Please Please No More Febreze

I’m one of those people who can’t tolerate products that have heavy or overpowering fragrances, and there are a lot of people out there like me. While many cleaning products have some sort of fragrance, I can tolerate them if the fragrance isn’t heavy and doesn’t assault my nose. I do buy products that have no fragrance – laundry detergent for example – whenever possible.

Many people must either be obsessed with smelling like perfume, or too many people have smelly homes, because it seems as if Febreze is being added to everything. I am waiting for them to start adding Febreze to toothpaste and mouthwash so people can have nice fragrant breath. Don’t laugh, I bet if they could do it, they would. I go a little crazy when I see commercials with someone spraying Febreze all over their house, their car, their closets, etc. If a person has to spray so much Febreze all over everything, this should signal that they have some sort of cleanliness and odor problem that shouldn’t just be covered up.

Before you reach for that Febreze to spray all over your home, think first about what is causing the smell and address that issue only. Have a kid that is a slob? Don’t spray Febreze all over his/her room; make him/her clean it up. Have leftover cooking smells? Open a window – or keep a box of baking soda on your counter (it’s good for cleanups and some boxes are made with open panels to help absorb odors). Does your house smell of pets? Keep them off the furniture and have your upholstered furniture and rugs vacuumed often. If you don’t have a dog, don’t get one – dogs can really stink up a house. (Cats, not so much, as long as the litter box is kept clean). Do you smoke? There isn't enough Febreze to cover the smell of cigarette smoke, period. Don't smoke or don't smoke indoors. I could go on and on, but you get the picture.

Here’s another clue – if you spray Febreze all over your house so someone can’t smell an odor, they will smell the Febreze and know you are just covering up something. Address the source of the odor because it really is obvious when someone sprays something to just cover it up – you’re not fooling anybody.

Before you buy that product with Febreze, think twice about why you feel you need it. If possible, buy products like Method cleaners which are gentle and non-toxic and have natural, light scents – or no scent at all.

So quit covering odors with perfumey chemicals – your nose will eventually thank you for it.











All Original Text Content © frequentcritic.blogspot.com unless otherwise noted

Check out my blog home page for the latest information, The Frequent Critic, here.

The Story of Cosmetics: Beauty Can Be Toxic

Who doesn’t want to look beautiful? Who doesn’t want to be healthy? Who doesn’t want the earth to be a clean place to live? I am sure everyone wants all those things (and probably more). But does using cosmetics mean that you have to expose yourself to toxic chemicals that can cause cancer and can be harmful to the earth? Apparently it does. Here’s a short video which explains just what is going into our cosmetics and health and beauty items. It’s quite revealing and will certainly make one think twice about all the health and beauty items used on a daily basis.


For more information on a what can be done to make cosmetics safer to use, seeCampaign for Safe Cosmetics.




All Original Text Content © frequentcritic.blogspot.com unless otherwise noted

Check out my blog home page for the latest information, The Frequent Critic, here.

Cloud Computing: A Matter of Trust, Security

It sounds like a great thing – using programs and storing files in the internet “cloud.” It would allow you to work on files and access files and photos anywhere and from any device that can access the Internet. Many people – including me – are already using the cloud for email when using email services like Gmail, Yahoo, Hotmail, etc. I’ve been using those services for years, and with the exception of the occasional (rare) email outage, they are all great services, keeping my own hard drive unclogged from the hundreds of emails that I get daily.

But..do you really trust someone with your sensitive files, or want someone to have access to all your photos? Do you want to have access to your files being controlled by someone other than yourself? Not me. I don’t have the trust that these systems are 100% secure and that my photos will not end up being indexed in someone’s search engine, or that someone may hack into my account and grab my photos and use them for profit. I also have a concern that once I would move things to the cloud, somewhere the ISPs would find a way to make money off the fact that I have to use the Internet to get my files, and start charging users more based on Internet usage (yes, some ISPs have kicked around the idea of charging more for heavy users, just like in the early days of the Internet).

With the amount of computer viruses, trojans, malware, and hackers out there, it would only be a matter of time before someone found a way to compromise the security for files stored in the cloud. Imagine if you stored all your photos in the cloud and someone hacked into your account and deleted all your precious photos? It would be as if someone robbed you of all your memories.

Call me a control freak, but for personal documents, photos, and other files such as music, I prefer to have complete control over my data, at least for now. Cloud computing is great for email, especially if confidentiality is not an issue and if you have a decent password that would be difficult to hack. But for your precious files and photos, it may be better to keep them grounded on your own computer.

All Original Content © frequentcritic.blogspot.com unless otherwise noted

Check out my blog home page for the latest information, The Frequent Critic, here.

BP: Beyond Pathetic

Not abstract art; it's only a small part of the Gulf oil spill

Each day, I become more horrified and sickened by the sights of globs of tarry oil on the beautiful Gulf shores and beaches in the southern United States. BP has more than a disastrous oil leak on their hands; they have a colossal PR nightmare on their hands. Their stock is plummeting and the American public becomes angrier by the minute at the expanding oil slick that is ruining beaches and marshland, disabling and/or killing wildlife, and destroying livelihoods. The CEO of BP, Tony Hayward, seems to have dropped from view with the media after his comment, “I’d like my life back” (video below). As Hayward seems to have cut back his appearances with the news media, the New York Times is now reporting that BP appears to be making an effort to limit the flow of news about the oil spill, saying the following:

To some critics of the response effort by BP and the government, instances of news media being kept at bay are just another example of a broader problem of officials’ filtering what images of the spill the public sees.

Scientists, too, have complained about the trickle of information that has emerged from BP and government sources. Three weeks passed, for instance, from the time the Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded on April 20 and the first images of oil gushing from an underwater pipe were released by BP.

“I think they’ve been trying to limit access,” said Representative Edward J. Markey, a Democrat from Massachusetts who fought BP to release more video from the underwater rovers that have been filming the oil-spewing pipe. “It is a company that was not used to transparency. It was not used to having public scrutiny of what it did.”

BP’s actions with this whole disaster are pathetic. At first, they seemed to minimize the amount of oil being leaked into the Gulf, and then they minimized the impact to the coastline. But lucky for Americans, the media can be like an attack dog that is not willing to let go – they will continue to dig into the story despite whatever roadblocks are placed in front of them. In my opinion, the time will be coming all too soon when the oil will be spread so far over the Gulf coastline that there is no way that BP can keep the media away in ANY location.

Rubbing salt into the wound is this report from Business Insider, “The UK Is Now Freaking Out About The U.S. Reaction To BP” which says:

“Major Conservative political leader and Mayor of London Boris Johnson has called President Barack Obama's language "anti-British" after the President called BP 'British Petroleum' rather than its modern name.

Conservative Lord Tebbit's quote is just too vitriolic to paraphrase.

From The Daily Mail:

"The whole might of American wealth and technology is displayed as utterly unable to deal with the disastrous spill - so what more natural than a crude, bigoted, xenophobic display of partisan political Presidential petulance against a multinational company," said Lord Tebbit.

Much of the furor over the fallout from the BP spill in the UK stems from the potential damage to the company's dividends, which are linked to many pensions in the country.”


With the oil disaster in the Gulf now listed as the largest environmental disaster in U.S. history, it is clear that many people, and many types of wildlife, will feel the effects for years to come. It will also require a lot of money to restore the land, water, wildlife, and livelihoods to the way it was before the oil leak occurred. Will BP have the money to make it right? Possibly not, if they pay out those dividends. Does it bother me that many pensions in the UK may be linked to those BP dividends? Not in the slightest, seeing that the livelihoods of many Americans have already been destroyed by BP's own inability to fix and contain the problem. Would any citizens of the UK like it if that oil spill happened on their own beaches and shores? I think not. And, if Lord Tebbit is upset that Obama referred to them as “British Petroleum,” all I can say is that’s still what I call them too, after all, they had the name “British Petroleum” for a long time. It’s a simple mistake, nothing like a big mistake such as your company’s oil rig blowing up, killing people and causing an uncontrolled oil spill of huge proportions.

BP – it’s time to fix this oil spill once and for all. Pretend that this happened right on the coastline of England – wouldn’t you want the leak plugged and the oil cleaned up immediately? I would think so. And, until you make this right by cleaning up the beaches, restoring wildlife habitats, and compensating American businesses for their losses, I don’t think once cent should be paid to any shareholder. Shareholders may not like it, but their dividends are now covered by that black, tarry oil too.





All Original Text Content © frequentcritic.blogspot.com unless otherwise noted

Check out my blog home page for the latest information, The Frequent Critic, here.

Crude Oil: You Can’t Have Your Cake And Eat It Too

As the oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico continues to horrify the nation, especially those living near the shores directly in its path, opposition to offshore drilling has increased. Everybody is getting on the anti-drilling bandwagon, and even Sam Waterston, Law & Order star and a board memo of Oceana, spoke to Congress to urge a halt to new offshore drilling.

But while the spill expands and the outrage increases, our need for oil that will ultimately power or cars has not abated and we don’t seem any closer to reducing our reliance on fossil fuels.

Drilling for oil is an ugly business, and anytime we mix crude oil and water we are asking for trouble. And I don’t mean by just offshore drilling, I also include the transport of oil. There have been big oil spills in the past, some listed in this article in the New York Times, Gulf Oil Spill Is Bad, but How Bad? :

The ruptured well, currently pouring an estimated 210,000 gallons of oil a day into the gulf, could flow for years and still not begin to approach the 36 billion gallons of oil spilled by retreating Iraqi forces when they left Kuwait in 1991. It is not yet close to the magnitude of the Ixtoc I blowout in the Bay of Campeche in Mexico in 1979, which spilled an estimated 140 million gallons of crude before the gusher could be stopped.

And it will have to get much worse before it approaches the impact of the Exxon Valdez accident of 1989, which contaminated 1,300 miles of largely untouched shoreline and killed tens of thousands of seabirds, otters and seals along with 250 eagles and 22 killer whales.


We need oil to power our cars – but we also abhor the process of getting that oil. This is one of those cases where we just can’t have our cake and eat it too – if we don’t like how we get the oil, then we have to GIVE UP the oil.

Those who frown on offshore drilling are thinking too small; offshore drilling is only part of the problem. We still transport oil over water, regardless of where it may have been drilled. There are also endless tons of exhaust from motor vehicles which gas fueled vehicles spew into the air and into our lungs. We just have to say NO to oil. While it’s easy to make that statement, doing it is not. Vehicles powered by methods other than gas – such as electric cells - are not affordable for most people. Alternative fuel such as electricity are probably not practical at this time for trucks, trains, and ships, which likely throw more garbage into the air than cars and may use far more fossil fuel. And the NIMBYs (Not In My Back Yard) really come out whenever nuclear power is mentioned.

While I do think it is wise to halt new offshore drilling for now until we are certain that the proper controls are in place to prevent another disaster such as this Gulf oil spill, it will probably become a necessity down the road if we still insist on powering our cars with gas and want to do it at a low cost. If there was ever a call to find alternatives to powering our motor vehicles and to make it affordable to do so, it is now.


All Original Text Content © frequentcritic.blogspot.com unless otherwise noted

Check out my blog home page for the latest information, The Frequent Critic, here.

Is Facebook the New “Evil Empire”?

Years ago, when Microsoft was rising as a powerful software company, my office colleagues used to refer to it as “The Evil Empire” as it seemed that Microsoft wanted its hands in everything people did on a computer. Much later, the focus changed to Google, who became the new Evil Empire as it seemed they want to Google-ize everything people did on a computer, but Google was more stealth-like about it than Microsoft. We all figured that one day Google would try to get its hands on every little bit of our lives. Even Google must have sensed this, as they adopted a motto “don’t be evil.” Over the years I’ve softened quite a bit on Google, after seeing some of the really interesting things they’ve made available for free, like blogs, maps with street view, books on line, to name just a few. OK, they took a swing and missed with Google Buzz, a nightmare when it came to people wanting to be connected, yet protecting their privacy from the masses. But I can understand Google wanting to jump on the social media bandwagon. And in case your wondering, Apple is getting close to crossing over to the evil dark side, acting like greedy control freaks who want people (now called iSheep) to buy every new iToy they sell, just so the iSheep can buy stuff like movies and music and books to run on the hot iToy of the day. Apple is all about selling you their stuff so you can consume (and buy) more stuff.

So who is the new evil empire of the moment? Facebook. I have several Facebook accounts, setting them up long ago when Facebook was still a small fry. I thought it would be nice to have a few Facebook accounts just in case I would find a need for them in the future. I never did find that need. In fact, I realized that - after being reluctant about Twitter at first - that Twitter fit my needs better as I like to get – and give – information in quick “bursts” without having to wade through several web sites or too much data. Recent privacy concerns with Facebook makes me like it even less, and I am becoming more convinced that they are new Evil Empire.

PC World published an article titled ” Facebook's New Features and Your Privacy: What You Need To Know.” It is an interesting look into the increasingly complex and almost sinister (translate: evil) changes with Facebook as its tentacles wrap tighter and tighter onto not just the information you post on Facebook, but also on third party sites you may visit, and making public things that you like, not only to your friends, but friends of friends. Let me be blunt here: friends of friends should translate to the word “strangers” because that’s who they likely are. In this day of people wanting to protect their identity, why on earth are people being so casual about what information they spew out to strangers?

There are ways you can “opt out” of some of these things, but unless you know where to look to make that fix, you may be unwittingly sharing information that you really didn’t want broadcast to the world. I have never liked “opt-out” policies, thinking that certain changes should be “opt-in.” I suppose since Facebook is free, technically they can do whatever they want with the information you put on their site. It’s the collecting of data and information from other sites that rubs me the wrong way, and the fact that Facebook is becoming too cavalier with members' information.

Now that Facebook is the apparent designated social media site for the masses and has millions in its grip, it’s time for them to find ways to tighten its grasp. For me, I have turned off many of their applications that would even remotely share any data about what I do. If you have a Facebook account, I urge you to read the PC World article I mentioned above and then take a look at what you have on your Facebook account and what Facebook is sharing with strangers about YOU, and make changes as needed. Facebook can only do evil things to you and your information if you let them


Reference: ”PC World Facebook's New Features and Your Privacy: What You Need To Know.”



All Original Text Content © frequentcritic.blogspot.com unless otherwise noted
Check out my blog home page for the latest information, The Frequent Critic, here.

Samsung 3-D TV To Come With Serious Warnings

As Samsung works to mass produce television with 3-D screens, Samsung has also come out with a warning for 3-D TV viewers which may give many people pause about buying one. An excerpt as the warning as it stands today:

Some viewers may experience an epileptic seizure or stroke when exposed to certain flashing images or lights contained in certain television pictures or video games. If you suffer from, or have a family history of epilepsy or strokes, please consult with a medical specialist before using the 3D function.

Even those without a personal or family history of epilepsy or stroke may have an undiagnosed condition that can cause photosensitive epileptic seizures.

Pregnant women, the elderly, sufferers of serious medical conditions, those who are sleep deprived or under the influence of alcohol should avoid utilising the unit’s 3D functionality.

If you experience any of the following symptoms, stop viewing 3D pictures immediately and consult a medical specialist:
1. altered vision;
2.lightheadedness;
3.dizziness;
4.involuntary movements such as eye or muscle twitching;
5.confusion;
6.nausea;
7.convulsions;
8.cramps; and/ or
9.disorientation.


…Viewing 3D television may also cause motion sickness, perceptual after effects, disorientation, eye strain and decreased postural stability. It is recommended that users take frequent breaks to lessen the potential of these effects. If your eyes show signs of fatigue or dryness or if you have any of the above symptoms, immediately discontinue use of this device and do not resume using it for at least thirty minutes after the symptoms have subsided.

…Viewing in 3D may cause disorientation for some viewers. Accordingly, DO NOT place your TV television near open stairwells, cables, balconies, or other objects that can be tripped over, run into, knocked down, broken or fallen over.


Keep in mind that the above is only an excerpt, there are quite a few more warning points listed. It is worse than reading the warning label on prescription drugs, it would only sound worse if one of the side effects was death. For me, I get motion sickness standing on a damp lawn, and get nauseated at the simple flicker of florescent lights or flashing lights on vehicles such as police cars and ambulances. It sounds like 3-D TV is going to be crossed off my list. But even for people who are not hyper-sensitive and motions sick and migraine prone like me, I would think that they would also have to think twice before putting down a large amount of money for a television that may make them ill while viewing. The next thing you know, it will become illegal to drive your car after watching 3-D TV for fear that it will impair drivers.

Technology is changing so fast that one can only hope that someone will come up with 3-D technology that doesn’t have such side effects. Until that time, I’ll stick with my nice, flat screen HD TV – because two dimensional TV is enough for me!

Reference
Samsung warning for 3-D TV viewers


Check out my blog home page for the latest information, The Frequent Critic, here.