Issue 58 - Hoax-Slayer Newsletter

---

This month in Hoax-Slayer:

• Lead in Lipstick Alert - Cancer Causing Lipstick Hoax
• Use Left Ear For Mobile Phone Hoax
• Spirit Airlines Flight Giveaway Hoax
• No Abate in Phishing Scams
• You CAN Make a Difference!
• PF Lens - See Through Clothing Camera Warning
• Panadol Extra Kidney Damage Warning Hoax
• Hoaxes Clutter the Blogosphere
• Summer Chain Email - Blond Hair And Blood Shot Eyes
• Hoax-Slayer Humour: To all my Email buddies out there
  
  
  
  

---

---

Summary:
Email claims that certain brands of lipstick contain dangerous amounts of lead and can cause cancer. The message includes a list of lipstick brands and instructions for testing lipsticks for lead content.

Status:
Misleading and inaccurate, although a recent study indicates that some lipsticks do contain small amounts of lead.

Example:(Submitted, January 2006)
Commentary:
This email forward warns that certain prominent brands of lipstick contain dangerous amounts of lead and can cause cancer in those who use them. Although a 2007 study by The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics has found that some lipsticks do have higher than expected levels of lead, this email forward is not related to that study and contains highly misleading and inaccurate information.

Health authorities worldwide have long known the dangers associated with lead exposure. Most have strict guidelines that regulate the level of lead in consumer products, including cosmetics. Regulatory and industry bodies such as the FDA in the US, the CTPA in the UK, the European Commission and similar institutions in other nations control the substances that can be added to cosmetic products.

The current version of the email claims that the information originates from the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. However, this claim is highly suspect. There is no mention of such a warning published on the Walter Reed Army Medical Center website. Furthermore, this apparent endorsement and the mention of Dioxin Carcinogens also appear in another email hoax that warns of links between plastic use and cancer. Apparently, the Walter Reed reference was copied verbatim from one hoax email and tacked on to the other in a fruitless attempt to add a measure of credibility.

Another aspect of the email also casts doubt on the authenticity of its claims. While long-term lead exposure can indeed lead to cancer, it is also indicated in other serious health issues such as stroke and kidney disease. Even short-term exposure can have adverse health effects, including impact on blood cell chemistry and developmental issues in children. In spite of this, the "warning" focuses purely on the potential cancer link and ignores other equally serious lead related health issues. It is doubtful that a genuine, medically endorsed warning message would mention only one of the health risks inherent in lead exposure.

The "test" outlined in the message is also highly misleading. According to information available from New Zealand's COSMETIC TOILETRY & FRAGRANCES ASSOCIATION, the "reactions described in the email occur when the test is done with any metal and just using plain wax which is a core component of most lipsticks." My own random testing revealed that dark streaks appear to be left in a variety of substances by a variety of metals, even copper on plain old candle wax. Thus an apparently "positive" result for this test does not effectively indicate the presence of lead. Reliably detecting the presence of lead in a substance generally requires scientific testing or at least the use of specialized lead testing kits. This supposed "test" seems to be a corrupted version of the ancient touchstone method of testing the purity of gold by examining the streak left when gold was scraped against a dark stone. Clearly, instructions for conducting this fake test were only included in the email to trick recipients into believing its claims.

Thus the information in this email is highly misleading and inaccurate and it should not be forwarded to others as is.

That said, a recent study by The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics indicates that some lipsticks do contain small amounts of lead. Although the results of this study are cause for concern, they in no way vindicate the misinformation contained in this email forward. Stacy Malkan, a cofounder of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics is genuinely concerned about the findings of the study. However, an article on the issue notes:

Malkan said that lead in lipstick is a valid concern, borne out by the campaign's tests. But she dismissed the cancer scare and a suggestion that consumers can test for lead by scratching lipstick with a gold ring.

In fact, lead is common element in our environment and we are likely to be exposed to it everyday from a variety of sources. The potential danger is that the tiny amounts of lead contained in some lipsticks could accumulate along with other lead sources and eventually cause health issues.

References:
FDA/CFSAN Cosmetics - Information for Industry
The CTPA :The Cosmetic Toiletry Perfumery Association :Cosmetic legislation
European Commission: Cosmetics and Medical Devices - Introduction
FDA: General specifications for straight colors
Walter Reed Army Medical Center website
COSMETIC TOILETRY & FRAGRANCES ASSOCIATION:Lead and Cosmetics (PDF FILE AVAILABLE)
Touchstone
WHAT'S THAT STUFF?: Lipstick
Cancer Help: Lead in lipstick causing cancer
Lead Poisoning - NSC
FDA/CFSAN FDA Consumer: Dangers of Lead Still Linger
EPA Consumer Factsheet on: LEAD
Lead tests raise red flag for lipsticks

---

I first began receiving submissions about this factually dubious "health warning" message (see example below)in late 2005. The warning, which travels via email, blogs and online forum posts, claims that mobile phone users should only use the left ear for making calls, supposedly to lessen the effects of exposure to cell phone radiation. The message attempts to convince readers that using the right ear for mobile calls can directly damage the brain and it is therefore wiser to favour the left ear. Like other such warnings, the message does not include any external references to support its claims.

Not surprisingly, I have found no evidence to confirm the claims outlined in the message. The message includes a diagrammatical image apparently intended to add a degree of credibility to the information. Ironically however, the diagram has no direct relevance to the spurious claim that using the left ear is preferable to using the right. Although the subject matter of this infographic does relate to possible dangers from mobile phone radiation, a closer examination reveals that it makes no reference at all to using the left ear in preference to the right.

A small amount of web research based on the source information included on the graphic revealed that it was first published in June 2002 by the Graphics News website. The diagram simply summarizes in graphical form the findings of a study (see reference list for for pdf link) by scientists at Finland's Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority. A 2002 BBC news report offers more information about this study. The report notes that:

Scientists from the Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority found that exposing human cells to mobile phone radiation damaged the blood-brain barrier - a safety barrier in the body that stops harmful substances in blood from entering the brain.

However, the report makes clear that the tests were carried out on human cells under precise laboratory conditions and at the time the report was published it was not known if the findings actually equated to genuine health concerns for phone users. Moreover, neither the Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority study nor the BBC report mention anything about which ear, if any, is the safest to use.

Almost since the invention of the devices, there has been a long running debate about the possible health effects of mobile phone use. A number of reports have raised authentic concerns about possible health risks from mobile phone radiation. However, no credible information that I have seen mentions any correlation between increased health risks and the habitual use of the right ear for mobile calls.

The message claims that the information is "a true fact from Apollo medical team" (as opposed, apparently, to a "false fact" ). However, I could find no information about an "Apollo medical team" other than references to the hoax message itself. If the information in the message had any validity, then the group that conducted the research would undoubtedly have published its findings via credible media such as scientific journals and medical websites. Thus, if the "Apollo medical team" was a real entity that actually did conduct a study about mobile phone radiation, then research should reveal at least some information about the team and its work. I suspect that the "Apollo medical team" reference was added to falsely imply some measure of endorsement from the Apollo Hospitals Group in India.

This message possibly originated as some foolish individual's idea of a prank. Or, as with many other hoaxes, it may have been a deliberate attempt to spread misinformation and unnecessarily raise fear and alarm. Whatever the reason, it seems obvious that the perpetrator has used a blatant falsehood as the core claim in the message and then made a rather lame attempt to back it up by tacking on unrelated information stolen from another source.

Thus, forwarding this misleading "warning" message will serve no useful purpose. While there are real concerns about possible health risks related to mobile phone use, there is no evidence to suggest that using the left ear will in any way decrease such risks.

Reference List:
Original Source of Infographic
Graphic News - Infographics for newspapers and magazines
Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority study: Non-thermal activation of the hsp27/p38MAPK stress pathway by mobile phone radiation in human endothelial cells (PDF download)
Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority
Fresh fears over mobile phones
Wikipedia: Mobile phone radiation and health
Apollo Hospitals Group

An example of the hoax email:

---

This forwarded email message began circulating in December 2005 and claims that Spirit Airlines is giving away free air travel to those who forward the message to at least five people. However, the claim is totally unfounded. In fact this message is simply the latest rehash of earlier hoaxes that targeted different airlines. During 2003, a similar hoax attempted to convince email recipients that British Airways was offering free flights. In October 2005, an almost identical message claimed that Delta Airlines was the company offering free air travel.

There is nothing about this supposed promotion on the Spirit Airlines website. Also the claim that the airline has filed for bankruptcy appears to be unfounded.

It is highly unlikely that an airline or any other legitimate company would base a promotional giveaway on how many times an email message was forwarded. Any email that makes such a claim is almost certainly a hoax.

Like its predecessors, the hoax makes the absurd claim that the email is being tracked in some way. However, there is simply no reliable way for an individual email message to be tracked over potentially thousands of forwards. Furthermore, even if it were possible, it is very doubtful that any ethical company would engage in such a practice.

There have been many bogus emails that try to convince recipients that a particular email is being tracked. Messages that make such claims invariable prove to be pure nonsense and they should not be taken seriously.

References:
Delta Air Lines Free Flight Hoax Email
British Airways Giveaway Hoax
Sophos: Spirit Airlines Free Flight
Spirit Airlines Website
Spirit Airlines plans pay cuts of up to 20 percent for its 138 mechanics

An example of the hoax email:

---

During 2005, phishing was one of the most common types of Internet scam and this trend looks set to continue in 2006. Many high profile companies and financial entities have been targeted almost continually.

Phishing scam messages arrive in many different forms and target many different institutions. However, all phishing scam emails share the same basic purpose, that is, to trick the unwary or inexperienced into supplying sensitive personal information. Typically, the potential victim receives an unsolicited email that has supposedly been sent by a well-known institution or financial entity. The email may look very "official" and include seemingly legitimate logos, trademarks and links. The email will appear to be an official request for information from the targeted institution. However, the message is a lie and its sole purpose is to coerce the recipient into clicking on a link provided, ostensibly to access the institution's website.

This website will be a fraudulent copy of the original. Once there, the victim will be prompted to login to his or her account and provide information such as bank account numbers, credit card numbers, address details and more. Login usernames and passwords and any other information entered on this fake site can be collected by the scammers and used to hijack the account and /or commit identity theft. Unfortunately, victims may not realize that their information has been stolen until it is too late.

The above scenario describes a typical phishing scam. However, there are other variations as well. Some scam emails may try to trick recipients into installing a trojan that will subsequently allow scammers to collect data from the infected computer. Others request that recipients fill in and submit a form included within the email itself.

I have noticed that phishing scams have become more and more sophisticated over the last year or so. Early scams were rather crude and could often be identified by very poor spelling and grammar and an unprofessional appearance. However, later scams are not so easy to spot. The scam emails that are now being distributed may be formatted in such a way that they look almost the same as genuine messages from the targeted institution. Spelling and grammar may be of a standard that one would expect in an official request message. To further add to the illusion, while the main link in the message will open the fake website, secondary links in the messages may lead to the institution's genuine web pages. Moreover, the fake websites themselves often resemble the genuine institution site down to the smallest detail. These bogus websites are virtually identical in appearance to the genuine article and it is not surprising that so many people are tricked into handing over their personal information.

The criminals who run these scams have honed their skills substantially since the first unsophisticated phishing scam emails began hitting inboxes. And they continually add to their bulging bag of dirty tricks.

The increasingly important role that the Internet plays in business and in our daily lives means that scammers continue to enjoy a fertile environment in which to ply their trade. It is therefore vitally important that all computer users make themselves aware of how phishing and other common scams work. This article only covers the basics. However, I have provided more comprehensive information about phishing on the Hoax-Slayer website. This information includes a number of phishing scam examples and links to other anti-phishing resources. If you would like to find out more about how phishing scams work and how to protect yourself from them, I strongly recommend that you take a few minutes to increase your knowledge of the subject by following the link below:


And remember, even if you're already up to speed on the nefarious ways of the rogues and the phishers, you might be able to help educate another computer user. See the next article for more...

---

I believe that every computer user can play an important role in helping to make the Internet a safer place. Thousands of new computer users are joining the Internet every day and these people are especially vulnerable to scams and computer security threats. As well, even experienced users may have dangerous gaps in their knowledge that can cause problems for themselves and other users.

---

Naturally, with regard to Internet scams, prevention is much better than any cure. And the key to prevention is simply education. You can help to thwart scammers by:

• Making sure that you understand how common Internet scams work.
• Helping to educate others about these Internet scams.

Preventing someone from becoming a victim of scammers might be as simple as ensuring your friends and neighbours are aware of common scam tactics. Don't assume that they already know about such scams! Fraud victim statistics reveal that many thousands of people in all areas of the world simply have no idea. To help get you started, I have included an article on the Hoax-Slayer website that provides an overview of common Internet scams. Feel free to copy the article and send it via email, include it on your website, blog, discussion group or newsletter, print copies of it to give to your friends or include it in paper publications.

You can access the article via the link below:

---

Unfortunately, there are millions of computers around the world that run virtually unprotected from hackers, viruses, spyware and all manner of other nasties. This impinges on us all, even those of who make every effort to run our systems securely. Therefore, I believe it is the responsibility of every computer user to ensure that his or her computer runs as securely as possible. Ironically, setting up and maintaining a secure computer system is not exceedingly difficult or expensive. In fact, with the right information on hand, it is well within the grasp of even relatively inexperienced computer users.

A great way to take total control of your computer security is to get a copy of The Hackers Nightmare. This terrific eBook provides a very comprehensive, step-by-step guide to securing your computer and practicing safe and efficient computing.

You can read my full review of The Hacker's Nightmare here:

---

You can also help me to continue to spread the word about scams and hoaxes by supporting the Hoax-Slayer website.

You can increase the reach of the information I provide by recommending this newsletter to a friend. Click the link below for details:

You can also support Hoax-Slayer directly by making a financial contribution of any amount. To make a contribution, follow the link below:

---

If you help even one friend avoid being ripped-off by Internet scammers, you have struck a genuine blow against the dark side. If you lessen the impact of viruses and cyber criminals by running a secure computer, then you have made the Internet just that little bit safer and more productive.

Together, we really CAN make a difference!

---

At first blush, this rather breathless warning (see example below) sounds like a classic leg-pull. However, cameras with lenses that can "see through" clothing do in fact exist. PF or "pass filters" are real lens and they could indeed be used to take compromising photographs of people without their knowledge in some circumstances. Even several years ago, voyeurs apparently adapted the low light functionality in some cameras to capture clandestine "see through" images. A 2001 news report on cooltech.iafrica.com notes that:

Voyeurism is reaching new heights as voyeurs get smarter, and the latest tool helping them is a simple Sony nightvision camera, with a few modifications, of course. When used during the day, with a special filter attached, the cameras are able to see through clothing and reveal people as they were not intended to be revealed.

More recent reports indicate that a new low light add-on intended for mobile phone cameras can also be misused to take compromising photographs:

When attached to a high-end camera, the device can give the effect of seeing through some garments - it depends on how easily infrared can penetrate the fabric in question - and is reportedly particularly effective on dark bikinis.

While technically possible under certain conditions, I have so far found no evidence to suggest that the invasive practice described in this rather alarmist email is as common as implied. Although such tactics are possible, I feel that the email exaggerates the potential threat. Even with the specialist lenses, I doubt that capturing a usable "nude" image would be as simple as taking random snapshots of passers-by. For shots to be "effective" potential victims would most probably need to be already wearing sheer or skimpy attire and be more or less posing for the camera. However, given the very rapid developments in technology that characterizes our times, more effective "see through" cameras may be just around the corner.

Certainly, you should be quite wary of camera wielding strangers who seem intent on taking more than casual snapshots of your person. And of course, the unscrupulous or the perverted can misuse cameras that do not even have specialist "see through" capabilities. Mobile phone and digital cameras are becoming ubiquitous and have already been used to capture indecent images in change rooms and children's playgrounds.

The links below should provide further information for those who wish to explore this issue more thoroughly:

References:
R Pass Filters Experiment
Peeping Tom filter lets phones see through bikinis
Advanced Intelligence COLOR X-RAY VISION
Introduction to the see through technology
Peeping Tom's Paradise
New thermal cameras show the world in infrared

An example of the hoax email:

---

This bogus message warns recipients that a shipment of Panadol Extra has been altered due to heat exposure. According to the message, taking even one capsule of Panadol Extra - Batch No: 050292 may damage the person's kidneys. The information first began circulating in January 2006 as a mobile phone text message in the Middle East. Predictably, it has now migrated to email and "escaped" into cyberspace. The "warning" has been posted on various blogs and online message boards.

However, the company that manufactures Panadol Extra has denied the information in the message. Panadol is a common paracetamol-based pain reliever that is sold in many countries around the world.

A press release included on the GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) website states in part:

Recent unfounded rumours and incorrect information have reached our consumers through news channels and telephone text messaging in the Middle East questioning the safety of Panadol Extra batch number 050292. After retesting by independent and GSK laboratories, the company has informed the governments of the Middle / Near East (Saudi Arabia, UAE) and the neighbouring region (Pakistan, Sri Lanka) that the batch in question (050292) conforms to the established safety and purity requirements for paracetamol, as do all batches of Panadol products. They are deemed to be safe and effective when used as advised on the pack and the insert leaflet

An article on the Arab News website confirms that the rumour is untrue. According to the article:

"The Ministry of Health Central Laboratory in KSA and GlaxoSmithKline Laboratory in UK have conducted laboratory analysis, and both confirm the safety of the product," the company said, adding that the batch meets the "high quality and registered standards for Panadol Extra; the product is genuine and can be safely used be consumers."

Like numerous similar hoaxes, this one provides no checkable references that might confirm its spurious claims. The message maintains that the warning was included in a "local news paper". However, the name or location of the newspaper is not named. Searches of news outlets reveal no mention of the story other than articles that dismiss it as unfounded.

Thus this message should not be taken seriously. When taken as directed, paracetamol is a safe and effective product for relieving mild to moderate pain. However, it should be noted that paracetamol, like many other medications, can be dangerous if abused. An overdose of paracetamol could cause liver damage and, in some cases, kidney damage as well.

Given that the information in the message is invalid, it should not be distributed to others. Sending on this misinformation will do nothing other than raise unnecessary concern among recipients.

References:
GlaxoSmithKline: 2006 News Archive
Arab News: Manufacturer Claims Panadol Extra Is Safe BUPA: Paracetamol
Tests confirm that GSK's Panadol is safe for consumers

An example of the hoax email:

---

Blogging is great! The expanding number of free blogging services mean that any interested individual with access to an Internet enabled computer can create their own, unique little website with a minimum of fuss, no expense, and little knowledge of web design. Once your blog is set up, you can write about anything you like. There are thousands of very interesting and informative articles posted on blogs every day. Unfortunately, however, a lot of what I can only describe as unmitigated garbage also makes its way into the Blogosphere, including a fair share of hoax messages.

When conducting article research, I increasingly come across blog posts that are exact copies of hoax messages that normally travel via email. In many cases, it seems that the blog owner has received a hoax via email, tidied it up a little and simply thrown it online without bothering to check its veracity in any way.

Thus, blogging is unintentionally becoming another quite powerful means of spreading misinformation. Because blog posts often have an attractive and professional appearance, the offending hoax message may attain a certain amount of undeserved credibility simply because of the medium it appears on. Also, blog posts often tend to get indexed by Internet search engines quite quickly. Therefore, someone searching for information about an email message they received may come across the same message posted on several blogs and wrongly conclude that the message is valid.

Of course, many non-blog websites can and do publish false or misleading information as well. However, the peculiar characteristics of blogging mean that a blog owner, with the best of intentions, can upload false information for the entire world to see with just a few mouse clicks.

So, keep your sceptic's hat on while surfing or researching. If something you read online seems a little dubious, try to verify it via other sources before you count it as true. The criteria for recognizing a hoax message in email holds true for blog posts as well. You can read my suggested guidelines for spotting hoaxes via the link below:

---

This very nasty chain letter apparently targets children and adolescents. There is not much that needs to be said about this vile trash….except that it should certainly not be sent to others.

Of course, there is no truth in the ridiculous notion that a dead person will appear under the recipient's bed if he or she does not send the message to 15 people within 5 minutes.

Please do not send this rubbish onward if you receive it. Even if you think sending it is harmless, remember that it may find its way to the inbox of an impressionable child. The themes of horror and violence that characterize this message could be quite distressing for children and even some adults.

If this message crosses your inbox, send it to the trash where it belongs.

An example of the chain email:

---

Received via email. This more or less says it all!! (grin)

---

---