Kidney Bean Salad with Mediterranean Dressing

Prep and Cook Time: 15 minutes

Salad Ingredients:
1 ear of raw corn kernels
1/4 cup minced red onion
1 15oz can kidney beans, rinsed and drained
1 medium tomato, chopped
2 TBS fresh parsley or cilantro, minced

Mediterranean Dressing Ingredients:
4-5 cloves garlic, chopped or pressed
1 cup extra virgin olive oil
1/3 cup fresh lemon juice
sea salt and pepper to taste

Directions:
Combine all ingredients and toss with 1/2 cup Mediterranean Dressing.

Mediterranean Dressing Directions:
Press garlic and let it sit for 5 minutes.
Whisk together the lemon juice, garlic, sea salt, and pepper.
Slowly pour the extra virgin olive oil into the mixture while whisking constantly. The more slowly you pour and the faster you whisk, the thicker and creamier the dressing will be.
The dressing will store in the refrigerator for up to 10 days. It will solidify so you will need to bring it back to room temperature before using.

Recipe By:  Tea Perron
Taken From "The Good Witch's Farm House Kitchen Facebook Page"

Natural Remedies for Common Childhood Ailments

For a parent, your child's health is at the top of the list of importance! We feed them health foods, make sure they get their exorcize and teach them to wash their hands. But eventually, everyone gets sick, and what we do when our child is sick can affect them greatly.

Many parents automatically reach for the medicine cabinet when their kids are sick. But the truth about what is in many of those medications has led even the FDA & CDC to force companies to raise the recommended age or remove them from selves altogether. More and more companies are producing what they call "natural" medications, by cutting out artificial colors and flavors, but the truth is, these still aren't very "natural" or healthy.

In fact, rather than making your child better, most over the counter medications work against their immune system and can make the illness last longer. This is because the medications stop the symptoms from happening, rather than using them to fight off illness - which is their purpose. Natural medications will aid the bodies natural functions and enable it to fight off illness or infection faster!

Here are SOME natural options for treatment of illness or infection in children or yourself.

Cough & Congestion:

• Saline drops or Netty Pot
• Eucalyptus Oil (add to boiling water as a steam, add to warm bath or use as a rub)
• Lemon juice & Water
• Honey
• Avoid Bananas, Dairy & Bread

Sore Throat

• Tea Tree Oil & Water
• Hot/Warm Tea & Honey
• Horseradish (also good for upper respiratory infections)
• Myrrh (also acts as an expectorant and decongestant)
• Oregano Oil
• Fresh Cabbage Laid Across Neck and Throat

Boost Immunity for Shortened Duration

• Vitamin D3
• Vitamin C
• Reduce Sugar Intake
• Increase High Anti-Oxidant Fruits & Vegetables
• Echinacea
• Garlic
• Zinc
• Turmeric
• Probiotics

Fever

• Drink Plenty of Fluids
• Rest
• Cool Bath
• Cool Compress

Stomach Problems & Colic

• Ginger
• Probiotics
• "Gripe Water"

Ear Aches

• Drops of Garlic or Olive Oil in the Ear

Diaper Rash

• Fresh Air – Diaper Free is the way to be! 
• Coconut Oil (works as a Moisture Barrier)
• Corn Starch (helps absorb moisture)
• Tea Tree Oil

What was in my Blissmobox?

So I introduced you to the Blissmobox in a past post and I wanted to update you on what was in it. So here goes...

I got the "Night Lovin'" box, so all of these products are for couples...


AFTERGLOW Candle
http://www.jimmyjane.com/

JimmyJane AFTERGLOW Massage Oil Candle - Light these candles for the scent and light... Then blow out the flame and enjoy a luxuriant body temperature massage oil.

Oil is Paraben, Phthalates, and Sulfate free. Plus contains to animal products or petrochemicals.

GOOD CLEAN LOVE Organic Personal Lubricanthttp://www.goodcleanlove.com/


This vegan personal lubricant is 100% free of parabens, glycerin and petrochemicals. It's ingredients are completely natural, edible and cruelty-free!

Safe for latex condoms, toys and use through pregnancy.

Non-Sticky

GLYDE Condomshttp://www.glyde-condoms.com


The only condoms registered with the Vegan Society, PETA and Ethiquette! Made completely with plant-based ingredients- including natural rubber latex and thistle extract. Never tested on animals and containing no animal byproducts.

Ultra-thin & sleek for maximum sensation and sheer protection!

St.Claire's Organics Raspberry Candyhttp://www.stclaires.com


Made in the USA. Certified Organic Breath mints!

100% vegetarian & gluten-free! Plus, they taste awesome!

Can't wait for next months box! 

*If you decide to join, please use me as a referral! My referring Email is SabrinaMBowen@gmail.com By doing so you'll get a discounted member rate!

Reading Labels

Recently I read an article about how many "Green" products really aren't. And it reminded me of a story, which I felt I needed to share here. When I first started trying to switch over to a greener more eco-friendly lifestyle I found it to be not quite as easy as I first thought. One of the first thing I switched was our dish detergent, because it made sense to be a good place to start - I mean, why put all those extra chemicals on the dishes we were going to put out food on? So, that's where I decided to start.

I was super excited to see that there were a number of name brand companies making products labeled "Green," "Natural" or "Eco-Friendly." So, the next time I was at the store I picked one up and put it in the buggy... I didn't ever think to read the label. Why would I? I saw words like "All Natural" and "Eco-Friendly" right on the label, why would I have cause to think it wasn't really so green?

So, anyways, I got home, put away  the groceries and started to load the dishwasher. I unscrewed the lid and pulled back the foil so I could fill the machine. When I did I splashed some of the product on my hand and shirt, which of course, was brand new & black (figures right?).  At the time I didn't think anything of it. I figured I would finish loading the dishes, and then go clean up my hands and shirt, no big deal... Well, I was wrong! I finished up the dishes and went to clean up...

Now, I am HIGHLY allergic to Chlorine, but this was supposed to be a natural and green product, why would I worry about Chlorine? Well, I should have! Not only was my shirt (you know the brand new black one) ruined, but my hand had broken out in an allergic rash. At that point, I went to read the label.  Let me just say, this was FAR from Green or Eco-Friendly!

It was at that point that I started to do some more homework about what it means to be a green or eco-friendly product. As I learned there is really no guidelines or rules which are required to be met in order to label something as green, all natural or eco-friendly. These terms are literally free for companies to use, regardless of how truthful the statement is. What I found was many companies replace one or two chemicals with a more natural option and then call the entire product green, while not actually creating a product which is eco-friendly...

What I found to be even more disturbing is that a growing number of companies are sprouting up claiming to have Green products, while masking their ingredients behind "code words" in an effort to trick customers in to purchasing their products - usually at a higher price than they could purchase similar products somewhere else.

It's for this reason that it's very important to read the labels to everything prior to purchasing. If you are looking to purchase a product online, request an ingredients list or copy of the label before ordering. IF a company refuses to provide you with these things, my advice is to look elsewhere for products which are more honest and open, a truly green company, has no reason to hide their ingredients.

It's also very important that you actually know what you're looking for. While it's obvious that ingredients like Chlorine, Ammonia or Benzine are toxic you may not know about others. A good rule of thumb is if you can't pronounce it, don't use it! If you have questions about an ingredient in something, take 30 seconds to run an internet search on it, you'll easily get an answer. However, it's these "code words" which are in my opinion more dangerous than the unpronounceable chemical names, because many people look them over without really questioning what they need. Words such as "Fragrance," "Preservative," "Cleaning or Brightening Agent" or "Stabilizers" should be looked at as higher questionable. These terms usually replace the names of chemicals (you know, those unpronounceable ones) that are far from Eco-Friendly and can in fact be very dangerous.

You'll find that the vast majority of things labeled as green, really aren't. For me, I've gotten to the point where purchasing "green" products means cleaning with Vinegar and Baking Soda, and using products like Crisco and Corn Starch on my children... I'm still mastering making things like soap, shampoo and dishwasher detergent, so for these I do my best to buy what I call "greener" products. By greener I mean, not completely eco-friendly, but greener than your average option. Once I master making my own, I'll stop using these options all together. In some future posts I will post some "how too" information for making your own stuff... A good rule of thumb when making your own products is if you can't eat it don't use it... Please notice (it's sad I have to say this) I said CAN'T not, WON'T, simply because something CAN be eaten, doesn't mean it should be...

Cosmetics

Taking care of ourselves and taking care of the earth go hand in hand. For everything we put in or on our bodies eventually gets in to the water and earth around us. And in many cases how it got on or in our bodies has also affected out earth...

A vast many women I know include at least a basic skin care regime in their day at one point or another. The majority of them also include products such as foundation, lipstick, nail polish and mascara, among other things, in their day to day look. What the majority of them are NOT doing is making sure that these products they are putting on their skin is health and safe, for both them and the environment. In fact most women don't ever even think to read the ingredients lists in the products they use every day. What this means is they are repeatedly covering their skin, their eyes, their lips and their hands in chemicals they don't even know are there...

Now, it would be humanly impossible for me to list, or for you to read, every single brand, type and style of cosmetics out there... Seriously, I would never stop typing and I would still never list them all... But what I can do is give you the ingredients to watch out for and avoid...

Here are just a few of those COMMON ingredients and why you should avoid them:

1. PHTHALATES / FRAGRANCE - Phthalates are estrogen-mimickers that wreak havoc on the endocrine system in the human body and cause unwelcome hormonal effects. They are found in “fragrance” and nail polish. In Europe three phthalates- DEHP, DBP and BBP- are banned for use in cosmetics and in all toys and childcare articles. “Fragrance” is unregulated and can indicate the presence of up to four thousand different ingredients, many of which can be toxic or carcinogenic. Clinical observation proves fragrances can affect the central nervous system, causing depression, hyperactivity and irritability. Forms of “fragrance” are in the majority of personal care products such as perfume, moisturizers, soap, shampoos and candles.
   
   **Looks like this on a label: DEHP, DBP, BBP, DINP, DIDP, DNOP.
   
   
2. PROPYLENE GLYCOL - Is related to anti-freeze and is a derivative of petroleum. It is the second most common ingredient in moisturizers, aside from water. It’s linked to liver abnormalities and kidney damage, and is also a skin and eye irritant. It is found in sunscreens, moisturizers, baby lotion, antiperspirants and deodorants and shaving products.
   
   **Looks like this on a label: Propylene Glycol, Proptylene Glycol, 1,2-Propanediol. Related synthetics: PEG (polyethylene glycol) and PPG (polypropylene glycol).
   
   
3. FORMALDEHYDE - Often referred to as “formalin,” is used as a preservative and has been linked to cancer, developmental and reproductive problems and asthma. It is primarily used in nail polishes, shampoos and bleach. It has been banned in Japan and Sweden.
   
   **Looks like this on a label: formaldehyde, formalin, formic aldehyde, oxomethane, oxymethylene.
   
   
4. HYDROQUINONE – Is used as an active ingredient in over-the-counter products such as skin lighteners, hair bleaches, concealers, facial cleansers and sunscreens with SPF 15 or higher. It is related to cancer, neurotoxicity, endocrine disruption and developmental and reproductive toxicity.
   
   **Looks like this on a label: 1,4-Benzenediol, 1,4-Dihydroxybenzene, P-Dioxybenzene,  4-Hydroxyphenol, P-Hydroxyphenol,1,4Benzenediol.
   
   
5. PETROLATUM/PETROLEUM - Although difficult to spot because of its many aliases, it’s most commonly known as petroleum jelly. It is a fossil fuel that is broken down into smaller components, which contain hydrocarbons, and is a common ingredient in beauty products. It can be found in moisturizers, conditioners, wax depilatories, baby creams and makeup. Petroleum derivatives have been linked to cancer, developmental and reproductive damage, immune system toxicity, endocrine disruption and neurotoxicity. It is banned in Europe.
   
   **Looks like this on a label: petrolatum, petroleum jelly, trioxaundecanedioi acid, toluene, 4-amino-2-hydroxytuolene, BHA.
   
   
6. MERCURY - Is a controversial ingredient that causes damage to the brain and is blamed for autism related symptoms in children. It is most commonly found in eye products like mascara.
   
   **Looks like this on a label: mercurous chloride, thimerosal.
   
7. MINERAL OIL - Is a petroleum derivative that has the same origins as fossil fuels. It’s an ingredient in foundations, lipsticks, lotions and makeup removers. It has been linked to a variety of things, from clogged pores to cancer. It does not allow the skin to breathe.
   
   **Looks like this on a label: liquidum paraffinum, paraffin oil, paraffin wax.
   
   
8. LEAD - In 1978 it was banned from paint due to the dangers it causes to the body. It can affect almost every organ and system in the body. It can cause anemia, an increase in blood pressure and it can damage the brain and kidneys. Somehow traces of it can still be found in hair dye and red lipsticks.
   
   **Although lead should be labeled in some form or fashion, it is not. Therefore, look for products labeled “Lead-free!”
   
   
9. COLORANTS/SYNTHETIC COLORS - Used to create make-up shades and colors, these colorants are found in countless makeup and beauty products and are listed on labels as “FD&C” or “D&C” colors. Most colorants actually are regulated by the FDA, however, most are derived from coal tar, which has been linked to cause cancer.
   
   **Looks like this on a label: D&C, FD&C.
   
   
10. SODIUM LAURYL SULFATE / SODIUM LAURETH SULFATE - Often found together in products acting as a foaming agent. It is a detergent which has been found to enter the brain, heart and liver and impairs the immune system. It also causes eye irritations and skin rashes. When mixed with other chemicals found in toiletries it can form carcinogenic (cancer-causing) compounds. It can be found in shampoos, conditioners, soaps and toothpastes.
    
    **Looks like this on a label: Sodium Laureth Sulfate, Sodium Lauryl Sulfate, Sodium Lauryl Ether Sulfate, Anhydrous Sodium Lauryl Sulfate, Irium, SLS, SLES, MSDS, ALES, ALS.
    

Now that you're ready to go rummage through your bathroom, purse and possibly that Caboodles Case I know you still have, there IS a light at the end of this tunnel. More and more companies have opted to offer Green or at the very least GreenER options, knowing that women don't find cancer a decent trade off for nicer skin. And there is even a way to check out all your favorite products and discover how safe they truly are.

Skin Deep is a Cosmetic Safety Review company which will not only allow you to find out what is in the products you use today, but give you similar products which you may want to try. Ingredients for products are listed as well as the dangers which they may carry.

Once you have discovered which of your products you need to throw out the window, or at the very least avoid buying again. It's worth noting at least a few companies which have taken the idea of Green Cosmetics and run with them. Thanks to the internet finding these companies is easier than you would think... Here are some sites worth checking out in order to find such companies - some of these you can simply order from others are review sites, but together you will be able to find the products YOU need and know that they aren't going to kill you in the process!

• EcoBusinessLinks: Cosmetics 
• Certified Green Cosmetics Organization
• SkinBotanica - Shop Here
• BurtsBees - Shop Here
• T'ea Maria - Shop Here
• Coastal Classic Creations - Shop Here
• Earth Mama Angel Baby - Shop Here **I LOVE this company!

There are lots of other companies out there, these are just a few, and many of these you can find locally or on sites like MotherNature.com or even on sites like Amazon.  As the demand for green cosmetics grows we will see them sold locally and more readily more and more. It may seem impossible to completely avoid products which are less than green and still get the results, colors and fragrances you love, but truly with a small amount of leg work it's not. And if you decide you would prefer to use the products you know and love, that's okay too... But it's always good to know there are other options out there!

Have a favorite Green or Organic Cosmetic company or product? Leave us a comment and tell us about it!

Aunt Flow

**Okay, so disclaimer here - if you are a man, chances are this isn't the blog you really want to read! I'm going to talk periods and the "green options" to deal with them.**

Now, if you made it past the disclaimer, I'm not one to mince words, so don't expect to see all those cutesy words we use to describe what's going on... I hate that stuff and just can't bring myself to do it. However, I'm not here to give you a biology lesson either, if you don't understand what's going on, pick up a fourth grade health book. On the other hand, I am here to educate you on how to keep it clean and green!

So lets start by first discussing the environmental damage associated with millions of women all over the "civilized world" menstruating month after month, year after year...  According to the new book Flow: The Cultural Story of Menstruation, the average woman throws away 250 to 300 pounds of "pads, plugs, and applicators" in her lifetime. Now, lets add up all the women in the US, Canada, Europe and all around the world, the numbers are horrifyingly staggering! We are talking Trillions and Trillions of pounds of trash!

Looking beyond the amount of trash that this is creating, lets take a look at the dangers to YOU that the average cycle comes with when we use these products...

Tampons:  If open a box of Tampons and pull that little piece of paper out you'll find a LIST of chemicals and "risks" listed... Chlorine Bleach and Synthetic Fibers are both linked to a potentially deadly condition called Toxic Shock Syndrome (TSS). In addition many women have developed allergies to one or more of the chemicals in tampons resulting in health complications and again, death is even a risk... In addition to Chlorine, the average Tampon contains dangerous pesticides, asbestos and others scary chemicals which ARE absorbed in to your body through use - prolonged use is even worse!

Then there is the dangers associated with bacterial growth inside tampons. There is NO WAY for you to clean a tampon before insertion, and frankly we are only taking the word of a multimillion dollar company that they are truly sterile. And the majority of tampons are in fact NOT sterile, easily leading to yeast and bacterial infections. - Although rare, it does happen.

As if that weren't enough, the drying affect that the cotton and other fibers in Tampons can cause irritation, swelling, and tears in the fragile tissues of your vagina. Not fun!

Sanitary Pads and Liners:  As with Tampons, Pads & Liners are full of chemicals. Although they are not placed inside the body the way a Tampon is, Pads & Liners are placed right next to the skin and worn for days and days, allowing the body to absorb all those same chemicals - in addition to a few new ones!  While TSS is normally only associated with Tampon use, the fine print on any Maxi Pad box clearly states there is one.

And as with those chemicals in Tampons there is a risk of cancer, infection, and, yes, even death associated with Pads & Liners...  The lack of breathablity in the materials also leads to irritation, ingrown hairs, external bacterial infections, sores and what I call "pad rash" which is really diaper rash, just from a pad. I mean, really, which of us hasn't experienced discomfort, itch and soreness from our maxi?

Blood Hazard: When you are at the doctor or in a hospital, blood, blood products and everything that comes with it is considered to be, and treated as Bio-hazard materials because of the dangers that come with contact with blood. In NO WAY should that change! And in no way are YOU at risk simply by tossing your blood soaked disposables in to the trash. BUT, once they leave your home, where do they go? How many people or animals are coming in contact with those "bio-hazard" materials? And something more to think about, although it's not generally dangerous for YOU to come in contact with your own blood, how do you feel about coming in contact with someone elses?

When you dispose of these "disposable" products not only are those bio materials sitting in a landfill for literally HUNDREDS of years, but they are being handled by trash workers, and picked through by animals potentially affecting their lives and putting them and even their families in danger. In addition to the dangers to those who come directly in contact with these materials there is the added danger to those who come in "indirect" contact as well.

Economical Impact:  I have always been a fan of Dollar Stores, but even there, most packages of Tampons, Pads or Liners are going to cost you $10-$15 a month... Over the course of a woman's lifetime that's a cost of between $4500 and $6800. And if you're one of those women who prefers a "brand name" you could easily be spending a great deal more.


Now, lets talk about greener, healthier alternatives...

I'll admit, until a year or so ago, this was all unknown territory for me. I used the same Pads and Tampons that everyone else does and never knew there was another option. In fact, I remember asking my grandmother one time what they used when she was young, because I didn't understand how this stuff could be dealt with without disposable pads and tampons. Sadly, when I was younger, I was addicted to tampons, and now, I have developed an allergy which prevents me from using them in any way, it's also led to my having to cut back on some non-menstrual products due to the build up of chemicals in my system, so it has affected my life beyond the period!

It was after the birth of my second child that I discovered there were other options available to us today. And now, I will frankly never go any other route!

Menstrual Cups:  A menstrual cup is a type of cup or barrier worn inside the vagina during menstruation to collect menstrual fluid. Unlike tampons and pads, the cup collects menstrual fluid rather than absorbing it.

There are two types of menstrual cup currently available.
The first is a soft, flexible, disposable cup made of polyethylene and resembles the contraceptive diaphragm. However, it is important to not that these are NOT contraceptive devices and do NOT protect against pregnancy or STDs. Unlike traditional options, these cups are able to be worn up to 12 hours without needing changed and most women will use quite a few less cups than they do tampons or pads.

The second type is a bell-shaped cup made of rubber (latex), silicone or thermoplastic elastomer (TPE). It is reusable and designed to last for up to 10 years. Some brands recommend replacement each year, 5–10 years or state that women have been comfortable using them up to 10 years.

 The benefits which come with this second type are endless! You are NOT absorbing chemicals, there is NO unnatural  or synthetic fibers and the CAN be sanitized and washed so there is no need to worry about foreign bacterial infections, irritation or poisoning. In addition they are easy to empty and care for while you're using the bathroom and don't require any extra care on a day to day basis. No "extra" supplies either! And because they are able to be used for 5-10 years at a time without wearing out the cost is extremely lower than that of a month by month purchase of tampons. On average Menstrual cups cost between $25 and $30 and even should you choose to replace them yearly, that's an obvious savings over other options!

Cloth Pads & Liners:  Before the idea of a disposable maxi pad was ever even thought of, women used cloth. These cloth pads of the path were more along the lines of a folded wash rag or cloth diaper that you shoved in your pants... Very uncomfortable, not very sanitary, as they moved around and leaked easily, and thankfully, women didn't try to wear tight pants back then cause I can't imagine the bulging issues!

Today however, these issues aren't issues! Today's cloth pads are super absorbent, easy to change, wrap all the way around your panties so there is no shifting or moving and no more leaking than your average disposable. The ONLY real difference is instead of taking them off and tossing them in the trash, you're washing them out and reusing them. As more and more people are discovering with cloth diapers, this isn't at all as difficult as it sounds. Simply remove your used cloth pad, place in a cold water soak, or rinse out by hand, and wash with your normal laundry... I prefer to do a small load with all my undies, pads, bras and anything else that isn't going to get fabric softener or bleach. Beyond that, nothing special. If you happen to be out and have a need to change your pad - NOT an issue! Simply wrap your soiled pad up and place in your "wet bag" (which is a fluid proof pouch) and replace with a clean one, once you're home, care for as normal.

Again, cloth pads are basically chemical free besides any chemicals in the laundry soap YOU choose to use. Most are made with cotton, organic cotton or other natural materials and they come in all different colors, absorbencies, and sizes...

As with the menstrual cup, the difference in cost to you is immense! Cloth pads are usually made to last an average of 5 years, however I know many women who with care have used them for years beyond that...
On average your initial investment is going to seem quite pricey. But if you look at the long term savings, you are really making out!  I would say from what I have looked at you're going to have an investment of between $150 and $350 (depending on the line you choose) to equip you with everything you need...  Comparing that to that average of $120 a year for disposables, you can easily see how they pay for themselves!

Now, this is far from all the information, each company will have their own tips and tricks on usage and care for their products as well as differences in product styles, colors and whatever else. Make sure that you take your time and look through your options before making a large investment. Most companies have "sample" packs to allow you to try their products at a lower cost to you...

Here are just a few of the companies, if you run a search I'm sure you'll find many more!

Menstrual Cup:

• Diva Cup
• MiaCup
• MoonCup
• Lunette Cup

Cloth Pads & Liners

• Luna Pads
• Glad Pads
• NewMoonPads
• Sckoon

You'll find that many of these companies have BOTH options available to you, so make sure to compare prices and make sure to check places like Amazon as well for the best price available.

Wipe Solution Recipes

    I have never believed in the "one size fits all" myth, and that goes for wipe solutions as well. Some parents will prefer to just use water, while others will prefer more bells and whistles. I suggest trying out a few and seeing what you like best. I'll be adding to this list as I find more recipes, and I would love to hear yours if you have them! These solutions are cloth safe and even better, face and finger safe!

Common Cloth Wipe Solution Recipe Ingredients:
    Most of the recipes below, as well as others you'll find, will contain many of the same or even similar ingredients. Before you decide to make your own solution, it's best to know why you're using these things, so here are some common ones:

Oil:  Helps the wipe glide across baby's skin and keeps skin soft
Soap:  Cleanses by removing all traces of urine and feces
Essential Oil:  Added for antibacterial and/or aromatherapy purposes.
Water:  The main ingredient in each recipe, cleanses the diaper area and dilutes the other ingredients

    Each ingredient is going to add it's own "personality" to the solution and each can come with pros and cons. I'm a fan of using a single solution for at least a few days without using any others, this way SHOULD your child have an allergy to an ingredient, it's much easier to understand which one. Even though most of these options are chemical free or close to it, there can still be allergens in them. For people like me, Essential Oils can be a BIG problem! And for others it could be an oil ingredient or something else. So try not to mix them until you know that there is no reaction...

**I wish I didn't have to say this, but please keep all wipe solution ingredients away from your child. You may not think that these everyday products can be dangerous, but some infants have suffered respiratory problems after aspirating baby oil. And remember, it takes less than a Table Spoon of water to drown an infant... So be safe, not sorry!

    When it comes to actually creating your solution, I prefer to start with water and add from there. Otherwise your bowl/bottle and tools can become coated in oil or soap and less will actually end up in your final solution.

I suggest using bottled water and not tap, although tap will work. The reason here is because tap water can contain all kinds of things from softeners to high levels of Chlorine, which will settle as it sits. Also, you'll want to make small batches - maybe once a week - to avoid mildew or mustiness.

Cloth Wipe Solution Recipes

Almond 'n' Chamomile
 *2 chamomile tea bags
 *2 teaspoons almond oil
 *2 cups hot water
Steep the tea bags in the hot water then add the oil.

Anti-Fungal
 *1/4 cup white vinegar *1 tablespoon calendula oil
 *A few drops lavender oil
 *A few drops tea tree oil
 *1/4 cup 100% aloe vera gel
 *1 cup water
Omit vinegar if baby has a raw rash.

Anti-Fungal Too
Similar to the other anti-fungal recipe, but less vinegar and water.
 *1 teaspoon white vinegar
 *1 tablespoon calendula oil
 *A few drops lavender oil
 *A few drops tea tree oil
 *1/4 cup 100% aloe vera gel
 *1/2 cup water
 
Basic Wipe Solution
This basic recipe can be adapted by changing the type of soap or oil.
 *1/2 cup baby oil
 *1/2 cup baby wash
 *2 cups water

Castile Solution
Dr. Bronner's Castile Soap comes in several yummy scents!
 *1 tablespoon almond, apricot, or other oil
 *1 tablespoon Dr Bronner's Liquid Castile Soap
 *2 drops tea tree oil
 *1 drop lavender oil
 *1 cup water

Chamomile 'n' Honey
 *1 chamomile tea bag
 *1 teaspoon honey
 *1 cup boiling water
Brew the tea, add the honey, and drink any leftovers!

Easy Peasy
 *2 tablespoons oil
 *2 tablespoons baby wash
 *1 1/2 cups water

Eight is Great
Similar ingredients as other recipes, but in different amounts.
 *1/8 cup vegetable oil
 *1/8 cup baby wash
 *8 drops lavender oil
 *4 drops tea tree oil
 *2 cups water

Essential Oil Solution
With three different EOs contributing their unique properties...
 *4 cups water warmed in microwave
 *2-4 drops Tea Tree Oil
 *2-4 drops Lavender Essential Oi1
 *1 Tablespoon Grapeseed Oil
 *1 Tablespoon Calendula Oil
 *2 Tablespoon Baby Wash

Fruit 'n' Veggie
 *1 teaspoon fruit-based oil (apricot, olive, grapeseed, etc)
 *1 tablespoon vegetable-based soap (like Dr. Bronner's liquid castile)
 *1 teaspoon 100% aloe vera gel
 *1 cup water

Just One
 *1 chamomile tea bag
 *1 teaspoon oil
 *1 teaspoon baby bath or shampoo
 *1 drop lavender oil
 *1 cup hot water

Lavender 'n' Tea Tree
Very Popular
 *1/8 cup olive oil
 *1 tablespoon baby shampoo
 *4 drops tea tree oil
 *8 drops lavender oil
 *3 cups water

No Measuring
Don't measure for this one, just estimate amounts.
 *2 squirts baby oil
 *2 squirts baby wash
 *1 drop Essential Oil of your choice
 *1 cup water (about)

Olive 'n' Tea Tree
 *1/4 cup olive oil
 *1/8 cup gentle baby bath
 *A few drops tea tree oil
 *4 cups water

Soapless
 *1-2 drops tea tree oil
 *1-2 drops lavender oil
 *1 cup water
**Use caution with this recipe as we've been told some children may develop a rash since the essential oils aren't dissolved in a carrier oil.

Witch Hazel Solution
 *1 cup witch hazel
 *1/2 cup aloe vera juice
 *1 tablespoon olive oil
 *1 teaspoon white vinegar
 
Zany Apricot Solution
 *1 tablespoon apricot oil
 *1 tablespoon unscented baby wash
 *3 cups water

Zany Lavender Solution
 *1 tablespoon baby oil
 *1 tablespoon lavender scented baby wash
 *2-3 drops lavender oil
 *3 cups water

 More Notes!
    If you're trying to go natural or chemical free, you will want to make sure that you are NOT using the regular Baby Soaps, Shampoos, Body Oils or Washes. Many of these contain Mineral Oil, which is a Bi-Product of Petroleum. Look for Natural or Organic baby options on Amazon, Natural Parenting Shops or Whole Foods Companies. 

     Dr. Bronner's Soap can be found on and off line through natural product shops, Amazon or Whole Foods...

Why Use Cloth Wipes

If you’re considering cloth diapers, or already using them, or simply looking for more information, cloth wipes are a great option...

Why Use Cloth Wipes?

     Most parents who choose cloth wipes for many of the same reasons as they do cloth diapers. They obviously use much less waste. Even if you only use wipes for poops and first thing in the morning you're still looking at Six to Eight THOUSAND (or more) wipes over the average baby's diaper days! Even if you buy the cheap dollar store wipes, that adds up BIG TIME. Do you really want to add another 6000 pieces of trash to your local landfill? And speaking of 6000-8000 wipes, do you really need me to do the math to show you how much all that costs over time?


    Cloth Wipes, like cloth diapers, are also Chemical Free! Disposable wipes have lots of unpronouncable ingredients in them - like Methylisothiazolinone and Disodium Cocoamphodiacetate and Gods only know what else... I figure it this way, if I can't say it, it shouldn't be something I soak my baby's bottom in.


    As if the cost, waste level and lack of chemicals weren't enough, cloth simply cleans better! If there is a parent out there who enjoys fishing for another wipe with one hand while a poop covered baby is trying to roll off the table, I can see why using less wouldn't be a plus. But for the rest of us who simply want to get our kid cleaned and covered, cloth wipes soak up the moisture and collect the "solids" much better than any disposable wipe I've ever tried!

Buying or Making Cloth Wipes
    You have two options when it comes to cloth wipes. You have the option to buy them or you can make them. Which ever you choose to I recommend having between two and three dozen on hand. 

Buying wipes:
    Obviously buying wipes takes less work, more money, but less work. There are lots of brands that sell Cloth Wipes for around $1 or so each. You can also buy home made versions from places like Etsy or other home made sites. You can also go the route of just buying baby wash clothes and using those.

Making wipes:
    If you decide to make your own wipes, it's really really easy! Choose your fabric, cut to size, sew... With this option you will have even more control over what types of cloth are used, how big they are and the overall look of the wipe.

Some common fabric choices for cloth wipes include:
- Flannel wipes: Old flannel sheets or stained receiving blankets can have a new life as wipes.
- Terry cloth: Some crafty mamas turn old towels into cloth wipes. Others use a soft fabric called “baby terry,” available at fabric stores.
- Cotton or Bamboo Velour
- Cotton or Bamboo Fleece
- Mixed fabric: Terry cloth on one side; flannel on the other.

How to Use Cloth Wipes
    Disposable wipes always come pre-moistened in a sealed container. Just open the package, pull one out and wipe. But cloth wipes obviously aren't pre-wet. So lots of parents have questions about how to use them. Well, you have options - once again. You can keep them wet like disposables, or you can leave them dry til it's time to use... 

Dry Wipes:
    I prefer to keep them dry til I use them when I'm packing them togo. It's just easier. But even at home you can use this method. Dry wipes are going to be a little easier to store because you can simply toss them in the drawer with the baby clothes or diapers or on a shelf in the bathroom.  As long as they are within reach when it's time to change, it really doesn't matter how or where you store them.

If you keep them dry, you'll also want to keep a spray or peri bottle on hand with a "cleaning solution" near by. (Peri bottles are the ones they give you in the hospital to keep yourself clean.) Other options are a "sport top" bottle or even a small screw top bottle. From the parents I have spoken with it seems like Peri bottles are the most popular. But honestly, I like to have both peri bottle (for poops) and a "body spray" style bottle for times when I don't need so much moisture (wets or face wipes). But since bottles tend to either be free (like the ones they give you or left over from your spray) or very cheap (if you buy them at a dollar store) I say give a few options a try til you find what works best for you! Whichever bottle you decide you like best, you can either went the baby or the cloth. To me, if you're using a peri or sports bottle, wetting the wipe is less messy. BUT, if you're using a spray bottle spraying the bottle seems to work best.

Wet Wipes: 
    Should you choose to keep the wipes pre-wet I suggest only wetting a day or so in advance. This will keep them from getting "funky" and help to keep them from drying up. If you have a disposable wipes box around, those are great for keeping your new cloth ones in. If not, any seal-able water tight container will work... I like old wipe boxes because they are the easiest to get in to. Just make sure whatever you choose, that you can both seal it up so it doesn't leak or dry and that you can open it easily. A screw top might not be a good option when your baby is freaking out and you have one arm free...

But what do you wet them with?    Well once again, we have some options... Some parents prefer to just use water, others prefer a "solution." If you decide on a solution, you can buy or make your own. I'll be posting some "solution" recommendations and recipes in a later post, but here are some suggestions of things you could simply add to water (a few drops) and use without any real "recipe." I find it better to make your own, again, this gives you COMPLETE control over what is going on your babies skin. And allows you to catch any allergies your baby may have. But one thing to keep in mind is to make sure you're using a solution which won't harm your diapers (if you use cloth).


Things you may choose to add to water:- Baby soap (Be sure to use something that is chemically safe like Burt's Bees, California Baby, Earth Mama Angel Baby, etc.)
- Essential oil (such as lavender essential oil)
- Tea tree oil (helps with diaper rash, but also said to be bad for little boys and CAN BE an allergen)
- Olive oil
- Baby oil, such as Burt’s Bees apricot baby oil
- Grapefruit seed extract

Washing Cloth Wipes
Most parents who use cloth wipes use cloth diapers. If you’re in that boat, cleanup is a breeze – just wrap the dirty wipe up in the dirty cloth diaper, and toss it all in the wash together

However, you can use cloth wipes even if you use disposable diapers. You’ll want a wet bag or separate diaper trashcan just for the wipes. Then toss a load of wipes in the washer with your regular baby detergent.

   Our Mother Earth, like any good mother, has given us, her children, absolutely everything we need to live a long healthy life - the Natural way. But we, again like normal children, haven't been quite as appreciative as we could be. So we've gotten further and further away from having a natural way of life.

   After 1500 years or so of destroying nature in the name of accomplishment, we are finally realizing that the only thing we are doing by destroying the earth and rejecting nature is killing ourselves. Diabetes, High Blood Pressure, Autism, Obesity, Cancer, Heart Disease, Fibromyalgia, ADHD and hundreds of other health conditions plague our society today, many of which are caused completely preventable and in some ways nearly curable, simply by living a more natural life.

    As if our health wasn't enough reason to change our life, what about the lives of our children? Our children and their children after them deserve the sky and more, and as adults, it's up to us to make sure they get it. We may have ruined much of the earth as we know it, but we still have the chance to save it for them!

   But wait, isn't going natural expensive and rough to do? You don't want to change your entire life.  Well, neither do I! If it's hard to do, expensive or not a fit in your life, chances are, you won't do it - and neither will I. So the focus here is to make our lives natural without costing more or hurting your lifestyle.

   Here, you will learn to live an entirely new, entirely natural, cost effective and healthy life! Welcome to your new life!

Airport X-Ray Machines: UPDATE

UPDATE: 18 January 2012 -

TSA workers to wear monitoring devices to test if scanners have dangerous levels of radiation

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2087419/TSA-workers-wear-monitoring-devices-test-scanners-dangerous-levels-radiation.html#ixzz1jlI8gmj4

17 May 2011 - 

Scientists Cast Doubt on TSA Tests of Full-Body Scanners

by Michael Grabell ProPublica, May 16, 2011, 2:11 p.m.
The Transportation Security Administration says its full-body X-ray scanners are safe and that radiation from a scan is equivalent to what's received in about two minutes of flying. The company that makes them says it's safer than eating a banana [1].
But some scientists with expertise in imaging and cancer say the evidence made public to support those claims is unreliable. And in a new letter [2] sent to White House science adviser John Holdren, they question why the TSA won't make the scanners available for independent testing by outside scientists.
The machines, which are designed to reveal objects hidden under clothing, have the potential to close a significant security gap for the TSA because metal detectors can't find explosives or ceramic knives, which can be just as sharp as the box cutters that hijackers used on 9/11.
They are also important for TSA's public relations battle over the alternative, the "enhanced pat-down," which has bred an epidemic of viral videos: A 6-year-old girl [3] is touched from head to toe. A former Miss USA [4] says she was violated. A software programmer warns a screener, "If you touch my junk [5], I'm going to have you arrested."
After the underwear bomber tried to blow up a Northwest Airlines plane on Christmas Day 2009, the TSA ramped up deployment of full-body scanners and plans to have them at nearly every security line by 2014.
There are two types of body scanners [6]. Millimeter wave machines emit a radio frequency similar to cellphones. Backscatters work like a fast-moving X-ray. In the latter, the rays bounce off the skin and create a fuzzy white image [7] of the passenger's body. Because the beam doesn't go through the body, most of its radiation is received by the skin.
The TSA says the backscatter technology has been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration [8], the National Institute for Standards and Technology [9] and the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory [10]. Survey teams are using radiation-detecting dosimeters to check the machines at airports. The TSA says the results have all confirmed that the scanners don't pose a significant risk to public health.
According to the agency and many radiation experts, the dose is so low, even for children or cancer patients, that someone would have to pass through the machines more than a thousand times before approaching the annual limit set by radiation safety organizations.
But the letter to the White House science adviser, signed by five professors at University of California, San Francisco, and one at Arizona State University, points out several flaws in the tests. Studies published in scientific journals in the last few months have also cast doubt on the radiation dose and the machines' ability to find explosives.
A number of scientists, including some who believe the radiation is trivial, say more testing should be done given the government's plans to put millions of passengers through the machines. And they have been disturbed by the TSA's reluctance to do so.
"There's no real data on these machines, and in fact, the best guess of the dose is much, much higher than certainly what the public thinks," said John Sedat, a professor emeritus in biochemistry and biophysics at UCSF and the primary author of the letter.
The same group stirred controversy last year when it sent a letter to Holdren [11] arguing that while the overall dose to the body may be low, the TSA hadn't quantified the dose to the skin. Last fall, FDA and TSA officials released a study [12] that estimated the dose to the skin to be twice the dose to the body, though still extremely low.
In the most recent letter sent to Holdren on April 28, the professors note that the Johns Hopkins lab didn't test an actual airport machine. Instead, the tests were done on a model built by the manufacturer, Rapiscan [13], and configured to resemble a system previously tested by the TSA.
The researchers' names have been kept secret, and the report on the tests is so "heavily redacted" that "there is no way to repeat any of these measurements," they wrote.
The physics and medical professors also took issue with the device used to measure the radiation. Although the device, known as an ion chamber, is commonly used to test medical equipment, they argue that the detector gets overwhelmed by the amount of radiation the backscatter deposits in a short time and might not provide accurate readings.
Helen Worth, a spokeswoman for the Johns Hopkins lab, referred questions to the TSA.
Part of the trouble is that there is no ideal device for measuring the radiation dose given by backscatter X-rays, said David Brenner, director of the Columbia University Center for Radiological Research. The machines emit a pencil beam that rapidly moves across and up and down the body, he said.
"We are one of the oldest and biggest radiological research centers in the country, and we find this to be a very hard technical problem," said Brenner, who was not involved with the letter.
Another issue is that there is a lot of uncertainty with the model used to estimate cancer risk from radiation exposure to the skin, said Rebecca Smith-Bindman, a UCSF radiologist who also was not involved in the letter.
Smith-Bindman, who has testified before Congress about excessive radiation from medical scans, studied the TSA reports and said she wasn't concerned about the airport X-rays.
The risks are "truly trivial," she wrote in an article [14] for the Archives of Internal Medicine. A passenger would have to undergo 50 airport scans to reach the level of a dental X-ray, 1,000 for a chest X-ray, and 4,000 for a mammogram.
Though imperfect, the available models predict that the backscatters would lead to only six cancers over the course of a lifetime among the approximately 100 million people who fly every year, Smith-Bindman concluded.
"There's really unnecessary fear related to these scans," she said. "What I'm not as comfortable with is that there has not been access to these machines. They are not being tested on the same regulatory basis that we see on medical equipment."
After her article was published, Smith-Bindman was contacted by a TSA public affairs officer. During the conversation, she suggested that she or other outside scientists be allowed to test the machine. The official was shocked by the suggestion and said such access could tip off people who want to avoid detection, Smith-Bindman said.
"It was not appreciating that there's legitimate scientific questions that have to be balanced against the security questions," she said.
The TSA did not respond to ProPublica's questions about why it wouldn't allow outside testing. But at a congressional hearing [15] in March, Robin Kane, assistant administrator for security technology, said doing so would expose a lot of sensitive information the agency wouldn't normally share publicly. The machines had already been tested several times, he said, and if set up securely, the agency would allow more testing.
The available information leaves scientists with little to work with. Peter Rez, the Arizona State physics professor who signed the letter to Holdren, has tried to calculate the radiation by examining the handful of backscatter images that have been released publicly.
The Electronic Privacy Information Center [16], a civil liberties group, sued the Department of Homeland Security, TSA's parent agency, in federal court seeking release of 2,000 backscatter images used in testing. But it has not been successful.
The few images that have been made public do not reveal faces or detailed private features. The TSA says the images Rez used are out of date, but Rez says the current image on TSA's website is unusable.
Using the earlier images, Rez concluded [17] in the Radiation Protection Dosimetry journal that it was highly unlikely the machines could have produced such high-quality images with doses of radiation as low as those described by TSA. He estimated the dose, while still very small, is 45 times higher than the results measured by Johns Hopkins.
Applying Rez's numbers, Brenner wrote a paper [18] for the journal Radiology, estimating that 100 additional cancers would develop for every 1 billion scans.
For Rez, the real danger occurs if the machine stops in the middle of a scan, allowing the beam to focus on a tiny area for several seconds. Given that the backscatter works with a wheel rotating at a high speed, and that the agency plans to use the scanners continuously 365 days a year, mechanical failures are likely, he said.
The TSA says that the scanners have safety systems, such as automatic shutoffs and emergency stop buttons, that will kill the beam in the event of any problem that could result in abnormal radiation. How those fail-safe systems work isn't entirely clear.
When Johns Hopkins researchers visited the Rapiscan facility, the automatic termination appeared to work. But the full results of the shutoff tests are redacted.
What's more, the test system didn't have an emergency stop button.

14 March 2011 -

The Transportation Security Administration announced Friday that it would retest every full-body X-ray scanner that emits ionizing radiation — 247 machines at 38 airports — after maintenance records on some of the devices showed radiation levels 10 times higher than expected. Complete article

Is there something that tells you this may be too little, too late?  Typical government approach.

21 December 2010 -  NO Proof Scanner Are Safe

If you believe the government, you have little to worry about from the radiation beam flitting over the front and back of your body in airport watchdogs' search for explosives and other hidden implements of terror this holiday season.


The Transportation Security Administration says that when working properly, the backscatter Advance Imaging Technology X-ray scanners emit an infinitesimal, virtually harmless amount of radiation.


The problem is that the TSA offers no proof that anyone is checking to see if the machines are "working properly."  Complete article

17 December - Leading Scientists Say Airport Full Body Scanners Easily Duped

by Fran Golden

Two respected scientists say they have discovered a flaw in airport full body scanners that could potentially allow terrorists to outsmart the machines.

In research published in the Journal of Transportation Security, physicists Leon Kaufman and Joseph W. Carlson of the University of California San Francisco say body scanner machines can easily be duped.


While the purpose of the scanners is to find contraband hidden on the body, some weapons and explosives would not be visible to the devices say the researchers, who are known for their work in creating magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) machines used in hospitals.


That's because the human body and benign objects add "structured noise that interferes with signal averaging," the scientists say.


A "pancake" of explosives with beveled edges, taped to the abdomen, for instance, "would be invisible to this technology, ironically, because of its large volume, since it is easily confused with normal anatomy," the scientists report.


"It is also easy to see that an object such as a wire or a boxcutter blade, taped to the side of the body, or even a small gun in the same location, will be invisible," Kaufman and Carlson write.


Increasing radiation exposure to get a better image from the body scanning technology won't help, the scientists say. "Even if exposure were to be increased significantly, normal anatomy would make a dangerous amount of plastic explosive with tapered edges difficult if not impossible to detect."


In reaching their conclusions, the scientists used simulations (computational algorithms). They refer in their research to some photos of full body scanners not deployed in the U.S., but used at airports elsewhere.


The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) responds to the latest report with the same pat response it has given to other criticism about full body scanners, a spokesman telling AOL Travel News, "While there is no silver bullet, advanced imaging technology is a proven, highly-effective tool that safely detects both metallic and non-metallic items concealed on the body that could be used to threaten the security of airplanes."


The TSA adds that full body scanners are just one of the airport security methods it has in place.


Critics of full body scanners have raised privacy concerns about "naked" images and questioned whether radiation from the machines could potentially pose a cancer risk, among other things.


This week the TSA also took steps to debunk a rumor that airport body scanner images of "Baywatch" star Donna D'Errico -- who has criticized the TSA for singling out attractive celebrities to go through body scans – are in circulation. The TSA says it's impossible for anyone to capture scanner images given safeguards it has in place.

Sing Along with the Scanner


13 December - Inside TSA scanners: How terahertz waves tear apart human DNA


When Natural Health News first looked at the issue of the airport x-ray scanners it was 2006.  Even then we reported that there was a health risk f40m x-ray exposure and T waves.  In light of US government talking heads we know that this has not been properly addressed.


Now Dr. Russell Blaylock gives us his helpful opinion and read more interesting material  here and here

Dr. Blaylock: Body Scanners More Dangerous Than Feds Admit
Wednesday, November 24, 2010 9:58 AM
By Dr. Russell Blaylock. a nationally recognized board-certified neurosurgeon


The growing outrage over the Transportation Security Administrations new policy of backscatter scanning of airline passengers and enhanced pat-downs brings to mind these wise words from President Ronald Reagan: The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: Im from the government and Im here to help you.
So, what is all the concern really about - will these radiation scanners increase your risk of cancer or other diseases? A group of scientists and professors from the University of California at San Francisco voiced their concern to Obama's science and technology adviser John Holdren in a well-stated letter back in April.
The group included experts in radiation biology, biophysics, and imaging, who expressed serious concerns about the dangerously high dose of radiation to the skin.
Radiation increases cancer risk by damaging the DNA and various components within the cells. Much of the damage is caused by high concentrations of free radicals generated by the radiation. Most scientists think that the most damaging radiation types are those that have high penetration, such as gamma-rays, but in fact, some of the most damaging radiation barely penetrates the skin.
One of the main concerns is that most of the energy from the airport scanners is concentrated on the surface of the skin and a few millimeters into the skin. Some very radiation-sensitive tissues are close to the skin - such as the testes, eyes, and circulating blood cells in the skin.
This is why defenders using such analogies as the dose being 1,000-times less than a chest X-ray and far less than what passengers are exposed to in-flight are deceptive. Radiation damage depends on the volume of tissue exposed. Chest X-rays and gamma-radiation from outer space is diffused over the entire body so that the dose to the skin is extremely small. Of note, outer space radiation does increase cancer rates in passengers, pilots, and flight attendants.
We also know that certain groups of people are at a much higher risk than others. These include babies, small children, pregnant women, the elderly, people with impaired immunity (those with HIV infection, cancer patients, people with immune deficiency diseases, and people with abnormal DNA repair mechanism, just to name a few).
As we grow older, our DNA accumulates a considerable amount of unrepaired damage, and under such circumstances even low doses of radiation can trigger the development of skin cancers, including the deadly melanoma. I would also be concerned about exposing the eyes, since this could increase ones risk of developing cataracts.
About 5 percent of the population have undiagnosed abnormal DNA repair mechanism. When exposed to radiation, this can put them at a cancer risk hundreds of times greater than normal people.
It also has been determined that when skin is next to certain metals, such as gold, the radiation dose is magnified 100-fold higher. What if you have a mole next to your gold jewelry? Will the radiation convert it to a melanoma? Deficiencies in certain vitamins can dramatically increase your sensitivity to radiation carcinogenesis, as can certain prescription medications.
As for the assurances we have been given by such organization as the American College of Radiology, we must keep in mind that they assured us that the CT scans were safe and that the radiation was equal to one chest X-ray. Forty years later we learn that the dose is extremely high, it is thought to have caused cancer in a significant number of people, and the dose is actually equal to 1,000 chest X-rays.
Based on these assurances, tens of thousands of children have been exposed to radiation doses from CT scanners, which will ruin the children's lives. I have two friends who were high-ranking Environmental Protection Agency scientists, and they assure me that in government safety agencies, politics most often override the scientists real concerns about such issues.
This government shares House Speaker Nancy Pelosis view when she urged passage of the Obamacare bill sight unseen - Lets just pass the bill, and we will find out what is in it later.
When the real effects of these scanners on health become known, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano and the rest of the gang who insist the scanners are safe will be long gone.

(November 26) --  I started covering the issue of the airport x-ray scanner four years or so ago.  Since that time many have hopped on the band wagon to speak out against this intrusive, expensive, and health-risky device.  Most researchers now tell us that it isn't really as effective as Chertoff and his minions wish you to believe.


One of my health colleagues added more information today, and it might interest you

Dressing for Scanners  Daisy Nguyen, Associated Press, November 23, 2010

LOS ANGELES (AP) -- It was no crime of fashion, but Wendy Gigliotti's bulky sweater and ankle-length skirt made her a target of airport screeners.
A female Transportation Security Administration officer at Sacramento International Airport told her, "We can't tell if there's something under your skirt." She was then frisked in a way she said felt more intrusive than a physical exam.
"I felt not only like a criminal, I felt absolutely violated," said Gigliotti.
Gigliotti is among the travelers feeling mortified or even outraged by the more thorough security pat-downs the TSA began using this month as the holiday travel season begins.
Travel experts say the new scrutiny underscores the need for better airport fashion choices that can help people breeze through screenings with their dignity intact.

(Nov. 24) -- Deborah Hastings

Man Sues TSA, Claims Pat-Down Violates His Rights

An Arkansas man is taking the Transportation Security Administration to court, claiming new screening searches violate the Constitution.


Robert Dean filed a federal lawsuit in Little Rock this week, even though the city's airport doesn't have the new scanners that have sparked outrage across the country. Dean's suit asks for a federal ban against the machines and full-body searches.


On a recent trip to Chicago, Dean claims that being subjected to a full-body scan and being patted down by TSA personnel harmed his "emotional, psychological and mental well-being," The Associated Press reported.
The security agency said it does not comment on pending litigation, according to the AP.


"Filing for an injunction will stop these types of invasive measures until we can get a ruling on the constitutionality of this," Dean said, according to FOX 16 TV in Arkansas.


The invasive procedures violate the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, Dean says.


"The physical aspects of it weren't that traumatic," he said of his experience in Chicago. "I think it's the thought of somebody sitting behind a screen looking at your naked body doing these examinations," he told KTHV TV in Little Rock.

Tagged:  full body scanner, full body scanners, full body scans, pat downs, patdown, patdowns, robert dean, tsa sued

22 November: From I want to give Congress a pay cut.

Adam KokeshNovember 17, 2010 at 10:39pm Subject: Help Spread the Message - National Opt-Out Day! National Opt-Out Day represents an exciting opportunity for all Americans. This very simple, straightforward act of civil disobedience is one that everyone can get behind. Help spread the message and make sure everyone knows this is something they can support and participate in! Share this video and do what you can to inform people about this issue. http://www.facebook.com/l/5f40cB64tVwUeCceIhhCDFBq2HA;www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFlvg0qyCkA Love, faith, respect, Adam Kokesh TSA has met the enemy — and they are us 12 November - More on Airport X-Ray Scanners, as the battle heats up more than your body - I can't imagine people being so unaware of the risk of exposure to these x-ray scanners going in at just about every airport without the benefit of your health care provider discussing with you the risk/benefit analysis of this kind of exposure to your body. Obviously some of the smarter bears around town look like the airline pilots association and Peter Rez, a physics professorat Arizona State University. Rez has independently calculated the radiation dose of backscatter scanners  was higher than TSA has said. Leave it to DSA to spend millions on unproven technology like Chertoff's border detection system from Boeing.  Maybe Boeing and Chertoff need to make some payments to the treasury fro this big goof!  It might go a long way toward getting us out of the financial muck & mire we seem to be rolling  through. Read Complete Article At least someone is thinking outside the box, maybe you should too. 16 September - TSA Testing Privacy Upgrades for Full Body Scanners 4 August - Police agencies admit to saving body scan images  Capabilities of the checkpoint security machines are still shrouded in mystery http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38561251/ns/technology_and_science-security Despite claims by the TSA that electronic body scan images "cannot be stored or recorded," some federal police agencies are in fact saving tens of thousands of images, according to a report by CNET News. The body scanners, increasingly found in airports, courthouses and other places where security is high, use an assortment of technologies. These include millimeter wave scanners (shown below) — in which the subject is harmlessly pelted with extremely high frequency radio waves which reflect a picture back to the device — and backscatter X-ray (shown above) — which measures low-powered reflective X-rays to produce clearer body shots, shots that can reveal alarmingly precise anatomical detail. According to CNET, the U.S. Marshals Service admitted this week that it had saved thousands of images that had been recorded from a security checkpoint in a Florida courthouse. The revelation comes at a tense time. Two weeks ago, when Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said such scanners would appear in every major airport, privacy advocates such as the Electronic Privacy Information Center in Washington D.C. filed a lawsuit to stop the device rollout. The reason? Because the devices were "designed and deployed in a way that allows the images to be routinely stored and recorded," EPIC executive director Marc Rotenberg told CNET, adding that this "is exactly what the Marshals Service is doing." As CNET's Declan McCullagh explains, it's the mystery of the devices' potential that is most unnerving: "This trickle of disclosures about the true capabilities of body scanners — and how they're being used in practice — is probably what alarms privacy advocates more than anything else," he wrote. The TSA maintains that body scanning is "constitutional" and the CNET 7/17/10 New body-scanner software to show only stick figures Boston's Logan International Airport hopes to be the first airport in the country to get new software that should eliminate privacy concerns over full-body scanners at security checkpoints. The software would produce stick-figure images of passengers instead of the more revealing images currently viewed by operators at remote stations. The software would detect suspicious objects on passengers that require further attention - such as possible weapons or explosives - allowing Transportation Security Administration screeners and explosive weapons specialists to hone in on them and determine whether they pose a danger. 6/29/10  Airport body scanners deliver radiation dose 20 times higher than first thought, warns expert: June 29, 2010 Airport body scanners deliver radiation dose 20 times higher than first thought, warns expert 30 Jun 2010 Full body scanners at airports could increase your risk of skin cancer, experts warn. The X-ray machines have been brought in at Manchester, Gatwick and Heathrow. Scientists say that the low level beam does deliver a small dose of radiation to the body but because the beam concentrates on the skin - one of the most radiation-sensitive organs of the human body - that dose may be up to 20 times higher than first estimated. 1/11/10 Airport Scanners Save and Transmit Scanners, ordered by TSA Better airport security in Israel 1/5/10 Updates re: Scanner Scam http://www.thestar.com/iphone/news/world/article/744199---israelification-high-security-little-bother http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/01/airport-scanner-scam 1/3/10 - "Body scanner wouldn't have foiled syringe bomber, says MP who worked on new machines" Read complete article T-Waves: A new model of the way the THz waves interact with DNA explains how the damage is done... " Drawing on sources like The Mayo Clinic and The Radiological Society of North America as well as interviews with prominent radiologists, molecular biologists, and medical doctors, ionizing (penetrating) radiation in any dose, no matter how tiny, causes genetic mutations, which set all living cells exposed on the path to cancer. X-rays are considered ionizing radiation."  Read complete article  12/29/09 - While India rejected airport sreening in the past, the Netherlands has adopted the process for flights to the US.  As this happens people wonder if there is anyone in charge at TSA and/or DHS ( a department we could rightfully have done without and one that now should be abandoned - think of all the trillions we'd save ) and Obama says no one at DHS is doing thier job. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- This was originally Posted in 2006, based on 2005 reports, but seems to be current discussions, and needs to be considered by those who have concerns about their health. 10 second exposure with backscatter=2 minutes in cabin radiation exposure. FMI: Whole Body Imaging Technology, see what the x-ray machine sees. ---------------------------------------------------------- from repost in 10/2008: At the same time as the US Homeland Security Department is pushing for airport x-ray machines that expose your privacy, Germany is calling a halt to this non-sense. Probably it is worth your consideration to consider using some protective measures and to help clear the radiation exposure effects (iodine, kelp baths, our bath salt blend for chemo/radiation patients) if you're planning to travel by air. Germany says full-body airport scanner "nonsense" BERLIN (Reuters) - Germany will not participate in EU proposals for airports to use full-body scanner security checks, which have raised privacy issues, its interior ministry said on Friday. "I can tell you in all clarity that we will not take part in this nonsense," a spokeswoman for the interior ministry told a regular news conference. The executive European Commission proposed last month to add body scanners to a list of security measures that can be used at airports in the 27-country bloc. EU lawmakers criticized the scanners in a resolution on Thursday, saying they were equivalent to "a virtual strip search" and raised serious human rights concerns. The lawmakers called for a detailed study of the technology before it is used. The Commission says a number of EU states including the Netherlands already use body scanners and the EU executive wanted to harmonize conditions in which they can be operated. The scanners do not exist at German airports and have sparked vivid criticism by politicians across the political spectrum. (Reporting by Kerstin Gehmlich; Editing by Matthew Jones) This was posted in 2006. I've noticed a number of inquiries on the topic of airport x-rays, so I am posting it again. So you plan to take an airplane trip in the future you say. Well now that the illustrious Department of Homeland Security is going to force you to be X-rayed, what is it that they have told you about the cumulative effects of exposure to gamma radiation in their so-called 'security" screener? How much more cancer risk do you need? And just what long term studies have been done, especially when considering frequent flyer risk. I guess I would want more data. LOS ANGELES (Dec. 20) - A woman mistakenly put her 1-month-old grandson through an X-ray machine at Los Angeles International Airport, authorities said. Security stations at Los Angeles International Airport Damian Dovarganes, AP A woman mistakenly put her infant grandson through a security X-ray at Los Angeles International Airport Saturday. Doctors said the 1-month-old did not receive a dangerous dose of radiation. A startled security worker noticed the shape of a child on the carry-on baggage screening monitor and immediately pulled him out, the Los Angeles Times reported for a story in Wednesday's editions. The infant was taken to a local hospital, where doctors determined he did not receive a dangerous dose of radiation. "This was an innocent mistake by an obviously inexperienced traveler," said Paul Haney, deputy executive director of airports and security for the city's airport agency. The incident happened early Saturday, airport officials said. Haney said in 1988, an infant in a car seat went through an X-ray machine at the Los Angeles airport. Copyright 2006 The Associated Press.