Plane Stupid

I must admit, there have been times that I've had one one of those "Calgon, take me away" moments and fantasized about hopping the next flight to anywhere that doesn't involve me cooking dinner, driving carpool or changing diapers. But in reality, I would never skip town without warning. For one, my family needs me. Two, it would be completely irresponsible, not to mention, expensive. And three, flying off at a moments notice is just not the way I do things these days.

It seems that a group of teenagers in Florida didn't exactly share my sensibilities this week when they used babysitting money to fly to Nashville alone. Never mind that their ages were 15, 13 and 11 and their parents had no idea they were planning this little excursion. What is really amazing is that they were able to do it without any flack from the airline (Southwest), which didn't bat an eyelash when the trio paid cash for their tickets and weren't made to show identification in order to board the plane.

Apparently, kids who are under 18 are not required to show ID by the Transportation Safety Administration. And Southwest Airlines policy is that kids ages 12-17 are free to fly without adult supervision. In fact, it turns out most public transportation companies wouldn't think twice about selling tickets to children considered minors under the law. For example, kids as young as 8 years-old can ride without an adult on Greyhound Bus. And those younger than 8 are considered a-ok as long as they are traveling with someone who is at least 15 years of age.

Since most 15 year-olds don't have driver's licenses, I'd love to know how the bus company verifies their age. Teens who are at least 15 are also free to take Amtrak without an adult companion.

Some people might read this story and think, "Who cares?" Perhaps they feel that the parents should keep their kids on a shorter leash so that things like this won't happen in the first place. But to me, the fact that these kids managed to take this impromptu trip unbeknownst to anyone else isn't really what scares me the most.

What frightens me is that this is yet another loophole in our transportation system that is just waiting to be exploited by people who would seek to inflict harm on America like those who perpetrated 9-11. In certain foreign countries, it's common practice to recruit young people to carry out the dirty work planned by adults behind the scenes. Many terrorists prey on the naivete and vulnerability of disenfranchised youth, and this is yet another scenario that could very well have deadly consequences. What's to stop them from planning a mass attack on various transit systems by using kids who can theoretically slip under the radar because they aren't required to show identification?

In the case of the kids from Florida, they landed in Nashville, realized they didn't have enough money left to reach their destination of Dollywood (my, what lofty aspirations they had!) and called their parents. Southwest Airlines then refunded their money (an odd move if they stick to the line that the company did nothing wrong in the first place) and sent them home to mom and dad.

This time, the hijinx were completely harmless. Let's hope some clever copycat with more nefarious notions doesn't get the same idea.

No Kidding!

This morning when I checked my regular news websites, I woke to some of the most disturbing news I've read in quite a while. It seems a new study in the Journal of Pediatrics has found that it isn't considered unusual for girls to begin hitting puberty as young as 7 or 8 years old.

No, that is not a typo. Seven or eight years old....the same age most kids are discovering Barbie and learning to ride a bike.

While it hasn't been definitively established exactly why girls are "developing" so much earlier nowadays, some scientists speculate that it may have to do with exposure to chemicals in plastics (such as BPA), that mimic estrogen. Others expressed concern over diet and perhaps hormones in meat and dairy products being a culprit. Some feel that the obesity epidemic is to blame.

Early onset of puberty is troubling for other reasons as well. Several studies have linked it with an increased risk of breast cancer. Many girls who develop earlier than their peers run a higher risk of self-esteem issues linked to negative body issues. In the past, puberty was considered "normal" around age 11 or 12.

The idea that my almost-six-year-old could get her period in the next year or two is more than startling to me. Something is inherently wrong with that. I mean, she has not even learned how to read yet and still often needs help wiping #2 when she uses the bathroom. Somehow I doubt that adding tampons and sanitary napkins to the mix will make things easier. And I really had hoped that she'd be out of the little kids clothing section by the time we had to go bra shopping! Not to mention the new reality show potential when kids under age 10 start having babies themselves. Perish the thought!

A few years ago, a good friend who is the mother of only boys, noticed that her oldest was starting to develop what looked suspiciously like breasts when he was in the first grade. She took him to the pediatrician who asked her how much milk he drank and suggested that she go "organic" to help combat the issue. She was shocked as she was a person who had never really bought into the whole "green" lifestyle.

While we can't entirely eliminate environmental threats, I've worked hard to do what I can to go mostly organic in our home and use only glass or BPA/Phthalate-free plastics. We avoid buying products containing parabens as preservative as they've also been shown to be hormone disruptors. Though my daughter whines and complains, I won't let her use regular play-makeup or nail polishes, opting instead for non-toxic varieties like Piggy Paint. But when we're out, at school or at a friends house, all bets are off.

Without going overboard, I do feel it's getting harder and harder to protect our kids from things that our parents just never even thought twice about. I doubt my mom even thought she had any control over when her children hit puberty and figured it just "happened when it happened." Now, as with many other things, we know that our lifestyles and daily choices can have a major impact on our health and on our growing bodies.

Perhaps new studies will emerge refuting this one, or adding other concerns to the mix. With so many unanswered questions, I'll continue to be do what I can to ensure that my kids remain kids as long as they can -- and should.

Everybody in the Pool!

Way back when, I thought my biggest fear regarding swimming pools and kids was drowning. While I still worry about that, I was surprised to learn that there are many other potential dangers lurking in that sparkling, blue water. I'm not advocating that parents abstain from swimming in the pool with their kids (as if that is even a possibility here in the south...hello, heat index of 110 degrees!), I'm only passing along information you may want to consider next time you take a dip with the wee ones (or by yourself, for that matter). 


Though I abhor the heat, I've spent most summers of my life submerged in various swimming holes -- wreaking of chlorine, my hair dry and brittle. Little did I know that the very chemical that makes it seemingly safer to swim in pools since it kills most germs, actually poses other risks as well. Several studies have linked the chlorine to asthma and skin irritation (especially for those with eczema). More disturbing, it's been determined that chlorine can react with other compounds found in water to create carcinogens that can be stored in the body for an extended period of time that can result in an elevated risk of several types of cancer including that of the breast and bladder. 

Thankfully, more people are entertaining the idea of converting their pools to salt water these days (which does still contain chlorine, though much less) -- even better, some pools are going high tech, using UV technology to disinfect. But since most pools still contain lots of chlorine, there are a few tips you'd be wise to keep in mind during these remaining summer months. 


First, beware of pools that smell too strongly of chlorine. It IS possible to over-chlorinate a pool and it's bad enough to swim in a normal amount of chlorine. Avoid taking a dunk in a pool that appears to be filled with too much of the chemical as it is a powerful additive that certainly isn't beneficial in large doses. Make sure you feel confident that a professional (or at least someone who knows what they are doing) is regularly checking the pool's Ph levels. You may even want to limit the time you spend in a chlorinated pool in general and always remember to shower off with clean water after swimming to remove as much of the remaining residue as possible (though it is indeed, absorbed through the skin). 


And don't be fooled into thinking that chlorine actually kills ALL germs in pools. One of the most prevalent pool polluters -- cryptospordium -- is resistant to chlorine and can cause major gastrointestinal distress. According to the CDC, these pesky parasites can survive in the water for days. This is especially something to keep in mind when swimming in a public pool. Even an infinitesimal amount of poop can do more than stink up the joint - it can seriously compromise the safety of the entire area.  


Other viruses often found poolside include norovirus and giardia, which cause vomiting, nausea and diarrhea, as well as the virus that causes swimmers ear (not deadly, but certainly annoying). 


So, before you take the Nestea plunge (yes, I'm dating myself), use a little common sense and try to be sure you don't come home with more than just a damp suit and collection of wet towels. And here you thought you were so well prepared after my previous entry on sunscreen...have you not yet learned that just when you tackle one concern, there is always something else to worry about these days?

Crime & Punishment

Much has been said lately about the so-called Barefoot Bandit -- a previously elusive, and sometimes shoe-less thief who was caught recently in the Bahamas after amassing a huge Facebook Following and managing to outstep police for some time. While I'm in no way condoning what he stands accused of (stealing, among other things, planes, cars, boats, etc.), reading more about his background gave me pause and begs the question: Do parents who mistreat, neglect and abuse their offspring bear some responsibility and legal culpability when those children grow up and turn to a life of crime?

If you aren't familiar with this latest caper, the basic details are as follows: The Barefoot Bandit (ne: Colton Harris-Moore) is 19 years old and it appears he started out small, breaking into homes of neighbors, ostensibly to steal food since his mother spent her days drinking, made no attempt to hold down a job or stock food in their own home and seemingly forced him to forage for himself at a young age. With no father in the picture, records show that Child Protective Services was called to his home more than a dozen times by the time he was 15. His mother was repeatedly investigated for mistreatment of her son (once after she was seen harshly beating him in the head when he was only 4) but yet, was never prosecuted. 

The family lived in a dilapidated trailer in a rural area of Washington state, protected by a homemade sign that read, "if you go past this sign, you will be shot." Neighbors reported hearing loud arguments at all hours and eventually, the young boy (some say by age 7) began living in the wild on his own. Surviving by stealing food and finding shelter in abandoned homes, his teen years brought several arrests, but nothing more than short stays in juvenile detention centers. It seems he somehow taught himself how to fly an airplane and this spring, took off on a cross-country chase, stealing cars and making his way by private plane (not his) to the Bahamas where he was caught. He now awaits trial on multiple charges at a federal detention center back in Washington. 

His own attorney surmises that if he'd had proper direction, he probably wouldn't have done what he stands accused of doing. So, while he is clearly at fault and deserves to be punished for these crimes, is his abuser (aka: his mother) also somewhat responsible and should she also bear some of the legal burden as well? As a mother, did her negligent behavior predispose and in effect, drive her son to a life of crime as a matter of survival? 

Part of this scares me. As a mom myself, I don't want to be held responsible for the behavior of my adult children (unless they end up as President or Supreme Court Justice). But, if my actions somehow directly related to their behavior, would it be fair to say that I should also be found at fault? Isn't it sort of like being accessory to a crime? Or is it an impossible standard to uphold since you can't prove a parent actually knows their child would commit such crimes as a result of your poor parenting skills. 

It's not that I think that my son will eventually start robbing convenience stores because he'll recall that I gave his sister a bigger dessert than he got one night when he was two. This story obviously goes much deeper. The shameful behavior on the part of the mother involved is significant enough that I think a reasonable parent would know that they were setting a horribly wrong example for their child that would lead to no good. But, I'm assuming that unless she somehow knew or suspected that he was committing crimes, she will not be held responsible for the actions of her son, regardless of her role in creating a hostile atmosphere that potentially paved the path to these crimes. 

Much has yet to come out, both regarding the crimes of the Barefoot Bandit and the role his mother may have played in creating an living hell for her child. Regardless, I'd like to know why a social worker who interiewed Mrs. Harris-Moore when her son was first arrested at age 12, wrote the following in her report: “Colton wants Mom to stop drinking and smoking, get a job and have food in the house. Mom refuses.”

Isn't that a crime in and of itself?

Getting my panties in a wad

I'm not sure when I became such a prude, but evidently, it happened when I became the mom of curious Kindergartner.

You see, lately, whenever we go to the mall, we happen to pass nearly life-sized ads for Victoria's Secret, featuring scantily clad models in their skivvies, posing oh so provocatively. And my daughter, being the inquisitive person she is, always asks me why there are photos of ladies in their underwear and what they are doing in the mall. Now, pre-kids, I would have never given such advertisements a second thought. But now that I'm a mommy, it dawns on me that it is a bit confounding that I would get arrested for indecent exposure if I showed up at my local shopping center in a bra and panties, but yet it is perfectly acceptable for massive pictures of other women in their unmentionables to be plastered all over the place.

When did I become this person who is bothered by things like this? I mean, I even worked part-time at Victoria's Secret when I was in college! I remember when people raised a red flag about tv shows they deemed were inappropriate for kids being aired before bedtime hours and I thought, "Well, if they don't like it, they can change the channel." And in the 1980's when Tipper Gore waged her campaign against obscene lyrics in music, I recall thinking that she didn't have to listen to it if it bothered her so much and that most parents would be smart enough not to tune into those songs with kids around.

Ah, to be young and naive again!

The problem is, when I walk through the mall with my kids, I can't really avoid, or even know ahead of time, where these ads are located. And the idea of avoiding the mall entirely with kids in tow is just not realistic. Plus, I doubt kid-friendly venues like Gymboree and The Gap would be very happy if moms like me were dissuaded from giving them business if we could only shop sans children. But unlike a radio or television, I can't change the channel, so to speak, or rather, prevent my kids from seeing such inappropriate images when we are doing something as innocuous as shopping.

I'm not out to have my daughter be ashamed of her body or feel self-conscious about it in any way. At home, she knows that it's ok to ask for privacy, but it's also ok for mommy or daddy to be with you while you are changing or in the bathroom. She's showered with me on many occasions and I never feel self-conscious around her in the comfort of our own home. It's just hard to explain to her that it's not socially acceptable for her to walk around in her panties or bathing suit while we are out shopping for new school clothes, yet there's a photo of a scantily clad woman right as we walk in the door to the mall.

Is this the price I pay for freedom of expression these days? I know there have been controversies with advertisements in the past (ie: Abercrombie & Fitch and their risque ad campaigns) but as a mom, I'm extra-sensitive to images that are just "out there" rather than hidden away in a magazine for me to censor appropriately.

I'm curious to hear what other moms think. Am I in danger of joining the conservative party or is my paranoia in this case somewhat justified?

Crib Crap

As much as I hate being awakened in the night by miniature people who want things like sippy cup refills, help ridding their closets of monsters or evil witches, or assistance wiping their little tushies, I thank my lucky stars that my family is almost out of the crib stage. Having one child still in a baby bed can really be a pain, especially when it comes to travel. As if airline tickets and baggage fees aren't enough to make my head spin, we still have the added burden of trying to figure out sleeping arrangements, crib rental, etc.

Part of me dreads the initial, "wow, I can get up in the night and walk into mommy and daddy's room" thing that will inevitably occur. My daughter is still notorious for her 2 a.m. visits to let me know that she's done sleeping and is ready to start the day. But still, anything is better than the small fortune I've spend hunting down safe, reliable cribs in various hotels, condos or even relatives homes over the past five years.

Oddly enough, safety has become such a hot button issue when it comes to cribs. You'd think you could take for granted that something as ubiquitous as a bed in a baby's nursery is nothing to worry about. Remember when your biggest concern was whether or not the paint on your kid's crib was safe in case they decided to teethe on the bars in the night? Did you ever measure the distance between the bars with a soda can to make sure they weren't far enough apart for an errant limb to get caught in? Or, were you the type of parent who didn't really care that much about those things but spent hours online trying to find the perfect bedding ensemble, complete with matching drapes, hamper and diaper basket.

Either way,  if you still have a child in a crib, you might be interested to note that as of today, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) voted to ban the U.S. sale, manufacturing or resale of cribs with drop-down sides. Yes, that would likely include the crib you own and the ones all your friends and family own too. No doubt you've read the recent stories of children that were caught between the mattresses and the sides of these cribs, either due to faulty construction or a manufacturing defect.

So far, this is just a vote and no actual action has taken place. Even if the vote becomes reality, it likely won't become law for another year. Regardless, many crib manufacturers and stores have begun phasing out these controversial beds, 9 million of which have been recalled in the past few years, including today's recall by Pottery Barn Kids of ALL of their drop-side cribs.

So, what does this mean for those of us who have drop-side cribs? Do we pitch them and run out to get the latest and greatest in baby bedding? I may be paranoid, but I'm not stupid. So, while I will not be ditching my son's current baby bed, I will re-double my efforts to make sure we put it together safely and check it more often to make sure that all the nuts, bolts and screws are secure and properly installed. You can often purchase hardware that will render your drop-side crib immobile by preventing the sides from moving. We have less than a year left in this bed and it's served both my kids well. I have enough to worry about keeping my kids safe when they are awake, I really hate to worry about them while they are asleep. Perhaps it's naive, but after nearly six years of problem-free use, I do feel relatively good about our crib's record. And I know that kids are far more likely to encounter serious risks in other everyday areas of life like driving dangers, sun exposure and various environmental hazards lurking just around the corner.

However, if I had a hand-me-down crib that had seen better days, I think I'd consider investing in something I knew was a better bet. After all, I don't skimp on their food, sunscreen, car seats, or anything else that is going to effect their overall well-being and health, why should a bed be any different?

Hot Child in the City

If you live anywhere on the east coast, chances are you would have actually been cooler in your gym's sauna today than you were outside. "HotLanta" truly lived up to it's name with a heat index temp of 104. Record-breaking heat is scorching many other cities like New York, DC, Charlotte and Philadelphia. I am so jealous of those of you who live in San Francisco where the high today was 70 (as I write this, it's 91 degrees at nearly 9pm in Atlanta and 55 degrees at 6 pm there -- damn you Northern California!).  I honestly have a hard time spending more than a few minutes outdoors on days like this (especially considering it was a "code orange" smog day here, which means the air was as unhealthy as it was hot.). 


Since I can't completely escape the sun, there are a few key things I try to keep in mind as I sweat through these next few months waiting for those first few snowflakes to blow through (yes, I know I'm weird, but I would take winter over summer any day!)


First of all, I don't waste money on clothing that is labeled SPF (unless is is on the clearance rack). It's not that I don't care about my kids' skin....it's just that I can spend a whole lot less and protect their entire wardrobe with my own washing machine. For years I've sworn by something called SunGuard made by RIT (the dye people), that actually infuses loads of laundry with an SPF of 30. The coverage lasts for 20 washes so once I get the whole family's stuff treated, it covers us for nearly the entire summer. The product can be tough to find as many grocery stores no longer carry it, but it can easily be ordered online. 


Second, I make sure each of us is slathered in a physical sunblock that uses zinc oxide or titanium dioxide. More prevalent chemical sunscreens tout ingredients which can sink beneath the skin and have been linked to hormone disruption. One chemical in particular -- oxybenzone -- should be avoided entirely as scientists have found it penetrates the skin more readily and is especially dangerous for children. Unfortunately, the stuff can be tough to avoid as it is currently found in 60 percent of all sunscreens in the U.S. today. Sadly, it seems American parents need a molecular biology degree to decipher the best method of sun protection for their kids (yes, sunscreens are much safer in Europe -- yet another reason to lobby for that Parisian getaway). 


A list of the "safest sunscreen" options available in the States can be found at http://www.ewg.org/2010sunscreen/best-beach-sport-sunscreens/. Some of our family favorites include California Baby, Badger, Burt's Bees and Episencial. And please don't forget to reapply as most people stay in the sun far too long for the protection to remain effective (and most don't apply enough in the first place.) I'll admit, it's confusing because, by the FDA's own admission, the jury is still out on whether or not sunscreen works at all -- hence the excerpt from their latest report in 2007 -- “sunscreens should not be the first choice for skin cancer prevention and should not be used as the sole agent for protection against the sun." 


Say what?


So, I guess staying in the shade is still your best bet, but failing that, sunscreen can't hurt. Or can it? 


Some studies have actually shown that a form of vitamin A -- retinyl palmitate --  found in nearly 50 percent of sunscreens, can actually speed skin damage and raise the risk of cancer. This form of vitamin A is an antioxidant that is a seemingly safe additive to night creams and lotions worn out of sunlight but actually alters the DNA when exposed to the sun. So, it's best to avoid retinols outdoors in high heat. 


Apart from direct sun, the heat itself can be dangerous, responsible from everything from heat stroke, cramps, rashes and dehydration. It goes without saying that you and your kids should drink more water than usual when spending extended periods outdoors.The thing about extreme heat is that you often don't realize its effects until it's too late. I'll never forget one Spring Break in Florida when a group of us went to a water park in Orlando to have some fun and work on our tans (in my pre-paranoid mama days). After an hour or so, I felt a bit dizzy so I went to the bathroom to splash some cool water on my face. The next thing I know, I'm lying on a mildewy floor with a paramedic standing over me asking me how many fingers he's holding up. I have no recollection of fainting and before we were gently escorted out, I was kindly sent to an air-conditioned room and given about a gallon of Gatorade. 


I cannot count the sunburns I endured as a child or the times I stupidly basted myself in oil and laid on what was a virtual blanket of aluminum foil in order to catch some rays. I am making up for my careless behavior these days, but the damage is already done. Most skin cancers are caused by exposure prior to your 18th birthday. I've been lucky so far, but my kids are clean slates and I intend to do everything I can to make sure their perfect little bodies stay that way as long as possible.