Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2014 November 11

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 11

Is there a dye or high lift I can use on my medium brown hair to make blond without damaging or bleach?

My hair is a really dull brown and I want to dye it blond without damaging it. I dyed it previously blond and black in this photo 2 years ago and it was horrible. It felt like straw https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152122055804804&set=a.10152122055789804.1073741826.708099803&type=1&theater The color has grown out. But how do I dye it again without it feeling like straw? Venustar84 (talk) 03:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Without bleach, you may be able to fade it in sunlight. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

This is important: all methods to permanently color hair cause damage to the hair. This is because the Cuticle_(hair) doesn't have color or accept it well, and the cuticle must be damaged to allow permanent coloring agents in to the hair cortex. The idea is to minimize the damage, not completely prevent it. Generally, lightening causes more damage than darkening. Here are some links to techniques that claim to lighten with relatively less damage. [1] [2] [3] [4]. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:43, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

There's the option of henna (I haven't tried it) which seems to improve hair quality, just it doesn't come in blonde. I have a friend who used black henna (without the intent to go Goth), which worked wonderfully. There are wash-on rinses, but that just basically gives you red or purple highlights, and it won't lighten your hair color. Think of a professional paint job. First they sand off the old paint (bleach) then they put a primer and then the final color. Professional jobs going to blonde from a darker shade always begin with bleaching. This is a case where, if you want a good job, the advice and employment of a respected professional is the best option. μηδείς (talk) 21:02, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Professionals have access to preparations unavailable to the general public, or so they say. Some have studied and qualified as coloring specialists, though this might be through commercial product manufacturers. Otherwise to achieve a fashion effect, you might consider keeping your natural color and going for a custom hairstyle that includes colored accessories. And if you wait long enough, your hair will go gray/white, which is likely to be lighter than the original you're trying to lighten artificially.-- Deborahjay (talk) 07:40, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Funny, DJ, I did think of saying "once you've gone grey..." Unfortunately, or fortunately, most people don't go grey prematurely. The professional is a much better idea than, say, an illness that keeps you in the hospital 6 months and requires major surgeries. If you see people with good die jobs, ask them if they'll recommend their stylist. μηδείς (talk) 18:07, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

23andMe-like service?

I was originally going to get Ancestry DNA, but then I found information on the kind of report that 23andMe used to provide[5] (with the health info and genetic traits analysis in addition to the ancestry stuff), and now $99 for just ethnicity and familial relations information seems really disappointing. Are there any companies that provide the kind of comprehensive genetic report that 23andMe used to before the FDA made them quit? Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 23:29, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

it's doubtful, but I won't claim a categorical negative. I'll just suggest you consider phrenology, which was all the rave when they figured out parts of the brain Phineas Gage affected parts of the psyche. μηδείς (talk) 00:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Please explain the relationship between the pseudoscience of phrenology and genomics. The FDA didn't stop 23andMe because it was fraudulent or in any way unscientific; just the opposite: the FDA stopped 23andMe because the FDA contends that the program providing information about one's genome in conjunction with advising about potential health risks is tantamount to a medical device and thus under FDA jurisdiction. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:43, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Promethease is an online service which will accept your genetic data from 23andme or Ancestry and give an output of the medical implications, similar to that once available from 23andme, for a $5 fee. See http://dna-explained.com/2013/12/30/promethease-genetic-health-information-alternative/ That said, few medical conditions are predicted accurately and causitively just from your genome: the billions of CATG basepairs. It is rarely as simple as Mendelian inheritance. Many physical traits, such as height, or conditions such as schizophrenia, are controlled by literally thousands of genes, with each having a tiny positive or negative effect. All you get are that the probability of your developing some condition is slightly higher or lower than average if you have one version or another of some gene. The epigenome is not analyzed by 23andme or Ancestry. See Epigenetics. Methylation, for instance is a process which controls the expression of genes. Edison (talk) 21:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• Hain't no one seen GATTACA? μηδείς (talk) 04:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but it's a work of fiction...it has no relevance here. SteveBaker (talk) 22:04, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The point of GATTACA is perfectly valid. But if you want a dry-eyed account from today's news, here's a "source". The overall point is 1, that genes interact in very complex ways, see for instance, incomplete penetrance, expressivity, and pleiotropy. And 2, the environment and choice are just as big a factor. If you have good genes for muscle building, but never get out of a chair, or if you are lactose intolerant, but never eat dairy products you won't build muscle of have gas from milk, even if your genes would indicate that. In analogy, genes, environment and choice have joint and several liability in how one's life turns out. The only place where a genetic analysis is useful at this point is one for morbid or lethal traits with complete penetrance. I.e., a gene that kills or disables 100% of those who carry it. Most people with such genes will either already be sick or know the gene runs in the family. The rest is chicanery. μηδείς (talk) 04:16, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

My wife and I both used 23andMe before the FDA stepped in. The health advice was interesting but not earth shattering. It actually did tell me I was lactose intolerant, a fact I was already very confident of after many bad dairy experiences. Even before 23andMe, I had started using lactase pills before most dairy meals, and more than once regretted it if I forgot those pills. So not a shocking finding, but consistent with what I already believed to be true. My wife got a similar genetic confirmation though I won't say for what. The profiles didn't tell us anything with high confidence that we didn't already know. Though they did suggest that we might be at higher risk for certain conditions, which might cause us to be more cautious if we ever develop the associated symptoms, though it hasn't happened yet and even with a elevated risk probably still won't ever happen. Altogether, I thought it an interesting product and worth the expense, but it didn't reveal anything amazing. Actually, I think we derived more insights from the genealogy portion rather than the health portion, though in part that is because my wife has a complicated ancestry that spans three continents within only a couple of generations and it helped us to figure out some things (and figure out some additional questions that needed asking of our living relatives). Dragons flight (talk) 05:20, 15 November 2014 (UTC)