Okay, something has happened that I never thought would happen. When they told me it would happen, I laughed and said they were wrong. People are smarter than this. Surely - SURELY - we wouldn't buy into a concept so thoroughly ridiculous and obviously single minded.

Wow. We did.

Enviornmentalists are now claiming that cloth diapers are actually as bad, if not worse, for then environment than disposables.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME?! Who, you may ask, did this study?

Proctor and Gamble. Yep. One of the largest disposable diaper manufacturers in the world.

It has now been seconded by a government environmental agency.

Before you get all worked up - or read the article and don't know the truth - let me point out a few errors in their (probably very well paid) calculations.

They say that the waste from the washing of cloth diapers is greater than the waste in the production and discard of disposables. Okay, I'll give you this: disposables definitely need less washing. But the amount of water and energy used to wash cloth diapers is equivalent or less than the amount needed to flush the toilet for the equivalent number of bathroom trips! In other words, if your kid is potty training, it takes the same amount of energy for that as to wash cloth diapers. They also don't mention that wasting water and household energy (which may be powered by windmills now) is MUCH better for the environment than wasting the oil needed to make a diaper (yes, there are petroleum byproducts in diapers), and that "wasting" water is also much better for the environment than the dioxin that is produced in the making of disposables.

They also, apparently, did not consider in their "production" calculations that cloth diapers will last for more than one child. Though you have to buy new disposables for each baby, cloth diapers can last for up to 4 kids - so suddenly the math becomes a little skewed because it is cut in fourth.

The last argument they make is that the diapers in landfills only account for 2% of the solid waste we consume. Frankly, that's still a big chunk. We consume WAAAAAAY too much solid waste as it is. That ridiculously statistical percentage would be much higher if we didn't use 18 pounds of PVC packaging on every child's toy and quadruple bag every gallon of milk we buy.

Has anyone else heard this argument? What were your initial thoughts?

I am not a scientist or a doctor, so I'm sure I'm missing something here. Anyone know what it is?

We spray toxic chemicals on our food (non-organic fruit, veggies, wheat, roots, etc are sprayed dozens of times by literally dozens of poisons, none of which will wash off before you eat them), on our clothes (9 of the 15 major pesticides used to grow cotton are known carcinogens, not to mention the fact that your favorite t-shirt is probably coated with formaldehyde and other chemicals), into the air we breathe (no one's debating that car fumes will kill you) and inject them into our body (vaccines contain abnormally* high levels of aluminum, a toxin that can cause neurotoxicity in 1/10** the amounts found in a typical injection***) yet we continually ask ourselves "where does cancer/insert other new disease here" come from.

What do they know that I don't? There's got to be something I'm missing here...anyone?

*Abnormally high means that if it were an IV, it wouldn't be legally allowed. Aluminum amount in vaccines is not regulated like it is for intravenous use.

**No one knows what a "safe" level of aluminum injection is. We only know for sick people, the elderly, or the premature, but know one has tested normal, healthy kids.

***I'm not anti-vaccine. I just ask a lot of questions. No hate mail, please. ;)

A friend recently asked me how I "know" so much about things many people have never heard of. For instance, how I have heard of the problems with dioxin in diapers, arsenic in mattresses, etc. The answer is actually quite simple, and is such a part of my personality that it was my nickname in Junior High: I ask questions.

I never take it for granted that "well I'm sure they know what they are doing" or "if they knew it was dangerous they wouldn't sell it" or "don't you think they've thought of that?" I don't believe that huge corporations have a greater interest in the health of my family than I do, so I ask. When things seem odd, I don't "assume" that everything is as it should be; I ask. Some questions I have asked, or have been asked by others and spurred my own questions, are, "How are disposable diapers so absorbent?", "Why does boxed and canned baby food last so long?", "What makes vaccines effective?", "How do you make things sweet without sugar?", "Why is organic produce more expensive?", "Why do chemical cleaners work so well?", "Why does milk from the store last so much longer than milk straight from the cow?", etc. The answers to these questions, and more, are the reasons I use cloth diapers, make my own baby food, space out Ari's vaccinations weeks apart, will never, EVER touch a diet soda, buy mostly organic dairy, fruits, and vegetables, use only plant based cleaners, and still buy milk from the store. I see how things are supposed to be in nature and, if they differ, I don't just think, "Oh, that's better!" I wonder why.

For instance, in the store yesterday a man handed me a sample of a new type of corn. It is edible straight from the ground - yes, you heard me, NO COOKING REQUIRED - grown specifically for HEB, and very, very sweet. It was remarkably good. But instead of climbing on the "weird no cook sweet corn" band wagon, my first reaction was, "How do they make corn so sweet and that you don't have to cook?" The guy giving me the sample didn't know, and I'll surely stay away from that item until I know more about it. (A side note, a few minutes after I had my sample, I had a bad taste in my mouth, the kind you get after eating aspartame.)

So that's how I find all this stuff out. I ask questions about everyday things that work better than they should and, if you ask enough questions of the right people, you eventually get an answer. Whether it's the one you wanted or not. :)

So those of you who know me know that I do not trust big corporations. You might call me a conspiracy theorist, but when a company that has $20 million invested in a product does their own internal research to tell you that product is okay, I'm going to be a bit skeptical.

It is a fact (not argued) that chemicals go into the making of children's mattresses. Obviously. Chemicals go into the making of all mattresses, by law. Why? Because mattresses have to be flame resistant. Ooo, that sounds good. I want one of those. But have we ever stopped to wonder HOW they are making flammable items nonflammable?

The answer may shock you.

The chemicals that your child's conventional mattress is laced with may include boric acid (a roach poison), arsenic, phosphorus, antimony (a heavy metal, like lead, that resembles arsenic), silicon, and formaldehyde. Quotes from the CDC on Antimony: “Failure to conceive, an increase in the number of spontaneous abortions, may cause heart to beat irregularly or stop...Prolonged or repeated exposure may damage the liver and the heart muscle...Antimony tends to accumulate in the liver and gastrointestinal tract....At the lowest exposure levels tested, the adversity of the effects was considered to be serious...The cancer effects are cumulative. Every exposure contributes to the overall lifetime risk of developing cancer.” These chemicals leech through the top layer of the mattress. I'm not making this up - it has been shown in laboratory studies that when your child sleeps on an unprotected, conventional mattress, he or she is literally breathing in fumes from cancer causing agents like ARSENIC and FORMALDEHYDE. There are no labeling requirements for these chemicals, and no government regulation except that your mattress MUST contain them. (As of June 2007, organic and toxic free mattresses can be legally available for purchase if they are properly labeled NOT flame retardant. Your chances, by the way, of dying in a mattress fire are somewhere near the neighborhood of one to a million. If my child is going to be breathing in rat poison for 15 hours a day, I think I'll take my chances on the fire.)

As if that weren't bad enough, a researcher in New Zealand has determined that, when reacting with a common fungus found in mattresses, these chemicals leak a toxic nerve gas that, if a child's face is close enough to the mattress, will literally poison them, as nerve gas will tend to do. It will cause their nervous system, including heart and lung function, to stop, killing them in their sleep. "Back to Sleep" may very well have helped because it is causing the child's face to be further away from these toxic fumes. In fact, ALL of the risk factors of SIDS can be explained by this (clinically proven) hypothesis.

I have heard this from multiple sources (and, it makes sense). Let me quote you from a recent article some disturbing news: "A 100% successful crib death prevention campaign has been going on in New Zealand for the past 8 years. Midwives and other healthcare professionals throughout New Zealand have been actively advising parents to wrap mattresses. During this time, there has not been a single SIDS death reported among the over 100,000 New Zealand babies who have slept on mattresses wrapped in a specially formulated polyethylene cover."

Why do we not know about this?

While an organic crib mattress will cost you at least $250 and upwards of $500 for a good one, you can buy a cover for your existing mattress for $35 (tax and shipping!). Now I don't know a lot about this issue, I've only been reading up on it for a few months, but what I've read alarms me enough that $35 doesn't seem like too big of an investment. It's at least something that, as parents, we should definitely look into.

Healthy Child article on SIDS
Explanation of Chemicals
What's in a Child's Mattress
Buy a Crib Mattress Cover