|
|
In a recent show of eco-force, the government has decided to crack down on your shower.
Some of you may be aware of the governments limit on showerhead flow, currently at 2.5 gallons per minute, or GPM. What some of you may not be aware of however is that the government has never really defined the term ‘showerhead’.
To this day, the term ‘showerhead’ has been understood as a device that directs water onto a bather. Sounds good to me, what else would a showerhead be? If you had multiple nozzles in your shower, let’s say for example an overhead sprayer and a body sprayer; they were all considered to be separate showerheads. Simple enough.
Now however, there’s been a redefinition of the term showerhead to include not just one sprayer, but all the sprayers in your shower as a whole. Suddenly the plural of the word showerhead no longer exists; all your showerheads are now one.
What this means to you, is that if you’re remodeling your bathroom, and decide to incorporate say a rain sprayer, a handheld sprayer, and two body sprayers, they must all together add up to 2.5 GPM. That would leave just .625 GPM allocated to each sprayer. Doesn’t sound like much, does it?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for saving water. Water is right up there with air as one of the most important resources we as human beings need to survive. Saving water saves energy, and that savings creates a positive ripple all the way up the supply chain.
What I don’t understand however is how the government plans to regulate such things. According to sources, regulation of this new interpretation of the law will happen at the manufacturer level, not at the consumer level. So does this mean that manufacturers will have to start creating 1/2 GPM shower devices so that I can have more than one sprayer in my shower? Obviously they’ll still be manufacturing standard 2.5 GPM showerheads, so what’s to stop me as a consumer from purchasing all 2.5 GPM devices for my shower?
Is there a consideration for showerheads that don’t operate at the same time? Say for example, when your turn the body sprayers on, the overhead sprayer turns off? Who knows?
The bottom line from my point of view, is to try to understand what this means for consumers. I’ve got to be honest with you, I don’t get it.
When I first found out about this, I honestly wondered if there isn’t something more pressing or more impactful that the government could be handling right now besides my shower. There are a lot of things I can think of that would create a bigger impact globally than trying to get into the showers of the estimate 1% to 4% of homes that actually have multi-head systems. Instead of focusing on such a small spec of the eco problems, why not step it up on the 99% of households in the US that use electricity and find ways to cut back that usage. (Mandating CFL’s, subsidizing solar panel cost, wind turbines, etc.)
As much as I like to hear that the government is stepping it up on eco policy, I’d like it even more if they stepped it up in areas that could make a big impact. Not in the showers of the few homes that are lucky enough to have showers with more than one showerhead.
Where do you stand? No, not stand in the shower, where do you stand on this?
Occasionally something crosses my mind that I feel the need to share with the world, not because it has anything to do with anything eco friendly, but because it’s good to share!
What’s one of my favorite things to do in the summer? Grill!
Grilling is awesome. Humans have been doing it for eons! (I think? I really just wanted to use the word ‘eon’.) Meat eaters love to get out there and grill everything they can, including steak, chicken, pork, burgers, and hotdogs. But even if you prefer a meat free diet, there’s still plenty you can grill; fish (that’s not meat, is it?), vegetables, fresh fruit, pizza, and even pound cake. Yes, pound cake.
Where am I going with this? I don’t know but it’s making me hungry.
In all seriousness, and in an effort to spice up your summer, and my blog, I’m going to throw out my summer recipes, inspirations, and tips.
First, a tip and a recipe.
 Ever have a problem with things sticking to your grill and ending up with many pieces of what once was whole? Yea, we’ve all been there. Here’s how to fix it. Oil your grill. It’s a step that a lot of people overlook, but it can mean the difference between serving a beautiful piece of salmon to your hungry family, and serving salmon shrapnel.
Here’s how it’s done. Get your grill nice and hot, to the temperature you plan to cook on. Just before you throw your choice of ‘grillables’ on, take a folded paper towel and dip it in olive or vegetable oil. Using your tongs, rub the folded paper towel over the grates and quickly load up the grill. You shouldn’t have any problems with anything sticking, even the most delicate fish. You should try to avoid cooking sprays for two reasons. The propellants they use can be flammable, which can create flare ups, and they create an oil mist which is also easily flammable at high grilling temperatures.
If you’re still experiencing some sticking, take note of your grilling style. Are you constantly picking up your ‘grillable’ to check it for doneness? You shouldn’t be. Leave it on until it’s ready to be flipped. Picking things up before they’re cooked is a big reason things fall apart on the grill. When you think they’re ready, give them a flip. If you’re really not sure when they should be flipped, use a thermometer to check the internal temperature. When you get up near (but not quote at) the done temperature, it’s time to flip.
 Now for a recipe. This one is easy and hardly classifies as a recipe, but it’s great. Remember how I mentioned the pound cake? Yea, I meant it. Grab a pound cake and cut it up into slices about 1 inch thick. Throw them on the grill and toast them on each side. At the same time, prepare your ‘cake dip’. Here’s where you can get creative and take this as far as your imagination will let you. You can start with something simple, like a basic melted chocolate dip. Simply combine your choice of chocolate with a little oil in a grill safe pan and let it heat up. Give it a few minutes, stir it, and enjoy dipping your pound cake.
That the simplest form. Feel free to go wild, melt whatever you can! (Well, not whatever you can, but you get the idea.) You can even try ice cream scoops on top of the grilled cake, or fresh fruit.
I’d love to hear what you came up with so please comment!
If you’ve got any ideas that you think should be covered in our summer ‘offtopics’ or that you’d like to learn more about in general, comment or email joey (at) whatcouldbegreener.com.
In a move that could change everything in the auto industry, Ford decided to offer its Lincoln MKZ hybrid for the same price it offers the standard version of the car.
Why is this a big deal?
Traditionally, hybrid vehicles have cost anywhere from $5,000 to $10,000+ more than their standard gasoline only versions. While some say that Ford’s move may simply be a way to spark interest in the Lincoln brand, specifically the MKZ, I say it may be an opportunity to lure other car companies into bringing the price of hybrid vehicles closer to the price of their gasoline only counterparts.
A big hurdle that consumers have to jump when deciding to go with a hybrid is the huge price increase. For many, it’s hard to justify the added cost, and it’s hard to see the long-term fuel savings. It’s just not worth it in some people’s minds.
Ford has clearly changed that. If you’re in the market for a Lincoln of a similar style car, it’s almost impossible to justify not buying the hybrid MKZ, and consumers can clearly see that.
Will other manufacturers follow Ford’s lead and start pricing their hybrid models closer to their gasoline only counterparts? We can only hope that the gap continues to close allowing more people into the hybrid market, saving us fuel, money, and saving out planet.
Someone asked me an interesting question the other day. It was a good one that I really stopped to think about for a minute. They wanted to know how they could make an impact on the environment quickly, easily, and affordably.
So I thought about all the things I’ve talked about here, and tried to narrow that down to something simple and easy that would have an impact.
Here’s what I came up with.
I told him to take a ride down to Home Depot, Lowes, (or the retailer of your choice) and pick up a dozen or so CFL’s (compact fluorescent light bulbs for those out of the loop) and install them in every light fixture in his house.
At roughly $1 a piece nowadays, there’s absolutely no reason not to upgrade to CFL’s. You’ll not I said ‘upgrade’ because yes, saving energy and money is an upgrade.
For around $20 his home is now upgraded with 20 or so CFL’s.
Bottom line? What did he save? Let’s just do some rough math. Assume that every bulb in his house was a 60 watt (I’m sure there were a variety of 25’s, 40’s, 60’s and 100’s but were roughing this). 60 watts a piece times 20 bulbs is 1200 watts. If those bulbs were run 8 hours a day, it would cost roughly $30 a month. Doesn’t seem like much, but after the switch to CFL’s the same 1200 watts would be cut down to 260 watts, which would run about $3 a month.
Now it seems like a lot. A $20 light bulb change immediately saves you $27 a month, or $324 a year.
The energy saved not only equates to money in your pocket, but carbon saving for the Earth. If everyone made the switch to CFL’s, we would be in a much safer place environmentally.
Food for thought, some countries have already begun banning standard incandescent light bulbs in favor of CFL’s. If the US made the switch to CFL’s into law, the energy and carbon savings would be wild.
What can you do? Go buy a shopping cart full of CFL’s. Swap every bulb in your house, give some to your neighbors, give them as gifts, and get the word out. (No, I don’t own stock in a CFL company; I do however think that lighting changes are the fastest and easiest ways to save money and the planet.)
“What’s right is not always popular, what’s popular is not always right.” –Howard Cossell
Surely that quote can be related to an endless amount of life experiences. But have you ever considered relating it to the sun? Intentional tanning (which we’ll call ‘overexposure’) is definitely popular, especially among today’s youth, and most specifically among young women. But is it right?
It seems that as a whole, we’re in a huge debate about the effects of the sun on our skin. Skin cancer being the most prevalent effect scared into us today. So what’s the dermatologist endorsed solution to the problem? Sunscreen every day, applied every few hours. More often if you’re actually outside. Far be it from me to speak up here, since I’m not a doctor, but isn’t that a classic example of ‘one extreme to the other’?
Chew on this. Human beings NEED vitamin D. Vitamin D is a vitamin that is essential for our body to function properly. There is no question about it. Where does our main source of vitamin D come from? The sun. Not food, not drink, but the sun. Our bodies produce all of the natural vitamin D we need directly from sunlight interacting with our skin. So to cover up completely, wear sunscreen everyday, reapply 6 or more times per day, and continue this behavior even through the winter seems for lack of a better word, stupid.
If we follow our dermatologists advice, where is it that we get our vitamin D from? My guess is that we don’t get it at all.
What’s better advice? Well not being a doctor, my best guess would be that better advice would come from finding some place in between the two extremes of all out intentional tanning, and ‘Casper the friendly ghost’ sun phobia. Think along the lines of wearing sunscreen at the beach, but not at the office. Maybe rubbing some on while poolside, but not to go walk the dog. You get what I’m saying.
Ok so we’ve tackled the sun issue, and figured out that extremes are rarely, if ever good and that there’s a time for sunscreen, and a time for sun. But here’s where we run into another problem.
Chemicals. The word chemical has basically been accepted as a bad word. When you hear chemical you don’t ever think of something happy or good. For example, you wouldn’t smile if someone told you that you were eating ‘chemicals’. You would want to wear gloves if you had to touch ‘chemicals’. And you wouldn’t want a ‘chemical’ in your eye. Am I right?
Well then consider the fact that with every application of sunscreen, we’re smearing our bodies with chemicals that we as the public, know little about. Let’s face it this stuff definitely isn’t harmless like for example, soap. It’s a concoction of chemical compounds that’s ever changing, that we know little about.
However, there are people that do know about the chemicals in sunscreen. The FDA for example, studied a chemical found in many sunscreen brands (go check yours, now) called retinyl palmitate, which is a vitamin A derivative. What’s so bad about it you’re wondering? Well, 10 years ago the FDA tested retinyl palmitate on animals in the lab. To make a long study short, they found that this chemical found in many sunscreens not only did not in any way prevent skin cancer, it increased the speed and growth of cancer. The FDA is still, 10 years later, considering what to do about this problem.
Another negative development on the sunscreen front. Nanoparticles.
100,000 times smaller that the diameter of a human hair, nanoparticles are a great feat of engineering. However, not all great feats of engineering belong rubbed on your skin. Zinc oxide nanoparticles and titanium dioxide nanoparticles are found in many sunscreens. The purpose of them being ‘nano sized’ is to allow the sunscreen to rub in clear on your skin instead of white.
The danger? Several studies have found that these particles are so small that they have no problem penetrating skin and directly entering your blood and urine. What can they do while they’re in there? Zinc oxide NP’s (nanoparticles) can kill brain stem cells. Titanium dioxide NP’s can change genes in pregnant mice. Zinc oxide NP’s are toxic to colon cells, even in small quantities. Autistic disorders, epilepsy, and Alzheimer’s disease and been linked to Titanium dioxide. And nanoparticles can cross into human placentas from mothers causing damage to unborn children. Keep in mind that these studies are peer reviewed and are publiched in scientific journals.
So maybe you’re like me, and you’re wondering how the FDA could still allow these chemicals to be used in sunscreen. Well that I don’t know. The FDA’s response to inquiry? “FDA components are conducting research that focuses on nanomaterials such as titanium dioxide in the nanoscale.” They were also quoted saying If information were to indicate that additional safety evaluation or other regulatory action is warranted, we would work with all parties to take the steps appropriate to ensure the safety of marketed products.”
Here’s another bit of interesting information from Michael Hansen, a senior scientist for Consumers Union. “Three summers ago, a law was passed requiring the FDA to develop new sunscreen guidelines for safety and labeling. Here we are at the start of another summer season and still no word from the FDA, leaving consumers in the dark about the safety and efficacy of the sunscreens they use.”
There is clearly a danger from chemicals in many sunscreen products, and the lack of FDA regulation means that the labels on these products may not even identify that these chemicals are present. Consumers Union (which publishes Consumer Reports) has said that its tests of sunscreen products showed 80 percent of tested sunscreen products that claimed not to contain nanoparticles, actually did. If that’s not scary, I don’t know what is. Not only does this show something that we already knew, that many businesses (as well as packaging labels) can’t be trusted, but it also shows that through lack of swift action it’s becoming increasingly harder for us to rely on the FDA to protect us.
I know this is a bit much, and it’s quite a bit longer than I usually write, but I think it’s that important.
So what can we do as far as sunscreen goes? All we can do for now, is try our best to use safe products. Keep up to date with online searches for safe sunscreen products. Look for products that contain no retinyl palmitate and no nanoparticles. Be weary of labels though. Try to shop from brands you trust, and brands other users recommend. Also keep up to date with Consumer Reports to find products that live up to their claims, and their labels claims.
If you’re as tired of all of this as I am, you’re at the point right now where you’re wondering what to do about all of this. How do you interact with the sun on a daily basis?
Here’s my advice. Tanning beds are super concentrated ultraviolet light machines. No matter what anyone at a tanning salon says, common sense says they aren’t safe. A machine that in a matter of minutes can pump the same amount of ultraviolet light onto your skin that would normally take the sun hours to do is an obvious risk. However, spending those hours in direct sunlight tanning your self is not any better. Again, you’re exposing yourself to the same UV light. But rest assured, the sun is good. We’ve been living in the sun as long as humans have walked the Earth, and to make a claim that we should shade ourselves from it sunrise to sunset is absolutely ridiculous. Anyone who can’t see that, doctor or not, needs to get their eyes checked.
Moderation is the key. Not too much, not too little. Sunlight is our lifeblood. Without it, we wouldn’t exist. Overexposure to it for vanity presents risks, but so does underexposure. Drinking too much water poses a serious risk to your body, but does that mean you shouldn’t drink any water? No way. Be smart, and be safe.
As a disclaimer, I have to mention again, that I’m not a doctor. My advice is not medical advice; it’s just my opinion based on common sense as I interpret it. Always talk to your doctor about your risks and if your doctor has advised you to do something, or to not do something for a specific reason, talk to them before you do otherwise.
|
|
