Mixing up my own non-toxic shampoo and conditioner

The perky woman on this Grist video ("Umbra") has convinced me to make my own shampoo and conditioner. Not only will this save me money, but it will put end my practice of covering my scalp with numerous chemicals that contain known-harmful ingredients--many shampoos and conditions are laden with harmful and potentially harmful ingredients (I found this video at Huffpo). I should also mention that I have become extra-motivated to try this experiment based on this recent post by Brynn Jacobs. First, the fast-paced video featuring "Umbra": Now a short detour to the Environmental Working Group website, where you can determine all of the nasty chemicals in your shampoos, conditioners and other products. The EWG "Cosmetics" database is here. I went to straight to my bathroom and dug out various bottles each of shampoo and conditioner. My Pantene "Full and Thick" shampoo contains all of the following (among other chemicals): METHYLCHLOROISOTHIAZOLINONE, ETHYLENE OXIDE, 1,4-DIOXANE, ETHYLENE OXIDE, 1,4-DIOXANE) NITROSAMINES) COCAMIDE MEA, METHYLISOTHIAZOLINONE, SODIUM LAURETH SULFATE. Various of these chemicals are associated with the following things: Neurotoxicity, Allergies/immunotoxicity, Organ system toxicity (non-reproductive) Organ system toxicity (non-reproductive), Irritation (skin, eyes, or lungs). I checked out a bottle of Suave Professionals Sleek Shampoo and it contained a comparably ominous list. The Revlon Aqua Marine Moisturizing Shampoo was even worse in that it contained four chemicals associated with cancer. Then I looked up two bottles of hair conditioner. The Garnier Fructis Fortifying Conditioner - Sleek & Shine has a comparably nasty list of chemicals --Umbra urges that these chemicals are totally unnecessary for washing one's hair. I couldn't find the Citre Shine Daily Revitalize Conditioner with Shine-Infusing Citrus Extracts on the EWG website, but I carefully read the fine print on the back label and plugged four of those chemicals into the EWG site; they all came up as bad, despite the front label's suggestion that this product contains "healthy" ingredients. I suppose the theory is to balance out each industrial chemical with a whiff of something healthy-sounding like "citrus extract." BTW, isn't it ironic to read all of those the benign-sounding names of these products and then compare those names to the long lists of chemicals within? What is Umbra's solution to this apparently unhealthy situation? She is encouraging us to make our own shampoo and conditioner (this is the same advice offered by Colin Beavan). For shampoo, she recommends that we mix a tablespoon of baking soda with each cup of water. Shake it each time before using it. For conditioner, mix 1 tablespoon of apple cider vinegar with each cup of water. She says that the vinegar smell goes away after you rinse. As soon as I publish this post, I'm going to the kitchen to mix up a batch of each. I'm appearing in court tomorrow, and my hair and scalp, for the first time ever, will not be drenched in potentially harmful chemicals. I promise to report on the experience after I use these home-made hair products for a few days.

Continue ReadingMixing up my own non-toxic shampoo and conditioner

Corrupt bankers and corrupt government regulators

Robert Scheer sums up the cozy relationship between the U.S. government and the financial sector and it's ugly. One federal judge has the guts to tell it straight, but where is the SEC and where is the Obama Administration? In the process of acquiring failed brokerage house Merrill Lynch, Bank of America sneaks more than $1 Million in bonuses each to 696 Merrill Lynch executives who ran the company into the ground (Merrill Lynch had lost $27 Billion). These outrageous payments occurred while BofA was receiving $45 Billion in taxpayer money as part of the "bailout." On top of that, 39,000 additional Merrill Lynch employees were each paid an average of $91,000 in bonuses, an amount that the Bank of America attorney suggested wasn't a significant amount. New York federal Judge Jed S. Rakoff disagreed, saying:

"I'm glad you think that $91,000 is not a lot of money; I wish the average American was making $91,000."

How corrupt is the government/banking relationship? The SEC did sue BofA of misleading it's shareholders, but this sweetheart settlement stinks to high hell. Consider this quote from Scheer's article:

The SEC complaint did accuse BofA of misleading its shareholders, but instead of digging deeply into how such decisions had been made and by whom, a deal was concocted in which BofA got off with a paltry $33 million fine. That is less than the bonus received by one of the Merrill execs. Yet the SEC deal would have closed the case on how that decision was made.

"You filed a rather uninformative, bare-bones complaint," Judge Rakoff told SEC lawyer David Rosenfeld, who lamely defended the decision to avoid going after the bankers involved, and it is instructive of whose interest he was serving that "[t]he lawyer for Bank of America periodically whispered what appeared to be suggestions to Mr. Rosenfeld," as a New York Times article put it. Whispering between government regulators and the Wall Street honchos ostensibly being regulated is what got us into this mess in the first place.

In the meantime, TARP watchdog Elizabeth Warren is repeatedly warning that the same toxic assets that triggered the meltdown are still on the banks' books. She's warning of the "looming commercial mortgage crisis."

Continue ReadingCorrupt bankers and corrupt government regulators

How dangerous plastics freely work their way into your house

I was in a bad mood after I wrote a post summarizing a recent Harpers Magazine article demonstrating that the United States government is working hard to keep its citizens from knowing whether numerous commonly used chemicals are dangerous.

After all, our government is supposed to be there to protect us yet it appears that our government is, instead, kissing up to the chemical manufacturers, allowing them to dump highly questionable substances into the products American consumers purchase and use.

And now, I’m in a worse mood. I just finished reading an extraordinary article called “You Are What You Drink Out Of,” by Nadia Pflaum. This article appeared in a local alternative St. Louis newspaper called the Riverfront Times. Pflaum’s story is available online, and thank goodness, because this is extraordinary piece of writing and it serves as an illustration of just how corrupt the system has become. I’ll give just the basic outline here. You’ll want to go read the entire article, however, if you want to be prepared to pull out Exhibit A the next time you get into an argument with one of the many remaining Bush-loving purported free-marketers.

The story centers around Frederick vom Saal, a biology professor at the University of Missouri. He is one of the leading experts on bisphenol A, a chemical that is ubiquitous in the United States-more than six billion pounds are produced every year. The trouble is that bisphenol A contains a substance that acts as a synthetic hormone …

Share

Continue ReadingHow dangerous plastics freely work their way into your house

Risk information on the toxicity of commonly used chemicals bottled up by White House

What? The White House is endangering us by withholding information?

This is getting to be a familiar story, right? Here’s the typical plot: There’s something going on that poses a serious risk to Americans, and the White House decides to protect big corporations rather than protect the people at risk.

This time, the protected industry consists of chemical manufacturers. The victims are American citizens, many of them recalcitrant admirers of the Bush Administration. Here’s an excerpt of the article by the Associated Press:

The Bush administration is undermining the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to determine health dangers of toxic chemicals by letting non-scientists have a bigger – often secret – role, congressional investigators say in a report obtained by The Associated Press.

The administration’s decision to give the Defense Department and other agencies an early role in the process adds to years of delay in acting on harmful chemicals and jeopardizes the program’s credibility, the Government Accountability Office concluded.

At issue is the EPA’s screening of chemicals used in everything from household products to rocket fuel to determine if they pose serious risk of cancer or other illnesses.

How many people are dying out there because they have been exposed to common chemicals of which most people don’t know of the dangers? How many of those people are children? Every time I hear of another person getting cancer (especially when I hear of a young child getting cancer), I wonder whether it’s because he or she has been exposed too …

Share

Continue ReadingRisk information on the toxicity of commonly used chemicals bottled up by White House