I have been making and using my own laundry detergent, and I'm happy to report that it's working just great!!
Mix in old Ecover laundry container about 3/4 bottle Dr Bronner's liquid soap (I used the lavender) along with about 1/2 cup of baking soda and then fill container about 3/4 full of water. (There was nothing scientific about my measurements!) Then I add 1/2 capful (which amounts to about 2 tbsp) of the liquid with each load of wash. I add a bit of water for maybe a minute, put the soap in and then the clothing. I have heard some people have gotten bad results from putting Bronner's straight on clothing.
Laundry comes out smelling faintly like lavender and very clean!
I think next time I will use less Bronner's and more of the finished mix. Bronners I found out is very concentrated! You don't need much of it.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Monday, January 7, 2008
Something to Think About
http://lymeadehealth.blogspot.com/2007/10/food-created-or-still-evolving.html
Thursday, December 27, 2007
Real Food
I think we all will acknowledge that largely, "You are what you eat". But what is right to eat? Low carbs, no carbs, high carbs, high protein, high fat, no saturated fats, lots of saturated fats, vegetarian, vegan, omnivore, organic, conventional, local... the list is endless. Author and journalist Michael Pollan calls this the Omnivore's Dilemna. I highly recommend his book by the same name. He's an excellent writer, an adventurous journalist, and seems to encounter some very colorful characters. In this book, he traces our food chain from beginning to end - or several possible food chains to choose from, I should say. All in all, it's a fascinating book - even my husband Joe who is not nearly so big on books or health as I am thinks so. Oh, and it's a NY Times Bestseller.
It would be so easy (and fun) to do a whole blog on just food, but I'm really not interested in that. I think most consumers now are aware of the benefit of buying organic vs conventional. For one simple reason, lets just look at corn grown in Iowa which is sprayed with a ton of different chemicals. They run off into the local rivers resulting in a season in Des Moines when no one is supposed to give the water to their children lest it seriously harm them. Then the water hits the Mississippi River and eventually runs into the Gulf of Mexico where all that chemical run-off from far away Iowa cornfields results in a 4,000 square mile area of water in which *NOTHING* but algae will grow. (and that 4k miles is conservative. I think Pollan may have said it was 7k miles!) That's not even to mention the added health benefit of organic in terms of vitamin/mineral content or health for the air we breathe.
So for starters, non-toxic eating is Organic Eating.
Next, to eat non-toxic involves eating things the way that God made them. This sounds easier than it is. Eating beef that is fed corn mixed with 50 lb bags of antibiotics and tons of cow fat is not eating things the way God made them. (And is, unfortunately, the diet of conventional beef, even the "natural" stuff). God made cows to eat grass, and those that do have a completely different kind of meat.
Another example is dairy products. God didn't make milk and milk products to be heated to extremely high temperatures. He made them raw. Pasturization kills the beneficial enzymes in them that help in digestion and also kills vitamins and minerals in them. Adding nutrients back in is not natural either because they are synthetic, chemical forms of the vitamins.
Now for most, the thought of unpasturized milk is downright scary. But fresh milk on cows fed grass is not harmful if milked cleanly. Problems arose in the early 1900's necessitating pasturization because the cows were being milked in industrial style feedlots where they were up to their hocks in manure and eating a non-grass diet.
Statistically, according to one article I have read, there is a higher percentage of people who get food poisoning off of pasturized milk than off of raw. Raw milk contains healthy bacteria to kill harmful bacteria. It doesn't go bad like store bought milk, simply sours and can still be used in baking. Pasturized milk can begin to grow bad bacteria right away and no longer contains helpful bacteria to combat it. However, due to the high good bacteria/enzyme content one should start drinking raw milk slowly.
I am finding the research and writings of the Weston A Price foundation very interesting. Price was a dentist back in the 1930's who spent over a decade traveling the world to see how native, indiginous, "primitive" peoples ate and to see if they suffered from the same dental problems people in the US were beginning to suffer from.
This is a foreign concept to us, but for centuries, until recent times, one's teeth were a sign of their overall health. The teeth of slaves, potential wives and even horses were checked because people knew they were a sign of overall health. Crowding and rotting were a sign that the individual person or animal was not getting the proper nutrients and was not very healthy. I think all we remember from that era now is the phrase "Don't look a gift horse in the mouth".
Price found that all over the world, "primitive" peoples valued the same things - mostly saturated fats and animal protein along with fermented foods and smaller amounts of seasonal fruits and vegetables. People eating these diets had almost no disease and dental decay or crowding. However, those in the same family who had spent even a few years eating the civilized diet of white flour and sugar and other popular 1930's foods (which were unargueably much healthier than today) had begun to be diseased and to have dental problems.
Heart disease at the beginning of the 1900's was almost non-existent - and people then ate tons of saturated fats. The rise of vegetable oils, highly refined, followed the rise of heart disease. We all know now how harmful margarine is. (Not to say that is the only factor in heart disease, but a lot of well done research is showing it is not linked to saturated fat and cholesterol.)
I find it fascinating that people for all of history have lived healthily and without disease on the foods that our nation is saying are harmful - namely red meat, saturated fat, raw dairy and eggs. The difference is that those foods in America are no longer anything like what they used to be. Chickens living 12 to less than 2 square feet are not laying the same kind of eggs as chickens outside scratching in the grass for insects and bits of greens. The eggs don't even look the same let alone taste the same.
For more information on this kind of eating see the book The Maker's Diet by Jordan Rubin (yes, based on the Bible) or the book Nourishing Traditions by Sally Fallon or check out the Weston A Price foundation website.
It would be so easy (and fun) to do a whole blog on just food, but I'm really not interested in that. I think most consumers now are aware of the benefit of buying organic vs conventional. For one simple reason, lets just look at corn grown in Iowa which is sprayed with a ton of different chemicals. They run off into the local rivers resulting in a season in Des Moines when no one is supposed to give the water to their children lest it seriously harm them. Then the water hits the Mississippi River and eventually runs into the Gulf of Mexico where all that chemical run-off from far away Iowa cornfields results in a 4,000 square mile area of water in which *NOTHING* but algae will grow. (and that 4k miles is conservative. I think Pollan may have said it was 7k miles!) That's not even to mention the added health benefit of organic in terms of vitamin/mineral content or health for the air we breathe.
So for starters, non-toxic eating is Organic Eating.
Next, to eat non-toxic involves eating things the way that God made them. This sounds easier than it is. Eating beef that is fed corn mixed with 50 lb bags of antibiotics and tons of cow fat is not eating things the way God made them. (And is, unfortunately, the diet of conventional beef, even the "natural" stuff). God made cows to eat grass, and those that do have a completely different kind of meat.
Another example is dairy products. God didn't make milk and milk products to be heated to extremely high temperatures. He made them raw. Pasturization kills the beneficial enzymes in them that help in digestion and also kills vitamins and minerals in them. Adding nutrients back in is not natural either because they are synthetic, chemical forms of the vitamins.
Now for most, the thought of unpasturized milk is downright scary. But fresh milk on cows fed grass is not harmful if milked cleanly. Problems arose in the early 1900's necessitating pasturization because the cows were being milked in industrial style feedlots where they were up to their hocks in manure and eating a non-grass diet.
Statistically, according to one article I have read, there is a higher percentage of people who get food poisoning off of pasturized milk than off of raw. Raw milk contains healthy bacteria to kill harmful bacteria. It doesn't go bad like store bought milk, simply sours and can still be used in baking. Pasturized milk can begin to grow bad bacteria right away and no longer contains helpful bacteria to combat it. However, due to the high good bacteria/enzyme content one should start drinking raw milk slowly.
I am finding the research and writings of the Weston A Price foundation very interesting. Price was a dentist back in the 1930's who spent over a decade traveling the world to see how native, indiginous, "primitive" peoples ate and to see if they suffered from the same dental problems people in the US were beginning to suffer from.
This is a foreign concept to us, but for centuries, until recent times, one's teeth were a sign of their overall health. The teeth of slaves, potential wives and even horses were checked because people knew they were a sign of overall health. Crowding and rotting were a sign that the individual person or animal was not getting the proper nutrients and was not very healthy. I think all we remember from that era now is the phrase "Don't look a gift horse in the mouth".
Price found that all over the world, "primitive" peoples valued the same things - mostly saturated fats and animal protein along with fermented foods and smaller amounts of seasonal fruits and vegetables. People eating these diets had almost no disease and dental decay or crowding. However, those in the same family who had spent even a few years eating the civilized diet of white flour and sugar and other popular 1930's foods (which were unargueably much healthier than today) had begun to be diseased and to have dental problems.
Heart disease at the beginning of the 1900's was almost non-existent - and people then ate tons of saturated fats. The rise of vegetable oils, highly refined, followed the rise of heart disease. We all know now how harmful margarine is. (Not to say that is the only factor in heart disease, but a lot of well done research is showing it is not linked to saturated fat and cholesterol.)
I find it fascinating that people for all of history have lived healthily and without disease on the foods that our nation is saying are harmful - namely red meat, saturated fat, raw dairy and eggs. The difference is that those foods in America are no longer anything like what they used to be. Chickens living 12 to less than 2 square feet are not laying the same kind of eggs as chickens outside scratching in the grass for insects and bits of greens. The eggs don't even look the same let alone taste the same.
For more information on this kind of eating see the book The Maker's Diet by Jordan Rubin (yes, based on the Bible) or the book Nourishing Traditions by Sally Fallon or check out the Weston A Price foundation website.
Paints
Well, unless you live in CA, you don’t need to worry about paint being toxic. Really - it’s true! The cans all say something to the affect of “This paint contains ingredients known to cause cancer in the state of CA”.
There are two main problems with paints. The first, which most consumers are somewhat aware of are VOC’s (volatile organic compounds). Volatile, means that these chemicals are capable of off-gassing into the air we breathe. According to the American Lung Association, VOC’s can cause nasal congestion, epitasis, cough, wheezing, headache, dizziness, fatigue, anorexia, rashes, and even hearing loss. And of course, if you live in CA, they can cause cancer.
So here are your options:
Any brand low VOC paint - I don’t recommend it. “Low” can still allow an awful lot of VOC’s into your air. Plus, they contain harmful solvents (disease causing) that don’t fall under the guidelines required for VOC’s.
Any zero VOC paint - Don’t recommend it. Zero, I’ve found, in a lot of instances doesn’t *really* mean zero. Zero fat grams means less than a gram, not no fat; zero VOC’s is the same. It’s a better option, but still not the best. Also, what most consumers don’t realize is that the VOC designation is *only* for the base paint. Adding color to it can really up the VOC count. Plus, you still have all the icky solvents.
Bioshield Paints - An excellent paint company. They have paints that contain absolutely no particles of VOC’s as well as no harmful solvents. Ingredient lists are available for all of their paints.
AFM Safecoat - This company has an excellent reputation as well. Some people say their paints are a bit more durable. They do contain one ingredient that bioshield refuses to use tho.
Always read ingredients, read info, ask questions. Not *all* of these companies products are completely non-toxic. Some products consumers like can’t unfortunately, be made without toxins.
Cleaning Products
It is completely unbelievable how toxic most all cleaners are! Don’t they have to be that way to kill germs though? Absolutely not! There are numerous non-toxic cleaning agents that kill germs quite well, simple white vinegar and baking soda being two of them. Most of the ingredients in cleaning products are full of VOC’s and are carcinogens as well. And yes, this does include your laundry detergent, fabric softener and dryer sheets. The latter two are simply chemical coatings (very carcinogenic) that are put on clothing to keep them soft, anti-static and less wrinkly.
http://www.scorecard.org/health-effects/chemicals.tcl?short_hazard_name=cancer&all_p=t This link will give you a list of 500 common ingredients that are carcinogenic.
Alternatives: This is one of the easiest, cheapest and most beneficial areas to change.
You can buy non-toxic commercial brands such as 7′th Generation, Ecover and many more, or you can use handy dandy google to find recipes for making your own, very inexpensive cleaning agents with ingredients you probably already have in your pantry.
While your at it, check out this link for some more info on the harms of conventional cleaning products: http://www.health-report.co.uk/toxic_household_chemicals.htm
Indoor Air Quality
Did you know that the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) estimates that indoor air quality is worse than outdoor air even in a big polluted city? It’s so bad in fact, that it’s necessitated the coining of the term “sick building syndrome” which the EPA says 6 out of 10 buildings have. In short, sick building syndrome is basically toxic air in buildings that makes people sick, and which contributes to a whopping $1 billion dollars per year in medical costs!
Why are our homes, workplaces, marketplaces and more so toxic? Because most everything we use in them is toxic: cleaning products, paints, floor finishes, carpets, construction materials; and then on people: perfumes, hair products, lotions and creams, soaps… the list could go on. Don’t worry. We can discuss alternatives to all of these things eventually. Many of them are really pretty easy to replace.
For a young child, all of this toxic out-gassing is particularly harmful. Scientific American Magazine and Bioshield Paint Co report that “a crawling baby inhales the equivalent of four cigarettes a day as a result of out-gassing. No wonder 6.3 million children suffer from asthma”. And according to the EPA, “in 2000 there were nearly 2 million emergency room visits and 500,000 hospitalizations of children due to asthma aggravated by poor indoor air pollution.”
So to be “fanatical” about air quality, about living non-toxic lives, is really not all that fanatical at all. I mean who really wants their baby smoking 4 cigarettes per day?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)