Earth Friendly Shopping

The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics recently released a report showing that many popular baby care products, including shampoos and bubble baths from Johnson and Johnson contain 2 cancer causing  chemicals that are NOT listed on their labels:   Formaldehyde and 1,4-dioxane.  Both these chemicals are know carcinogens, and Formaldehyde has been linked to skin rashes and other problems in young children.

These chemicals are not listed in the ingredients because they are “contaminants” .  From the report:

Formaldehyde contaminates personal care products when common preservatives release formaldehyde over time in the container. Common ingredients likely to contaminate products with formaldehyde include quaternium-15, DMDM hydantoin, imidazolidinyl urea and diazolidinyl urea.

1,4-dioxane is a byproduct of a chemical processing technique called ethoxylation, in which cosmetic ingredients are processed with ethylene oxide. Manufacturers can easily remove the toxic byproduct, but are not required by law to do so. Common ingredients likely to be contaminated with 1,4-dioxane include PEG-100 stearate, sodium laureth sulfate, polyethylene and ceteareth-20.

We have long been suspicious of “pure and gentle” claims from companies such as J&J.  After all, the basic “no more tears” claim comes from putting anesthetic in the shampoo, yuck.

Industry statements focus on meeting regulatory requirements, but

there are no regulatory standards that limit formaldehyde, 1,4-dioxane or most other toxic chemicals in personal care products sold in the United States.

It is up to consumers to be vigilant, and find safer personal care products.  We recommend those with shorter ingredient lists,  that are based on natural ingredients.  We recommend avoiding artificial and synthetic fragrances and preservatives.

Some of favorite natural and organic baby care products include:

Earth Mama Angel Baby Organic Shampoo and Body Wash

I Dream Handmade Baby Wash

California Baby I Love You Bubble Bath

Read the complete report  -  No More Toxic Tub

Reported in Scientific American,  a London startup called  Solar Botanic, wants to create artificial trees that harvest light, heat, and wind to create electricity.

The goal is to mimic nature, to create power generating trees that can be placed near homes and businesses,   reducing the need for long power lines and transmission grids.  At the same time, these “trees” can blend into existing landscapes

Copying Nature's design

In this biomimicry concept our trees are fitted with Nanoleaves, a combination of Nano photovoltaic- Nanothermovoltaic and Nanopiezo generators converting light, heat and wind energy into green electricity.

Our Nanoleaves convert the complete solar spectrum converting visible light, infrared and UV in combination with piezo electric generators that convert wind energy into electricity providing you with efficient, cost effective and aesthetic solutions, providing maximum electric power. The area of combined photothermovoltaic with piezovoltaic is concerned primarily with converting sunlight and wind energy into electricity. This task is accomplished through the use of natures design, artificial trees shrubs, plants and flowers all equipped with nanoleaf technology PV cells.

The plan has critics – First of all, it is unclear if the leaves can be created efficiently enough, there are technological hurdles to overcome.

For one, could solar and thermoelectrics really work together on a single leaf blade? Joseph Heremans, a professor of mechanical engineering and physics at The Ohio State University in Columbus, says that’s “spatially problematic, to say the least.” Van der Beek recognizes this as probably the chief remaining engineering hurdle, saying “We do have to find a symbiosis between these materials [photovoltaics and thermoelectrics]…. They can’t get in each other’s way.”

Then there’s the efficiency of green solar panels: “If Mother Nature wanted photosynthesis to be efficient, she would have made leaves black,” Woodhouse says. Black materials absorb all of the sun’s visible light, explaining why solar panel makers opt for pitch rather than designer colors. Van der Beek concedes Solar Botanic may have to settle for a dark shade of green, but he believes that ever-improving photovoltaics will make energy generation that sacrifices some reflected green wavelengths economical.

And it is unclear how much the thermoelectric component of the trees will contribute, Heremans says. The temperatures required for real thermoelectric power generation in those environments vastly exceeds the heat that green leaves in the sun normally experience. “I don’t see [nanoleaves] working with small temperature gradients,” he says. “The second law of thermodynamics tells you that small gradients equal poor efficiency.” Van der Beek acknowledges that this third component would contribute the least to the overall energy equation.

The cost of producing solar electricity is rapidly dropping.  Acording to Richard Swanson of Sunpower Corp.  Reported in Scientific American

(A) watt of power now costs around $1.40 to produce compared with $2 or more in the 1990s.

Swanson argues, that cost will fall to $1 per watt within five years—making solar power for the first time cost competitive, without subsidy, with conventional fossil fuel–fired generation

The power grid needs upgrading.  There is more work to be done, and more technological hurdles to overcome, but we are seeing movement in the right direction

The NYT ran an article in the beauty section called Confused by SPF? Take a Number. The article talks about how some of the chemical sunscreen manufacturers have been giving their product SPF ratiings of 90, 95, and even 100.

They acknowledge that these super hight SPF ratings have very little to do with a sunscreen’s effectiveness, and the high numbers can be misleading.

The difference in UVB protection between an SPF 100 and SPF 50 is marginal. Far from offering double the blockage, SPF 100 blocks 99 percent of UVB rays, while SPF 50 blocks 98 percent. (SPF 30, that old-timer, holds its own, deflecting 96.7 percent).

A sunscreen’s SPF number is calculated by comparing the time needed for a person to burn unprotected with how long it takes for that person to burn wearing sunscreen. So a person who turns red after 20 minutes of unprotected sun exposure is theoretically protected 15 times longer if they adequately apply SPF 15. Because a lot of sunscreens rub off or don’t stay put, dermatologists advise reapplication every two hours or after swimming or sweating.

“As you get higher and higher, it’s not really a practical difference,” said Dr. David M. Pariser, the president of the American Academy of Dermatology.

In fact, as noted by Kabana Skin Care – the creator of Green Screen Organic Sunscreen

This is absolutely true. SPF 15 equates to 93.3% UV absorption, which means by applying such a product 93.3% of the UV your skin would otherwise be absorbing is getting absorbed by the product. Doubling the SPF value to 30 provides 96.7% UV absorption, or only 3.4% more UV protection with a possible 100% more petrochemical exposure, and this only works as long as the product stays on your skin, which sunscreens don’t do well. Each additional SPF unit above SPF 15 provides only a fraction more protection, but significantly more petrochemical exposure. Take a look at this graph. If it isn’t on your skin, even an infinite SPF won’t do you any good.

It is for these reasons that the American Academy of Dermatology recommends you use an SPF 15 sunscreen and reapply about every two hours, or more often if you swim, sweat or even roll over on your towel.

They just barely mention that many of these super high spf sunscreens  don’t do anything about UVA rays.  UVA doesn’t burn you, the way UVB does, but prolonged exposure does lead to cancer.

But much worse, they don’t mention that chemical sunscreens work mostly by absorbing the rays, and, in doing so, create free radicals, which can lead to cancer.

That’s why we believe that the ONLY safe sunscreens are the ones that contain a physical block, such as Zinc Oxide. Some people also like titanium oxide, but we prefer zinc, for  a variety of reasons.

We also like to see sunscreens that use all natural ingredients.

You can find some of the highest rated all natural zinc oxide sunscreens at Kate’s Caring Gifts.

Among our favorites are UV Natural, all natural sunscreen,  Organic Green Screen from Kabana Skin Care, and Badger  All Natural Sunscreen