Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Calcutta girl who fled home & marriage at 17 returns as millionaire US innovator

telegraphindia.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 75 posts

Re: Calcutta girl who fled home & marriage at 17 returns as millionaire US innovator

#51

Post by jackalope »

raverbashing wrote: post #42
btilly wrote: post #19

If the story is true, then I question her ethics. As http://www.preventcancer.com/consumers/cosmetics/cosmetics_p... (among many other sources) points out, we do not have good regulation of the cosmetics industry. Which is kind of scary, because the cosmetics industry is deliberately seeking biologically active stuff, and smearing it all over people. Stuff that, in her case, does things like change your natural skin…

I really don't know what's worse, cosmetic companies putting whatever they want or this exaggeration of risks Among that list of "dangerous substances" we have: talc, silica (sand). Exaggerated alarmism and "think of the children" mentality. I'm sure there's some people that die after consuming Vitamin C supplements, but that doesn't mean it is 'dangerous'. Do you know what else is carcinogenic? Sunscreen. Of course,…

I baked like a lobster once after spending too much time on a boat without any sunscreen. I was extremely concerned about the cancer risk and was surprised to come across this in the wikipedia article on sunburn:

...if sunscreen penetrates into the skin, it promotes indirect DNA damage, which causes the most lethal form of skin cancer, malignant melanoma. This form of skin cancer is rare, but it causes 75% of all skin cancer-related deaths.

So, while the sunburn you get without wearing sunscreen technically causes more cancer, it is of the mild and nonfatal kind. Now I'm left with one more dilemma added to good vs. bad cholesterol, omega-3 vs. omega-6, natural vs. alkali-processed cocoa, etc.

Re: Calcutta girl who fled home & marriage at 17 returns as millionaire US innovator

#52

Post by pretoriusB »

guard-of-terra wrote: post #24
btilly wrote: post #19

If the story is true, then I question her ethics. As http://www.preventcancer.com/consumers/cosmetics/cosmetics_p... (among many other sources) points out, we do not have good regulation of the cosmetics industry. Which is kind of scary, because the cosmetics industry is deliberately seeking biologically active stuff, and smearing it all over people. Stuff that, in her case, does things like change your natural skin…

So now you vote for stopping progress forever for the fears of safety? I assume you understand this makes you undeserving of that safety.

>So now you vote for stopping progress forever for the fears of safety?

Why not?

Because you believe in "progress" as in an inherently good metaphysical entity?

I'd take safety and a better life for the vast majority of mankind over progress anyday.

Re: Calcutta girl who fled home & marriage at 17 returns as millionaire US innovator

#53

Post by raverbashing »

jackalope wrote: post #51
raverbashing wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really don't know what's worse, cosmetic companies putting whatever they want or this exaggeration of risks Among that list of "dangerous substances" we have: talc, silica (sand). Exaggerated alarmism and "think of the children" mentality. I'm sure there's some people that die after consuming Vitamin C supplements, but that doesn't mean it is 'dangerous'. Do you know what else is carcinogenic? Sunscreen. Of course,…

I baked like a lobster once after spending too much time on a boat without any sunscreen. I was extremely concerned about the cancer risk and was surprised to come across this in the wikipedia article on sunburn: ...if sunscreen penetrates into the skin, it promotes indirect DNA damage, which causes the most lethal form of skin cancer, malignant melanoma. This form of skin cancer is rare, but it causes 75% of all ski…

Having your skin burned by sun rays (with a certain frequency) is worse than using sunscreen. And it is certainly not only 'mild cancer'

Constantly damaging a tissue (mechanical, chemical, radioactive damage) is a trigger for cancer

Not to mention the Ozone layer hole (in the southern hemisphere)

Re: Calcutta girl who fled home & marriage at 17 returns as millionaire US innovator

#54

Post by guard-of-terra »

pretoriusB wrote: post #52
guard-of-terra wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So now you vote for stopping progress forever for the fears of safety? I assume you understand this makes you undeserving of that safety.

> So now you vote for stopping progress forever for the fears of safety? Why not? Because you believe in "progress" as in an inherently good metaphysical entity? I'd take safety and a better life for the vast majority of mankind over progress anyday.

The vast majority of mankind do not have safe and enjoyable life.

The reason for that is not enough progress. "Safe and better" isn't going to materialize out of thin air.

Re: Calcutta girl who fled home & marriage at 17 returns as millionaire US innovator

#55

Post by [deleted] »

jackalope wrote: post #51
raverbashing wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really don't know what's worse, cosmetic companies putting whatever they want or this exaggeration of risks Among that list of "dangerous substances" we have: talc, silica (sand). Exaggerated alarmism and "think of the children" mentality. I'm sure there's some people that die after consuming Vitamin C supplements, but that doesn't mean it is 'dangerous'. Do you know what else is carcinogenic? Sunscreen. Of course,…

I baked like a lobster once after spending too much time on a boat without any sunscreen. I was extremely concerned about the cancer risk and was surprised to come across this in the wikipedia article on sunburn: ...if sunscreen penetrates into the skin, it promotes indirect DNA damage, which causes the most lethal form of skin cancer, malignant melanoma. This form of skin cancer is rare, but it causes 75% of all ski…

[deleted]

Re: Calcutta girl who fled home & marriage at 17 returns as millionaire US innovator

#56

Post by upquark »

kamaal wrote: post #17
suyash wrote: post #7

That is why they call America the Land of Opportunity. If you work hard enough, you dreams will come true here.

>>That is why they call America the Land of Opportunity. If you work hard enough, you dreams will come true here. What? This woman is from India, and trust me India of 2013 is nothing unlike the India of 1980s or early 1990's. Long gone are those days where one had to leave India and go to somewhere in the west to have a worth while life. You can pretty much be anything you want to be in modern day India. And by the…

> And by the way if you work hard 'enough', your dreams will come true anywhere!

Why do people keep repeating this? What is the empirical evidence for this statement outside of some anecdotes? I have seen so many counter-examples in my life...

Re: Calcutta girl who fled home & marriage at 17 returns as millionaire US innovator

#57

Post by khuey »

upquark wrote: post #56
kamaal wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>That is why they call America the Land of Opportunity. If you work hard enough, you dreams will come true here. What? This woman is from India, and trust me India of 2013 is nothing unlike the India of 1980s or early 1990's. Long gone are those days where one had to leave India and go to somewhere in the west to have a worth while life. You can pretty much be anything you want to be in modern day India. And by the…

> And by the way if you work hard 'enough', your dreams will come true anywhere! Why do people keep repeating this? What is the empirical evidence for this statement outside of some anecdotes? I have seen so many counter-examples in my life...

People repeat it because it makes them feel better. You don't have to confront the fact that life is inherently unfair.

Re: Calcutta girl who fled home & marriage at 17 returns as millionaire US innovator

#58

Post by prakashk »

From http://www.chandallc.com/index.php?p=1_4_About:

Ms. Zaveri received a Masters degree in Molecular Biology and Genetics from the University of California at Santa Barbara. Subsequent graduate studies were undertaken at California Polytechnic University (“Cal Tech”)

Since when California Polytechnic University is called Cal Tech? Isn't that abbreviation used for "California Institute of Technology (http://caltech.edu)?

Searching for California Polytechnic University shows "Cal Poly" or "California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA (www.calpoly.edu).

Update: Wikipedia says (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Pauling), Linus Pauling was at Caltech in the 1927–1963 period and does not indicate he was there in the later stage of his life (nineties). Nor does it say that he was ever associated with CalPoly. At least this part of the Ms. Zaveri's story seems suspicious to me.

Re: Calcutta girl who fled home & marriage at 17 returns as millionaire US innovator

#59

Post by btilly »

guard-of-terra wrote: post #24
btilly wrote: post #19

If the story is true, then I question her ethics. As http://www.preventcancer.com/consumers/cosmetics/cosmetics_p... (among many other sources) points out, we do not have good regulation of the cosmetics industry. Which is kind of scary, because the cosmetics industry is deliberately seeking biologically active stuff, and smearing it all over people. Stuff that, in her case, does things like change your natural skin…

So now you vote for stopping progress forever for the fears of safety? I assume you understand this makes you undeserving of that safety.

I vote for recognizing clear risks, and taking appropriate steps to mitigate them up front. If you're deliberately trying to put biologically active stuff into millions of people, it is just a question of time before the law of unintended consequences hits you. Your desire to sell more effective skin whitening creams does not, in my books, mean that you should ignore the possibility that your beautifier can make people sick. And if you're in doubt, I want you to err on the side of safety.

Of course if you're selling something that we have good evidence is both acceptably safe and makes people look better, then the more power to you. But that's not, by her admission, the position that she is probably in.

Re: Calcutta girl who fled home & marriage at 17 returns as millionaire US innovator

#60

Post by guard-of-terra »

btilly wrote: post #59
guard-of-terra wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So now you vote for stopping progress forever for the fears of safety? I assume you understand this makes you undeserving of that safety.

I vote for recognizing clear risks, and taking appropriate steps to mitigate them up front. If you're deliberately trying to put biologically active stuff into millions of people, it is just a question of time before the law of unintended consequences hits you. Your desire to sell more effective skin whitening creams does not, in my books, mean that you should ignore the possibility that your beautifier can make peop…

What makes you think she doesn't have good evidence that her product is both acceptably safe and makes people look better? I re-read that portion of TFA and nothing rang my bell.
Post reply on HN