car news in india 2012 image
Sundas
My hair is thinning wehhh
I have layers
The ends as in bottom of my hair looks rlly thin!
I have like small strands of hair near my scalp, some strands are very short some just short some a but longer, why?! Its either breakage or new hair right.. So if it is breakage then do broken hair still grow? Cuz i heard u should cut them off but they are so short , how wud you cut them... If i just leave them alone will they grow?
Im so stressed out and sad cuz i use to have such thick hair and it use to be very long and then i had a haircut and my hair falls out alot and its so thin and short ( well its medium but for a girl who have mad long hair this is short!)
My hair breaks easily, i have dry hair and dry scalp well my hair is a bit weird like when i take a shower the first day my hair is dry and then the next day my hair feels very soft but my scalp is still dry
I am planning to start eating biotin i have the 1000 one ppl say the 5000 one better but the pharmacist suggested the 1000 one... So which one is better? And if i eat too much biotin will i make my hair fall more? Im also planning to eat multi vitamins cuz i under eat, i dont eat much cuz i get full really quickly and i def. dont eat healthy so will eating vitamins make up for that? I am also planning to put almond oil
I heard u shud spray ur hair with warm water and put in warm almond oil for like 30 min and then wash it and shampoo, is that good?
Oh and can i eat multi vitamins and biotin together? The multi vitamins i will take are perscribed by my doc ,they arent over the counter so can i take that w biotin or should i eat biotin in morning and multi vitamins at night?
Any other suggestions?
Pls someone give me a good answer so i stop stressing cuz that will make me loose hair too!!
I rlly need help and i wud appreciate it sooo soo much if someone can help me w this
Thanks a ton everyone!!
Answer
NEVER take supplements without your doctor's OK.
For India: http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-06-19/ludhiana/40069479_1_hair-loss-hair-fall-treatment-trichology OR http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-07-11/health/40513861_1_hair-loss-diabetes-capital-international-diabetes-federation
Biotin alone is not going to do that for your hair, that's like have a car and not use gas. You need all the healthy foods from Mother Nature, not just biotin. Do you know what's in the biotin?
   Biotin - cauliflower, liver, salmon, carrots, bananas, cereals, yeast, and soy flour. Keep in mind that biotin content is reduced when food is cooked or preserved. One YA poster caused her to have major breakouts from supplements. Another poster said: "
i took biotin to grow my hair out, and it ended up falling out too!! it was worse around my bang area, like where you part it, there waas a huge patch of hair missing so i had to move my part for 5 months!" Another example, one taking Biotin & Zinc: "I have taken Biotin ( 300mcg ), Zinc (15mg) and Folic Acid(800mcg) and I realised my breast have gotten really sore, I didn't know what the reason was, but then I realised that I have been taken vitamins."
HEAT & CHEMICALS are hair's worst enemies. You have any of those on your hair?
If you've straightened your hair in the past, it may grow slowly or none at all.
Google: "Foods for Healthy Hair" http://www.foodforhealthyhair.com/ http://sg.news.yahoo.com/food-for-healthy-hair.html - or 10 Best Foods for Your Hair.
http://www.channelstv.com/home/2012/07/03/10-best-foods-for-your-hair/
http://gulfnews.com/life-style/beauty-fashion/beauty/best-foods-for-healthy-hair-1.1183522
http://gulfnews.com/life-style/beauty-fashion/beauty/best-foods-for-healthy-hair-1.1183522
NO MATTER which link you picked, they all suggest the same foods. Your hair may be the fastest-growing tissue in the body but, unlike the skin, it cannot repair itself. That is why getting the right balance of vitamins and proteins is imperative. Don't expect to look like you've stepped out of a hair commercial the day after you've changed your diet. It is likely to take at least three months before you actually see tangible results. Hair is dead, but hair also has electrical energy; the negative charge of damaged hair can lead to flyways and unruly hair.
Growing healthy hair doesn't come from a bottle or pills and hair products do not speed hair growth. Any hair oil, is another form to keep hair moisturized, nothing more. If you're in HS, your hair & nails should be growing normally, and as healthily as possible, since you're eating healthy foods. But when hair isn't growing as fast, it's because they've been tampered with: chemicals, hair straightening, etc. . .
"You find people oiling hair every single day, the hair sweats and it doesnât get washed. What do you think happens? It goes limp and becomes thin because it is not breathing,â Shamillah Mohammed, a hairstylist at SUQA, says.
NEVER take supplements without your doctor's OK.
For India: http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-06-19/ludhiana/40069479_1_hair-loss-hair-fall-treatment-trichology OR http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-07-11/health/40513861_1_hair-loss-diabetes-capital-international-diabetes-federation
Biotin alone is not going to do that for your hair, that's like have a car and not use gas. You need all the healthy foods from Mother Nature, not just biotin. Do you know what's in the biotin?
   Biotin - cauliflower, liver, salmon, carrots, bananas, cereals, yeast, and soy flour. Keep in mind that biotin content is reduced when food is cooked or preserved. One YA poster caused her to have major breakouts from supplements. Another poster said: "
i took biotin to grow my hair out, and it ended up falling out too!! it was worse around my bang area, like where you part it, there waas a huge patch of hair missing so i had to move my part for 5 months!" Another example, one taking Biotin & Zinc: "I have taken Biotin ( 300mcg ), Zinc (15mg) and Folic Acid(800mcg) and I realised my breast have gotten really sore, I didn't know what the reason was, but then I realised that I have been taken vitamins."
HEAT & CHEMICALS are hair's worst enemies. You have any of those on your hair?
If you've straightened your hair in the past, it may grow slowly or none at all.
Google: "Foods for Healthy Hair" http://www.foodforhealthyhair.com/ http://sg.news.yahoo.com/food-for-healthy-hair.html - or 10 Best Foods for Your Hair.
http://www.channelstv.com/home/2012/07/03/10-best-foods-for-your-hair/
http://gulfnews.com/life-style/beauty-fashion/beauty/best-foods-for-healthy-hair-1.1183522
http://gulfnews.com/life-style/beauty-fashion/beauty/best-foods-for-healthy-hair-1.1183522
NO MATTER which link you picked, they all suggest the same foods. Your hair may be the fastest-growing tissue in the body but, unlike the skin, it cannot repair itself. That is why getting the right balance of vitamins and proteins is imperative. Don't expect to look like you've stepped out of a hair commercial the day after you've changed your diet. It is likely to take at least three months before you actually see tangible results. Hair is dead, but hair also has electrical energy; the negative charge of damaged hair can lead to flyways and unruly hair.
Growing healthy hair doesn't come from a bottle or pills and hair products do not speed hair growth. Any hair oil, is another form to keep hair moisturized, nothing more. If you're in HS, your hair & nails should be growing normally, and as healthily as possible, since you're eating healthy foods. But when hair isn't growing as fast, it's because they've been tampered with: chemicals, hair straightening, etc. . .
"You find people oiling hair every single day, the hair sweats and it doesnât get washed. What do you think happens? It goes limp and becomes thin because it is not breathing,â Shamillah Mohammed, a hairstylist at SUQA, says.
Who's excited about doubling energy prices in the name of a vague environmental benefit that can't be measured?
WJ
Answer
Ignor-anuses are excited about it...crafting trillion dollar legislation based upon a hypothesis...brilliant. It's nothing more than an energy tax -- more money to spend for those in charge.
I sent an e-mail to my Rep. who voted YEA today that might make her a little uncomfortable...complete moron.
I found this a refreshing clip about Conservatives and Liberal philosophies...maybe you will too?:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWHgUE9AD4s&feature=PlayList&p=F540A0660DB6A903&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=57
Edit:
Quan -- ask and you shall receive...testimony given by Ben Lieberman this morning:
"The only entities directly regulated by Waxman-Markey would be the electric utilities, oil refiners, natural gas producers, and some manufacturers that produce energy on site. So, the good news for the rest of us--homeowners, car owners, small-business owners, farmers--is that we won't be directly regulated under this bill. The bad news is that nearly all the costs will get passed on to us anyway.
What are those costs? According to the analysis we conducted at The Heritage Foundation, which is attached to my written statement, the higher energy costs kick in as soon as the bill's provisions take effect in 2012. For a household of four, energy costs go up $436 that year, and they eventually reach $1,241 in 2035 and average $829 annually over that span. Electricity costs go up 90 percent by 2035, gasoline by 58 percent, and natural gas by 55 percent by 2035. The cumulative higher energy costs for a family of four by then will be nearly $20,000.
But direct energy costs are only part of the consumer impact. Nearly everything goes up, since higher energy costs raise production costs. If you look at the total cost of Waxman-Markey, it works out to an average of $2,979 annually from 2012-2035 for a household of four. By 2035 alone, the total cost is over $4,600.
Beyond the cost impact on individuals and households, Waxman-Markey also affects employment, and especially employment in the manufacturing sector. We estimate job losses averaging 1,145,000 at any given time from 2012-2035. And note that those are net job losses, after the much-hyped green jobs are taken into account. Some of the lost jobs will be destroyed entirely, while others will be outsourced to nations like China and India that have repeatedly stated that they'll never hamper their own economic growth with energy-cost boosting global warming measures like Waxman-Markey.
Since farming is energy intensive, that sector will be particularly hard-hit. Higher gasoline and diesel fuel costs, higher electricity costs, and higher natural gas-derived fertilizer costs all erode farm profits, which are expected to drop by 28 percent in 2012 and average 57 percent lower through 2035. As with American manufacturers, Waxman-Markey also puts American farmers at a global disadvantage, as other food-exporting nations would have no comparable energy-price raising measures in place.
Overall, Waxman-Markey reduces gross domestic product by an average of $393 billion annually between 2012 and 2035, and cumulatively by $9.4 trillion. In other words, the nation will be $9.4 trillion poorer with Waxman-Markey than without it."
Edit:
Bash - "The non-partisan CBO and EPA disagree with you."
The non-partisan CBO clearly identifies that the middle/upper-middle classes will pay for it explicitly -- and when costs of consumer products rise, so will the lower class: Last Page - NET COSTS - middle & fourth quartile...ouch.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/103xx/doc10327/06-19-CapAndTradeCosts.pdf
Consequently, who do you think pays for this "relief" that nobody seems to be talking about...?
"The Distribution of Direct Relief to Households
About 31 percent of the allowance value would be allocated in a fairly direct
manner to U. S. households to compensate them for their increased expenditures
(see Table 1). Some of that relief is expected to be allocated across most
households in the form of a rebate on their bills for heating and cooling their
homes. Other relief would be directed at low-income households in the form of an
energy rebate or a tax credit. By CBOâs estimates, 25 percent of the direct relief
to households would go to households in the lowest income quintile and
50 percent to households in the two lowest quintiles combined. On average, the
amount of direct relief would offset 94 percent of the additional expenses that
households in the lowest quintile incurred. In contrast, the direct relief received by
households in the highest quintile would offset only 18 percent of their added
costs."
Edit:
Quan -- did you even read the CBO report? Did you recognize who takes the brunt of the burden?
Not sure about you but my family owns a farm and these "relief" allowances provide about $3/acre while our costs due directly to Cap & Trade increase anywhere b/n $75-$80/acre. Who do you think gets to pay for that $72-$77 shortfall? It won't be us...
"Net Costs and Benefits
Taking account of householdsâ share of the gross compliance cost and resource
costs and the relief that would flow to households either through direct rebates
and transfers or indirectly through the allocation of allowances, CBO estimates
that households in the lowest income quintile would see an average net benefit
of about $40, while households in the highest income quintile would
see a net cost of approximately $245 (see Table 2). Households in the second
lowest quintile would see added costs of about $40 on average, those in the
middle quintile would see an increase in costs of about $235, and those in
the fourth quintile would pay about an additional $340 per year. Overall, costs for
households would average 0.2 percent of their average after-tax income."
Ignor-anuses are excited about it...crafting trillion dollar legislation based upon a hypothesis...brilliant. It's nothing more than an energy tax -- more money to spend for those in charge.
I sent an e-mail to my Rep. who voted YEA today that might make her a little uncomfortable...complete moron.
I found this a refreshing clip about Conservatives and Liberal philosophies...maybe you will too?:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWHgUE9AD4s&feature=PlayList&p=F540A0660DB6A903&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=57
Edit:
Quan -- ask and you shall receive...testimony given by Ben Lieberman this morning:
"The only entities directly regulated by Waxman-Markey would be the electric utilities, oil refiners, natural gas producers, and some manufacturers that produce energy on site. So, the good news for the rest of us--homeowners, car owners, small-business owners, farmers--is that we won't be directly regulated under this bill. The bad news is that nearly all the costs will get passed on to us anyway.
What are those costs? According to the analysis we conducted at The Heritage Foundation, which is attached to my written statement, the higher energy costs kick in as soon as the bill's provisions take effect in 2012. For a household of four, energy costs go up $436 that year, and they eventually reach $1,241 in 2035 and average $829 annually over that span. Electricity costs go up 90 percent by 2035, gasoline by 58 percent, and natural gas by 55 percent by 2035. The cumulative higher energy costs for a family of four by then will be nearly $20,000.
But direct energy costs are only part of the consumer impact. Nearly everything goes up, since higher energy costs raise production costs. If you look at the total cost of Waxman-Markey, it works out to an average of $2,979 annually from 2012-2035 for a household of four. By 2035 alone, the total cost is over $4,600.
Beyond the cost impact on individuals and households, Waxman-Markey also affects employment, and especially employment in the manufacturing sector. We estimate job losses averaging 1,145,000 at any given time from 2012-2035. And note that those are net job losses, after the much-hyped green jobs are taken into account. Some of the lost jobs will be destroyed entirely, while others will be outsourced to nations like China and India that have repeatedly stated that they'll never hamper their own economic growth with energy-cost boosting global warming measures like Waxman-Markey.
Since farming is energy intensive, that sector will be particularly hard-hit. Higher gasoline and diesel fuel costs, higher electricity costs, and higher natural gas-derived fertilizer costs all erode farm profits, which are expected to drop by 28 percent in 2012 and average 57 percent lower through 2035. As with American manufacturers, Waxman-Markey also puts American farmers at a global disadvantage, as other food-exporting nations would have no comparable energy-price raising measures in place.
Overall, Waxman-Markey reduces gross domestic product by an average of $393 billion annually between 2012 and 2035, and cumulatively by $9.4 trillion. In other words, the nation will be $9.4 trillion poorer with Waxman-Markey than without it."
Edit:
Bash - "The non-partisan CBO and EPA disagree with you."
The non-partisan CBO clearly identifies that the middle/upper-middle classes will pay for it explicitly -- and when costs of consumer products rise, so will the lower class: Last Page - NET COSTS - middle & fourth quartile...ouch.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/103xx/doc10327/06-19-CapAndTradeCosts.pdf
Consequently, who do you think pays for this "relief" that nobody seems to be talking about...?
"The Distribution of Direct Relief to Households
About 31 percent of the allowance value would be allocated in a fairly direct
manner to U. S. households to compensate them for their increased expenditures
(see Table 1). Some of that relief is expected to be allocated across most
households in the form of a rebate on their bills for heating and cooling their
homes. Other relief would be directed at low-income households in the form of an
energy rebate or a tax credit. By CBOâs estimates, 25 percent of the direct relief
to households would go to households in the lowest income quintile and
50 percent to households in the two lowest quintiles combined. On average, the
amount of direct relief would offset 94 percent of the additional expenses that
households in the lowest quintile incurred. In contrast, the direct relief received by
households in the highest quintile would offset only 18 percent of their added
costs."
Edit:
Quan -- did you even read the CBO report? Did you recognize who takes the brunt of the burden?
Not sure about you but my family owns a farm and these "relief" allowances provide about $3/acre while our costs due directly to Cap & Trade increase anywhere b/n $75-$80/acre. Who do you think gets to pay for that $72-$77 shortfall? It won't be us...
"Net Costs and Benefits
Taking account of householdsâ share of the gross compliance cost and resource
costs and the relief that would flow to households either through direct rebates
and transfers or indirectly through the allocation of allowances, CBO estimates
that households in the lowest income quintile would see an average net benefit
of about $40, while households in the highest income quintile would
see a net cost of approximately $245 (see Table 2). Households in the second
lowest quintile would see added costs of about $40 on average, those in the
middle quintile would see an increase in costs of about $235, and those in
the fourth quintile would pay about an additional $340 per year. Overall, costs for
households would average 0.2 percent of their average after-tax income."
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
No comments:
Post a Comment