Looked like a fine article to me...

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The Henna Page Forum ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Natasha Papousek on August 28, 2001 at 06:10:41:

In reply to: New Scientist Article from 8/15: "Henna tattoos can cause severe allergic reactions' posted by Anne Beltestad on August 26, 2001 at 22:47:22:

I just read that article, and I agree that the first two short
paragraphs could be taken as misleading, but the rest of the article
was fine. It very clearly states "But the problem is not the henna
itself...but the chemical para-phenyl diamine (PPD)"

Most people who read New Scientist are not just skimming the first
couple of paragraphs -- they're serious nerds (like myself -- and I
am a subscriber) who read the whole article... the opening paragraphs
are the teaser to bring people into the story, unlike regular
journalism which tells the whole story in the first paragraph and
then fleshes out the details later.

This article actually names a RESEARCHER who has proven quite
conclusively that PPD is the problem and that real henna is amazingly
safe. And as a result of Dr. Hausen's research, the German Medical
Association is launching a campaign to ban PPD (all this reported in
this article).

So actually, I think this is a great article. So, they had a pretty
picture of hennaed hands instead of a photo of what PPD does -- but
that fits the style of New Scientist -- they often have very pretty
(and sometimes surreal) pictures to go with their articles. I think
this article is well-targeted towards its readership -- people who
are interested in science and want to know about research (scientists
from all disciplines, teachers of science, science students, spouses
of scientists...) It would not be an appropriate article for another
publication, such as TIME Magazine or a newspaper, but it isn't
published there.

Follow Ups

Re: Looked like a fine article to me... Anne Beltestad 22:42:19 8/28/2001 (0)

Post Followup

Name:
E-Mail:
Subject:
: I just read that article, and I agree that the first two short : paragraphs could be taken as misleading, but the rest of the article : was fine. It very clearly states "But the problem is not the henna : itself...but the chemical para-phenyl diamine (PPD)" : : Most people who read New Scientist are not just skimming the first : couple of paragraphs -- they're serious nerds (like myself -- and I : am a subscriber) who read the whole article... the opening paragraphs : are the teaser to bring people into the story, unlike regular : journalism which tells the whole story in the first paragraph and : then fleshes out the details later. : : This article actually names a RESEARCHER who has proven quite : conclusively that PPD is the problem and that real henna is amazingly : safe. And as a result of Dr. Hausen's research, the German Medical : Association is launching a campaign to ban PPD (all this reported in : this article). : : So actually, I think this is a great article. So, they had a pretty : picture of hennaed hands instead of a photo of what PPD does -- but : that fits the style of New Scientist -- they often have very pretty : (and sometimes surreal) pictures to go with their articles. I think : this article is well-targeted towards its readership -- people who : are interested in science and want to know about research (scientists : from all disciplines, teachers of science, science students, spouses : of scientists...) It would not be an appropriate article for another : publication, such as TIME Magazine or a newspaper, but it isn't : published there.
Optional link URL:
Link title:
Optional image URL: