP but the presence of monoethyleneamine (MEA) moiety can also be expected to alter the skin absorption and biokinetics of MEA-OPP compared to OPP, and as a consequence also systemic exposure. For OPP, the SCCS has derived dermal absorption value of 45% from toxicokinetic information. However, such information is not available for sodium-OPP, potassium-OPP or MEA-OPP, and data would be needed to allow drawing any comparisons from the safe use levels of OPP.

• The available in vivo studies in rat have also indicated that the adverse effects of OPP and its sodium salt are different. For the sodium salt, there is clear indication that the substance is more potent with respect to urinary bladder carcinoma and data point to mechanistic differences between OPP and SOPP. Amongst other factors, SOPP leads to higher sodium concentrations in urine and also to higher urinary pH. There is insufficient dose-response data available to draw a conclusion on the possibility of setting a threshold for sodium-OPP induced toxicity. The currently available data are also not sufficient to exclude such a possibility for the other two compounds (potassium-OPP and MEA-OPP). Long-term repeat dose studies have pointed out to a threshold between 35 and 40 mg/kg bw/d for OPP, but due to the lack of dose-response data, a threshold for sodium-OPP, potassium-OPP or MEA-OPP cannot be derived.

For the reasons given above, the SCCS considers that the same conclusions on the safe use levels of OPP cannot be applied as such to sodium-OPP, potassium-OPP or MEA-OPP for use in rinse-off and leave-on cosmetic products.

Based on the available information, the SCCS is of the opinion that a potential risk to human health from the use of sodium-OPP and potassium-OPP as preservatives in cosmetic products cannot be excluded.

Although the safety of MEA-OPP was not evaluated in the Opinion SCCS/1555/15, the SCCS has a similar view that a potential risk from its use as preservative in cosmetic products cannot be excluded in the absence of relevant data.

Keywords:

SCCS, scientific opinion, preservative, Sodium o-phenylphenate, Potassium ophenylphenate, MEA o-Phenylphenate, Regulation 1223/2009, CAS n. 132-27-4, 13707-65- 8, 84145-04-0

Opinion to be cited as:

SCCS (Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety), Addendum to the scientific opinion on the use as preservative of o-Phenylphenol, Sodium ophenylphenate and Potassium o-phenylphenate- Here: the use as preservative of Sodium o-phenylphenate, Potassium o-phenylphenate, MEA o-Phenylphenate 21- 22/02/2018, SCCS/1597/18.

Print

Addendum to the Opinion on Climbazole (P64) ref. SCCS/1506/13 Abstract

SCCS/1590/17 - 24-25 October 2017

Please choose a language

Disclosures