Re: Looked like a fine article to me...

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

Posted by Anne Beltestad on August 28, 2001 at 22:42:19:

In reply to: Looked like a fine article to me... posted by Natasha Papousek on August 28, 2001 at 06:10:41:

I dunno, found the headline really misleading - that is, that Henna
is the problem, not copycat "fake tattoos" - and it took four
paragraphs to get to the point that henna WASN"T toxic.
It seemed like they'd done their research as far as that particular
study was concerned, but not as far as henna was concerned. No
mention of the millenia of henna usage, of its safety...besides which
I have a real bone to pick with calling henna "tattoos"; I have
tattoos, and they hurt, and are nothing like henna.
I will insist until the day they drag my lifeless but beautifully
decorated body away that there is a HUGE difference between henna and
tattoos. I don't call my tattoos "permanent mehndi" and I don't call
henna a "tattoo"!
Wonder who wrote the letter that's gonna get published? Mine was too
off the cuff, I think...

Anne

: 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

Post Followup

Name:
E-Mail:
Subject:
: I dunno, found the headline really misleading - that is, that Henna : is the problem, not copycat "fake tattoos" - and it took four : paragraphs to get to the point that henna WASN"T toxic. : It seemed like they'd done their research as far as that particular : study was concerned, but not as far as henna was concerned. No : mention of the millenia of henna usage, of its safety...besides which : I have a real bone to pick with calling henna "tattoos"; I have : tattoos, and they hurt, and are nothing like henna. : I will insist until the day they drag my lifeless but beautifully : decorated body away that there is a HUGE difference between henna and : tattoos. I don't call my tattoos "permanent mehndi" and I don't call : henna a "tattoo"! : Wonder who wrote the letter that's gonna get published? Mine was too : off the cuff, I think... : : Anne : : : 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: