Turkey Tracks: July 29, 2014
Make Your Own Laundry Detergent
Friend Bonnie Sinatro posted this “recipe” on Facebook the other day.
Hmmmm, I thought. That’s really interesting.
And note that Bonnie used THE UNCOOKED version of the recipe–which I will also do.
Here’s a picture from the Budget101 web site listed below.
Basically, this laundry soap uses 3 ingredients and makes 1/2 gallon, for under $2 for each batch, and washes 128 loads with 1 Tablelspoon a load:
The Fels-Naptha soap gave me some pause, so I did a little research–especially after I bought it. It does contain petroleum products, and there is one that is toxic. But that’s the ingredient that helps dissolve grease. And there are dyes and a really strong fragrance chemical smell.
I’d still say it’s worth a try. Various users write that this mixture is good about removing stains. And it’s really cheap.
If you want an environmental laundry option, try soap nuts. I use them all the time. they are the dried fruit of the Soapberry tree and are a natural cleaner (Sapindus mukorossi). I find they work really well. I use more of the nuts for dirtier clothes. I do treat stains, especially grease stains, before washing.
Each batch of about six does about six loads of laundry. And the little baggies come with the packet. I’ve had this package for about 18 months now.
Here’s another non-toxic laundry product I keep on hand for dirtier loads:
It does about 100 loads for about $11.
Interesting Information: July 28, 2014
Mercola on “15 Foods to Stock in Your Kitchen Year-Round”
Here’s a nice post from Mercola:
I do have some comments though:
The organic coconut oil you buy also needs to be UNREFINED and UNHEATED. I buy mine by the case from Wilderness Family Naturals as it is WAY cheaper than a little jar in the store. (You can buy less than a case OR sell some of your case to friends.) AND, don’t forget red palm oil, which is another really healthy oil–though it is more delicate than the very sturdy coconut oil. (See blog post on red palm oil.)
Himalayan Salt is probably a good choice. Grey-colored moist Celtic Sea Salt is another. And I use our locally made Maine sea salt, which is also just dried from sea water.
Canned salmon. Sorry. Not for me. There is no way to get around the fact that all big fish are now loaded with mercury. And canning takes a lot of the “oomph” out of anything as it is heat-processed.
Whey protein. Mercola does specify that one should use a minimally processed whey, which means it’s a powder. Nope. Not for me. It’s still PROCESSED. And one should be able to get plenty of protein without eating a processed food. Plus, you are not eating a whole food, but one you’ve split into parts. OK, so I drip out some whey protein to use to culture mayonnaise and, sometimes, my lacto-fermented foods. But, mostly, I just eat the whey in the whole-milk yogurt I eat pretty much on a daily basis.
Interesting Information: July 28, 2014
Feds Finally Release Burzynski Cancer Cure Treatment
I’d be willing to bet that none of you were aware of the news that Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski recently won another legal (and moral and ethical) round in our government’s war against his many-times successful cancer treatment.
I’d be willing to bet that many of you have never heard his name.
Yet, his work is important, exciting, real, should be celebrated, and is, instead, a huge threat to the $$$$ of the established cancer industry–you know, that industry that has failed to “cure” cancer in the past 50 or so years.
Burzynski’s treatments are NON TOXIC (for the most part–sometimes he combines them with some chemotherapy) and have been, as near as I can determine, the most successful with brain tumors–which is a good thing since we’re about to have an epidemic of brain tumors from cell phone usage according to the experts who have been studying this issue for some time now.
Here’s Jeffrey Phelps, writing in The Examiner:
But once again, another huge victory against the medical establishment for a Houston-based doctor that has been using a breakthrough technology he invented to literally cure cancer on many occasions, who for all-intents-and-purposes should be a household name by now and an easy Nobel Prize winner, is instead nowhere to be found, as if it never even happened.
That’s because Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski and his cancer-curing discovery, “Antineoplastons,” including a remarkable, relatively new gene-targeted therapy, threatens the very way of life to which the Western medical cancer and sick-care industry has become accustom. Raking in billions a year off of the desperate backs of people suffering from debilitating and deadly diseases in which the Western medical industry does not truly want to find a cure.
What’s really terrible, but predictable in our industry/profit-driven society, is the collusion between the greedy and the FDA. At the same time the federal government and the state of Texas medical folks were trying to not only shut Burzynski down but to send him to jail, they were trying to steal his work. Here’s Phelps again:
Because even as the skeptics and trolls do everything they can to shoot down the discovery on every single article and video released in support of the technique’s proven successes, for reasons that include the subconscious fears of real answers to questions regarding why this treatment isn’t already widely used, if it truly didn’t work better than what Western-trained doctors are still being forced to do, then why did the agents of deceit in the US government, BigPharma and related individuals collude with one of Burzynski’s own research scientists to file 11 different patents on the very same, non-toxic, Antineoplastons AS2-1 medical technology? #6,037,376, #5,635,532, #5,605,530, #5,852,056, #5,654,333, #5,661,179, #5,635,533, #5,710,178, #5,843,994, #5,877,213, #5,881,124. Only failing to accomplish the patent hijacking after a Grand Jury acquitted Burzynski of any wrongdoing, during the establishment’s 4th and most recent attempt to put him in prison for the very same technology they were trying to patent.
There are TWO documentaries telling this sorry tale: Burzynski 1 and 2.
Part of the tale is that Burzynski has had to defend himself in the courts at his own expense–while the deep pockets of industry and the government mounted charge after charge against him. HE HAS WON EVERY SINGLE TIME.
Here’s an article from 2011 on one of the more recent attacks on Dr. Burzynski.
And, here’s an article on how the mainsteam media, in this case, USA TODAY, attempted to smear Dr. Burzynski. Note that when industry and the status quo control the media, this kind of event is possible. Dr. Burzyski attempted with great politeness, according to this story, to give USA TODAY some data on his revolutionary treatment, but they refused to print it.
Interesting Information: July 28, 2014
Warning: Most Sun Screens Do NOT Prevent Skin-Damaging Radiation
I drove up to Belfast this morning in Pea Soup Fog to shop at the Coop. I retain my fascination with the mystery and softness of a dense Pea Soup Fog. With this one, I could only see about 100 feet in front of the car.
On the way home, it rained buckets–a real gully washer. Reynolds insisted on getting into my lap and hiding her head under my left arm. The parking lot at Hannaford’s, where I stopped to get some cleaning supplies not available at the Belfast COOP (which immediately tells me something about those supplies), was wheel-high gushing water in its low spot. Mercy!
But, on the way home, the noon Maine NPR station was discussing sunburn and sunblocks. The guest “expert” was from the Environmental Working Group–which is more or less solid I think. I do have some problems with the EWG.
Coincidentally, Dr. Joseph Mercola had sent out recently a post on sunblocks and sun protection, and the need for balance in that we get vitamin D from sun shining on our skin.
Here’s the thing I did not know until I read this post: Sun Screens DO NOT protect your skin from UVA rays, and they are the ones that damage your skin and set into place the potential for skin cancers.
Here’s the explanation from Mercola’s post:
UVAs versus UVBs
So, how can you get the benefits without raising your risk for skin damage? It’s important to remember that the sun can either be helpful or harmful depending on what type of ultraviolet light you’re getting. The ultraviolet light from the sun comes in two main wavelengths:
- Ultraviolet A (UVA) – Considered the unhealthy wavelength because it penetrates your skin more deeply and cause more free radical damage. Sunblocks containing SPF filter out the beneficial UVB, not these cancer-causing UVAs, unless they also contain a UVA blocking ingredient.
- As a result, wearing sunscreen may prevent you from burning, as excessive UVBs are the chief cause of sunburn, but you still receive a large amount of skin-damaging radiation. Moreover, UVA rays are constantly available, even on cloudy days. There are likely some benefits to UVA in moderation that we do not fully understand, as there appears to be with many spectrums emitted from the sun.
- Ultraviolet B (UVB) – This is the ‘healthy’ wavelength that helps your skin produce vitamin D. While both UVA and UVB can cause tanning and burning, UVB does so far more rapidly.
- Contrary to UVAs, which are more readily available, UVB rays are low in morning and evening, and high at midday or solar noon, making this the most optimal time for vitamin D production (roughly between 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m.). Ironically, this is the timeframe most mainstream experts warn you to stay out of the sun.
Mercola goes on to discuss healthy sun-exposure practices–the most important of which is to GET OUT OF THE SUN AFTER 10 OR SO MINUTES OF EXPOSURE IN THE HEAT OF THE DAY!!!
When I was growing up, our days at the beach were so special–it was time we all looked forward to all year. We went to the beach around 10 a.m. and left just before noon. We returned around 3:30 or 4:00 until, sometimes, close to dark. WE NEVER LAY IN THE SUN AND “SUNNED” OURSELVES. And we got plenty tanned. We spent our time at the beach swimming, riding waves, and walking the tidal edge looking for shells.
You know, in other eras, people protected their skin from the sun. Today we equate a tan with health.
I don’t use sun blocks of any kind any longer–and we never did as children. There is a strong correlation between today’s heavy use of the chemicals in sun blocks and cancer. And, science has shown that many of the chemicals in sun blocks are dangerous. The Environmental Working Group has lists of which sun screens are better than others. And the speaker today kept emphasizing to RUB IN the chemicals so they are effective, that NO SUNBLOCK protects when washed away with water, and that the spray sunblocks are being investigated by the FDA on a number of accounts. (Users don’t want to get their fingers “dirty” while rubbing in sunblocks–which is the height of…what???…misguidedness, at the very least.)
Here are the “rules” from my childhood–you know, that time when no one had heard the word “cancer”–leave the beach by noon, don’t go back until late afternoon, wear a hat when out of the water, on really hot days wear an old t-shirt to swim, and protect your skin from the sun in the heat of the day with long-sleeved shirts, yes, but seek out the shade in the heat of the day. Truthfully, after a morning of riding waves and a hearty lunch, an hour or two reading or playing games was a nice change. Even the hardier types often fell into naps–which was relaxing and enabled staying up very late at night to enjoy a beach fire or chasing ghost crabs at the edge of the dunes.
Interesting Information: July 27, 2014
You know that cute little bear filled with honey at the supermarket. You have a 25 percent chance of that bear’s contents being actual honey.
I’ve written several times about fake or “laundered” honey on this blog. You can search for “laundered” honey–most of which is coming from China.
Here’s more recent information:
Buy REAL, unprocessed, unheated LOCAL honey from a caring bee keeper. That kind of honey is one of nature’s most amazing medicines. I make sure I eat several tablespoons every day, and I can’t think when (knock on wood) I’ve had a cold, or the flu, or allergies…
Interesting Information: July 27, 2014
“The Scary New Evidence on BPA-Free Plastics”
I’ve often wondered if the “new” plastics that are BPA-free are any safer.
Ok, so I’m a total cynic where industry “truth” is concerned.
And that cynicism is driven by the fact that with regard to agricultural chemicals, industry lets a chemical ride until it has hurt enough people, then withdraws it, then replaces it with something else that does not yet have a reputation. The tobacco industry wrote this playbook, and it staved off recognition of health dangers for…what?…50 or 60 years.
Our government either is powerless to stop this kind of practice and/or turns a blind eye.
Mariah Blake’s article beings this way:
EACH NIGHT AT DINNERTIME, a familiar ritual played out in Michael Green’s home: He’d slide a stainless steel sippy cup across the table to his two-year-old daughter, Juliette, and she’d howl for the pink plastic one. Often, Green gave in. But he had a nagging feeling. As an environmental-health advocate, he had fought to rid sippy cups and baby bottles of the common plastic additive bisphenol A (BPA), which mimics the hormone estrogen and has been linked to a long list of serious health problems. Juliette’s sippy cup was made from a new generation of BPA-free plastics, but Green, who runs the Oakland, California-based Center for Environmental Health, had come across research suggesting some of these contained synthetic estrogens, too.
And, contains this kind of information:
Even as the industry crafted defensive talking points, some companies began offering BPA-free alternatives. But they often didn’t bother testing them for other potentially toxic compounds or synthetic hormones. Nor did they have to: Under US law, chemicals are presumed safe until proven otherwise, and companies are rarely required to collect or disclose chemical-safety data. Michael Green, the Center for Environmental Health director who worried about his daughter’s sippy cup, says this results in a “toxic shell game”: Corporations that come under pressure to root out toxins often replace them with untested chemicals, which sometimes turn out to be just as hazardous. “It’s an unplanned science experiment we’re doing on our families,” Green told me when I visited him at his Bay Area home, where Juliette, now 5, was padding around in a pink princess costume.
We are talking about reproductive health and cancer for our children. Nothing less…
So, do read the article…
Interesting Information: July 27, 2014
“Cancer RX: The $100,000 Myth”
The cancer industry is driven not by finding a “cure,” but by finding patients who are desperate to live, who have good insurance, and who agree to undergo cancer drug treatments–which by the way have been a scandalous and dismal failure.
This little piece in the AARP Bulletin exposes the gouging practices for the drugs.
The authors are Donald W. Light and Hagop Kantarjian.
Here’s a quote:
Eleven of the 12 new cancer drugs approved in 2012 were priced above $100,000 annually, and a 20 to 30 percent copayment can make them unaffordable even for well-insured patients.
The article goes on to ask WHY? and proceeds to utterly demolish Big Pharma’s rationale for this kind of gouging.
Big Pharma has inflated and twisted its actual development costs.
Taxpayers “subsidize about half of company research costs through credits and deductions granted to drug companies.”
Big Pharma distorts its “average” costs by only using the most expensive drugs to compute the average.
Big Pharma spends only about one-sixth of its research funds in developing new drugs. For cancer drugs, this figure is even lower.
Big Pharma continually raises prices across its whole market yearly, or it has a “market spiral pricing strategy.”
And on and on…
It’s a rigged system–rigged for profit, not for human health.
And that’s what industry does when capitalism is not fettered to morals and ethics that are good for people.