Proposition C in Missouri is Meaningless

Much hoopla and political punditry has been given over to the recent passage of “Proposition C” in Missouri. Proposition C, in effect, says Missouri law will not permit any tax to be levied by the federal government upon its citizens for failure to purchase health insurance. The issue was framed as a direct challenge to the health insurance mandate of the recently passed healthcare reforms. Many Republicans and their leadership laud the passage of Proposition C as a death knell for healthcare reform in America. Nothing could be further from the truth. Proposition C received 71.1 % of the votes cast statewide but, reports show that little opposition was mounted to oppose the ballot measure and that only 16.27% of eligible voters turned out and supported Proposition C (667,780 of the state’s 4,104,834 million registered voters). Voter turnout in normally large vote areas of Kansas City and St. Louis City were 12.78% and 13.56%, respectively. Clay County had 18.27%. Jackson County had 22.34 %. St. Louis County had 20.93%. These counties have 1,605,083 voters and make up 39.1% of Missouri’s eligible voters. Historically, the above counties have supported Democratic candidates and issues. The voter turnout in these counties has frequently provided the differences between victory and defeat in hotly contested state wide elections such as are expected in November 2010. It is simply not the case that the Proposition C vote indicates anything other than a well organized effort to get out the vote by its supporters in traditionally conservative areas of Missouri.

Continue ReadingProposition C in Missouri is Meaningless

Do You C What I C?

The Tea Party apparently did well in Missouri during the mid-term primaries this week. They (or someone) managed to stage contests for most Republican candidates, while most Democrats ran unopposed in our state. Why might anyone do this? Proposition C. This piece of "legislation" is an arguably unconstitutional attempt to stop Health Care Reform by claiming States Rights against an unpopular provision in the Obama plan: Mandatory Health Insurance. Universal insurance is an attempt to pay for the impending regulation doing away with preexisting condition coverage denials. If everyone is covered, then there will be no preexisting conditions. But if everyone can sign up only when they need it and insurers cannot deny coverage, then insurers will go bankrupt and the Federal Government will have to completely take over. This is what they want? But Missourians voted overwhelmingly in favor of denying the Federal Government the right to enforce this provision necessary to interstate commerce. But if you look at detailed election results, you'll see that the vote on Proposition C is proportional to the ratio of Republicans to others who bothered to vote. In a state that was razor-close in November 2008, three Republicans showed up for each Democrat to vote in this primary. Here is another view of this Proposition: What the passage of Proposition C in Missouri means, and what it does not mean. In brief, it is grandstanding. Given the likely turnout at the polls, and given the correct wording, it was an unsinkable piece of "voter mandate" with no actual significance. But it looks good as a jab-in-the-eye to an embattled administration. Unless you actually read about the issue. But the point was to pick one unpopular clause of the 2,500 page law, and publicly display how "the people" are against the whole thing. I'm curious to see how the Tea Party will stack the November election. Will other states be so dumb?

Continue ReadingDo You C What I C?

Some good clean fun at the farmers market – how to make soap.

The Tower Grove Farmer's Market in South St. Louis was busy this morning, as it usually is. img_3494A lot of people were purchasing organic produce because they believe that it is important to put only wholesome ingredients into their mouths. Stephanie and Bryan Shaner run a small family business called Ravenscroft. They sell produce, but they also make and sell their own soaps. I had the opportunity to discuss soap-making with them this morning. I learned that the process is fairly straightforward, based upon a family recipe described by Stephanie. It involves melting oils (they tend to use coconut, canola, olive oil or palm oil), and mixing them with lye (Bryan mentions that lye, also known as "sodium hydroxide" or "caustic soda" was traditionally made by pouring water through wood ash). img_3506As the mixture starts to thicken ("saponify"), they add the essential oils (the various natural ingredients that constitute the scents, such as lavender, mint or juniper). With homemade soap, one can be assured that the bar is free of petrochemicals. Here's some more background on the ways that soaps are manufactured. Stephanie estimated that her soap has a shelf life of about one year. By using homemade soaps, one can avoid all of the potentially harmful additives that one finds in petroleum-based (glycerin) commercial soaps. I was surprised to hear that the main ingredient in homemade soap is plant oil. After all, if I spilled some plant oil on my hands, wouldn't it be logical that I would reach for a bar of soap, made largely of plant oil, to clean up the oil on my fingers? Stephanie indicates that it does seem counterintuitive, but that mixing and heating a bit of lye with the oil effects a dramatic transformation in the oil, allowing the oil to be transformed into soap. Again, here's more on that process. Stephanie and Bryan Shaner - Image by Erich Vieth Stephanie urged that not only should we care about what we eat, but we should also care about what we put on our skin. Because homemade soap is free of the many additives of commercial soaps, some of her customers have found that rashes and other skin problems clear up simply by switching to homemade soap. Stephanie indicates that she and Bryan are planning some workshops to teach others how to make soap. This is obviously more than just a money-making opportunity for her. She tells her customers, "There is nothing on this table we wouldn't help you to make yourself." I bought a few bars, and my family and I will be trying them out. The going rate at this market was three bars of soap for $10. After I try them out, I'll report back in the comments. I'm interested in these natural ingredient soaps for the same reason that I've switched over to homemade shampoo (BTW, that "no poo" experiment has been wildly successful for me. I am perfectly happy with baking soda shampoo and apple cider vinegar conditioner). Some might think that making these sorts of changes are trivial. I would respond by saying that we can clean up our environment one thing at a time, and there are hundreds of things each of us can do to live healthier and more sustainable lives. (See the recently released report by the President's Cancer Panel and see here. Figure, too, that even little changes can make a huge difference when tens of millions of people follow suit.

Continue ReadingSome good clean fun at the farmers market – how to make soap.

Do you think that sunscreen really protects you from skin cancer?

If you think that sunscreens really protect you from cancer, think again. Read this detailed information from the Environmental Working Group and you'll be astounded. How can so much false and unsupported information can be freely plastered on bottles of sunscreen? Why isn't the federal government clamping down on sunscreens? Who do our img_3219representatives represent? Apparently, their greatest loyalty is to companies that make money by misrepresenting their products. Can you believe that sunscreens are not regulated to make sure that they do what they claim to do? The best approaches to protecting your family: Wear clothes and stay in the shade. Any product that claims protection greater than SPF 50 is misleading. Note that most people put on only a 1/4 to 2/3rds enough sunscreen to actually reach the product’s SPF rating. Check out the oftentimes toxic ingredients at EWG. Check out EWG's Hall of Shame.

Continue ReadingDo you think that sunscreen really protects you from skin cancer?

Are we really living better and prettier through chemistry?

At Democracy Now, Amy Goodman has put the spotlight on the many toxins currently used in beauty products. It’s just amazing that the cosmetics only now being sought to be regulated by the federal government are not currently being regulated. At present, any corporation can put any petro-chemical into any beauty product, yet it can get away with calling it “Natural” or “Herbal.” Stacy Malkan indicates that many of the ingredients contained in cosmetics aren't even listed on the labels. She summarizes her point with this: "There’s no need for it. There’s absolutely no reason on earth for baby shampoos to contain carcinogens." As expected, the industry rep counters that we can generally trust the industry and that there is no cause for concern:

The levels are very low. The exposures have been assessed and determined not to be a health risk to children. And the notion of cumulative exposure, I think, is one that needs to be explained a little further, because normal safety assessment by toxicologists will take into account margins of safety that will address issues of a cumulative exposure. So this is not really a problem with regard to these trace contaminants . . . We know what materials are unsafe. They are not used in products. This has been known for a long time. And the industry practices help.
Check out the excerpt for “The Story of Stuff” early in the video. Many of the ingredients we put on our skin are demonstrably dangerous. If you doubt this, check out your favorite personal care products at the Environmental Working Group. How does the U.S. compare to Europe regarding regulating these products. Stacy Malkan reports:
Europe has banned about 1,100 chemicals that are known or highly suspected of causing cancer or birth defects. And many other countries have followed suit. Japan has banned formaldehyde. These are chemicals—some of them are still being used in the United States. For example, we find dibutyl phthalate in nail polish, coal tar in dandruff shampoo, lead acetate in men’s hair dyes. Those are products you wouldn’t find in Europe. And so, the US is much further behind.
On a separate segment today at Democracy Now, Amy Goodman features Jane Houlihan of the Environmental Working Group. Here's what Jane has to say about dangerous products:
Dark permanent hair dyes are linked to cancer. When you use those for a long time over your lifetime, those can be quite toxic. Nail care products tend to contain some of the most hazardous ingredients. But we also find carcinogens in baby products. We find skin lighteners that contain chemicals linked to cancer. So, a really broad range of issues. One very problematic area is sunscreens, which are poorly regulated in the US. We found that we could recommend only eight percent of sunscreens on the market that could really give you broad spectrum protection you need to prevent—help prevent skin cancer and also that don’t contain hazardous ingredients that can seep through the skin and pose other kinds of health concerns.

Continue ReadingAre we really living better and prettier through chemistry?