A disturbing new study is out which has found high levels of BPA in many of our food-preserving vehicles (by which I mean "cans"). BPA is already known to have effects on erectile/reproductive function and hormone production/reception. Also, news articles upon news articles (reporting on scientific studies, of course) continue to warn the public about the dangers of phthalates, chemicals added to tons of plastics to improve their plasticity.
Right, okay, so throw out all those canned tomatoes (cans of acidic foods tend to leach more BPA than cans of alkaline foods), stop drinking stuff bottled in plastic, or cans (yup, soda cans too), start buying phthalate-free cosmetics (moisturiser, nail polish, eyeshadow, powders, hairsprays, and more!), don't forget the phthalate-free vibrator (just when you thought your vag was safe from chemicals) - why am I still upset about all this information?
Both BPA and phthalates are "xenoestrogens", which means that they act like estrogen in the body. *All* of the hullaballoos I've been reading in major news sources about the dangers of these chemicals have only addressed the dangers these chemicals pose to *boys* and *men.* Are women not affected by excess estrogen? Are girls and women miraculously exempt from the consequences of these endocrine disruptors**?
No! But, of course it is only when the masculinity of young boys and the reproductive abilities of grown men are being threatened that journalists and the government feel the need to raise the red flag. God forbid my son be effeminate! (Or grow up with undescended testicles, or tiny penises.) God forbid that adult men not be able to stick it to their ladyfriends (or manfriends)! God forbid that all these fetuses come out female instead of male!
Thank you, sexist media, for warning us about threats to male health.
My question: where the heck are the studies about women?? And since there are such studies, why the heck is Big Media not reporting on it? Doesn't our health count?
**Disclaimer: I am a lady who is quite sensitive to excess estrogen and xenoestrogens in my body. I would hate to develop breast cancer, ovarian cysts, reproductive problems, diabetes, etc. because health organizations and the government failed to see that putting hormones into everyday products was a detrimental thing.
Monday, 16 November 2009
Thursday, 3 September 2009
Apples and Oranges
Two arguments against Health Care that just don't cut it (in response to some stuff I read on Facebook comments this morning):
1. Health insurance should work like car insurance - we pay for all the routine stuff, and the insurance kicks in for all the major expenses.
Why this doesn't work: Who decides what is "routine"? Is a once-a-month checkup routine? Or only once every six months? What if I find a breast lump - would it be "routine" for me to go to the doctor's to get it checked out? What if I end up getting charged for four or five "routine" visits in a month's time? That could rack up some serious debt.
2. People who have health care debt are just not fiscally responsible (i.e., they spend their money on cable, cell phones, clothes, eating out, etc.)
Why this doesn't work: Health care expenses are usually on a completely different scale from that of our normal living expenses (and I'm including mortgage/rent in this equation). Having done some research on that oh-so-routine procedure that half of us will likely go through at some point in our lives (no, I don't mean hip replacement), pregnancy and childbirth is one hell of an expensive operation. Even if you do it at home, even if you get a midwife and have no complications, it can cost in the region of $1500-$4000. If you do it in a hospital (or if complications necessitate that you do it in a hospital), it will run around $6000 (though, according to actual people's testimony, it usually ends up costing more like $10,000-$20,000). If your fetus for some reason needs a c-section, or if you need an epidural, or if you need a little snipping of your perineum, those are extra expenses, and cost extra! In short, it would likely cost me more money than I make in a year to give birth to a child in a hospital right now.
1. Health insurance should work like car insurance - we pay for all the routine stuff, and the insurance kicks in for all the major expenses.
Why this doesn't work: Who decides what is "routine"? Is a once-a-month checkup routine? Or only once every six months? What if I find a breast lump - would it be "routine" for me to go to the doctor's to get it checked out? What if I end up getting charged for four or five "routine" visits in a month's time? That could rack up some serious debt.
2. People who have health care debt are just not fiscally responsible (i.e., they spend their money on cable, cell phones, clothes, eating out, etc.)
Why this doesn't work: Health care expenses are usually on a completely different scale from that of our normal living expenses (and I'm including mortgage/rent in this equation). Having done some research on that oh-so-routine procedure that half of us will likely go through at some point in our lives (no, I don't mean hip replacement), pregnancy and childbirth is one hell of an expensive operation. Even if you do it at home, even if you get a midwife and have no complications, it can cost in the region of $1500-$4000. If you do it in a hospital (or if complications necessitate that you do it in a hospital), it will run around $6000 (though, according to actual people's testimony, it usually ends up costing more like $10,000-$20,000). If your fetus for some reason needs a c-section, or if you need an epidural, or if you need a little snipping of your perineum, those are extra expenses, and cost extra! In short, it would likely cost me more money than I make in a year to give birth to a child in a hospital right now.
Wednesday, 12 August 2009
More on health care
I thought I'd link to Mike Madden's article on Salon.com about the present existence of health care rationing and refusal to cover necessary expenses (which are exactly what Obama's so-called 'death panels' would be). The insurance companies already deny care to their customers, and Madden gives a run-down of some particularly horrifying examples.
This is why we need a government option.
This is why we need a government option.
Monday, 10 August 2009
Public Health option and my thoughts
I've been busy writing, but y'all should check out the new White House website clarifying their proposed public health option. I think it's a fabulous idea, given the fact that this information has not been able to be dispersed through typical channels, due to counterproductive disruptions (at the 'town-hall' meetings), media spinning, and strategic misinformations put out by conservative politicians and pundits alike. Here's what I think:
1. Decent health care should be a guaranteed right (ideally for everyone, regardless of birthplace, but certainly in this country for citizens and workers).
2. Preventive care should be the concern of the government: it's our tax dollars that pay for the treatment of diseases and problems which could have been prevented.
2a. The government should turn their backs on the food industry lobby. They want us to buy their products and get addicted to them, regardless of how much they hurt us in the process (oooh, but on a side note, someone should do some actuarial studies on the effect of the modern food industry on the lifespan of the consumer - in terms of pure profit, it doesn't benefit the food industry if they are losing years of product consumption because their consumers are dying earlier due to diseases caused in part by their products).
2b. The government should regulate the hell out of the food industry - I'm talking no more trans fats (and full disclosure on food labels, none of this 'rounding down' shit), no more MSG (or MSG-like neurotoxic additives), and get all that processed soy out da biz!
2c. The government should wake the hell up and realize that xenoestrogenic and antiandrogenic chemicals in our water - which are detectable but not filtered out in modern water treatment plants - are harming us! We need better filtering, better testing, and, finally, DISCLOSURE on the uptake rates and effects of these chemicals and the levels in our local water supplies.
3. A note on definitions: if the government *were* planning to institute "death panels" as part of their health care plan, and if the government *were* then planning to euthanize all the unsavory grannies in our country, this would not be an example of "eugenics". Why? Because eugenics aims to get rid of the "unsavories" *before* they reproduce, eliminating their contribution to the gene pool. These old people are presumably well beyond the age of reproduction, and they have probably already passed their genes down to the next generation. Thus, killing them off would not be eugenics. Ha!
1. Decent health care should be a guaranteed right (ideally for everyone, regardless of birthplace, but certainly in this country for citizens and workers).
2. Preventive care should be the concern of the government: it's our tax dollars that pay for the treatment of diseases and problems which could have been prevented.
2a. The government should turn their backs on the food industry lobby. They want us to buy their products and get addicted to them, regardless of how much they hurt us in the process (oooh, but on a side note, someone should do some actuarial studies on the effect of the modern food industry on the lifespan of the consumer - in terms of pure profit, it doesn't benefit the food industry if they are losing years of product consumption because their consumers are dying earlier due to diseases caused in part by their products).
2b. The government should regulate the hell out of the food industry - I'm talking no more trans fats (and full disclosure on food labels, none of this 'rounding down' shit), no more MSG (or MSG-like neurotoxic additives), and get all that processed soy out da biz!
2c. The government should wake the hell up and realize that xenoestrogenic and antiandrogenic chemicals in our water - which are detectable but not filtered out in modern water treatment plants - are harming us! We need better filtering, better testing, and, finally, DISCLOSURE on the uptake rates and effects of these chemicals and the levels in our local water supplies.
3. A note on definitions: if the government *were* planning to institute "death panels" as part of their health care plan, and if the government *were* then planning to euthanize all the unsavory grannies in our country, this would not be an example of "eugenics". Why? Because eugenics aims to get rid of the "unsavories" *before* they reproduce, eliminating their contribution to the gene pool. These old people are presumably well beyond the age of reproduction, and they have probably already passed their genes down to the next generation. Thus, killing them off would not be eugenics. Ha!
Saturday, 26 July 2008
and I'm back...
with today's "hilarious and horrible irony":
From the Washington Post:
From the Washington Post:
President Bush yesterday signed an executive order expanding sanctions against companies and individuals linked with Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe, part of an effort by Western nations to ratchet up the pressure on a government accused of killing and terrorizing political opponents in order to remain in power.
The move by Bush, which followed a similar maneuver earlier in the week by the European Union, freezes any U.S. assets and forbids U.S. financial transactions with a list of companies controlled by or affiliated with the government, particularly in the mining and minerals industry, a key sector of Zimbabwe's ailing economy.
"This action is a direct result of the Mugabe regime's continued politically-motivated violence, disregarding calls from the Southern African Development Community, the African Union, and the United Nations to halt the attacks," Bush said in a statement.
"No regime should ignore the will of its own people and calls from the international community without consequences," he added.
Let's have a contest to see who can name the most instances of the Bush regime ignoring the will of their own people. No, really. I'm laughing and crying on the inside.
Thursday, 24 April 2008
Food prices
Food prices are rising - especially for "staple" foods like wheat, corn, and soy.
The President of the World Bank (and a fuckton of other public commentators) have blamed biofuels for these rising prices. According to them, your ethanol-powered vehicle is forcing Hatians to eat mud.
I say, how about this: "Animals raised for food in the U.S. consume 90% of the soy crop, 80% of the corn crop, and 70% of its grain." From the USDA
Oh, and how about this: "'To produce 1 pound of feedlot beef requires about 2,400 gallons of water and 7 pounds of grain (42). Considering that the average American consumes 97 pounds of beef (and 273 pounds of meat in all) each year, even modest reductions in meat consumption in such a culture would substantially reduce the burden on our natural resources.'" From the NIH
I think that blaming biofuels for the rise in cereal prices is like blaming that donut you had this morning for the fact that you are 30 pounds overweight.
The President of the World Bank (and a fuckton of other public commentators) have blamed biofuels for these rising prices. According to them, your ethanol-powered vehicle is forcing Hatians to eat mud.
I say, how about this: "Animals raised for food in the U.S. consume 90% of the soy crop, 80% of the corn crop, and 70% of its grain." From the USDA
Oh, and how about this: "'To produce 1 pound of feedlot beef requires about 2,400 gallons of water and 7 pounds of grain (42). Considering that the average American consumes 97 pounds of beef (and 273 pounds of meat in all) each year, even modest reductions in meat consumption in such a culture would substantially reduce the burden on our natural resources.'" From the NIH
I think that blaming biofuels for the rise in cereal prices is like blaming that donut you had this morning for the fact that you are 30 pounds overweight.
Monday, 21 April 2008
the panic of economy
So I'm reading my morning news (a bad decision, given that it generally makes me depressed for the whole day), and I see a headline about 'Moms' who are suffering from the rising cost of food and gas. I read the article, and a few things struck me. Depressing things, of course, but perhaps insightful nonetheless.
1. These 'Moms' are mostly working mothers with working (or recently working) fathers. None of these families can be said to be earning anything lower than middle class wages. Perhaps that is the point of the article (i.e., here are some middle class families who are struggling), but what does that say about the recently unemployed, or, for that matter, the hoards of people who make less than $20/hour?
2. The incredulity of independence from mass-marketed goods. Moms breastfeeding? Making their own baby food? Growing their own vegetables?? My god, it really has gotten bad. Of course, while there is plenty of information about your local bulk-food/low-cost grocery store, there is no information about buying actual local food (from actual farmers in your neighborhood). Heaven forbid people start realizing that they don't actually need to go to a grocery store to acquire more-than-adequate sustenance for themselves and their children.
3. The emphasis on female self-sacrifice. I understand that women still do most of the household chores in American families, including grocery shopping and cooking, but why the focus on women? Where are the men in these families cutting corners? Why are women the suffer-buffer for a family's economic woes? The article aims (I think) to use the 'mother' as a pity-evoking symbol, but it also reifies that antiquated (and Christian) notion that women are naturally (and appropriately) self-sacrificers.
So, wives and girlfriends and daughters and mothers and sisters, in these tough economic times (tough for everyone except the millionaires, of course), please just take the hit for all of us. We'd like you to absorb all the financial hardship of your family and try to make your husbands, children, and parents not notice the difference in their lifestyles. We'd also like you to quell whatever emotional difficulty your family might be having because of their lack of money. Emotions and housework are your basic family responsibilities. You can feel better about yourself later by making everyone around you feel guilty for their inadequate martyrdom.
1. These 'Moms' are mostly working mothers with working (or recently working) fathers. None of these families can be said to be earning anything lower than middle class wages. Perhaps that is the point of the article (i.e., here are some middle class families who are struggling), but what does that say about the recently unemployed, or, for that matter, the hoards of people who make less than $20/hour?
2. The incredulity of independence from mass-marketed goods. Moms breastfeeding? Making their own baby food? Growing their own vegetables?? My god, it really has gotten bad. Of course, while there is plenty of information about your local bulk-food/low-cost grocery store, there is no information about buying actual local food (from actual farmers in your neighborhood). Heaven forbid people start realizing that they don't actually need to go to a grocery store to acquire more-than-adequate sustenance for themselves and their children.
3. The emphasis on female self-sacrifice. I understand that women still do most of the household chores in American families, including grocery shopping and cooking, but why the focus on women? Where are the men in these families cutting corners? Why are women the suffer-buffer for a family's economic woes? The article aims (I think) to use the 'mother' as a pity-evoking symbol, but it also reifies that antiquated (and Christian) notion that women are naturally (and appropriately) self-sacrificers.
So, wives and girlfriends and daughters and mothers and sisters, in these tough economic times (tough for everyone except the millionaires, of course), please just take the hit for all of us. We'd like you to absorb all the financial hardship of your family and try to make your husbands, children, and parents not notice the difference in their lifestyles. We'd also like you to quell whatever emotional difficulty your family might be having because of their lack of money. Emotions and housework are your basic family responsibilities. You can feel better about yourself later by making everyone around you feel guilty for their inadequate martyrdom.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
