Monthly Archives: June 2013

Snowed In

Posted on by
Reply

Today was the first day of summer 2013, and with it, the first day this year that frankly began to feel like summer.  It’s been a cool and very comfortable Spring here in Chicago.

Anyway, with Summer upon us, I thought I’d take a moment to pull out a blog I wrote this past winter when Mother Earth News asked me to pen a couple trial blog entries that their editors might consider for their own publication.  It’s quicker for me to pull up this old post than think up something original to write, and hey, the Blackhawks second Period is about to begin and its time to get back to the game.  So enjoy….I hope this post cools you off a bit.  Here’s the entry as first written last January:

Snowed In

It snowed yesterday morning in Chicago.  And that by itself, may not seem very unusual since this is the third week of January.  But in this crazy, mixed-up, some-suspect-global-warming-world, yesterday was the first time in 335 days that Chicago received one-inch or more of snowfall, setting a record in Chicago’s 129-year meteorological history.

So yesterday I did what any self-respecting person who was born and raised in Buffalo, N.Y. would do—I went out running in near zero temperatures amidst the puffy, fat flakes that were lazily falling to the ground. 

By the time I finished an hour later, I was invigorated yet tired and ready for one of my few ecological indulgences—a long, hot, steamy shower.  With the aid of my H2Okinetic water-efficient showerhead, standing motionless in the shower with head down and back toward the water beating down onto my neck and shoulder blades is my form of mediation and contemplating the day ahead.

And so on this cold snowy morning it was with great anticipation that I opened the shower door and turned on the water.  As I got in and adjusted the spray and temperature, I looked up and saw something that one rarely sees in our home—a soft, semi-translucent blanket of snow covering the skylight directly overhead.  Usually the wind is too great for snow to stay on the skylight, or the snow too heavy and thick, blocking the light and making one feel more claustrophobic than protected. 

But yesterday morning, with a thin layer of snow perfectly lain over the skylight and with the feeling of extra security and serenity that came with it, I began to think about those moments when I most love living in this home—the times I feel most alive, most vital, most comfortable, most soothed, and most at peace with myself and my life.  Those times typically have something to do with how this home was designed and how it interacts with nature—like the way a full moon shines through the diamond-shaped window at the peak of our master bedroom, or the way a sliver of summer sunshine slices through my daughters’ bedroom and down a narrow hallway illuminating our main staircase set deep into the interior of our home.  Those effects aren’t always by chance….they happen by knowing the site and in these cases, making exacting window and skylight placement choices during our remodel.

That said, like most homeowners, my home contributes to my share of daily frustration and angst and I wish my home was greener and healthier and more evenly comfortable throughout the year.  In a perfect world my home would be more like architect Dale Bates’ Delphinium.  But yesterday morning reminded me that an even less-than-perfect home is at its best when it offers its inhabitants subtle life-enhancing moments.   For those who are interested, there is a whole discipline of home building called Building Biology that deals with these moments and how a home should be designed to best mimic and interact with its natural environment.

We talk a lot in green building about the mechanics of how to build more energy-efficiently, how to improve indoor air quality, and how to use building materials that are more recycled or derived from more sustainable sources, but how often do we talk about dwellings that are truly life-affirming and designed to support human health?  How often do we talk about homes that actually help keep our lives in balance?  And how often do we talk about new or remodeled homes that genuinely stir the soul, like that moment yesterday morning when I took my shower? 

Not enough I think.  And so with that in mind, I direct you to architects like Paula Baker-Laporte and Dale Bates who ARE talking about these things and offer us examples of healthy green building that both inspires and sets the bar high for the rest of us to emulate.  

The Chemical Safety Improvement Act

Posted on by
Reply

A couple days ago I received an email from the President of the Environmental Working Group which outlined the general concerns he and his group have with this proposed piece of new legislation.  Rather than regurgitate the salient points of that email, I thought it best to simply cut and paste the entire email, along with embedded links for those who want to correspond to their members of Congress to oppose its passage.

EWG is an amazing group, and we’ll be highlighting their work next week in a couple posts as I begin to talk more explicitly about the chemicals and toxins within our homes.

Here is that email in its entirety:

A new chemical “reform” bill has been introduced in the Senate.

The problem is, the new bill not only fails to fix America’s famously broken toxic chemicals law, in many ways it will weaken protection against chemicals that could harm you and your family.

The House Energy Subcommittee on Environment is holding a hearing today to discuss toxic chemical reform. Your senators and representative need to know that you want real reform now and the industry-backed Chemical Safety Improvement Act is unacceptable.

Click here to take action right now. Tell your elected officials that you want laws that protect us from harmful chemicals, not laws that protect the chemical industry from reasonable, effective regulation.

Toxic chemicals are everywhere. Not long ago, the Environmental Working Group’s research detected 287 chemicals in the umbilical cord blood of newborns. Of those, 180 are known to cause cancer in humans or animals, 217 are toxic to the brain and nervous system, and 208 cause birth defects or abnormal development in animal tests.

Here are only a few ways this bill fails to protect you and your family from these chemicals:

    • The bill does not require the Environmental Protection Agency or chemical companies to prove that chemicals are safe. It barely addresses the needs of children, pregnant women and workers and does not take into account that people are exposed to multiple chemicals through many different pathways.
    • It would not strictly regulate chemicals that remain in the environment or in our bodies for decades. Nor does it protect communities located near chemical plants.
    • New chemicals could be manufactured and sold before the EPA fully evaluated their safety. Worse, if those chemicals were subsequently found to be dangerous, the EPA would confront multiple obstacles in banning or restricting them.
    • States have stepped in to regulate some of the most dangerous chemicals in recent years because the federal government could not, or would not, act. BPA in baby bottles and sippy cups is a good example. This bill would “pre-empt” state action, blocking the ability of states to protect their people when the federal government fails to do so.
    • Chemical companies would not be required to produce basic safety data for new chemicals or chemicals that are already on the market.
  • When submitting health and safety testing data, companies would be allowed to keep secret the names and other identifying features of their chemicals.

EWG is opposing industry’s Chemical Safety Improvement Act. It is not an improvement over current law and in many ways is worse. We think it is time for real reform – and we need your help. Make sure your senators and member of Congress know that this bill is unacceptable.

Click here to take action today. We need real toxics reform in Congress. This industry-backed bill is unacceptable.

Thank you for taking action.

Sincerely,

Ken Cook
President, Environmental Working Group

 

The Radar Range

Posted on by
Reply

I’ve been married 20 years and I still recall my first visit to my in-laws house back when Meg and I were first dating.  That evening was spent cooking, trying to impress my future in-laws with something Italian from my South Philadelphia days.  As I recall, the dinner turned out pretty good, but I must have left the kitchen pretty much a mess as my future father-in-law never let me forget how clean his kitchen USED to be.  Suffice it to say I was never again allowed to cook at their home, and every time they came over to our house, they insisted that we go out to eat.

Okay, I admit to being a messy cook, and I have my in-laws to thank for making me aware of that.  But there was one other thing I remember from that visit: my in-law’s microwave.  It sat on the counter in the corner of their kitchen.  It had lots of dials and knobs.  It was loud.  And I used to joke that it was the size of a Buick.

Microwave ovens have come a long way since their invention back in 1955 and since the first countertop home models known as a “Radarange” was introduced by Amana back in the late 60s.  This new kitchen appliance got its name because the technology was based on the same technology used by British radar systems to spot Nazi warplanes.

The old Radarange became the modern microwave oven.  Used today by over 90% of American households, it may be argued that no other appliance has had a greater transformative effect on the American home.  It certainly has transformed the kinds of products for sale in our grocery stores, creating a whole category of frozen microwave-ready foods–from dinner entrees to breakfast main courses to snacks–that 40 years ago did not exist, and even led to a change in our language (“Honey, what are we going to nuke for dinner tonight?”)

With such widespread acceptance and with such a profound influence on our home design, lingo, and food choices, you’d assume microwaves are absolutely safe for human health, right?  As my friend Larry Gust points out, think again.  Microwaves long ago were implicated in a number of negative health effects.

Even new modern microwaves regularly leak electromagnetic waves into their surroundings.  In my own home for instance, I’ve measured them 4 to 6 feet away from our kitchen microwave at levels high enough to alarm me, or at least think twice about where I stand to chop vegetables or prepare other foods while the microwave oven is on.  Leakage typically becomes a bigger issue as microwaves age and door seals become less pliable.  So as your microwave gets older you are typically more prone to microwave exposure, and you should consider taking your own measurements and if merited, upgrade to a newer model.  In the meantime my advice is, if you are using a microwave, turn it on and walk away.  Certainly shoo away your kids.

Health concerns aside, I am equally disturbed by what happens to the nutritional value of food once it is microwaved.  In my last post I mentioned the alarming decrease in the nutritional value of the American diet as new varieties of foods have been introduced into the American food supply.  The upshot is that the food that we bring home has less nutritional value than the same food brought home generations ago.  But then we make matters worse by insisting on”nuklng” this less-nutrient-dense food to cook it, dramatically decreasing whatever nutritional value it once had.  As Larry Gust once told me, the food that comes out of your microwave often has “the nutritional value of cardboard”.

Any number of references talk to this point, so I’ll link the reader with this one reference and suggest that the Internet provides many more references to this topic for those who want a richer discussion.  Fed a steady diet of microwaved foods, suffice it to say that it is no wonder that American children seem weaker and fatter and more prone to serious health consequences than their generational counterparts.

Okay Mark, you might say, are you suggesting that we all ditch our microwaves or ban them all together?  Well, maybe.  There are many other ways to conveniently and quickly cook or reheat foods.  Toaster ovens and steam ovens accomplish these tasks in relatively short order without heating up a whole kitchen.  Or if you’re fortunate enough to have an AGA stove at home, you know how quickly you can cook without ever having to preheat the oven.  Or if you are really in a time crunch, use a microwave to boil water or heat water to do some blanching or do some initial defrosting and finish cooking some other way.  Fact is, most Americans way over rely on this one appliance in their kitchens, and finding a healthier balance between it and other forms of cooking is one of the first steps toward becoming one fine house.

The Nutritional Value of Food

Posted on by
Reply

It’s been a while since I posted–real estate is on fire here in Chicagoland, especially on the lower end of the single-family home market, and consequently I’ve been busy.  So with a trip planned to Amish Indiana for early next week, I’ll try to fire off four or five posts before I leave to make up for my relative absence from this blog.  

Every healthy home begins with how your home was constructed and how you feed your family.  In my own family, we tell our kids to eat “strong” foods and limit their intake of “weak” foods.  Strong foods are lower in saturated fats, lower in processed sugars, and when possible, organic.  Weak foods are more processed, less natural, more full of the artificial colors and flavors and preservatives and chemicals which in my view, are detrimental to human health.  The Greek physician Hippocrates once said, “Let food be thy medicine and medicine be thy food” and we try and teach our kids this every time we fight off a cold with say Honey Loquat or pile on the garlic when feeling like our immune systems need a little boost.

As parents of kids who chow down on things like broccoli and brussel sprouts, I was feeling pretty good about what my kids were eating, even if we don’t always have the budget for organic.  At least, I told myself, they were eating a bevy of strong fruits and vegetables.

That is until I came across a May 25, 2013 New York Times Opinion piece entitled “Breeding the Nutrition Out of Our Food“, written by Jo Robinson.  In this article, Ms. Robinson talks very directly to the relative lack of nutrients in a typical American diet.  “Wild dandelions”, she writes, “a staple of a Native American diet, have seven times more phytonutrients than spinach, which we consider ‘superfood’.  A purple potato native to Peru has 28 times more cancer-fighting anthocyanins than common russet potatoes.”

The upshot is that there are choices we can make to increase the nutritional profile of the foods we eat, but this article makes clear that those choices are becoming fewer and fewer and will continue to dwindle unless there is a change in government policy and until an educated consumer selects and demands better.

My most distressing take-away from this article is the systematic breeding of less nutritious varieties of foods by American farmers encouraged by U.S. Department of Agriculture policies that promote the development of more disease resistant fruits and vegetables with little regard for how nutritionally-deficient these new varieties might be.  Ms. Robinson talks to interviewing USDA plant breeders who have spent a decade developing a new variety of pear or carrot without ever once measuring its nutritional value, and she concludes it is hard to increase the health benefits of our produce if we don’t even know which nutrients it contains.  

Is it any wonder therefore, why Americans are moving ever farther away from optimum health as our food supply gets increasingly stripped of the phytonutrients the body needs to  fight off diseases such as cancer, dementia, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease and increasingly, through selective breeding, full of sugar and starch content?

Bottom line is that even when we think we are eating healthy, we may not be.  This opinion piece really opened my eyes about what we are feeding our family, and I for one, will try to follow some of its many fine recommendations and more carefully select foods of higher nutritional value.  It’s also time we paid more attention to how we cook it.  

More on that in my next post.