Here’s the article. http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/04/24/healthscience/22well.php

National Public Radio recently interviewed the scientist who did the study, and asked him if consumers should stay away from plastic containers that use BPA (basically all hard plastics). He didn’t want to commit to an emphatic “yes” or “no.” This is because they’ve only studied the impact of BPA in animals and till they study it in humans, they don’t know for sure.

Listen to the NPR Interview with Michael D. Shelby, director of the Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction: Hard Plastics – Potentially Toxic

But don’t stress too much just yet, as Michael D. Shelby said, the evidence is not conclusive.  If you can avoid hard plastic, do so, if not, try to minimize your use.   The key to absorbing this information without going insane is to live as naturally and simply as possible, making little improvements every day.

For your sanity (and ours), we’ve created some useful links in case you want to stay away from BPA:

BPA-free storage containers

BPA-free baby products

BPA-free canned goods

TOKYO — A 14-year-old Japanese girl killed herself by mixing laundry detergent with cleanser, releasing fumes that also sickened 90 people in her apartment house, police said Thursday as they grappled with a spate of similar suicides.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/04/24/asia/AS-GEN-Japan-Detergent-Suicide.php

Makes me wonder if we really need all this toxic stuff around the house.  Of course, if the girl really wanted to kill herself she could use a kitchen knife as easily — that’s what the chemical industry will argue and the makers of toxic products.  But what if a child mistakenly consumes these products?  Isn’t it better to simply keep it out of the house?

Barry Schwartz has done research on the subject of too many choices. Have you seen his speech at the TED conference? http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/93

I’m not suggesting that we should go back and not have choices. That’s not even realistic given our current consumption habits. But maybe we don’t need so many choices — choices that pollute our air, water, and muck up the planet for us and future generations. Maybe there’s some middle ground here?

Here’s the mission statement from the Freecycle website:

Welcome! The Freecycle Network™ is made up of 4,341 groups with 4,906,000 members across the globe. It’s a grassroots and entirely nonprofit movement of people who are giving (& getting) stuff for free in their own towns. It’s all about reuse and keeping good stuff out of landfills. Each local group is moderated by a local volunteer (them’s good people). Membership is free. To sign up, find your community by entering it into the search box above or by clicking on “Browse Groups” above the search box. Have fun!

I wish local municipal governments would set up something similar. I think it would be more efficient to collect items in a central location here in Raleigh or Wake County where I can go to browse for things I need.

I ran a few scenarios – in the worse case scenario, it would take 5.1 earths if everyone in the world lived like I do. My lifestyle would require 22.9 tons of carbon dioxide.

I didn’t do this quiz to feel guilty. But tools like the ecological footprint are useful in understanding why citizens in developing countries resent the United States and other developed nations. We consume more, and yet we don’t push our governments to lead the way in preventing global warming.