Thursday, September 10, 2009

Trying Cloth Diapers (on a budget!)

After my recent post about the politics of diapers, I got the following comment:

So I'm actually kind of interested considering I'm going to have two kids in diapers in the next week. Any ideas on how to try out cloth diapers without investing a ton of money pre-commitment?

What a great question! I was ready to make the commitment before trying them out, so the investment wasn't really an issue for me. I knew that I wanted to use cloth, so I spent my time researching types of diapers, reading reviews about various patterns, and deciding which fabrics to buy. However, if you're just thinking about cloth diapers, and not sure yet if you're ready to jump in with both feet, here are a few suggestions:
  • Figure out how many diapers you need (for all diapered kids) for one full day and night. I think that's the minimum number of diapers you'll need to get to try it out. If you only get enough diapers for a few hours then you may not be able to find out how you feel about mid-night changes or super-poopies, and we all know that those are facts of diapering, so if you're really considering cloth then you should try them for a full 24 hours.
  • Remember that some parents choose a middle ground--they use cloth diapers at home or during the day, but still use disposables when going out or for nights. There isn't a right or wrong way to cloth diaper, it's just a matter of finding what works for you. This is one reason I recommend trying out cloth for 24 hours--maybe you'll find that you love cloth, maybe you'll hate it, and maybe you'll just realize that you're a middle-ground parent, and that's ok too!
  • Some diapering styles are cheaper than others...but not everyone likes all the styles. The cheapest is prefold diapers (held closed with a snappi or pins) with some form of cover over them. Next come fitted diapers (with their own elastic and velcro/snaps but no leak-barrier layer and still requiring a cover). Then there are pocket diapers, and finally all-in-ones as the most costly options. There are single-size diapers (which come in S, M, and L), and one-size-fits-most diapers (which adjust to fit different sizes, but of course cost more per diaper). Cotton flannel or birdseye is pretty budget-friendly, bamboo velour is quite expensive. Recycling old fabric of your own is the cheapest of all! Even the diaper covers come with choices--fleece, wool, or PUL--each with their own options and price ranges. I recommend doing a little research at DiaperPin or one of the other diapering forums linked below to learn about the pros and cons of the various types of diapers.
  • If you know someone who cloth diapers, especially if her children are different sizes from yours, she may be willing to let you borrow some of her diapers for a short period to try them out. Most cloth diapering mamas that I've known really love cloth, and are typically eager to help convert someone else to the world of cloth. ☺ Even if she doesn't have any spares, at the very least she'll let you look at her diapers and get an idea of what various styles are like without having to buy one of each of yourself.
  • There are a lot of online shops that offer discounts if you buy big diapering packages. They tend to run $1-400 (depending on the diaper style, materials, or brand), and typically include a full set of diapers in one size, or some of the larger ones have everything you need to last from birth through potty training. Yes, that's a big monetary investment all at once BUT consider this: If you decide you don't like them, cloth diapers (especially barely-used ones) have a resale value. Yep, you read that right, you can re-sell your used cloth diapers, so if you buy a discounted package set, then decide you don't want to stick with cloth, you can probably resell all those diapers for very close to what you paid for them. So it's a lot of money up front, but it's not really a risky investment because you can get it back if you change your mind.
  • Of course, that leads us to the next option--yes, you can buy used cloth diapers. I know several moms who have bought a variety of types of diapers so that they could try them all out. They keep the styles they like and re-sell the ones they don't care for. There are a variety of options from practically new diapers (sold for nearly new prices) down to "FFS" (free for shipping) which means that the diaper is old and worn but still works ok and you can have it for free if you'll just pay the cost of mailing. There are several places where one can do this: DiaperSwappers, and ClothDiaperNation are the most well known. (There are a few people who try to sell secondhand cloth diapers on ebay, but technically this is against ebay policy and they do police the listings, so I don't recommend trying to buy or sell diapers there.)
  • There is at least one online shop which has a "try them out" kit where you can rent a set of a couple dozen diapers to try out. You do have to make a deposit for the full value of the diapers, but after the rental period if you decide that cloth is not for you then you can return the diapers and get back your deposit. If you do like them, they are yours to keep. I believe you can even exchange the (gently used) rental set for new diapers if you want. There may be more than one place that does this--search around a bit and see what you can find!
  • If you know how to use a sewing machine (even just a little bit) then you can make diapers for a fraction of what it costs to buy them new. Depending on the type of diapers you want, you can save even more by making them with old flannel shirts for the outsides and old towels for the inside layers--your monetary investment can be limited to a snappi or some velcro and elastic, plus some covers. If you worry that your sewing skills are not good enough to make a diaper, remember these two things: 1--I know two different people who learned how to sew by making diapers and 2--diapers are to catch poop, not to win beauty contests; it's ok if they look a little funny. ☺
  • If you have questions, ask a cloth diapering mama!! Like I said, we tend to get excited about new cloth-diaper-converts. There is also some useful information about various aspects of cloth diapering (such as information about diaper sprayers or cloth-diapering on the go) at the EtsyClothDiapers blog.

Sunday, September 6, 2009

The Politics of Diapers

If you've never considered cloth diapering, here is a little background about disposables...it may encourage you to re-think your decision! (Especially since cloth diapers no longer require pins, separate plastic pants, or dunking & swishing in the toilet...they're easy, cute, trim, cost-effective, and oh yes, environmentally responsible. ☺ )

I just highlighted a few points (since I know you'll probably skim rather than actually read the whole thing!)


Published in Mothering Magazine issue 116, Jan-Feb 2003

1961 Proctor and Gamble (P&G) introduces Pampers.

1971 Pennsylvania Boy Scouts conducting a highway cleanup campaign report that the largest single source of litter is the disposable diaper. Disposable diapers contribute 171,000 dry weight tons of waste to be processed by US sewage systems. (M. A. Shapiro, Preliminary Study of the Environmental Impacts from Processing and Disposal of Diapers)

1975, February In comparing the effectiveness of several brands of disposable diapers, Consumer Reports notes that trees are cut down in their manufacture, enteric (intestinal) viruses and live polio viruses from vaccines have been found in feces in disposable diapers removed from "sanitary" landfills, flushing diapers can ruin septic tanks and plumbing lines and damage sewage-treatment plants, and only commercial incinerators can safely burn disposables.

1975, July Wildlife-management personnel complain of the increasing presence of throwaway diapers improperly disposed of in parks and preservation areas. In North Carolina, a marine biologist reports that raw sewage spilling from pipes clogged with disposable diapers is killing fish. (The Sentinel, Winston-Salem, July 31, 1975)

1975 "The presence of viruses in untreated human fecal matter in solid waste disposal sites originates largely from the increased, wide-spread use of disposable diapers, which often send feces to landfill sites rather than to the sewage plant. Small children and babies excrete large numbers of enteric viruses in their feces, and viruses from landfill sites might be leached out and contaminate underground water supplies." (Baylor College of Medicine)

1975 The EPA warns that rainwater washing through dumps may carry viruses-which can live in compacted solid waste for up to two weeks-into underground streams, and from there into public and private water supplies. Improved sanitation during this century has made rare the diseases associated with direct contact with raw sewage: hepatitis A, shigella, salmonellosis, amebiasis, and typhoid. However, the University of Oregon Survival Center notes that outbreaks of shigella, salmonellosis, and hepatitis A are now more common in hospitals and daycare centers. The World Health Organization has called for an end to the inclusion of urine and fecal matter in solid waste.

1978 The Office of Appropriate Technology of Lane County, Oregon, takes three random samplings from a sanitary landfill and finds that disposable diapers comprise 16 percent, 26 percent, and 32 percent of the garbage extracted in each sample.

1979 Pediatrician Dr. Fred C. Weiner, of Montreal, Canada, studies one-month-old babies brought to a well-baby clinic for a period of one year and finds that disposables cause more frequent and more severe diaper rash. He advises limiting their use. (Journal of Pediatrics 95, September 1979)

1979 Oregon Senator Mary M. Burrows co-authors the state's first proposed bill to ban the sale of disposables.

1981 Testimony on behalf of HB3047 and HB2838, the Disposable Diaper Ban Bill, before the Oregon House Energy and Environment Committee of the Legislative Assembly: "Valuable wood pulp goes into the manufacture of close to ten billion diapers annually. This represents in excess of 800,000,000 pounds of paper. All of this paper is used only once and thrown away. It cannot be recycled. Yet, the timber industry doesn't have enough allowable cut at the same time that the public is increasing its use of recreational timberland and is clamoring for more. We cannot afford to sink our valuable and diminishing natural resources into throwaway diapers. Industry sources claim that disposable diapers require less energy than rewashing reusable (cloth) diapers. These claims must be rejected out-of-hand. None of these energy use figures include the costs of sewage treatment or solid waste hauling and management, to say nothing of long-term costs of directing natural resources from other uses."

1986 "Over 40 percent of newborns in US hospitals are diapered in Ultra Pampers. In addition, the diaper has received a highly favorable response from pediatricians. In fact, within the first five months of introduction, over 25 percent of your colleagues reported that they had recommended Ultra Pampers to parents of diaper-age children." ("Dear Doctor," a brochure enclosed in Proctor and Gamble's Medigram, November 7, 1986)

1987 US disposable diaper revenues total $3.2 billion. 82,000 tons of plastic and 1.3 million tons of wood pulp-about a quarter of a million trees-are consumed annually in the production of disposable diapers.

1987 The Empire State Consumer Association petitions the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Food and Drug Administration, and the New York State Attorney General's office to prohibit the sale of synthetic super-absorbent disposable diapers and adult incontinence pads. The chemicals used in synthetic super-absorbent products contain sodium polyacrylate, cross-linked with polymers to create super-absorbent components. These chemicals can cause severe skin infections and, rarely, toxic shock syndrome.

1988 Proctor and Gamble pay $120,000 for a three-year study at the University of Michigan to determine the effects of sodium polyacrylate in disposable diapers once it enters a landfill. The researcher says that the study shows that disposables are environmentally safe. (UPI, July 28, 1988)

1989 EPA estimates that single-use diapers account for 2 percent of all solid waste in US landfills. A Seattle, Washington study finds that 1.8 percent of its municipal garbage is made up of diapers.

1989 In a study commissioned by the National Association of Diaper Services (NADS), Carl Lehrburger of Energy Answers Corporation, a resource recovery company in Albany, New York, estimates that parents pay ten cents in disposal costs for every dollar spent on throwaway diapers. With 18,000,000,000 soiled diapers being hauled to the landfill every year, Lehrburger figures that American mothers and fathers spend $300 million annually on disposable diapers that take 500 years to decompose. Throwaways comprise 2 percent of the nation's solid waste by weight, making them the third most common solid waste item after newspapers and beverage and food containers. Even if all 18,000,000,000 of the single-use diapers disposed of annually in the US were biodegradable, the public would still spend $300 million each year for their disposal. Each family that chooses cloth diapers for their child prevents one ton of waste from entering the solid waste stream each year. (Diapers in the Waste Stream, 1989)

1989 Dioxin is produced when chlorinated compounds, such as chlorinated plastics, are burned at high temperatures. Dioxin is formed when paper and wood pulp are bleached. The bleached pulp is then converted into a variety of paper products, including disposable diapers. Dioxin has been associated with cancer, liver disease, miscarriage, immune-system depression, birth defects, and genetic damage in a variety of laboratory animals. The fatty tissue of the average person living in the industrialized world harbors measurable levels of dioxin. When Proctor and Gamble faces the possibility of losing its share of the Swedish diaper market because of that country's curtailment of chlorinated pollution levels, the company begins making chlorine-free Pampers for export. ("Whitewash: The Dioxin Cover-Up," Greenpeace 14, no. 2, March/April 1989)

1989 "Diapers are a good target for waste reduction advocates because with the exception of newspapers and beverage containers, they are the single consumer product that contributes the most to solid waste stream." (Positive Steps towards Waste Reduction, June 1989)

1989 Diaper services, which almost disappeared in the late 1970s because of the introduction of the throwaway diaper, increase business by more than 70 percent as a result of hundreds of news stories on environmental concern and the growing demand for reusable cotton diapers. The National Association of Diaper Services (NADS), trade organization for the $150 million yearly diaper-service business, has about 400 members. Another $50 million is generated yearly by the manufacture and sale of cloth diapers.

1989, June Gerber, Childrenswear, and Dundee Mills, major US manufacturers of cotton diapers, lobby for quotas limiting cotton-diaper imports from China-producers of the world's best and most durable diapers, the ones that diaper services use. According to some critics, the quota on Chinese imports creates a cloth-diaper shortage and kills competition. Some services have to create waiting lists of prospective clients. NADS does not take a position on the Chinese quota, but does make an agreement with Gerber "to do nothing to denigrate Gerber's current sales level for one year." Gerber contributes $80,000 to NADS in 1989 and $60,000 in 1990. (San Francisco Examiner, June 7, 1989)

1989, June Proctor and Gamble announces two pilot programs designed to test the feasibility of recycling its millions of disposable diapers and to show that composting "is a viable disposal method for municipal solid waste." One pilot program is in King County, Washington, where the King County Nurses Association has been working to educate hospitals and parents about cloth-diaper alternatives, and where 20 of the county's 34 hospitals have switched to cloth in their newborn nurseries and pediatric units. The second program, a $250,000 composting demonstration project, is planned for St. Cloud, Minnesota, a city that already recycles two-thirds of its trash. According to a Proctor and Gamble spokesperson, "Our aim is not to get into the recycling business on a permanent basis. Rather, we want to demonstrate that the technology is feasible and encourage entrepreneurs to get involved in this business." (Proctor and Gamble press release, "Perspectives on Disposable Diapers," June 20, 1989)

1989, July Connecticut begins to phase out the use of disposable products, including those used in patient care. Oregon is in the process of extending a 50 percent recycling credit to diaper services. New Jersey legislates a tax on the manufacture of "disposable, 'one-way,' nonreusable or nonreturnable products." Connecticut and New York consider requiring manufacturers of single-use diapers to affix labels to all diaper products, stating the environmental hazards associated with their disposal. Nebraska bans the sale of all nonbiodegradable diapers effective 1993. (Press Release of the National Center for Policy Alternatives, July 19, 1989)

1989 Contra Costa County, California, sets a December 1990 deadline to begin recycling throwaways; otherwise, a ban may be in order or purchasers may be charged with disposal fees. (USA Weekend, September 15-17, 1989)

1989 Kimberly-Clark, the second largest manufacturer of single-use diapers in the US, unveils a new line: Huggies Pull-Ups, training pants aimed at toddlers who are being toilet-trained and bedwetters.

1990, April 20th anniversary of Earth Day.

1990 Legislation is introduced in 24 states and dozens of smaller jurisdictions to reduce the use of disposable diapers. Between eight and nine of every ten US families with diaper-age children use throwaway diapers most of the time. While in polls US families overwhelmingly support a ban on single-use diapers, three out of four mothers do not want to give up disposables.

1990 Proctor and Gamble commissions a study by Arthur D. Little, Inc., a consulting firm in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The consultant finds that laundering a cloth diaper over the course of its lifetime consumes up to six times the water used to manufacture a single-use diaper. In addition, the study concludes that laundering cloth diapers produces nearly ten times the water pollution created in manufacturing throwaways. (Arthur D. Little, Inc., "Disposable Versus Reusable Diapers: Health, Environmental and Economic Comparisons.")

1990 Jeffrey Tyrens, associate director of the Center for Policy Alternatives in Washington, DC, criticizes the Arthur D. Little study for a math error that makes single-use diapers appear cheaper than they are. He also finds that the ADL study fails to account for the water used in flushing away fecal material from single-use diapers-a practice recommended by Proctor and Gamble and other manufacturers on their diaper-box labels. Other critics point out that the ADL authors did not use independent data but instead relied on information gathered by P&G and other companies interested in promoting single-use diapers.

1990 Proctor and Gamble uses the Arthur D. Little data in a letter sent out under the auspices of the American Paper Institute, of which it is a member. The "Dear Legislator" letter reiterates the conclusions of the ADL study but fails to disclose that the study was funded by P&G. This letter prompts a rebuttal, a "Dear Colleague" letter signed by six legislators who support bills to encourage greater use of reusable diapers. Branding the API letter "misleading," the legislators write, "The disposable diaper industry realizes it is in danger of losing market share for this very profitable single-use product. Faced with overwhelmingly negative public opinion polls, they have launched a pro-disposable campaign among state lawmakers and commissioned the ADL study expressly to discredit cloth diapers." ("Review of Arthur D. Little, Inc.'s, 'Disposable Versus Reusable Diapers,' " Update on Diapers, September 1990)

1990 Proctor and Gamble sends more than 14 million copies of a pamphlet to US households stating that their diapers can be effectively composted in municipal solid-waste plants. The pamphlet, "Diapers and the Environment," complete with discount coupons for Luvs and Pampers, cites a five-week study conducted by P&G in St. Cloud, Minnesota, in which diapers from 2,700 homes and 17 daycare centers were composted along with the rest of the city's garbage. The results, according to the brochure, were "very positive." As part of a broad campaign to promote the company as environmentally friendly, P&G sponsors ads in more than a dozen major magazines featuring photographs of seedlings grow ing in pots filled with dark, porous-looking earth. The ads claim that 80 percent of each plastic and paper diaper is compostable and can be converted into a "rich, high-quality soil enhancer that's good for planting baby flowers, trees and just about anything else that grows." By some estimates, the company spends $250 million in 18 months on advertising. The New York City Department of Consumer Affairs charges that P&G promotes its diapers as easily compostable, but in fact few consumers have access to adequate composting facilities. A Rhode Island state official demands that P&G remove the following misleading statement, which appears on boxes of free samples of Luvs dropped on doorsteps that spring: "This product is compostable in municipal composting units. Support recycling and composting in your community." Rhode Island has no such facilities for composting diapers.

1991 P&G's $750,000 disposable diaper recycling project in King County (see 1989, June; second entry) is declared a technical success but an economic failure, yet continues to be touted in brochures for Luvs and Pampers. (Seattle Times, January 25, 1991)

1991, January Sponsored by NADS, Carl Lehrburger and colleagues undertake the most detailed study to date: a life-cycle, or cradle-to-grave, diaper analysis. They find that throwaway diapers, compared with reusables, produce seven times more solid waste when discarded and three times more waste in the manufacturing process. In addition, effluents from the plastic, pulp, and paper industries are far more hazardous than those from the cotton-growing and -manufacturing processes. Single-use diapers consume less water than reusables laundered at home, but more than those sent to a commercial diaper service. According to industry data from Franklin Associates and the American Petroleum Institute, 3.5 billion gallons of oil are used to produce the 18 million throwaway diapers that end up in landfills each year. Washing cloth diapers at home uses 50 to 70 gallons of water every three days-about the same as flushing the toilet five times a day. A diaper service puts its diapers through an average of 13 water changes, but uses less water and energy per diaper than one laundry load at home. (Carl Lehrburger, Jocelyn Mullen, and C. V. Jones, "Diapers: Environmental Impacts and Lifecycle Analysis," January 1991)

1991, July The American Public Health Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics publish the recommendations of their joint Child Care Standards Project. After four years of debate and research, the groups conclude that "only modern disposable paper diapers with absorbent gelling material" meet the standards they suggest for daycare centers.

1991, July In the United Kingdom, the Campaign for Reusable Diapers, the Women's Environmental Network's first initiative, finds that all of the available research on the environmental impact of throwaway diapers had been funded directly by makers of throwaways. A London independent environmental agency, the Landbank Consultancy, is asked to review and evaluate the data. The Landbank Report concludes that, compared to cloth diapers, throwaway diapers use 20 times more raw materials, three times more energy, twice as much water, and generate 60 times more waste. Using the Landbank Report, the Women's International Network challenges Proctor and Gamble's environmental equivalency claims before the UK's Advertising Standards Authority (ASA). The ASA rules that P&G's claims are misleading. Under pressure from the press, P&G withdraws its claims.

1994 The Women's Environmental Network (USA) joins with other groups to demand a Federal Trade Commission (FTC) investigation of the single-use diaper industry, charging the industry with deceptive advertising of environmental and health outcomes. Proctor and Gamble pays out-of-court settlements to the New York City Consumer Protection Board and to the Attorneys General of at least ten states for misleading advertising claims related to the recycling and composting of Pampers and Luvs. Environmental groups nationwide, including the New York Public Interest Group and Californians Against Waste, present Earth Day Awards to cloth diapers. Environmental Action, in Washington, DC, gives the Environmental Citizenship Award to the more than 300 hospitals nationwide that have switched to cloth diapers in the past few years. (Wet Set Gazette, April 1994)

1998 Fewer than one in ten US and Canadian households use cloth diapers. Thirty-five percent fewer cloth diapers were produced in the first six months of 1997 as compared with 1996. NADS has 150 members, a 37 percent drop in less than ten years. Disposable diapers have gone up as a percentage of solid waste in landfills. In Seattle, disposable diapers have increased from 2.5 percent of all residential waste in landfills from 1986 to 1989, to 3.3 percent from 1994 to 1995. (Residential Waste Stream Composition Study by the Cascadia Consulting Group)

1998 Seattle Baby Diaper Service receives a subsidy from Seattle Solid Waste for the cost of diaper service for low-income families because it's cheaper to pay a diaper service than to haul the waste away. Certain cities in Germany and Austria subsidize the cost of cloth diapers. Each child in disposables costs the city roughly $400 in municipal waste costs yearly. Coupons of $50 to $100 per family toward the purchase of cloth diapers have increased cloth-diaper usage in certain areas of Austria from almost zero to more than 40 percent.

1999 A study, "Acute Respiratory Effects of Diaper Emissions," in the October issue of Archives of Environmental Health, finds that laboratory mice exposed to various brands of disposable diapers suffered eye, nose, and throat irritation, including bronchoconstriction similar to that of an asthma attack. Chemicals released from the diapers included toluene, xylene, ethylbenzene, styrene, and isopropylbenzene, among others. The lead author of the study, Dr. Rosalind C. Anderson, advises asthmatic mothers to avoid exposure to these chemicals. Asthma rates are on a sharp incline in the US and worldwide, particularly among poor and inner-city children. Six leading brands of cotton and disposable diapers are tested. Of these, three are found not to affect the breathing of mice: American Fiber and Finishing Co., Gladrags organic cotton diapers, and Tender Care disposable diapers. Cloth diapers are not found to cause respiratory problems among mice.

2000 German study links use of plastic diapers to male infertility. The mean scrotal temperature is significantly higher in all age groups during the periods of plastic diaper use. Plastic diapers seriously undermine the body's natural ability to keep the scrotum and testicles cool. The researchers call for further research on the impact of increased testicular temperature in infancy on later sperm production. ("Scrotal Temperature is Increased in Disposable Plastic Lined Nappies," Archives of Disease in Childhood 83, October 2000.)

Friday, September 4, 2009

Friday Feel Up

Since she said it better than I could, I'll just quote and link...

Go check ‘em. Make sure you don’t have cancer. It sucks.

Friday, August 28, 2009

Expectations when You're Expecting

A recent conversation with a friend gave me the chance to sort and organize my thoughts about how a woman’s preconceptions about labor affect how she perceives the sensations of labor as they are happening. I felt like I was fairly eloquent in that conversation and I hope that my attempt to transcribe my thoughts here will come out as well.



The short version of it all is that every woman and every labor are different. But I believe (and have heard quite a few birth stories which vindicate the belief) that most women get the labor they expect. It may not be the labor they planned for, it may not be the labor they wanted, but at least to some degree it was probably the one that they expected. “Expected” may not be the best word…in some cases perhaps it is more accurate to say that they get the labor that they feared…but that is actually precisely what I am getting at: if a woman has negative expectations (or the fear of certain negative things happening) I think that her body will probably get the message, and she is much more likely to have a negative experience.
(As a note, yes I realize that there are various complications which can affect the realities of labor, regardless of the woman’s mindset…chemical induction or augmentation of labor tends to cause more intense contractions, a poorly positioned baby can lead to back labor which by all accounts is much harder than laboring with a better-positioned baby, and if the mother is tired or stressed or inhibited for other reasons those can all affect labor too...So of course I make these comments merely as general observations. Since we’re on the subject of complications though, it is also worth noting that many of them, including things like poor positioning and induction, can be avoided in many cases, so it’s worth being educated enough to avoid those complications if at all possible!)
I can only speculate of course. I cannot get into the inner psyche of another woman and determine what kinds of thoughts and preconceptions were in her head prior to labor. I only know what my experience was, and what other women have told me about theirs. Based on those though, here is what I have concluded:

Women tend to fall into three main groups in their perceptions of labor
  • Those who expect pain, and either plan for medication or else take classes to learn coping techniques to deal with that pain. These women may take classes that promise painless birthing or totally relaxed birthing, but if they still expect labor to be painful, then (in my opinion) no amount of practicing techniques is likely to remove the pain from their labors. (One woman I know practiced her birth hypnosis routines faithfully and told me that in labor she was completely relaxed but still in the worst pain of her life. Complicating factors aside, I am left to wonder if the psychological was part of that.)
  • Those who expect no pain, in spite of avoiding medication, and may even plan to relax though the whole thing (typically because they have taken a class that told them they could). These women usually use words like “surges” or “rushes” instead of “contractions” because they find them more positive. I confess I’m slightly skeptical of this group because, unless she’s had a painless labor before, I’d be surprised to find any woman who genuinely expects labor to be painless.
  • Those who expect work, which will be intense, and may include hurting (like a serious workout), but not ‘pain’ in a negative sense of the word. They don’t mind hearing the “hard labor” stories, nor using words like “contraction” (it IS an accurate description of the uterine motion, after all), but they perceive it all through the lens of ‘work’ rather than the lens of ‘pain.’ They gear up for labor as for a marathon, and they don’t mind getting down and dirty because they know that they will also get the high that comes from completing the race.

Those who know my personality can probably guess which mindset I chose, and guess what: I got precisely what I expected. Labor was a lot of work, it was tiring, and after 12 or 15 hours it got pretty hard. I remember the thing that ended up being the most helpful during contractions was for my husband to repeat to me over and over “you can do anything for one minute,” because you know, I could! At the moment of the “ring of fire” (just as the head squeezed through) it hurt like crazy…but those few seconds passed in, well, seconds, and then I had a baby to hold. I have no hesitation in going into my second labor with the same mindset. I think back to Stephen Gaskin’s quote about labor being heavy, and that if you’ve never done anything heavy (or hard) in your life then labor is going to be thoroughly overwhelming…but if you’re not afraid of some hard work, then what’s to fear about labor?!

Wednesday, August 26, 2009

29 Weeks

pregnancy calendar

First of all, it has been a really long time since I've posted pictures. My apologies, but see I've been busy. First I sorted my entire household into "stuff we will need during the summer" and "stuff that can sit in storage" and "stuff to sell/leave behind." Then I packed/mailed/sold/left it. Then I spent a week and a half on the road, including 12 hours on ferries and 16 in the car and 5 on a jet. Then I spent two months in another state, 3000 miles from home (oh, wait, without a home...) where the weather was rediculously hot. I put dozens of hours of work in at my house (you know, the one I own, which isn't the one I live in). I found new renters for that house, and chased down an apartment for us to move into when we got back up here. Then we spent another 5 hours flying back up here, and 4 hours driving to our new city. Since then I've spent two weeks unpacking and organizing my new home, along with about 12 hours worth of traveling to other cities to do things like get the rest of our stuff from storage or *ahem* buy a couch. All the while I've been chasing a toddler, trying to get him to sleep through the night, helping two kids get settled into a new place, helping one kid get ready to start at a new school (including riding the bus which he's never done before)...
All of this is why I feel tired I think...more tired than at this stage of the last pregnancy anyway. I don't think being 3 years older is enough to make me feel this much more tired...but then again, who knows.
In any case, here are some photos:

28 wks with Bear ~~~~~~~and~~~~~~~28 wks with Eagle

And one showing the belly (cuz I know you all thought I'd been stuffing a pillow in there all this time)...complete with stripes. I haven't gotten any new ones this time...not yet anyhow. Fingers crossed that Bear gave me enough stripes that I won't need any more! (I look kinda tired or something...hmm...wonder why that is...)


And now for a few minutes on the progress of the little guy...
He is 15-16 inches long, and about 2.5lbs. He can open and close his eyes, hear us when we talk to him (or even when we don't), and he has started being interactive!
His wiggles are no longer "little flutters" like when he weighed mere ounces. Instead he is able to push things right off my belly, and his movement is easily visible from the outside! He's big enough that if I lay on my side for a while I can feel his spine...if I prod around a bit I can push on his bum (which of course moves his whole body, and tends to press his head into my bladder, so I find it just as annoying as he probably does!). I've also been able to locate hands or feet a couple of times (I can't tell which, but they are small, bony, and he always punches me when I grab them!)
Names are still under debate...we think we've found a first name, so that's something, but for some reason we are really struggling with a middle name this time around. Oh well, at least we have something to call him besides "little brother" and "the baby"...but I will feel better when we have his whole name figured out.
In the meantime, I am meeting with a couple of local care providers, so within a week or two I'll finally know who is going to be attending me for this birth. It's a weird thing to not get that figured out until the last 10 weeks, but I guess this pregnancy has been weird in a lot of ways. ☺

Tuesday, August 25, 2009

Some Things are Heavy

I admit that the English teacher in me cringes at the grammar in this quote, but I think the message is a very good one, so I have left it intact rather than try to say it myself.

"If all your life you never do anything heavy, there’s certain passages in life that are heavy. Having a baby, for instance, is one. If you be a total paddy-@$$ all your life, they’re going to have to knock you out when you have your kid, because you’re going to be too chicken to have it. And if you do something that builds character ahead of time, you’ll have enough character that you can have that kid, and it will be a beautiful and spiritual experience for you."
~~Stephen Gaskin (husband and co-midwife of Ina May Gaskin)

Monday, August 24, 2009

Truth is Stranger than Fiction

I may have mentioned how we didn't have a couch...we went to a great deal of trouble making arrangements to be able to get one. There was no where in town to get one, and we had difficulty finding one elsewhere that was not ridiculously expensive. Once we finally located one we could afford, the store did not deliver down to our city (80 miles away), and our van was not large enough to bring it down ourselves. We finally were able to make arrangements with a third party to bring us our couch, and we were only able to arrange that because he was already bringing down our mattress box spring, and we were paying him for it all.
So, skip to today...after a week and a half of waiting the day finally arrives when our couch will arrive! It's a small sectional (cheaper than a sofa/love combo), and of course comes in two pieces. Each portion is wrapped, but our delivery man and his son unwrapped the first and lugged it up the stairs, and then went back for the other half. I was standing in the living room looking at the half sitting there, and then I glanced down at the remaining half which was now being unwrapped on the trailer. I looked back and forth several times then ran out the door and told him to wait a minute before bringing it up, because, well, this is why:
Do you see what I see? Yeah, they sent us two right halves and no left half of the couch. I called the store (that doesn't deliver to my town), told them who I was and where I was from, then informed them of the mistake and asked what they intended to do to fix it. I thankfully was already speaking to the manager, and he hemmed and hawed for a few minutes and then told me that he'll bring me the proper piece on Friday and swap it out with the wrong one.
And they don't deliver to our city. Ha. I betcha he's wishing now that he'd just done it himself!!
In the meantime, we are only sitting on one half of the couch, and I've covered the other half (the half that's going back) so that nobody will sit on it and it can't possibly get damaged during it's 5 days in our house.
And we shall see if they make it down on Friday. They had better, or they will be getting a phone call from a very irate and hormonal pregnant woman who wants a whole couch to sit on darnit!!!

Sunday, August 23, 2009

Sunday Inspiration: Calming the Storm

This is an excerpt from the chorus of a song. I don't know who wrote it or even the lyrics of the rest of the song, but I find this bit very inspirational so I wanted to share it.

Sometimes He calms the storm
With the whisper "Peace, be still"
He can settle any sea
But that doesn't mean He will.
Sometimes He holds us close
And lets the wind and waves run wild.
Sometimes He calms the storm
And other times He calms His child.

Friday, August 21, 2009

"Natural Cures 'They' Don't Want You to Know About" by Kevin Trudeau

I had been hearing of this book for some time but never read it. I remember seeing part of an interview a couple of years ago and basically what Trudeau said was "there is a cure for ___ but I can't tell you what it is cuz they would sue me, so you will have to read the book to find out." He repeated this about a half dozen ailments, and I came away with the feeling like this guy is out to sell books and may or may not have anything very helpful to say therein. I'm always sceptical when someone says "you have to buy the book to find out" you know?

Well, apparently a friend of my in-laws saw something about the book and was impressed and got the book for them. They have some (little) interest in natural health, and my father-in-law read the book...or at least started reading it...I don't know whether he actually finished it (there was a bookmark just a few chapters in ☺) His conclusion was that the guy is out to sell books, (that makes two for two here) and he was very sceptical of the content of the book.

So while we were staying with them, my father-in-law asked if I had read the book, and I said no. He asked if I'd like to, and I said um, sure. So he gave it to me. As I started reading I noticed several things immediately:

  1. Trudeau says a lot of things that I've heard before about both natural and mainstream medical practices--some of these things I agree with and some of which I've never seen evidence for (more on that in a moment).

  2. He is convinced that the medical community as a whole is in one giant conspiracy to keep us all sick so that they will make money.

  3. Throughout the book, he has a very unprofessional writing style. He repeats himself a lot, saying the same things and talking in circles around topics (while often not really making a discernable point). He also writes in a very defensive manner ("I would tell you but they would sue me and burn this book, I have the letter from the FTC that says so"). Worst of all though is point 4.

  4. He does not provide references or sources or verification for anything he says. This is very troubling to me--why should I trust him over anyone else when I don't know his sources?! He says that on his webpage he has all the references about which study he means when he states that "a study was done which found ___." However he never gives even a simple "In [year] an article appeared in [publication] about a study which said ___" in the actual text of his book. Even if I've heard the same information from other sources, not documenting the source is unprofessional and (in my opinion) just plain fishy. In fairness I should note that he does have two chapters of the book ("Not Convinced?" and "Still Not Convinced?") where he gives lists of articles and books which he says validate the things he is saying. Still though, unprofessional and just poor writing.
If you have been a reader here for more than about two days you probably know that I am a proponent of natural medicine, or, rather, that I'm a great proponent of taking the path of least-intervention whenever possible (which usually leads me down more 'natural' paths).

Here are some things where I agree with Trudeau:


  • Medical 'fact' is (and always was) not really facts. It is merely the educated opinion based on the knowledge and research of the time. (Bloodletting was once a cure-all, bodily fluids were considered to be composed of four humors, and in the 1920s smoking was touted as healthy...clearly medical facts change with time.)

  • The medical world (drug makers + doctors) makes their money off our being sick.

  • Being sick all the time is not normal (he suggests that the annual flu or even the 'common cold' shouldn't be common in a healthy individual, and that all the bigger stuff from diabetes to impotence to cancer should definitely not be common).

  • In spite of numerous new drugs and new treatments, the population of the USA is more sick than ever, including still dying of cancer at the same rate as we did 50 years ago (and being infected with it much more often).

  • Mainstream medicine treats symptoms, not causes, which is why it doesn't work very well (why we stay sick, or why the drug may solve one problem while causing another).

  • The medical world in general (from drug researchers & manufacturers to the FDA) is out there to make money, so if something simple and cheap and (most importantly) non-patentable (ie, natural) comes along that solves the problem, they will try to dismiss or even squelch it so that it doesn't cut into their bottom line.

  • We see advertising for mainstream drugs (and not for natural cures) because that's where the money is--and the TV/radio producers don't want to lose the hefty amounts of advertising funding that they get from the pharmaceutical companies, so they won't advertise the little guys who are in conflict with them.(You may remember my little rant about this topic in my recent post on healthcare reform

  • The medical associations are out there to protect the doctors (including their incomes)...not to protect the patients. Therefore, when you see a statement from the American Medical Association (AMA), American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists (ACOG), American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), etc, you should remember that they are looking out for the doctors, not for you, and thus the statement should be taken with a grain of salt (and verified with your own research if at all possible).

  • There are effective natural (non-patentable) alternatives to mainstream medical treatments/drugs, but we don't hear about them because of the reasons listed above. These options include things from vitamins, supplements, herbs and homeopathic drugs, to chiropractic care, parasitic cleanses, exercise routines, and special diets. (Please note that I think some of these options hold more water than others...but I do agree with the basic premise that there are effective alternatives to much if not all of mainstream medicine.)

  • A great deal of what we eat, drink, breathe, and come in contact with in our daily lives is putting toxins into our body, and reducing exposure to those toxins (and working to eradicate the ones already within us) will improve our health. (He feels that most if not all health problems stem from toxins in our bodies, nutritional deficencies, or stress.)
He goes on to present a list of ways to eradicate (or at least reduce) our personal exposure to toxins, improve our personal nutrition, and reduce stress. I find that I agree (to varying degrees) with much of his toxin list, and almost all of his nutrition and stress lists. Honestly, I don't know that the rest of book is worth reading, but I would recommend the chapter with those lists.

Some things where I don't agree so much:


  • All drugs (prescription or non-prescription) are intentionally made with negative side effects in order to keep us buying more drugs/treatments. Trudeau even goes so far as to suggest that some fatal drugs are knowingly released so that the manufacturers can get a few years of income off them before they are pulled from the market--because the money matters that much. (On the one hand, yes, I agree that most of these drugs have scary side-effects, which is why I am typically skeptical about them--especially new ones--but I don't agree with the notion that they are made that way intentionally...it's a little bit too conspiracy-theory for me.)

  • All those working in the world of mainstream medicine want us to stay sick so that they will stay in business. (Sorry, but I just don't believe that every little family practice doctor is that malicious...yes I can easily believe it about the CEOs of big pharma, but not about every single researcher or doctor out there.)

As I said, he's got a massive conspiracy theory complex going on. I think he has some good advice about specific lifestyle/nutrition choices, and based on what I do know of natural medicine I think most if not all of his advice there is probably pretty good too. However the book is so poorly written that he discredits himself with almost every word.

Monday, August 17, 2009

"Home"

It's a curious thing, what makes a place Home. I don't mean home (with a little 'h')--a place where you return to every night. I mean Home (with the big 'H')--the place where you can always go (WILL always go) in your mind, the place you will always think of as where you are from (regardless of how long you lived there, or how long since you left).
For most of us, I think Home starts as the place where we were raised--but only if we were raised in one area for most of our formative years. For me, that was western Washington until I was 26 (in spite of living several other places). Then in that summer I moved somewhere and discovered that I had come home to a place I'd never been before (to borrow a phrase from John Denver!), and from that time onwards Alaska was Home. However Pelican still was not Home. Yes, I lived there for two years, and there were a number of things I liked about the place...but I was ever so ready to leave when we left, and I feel no desire to return.

We have now been in our new home for a whole 10 days though, and I have the feeling that this place may be Home.



As for a brief moving update... most (but not all) of the boxes are unpacked.
We don't have a couch or a desk or any dressers or shelves.
We did buy a bed for us, but the boys are sleeping on the floor (they seem to prefer that a lot of the time even when they have beds, so we're waiting for october and the PFDs to buy their beds).
My in-laws are bringing the remainder of our boxes up in two weeks, and until then I have only a half-stocked kitchen (two pans and no measuring cups/spoons!) and three bath towels for a family of 4 (I'm not about to buy more though when I know they are coming in the boxes).
Getting into the apartment (between moving expenses, rent, deposit, etc) has left us basically totally broke...so I'm cooking on a SERIOUS budget right now. It makes things interesting, if not always exciting. ☺
Wolf is enrolled to start school next monday, Hubby has already been to 4 days of inservice meetings and has 4 more till he starts teaching, and Bear is, um, skipping a lot of naps. Yeah, he'll get settled in better once school starts and we have a more normal routine. ☺

Linked Within

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...