After a lot of research I may have tracked down the cause – ammonia buildup in my baby’s cloth diapers! My super neato diapers may have been the cause! I couldn’t believe it. I was so angry that I almost chucked the diapers that night. But no, my level headed husband suggested that I purchase a water testing kit to check the purity of our water and from those result buy the specific diaper cleaner that was suggested to us in the beginning.

In walks Rockin Green… I purchased the Funk Rock which has the coolest description:

Do you have the funk? Stinkies? Ammonia problems? Diapers that make your eyes water? Have you considered a kryptonite lined diaper pail to contain the smell of your dirty diapers? Did fluffy or fido have an accident on your bunny slippers? Dealing with the dreaded toddler pee? You need funk rock! This 100% natural compound is unlike anything you have tried before. It targets funk at the source and leaves no prisoners. Just 4 tablespoons is enough to de-funk up to 20 diapers in one sitting. A little to your pre-wash to keep the stinkies from coming back. That’s right, this 16 ounce bag will keep the diaper funk away for over two months! Phosphate Free – Enzyme Free – SLS Free

I also purchased Soft Rock which is the main detergent product.

I highly recommend both products since they have cleaned up my little tykes stinkies and made his diapers ammonia-smelling FREE! My faith in cloth diapers has been restored.

- Jayme M. Carleton, Second Nature

Making Sustainability Second Nature™

http://jaymecarleton.com

Bookmark & Share

Buy the Deluxe Healthy Home Starter Kit and receive a FREE TOTE and FREE SHIPPING! It is perfect for yourself or for your special someone (think your Mom whom is still stuck in the toxic cleaner stone age).

- Jayme M. Carleton, Second Nature

Making Sustainability Second Nature™

http://jaymecarleton.com

Bookmark & Share

- Jayme M. Carleton, Second Nature

Making Sustainability Second Nature™

http://jaymecarleton.com

We can imagine our kitchens without a lot of things, but plastic isn’t one of them. In the half century since it created a food storage revolution, this material has come to play an indispensible role in nearly every meal.

In recent years, however, plastic’s image as a shining symbol of technological progress has been tarnished by reports suggesting that it may be less than safe, especially in the kitchen. At issue are the chemicals plastics are made from and whether or not these building blocks are able to leach into our food. The answer to that question starts with understanding the different kinds of plastic available today. Here’s a list by recycling code number:

• #1 PET or PETE (polyethylene terephthalate ethylene) is a common plastic used to package a variety of foods and drinks. PETE is considered a safe, non-leaching plastic, even though some studies have found that it can release the toxic metallic mineral antimony over time, especially when subjected to heat.
• #2 HDPE (high density polyethylene) is another common plastic used for milk and water jugs, dairy product tubs, and plastic bags. HDPE is not known to leach toxins.
• #3 PVC or V (polyvinyl chloride) is found in plastic wrap, especially commercial varieties used to package deli and similar items. These plastics use hazardous compounds called phthalates to maintain their pliability. Phthalates have been found to easily leach out of PVC products. PVC can also release a material called di-(2-ethylhexyl) adipate (DEHA) when in contact with fatty foods. The use of #3 plastics is not recommended.
• #4 LDPE (low-density polyethylene) is used for bread and frozen food bags, squeezable bottles, other types of packaging, and reusable containers. It is not known to leach toxins.
• #5 PP (polypropylene) is found in bottles and food tubs, and reusable containers. It is not known to leach toxins.
• #6 PS (polystyrene) is often found in foamed food containers. It can leach a number of chemicals into foods and is not recommended in the kitchen.
• #7 OTHER is a catch-all category that includes everything else. One common #7 plastic is polycarbonate, a shatter-resistant material used in things like baby bottles and reusable water bottles. Polycarbonates readily leach a toxic compound called bisphenol-a (BPA) into food and drink. But new corn-based polylactic acid (PLA) plastics, which are generally recognized as safe, are also labeled #7. It can be hard to tell if a given #7 container is kitchen-safe without additional identifying information, so look for bottles that say they are BPA-free.

To sum up: types 1, 2, 4, and 5 are generally safe to use. Types 3 and 6 should be avoided. And Type 7 is a definite “it depends.”

Of course, there are certain circumstances under which no plastic is safe to use. Heat, harsh detergents, and old age all promote the degradation of plastics and the leaching of compounds they contain. Here are our rules for using plastics safely in the kitchen:

• Never microwave any food in any plastic of any kind, including so-called plastic wraps and “microwave safe” containers. Transfer microwaveable foods to a safe glass or ceramic alternative before heating — even if the label says the original container can be used. The term “microwave-safe” only means the plastic in question won’t become visibly damaged when heated — not that it won’t leach!
• Don’t serve or store hot foods, acidic foods, or foods with a high fat or oil content in plastic containers of any kind as these types of edibles are more likely to encourage leaching. Use glass, metal, or lead-free ceramics instead. A simple storage system can be created with any bowl and a similarly-sized plate used as a lid.
• Avoid the temptation to save and reuse commercial food packaging and drink bottles, which are not designed for repeated uses and become more prone to leaching with repeated cleanings.
• When reusable plastic containers made from #4 and #5 plastic become heavily worn or scratched, retire and recycle them.
• Always wash plastic containers by hand, with warm water and mild dish liquid. Keep them out of the dishwasher.
• Avoid putting cling wraps in direct contact with food. Instead, use unbleached wax paper or a safe container.
• Plastic sandwich and food storage bags are typically made from polyethylene, which is considered non-toxic. However, we were unable to find any data verifying the safety of washing and reusing such bags. Since this practice could potentially make them prone to leaching, we can’t recommend it. Instead, we prefer wax paper bags or reusable solutions like the SnackTaxi, the Wrap-n-Mat, or the alternatives atReusableBags.com.
• Practice precaution and use only glass bottles for infant feedings.
• When it comes to buying cling wrap and reusable food containers, purchase only those that tell you exactly what type of plastic they’re made from.

Bookmark & Share

I always found Christmas a time consuming holiday… running to the Christmas tree lot to buy a tree, having to bring the decorations inside from storage, setting the decorations out, spending a few hours arranging things just right; and that was just for the tree! I really did think that maybe I could reduce the time commitment by ordering a fake Christmas tree online and reusing it every year. Surprising, my not as eco-conscious husband pointed out that maybe, just maybe, that wasn’t the route to go. He sent me the below email for backup, in case I didn’t believe him.

- Jayme M. Carleton, Second Nature

Making Sustainability Second Nature™

http://jaymecarleton.com

By JOHN COLLINS RUDOLF

The New York Times

In these eco-conscious times, many people want to shrink their environmental footprint while still enjoying the trappings of the holiday season. In some cases, the earth-friendly alternative – pass the tofurky – is a pretty obvious choice. But in others, the answer is not so clear. When it comes to Christmas trees, for instance, which is better for the planet: the long-lasting artificial kind, or the freshly cut, pine-scent-and-sap variety?

As I report in Saturday’s Times, at least one major study found that the real tree was probably the better choice. But as I found during my reporting, many consumers still believe that a faux fir is less harmful to the environment than the real thing.

That’s because an artificial tree can be used again and again, unlike a real tree, which is tossed out at the end of the season. Yet as it turns out, that’s not enough to tilt the scales in the fake tree’s favor. The resources used to make artificial trees — plastic and metal — have a high extraction cost, and most trees are made in China, meaning they need to be shipped thousands of miles before they reach American shores.

Real trees are also biodegradable and can be composted or turned into mulch; fake trees are almost all fated to end up in a landfill one day.

Artificial Christmas trees continue to sell by the truckload, of course — according to industry estimates, sales in the United States may hit 13 million this year.

Most faux trees have a lifespan of about six to 10 years, surveys have found, at which point they start to look a bit ragged and consumers chuck them out. At this point, they’re off to the landfill.

What about recycling? I posed this question to Jami Warner, executive director of the American Christmas Tree Association, which represents makers of artificial trees.

“All the materials in an artificial Christmas tree are recyclable and trees are recycled now,” Ms. Warner wrote in an e-mail.

Technically, this might be true. But all the municipal recycling programs I queried said they did not recycle artificial trees — and for good reason: artificial trees are largely made from polyvinyl chloride, or PVC, which is in most cases prohibitively expensive to recycle. I mentioned this fact to Ms. Warner, who said the onus rested with the cities, not her industry.

“Ultimately trees are likely to end up in landfills until cities offer recycling programs,” Ms. Warner wrote.

Bookmark & Share

This article from Green Planet scared the heck out of me. I would never EVER contemplate having my house sprayed for fleas or other pests, however I am not everyone and there are a lot of people out there who control these pests with indoor spraying and other measures. I wanted to pass on this article to you so that you can make an informed decision and know the pros and cons of your decision.

- Jayme M. Carleton, Second Nature

http://jaymecarleton.com

Making Sustainability Second Nature™

From Planet Green:

I have a special place in my heart for this story. I live in South Carolina, where the bugs are big, really big, and the flea problem come spring and summer can take over your life. I’ve had moments of weakness just like the rest of us. A story in theWashington Post tells the story of one woman in Virginia who had her moment of weakness and it almost killed her.

According to the Washington Post, Sue Eisenfeld was a conscious consumer; she ate a vegetarian diet, refused bags at the store, and avoided processed foods. In fact, she worked as a consultant for the EPA. But it seemed after treating her cat topically, she still couldn’t get rid of the fleas. Her kitty was scratching herself raw. So she went for it. She decided to have her house sprayed. She trusted that if anything dangerous was being sprayed in her home, they would tell her. She thought wrong. We often hear that spraying pesticides in our homes is dangerous, but what we don’t hear is why. We don’t hear the immediate ramifications that can come from spraying your home. Here’s what happened to Sue.

Scary Ramifications

She began to have strange symptoms like a headache, odd electric energy down her arm, and a painful reaction to cold. She was fatigued, seriously dizzy, and had lost so much strength that she could barely brush her teeth.

According to the story:

Two trips to the emergency room ruled out a stroke and a brain tumor. But an MRI scan showed a lesion on the spinal cord in my neck. This scar or defect, I was told, had chewed away some of the protective myelin that coats nerves and transmits messages in the nervous system. This damage was scrambling messages being sent throughout my body about temperature and pain and strength and balance.

Sue’s Diagnosis

The doctor later diagnosed the illness as transverse myelitis, or an inflammation on the spinal cord. After being put on a mega-dose of steroids for five days her symptoms lessened but she had to go through rigorous physical therapy to gain back strength.

The doctors had ruled out many of the usual causes for the disease like Lyme’s disease, chickenpox, shingles, herpes, flu, and others but Sue wondered if it had been the initial pesticide exposure. After doing research she learned that’s exactly what happened. She learned that the pesticide used had not been applied correctly. Food surfaces were not covered and the house was not aired out. Then she read about the complaints against the pesticide turned into the EPA.

Again, the Washington Post:

[A]n 82-page report from the EPA that made it clear to me that MS wasn’t the cause of my symptoms. The report showed that from 1992 until early 2010, 156 “minor” human incidents had been reported to the agency concerning the product used in our house, as well as 24 “moderate” and 515 “major” human incidents.Among the complaints in the moderate and major medical incidents were dizziness, difficulty breathing, difficulty swallowing, muscle weakness, tremors, abdominal pain, disorientation, stumbling, coma, seizure, liver failure, lethargy, numbness, blurred vision, chills, blood in the urine, memory loss, migraines, inability to walk and heart attack.

While this is public knowledge, few people that have their homes sprayed are aware of it. The fact of the matter is that you can’t trust the system, you have to do your own research. As we move into the height of bug season, remember that these poisons can do real damage. If it were me I’d avoid getting my home sprayed at all cost. Take every holistic step before ever taking the pesticide plunge. You never know the results. Here’s aguide to treating fleas holistically that really works.

Bookmark & Share

- Jayme M. Carleton, Second Nature

http://jaymecarleton.com

Making Sustainability Second Nature™

As reported by Planet Green:

Diet coke recently became the second most popular soda second only to regular coke. I think much of the reason for its popularity is the false perception that it’s the healthier choice because it has no calories. But zero calorie sweeteners like aspartame and saccharin come with risks including a link with bladder cancer, brain tumors, and osteoporosis.

But a new study is causing the world to take even more notice. According to an article in Food Navigator, The European Parliament’s Environment committee is pushing for a warning label on products containing aspartame for pregnant women. The warning label would read: “Contains aspartame (a source of phenylalanine; might be unsuitable for pregnant women).”

According to Food Navigator:

It follows the publication of a Danish epidemiological study that saw a statistical association between the consumption of soft drinks containing sweeteners and increased risk of preterm delivery as a result of a medical decision following complications. The authors said the results, whether or not there is a causal link, needs to be confirmed by other studies.

Bookmark & Share

- Jayme M. Carleton, Second Nature

http://jaymecarleton.com

Making Sustainability Second Nature™

Researchers at Indiana University have found flame retardants in the blood of pet dogs at levels five to ten times higher than typically found in humans. Could dogs be the canary in the coal mine for how accumulating polybrominated flame retardants will affect humans?

We already know that polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PDBEs for short) are found everywhere — they are used in everything from computers to carpeting, and can be measured even in the dust bunnies that gather in the corners of our living spaces.What PBDEs do to us is scary enough that these persistant, bioaccumulating chemicals are being phased out*. This is where the two most interesting aspects of the Indiana University study arise.

First, the scientists found that the level of PBDEs building up in dog’s blood serum is lower than found in cats, where PBDE exposure has even been linked to cat death. This probably reflects better metabolization of PBDEs by dogs, eliminating some PBDEs from their system so that the rate of accumulation slows. Humans metabolize PBDEs more like dogs than like cats, which might make dogs useful biosentinels, or early warning indicators of effects that could impact humans.

Second, the study detected newer flame retardants, that have come on the market to replace the PBDEs, in the dogs tested. These substitutes — which include Dechlorane Plus, decabromodiphenylethane, and hexabromocyclododecane — are not regulated because they are too new to have built up a body of evidence that can be used to force regulatory agencies into action. The Safe Chemicals Act of 2011 recently introduced by Senator Lautenberg addresses the need to restrict chemical uses before large quantities of a chemical are in our environment.

The study Flame Retardants in the Serum of Pet Dogs and in their Food, published inEnvironmental Science & Technology, was authored by Marta Venier and Ronald Hites. Seventeen dogs, with mainly indoor lifestyles, were tested. Dog food was also found to contain higher levels of PBDEs than the foods humans eat, suggesting that dogs may have higher exposures than humans.

* PBDEs with fewer bromine moieties are banned in the EU (Directive 2003/11/EC) and were voluntarily phased out by industry in the USA in 2004.

More on PBDEs and Chemical Control:
Pediatricians Say U.S. Policy Fails Children on Chemical Safety
Did the State of California Kill This Woman’s Cat?
PDBEs: Where Do They Come From And What Are They Doing To Us?

Bookmark & Share

- Jayme M. Carleton, Second Nature

http://jaymecarleton.com

Making Sustainability Second Nature™

Bookmark & Share

- Jayme M. Carleton, Second Nature
http://jaymecarleton.com
Making Sustainability Second Nature™

Bookmark & Share

- Jayme M. Carleton, Second Nature

http://jaymecarleton.com

Making Sustainability Second Nature™

The Center for American Progress Action Fund, a sister organization of CAP, is leading a campaign to curb asthma and other harmful health effects from coal-fired power plants. This campaign is already underway and it will continue until July 2, 2011.

Asthma affects all Americans. But communities of color are particularly vulnerable to respiratory diseases such as asthma. A recent report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows that African American children have the highest number of asthma attacks among all ethnic groups, and Latino children are 60 percent more likely to suffer from asthma attacks than white children. Likewise, more than 71 percent of African Americans and 66 percent of Latinos live in areas that fail to meet one or more of the Environmental Protection Agency’s air quality standards.

These crippling health disparities are made worse by the fact that communities of color are the least likely to have health insurance and access to treatment and preventive care.

Higher asthma rates also mean more missed days of work and school in addition to increased medical costs. Every day in America, 40,000 people miss school or work due to asthma, and 5,000 people visit the emergency room due to the disease.

Asthma is triggered by dirty air and asthma rates are higher in places with bad air quality. Exhaust from cars, factory emissions, smoke, and dust cause poor air quality, which can aggravate the lungs and worsen chronic lung diseases, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA.

Coal-fired power plants are also a big part of the problem. Power plant pollutants are a well-known trigger, as is smog. Asthma has no known cure, but it can be controlled by limiting exposure to these triggers.

The EPA is responsible for protecting our children and families from dangerous pollutants and toxins. They have a proven track record of reducing deaths and illness due to stronger clean air standards.

The EPA took a critical step toward cleaner air on March 16, 2011, by proposing its first-everair toxics standards for coal-fired power plants. The proposed rule would limit emissions of mercury, arsenic, and other air toxics from power plants for the first time. Adoption of the air toxics rule will prevent approximately 17,000 premature deaths, 120,000 asthma attacks, and 12,000 hospitalizations and emergency room visits every year in 2016, according to the EPA.

All Americans should make a strong statement to the EPA that they want reductions in mercury, arsenic, and other toxic air pollution from power plants. Communities of color in particular can send a message that they want clean, healthy air for their children and families.

Bookmark & Share