FOR RELEASE THE WEEK OF JAN. 21, 2001:
I’m a working parent. My time is really at a premium, and I don’t like to spend it washing or ironing. But I also don’t want to contribute unnecessarily to environmental pollution. Am I being overly cautious when I keep my dry cleaning to a minimum?
According to Sandra Evenson, University of Idaho associate professor of clothing and textiles, new detergents have been released that dry-clean effectively and are gentler on the environment than their predecessors. A new method that relies on liquid carbon dioxide rather than on the solvent perc has also been invented. As a result, she says, the "whole dry cleaning process is much healthier than it was even 10 years ago."
The carbon dioxide method has no harmful effects on humans and leaves no hazardous waste in the environment, she says. Some dry cleaners are already offering it, although the International Fabricare Institute would like to see more testing of its cleaning effectiveness and wear-and-tear on garments and trims before giving its endorsement.
Perc, still the mainstay of the dry-cleaning industry, is a groundwater contaminant and a probable human carcinogen. However, says Evenson, it is now tightly regulated, continuously filtered and its filters safely disposed of using EPA hazardous waste guidelines.
She suggests that environmentally conscious consumers weigh infrequent dry cleaning against the demands that frequent laundering places on home water and energy use. If you air, brush or spot-treat your wool, silk and rayon garments after each use, you’ll only need to dry-clean them once or twice a year, she notes.
I've joined a volunteer organization whose cause is near and dear to my heart. Unfortunately, long-time members seem to ignore newcomers’ ideas for doing things even a little differently. I'm wondering whether to take my energies elsewhere—or is there a tactful way to "open" the very dedicated founders of a volunteer organization to ideas that involve change?
"It’s definitely an issue of psychology," says Linda Webb, University of Idaho
4-H youth development specialist. "When people have been long-term leaders or organizers of a group, so much of themselves is tied up in that group that they may feel that suggestions for change reflect on them directly. As they see it, you’ve just told them that what they’ve done over the past 10 years is not important—or that they as people are no longer important or needed."
Initially, try making limited but concrete contributions rather than suggestions for change. If the group has a clearly defined mission and goals and a solid plan for achieving them, this may be a time to "sit back and be part of the plan," Webb says. Volunteer for a task that will demonstrate your skills and that will be satisfying to accomplish.
Also, do try to tactfully express your concerns about not being heard. "It takes a lot of courage, but I think it’s important for an individual to let volunteer leadership know how he or she is feeling," she says. "Sometimes those leaders don’t realize how their actions are affecting other group members."
If the group doesn’t have a clearly defined mission or goals, it would benefit substantially from a focused planning session led by a neutral facilitator. In an open forum like this, both newer and older members have an opportunity to brainstorm.
If the situation doesn’t begin to improve, don’t martyr yourself, Webb says. Find one of the many organizations in your community that will value your time and ideas.
"Unfortunately, some organizations really are closed," says Webb. "If you keep meeting with them but you are obviously not a valued member, then it’s time to get out. None of us has time to waste."
What’s the latest on the safety of the non-sugar sweeteners? Do we still need to be concerned about bladder tumors or other health problems? Or have the lo-cal, no-cal sweeteners been given a clean bill of health?
The Food and Drug Administration has given all of the current non-nutritive sweeteners a "clean bill of health"—with one qualifier, says Jeff Culbertson, University of Idaho extension food scientist. Saccharin must still carry a label indicating that it was found to cause bladder tumors in laboratory animals.
"The risk to humans consuming saccharin is considered very small, however, because the test in which tumors were found gave the rats a dose equivalent to you and I drinking 10,000 cans of diet pop every day over our lifetimes," he says.
Almost all of today’s diet pop is produced with aspartame, which is marketed as Nutrasweet™. Culbertson calls aspartame the nation’s "most thoroughly studied food additive," having undergone more than 500 animal and clinical studies. "None of the studies showed any problems," he says. "According to scientists, aspartame is simply safe."
Nor have problems been found with acesulfame K and sucralose, which are used less often than aspartame because they are twice as expensive. Indeed, neither of these two sweeteners is even absorbed into the bloodstream: they pass directly through the body.
[READERS: Do you have a question about your home, yard or garden? Send it to HomeWise, University of Idaho Ag Communications, Moscow, ID 83844-2332 or e-mail it to homewise@uidaho.edu. Mention of proprietary products or firms does not constitute endorsement by the University of Idaho Cooperative Extension System or imply approval to the exclusion of other suitable products or firms.]