Softhearted Bitch Tosses Her Water Bottles

A colleague of mine saw me drinking some tap water from a reusable water bottle the other week and told me that the bottle was going to give me cancer.

I thought I was being all Eco-friendly by drinking tap water from the danged thing, so you can imagine how peeved I was to hear that I was killing myself.

Anyway, I didn't believe her and asked how she knew. She couldn't remember the source (red flag) but told me any bottle with a number 7 on the bottom would give me cancer.

I thought, no big deal. I have a gazillion reusable water bottles at home. I'll just ditch this one. When I got home I realized that all of my reusable water bottles had a 7 on the bottom.

I thought "no way in hell am I throwing out all of my water bottles!"

So I turned to the Internet (because we all know how reliable it is) to get to the bottom of this.

Apparently the Bisphenol A (BPA) is the issue with reusable plastic containers like water bottles and BABY BOTTLES.

If you've never heard of BPA, it's a chemical used in the production of polycarbonate plastics which turn up in some food and drink packages like water and infant bottles and is also found in compact discs.

Anyway, here's a story on BPA from Bloomberg, which I found by reading an article from this treehugger web site. The treehugger article suggests scrapping Nalgene bottles (with BPA) for Klean Kanteen, Sigg or Camelbak (BPA-free) bottles.

But I began to wonder whether the entire scare wasn't a ploy by Klean Kanteen and others to kill its competitor - Nalgene.

I mean, the FDA says it's safe. But that's THE GOVERNMENT. Do we really trust all of its standards and regulations?

Then I read this in last week's Los Angeles Times:

"Sen. Carole Migden (D-San Francisco) has maneuvered a bill (SB 1713) onto the Assembly floor that would ban a suspect chemical -- bisphenol A, or BPA -- from baby bottles, formula cans, sippy cups and other products marketed for kids under 3.

BPA is an estrogen-like compound used to make hard plastic. The National Institutes of Health has reported "some concern" that the brains and reproductive organs of fetuses and babies are threatened by BPA, which leaches from beverage containers and can liners."

So I went to the NIH site and looked at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences page on BPA. And sure enough, The National Toxicology Program (part of the NIH) is evaluating BPA and said:

"The National Toxicology Program (NTP) concurs with the conclusion of the Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction (CERHR) Expert Panel on Bisphenol A that there is some concern for neural and behavioral effects in fetuses, infants, and children at current human exposures. The NTP also has some concern for bisphenol A exposure in these populations based on effects in the prostate gland, mammary gland, and an earlier age for puberty in females.

The scientific evidence that supports a conclusion of some concern for exposures in fetuses, infants, and children comes from a number of laboratory animal studies reporting that "low" level exposure to bisphenol A during development can cause changes in behavior and the brain, prostate gland, mammary gland, and the age at which females attain puberty. These studies only provide limited evidence for adverse effects on development and more research is needed to better understand their implications for human health. However, because these effects in animals occur at bisphenol A exposure levels similar to those experienced by humans, the possibility that bisphenol A may alter human development cannot be dismissed."

Never mind the fact that the research looks at BPA's impact on the development of infants and children, which could mean adults are not at risk.

In the end, I don't know which government agency to believe and honestly don't have time to figure out whether "some concern" means that I should keep all of my number 7 bottles or go to the hospital for cancer screening.

So .... I'm thinking that I'm going to buy a BPA-free bottle just in case. And if it turns out to be a marketing ploy, uh, let's just say it's working.

I Can't Make This Stuff Up!

Some woman claims she developed a surgery-free facelift. It's been featured in Elle, Marie Claire and Vogue, so it must be for women.

It's called Facercise (like I said, I can't make this stuff up), a twice-daily face exercise program that isolates face muscles and claims to firm them up.

There's a funny 1995 article from The New York Times about the program (I say it's funny because the writer accepts the notion that her aging face is a problem - more on that below).

Anyway, according to the Facercise web site, "results" can be seen "in just a few days." I should let you know that I was laughing while I typed that.

These are the results Facercisers (I think I just coined the term) can expect:

-Eyebrows are raised or lifted

-Eye sockets are enlarged, resulting in the eyes appearing more open and
vibrant

-Diminished puffiness under the eyes

-A shorter or narrower nose. The nose grows with age, creating an aged appearance

-Fuller lips and turned up, younger looking mouth corners

-Toned and defined chin, neck and jaw line

-Complexions change color and become more vibrant and youthful

So after reading the list I decided I wasn't going to exhaust myself by going over every point because the list is ridiculous enough on its own. But here's what jumped out at me.

Who would want to enlarge their eye sockets? Moving on.

"The nose grows with age, creating an aged appearance." WTF? There are so many things wrong with that statement that I think a college course can be built around it.

Bottom line for Softhearted Bitch is that this marketing campaign does not take into account two basic ideas (that seem like common sense to me):

1) People (even women people) age. Women and men people, if they remain on the planet long enough, will look older than 18 at some point;

2) Young does not equal attractive. Old does not equal unattractive. But what if they did?

Is Facercise the answer? Uh ... enlarged eye sockets? I think not. The answer lies within the person. Each person. You know what I mean?

Show Me the Money!

Last night the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 1338: Paycheck Fairness Act 247 to 178. The bill is all about pay discrimination as women make 77 cents for every dollar their male counterparts bring home.

The National Committee on Pay Equity has been saying ... pass this bill.

The Heritage Foundation has been saying ... slow your roll.

One writer for the National Review Online says H.R. 1338 is a waste of time.

Softhearted Bitch says ... what's up with that? Your thoughts?