A crafty alternative for those who don’t necessarily want to eat their baby’s placenta, but want to pay their respects to the life sustaining organ by turning it into a one-of-a-kind teddy bear.

The best part? It’s a do-it-yourself kit! I’m generally not squeamish, but…ewwwww.

Anytime we go to a museum or botanical garden we have to hit the gift shop.  So while looking around at all the pretty cards, fun toys, candles, and other cute stuff, I found this book, Green Baby. As a person who’s always interested in reading about sustainability, I started flipping the pages, and when I got to the chapter on vaccinations, I was a bit stunned.

I mean, why are vaccinations even in a book about green living?

The chapter contained all the usual vaccine woo, but couched in careful language so as not to seem too alarmist.  The book recommends that readers ask questions about the toxic ingredients in vaccines, like mercury and formaldehyde.  And also that they find out just why some parents skip certain vaccinations or space them out according to an alternate schedule.  Basically, these are all the questions that have been answered hundreds or thousands of times and really shouldn’t even be taken seriously at this point.  The language was careful not to come out against vaccines, but it cautioned readers to just do their research.  So it plants the seeds in the readers’ minds that vaccinations contain ingredients that are unhealthy and anti-green.

But the thing is, vaccines are not a green  issue.  I could see if the manufacture of vaccines were somehow clogging up waterways or filling landfills that there might be information in a book on sustainability about that.  But that is not the case.  This book is not so much about straight up environmentalism and sustainable living but about this vague idea of “green” that somehow encompasses a carefully worded anti-vaccine rhetoric.

I am sure there is other information in this book that is not well researched or not up to date. I didn’t buy it, so I can’t give a full review, but there was a lot of “organic” information as well.  If anyone saw a recent episode of Penn & Teller’s Bullshit, then you are learning, as am I, that organic farming really isn’t as sustainable as conventional farming and that it doesn’t even support the small farmer as it claims to do.  (And it’s not just Bullshit–although that’s the most entertaining way to learn about the organic myth–you can find lots of information online as well.)  But I can excuse an environmental baby book for still touting organic as a great idea.  Organic and green just seem to go hand in hand.  And the information about organic products has become so entrenched and so enmeshed with the idea of sustainability.

But vaccines and green?  Those two don’t even belong together.  I have only heard the two words together from the likes of Jenny McCarthy.  Vaccination just isn’t an environmental issue, period, and I found it alarming that it has been absorbed into a book about green living for parents.  The misinformation about vaccines is like a stain that just won’t come out and seems to have gotten into every nook and cranny of the American public consciousness.

Let’s hope if this book sticks around that future editions correct the egregious inclusion of vaccinations as a subject that has anything to do with environmentalism, unless it is to debunk myths about supposed toxins in vaccines.

The ‘Organic’ Stamp–Does It Mean That Food Is Safer?

It’s about the foods labeled as “organic” and how they achieve that status. You know the peanut butter contaminated with salmonella that has killed nine people and caused almost 700 people to become ill? The peanut butter, from Peanut Corporation of America, had the official organic stamp on it.

From the article:

Organics has grown from an $11 billion business in the United States in 2001 to one that now generates more than $20 billion in sales, so the stakes for farmers, processors and certifiers can be high. But the agency overseeing the certifying process has long been considered underfunded and understaffed. Critics have called the system dysfunctional.

I think people are led to believe that organic food is safe and pure. If only that were true.

I’m thrilled that anyone thinks we know the answers to these questions. After I answered an email a little while ago, we got another one:

Hello there. I am a soon-to-be skeptical Dad, and I have been reading
(and enjoying!) your site. (You can thank Phil Plait for that)

I was wondering if any of you have done research about organic foods?
Are they healthier for you and your kids then their normal
counterparts? Have there been any studies done? I have heard that
organic tomatoes can have a naturally produced pesticide in them that
can be worse then the ones they spray on.

It seems like organics would be better for you, but as you know, that
kind of thinking can get you in trouble.

Thank You,

Derek Cramer

I thought this topic would take tons of research, but I really had to look no further than Robert T. Carroll’s thorough breakdown of the latest research on organic food and farming on Skepdic.

I read the whole thing, but if you don’t want to take the time, here’s the important part:

I have to say that I am underwhelmed by the studies I have reviewed that claim to have found organic foods are more nourishing or healthy than conventional fruits and vegetables.

The article was last updated on December 29, 2008, and there are tons of links and citations, so it seems pretty comprehensive.

So let’s talk about baby food, a subject of interest to me lately, since my son eats almost none of it. At eight months, he is still mostly a boobetarian. Not a fan of the solid food so much.

Because I tend to get overly ambitious at the outset of projects, I bought a book when Zack was four months old called Super Baby Food by Ruth Yaron. This book is all about how to make your own baby food, which I thought would be fun and cost effective. I never made any baby food, and I’m glad, because it would have been a waste of time, as my baby doesn’t eat food.

I also gleaned after just a little reading that Ruth Yaron is just a little nuts. She starts off urging us to make only certified organic foods for our precious babies. Okay, we just learned that the whole organic thing is maybe not based on the soundest science, but at least it’s a popular delusion. It’s more her tone that sort of got to me. On page 38:

Pesticides kill living things. Let me repeat that. Pesticides kill living things. Who knows what long-term effects these supposedly safe levels of pesticides used on our nation’s crops will have on your baby….

A statement like this gets under my skin. For one thing, the repetition is symptomatic of the entire book, which is poorly organized and redundant, and full of helpful “tips” and “warnings” that often stray into crazyville. Here’s one:

WARNING: Your blender and food processor give off a lot of EMFs (electro magnetic fields), so don’t stand very close to it. Step back a good foot or two while it is grinding.

Are you freakin’ kidding me?

First of all, no, your blender is not dangerous, unless you stick your hand in it. Thanks again to Skepdic for this article on EMFs and how there’s no scientific evidence they can harm you.

Second, how can this sentence have made it into the second edition of this book with a mismatched pronoun? Blender and food processor, right? Maybe don’t stand so close to them.

Anyway, I’m sure that if I had ever actually decided to cook and mash up veggies for my son, this book would have been useful. It has a bunch of recipes in it. But I could not see the point. Babies don’t eat purees for too long anyway, before they move on to finger foods. So I could imagine myself making batches of peas and sweet potatoes, freezing them in ice cube trays…and then having little frozen blocks of peas and sweet potatoes getting in the way of the frozen pizza for weeks. The evil “commercial” stuff looked fine to me, based on the ingredients. What’s in sweet potato baby food? Sweet potatoes. And water. That’s it. (Well, plus the evil.)

But back to the pesticides thing, the other thing that annoys me is the fear mongering. “Who knows…” is such an evocative phrase for creating fear. Who knows what this stuff could do to your baby? Forget about it. No parent is feeding that stuff to her baby, even if the answer to “Who knows” is well, scientists who’ve done a bunch of studies and determined that the stuff isn’t so bad. There’s no proof it could hurt you. But that might mean they just haven’t found the proof yet, right? Better not eat it!

On the subject of pesticides, Ruth Yaron continues:

Another problem with pesticides and your baby is this: Your baby eats much more food per pound of body weight than we do, so pesticides get more concentrated in her little body. Babies are especially vulnerable to pesticides because their immune system, their organs, and their developing brains are so immature.

Once again, Ruth seems to have trouble with plurals. I really doubt all babies share one giant “immune system.” I’m pretty sure that should be “systems.” Was her editor just blissed out on organic pot or what? But moving on to the content, more food per pound of body weight? More concentrated poison in my baby? This is some scary math!

But wait, there’s no citation or reference here. I can understand that my baby eats more food per pound of body weight (well, not my baby, who hates food, but say, the average baby), but it doesn’t necessarily follow that pesticides get concentrated in his little body. Where are your numbers? How much more pesticide are we talking about? Do pesticides even accumulate like this? All pesticides? Why are you trying to terrify me about my baby’s brain and organs? If you’re going to say something like this–that I’m going to load up my baby’s little vulnerable organs with pesticide–you gotta show me some proof. Otherwise you’re just making up stuff to frighten me. (I admit, I’m slightly frightened, but mostly of ever running into Ruth Yaron and having to have a conversation with her. She sounds preachy and annoying.)

So, in conclusion, stay away from your blender, and only eat organic.

I hope that answers your question, Derek, and thanks for writing!

For starters, catgirl asks “For comparison, how hazardous is a normal light bulb?”

Great question! I hadn’t really thought about it. I’d say the short answer is that while both types of bulbs have their drawbacks, I’d rather have an incandescent bulb break a foot from my face than a CFL (curly) bulb. But I don’t think either is going to kill me.

I found a few  material safety data sheets (MSDS) on the internet for incandescent bulbs: here,  here and here (all pdfs). They all stress that unbroken intact bulbs pose no real danger. However, if an incandescent bulb breaks, there may be some lead present in the solder or glass, which can be toxic if inhaled. I’m sure the amount present varies with different types and brands of bulbs.

Let’s compare and contrast the  Sylvania MSDS for incandescents to the Sylvania MSDS for CFLs, and we find that in both documents Section V. Health Hazards has the exact same statement:

“No adverse effects are expected from occasional exposure to broken lamps. As a matter of good practice, avoid prolonged or frequent exposure to broken lamps unless there is adequate ventilation. The major hazard from broken lamps is the possibility of sustaining glass cuts.”

But the MSDS of incandescents lists only lead as as a possible health hazard and recommends ventilating the area before cleaning, then placing the broken bulb in a closed container to prevent generating dust, whereas the MSDS for curly bulbs lists mercury, lead, phosphor, barium compounds, manganese, yttrium, aluminum oxide, and Krypton-85 as possible health hazards and then states, “Clean-up requires special care due to mercury droplet proliferation.”

So, be careful. Don’t break any bulbs if you can help it. If you do break a curly bulb, clean-up requires extra work, but you’ll probably live (as I did). Or, you can spend $23 or so per bulb and get shatter-resistant curly safety bulbs!

Back to the comments, Stacy McKenna and Arwen had questions about how “green” CFLs can be, if they contain toxic mercury. I found this Fox News article that mentions that incandescents use much more energy than CFLs, and the energy probably comes from burning coal, and burning coal releases mercury into the atmosphere.

“The EPA has estimated that the mercury in a CFL added to the mercury emitted from the electricity used to power it is still less than the mercury emitted from powering an incandescent bulb. So they’re still the better choice, the EPA’s Bergstein says.”

So, are CFLs going to save the planet? I dunno, but they do use less energy. If they are recycled properly, they might be a better bet than energy-hogging incandescents. Maybe in the near future we’ll have an affordable, mercury-free option, such as plasma bulbs or energy-efficient incandescents.

Poison?? CFLs are going to save the planet, right? You hear it all the time on TV: “Save about $30 or more in electricity costs over each bulb’s lifetime!”, each bulb uses “up to 75% less energy!”, CFLs will “help out the planet!” (Points with which I am not here to argue.) But did you know that curly bulbs, as well as all fluorescent bulbs, contain mercury, a neurotoxin that can cause brain, liver and kidney damage, and which, therefore, must be disposed of properly?

After breaking the bulb and scaring the kids, I got on the internet to refresh my memory as to how to clean up the mess I just made. According to the EPA’s website, the clean-up process for a broken fluorescent bulb is complicated. It contains multiple steps, including evacuating and airing out the room for at least 15 minutes, cleaning up the glass using stiff cardboard and packing tape, and, very importantly, not vacuuming if you can help it.

After reading all that, I am upset. Just how hazardous is this mess? There are no windows in that bathroom, so is turning on the exhaust fan (which vents outside) enough? Surely 15 minutes isn’t sufficient evacuation time. Gosh, this is the kids’ bathroom, maybe I should just lock the door and never let them in there ever again!

After two hours of fretting and research, I’ve got my gloves on, I have a good supply of ziplock bags, cardboard, paper towels, and packing tape, and I’m ready to go in there. Glass is everywhere. I mean everywhere! Tiny, tiny pieces of glass under the vanity, behind the toilet and even in the tub. Plus there is a fine powder on the vanity, which is the mercury itself. First thing I do is put all the stuff that can’t be cleaned into ziplocks, including the fancy guest soap, the paper cups, the roll of toilet paper, and the kids’ toothbrushes. Then I put the rugs, towels and hand towels in the washing machine. Then I use cardboard to scrape up all the big pieces of glass, and packing tape to pick up all the microscopic ones. Next I clean with paper towels. And I do mean clean. The whole room. Now don’t get me wrong, it’s a bathroom, it needed cleaning anyway, but not like that! Once I’m done, all the used cardboard, tape and paper towels go in ziplock bags, to be disposed of properly later. It takes an hour even though it is a small room. Then I shut the door, leave the exhaust fan on, and don’t let the kids in until the next day.

A quick search on the web reveals that there seems to be universal agreement that care must be taken to properly clean up a broken CFL. I found one study that backs up these claims. The Maine government conducted a study in which they broke bulbs and measured levels of mercury before and after clean-up. They dropped different kinds of bulbs, from different heights, onto different types of flooring. They cleaned up using different methods, including vacuuming. They found that vacuuming is a no-no, since it can disperse the mercury powder into the air. They made the scary discovery that “flooring surfaces, once visibly clean, can emit mercury.” They developed new recommendations on how to clean up broken bulbs, which the EPA used to modify their recommendations. The study makes the point that “it is unclear what the exact health risks are from exposure to low levels of elemental mercury, especially for sensitive populations, so advising for the careful handling and thoughtful placement of CFLs may be important.”

That last point from the Maine study was one that occured to me after my marathon bathroom-cleaning: Where you place CFLs is important. I was glad this bulb broke in a room with no carpeting, since carpeting is hard to clean, and might need to be replaced. Also, that bulb is in a fairly safe location, and if I hadn’t physically dropped the dumb thing, there was virtually no way it would have broken. But what about other bulbs in my house? Can they get broken accidentally? It turns out that all the bedrooms in my house have ceiling fans, with downward-facing, tulip-shaped lamps. A year ago I replaced all the burned-out bulbs in my 5-year-old son’s bedroom fan with CFLs. Well, they are now incandescent again, because that child constantly throws thing in his room, including toys and balls. I now have the nightmare image of him throwing a toy up, a CFL breaking right above him, and mercury powder raining down on his face. Yikes.

Before this incident, I happened to have already read that breaking a CFL could be a big deal, and knew to research the proper method before beginning clean-up. But what about the majority of CFL consumers? Does anyone else know about this? The package the bulbs came in doesn’t mention any of it. All the package says is, “dispose of properly.” No mention of bulbs being a hazard if broken, no mention of how to safely clean up, nothing. It doesn’t even point out that “dispose of properly” means don’t throw used bulbs away in the trash.

I broke one little curly bulb, and I personally was pretty diligent in my effort to clean up. Part of that was the mommy in me, since this was the kids’ bathroom, and I’ll happily go overboard to protect them. Did I overreact? Or should I have done more? Now that I think of it, I forgot to take down and wash the shower curtain. Damn, I better go do that now…

(Part 2)