Here I am in the final day of school for the term. All assignments turned in, just an hour and a half to kill time in writing class. From here I will wander down the hall to take the final test for my Interpersonal Communication class. I decided I should mess around with the blog thing to get my writing and reflecting juices flowing. The Interpersonal Communication final consists of three esaay questions, all about how we apply communications skill and knowledge in everyday life. Even though I have a month without school after today, I am going to keep plugging away at several things I started working on this term.
The test this afternoon is far from the end of my education in having good interpersonal relationships. After today there will be daily tests of my ability to use things like effective language and being aware of relational dynamics. I am taking the courses I am on one hand to get a degree that will open the door to a job. On the other hand I am trying to get skills that will help me survive raising my daughters. My eight year old has autistic spectrum disorder and has trouble communicating. Her troubles are far from the quiet end of autism, she misunderstands everyday situations and throws tantrums. My three year old is crazy too, in that I strongly believe that all kids are totally nuts. They bounce around and no matter what find something to argue about. Learning what I have in school about relationships and effectively communicating within them, I wonder how they let anyone have kids without taking a years worth of classes.
I am also going to keep plugging away at my blog. This space has been a great way for me to start pecking away random ideas. I also see how the computer skills I gained this term will be especially helpful in the future. I realize that in written conversations it is important to establish credibility. By embedding hotlinks into a document you can send readers to sites that show you know what you are talking about. In moving my career forward anything I can do to show knowledge and establish professional credibility is vital. I am in skill to get mad skills, so I can get a grownup job as a water man.
I am also going to keep learning about water. This term I opened myself up to soak up the world of water. I have come to realize that we live in a industrialized world. This means there has to at some level be systemization and management of every single thing on the planet. There is very little that is truly wild anymore. We live in a world where most people live in big cities. Many passionate professionals are needed to plan for the things people in cities, and not, need. One aspect of that is that clean drinking water needs to come in, dirty wastewater as well as rainwater has to be funneled out.
It was super funny to me that my writing instructor this term named her blog for the class "Legends of Lane", because this term did feel like the begining of an epic quest. This term found me realizing the nature of my quest, to get the fuck out of kitchen work. I enjoy cooking for my family, but after nearly a decade the joy of putting out a hundred gourmet dinners a night is nill. I still have one foot firmly in that life, I spend most nights as a galley slave. But I also keep my other foot rooted firmly in hoping and trying to get out. I have my fiancee and my daughters rooting for me to find a better way to support them.
I also have school which this term has seriously been the best part of life. In school I can be a different version of myself. That is why I am writing this post. I have fun with school and don't want it to be over. I would love to spend another month or two continuing the explorations we have had in class. My instructors have been great this term, it is a little scary to bounce off into new courses next term and new teachers. I was a little spoiled in high school, in that I went to an alternative high school. I was my teacher and only had two advisors all four years. I was able to have a good relationship that allowed me to learn a lot. But I admit having moved past high school I am a bit clingy to instructors. I miss being able to have solid long term relationships with my teachers. I gave up on writing for most of a decade and thanks to Dr. K, Gail Stevenson and now Sandy Jensen, I have picked up and feel like a capable writer. It has been funny to see myself progress since I started to school here 14 months ago. I have done a lot of growing in every way imaginable.
So here we are at the end of this, but really sort of the begining. On to a month of being mister domestic, taking care of kids and the house. Then next term into the world of more computer skills, especially begining to learn geographic information systems. I am also going to go into technical writing, which thanks to argument writing should be a much easier. So enough blathering on. Time to wrap up this blog and get on to mini vacationing. Cheers.
Tuesday, December 4, 2012
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
Counter Claim
Somewhere in the term an assignment got forgotten. I have a feeling I am not the only one. I do not like to forget things, I like to be on top and awesome as much as humanly possible. So I took a chance and just started typing and clicking away at my laptop until I had something worth reading. What follows is my attempt to poke logical holes in the research paper I recently wrote, titled: The Truthiness of Soap. Writing finds authors forced to take opinions, as well as to side step one issue in order to explore another. So now that "The Truthiness of Soap" is out in the world, I can step back and poke fun at some of the glaring omissions in my papers claims. So what did I find worth discussing?
In my paper I claim that companies only do things for profit:
Corporations exist to create a profit one way or another. A great way to maximize profits is to find an area of popular confusion and sell to both sides. Corporations exist in a grey area of right and wrong, good and bad. If it is profitable it is good, if it is costly it is bad. For instance companies like Standard Oil allowed millions of gallons of oil to leak from their facilities in the late 19th and early 20th century, and lacking public concern they profited handsomely from their sloppiness. That degradation was seen as a corporate good. Fast forward to today, companies spend millions preventing even the smallest of leaks. Changing attitudes have led to regulations, which have made such wastes unprofitable, and therefore bad to corporations.
The truth is it is all a matter of where you look. While there are some corporations whose actions could be considered dangerous and potentially psychotic, there are also several who work to make the world a better place. I recently did a research project for another class where I encountered one such company, Sierra Nevada Brewing Company in Chico, California. In the last thirty years Sierra Nevada has grown to be the second largest craft brewery in the U.S. They did this focusing on making every aspect of their operation the best it can be. As a result over half their main facility's power is generated through on site solar and fuel cells. These efforts at sustainability are revolutionary and forward thinking, but few efforts are immediately profitable. The best companies in the world don't put energy into projects in order to make a quick profit for their company, they put energy into projects because they are good for their society in the long term. In my research paper I was very one sided in how I presented capitalism in the United States.
If I am gonna attempt to poke holes in my paper, a great section to analyze is:
The truth as it is felt rather than know along with countless contemporary cultural influences forge how parents form opinions in our current culture. Popular medicine is based on one part culture and on one part education. While there is no such thing as an average American, the government census illustrates how broad opinions are formed. Where there are broad opinions, there is a large company selling to that group. That said, all but 15% of Americans have graduated high school, and of those 28% have a college education (census.gov). Therefore, it is relatively safe to assume that most parents have a very bare bones education in biology. They know there are microscopic organisms everywhere and some of them cause disease. They also know children, sick people and the elderly are especially susceptible to infection. Out of this popular medical wisdom parents go nuts attempting to kill all germs.
I really love this paragraph, it sounds kinda smart and has some cool statistics. But it makes a gigantic logical leap. I make an assumption about one thing (educational levels of average Americans) and connect it to something fairly unrelated (a lack of basic hygienic knowledge). The truth is that the modern United States has the most comprehensive systems to keep people clean and healthy of any civilization ever. We have over 1.8 million miles of drinking water pipes and 1.2 million miles of sewer pipe in this country (wikipedia.org). We have the largest hospital system ever devised . The truth is how long you were in school doesn't have much to do with how clean you are, your choices in buying cleaning products or your exposure to toxic substances .
In my paper I claim that companies only do things for profit:
Corporations exist to create a profit one way or another. A great way to maximize profits is to find an area of popular confusion and sell to both sides. Corporations exist in a grey area of right and wrong, good and bad. If it is profitable it is good, if it is costly it is bad. For instance companies like Standard Oil allowed millions of gallons of oil to leak from their facilities in the late 19th and early 20th century, and lacking public concern they profited handsomely from their sloppiness. That degradation was seen as a corporate good. Fast forward to today, companies spend millions preventing even the smallest of leaks. Changing attitudes have led to regulations, which have made such wastes unprofitable, and therefore bad to corporations.
The truth is it is all a matter of where you look. While there are some corporations whose actions could be considered dangerous and potentially psychotic, there are also several who work to make the world a better place. I recently did a research project for another class where I encountered one such company, Sierra Nevada Brewing Company in Chico, California. In the last thirty years Sierra Nevada has grown to be the second largest craft brewery in the U.S. They did this focusing on making every aspect of their operation the best it can be. As a result over half their main facility's power is generated through on site solar and fuel cells. These efforts at sustainability are revolutionary and forward thinking, but few efforts are immediately profitable. The best companies in the world don't put energy into projects in order to make a quick profit for their company, they put energy into projects because they are good for their society in the long term. In my research paper I was very one sided in how I presented capitalism in the United States.
If I am gonna attempt to poke holes in my paper, a great section to analyze is:
The truth as it is felt rather than know along with countless contemporary cultural influences forge how parents form opinions in our current culture. Popular medicine is based on one part culture and on one part education. While there is no such thing as an average American, the government census illustrates how broad opinions are formed. Where there are broad opinions, there is a large company selling to that group. That said, all but 15% of Americans have graduated high school, and of those 28% have a college education (census.gov). Therefore, it is relatively safe to assume that most parents have a very bare bones education in biology. They know there are microscopic organisms everywhere and some of them cause disease. They also know children, sick people and the elderly are especially susceptible to infection. Out of this popular medical wisdom parents go nuts attempting to kill all germs.
I really love this paragraph, it sounds kinda smart and has some cool statistics. But it makes a gigantic logical leap. I make an assumption about one thing (educational levels of average Americans) and connect it to something fairly unrelated (a lack of basic hygienic knowledge). The truth is that the modern United States has the most comprehensive systems to keep people clean and healthy of any civilization ever. We have over 1.8 million miles of drinking water pipes and 1.2 million miles of sewer pipe in this country (wikipedia.org). We have the largest hospital system ever devised . The truth is how long you were in school doesn't have much to do with how clean you are, your choices in buying cleaning products or your exposure to toxic substances .
Works Cited
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
The Truthiness of Soap
The Truthiness of Soap:
The hand washing ritual is the cornerstone of preventing the spread of communicable diseases. The efficacy of this ritual depends on several factors including: water quality, temperature, time spent scrubbing, but the most important factor in the efficacy of hand washing is soap. In our modern society the choice of soaps is daunting. Parents have to be especially critical of which products they clean their children with. Parents often ask themselves which cleaning products to use on my children? And how do I make sure the products I use to help my children aren't harmful to the environment? Have you ever wondered where parents get their opinions regarding cleanliness? The short answer is a gut feeling. However, this gut feeling is grown out of many factors such as religious customs, economics and geography. Companies put great effort into manipulating consumers’ gut feelings. Popular antibacterial chemicals in soap are no more effective at cleaning, and are a dangerous lingering pollutant in the environment. Yet they remain a popular choice of parents.
"The problem with medicating yourself is that you don't know what you're doing". Anonymous.
Medical knowledge in America is split between two very different sides: the medical establishment and “Popular medicine”. One side of medical knowledge is the medical establishment: the doctors, nurses and scientists. Medical establishments are bound to an institutionalized, scientific base of knowledge. Doctors in the United States make decisions based on their education. Their education is the result of university research which is the result of traditions and learning dating back to Hippocrate in Ancient Greece. Researchers have dichotomized every facet of the human creature. The discipline of epidemiology, beginning in the mid 19th century, has sought to keep people safe from disease. In the last 200 years advances in epidemiology have eradicated most common forms of disease. Scientific research has discovered the mechanics of infection and disease. While there have been advances in the technology of epidemiology, such as pasteurization and the discovery of penicillin and other antibiotics, none has been as important as the discovery that washing prevents the spread of common illness better than any other technology.
The community of medical professionals is relatively small compared to the population at large. Outside the medical community medical knowledge is gathered from the pool of cultural knowledge known as “Popular Medicine”. Popular medicine is the medical knowledge of the untrained. This body of common knowledge is constantly morphing, yet more often than not lags behind established medicine. Every person has a body that we attempt to take care of, or not. The ways we care of our human bodies is endless. Recorded history is full of ideas on how to treat and prevent disease. In the 18th century it was commonly believed that disease was caused by malicious spirits invading a patient’s bloodstream. Popular medicine also includes many folk traditions from across the globe. These folk traditions have been found to have great value such as in the use of herbal medicines, stretching and exercise. Other traditions continue to have adherents for the sake of tradition, such as warding off diseases with elaborate ceremonies to ward off evil spirits.
Parents in modern America tend to find their opinions somewhere in between established medicine and popular medicine. It is important to note that both sides of this equation are constantly in flux.A big part of this confusion stems from the enormous leaps in scientific knowledge in the last two hundred years. Parents have a hard time reconciling the use of time tested folk remedies and running to the local emergency room for advanced antibiotics. Parents attempt to keep up on the latest discoveries, yet it is hard for even experts to keep up on the latest scientific consensus.
In order to attempt to understand American parents we need to understand American society. The cornerstone of American democracy is American capitalism. Corporations exist to create a profit one way or another. A great way to maximize profits is to find an area of popular confusion and sell to both sides. Corporations exist in a grey area of right and wrong, good and bad. If it is profitable it is good, if it is costly it is bad. For instance companies like Standard Oil allowed millions of gallons of oil to leak from their facilities in the late 19th and early 20th century, and lacking public concern they profited handsomely from their sloppiness. That degradation was seen as a corporate good. Fast forward to today, companies spend millions preventing even the smallest of leaks. Changing attitudes have led to regulations, which have made such wastes unprofitable, and therefore bad to corporations.
The only reason corporations attempt to conform to a popular sense of good and bad is in response to legislation. Our nation has attempted to let market forces punish bad business practices, rather than strict legislation. As a result knowing which products contain toxic substances is entirely about where one inquires. The number of dangerous chemicals that are monitored by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is minuscule compared to what modern science has proven we should be aware of.
One such dangerous substance is Triclosan. This chemical is used as an antibacterial agent in many products, from clothing, furniture and toys to soap and toothpaste. Triclosan is currently under review by the FDA for listing as a hazardous substance. Independent research has concluded that Triclosan is a powerful hormone disruptant in rats and fish (FoodandWaterWatch.org). Traces of many antibacterials are pervasive in the environment. In a survey of sewage sludge samples from around the country in 2009, traces of Triclosan were found in 92% of samples. The most two most commonly found contaminants in water samples the country over are triclosan and another common antibacterial, triclocarban (FoodandWaterWatch.org)
It is unclear what the long term effects of exposure to Triclosan will be. While it was only introduced in products in 1972, triclosan has become ubiquitous as an ingredient in liquid soaps. Consumers must remember that every product sent down the drain goes somewhere. Therefore it is not surprising that a 2008 Centers for Disease Control report estimated Triclosan to be present in the urine of 75% of American adults.
It is has been well established that hand washing prevents disease, especially in the developing world where unsanitary conditions exist,but should we be paying closer attention to what is in the soaps we use?While no one argues we shouldn’t attempt to wash germs of our bodies, it is important to think of the mechanism we use to do so. Doctor Stuart B. Levy sums up the major mechanical problem with using soaps containing Triclosan in his brilliant book, The Antibiotic Paradox: How the Misuse of Antibiotics Destroys Their Curative Powers (2002).
Which leads one to ask: Aren’t there government agencies tasked with banning such toxic chemicals from entering the environment? The answer is yes and no. The governments of Denmark, Finland and Germany took steps to eliminate domestic use of Triclosan nearly a decade ago, saying that such products “are extremely persistent and highly toxic in the marine environment”(BeyondPesticides.org).
In the United States on the other hand official regulation is the responsibility of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Since the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act the EPA has been tasked with identifying dangerous chemicals in order to protect against unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. Yet in the last 36 years a mere 0.25% of chemicals on the market have been thoroughly tested by the EPA. As a result of this limited testing only five have been officially banned (Saferchemicals.org).
So why have so few chemicals been thoroughly researched? It is a matter of economics. While the corporations have found ways to profit from selling potentially toxic products, the government agencies in the United States tasked with regulating them have had to weather several presidential administrations laissez-faire policies. At the behest of the presidents who appointed them, EPA administrators have attempted to be more friend than vigilant watchdogs of big chemical companies. This practice leaves it up to parent’s to research what chemical exposures to beware of.
In today’s society parents are often overwhelmed with the myriad facets of life. Few parents have enough time or energy to have an educated opinion on the numerous toxic substances they and their children encounter. Lacking an educated opinion numerous parents, myself included, rely on a gut instinct. In the case of choosing which soap to buy parents often employ the logic of “Truthiness”. The concept of “Truthiness” was first popularized by comedian Stephen Colbert who defined it as "truth that comes from the gut, not books" (Stephen Colbert, Comedy Central's "The Colbert Report," October 2005). The American Dialect Society further defined Truthiness as "the quality of preferring concepts or facts one wishes to be true, rather than concepts or facts known to be true" (American Dialect Society, January 2006).
The truth as it is felt rather than know along with countless contemporary cultural influences forge how parents form opinions in our current culture. Popular medicine is based on one part culture and on one part education. While there is no such thing as an average American, the government census illustrates how broad opinions are formed. Where there are broad opinions, there is a large company selling to that group. That said, all but 15% of Americans have graduated high school, and of those 28% have a college education (census.gov). Therefore, it is relatively safe to assume that most parents have a very bare bones education in biology. They know there are microscopic organisms everywhere and some of them cause disease. They also know children, sick people and the elderly are especially susceptible to infection. Out of this popular medical wisdom parents go nuts attempting to kill all germs.
Antibacterial products have been gaining in popularity in many circles amid industry exacerbated fears of illnesses such as HIV, bird flu, swine flu as well as food borne illness such as salmonella and e. coli.This attempt at all out war on germs resulted in the number of antibacterial products on the global market to grow from 200 in 2003 to more than 1,600 by 2006 (highbeam.com). The manufacturers of these products are eager to capture market share in the cleaning product and sanitizer market, an industry that was estimated in 2005 to be worth $5.12 billion according to Census research (highbeam.com). Considering the giant money found in this market there is little reason for manufacturers to stop selling these products.
One interesting thing about modern capitalism is how mass markets respond to controversy. In the last ten years a group of consumers have become concerned by the presence of potentially dangerous chemicals in home cleaning products, of which Triclosan is a prime example. Instead of responding to such fears by reducing the number of potentially dangerous products, industry has responded by creating new products featuring natural ingredients. Corporations it seems only know how to expand.
So where does that leave parents? The truth is we live in a world where parents are forced to decide everyday between what constitutes a lesser of two evils in regards to caring for their children and households. Few people have the education or resources to make truly informed opinions on the purchasing habits. Instead people are forced to use what information is available. Triclosan is mostly ineffective as a household cleanser, and most of its chemical effectiveness is exerted negatively on marine environments. Yet there is little chance the use of this chemical will be curtailed anytime soon, considering economic forces are far too strong. While our nation has government agencies that are ostensibly in charge of limiting environmental damage from dangerous substances, few of these agencies have resources or clout enough to change the habits of businesses making hundreds of millions of dollars a year. While incredibly daunting in modern society, the choice of products is largely up to the individual consumer. There is little parents can do to prevent large scale environmental degradation. In the face of such confusion parents rely on gut feeling. This leaves the truthiness of soap in the eye of the beholder.
The hand washing ritual is the cornerstone of preventing the spread of communicable diseases. The efficacy of this ritual depends on several factors including: water quality, temperature, time spent scrubbing, but the most important factor in the efficacy of hand washing is soap. In our modern society the choice of soaps is daunting. Parents have to be especially critical of which products they clean their children with. Parents often ask themselves which cleaning products to use on my children? And how do I make sure the products I use to help my children aren't harmful to the environment? Have you ever wondered where parents get their opinions regarding cleanliness? The short answer is a gut feeling. However, this gut feeling is grown out of many factors such as religious customs, economics and geography. Companies put great effort into manipulating consumers’ gut feelings. Popular antibacterial chemicals in soap are no more effective at cleaning, and are a dangerous lingering pollutant in the environment. Yet they remain a popular choice of parents.
"The problem with medicating yourself is that you don't know what you're doing". Anonymous.
Medical knowledge in America is split between two very different sides: the medical establishment and “Popular medicine”. One side of medical knowledge is the medical establishment: the doctors, nurses and scientists. Medical establishments are bound to an institutionalized, scientific base of knowledge. Doctors in the United States make decisions based on their education. Their education is the result of university research which is the result of traditions and learning dating back to Hippocrate in Ancient Greece. Researchers have dichotomized every facet of the human creature. The discipline of epidemiology, beginning in the mid 19th century, has sought to keep people safe from disease. In the last 200 years advances in epidemiology have eradicated most common forms of disease. Scientific research has discovered the mechanics of infection and disease. While there have been advances in the technology of epidemiology, such as pasteurization and the discovery of penicillin and other antibiotics, none has been as important as the discovery that washing prevents the spread of common illness better than any other technology.
The community of medical professionals is relatively small compared to the population at large. Outside the medical community medical knowledge is gathered from the pool of cultural knowledge known as “Popular Medicine”. Popular medicine is the medical knowledge of the untrained. This body of common knowledge is constantly morphing, yet more often than not lags behind established medicine. Every person has a body that we attempt to take care of, or not. The ways we care of our human bodies is endless. Recorded history is full of ideas on how to treat and prevent disease. In the 18th century it was commonly believed that disease was caused by malicious spirits invading a patient’s bloodstream. Popular medicine also includes many folk traditions from across the globe. These folk traditions have been found to have great value such as in the use of herbal medicines, stretching and exercise. Other traditions continue to have adherents for the sake of tradition, such as warding off diseases with elaborate ceremonies to ward off evil spirits.
Parents in modern America tend to find their opinions somewhere in between established medicine and popular medicine. It is important to note that both sides of this equation are constantly in flux.A big part of this confusion stems from the enormous leaps in scientific knowledge in the last two hundred years. Parents have a hard time reconciling the use of time tested folk remedies and running to the local emergency room for advanced antibiotics. Parents attempt to keep up on the latest discoveries, yet it is hard for even experts to keep up on the latest scientific consensus.
In order to attempt to understand American parents we need to understand American society. The cornerstone of American democracy is American capitalism. Corporations exist to create a profit one way or another. A great way to maximize profits is to find an area of popular confusion and sell to both sides. Corporations exist in a grey area of right and wrong, good and bad. If it is profitable it is good, if it is costly it is bad. For instance companies like Standard Oil allowed millions of gallons of oil to leak from their facilities in the late 19th and early 20th century, and lacking public concern they profited handsomely from their sloppiness. That degradation was seen as a corporate good. Fast forward to today, companies spend millions preventing even the smallest of leaks. Changing attitudes have led to regulations, which have made such wastes unprofitable, and therefore bad to corporations.
The only reason corporations attempt to conform to a popular sense of good and bad is in response to legislation. Our nation has attempted to let market forces punish bad business practices, rather than strict legislation. As a result knowing which products contain toxic substances is entirely about where one inquires. The number of dangerous chemicals that are monitored by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is minuscule compared to what modern science has proven we should be aware of.
It is unclear what the long term effects of exposure to Triclosan will be. While it was only introduced in products in 1972, triclosan has become ubiquitous as an ingredient in liquid soaps. Consumers must remember that every product sent down the drain goes somewhere. Therefore it is not surprising that a 2008 Centers for Disease Control report estimated Triclosan to be present in the urine of 75% of American adults.
It is has been well established that hand washing prevents disease, especially in the developing world where unsanitary conditions exist,but should we be paying closer attention to what is in the soaps we use?While no one argues we shouldn’t attempt to wash germs of our bodies, it is important to think of the mechanism we use to do so. Doctor Stuart B. Levy sums up the major mechanical problem with using soaps containing Triclosan in his brilliant book, The Antibiotic Paradox: How the Misuse of Antibiotics Destroys Their Curative Powers (2002).
In other words we put products on our hands to make them clean, before it gets a chance to work we wash it down the drain. From there it finds it way into the environment, and into the systems of many organisms. There is increasing evidence that Triclosan inhibits growth of algae commonly found in waterways. Algae species are the bottom rung of aquatic food chains, many species depend on algae for food."The average person washes his/her hands for 3-5 seconds, which is too brief to remove tightly bound microbes but does remove some viruses and bacteria, and sends them down the drain. In the hospital, the addition of a chemical like triclosan can be beneficial if used for the time period required for its activity - minutes, not seconds. But with suboptimal usage, the chemical additive serves no additional purpose. The effect of washing remains with the soaps ability to physically remove microbes. Used too briefly to be effective, antibacterial chemical products in homes remain as residues on counters and on hands at less than optimal concentrations. In this way, they can select for drug-resistant mutants. In comparing different antibacterial substances, we can distinguish them based on their speed of action and their propensity to remain as residues on the surface. An agent that works rapidly without leaving a residue will produce its effect in seconds, leaving the surface available for the return of natural microbes. Alcohol, chlorinated and peroxide products fill this description"(Levy 265).
Which leads one to ask: Aren’t there government agencies tasked with banning such toxic chemicals from entering the environment? The answer is yes and no. The governments of Denmark, Finland and Germany took steps to eliminate domestic use of Triclosan nearly a decade ago, saying that such products “are extremely persistent and highly toxic in the marine environment”(BeyondPesticides.org).
In the United States on the other hand official regulation is the responsibility of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Since the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act the EPA has been tasked with identifying dangerous chemicals in order to protect against unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. Yet in the last 36 years a mere 0.25% of chemicals on the market have been thoroughly tested by the EPA. As a result of this limited testing only five have been officially banned (Saferchemicals.org).
So why have so few chemicals been thoroughly researched? It is a matter of economics. While the corporations have found ways to profit from selling potentially toxic products, the government agencies in the United States tasked with regulating them have had to weather several presidential administrations laissez-faire policies. At the behest of the presidents who appointed them, EPA administrators have attempted to be more friend than vigilant watchdogs of big chemical companies. This practice leaves it up to parent’s to research what chemical exposures to beware of.
In today’s society parents are often overwhelmed with the myriad facets of life. Few parents have enough time or energy to have an educated opinion on the numerous toxic substances they and their children encounter. Lacking an educated opinion numerous parents, myself included, rely on a gut instinct. In the case of choosing which soap to buy parents often employ the logic of “Truthiness”. The concept of “Truthiness” was first popularized by comedian Stephen Colbert who defined it as "truth that comes from the gut, not books" (Stephen Colbert, Comedy Central's "The Colbert Report," October 2005). The American Dialect Society further defined Truthiness as "the quality of preferring concepts or facts one wishes to be true, rather than concepts or facts known to be true" (American Dialect Society, January 2006).
The truth as it is felt rather than know along with countless contemporary cultural influences forge how parents form opinions in our current culture. Popular medicine is based on one part culture and on one part education. While there is no such thing as an average American, the government census illustrates how broad opinions are formed. Where there are broad opinions, there is a large company selling to that group. That said, all but 15% of Americans have graduated high school, and of those 28% have a college education (census.gov). Therefore, it is relatively safe to assume that most parents have a very bare bones education in biology. They know there are microscopic organisms everywhere and some of them cause disease. They also know children, sick people and the elderly are especially susceptible to infection. Out of this popular medical wisdom parents go nuts attempting to kill all germs.
Antibacterial products have been gaining in popularity in many circles amid industry exacerbated fears of illnesses such as HIV, bird flu, swine flu as well as food borne illness such as salmonella and e. coli.This attempt at all out war on germs resulted in the number of antibacterial products on the global market to grow from 200 in 2003 to more than 1,600 by 2006 (highbeam.com). The manufacturers of these products are eager to capture market share in the cleaning product and sanitizer market, an industry that was estimated in 2005 to be worth $5.12 billion according to Census research (highbeam.com). Considering the giant money found in this market there is little reason for manufacturers to stop selling these products.
One interesting thing about modern capitalism is how mass markets respond to controversy. In the last ten years a group of consumers have become concerned by the presence of potentially dangerous chemicals in home cleaning products, of which Triclosan is a prime example. Instead of responding to such fears by reducing the number of potentially dangerous products, industry has responded by creating new products featuring natural ingredients. Corporations it seems only know how to expand.
So where does that leave parents? The truth is we live in a world where parents are forced to decide everyday between what constitutes a lesser of two evils in regards to caring for their children and households. Few people have the education or resources to make truly informed opinions on the purchasing habits. Instead people are forced to use what information is available. Triclosan is mostly ineffective as a household cleanser, and most of its chemical effectiveness is exerted negatively on marine environments. Yet there is little chance the use of this chemical will be curtailed anytime soon, considering economic forces are far too strong. While our nation has government agencies that are ostensibly in charge of limiting environmental damage from dangerous substances, few of these agencies have resources or clout enough to change the habits of businesses making hundreds of millions of dollars a year. While incredibly daunting in modern society, the choice of products is largely up to the individual consumer. There is little parents can do to prevent large scale environmental degradation. In the face of such confusion parents rely on gut feeling. This leaves the truthiness of soap in the eye of the beholder.
Works Cited
"Antibacterials in Houehold Products." N.p., n.d. Web. <http://www.tufts.edu/med/apua/consumers/personal_home_5_3590195869.pdf>.
"For Consumers." Triclosan: What Consumers Should Know. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Nov. 2012. <http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm205999.htm>.
Http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0233.pdf. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Nov. 2012.
Levy, Stuart B. The Antibiotic Paradox: How the Misuse of Antibiotics Destroys Their Curative Power. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Pub., 2002. Print.
N.p., n.d. Web. <http://www.beyondpesticides.org/pesticides/factsheets/Triclosan%20cited.pdf>.
Olsen, Mary. "Cleanliness Is a Middle Class Racist Attitude." Education Vol. 91.Issue 3 (Feb/Mar71): P274-276. Print.
"Triclosan (Endocrine Disruptor)." Triclosan. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Nov. 2012. <http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/water/triclosan/>.
"Triclosan: What the Research Shows 2008-2010." N.p., Feb. 2011. Web. Nov. 2012. <http://documents.foodandwaterwatch.org/doc/triclosan08-10.pdf>.
"What Is TSCA?" What Is TSCA? N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Nov. 2012. <http://www.saferchemicals.org/resources/tsca.html>.
"Word of the Year 2006." Merriam-Webster. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 01 Nov. 2012. <http://www.merriam-webster.com/info/06words.htm>.
Monday, October 29, 2012
Prospectus
This is a super rough draft of this. But I want to put it up anyways
The Truthiness of Soap
Antimicrobial soap is no more effective at cleaning, while much worse for the environment. Yet it is heavily marketed to parents by advertising that creates a different definition of clean.
This argument revolves around facing on one hand the need to keep my children healthy and safe from infections. On the other hand I don’t want to protect my children from short term harm while contributing to long term problems like the proliferation of super bacteria and environmental degradation. I want to address this issue to both better my household while exploring issues of environmental health and how companies market products
This is a more controversial issue because marketing companies have redefined public ideas of what constitutes “clean”.
The issue revolves mostly around the most common agent used in antibacterial soap, Triclosan. This chemical has been shown to disrupt endocrine function in many organisms in its active form and once decayed becomes a known carcinogen.
Reasonable people can agree and disagree with this topic because people have different beliefs regarding cleaning products
There is sufficient evidence that Triclosan is in many common products and are sold widely. There are many studies talking about different toxic aspects of the Triclosan anti-septic.
I think the advertising of these products suits the term "Truthiness"
My evidence points more to a culture of ignorance and different attitudes about cleaning.
People could see the issue from either a view that they need to protect themselves from germs or that they need to avoid potentially toxic substances.
People disagree with what constitutes clean. While it is a common belief that it is important to wash your hands, people have different beliefs as to what that entails.
I need to persuade other parents that the cons outweigh the pros regarding the use of antibacterial soap products.
Any reader can react to my call to action by simply looking at labels and choosing to purchase non-toxic products. My appeal is very direct and easy to implement.
http://greenaircleaning.tumblr.com/post/24067629197/the-dangers-lurking-in-antibacterial-soaps
http://www.greeningfamilies.com/families/two-reasons-to-quit-antibacterial-soaps/
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Health/story?id=1213399&page=1#.UI655mf5WSo
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/09/health/09essa.html?ex=1257742800&en=0e93bdabccb3e84f&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&_r=0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibacterial_soap
http://www.realfoodhouston.com/2012/04/18/whats-best-antibacterial-soap-hand-sanitizer-or-just-plain-soap-and-water/
http://www.marketresearch.com/Consumer-Goods-c1596/Consumer-Goods-Retailing-c80/Soap-Bath-Products-c1820/7/
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0196655301147000
http://www.hcn.org/blogs/range/antibacterial-soaps-in-the-backcountry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11584251
http://www.livablefutureblog.com/2011/02/antibacterial-soap-poses-environmental-health-risks-doesnt-clean-any-better
http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/water/triclosan/
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/antibacterial-soap-vs-regular-soap.html
Friday, October 26, 2012
Magnificent 7
Seven comments on seven blog posts. It seemed like an easy assignment. I should know better than that by now. My computer refused to post comments that I posted. So my comments only appear in this blog. I also discovered that it is hard to make constructive comments. I also have had trouble with formatting so what follows isn't especially pretty.
On Shane Mitrovitch's Blog: Kevin Wyckoff said...I liked your post. I would suggest reading it aloud to iron out the mechanics. It would be nice to hear more of your voice and opinions, as it is it feels like you pulled all your opinions from your article. October 19, 2012 11:46 AM
On The Lane Adventures of Liz: Kevin Wyckoff said... I like the way you laid out your post, lots of good space and pictures. I would suggest reading your work aloud to smooth out the mechanics. You did a good job reporting a complex issue. October 19, 2012 12:09 PM On College Work
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
You think this is bad wait until...Oh crap it's now
It is fun to see how some writing can be timeless, being relevant reading centuries after inception. While other writing is firmly rooted in a particular time and place. For our class project I chose to write about an article from two years ago that discusses the evolving nature of national economies. Greg Ip's blog post from October 24th, 2010, titled "Think This Economy is Bad? Wait for 2012.", is funny for being a slice of thinking from the recent past that postulates about what is now current events. Ip's article discusses how election years tend to cause financial problems to come to a head.
We need only look at the financial chaos that played out during the last American presidential election to see how government transitions can wreak havoc on markets. As Lehman Brothers foundered just before the election, then Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson attempted short term solutions to allow the new administration to enact real reform. The market reacted with outright panic.
| Wall St 1929 (https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRNM3AHRMWE1pBHvPwaGLoOd5pD1QQ7-qU6hR69HFKnqP4JK_1h) |
 | |||||||
| Nixon (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-iFj1QL8xlsI/UH3c-FRKO_I | /AAAAAAAAEMA/Q7bgVhTetPE/s1600/Nixon.jpg) |
America is far from the only country to engage in short sighted economic tweaking in the face of changing leadership. The deep recession in Mexico known as the "lost decade" resulted from a failed attempt to buy time till a new government could enact serious reform in 1982. South Korea faced a monumental crisis in 1997, when the government negotiated a series of loans to prevent a default. However confidence in these reforms was severely undermined when the opposition parties candidate attacked the agreement. Brazil faced a crisis in 2002 when confidence in the markets evaporated due to the uncertainty wrought by the election of leftist candidate Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva.
| Fixing BoA (https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQP-ABXlZwjAjo83B836RTE8WFTWcqHe4dbxtra9FvquZ43w2Ls) |
In the time since the massive bailout disaster brought the worst financial crisis in America since The Great Depression, attempts have been made to make sure it never happens again. One such attempt was the enaction in of the Dodd-Frank Bill, which seeks to regulate financial services to prevent future mass failures. But as with anything passed in congress only time will tell how effective it will actually be.
What we can count on is that problems in the economy will become more apparent in election years. In his article Ip's predicts some of the political showmanship on display in the current presidential race, such as how the nation will pay down its debt. Ip posits that the Republican nominee will assault Barack Obama's fiscal record, while Obama will blame that record on the mess he inherited from George W. Bush. Ip's prediction that I see being born out today is that both candidates talk about the importance of better managing our nations debt, while not being specific about how.
| Who will the markets like better? (https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ4DAHiQdEjApCaAzEu1AoQ24epCy679tIT5YdYbXYPv_tIw9IWfg) |
The big question seems to be how confident will investors feel this election year. In 2008 investors pulled their money out of the market rather than face the uncertainty of an Obama or McCain administration. We will have to wait and see how the market reacts to the prospects of future economic policies of an Obama or Romney administration.
| A headline from the 2008 election fueled crisis (https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRSiVuc0r0AqLeU8hKb8bux30EH29yUqEYEdEXoZSf_uvUw95-G) |
All told economics is a fluid science. As Ip's say's at the end of his article if the market continues to give us the benefit of the doubt this election year and continues to grow, it will only be a matter of time till election year pressure creates another crisis.
Tuesday, October 9, 2012
Lying is wrong...Except when it's right
By analyzing the different strategies inherent in communication we can better understand our reading, writing and conversations. Lying is a huge part of how people communicate.
"A man who won't lie to a woman has very little consideration for her feelings." Bergen Evans
A college education that taught communication skills but completely omitting lying and deception would be very incomplete. Lying may be popularly frowned upon, however, how good would a lawyer or politician be without thinking and analyzing the elements inherent in lying. If we are to present a persuasive argument we need to focus attention on subjects of our choosing. The construction of solid arguments inherently involves using techniques of omission and deflection. These techniques provide focus to conversation and allow the author to decide the path the argument takes. By being aware of these elements we can read and write much more effectively and critically.
For better or worse being an adult in American society requires communicating for different purposes and audiences. To accomplish different goals of communication we must employ different strategies. It is important to recognize that many of the preeminent strategies used in persuasion fall under the category of lying to get your way. You may be a husband trying to spare your spouses feelings, or a parent trying to allow kids to be kids, or a politician trying to be the leader of a country. The ability to effectively do any of these things involves using effective communication strategies, many of which are categorically lies. That is the world we live in, and I see lying as a way technique of both being persuasive and making life more interesting
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
On Colby's Frontier
Dissolving a Parliament
You gave an interesting opener about timelessness that wanted me to read more about your subject. I wondered how you would present the information with timelessness in mind.
You gave great examples to support your claim that election times are linked to economic uncertainty. I especially appreciated that you mentioned different parts of the world.
This brings me to a couple of questions. When you said 'Markets enjoy predictability...' it seems that you needed to clarify that a little bit better than following it with '...and few things are scarier than a new administration.' It seems to me that there is a gap of information there.
And lastly, I did not get a sense of your response to the information that you gave. I would like to know how you feel about the matter."
I really enjoyed seeing how other writers in the class tackled their subjects. I really enjoyed the comments I got on my work. I got a lot of food for thought for future writing.