I Received a Box From Amazon!

Shining, gleaming, Streaming, flaxen, waxen

I wrote about hair donations the other day. As with most of my trips down the google path I am left with more questions than I started with. I don't really care if Locks of Love misplaced 6 million dollars worth of hair or 6 hundred – I just want to know who is buying the rejected hair. Google is acting like a teenager – pretending to answer my question by providing information that may be true, but isn't actually helpful.

First thing that should be mentioned is that there is a market for human hair that anyone can participate in. If you have hair that you are thinking of donating you can sell it and give the proceeds to your favorite charity. There are supposedly many places one can do this. . . . . but I've mostly found one. It is called Hair Sellon; so I give them bonus points for the pun. They do not buy or sell hair, they provide a site where buyers and sellers can meet. On the front page of their site is a hair value calculator. (If you are curious I could get $115 dollars for my hair!) Looking through the picture ads on the site is uncomfortably like reading bad personal ads. With too many adjectives and claims of virgin status.

If you are interested: Click to find out what your hair is worth. And to see the competition.

China and India are the main exporters of human hair extensions. It seems as if 'Brazilian' hair is the most popular of all the dark hairs. Assuming you cared if the woman whose hair you are wearing came from Brazil or China; how would know the exporter was being honest? This entire racket is fascinating from a sociological / economic view point. The major site for buying hair extensions direct from the supplier at significantly reduced prices is an outfit called Alibaba. They are not a hair exporter themselves – they are “a site where 80% of all e-commerce in China resides”. If you want a truckload of hair rather than just a box of extensions, or if you prefer doing business with India rather than China you will want to check out Mother Theresa's Hair Extensions. No. I'm not making that up – that is the company name.

In the hair extension business the good stuff is not only virginal, it's also “remy”. There is an Arab rapper/parodist I just adore named Remy, but this has nothing to do with him. Remy means that all the hair is bound together in the proper direction. Human hairs have cuticles, which are like the nap on fabric. So if you have some of the hairs upside down in your extension, you will get a matted and tangled mess. Which makes me think 'remy' would be the bare minimum of standards.

But I digress. …. .

Hair that may not be good enough for a high quality wig may still be good enough for discount extensions. But what about the hair that isn't good enough for even the cheapest extensions?

I found two uses; one very noble and green and the other disgusting and driven by profit.  Note to my left-leaning friends, 'disgusting' and 'profit driven' are NOT synonyms.  

First, let us learn a new word. From our friends at wikipedia:

Adsorption is the adhesion of atoms, ions, or molecules from a gas, liquid, or dissolved solid to a surface. This process creates a film of the adsorbate on the surface of the adsorbent. This process differs from absorption, in which a fluid (the absorbate) permeates or isdissolved by a liquid or solid (the absorbent). Adsorption is a surface-based process while absorption involves the whole volume of the material. The term sorption encompasses both processes, while desorption is the reverse of it. Adsorption is a surface phenomenon.

Human hair is not Absorbent like a sponge, it is Adsorbent like an oil mop. Oil clings to the surface of hair, but water is not soaked up. No Snape jokes!  You people are heartless.

Anyway, people have started using human hair to stuff giant boons that can be used to help clean up oil spills. Yea! As near as I can ascertain, these boons (Long tubes of netting stuffed into sausage shape) are made with hair donated by salons and pet groomers. So the missing LoL hair isn't here.

Maybe it's in your soy sauce or your pizza crust dough? 

Yep. There is an amino acid that is mostly imported from China used as a dough enhancer and as a flavor component for soy sauce and other food products. It is called L-cysteine, but from what I've read they hardly ever make it out of human hair anymore (except when they do) for a variety of reasons.   One of which, I'm sure, is that someone blabbed to the internet about this process and then companies began to use alternate products – or products with different names than the ones breathlessly reported about on BBC. Oh, if you live in the EU this amino acid is listed as E920 on food packaging. 

I've also read that too many Chinese women are getting their hair permed and that one cannot extract as much L-cysteine from treated hair. This really doesn’t make numerical sense. Men get their hair cut more often than women. Children also receive haircuts. So even if most Chinese women are getting perms (which recent crowd scene pictures seems to belie) there wouldn't seem to be enough of a reduction in quantity to turn a profitable process into an unprofitable one.

And again we are talking about floor sweepings, not missing locks from LoL.

The truth is out there. And by 'out there' I mean in China, so I am not going to count on ever knowing exactly what is occurring. But according to the BBC we can be thankful that they now use duck and chicken feathers instead of human hair - so we won't be grossed out any more! And of special interest to my Brother-in-law and folks like him – one company is producing L-cysteine by genetically modifying a microorganism.

I wish I could have answered the question of the missing hair; but would you settle for a cool video that shows how hair goes from a pony tail to a wig? Or maybe one about people climbing to a temple in India to donate their hair to the monks?

How we make machine weft hair extensions

Donating Hair at Indian Temple

Two final tidbits:

One of the articles I read claimed, “Some less scrupulous people in the fashion industry also uses human hair to thicken the pile of fur coats. It means coats can be made for less money.” I could find nothing verifying this particular instance of villainy.

So much of what I read did not particularly surprise me. I also was never as outraged as I suspect I was supposed to be. One thing did blow my mind – human-hair based L-cysteine is Kosher.

Locks of Love - The charity exposé, not the bondage story.

Locks of Love. People donate lengths of hair to be made into wigs for kids suffering hair loss. Lately there have been emails and facebook postings about the outrageous behavior of the company. It has been discovered that these wigs do not go to women and children with cancer, the wigs are not free to the kids who do receive them, they sell most of the hair they receive, and there is six million dollars worth of hair unaccounted for every year!

Many years ago I headed up a sock drive at the local elementary school. We collected over 1000 pairs of socks to donate to children in Juarez Mexico. We gave the socks to a nun who worked with poor children and their families. This was a fairly large undertaking and over the course of several weeks I communicated our plan in writing and via speaking. Not once did I tell anyone the socks were going to an orphanage, yet many people approached me with socks for the orphans. It was always awkward wondering whether to correct people. It seemed unlikely that people who were willing to help would change their minds if they realized the children had parents, yet I felt as if I were lying if I did not say anything. I understood the mental shorthand that takes place; poor kids + nun = orphans. Words are like elements, some just bond better with others. You might say they create valances. . . . which are like valences.

Actually valances are nothing like valences. But both could be metaphors for words. Some words just bond together in most situations and some words don't actually serve a purpose other than a bit of decoration. Hmmmn. Unless I can figure out how Valens (Ritchie) is also like a word I'll just let this tangent die a natural death.

So some words or concepts tend to accompany other words and concepts and become connected in people's minds. We all do this and it is generally harmless.

If I show you a picture of children who had lost their hair many of you would say leukemia. Which makes sense since leukemia is the most common form of cancer in children and cancer treatment is a common cause of hair loss.

Of course the most common cause of hair loss in children is ringworm. Which is a very contagious but treatable fungus; and does not necessarily result in total baldness. Once treated the hair grows back.

The second most common cause of hair loss in children is Alopecia. Which by definition is the loss of hair.

I am very glad my research into this is tangential to another question and not because I'm trying to find out what's happening to my child.

Especially since further reading reveals that Alopecia should go away if properly treated; and that there is no standard treatment. In fact there is no FDA approved treatment at all. It is believed to be an auto-immune issue and about 5% of an unknown number of children* will be bald forever.

There are three ways to experience this condition. Alopecia Areata is hair loss in random round/oval patches. Hair loss just in certain areas you might say. Then there is the total loss of hair on the scalp called alopecia totalis. And finally alopecia universalis, which is more universal – it's a complete loss of bodyand head hair.

None of which should be confused with traction alopecia which is caused by wearing tight braids or ponytails.

Which is where Locks of Love takes their first beating. It is a charity dedicated to providing hair pieces to children with long term hair loss. They have always targeted alopecia patients, although they also will assist children going through chemotherapy. To the best of my understanding (and google work) they have never claimed to be specifically helping people with cancer.

It is understandable that people want their donations (of money and other things of value) to go toward people they can relate to. I've donated money to the American Diabetes Association before. I checked their rating with some of those groups that rate charities but I did not ever think to ask whether they spent more on type-one or type-two. Apparently I should have been donating specifically to the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation. I may have been surprised to find out that Type-Two diabetes is the main focus of the ADA but I am not outraged. I also raise money every year for the American Cancer Society. They have an advocacy arm that I would like to see amputated since I believe it does little to nothing to help the cause; but since perfect is the enemy of good I continue.

Incidentally – every year at the ACS Relay For Life there is a booth offering hair cuts and sending the hair to Locks of Love. Which reinforces the connection in our minds, but does not count as evidence of deception.

It should be noted that baldness caused by chemotherapy is generally of limited duration. Given that wigs made with human hair cost between $800 and $3000 and last for several years, whereas synthetic wigs generally cost less than $500 and last less than a year if worn daily – it is reasonable that a charity would prefer the wigs they offer to be used until they are worn out rather than used for six months and then left in a drawer.

One of the points made in the various rants about Locks of Love is that they have the audacity to charge some of the families. They charge based on a sliding scale. This information is on their website. I admit I have no idea why this is an issue. The family that could afford to scrape up 400 dollars would not qualify if the wigs only went to the poorest of families. Or they would get a wig for free if there were no income guidelines and that 400 dollars would not go toward making more wigs. Either way if they did not charge anyone then there would be even fewer wigs available – so why would that be a better option?

Most charities beg for money, receive money, spend money, rinse, and repeat. There are always questions about how much money should be spent on salaries and marketing, and there are honest debates about the best use of the money received; but it is a straightforward process that can be measured. Or audited if you prefer.

Charities that accept things in addition to money have to account for the value of the things. So, for example, I donated a couple sweaters to Goodwill. (Or maybe it was Savers – I just put stuff in the van and tell the boys to bring it somewhere) The sweaters were never worn. The original price at Target was about $40.00 USD. I paid $5.00 for them on the clearance rack. When doing my taxes the IRS will allow me an 8-10 dollar credit for a new condition women's sweater. Goodwill will price the sweaters at $6.99 and they will be available for half price roughly 3 times a month.

So what is the actual value of the sweaters? This is a serious question – what is the monetary value of each sweater? Oh, and before you answer you should probably take into account that one of the sweaters is in a neutral color and the other is in a nice neon shade of orange that was almost trendy. Ten years ago.

If I may take a moment to go slightly off-topic: These poor sweaters paid import taxes when they entered the country, they paid sales tax when I bought them, they were a tax deduction when I donated them, they were theoretical income to the charity – which isn't taxed but must be accounted for, they paid sales taxes when they were purchased by a shopper at goodwill, and I suspect the black one will become a tax deduction again when the buyer realizes the neck is three sizes smaller than the rest of the sweater and donates it to Saint Vincent de Paul. These sweaters may have failed at being stylish and comfortable clothing but they are certainly doing their part to keep the bureaucracy warm and cozy.

So if we cannot accurately calculate the value of a sweater with a price tag still attached how are we going to calculate the value of clumps of hair? Kent Chao founded an organization that evaluates charities and he was the first to report negatively on Locks of Love. He valued the 'missing' hair based on what the finished hairpieces would cost. It becomes obvious reading the entire 2013 report that Locks of Love may have issues regarding their accounting of hair but that they also have a rather unique operation. They have staff and volunteers sorting the hair that arrives each day. Most of this hair (80%) they cannot use. [Apparently moldy hair is a common issue, so if you are considering sending off your locks, make sure they are dry!] Some of the hair they receive but cannot use is sold. More on this later.** Mr. Chao had questions about the amount of hair received/used that Lock of Love was not able to answer. Given that Locks of Loves meets important measures by other charity watchdogs I am inclined to give them the benefit of doubt. Not that I imagine there is no room for improvement, just that I don't see anything nefarious here.

All of their hair pieces are made by a single company in California. Apparently their wigs are actually 'prosthetics' which require a specialty maker. This company claims they can only use about half of the hair that LOL sends them. I would think that after 17 years the LOL people would be pretty good at sorting the hair so if I were looking for improprieties my first question would be what happens to the hair that was of pretty high quality but was still rejected. If it's not coming back to LOL to be sold to the second best wigmakers than something is wrong.

I've been told that Wigs for Kids, or Pantene lengths are much better charities. Perhaps they are, for some people.

Wigs for Kids will not charge money but they do require participation in their fund-raising. Which is certainly fair. But these sections from their web site and application stood out for me:

“For each of our recipients, we create a story that focuses on his or her personality, interests, and personal story with hair loss and with Wigs for Kids. We value our recipients’ privacy, and we do not disclose personal information such as last names, parents’ names, addresses, or phone numbers. By signing below, you agree to help us to compile a story by sending us information about yourself, before and after photos, and a thank you letter after you receive your hairpiece.”

“In order to continue our mission, we have developed a rewarding program calledSponsor A Child. Through this program caring givers, can make a donation or monthly contribution to help to cover the cost of the hair replacement systems for our kids. In return Wigs for Kids would like to send them stories of our kids based on a photo, brief background or story on the child and any materials that you submit. Some donors may even want to write to our recipients.

We are committed to ensuring your privacy. All information is passed on from sponsor to the child through Wigs for Kids; no full names, contact information or personal information will be provided to the sponsor. You will be contacted by Wigs for Kids if a sponsor would like to send you a note.

We know that you will agree that Wigs for Kids is a wonderful charity for children worthy of your support.”

Some of you will not be bothered by this, just as I was not bothered by LOL charging money from the families that can afford this.

Pantene Beautiful Lengths is the name of Pantene's wig program and also the name of one of their shampoo lines.

From their website:

“Our goal is simple. We want to make it possible for women everywhere to share their hair with women who’ve lost theirs. It’s also why we’ve partnered with the American Cancer Society® to make and distribute the wigs. Thanks to our partnership, we’ve donated 42,000 real-hair wigs to the national American Cancer Society Wig Bank, helping serve those in need every single day. To find out if you’re eligible to receive a free wig, or if there are wigs available in your area . . . . .”

I have no issue with corporations. However I am well aware that when a corporation runs a charity that there are tax and public relations benefits. The idea that the entire business model of Pantene (and all shampoo companies) is that they must convince women that we are inferior specimens if we do not have long thick shiny bouncy hair makes me a bit queasy. Of course they offer free wigs to women with cancer – after all they care about women and want to help us have value.

Okay – that may have been needlessly sarcastic. I genuinely bear them no animosity. 

 The conclusion I hope you and I reached together is that perhaps we shouldn't be to quick to pass along long and indignant posts about charities just because they fall short of being perfect in certain areas.

*I gave up coming up with an estimate of the number of children with permanent baldness since even within the same website different counting methods were used.

*I am hoping that you are curious about the human hair market. I will be discussing this at length very soon!

pornē + graphein

Language changes. Nouns become verbs. Slang turns legitimate. Or should I say 'Legit'? Hyperbole becomes common, loses all grandeur. Many of us mourn what we consider the debasement of our language.

Then there are other changes.  Changes that resemble evolution more than debasement. This is as unavoidable as it is enjoyable.

The old fashioned bicycles that have huge front wheels and tiny back wheels are called Penny Farthings, because the proportional size of the wheels mimics the relationship of Pennies to Farthing coins. (with the pennies being the larger coins) These bicycles were not originally called anything other than bicycles. But then more reasonably sized and shaped bicycles were developed. These bikes were called 'saftey' bicycles to distinguish them from ordinary ones. Eventually there were as many safety bikes as ordinary ones, which is when the term Penny Farthing gained currency.

A more recent example is our phones. For most of my childhood we had phones. Just plain old phones. Then 'touch tone' phones became more common among the general public. After a few years we began referring to the touch tone phones as phones and the older phones as 'rotary' phones. Which was fine until 'cell phones' came along. Now cell phones are so ubiquitous that we need to clarify by calling our non-cellular phones our 'land line' phones.

My most recent complaint may seem to be similar to the above examples but it's an entirely different animal.

We know that porn is short for pornography (which is Greek for writing about prostitutes.) In recent years people have begun to cleverly use the word 'porn' to basically mean any media that is sensuous or sensational, but about nonsexual subjects. Thus we now have food porn, weather porn, word porn, garden porn, earth porn, antique porn, bacon porn, and even justice porn. Justice porn is apparently video of someone getting what's coming to them. Because apparently peoples' need to feel self righteous is something that should be fed regularly? Shoe porn is a tricky one; there is pornography designed for people with shoe fetishes, and there are images of shoes for women who love shoes. A short ride through Pinterest shows us that many women unashamedly enjoy shoe porn. Because owning 500 pairs of shoes and wanting more is normal, but becoming sexually aroused by women wearing sexy shoes is a sickness.

Originally I ignored the 'porn' formation because I figured it would end soon enough. I do not know why I assumed that – every hack reporter and headline writer eventually succumbs to the temptation to add 'gate' to an otherwise innocent scandal.

You may wonder why I care. Sometimes I wonder why I care.

I care because of the basic resistance to the breakdown of our language. The same frustration I feel as our government becomes more dismissive of our rights. Or the shudder in response to accidentally viewing daytime talk-shows. Like the contempt and bafflement when seeing college kids in their brand new Che t-shirts.

Yet it is also something superficial. I have a simple desire to never hear my grandchildren talk about a video and hearing the phrase sex-porn.