Dirty electricity and CFLs

I was at the podiatrist's office yesterday, getting casted for some new orthotics for my stupid foot, and we were chit-chatting about my book on environmental toxins. My doctor brought up the fact that he's always been concerned about electric and magnetic fields (EMFs) such as radio frequency and the effect on the human body.

Having an engineering degree, in addition to a medical degree, made him a little more educated on the matter than the average person. However, when I mentioned to him some studies about the effect of dirty electricity (from a variety of sources including compact fluorescent light bulbs) on blood glucose levels in diabetics, he was unaware of the impact. Which isn't too surprising since the research done is relatively little and most likely something not in the purview of a foot doctor.

According to one study done, in an environment free of EMFs, Type 1 diabetics needed less insulin and Type 2s had lower blood glucose levels. The researchers also noted that diabetes testing done in a high EMF environment can lead to false positives. While the research so far done on diabetics is somewhat dubious, I'd like to see some more work done to either confirm or dispel this theory.

Most people are unaware of the unseen and (mostly) unheard bombardment of low and high levels frequencies being generated all around us from our microwaves to our cordless and cell phones to the computer monitor you are currently staring at. More recently is the concern of the type of electricity generated from CFL bulbs. Not all CFL bulbs generate the same level of dirty electricity, but it is something to be aware of.

The big deal is that high-frequency voltage transients, aka "dirty electricity", is a by-product of modern energy efficient electronics and appliances which reduce the amount of electricity they use. By tamping down the current, these electronics create a wildly fluctuating electromagnetic field that not only radiates into the immediate environment but also can back up along your home or office wiring all the way back to the utility, affecting every energy customer in between. So, even if you unplug all your electronics and are "going Amish" at home, your next door neighbor could be impacting you from afar, unless you've unplugged yourself from the grid.

Dr. Olle Johansson, a Swedish neuroscientist claims that:

"The human body, whose cells, nerves and organs function with electrical impulse, have difficulty adapting to 60-Hertz cycles, let alone transient high frequencies that last milliseconds. We are dealing with amplitude-modulated or pulsed microwaves in the 2.45 Ghz range (or nearby), in a form that has only been around to any extent for the last 10-15 years.

Compared to the natural background fields, in which living cells have developed during the last 3.8 billion years, these electromagnetic fields are actually very, very strong. It is thus wrong to believe that evolution has furnished us with a safety protection shielding layer against such WLAN (wireless local area network) signals. It has not."

Whether or not you think dirty electricity is a problem (and, for the record, the CDC and the WHO are following research done on this), some suggestions for reducing exposure include limiting wireless Internet, avoiding dimmer switches, limiting CFLs and using LEDs instead, using a landline phone rather than a cordless phone, avoiding Bluetooth headsets, avoiding cell phones when the signal is low, charging your laptop when it's not on your lap and unplugging everything when you aren't using it (which we should all be doing anyway). If you do think your home has high EMFs, you can get an EMF capacitor filter that you plug into the electrical outlet to help reduce it.

I know this sounds all conspiracy theory, but what do you think about EMFs? Do you think it's something to worry about or that it's not a big deal? Has the issue of dirty electricity stopped you from buying CFLs?

More reading (caveat emptor - I am in no way endorsing the content of these):
Dirty Electricity: Electrification and the Diseases of Civilization
Is Dirty Electricity Making You Sick?

Circumcision ban

Here's something to discuss over Thanksgiving dinner...

San Francisco residents may vote on a measure on the ballot next year to ban circumcision, according to the Huffington Post. The initiative would make it a misdemeanor to circumcise, excise, cut or mutilate the genitals of all minors, and would not make exceptions for religious reasons.

A CDC researcher reported this year that only 32.5% of boys were circumcised in 2009 versus 56% in 2006.

What do you think? Is this a dying practice? If you have boys, did you have them circumcised and why?

Either way, should circumcision be illegal?

No ma'am, no mammogram

I went to the doctor recently for a long overdue "annual" exam and since I'm now of a certain age, the topic of mammograms came up. I've read a bunch of conflicting information on mammograms lately, mostly revolving around the number of false positives, overdiagnosis and the medical machinery one gets trapped in if something does show up. My doctor did mention that other countries, Western Europe mainly, don't start doing mammograms until women are 50.

I asked her what the recommendation was and she said that it's every year starting at forty and if you have three clear years, then you can do it every other year. Which sounded like a lot to me, given the fact that they don't seem tremendously accurate and, given the fact that I know of women who have had something show up on a mammogram and freak out over it and get a ton of treatment and all the while they aren't sure exactly if treatment was actually necessary in the first place.

There are other diagnostic tools, but they are expensive or have higher amounts of radiation and I'm still at a quandary of what to do. I don't have any history of breast cancer in my family, took low dose birth control pills only briefly, breastfed for two years and have no history of anything suspicious. My doctor was in the middle of offering me choices of where to get it done (there are three nearby facilities) when I told her I wanted to think about it. She was kind of shocked, I think, and then stated, "well you did just turn 40." Like I was a ticking time bomb.

New guidelines suggest that screening mammograms should be done every two years beginning at age 50 for women at average risk of breast cancer. But the Mayo Clinic still recommends screening mammograms start at age 40. What the heck are we supposed to do with this conflicting information?

I discussed this with my husband, who knows all about cancer and it's happy fun times and false info. He suggested I take her advice and get a base line mammogram, and if there's anything that shows up, ignore it and get tested again in a year.

I told him that's all fine and good, but there's no way anyone can comfortably ignore a potentially cancerous tumor once you know it's there, even if it's just a spot. You're going to want to aspirate it and fall into the cogs of treatment. Not to mention that increased exposure to radiation from all those mammograms increases the risk of cancer and the fact that compression can increase the risk of cancer cells spreading if, in fact, they do already exist in the breast.

I haven't decided much of anything yet, so I thought I'd ask my readers what you do, did or what you think about mammograms and their necessity in women under 50, or 45, for that matter. What say ye?

Spices as medicine

I've been having more migraines than usual lately, so my mom brought over an article from an AARP Magazine that mentioned the effects of ginger on migraines. The article also mentioned the research behind a few spices that improved brain health and I wanted to share it with you guys. Plus, I'm throwing in some other health benefits found for each of these as well.

Even though I highly value western medicine, I also believe there are a lot of curative properties in food and spices so, when there is the opportunity to explore using edibles rather than synthetic chemicals with side-effects (known and unknown), I'll stick to the food-based ones thankyouverymuch. Plus, the environmental impact of growing ginger, garlic and the like is minimal in comparison to manufacturing pharmaceuticals and dealing with the health impacts of drug side-effects.

Ginger
Studies done at the Headache Care Center in Springfield, Missouri have shown that more than 80% of migraine prone patients with mild headaches who were treated with a combo of ginger and the herb feverfew managed to ward off their migraines. After two hours of taking the herbs, 48% were pain free and for another 34%, the pain stayed mild.

Ginger doesn't just help fight migraines, motion sickness, morning sickness, nausea and heartburn, it also does a number on cancer cells. A study done at the University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center found that ginger powder induces cell death in all ovarian cancer cells. A different study also has found that ginger may slow the growth of colorectal cancer cells.

Saffron
If you are feeling depressed over the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, you might want to think about saffron instead of a pharmaceutical anti-depressant. In 2007, University of Tehran researchers discovered that a dose of saffron works as well as Prozac in treating mild to moderate depression. It was found that 30 mg of saffron per day was just as effective in treating depression as taking 20 mg of Prozac.

Research has also indicated that saffron may inhibit cancer formation and shrink existing tumours while enhancing the effectiveness of chemotherapy. Other studies have shown that the anti-inflammatory properties of saffron may help prevent atherosclerosis.[source]

Turmeric
Did you know that the rate of Alzheimer's disease in India is 1/4 the U.S. rate? Researchers at UCLA think they know why. They did a study in mice that showed that curcumin, which is the active ingredient in turmeric and gives curry that distinctive yellow color, broke up brain plaques of amyloid beta. Amyloid beta is the abnormal protein buildup that is significant in Alzheimer's patients.

Adding more turmeric to your diet might help stave off Alzheimer's in the future. If you are not too worried about dementia, you might be interested that the spice is also used as a treatment for arthritis and has been shown to be effective in preventing some kinds of cancers and killing cancer cells in some studies.

Garlic
Garlic has long been known for its many benefits, but it may also be helpful in fighting brain cancer. A 2007 study in the journal Cancer cited that garlic compounds eliminated brain cancer cells. The organo-sulfur compounds that are found in garlic have been identified as effective against glioblastoma, a brain cancer that generally delivers a death sentence with it.

To take advantage of any potential anti-cancer benefits from garlic, researchers suggested that you cut and peel a piece of fresh garlic and let it sit for fifteen minutes before eating or cooking it. This time allows for the release of an enzyme (allinase) that produces the anti-cancer compounds.

If you are interested in pursuing the health benefits of these, but don't like the flavors, you might want to look into the supplements that are on the market, but be careful of too many false claims and look for brands that are well known and trusted. You don't want to end up with a capsule full of filler.

Photo by istockphoto.com/artlinegraphics

Corn Refiners Assoc. responds to post on HFCS

For those of you who read my post the other day on the end of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), you may be interested to know that someone from the Corn Refiners Association (CRA) responded in the comments to the post.

As a recap, the CRA is the trade group that puts out those commercials exclaiming that high fructose corn syrup is really just like sugar and should be eaten in moderation. The underlying message of these commercials is, "It's just sugar, Stupid!", with the questioning actor left blinking like a deer in headlights after being admonished for thinking otherwise.

Again, the CRA is a trade group consisting of companies like Cargill and Archer Daniels Midland and it is in their best interest to keep pumping us full of HFCS. Their subsidized monoculture GMO corn crops are dirt cheap to produce and cheaper for manufacturers to purchase (partially due to import tariffs on foreign sugar) than table sugar or other forms of sweeteners so they are pervasive in everything from soda to bread to soup.

Anyway, a CRA representative, Audrae Erickson, left several quotes in the comments of my post from those who felt that the Princeton study mentioned in my original post was flawed. Ms. Erickson wrapped it all up with the statement that, "Consumers are being misled into thinking that there are nutritional differences between high fructose corn syrup and sugar, when in fact they are nutritionally the same. Whether from cane, beets, or corn, a sugar is a sugar."

Well, consumers are not complete morons, even if the CRA commercials are insinuating as much. The issue is not one of nutritional similarities.

While table sugar and HFCS seem similar on the surface, how the body deals with them is where the difference lies. And that's what the Princeton study (and others) is trying to show. Not the nutritional similarities and how many calories each has.

Finally, just to throw something new on the fire, a March 2010 Duke University Medical Center study found that "increased consumption of high fructose corn syrup was associated with scarring in the liver, or fibrosis, among patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD)." Apparently, NAFLD is not uncommon in the United States, affecting almost 1/3 of the adult population.

And, I'm not even mentioning the whole mercury contamination issue with HFCS.

Check out the spoof of this CRA commercial for some real facts.

The end of HFCS

There is a lot more to it than blaming high fructose corn syrup for our nation's obesity epidemic. But, needless to say, recent research is really putting the nail in the coffin about its health effects.

In spite of those commercials unleashed by the Corn Refiners Association (CRA) stating that high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is really just like sugar and should be eaten in moderation, it isn't really just like sugar. In fact, it's not at all just like sugar in its chemistry as well as how it is processed in the body. But the CRA, a trade group consisting of companies like Cargill and Archer Daniels Midland, everyone's favorite mega-corps, or should I say mega-corpse, doesn't want you to believe that.

However, a recent study out of Princeton has shown that HFCS is not all that the CRA claims it to be. Rats given access to high-fructose corn syrup gained significantly more weight than those with access to table sugar, even when their overall caloric intake was the same.

From the article:

In addition to causing significant weight gain in lab animals, long-term consumption of high-fructose corn syrup also led to abnormal increases in body fat, especially in the abdomen, and a rise in circulating blood fats called triglycerides. The researchers say the work sheds light on the factors contributing to obesity trends in the United States.

"Some people have claimed that high-fructose corn syrup is no different than other sweeteners when it comes to weight gain and obesity, but our results make it clear that this just isn't true, at least under the conditions of our tests," said psychology professor Bart Hoebel, who specializes in the neuroscience of appetite, weight and sugar addiction.

"When rats are drinking high-fructose corn syrup at levels well below those in soda pop, they're becoming obese - every single one, across the board. Even when rats are fed a high-fat diet, you don't see this; they don't all gain extra weight."

...rats on a diet rich in high-fructose corn syrup showed characteristic signs of a dangerous condition known in humans as the metabolic syndrome, including abnormal weight gain, significant increases in circulating triglycerides and augmented fat deposition, especially visceral fat around the belly.

Male rats in particular ballooned in size: Animals with access to high-fructose corn syrup gained 48 percent more weight than those eating a normal diet.

So, is high fructose corn syrup dead? Well, PepsiCo is taking it out of Gatorade and some brands of Pepsi. Starting in May, Hunt's Ketchup will contain sugar, not HFCS. Kraft is removing it from their Wheat Thins and Snapple is HFCS free. The list of products with HFCS removed from them goes on and on.

The ax is falling slowly but, after this report, I think we'll see a lot more products touting the fact that they are HFCS free. What kind of impact do you think this will have on the obesity rates? Do you think it will matter much or do you think the obesity problem has more to do with eating habits and lack of exercise? Is it even rational to blame it all on HFCS?

Swine flu, breastfeeding and the vaccine

I was really intending on doing a book club post for today, but I keep reading some advice on how to handle dealing with swine flu on some natural living and green sites with some recommendations that I wanted to hopefully clarify in regards to the benefits of breastfeeding and swine flu protection in children.

One of the things that I wanted to touch on was the assertion that breastfeeding will help protect your baby from the swine flu and that it is a valid alternative to the swine flu vaccine. On Ecochildsplay, the author states that "there are ways you can protect even the littlest members of your family, without giving them a vaccine."

She then says that "although the CDC recommends that most seemingly healthy people receive the vaccine, there are other ways to protects [sic] your babies." The article supports this argument by mentioning that the CDC states: "Breastfeed early and often. Limit formula feeds if you can. This will help protect your baby from infection."

The article goes on to say:

Yep. The Centers for Disease Control suggests breastmilk over formula to help protect your little ones against swine flu. No, breastmilk is no cure. But it may help boost baby’s immune system and make any illness a mild one.

I believe the author is inferring way too much here from the CDC's statement. I can't concur with the assumption that breastmilk will help make swine flu a mild illness. I do want to make clear the fact that I wholeheartedly agree that breastfeeding helps the child's immunity, but that is assuming that the mother has immune cells or immunity to the disease you are protecting them from.

Since this is a novel flu, one that no one (under the age of 60) has immunity for, breastfeeding won't help protect them specifically from the swine flu. In other words, unless the mother has been exposed or has come down with the swine flu and is breastfeeding, the breastfeeding child will not have any immunity.

The concept that breastfeeding in general helps boost the child's immune system is definitely accurate, but unfortunately, the CDC states that "infants are thought to be at higher risk for severe illness from novel influenza A (H1N1) infection and very little is known about prevention of novel H1N1 flu infection in infants. If you are breastfeeding or giving your baby infant formula, a cautious approach would be to protect your baby from exposure to the flu virus."

Further the CDC recommends that in order to protect your baby, if you have the flu, you should have someone else feed your infant your expressed milk in order to reduce the possibility of infecting your child. If you do not have help, then you should wear a facemask.

Since this is a new virus, we don’t know yet about specific protection against it. Mothers pass on protective antibodies to their baby during breastfeeding. Antibodies are a type of protein made by the immune system in the body. Antibodies help fight off infection.

If you are sick with flu and are breastfeeding, someone who is not sick can give your baby your expressed milk.

And, if you are wondering if I'm advocating that healthy children get the swine flu vaccine, you bet I am (there are "mercury free" shots available if that makes your hiney twinge). The vaccine should be no more risky than seasonal flu shots. And since children under 5 are considered a high risk group, wishful thinking is, frankly, more dangerous than the potential side effects of a vaccine.

So, definitely, keep up the breastfeeding, just know that it is no magic silver bullet here. If your child gets sick, monitor their symptoms and seek appropriate treatment according to your doctor's recommendations.

Are you planning on getting yourself and/or your children vaccinated when it becomes available?

Getting skinnier as we get fatter

I was just minding my own damn business last night when reader, Kevin, was kind enough to forward a bunch of pictures of some artery-blasting food "creations" that apparently have cropped up in the American food space. Since I'm mostly vegetarian, I really can't comprehend eating any of these items. Even when I do eat meat, it's generally grilled fish and light cuts of meat. I can't stand anything remotely resembling gristle or fat - I get the gags. Well, not really, but I've been greasy meat averse my whole life.

So, wonderful items such as these don't do it for me:

• The Double Bacon Hamburger Fatty Melt: Three bacon-stuffed grilled cheese sandwiches for buns, cheese, bacon and two four-ounce beefs patties
  
• The Hamdog: A hot dog wrapped in a beef patty that’s deep fried, covered with chili, cheese, onions, served on a hoagie bun topped with two fistfuls of fries and a fried egg
  
• The Bacon Explosion: Two pounds of bacon woven through and around two pounds of sausage and slathered in barbecue sauce

I'm sure there's a market for this stuff out there but why, in god's name, would anyone go out of their way to invent such a thing, let alone eat it? Is there some sort of pride in bragging about ingesting a full 5,000 calories and 100 grams of fat? "Dude! I just shaved 2 years off my life and probably moved up that quadruple bypass by at least 6 months!"

And, while the average American gets more corpulent, the people we look up to (no, not intellectuals or politicians, but celebrities, silly!) get skinnier and skinnier. When someone's head starts getting so disproportionately large in comparison to their body, you know something's wrong. Or, as someone joked (I can't remember who) you know a celebrity has reached success when they are five pounds away from organ failure.

Is it because the average American is bordering on obese that we are so enamored of the skinny? And, as we get morbidly fatter, our "dream girls" get morbidly thinner? Now, I know most guys are not pushing the skinny chick trend and some blame the clothing designers for this trend, but I think there's a hefty amount of blame to be placed on the female consumer. It's the women that buy the women's magazines and products that feature these cachectic bodies.

In the meantime, model Heidi Klum (at right), has recently been declared as being too "fat" to model on the runway. If she's fat (and, mind you, this woman has had three children), what does that say about the average American woman? Thirty years ago, the average model weighed 10 pounds heavier for the same height as they do today. Speaking in terms of numbers, the average model today weighs 115 pounds and the average American woman weighs 147 pounds. And, that's not even considering the height differences.

American women are 24 pounds heavier compared to a generation ago. Ironically, I don't think many women are the target market for those delightfully meaty products I mentioned above. I don't know what that says for the average male waistline. So, as we get heavier will this trend continue? Something has to give because we're starting to head towards celebrity starvation camp territory already and there's not much wiggle room. What do you think of current trends in fashion/celebrity weight? Do you like the bobble headed look or do you prefer a more curvy figure? Or, do you just ignore it altogether?

Circumventing circumcision

This really is a taboo topic in our society and, regardless of whatever health benefits are purported one way or the other regarding male circumcision, there really isn't a whole lot of consistent data to back it up.

Some scientists argue that being circumcised protects the female partner from HPV and cervical cancer. Some say that it doesn't affect rates of HIV infection in homosexual men, but it does in heterosexual men. Recent research also shows that being circumcised doesn't affect male satisfaction. All these studies were reported over the last year, yet the evidence one way or the other really hasn't conclusively changed over the last 40 years.

So, what's the scoop then? Is there a "medical necessity" for circumcision even though the benefits in even some of the high risk groups studied can be deemed somewhat negligible? What are parents choosing these days for their children?

I highly suspect that the choice is driven not only by personal experience but by geography. But does it really all come down merely to aesthetics? Do we convince ourselves that there is a medical benefit because it backs up the fact that we, as Americans, prefer a circumcised "style"?

Since we rarely talk about this even among other parents at school, church, etc. I wanted to ask you what you think about circumcision. What do you think of the practice and what is your opinion of likening it to female circumcision? Is it the same thing, but just a different cultural, religious or aesthetic belief?

Natural deodorant trial report

Three months ago I reported that I had switched over to using The Rock, aka crystal deodorant. At the time I was quite pleased with its performance particularly since I have a history of issues with finding an anti-perspirant / deodorant that was effective.

I have always had problems with staining in the armpit region and have learned over the years never to wear white. So, it was with great excitement and pleasure that I reported how successful my initial experiments with the rock were.

But, what about summer usage? I figured if it was effective during the heat and sweat and stink of summer then surely it would be super effective during the cooler months of the year. As such, I'm here to report that for the last three months I have only used The Rock and have been very pleased with its performance. I only had some stinky problems once after working in the yard on a particularly sweat inducing day but it must have been somewhat of an unusual day because since then I have used it under much more sweaty conditions and haven't had any odor problems.

Since it doesn't act as an anti-perspirant, I'm sweating like I should be. Frankly since I've been using anti-perspirant since I was 12 I didn't know what to expect. On some days I had some underarm sweating issues, but since it's not clogged with chemical build-up, my shirts dried pretty quickly. And, I'm sure that it actually kept me cooler. Now, I'm not talking giant sweat rings or anything, just a little more dampness than usual.

Finally, and most importantly, I no longer have a permanent film or build-up or waxy irremovable patch on my shirts. In fact, I have even purchased a few white shirts since I no longer have to worry about yellow staining. That alone is worth a huge "holy crap"!

A number of you have written to me stating that you have had success and, even better, your spouse or husband had success with the crystal. I'm glad I'm not alone in witnessing the miracle that is The Rock.

Any other success stories (or failures) out there?

Raw milk gets a raw deal

Sometimes local media, well, grinds my crackers.

Back in 2005, in the Pacific NW, there was an E. coli outbreak in people who had drank (drunk?) raw milk from a local producer. The health impact for these people was serious and a number of people were hospitalized. Last week, the owners of the dairy that sold the tainted milk pleaded guilty in federal court in Seattle to the charge of distributing adulterated food.

Yesterday's front page news in a major Seattle paper went on to discuss whether or not the legalization of raw milk in the state of Washington should continue.

Now, let's back up for a moment and look at some of the facts. First of all, the milk sold was from a dairy that was not licensed to sell raw milk. In their plea agreements, the owners acknowledged that "the milk was prepared, packed or held under insanitary conditions whereby it may have been rendered injurious to health."

Can you cannibalize a whole "industry" based on an incidence by an unlicensed producer? That's like making dental surgery illegal in the state because a number of people sought dental care from an unlicensed dentist and were harmed because of it.

I, for one, have never had raw milk so I cannot speak to its deliciousness or otherwise friendly virtues. The argument for it is that high heat processing (aka pasteurization) kills off a bunch of nutrients so drinking milk in its more natural state is better. There is also the claim that those people who are lactose intolerant can drink raw milk because it still has the lactose-digesting Lactobacilli bacteria intact.

The CDC reports that in the last ten years, there were only 39 outbreaks nationwide in which raw milk or cheese made from it were implicated. Of those outbreaks, about 830 people fell ill, 66 were hospitalized and one died. Doug Powell, the scientific director for the International Food Safety Network, states that "the numbers of illnesses from outbreaks caused by unpasteurized milk are not that high."

Also, I do believe that banning something does not remove the demand for it. Driving a product underground does no one any favors. Allowing it, with licensing, regulations and testing, provides that at least some semblance of quality control is adhered.

Washington state law requires that all raw milk carry the following warning: "This product has not been pasteurized and may contain harmful bacteria. Pregnant women, children, the elderly and persons with lowered resistance have the highest risk of harm from use of this product."

One of the issues for many people is the idea that parents will purchase this product and give it to their children, thereby endangering them. But, is this reason enough to ban it?

What's your opinion on raw milk?

Let us all just reflect for a moment

.... on how stupid the EPA is for refusing California and 16 other states the right to control their air quality by requiring their own car emissions standards (from the NYT):

The Bush administration said Wednesday night that it would deny California's bid to set stricter vehicle emissions standards than federal law required as part of the state's efforts to fight climate change... The E.P.A's decision was a victory for the American auto companies...

Isn't the EPA supposed to be protecting the environment and not the oil companies? This just really makes me sick. Especially after watching the movie, Who Killed the Electric Car, last weekend.

Do you feel like the United States is stepping down as a world leader? Do you feel like the American public is completely hand-tied by the oil industry in all of our current policies?

Sometimes, unfortunately, I do.

I don't know about you, but...

FADE IN:

INT SUBURBAN HOME BATHROOM EARLY EVENING

A TODDLER is busy SPLASHING in a bathtub filled with bubbles. He wears an amazingly huge grin on his face.

ON SCREEN
essential₂splishsplash

VOICEOVER
It is what makes people, places and things squeaky clean and springtime fresh.

It is chemistry.

ON SCREEN
americanchemistry.com

FADE OUT:

--------------------------------------------

What?

Okay, so this is actually a print ad, but I couldn't help myself (whatever happened to that really crappy screenplay I wrote a few years ago, you ask?).

Nonetheless, chemistry?

Sure, if you refer to the combination of lye, water and natural oils as chemistry, which I do. But, I don't think that manufactured, petroleum-based bubbles gives me the feel-good warm fuzzies they were intending in this ad. More like the willies.

Squeaky clean? This must be playing on American's fear of bacteria, MRSA, bird flu, germs. Kill 'em! With chemistry!

Oh, yeah, and I really hate the smell of chemically manufactured "springtime fresh". It's right up there with "baby powder scent". Ick. I need to go wash out my olfactory system just thinking about it. With chemicals.

Greenin' your Halloweenin'

I keep hearing a tremendous amount of press about "Greening your Halloween", but it seems like the take home message from the news has been "No Candy - Cheap Plastic Crappy Toys Instead". At least this is how it has been reported to me from people reading these news pieces. How green is that message?

Now, I know this isn't the actual message organizations like The Nature Conservancy are promoting, but it's what people who hear about it seem to bring away from it.

On the other hand, suggested food alternatives are either expensive (and not realistic if you get upwards of 100 kids like we do), seemingly dangerous (open packaging like raisins that parents will throw away thinking their kids will get poisoned or worse), or, frankly, inedible (tea?). What child is going to be gleeful at a bag of fruit leathers, raisins and organic fruit drink boxes? Throw in a sandwich and call it school lunch.

Unless every house hands out these kinds of everyday "treats", these well meaning handouts will be ignored or, even worse, thrown in the trash. So much for green.

As for the toy alternatives, the same problem arises. Most eco-friendly toys are expensive and unaffordable for most households. The affordable toys are cheap plastic that are "Hecho en China" and aren't exactly green. Even if you could afford a boatload of recycled pencils, shells (are these sustainable?) and hand-hewn wooden trinkets, are these toys that kids want?

Again, will they end up ignored and eventually thrown in the trash? Most kids are too polite to look at your selection and refuse to take anything, whether they want it or not. So, while I totally applaud the intent behind all this, I really don't see this as a real, green solution.

Here's my take on it - maybe mixing in some of the "greener" items with standard ole candy and let the kids decide. I ended up putting in some alternatives last year, mostly because I was running out of candy and went through the cabinets looking for additional treats. I was quite amazed at how a couple of kids chose the 100% fruit juice gummies and some PediaSure nutrition bars my mom bought (yes, I was desperate) over the remaining candy.

Obviously, there are the exceptions. This year I'll huck in some Halloween pencils for sport and see what happens. It would be fun to do a more statistically useful study, but my sample would only represent my neighborhood and probably wouldn't tell anyone much of anything. I suspect the non-candy choosers would be in the minority.

I remember being a kid and mentally planning, even while I was still out trick-or-treating, to toss all the mealy apples, popcorn balls and other things I didn't like. I don't want to inflict the same waste on a new generation of kids.

What are the rest of you guys doing about Halloween? Do you have any suggestions? And, I'm not looking for the "turn off the lights and hope your house doesn't get egged" alternatives.

Green Clean

Today this post requires your input. I've been looking for green products (low or no toxic chemicals) to replace my regular cleaners.

So my question(s) for you, my friends, are as follows...

What is your favorite homemade or green product to clean:

1. bathrooms (replacing Comet)
2. countertops (replacing 409)
3. mildew (replacing X-14)
4. soap scum (replacing Comet)
5. windows (replacing Windex)
6. laundry (replacing Tide)
7. dishes (hand - replacing something like Joy)
8. dishes (machine - replacing Electrasol)
9. linoleum
10. wood floors
11. skin
12. hair
13. teeth (replacing Colgate)

Looking at the list of replacements above, it's amazing how toxic mainstream cleaners are. But, they work. How do your green replacements stack up? I've already switched out some cleaners but I'm not all impressed with some of them.

So, that's it! Now get crackin'. I want answers, people!

I want to check you for ticks

It's tick season people. Well, at the very least the season for lots of hiking and frolicking in areas where ticks are rampant is nigh.

I'm really not comfy with slathering DEET or similar products on my skin, let alone my small chitlins, so I've been researching a bit over the years on "natural" bug repellents.

There are quite a number of them on the market like Eco-Blend (formerly called Buzz-Off), Cactus Juice, and Bugs 'R' Done. These claim to be effective, but it's hard to say based on the ingredient list. And frankly, I can't believe something relying on cactus effluent or orange peel oil is going to work.

Has anyone had any luck using any non-DEET bug repellent?

Oh, and you Brad Paisley fans that made it this far, I apologize if you accidentally wandered into my little world instead of what you were actually looking for.