More on the U.S. rate of C-sections

Now I'm just fired up.

Based on the complexity of childbirth and cesarean sections in this country and my hesitation to throw the kitchen sink in the previous post, here is some additional information on C-sections in the United States that may be helpful for first-time moms or others considering/anticipating additional children.

First, I freely admit my bias, as previously stated, that pregnancy and childbirth are natural processes that require minimal-to-no medical intervention in most cases, but I have attempted to provide good representation of the facts.

According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the reasons for a C-section include multiple births, failure of labor to progress, concern for the baby, a problem with the placenta, or a previous delivery by C-section.

Vaginal birth after C-section carries a risk of 1-4% of uterine rupture; that's serious, no question. At the same time, cesareans are not without their own risks, to both mother and child.

The U.S. has one of the highest C-section rates of any developed country, and one has to wonder why we're different. I'm not convinced that doctors or our healthcare system bear all the blame, though the latter certainly plays a big part. Consider:

• "More C-sections, more problems" in the LA Times (May 17, 2009):

Once reserved for cases in which the life of the baby or mother was in danger, the cesarean is now routine. The most common operation in the U.S., it is performed in 31% of births, up from 4.5% in 1965.
With that surge has come an explosion in medical bills, an increase in complications -- and a reconsideration of the cesarean as a sometimes unnecessary risk.
It is a big reason childbirth often is held up in healthcare reform debates as an example of how the intensive and expensive U.S. brand of medicine has failed to deliver better results and may, in fact, be doing more harm than good.

• "Can we please stop blaming women for C-sections?" in RHRealityCheck.org (January 21, 2009):

It's true: scheduled, repeat cesareans are not "medically indicated," at least not according to the research evidence. After a cesarean birth, a woman is left with a scar on her uterus, and there's a small risk of that scar rupturing in subsequent deliveries, which has led to concerns about vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC). But a VBAC baby has excellent odds—the risk of severe harm or death is 1 in 2000—the same odds as for a baby born vaginally to a first-time mother.

• Births: Final data for 2006 (pdf) by the CDC National Center for Vital Statistics Reports, v.57 No.7 (January 7, 2009):

The cesarean delivery rate rose 3 percent to 31.1 percent of all births, another record high. The cesarean rate has climbed 50 percent since the 1996 low.

• "A risky rise in C-sections" in U.S. News & World Report (March 28, 2008):

Obstetricians' rising malpractice insurance premiums may play a role, too. Individual doctors in many states now pay upwards of $100,000 a year for coverage, a figure that can spike if they're sued for something that goes wrong during labor, regardless of the legal outcome. "If there's no labor, there can be no lawsuit related to labor," says Flamm, who points out wryly that parents rarely sue over unnecessary C-sections.

For more information, check out these government agencies and other organizations

• Medline Plus (National Library of Medicine and National Institutes of Health)
• Women's Health (Dept. of Health & Human Services)
• American College of Nurse Midwives
• Childbirth Connection
• March of Dimes
• RH Reality Check

WOW. Refusal to have C-section = child abuse and neglect?!

Women take note! Especially those of you of child-bearing age.

I cannot believe this report, but it's true. Sort of. On the surface, a New Jersey woman's newborn child was removed from her custody because she refused a C-section and "behaved erratically" while in labor.

Show me a woman who is not erratic while in the throes of labor. Seriously, the baby was born vaginally and was fine, yet still removed from the mother's and father's custody at birth. Also, the hospital in question apparently has a C-section rate of 44%, while the national average is around 30% (and of which as much as half may be medically unnecessary). Hmm...

Not being a legal expert, I can only imagine what kind of precedent this case might set for women across the country, if these were the only facts in the case. However, there is more to this story than meets the eye (isn't there always?). While the lower court judge sided with the state of New Jersey that the mother's refusal to cooperate (i.e., have a c-section) was evidence of child abuse and neglect, upon appeal the court reiterated that there was "substantial additional evidence of abuse and neglect."

Nonetheless, one of the issues before the appeals court was the question of whether the refusal of a C-section is tantamount to child abuse/neglect/endangerment. And on this question, I believe the appeals court, in its majority opinion, fucked up punted:

Where we part company is his discussion of whether V.M.'s [the mother's] refusal to consent to a cesarean section (c-section) can, as a matter of law, be considered an element of abuse and neglect.

On the record before us, we do not agree that the issue need be decided.

I guess I can't say I am surprised by this or that I blame them for dodging the question. But I wish they'd had the balls to address it, like Judge Carchman did in a concurring opinion:

I concur in the result reached as to both V.M.[the mother] and B.G. [the father]. I am of the view that even with the limited concession of DYFS as to the narrow utility of V.M.'s refusal to have a c-section, the issue remains extant and requires a level of judicial scrutiny.

Consideration of V.M.'s refusal to submit to a c-section, in my view, is improper and beyond the legislative scope of the child protective statutes.

Here is the post from Momlogic; you should also check out the post at the NY Times blog Motherlode. As a rule, I don't generally read the Huffington Post but this is actually a pretty good analysis. And here is the New Jersey court ruling (pdf) for those so inclined to read.

Regardless of the details in this case, what this illustrates to me is the vast geographical differences in doctor's attitudes and hospital procedures. The approaches to birth and the predominant medical attitudes are not uniform across the country in the least. Meanwhile, the U.S. has one of the highest C-section rates of any developed nation. Bottom line: PREGNANCY IS NOT AN ILLNESS OR A CONDITION NECESSARILY WARRANTING TREATMENT. Delivering a baby (or babies as may be the case), for a great many women, is a natural process that requires minimal-to-no intervention.

The news about Sarah Palin is like the Energizer bunny, it just keeps going and going...

News media outlets such as CNN are covering a recent ABC News/Washington Post poll on Americans' attitudes about Palin and her perhaps future presidential bid. The relevant bit here:

Fifty-three percent of those questioned in the poll view Palin negatively, with four in 10 holding a positive view of her. The survey is the second this week, following a Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll released Thursday, to find more than half of all Americans viewing Palin in an unfavorable light.

The ABC News/Washington Post survey suggests that there is doubt about Palin's leadership skills and her understanding of intricate issues. Fifty-seven percent say they don't think Palin understands complex issues, and 54 percent do not feel she is a strong leader.

I'm just curious, wtf is up with the more than 40% of the American public that views her positively, thinks she understands complex issues, and/or is a strong leader?

Just in case we've forgotten:

Exhibit A. Strong leadership

Exhibit B. Grasps complex issues

And my favorite:

Exhibit C. Ah, proof of the vast left-wing, liberal media conspiracy.

The power of wonder

Oh where, oh where has this gone?

There's an interesting piece today in the LA Times ("The final American frontier" by Ted Anthony of the AP), exploring our waning wonder for space exploration. It's not really remarkable anymore when the space shuttle launches and images of astronauts space walking and doing other astronauty things are no longer broadcast live (or even at all). But it ought to and they should be. I mean, how many people do you personally know who have orbited our planet (one of the estimated trillions in the universe)?

We are 40 years older now, we Americans. And many things have changed.

The final Apollo mission came home before Nixon resigned. Skylab fell to Earth. Challenger disintegrated going up, Columbia coming down. Kennedy's New Frontier ethos — space as a kinder, gentler Manifest Destiny — slouched into the "Alien" catchphrase: "In space, no one can hear you scream."

Today, the reasons for Americans to pay attention to the ground, rather than the heavens, can be rattled off like a parody of a Billy Joel song. Terrorists. Global warming. Swine flu. Economic collapse. Nukes in North Korea and mass shootings in the heartland.

We didn't (couldn't?) keep the fire going. And then the $64,000 question: "Is space, the final frontier, still the American place to aim for?" Well, you can guess my answer. The article cites a 2006 Gallup survey, in which nearly half of Americans said the money spent on the space shuttle program would have been better spent on something else, and 13% basically said "hell no" to funding any space exploration.

$how us the money. But first a slight segue...

I didn't fully get the story of Pandora and her box the first time I read it in middle school. I thought Hope should have been set free along with all the plagues, since escaping is what activated them - how could we hope if it was still trapped in the box? But then I realized we don't hope, we have it. You can't own something unless you have a place to keep it. Which brings us to the National Air and Space Museum:

Walk past an actual Apollo landing module and think: How in heaven did we land on the moon in something like this? It looks like a foil-and-tarpaper float built for a homecoming parade.

And then, if you can get to the front of the circle of people ringing it, stand in front of the actual Apollo 11 command module, Columbia.

Then pause, and listen to the voices around you.

"... actual re-entry capsule ..."

"... Collins stayed in the command module ..."

"... looks like a beehive on the bottom ..."

"... can't believe someone did that ..."

In German and Chinese, Japanese and Hindi and, yes, American English, they marvel still at this conical piece of mottled metal that traveled so far. They pose for pictures, shoot video.

The fire isn't dead, the embers just need stirring up.

You see, it's what I like to call trickle down science. It's not just science that benefits from funding science. Thanks to space exploration we have satellite technology (tv and radio), global communications, pacemakers, better golf balls, solar photovoltaic energy, Tang (and by extension, KoolAid, Crystal Light, etc) and Velcro®. Of course, we didn't exactly know all that at the time exploration and the Apollo missions were being funded, but we've all benefited in these and countless other ways.

A plug for The Intersection of science and policy (via communication)

Lots to show and tell about space this week, this is only the beginning.

A blog I read pretty regularly is Chris Mooney's and Sheril Kirshenbaum's The Intersection. I had to re-post this video - it is a freakin' AWESOME marriage of pop culture/entertainment and science!

"The LHC is super duper fly."

For the rest of Mooney's post, which details a radio interview you may have heard on NPR's Living Earth, click here. May I also suggest you check out their new book (I haven't read it yet, but it's on my list!), Unscientific America:

"Viva Pluto!"

"Stop Planetary Discrimination!"

"Pluto Was Framed!"

"Dear Earth: You Suck. Love, Pluto."

"Pluto is still a planet. Bitches."

So read a small sampling of the defiant T-shirt and bumper sticker slogans that emerged in late 2006 after the International Astronomical Union (IAU), meeting in Prague, opted to poke the public with a sharp stick. The union's general assembly voted to excommunicate the ninth planet from the solar system, thus abruptly stripping Pluto of a status as much cultural, historic, and even mythological as scientific.

In the astronomers' defense, it had become increasingly difficult to justify calling Pluto a planet without doing the same for several other more recently discovered heavenly objects--one of which, the distant freezing rock now known as Eris (formerly "Xena"), turns out to be larger. But that didn't mean the experts had to fire Pluto from its previous place in the firmament. In defining the word "planet," they were arguably not so much engaged in science as a semantic exercise, meaning that instead of ruling Pluto out, they could just as easily have ruled a few new planets in, as a group of scientists, historians, and journalists had in fact proposed. But the IAU rejected that compromise for a variety of technical reasons: Pluto is much smaller than the other eight planets; it orbits the sun in a far more elliptical manner; its gravitational pull is not strong enough to have "cleared the neighborhood around its orbit" of other significant objects and debris…

People were aghast. Not only did they recoil at having to unlearn what they had learned as children, and perhaps the chief thing they remembered about astronomy. On some fundamental level their sense of fair play had been violated, and their love of the underdog provoked. Why suddenly kick Pluto out of the planet fraternity after letting it stay in for nearly a century, ever since its 1930 discovery? "No do-overs," wrote one cartoonist.

Soon websites started sprouting up encouraging people to vote on Pluto's status and override the experts. A Facebook group entitled "When I was your age, Pluto was a planet" drew a million and a half members. New Mexico, the state where Pluto's discoverer, Clyde Tombaugh, had built an astronomy program, took particular offense. Its House of Representatives voted unanimously to preserve Pluto's planethood and named March 13, 2007, "Pluto Planet Day." Surveying it all, the American Dialect Society selected "plutoed" as its 2006 word of the year--as in, "you plutoed me." The society offered this definition: "to demote or devalue someone or something, as happened to the former planet Pluto when the General Assembly of the International Astronomical Union decided Pluto no longer met its definition of a planet."

Even many scientists were upset. "I'm embarrassed for astronomy," remarked Alan Stern, the chief scientist on NASA's New Horizons mission to Pluto and beyond... (keep reading this excerpt)

Space week

A. Earthrise 1968 by William Anders/NASA (Video of the Earth rising and setting was captured in HD by the Japanese space agency and released last year. You can view it and other images, as well as geek out on how they caught the events on camera, here.)

I can't help but be curious, awestruck and inspired when I look up into a clear night sky. Unfortunately, I find I must go further and further now to see a starry sky.

The 40th anniversary of the first humans landing on the moon is as good as any moment to pause and reflect on how much we know, and how much we don't.

B. Dr. Sylvia Earle's TED Prize wish to protect our ocean (February 2009). This grandma kicks some serious science butt.

Here's to those who devoted their lives to exploring the great unknown, in space and right here on our own tiny planet. And here's to hoping that once again our nation's science coffers will be expanded as they were under Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy.

UPDATED 7/26/2009 - Here is a roundup of Space Week posts following this one:

• The Intersection of science and policy via communication
• Space baubles
• Middle of the week space shenanigans
• The power of wonder

Gentle giant

They come to gaze in wonder, perhaps, at the sight of a giant seldom seen. One mystery of the deep partially revealed. I like the fact that this video of a dying basking shark is silent, strangely so for a news organization. Far from killers, basking sharks are one of three species of filter-feeding shark that strain tiny animals from the water and are found in coastal waters throughout the world.

Does this fragrance make me look fat?

Of all the five senses — sight, touch, hearing, taste and smell — the latter is the one that has always held the most intrigue for me. Actually, let's be honest, I am captivated by smell and our ability (or inability comparatively speaking) to detect a scent and apply meaning to it whether consciously or subconsciously. We have a lot to be thankful for the role our sense of smell plays in our lives.

A. The secret to womanhood is — mmm, bacon...

First and foremost, in my humble opinion, taste and scent are intricately tied to one another — food would not be nearly as appealing and enjoyable without it. In fact according to one scientist-turned-CEO cited in a recent New York Times article, as much as 80% of what we perceive as taste might really be smell. Any sommelier or wine coinnesseur worth her/his salt, for instance, will tell you breathing in the bouquet and/or exhaling on the finish is so important to properly appreciating a fine wine. I swear to you it is true, based on first hand experience with this flavor-enhancing behavior almost every night. My most memorable and poignant example of this was in Portugal during the Euro 2004; I tasted the smell of olives in a vinho tinto we enjoyed late one night upon returning to our country pousada from a day spent driving through the vast stretches of olive trees during the drive to and from Aveiro.

Next, of all the five senses, smell is the one most closely linked with memory. Have you ever been somewhere else, when a wayward smell immediately transports you back in time to corn dog day in your elementary school cafeteria, summer camp after a light shower, or the weekly visit to a beloved elderly family member in assisted living, etc.? A few years back there was an interesting study published in the British Royal Society biology letters, which noted the roles memory and smell play in elephants' ability to keep tabs on family members near and far. I can imagine how liberating this might be if I had a similar ability to keep tabs on Big and Little CL at the neighborhood park around 11am every Sunday.

Many animals of course use their sense of smell to guide them, sometimes over considerable distances, to a member of the opposite sex ripe for mating. And this brings me to smell as a vehicle for bodily communication, or smell's sensual and sexual sides. I recently brought your attention to one study that suggests women are more capable than men of sniffing out biologically relevant information from sweat. As gross as that may at first sound, odor and the ability to detect it play a crucial role in mate selection, and thus reproduction; this is a biological function of hormone and pheromone production seen in many (most?) animals.

Think about it, body odor is either a turn-off or a turn-on, and a strong one at that. Humans are the only species of which I'm aware that intentionally apply scents in order to be more sexually attractive — dogs do not roll in deer feces to attract other dogs. The company who can develop and bottle human pheromones will make a killing (ever see that X-File gender bender episode?), and those Axe commercials would have you believe that company already has. Is it any wonder perfume is a multi-billion dollar business? And that doesn't include aromatherapy or the myriad other personal care product companies that spend fortunes on developing or acquiring fragrances for their lotions, shampoos, lip glosses, etc.

With all of this in mind, I am pretty sure I'm advertising to Mr. CL that I'm open for business when I wear perfume (personal favorites are Lauren and No. 5, oldies but goodies). Having children has altered the frequency with which I apply fragrance; I don't spritz and dab as regularly as I used to because a mother's scent is very important in the early bonding with baby (and vice versa). My childhood memories of my own mother are tied to Jungle Gardenia, and I can't help but think of her when I smell the real flower.

So, what does your scent say about you —
Can you bring home the bacon and fry it up in a pan? I won't hate you because you're Beautiful, smart and a good cook.
Do you have a Passion for Poison?
What's your Pleasure, or has it been an Eternity?

Magnesium rocks

** Note: I am not a doctor or medical expert. You should always check with your doctor before trying any treatment.**

"Menstrual migraine is generally severe, lasts longer, recurs more frequently, results in greater disability and is more resistant to therapy than nonmenstrual migraine." -SD Silberstein and J Goldberg in Journal of Reproductive Medicine 2007 Oct; 52(10):888-95.

If this is you, read on. [Updated 6/18/2009]

In my previous ode to the avocado, I noted it as a good source of magnesium. This may seem an obscure reference — that's not usually the thing one associates with avocados. Let me explain.

A. Me, during horridly horrible migraines at regular monthly intervals. Thank you, Mother Nature.

A migraine sufferer, one might assume that I have devoted much time researching this condition, and one would be absolutely correct. I did not want to take a prescription medication to deal with the migraines, offered a little too quickly by doctors. Over-the-counter pain killers didn't work well (I have tried them all at one point or another), and avoiding triggers like red wine helped but did not prevent my migraines. For a very long time, all of my adult life actually, I resigned myself to lying still in a dark and quiet room, usually until the next morning. This was fine, until I had children and couldn't temporarily drop all motherly duties. "There has got to be a better way," I kept telling myself, as I tried each new natural remedy and browsed the scientific literature. There is.

I have been migraine-free (and virtually headache-free) for nearly a year now, thanks to magnesium (Mg) and vitamin B-2 (riboflavin). This has worked for me and it might help others, too — but let me stress again that I am not a doctor, not all of this information is accepted medical practice, and may not work for every individual.

There are a few clinical researchers looking at the role of magnesium in the pathogenesis of migraines. Briefly, it is thought that some individuals naturally have lowered levels of ionized magnesium (the active form that is able to bind easily to proteins and other substances), a situation which may cause them to suffer migraines and which may also be remedied through dietary intake. Although the National Migraine Association cites the medical community's mixed support for magnesium, it nonetheless says taking the 100% RDA of Mg is probably a "safe and prudent" preventive. If you would like to geek out with the research — hey, I did and there is nothing wrong with that — knock yourself out here, here, here, here, here, and here (all link to the abstracts of published papers on PubMed).

Then I stumbled upon Mauskop and Fox's book in my search for The Miracle of Magnesium, and after a lengthy perusal of its contents at the local bookstore while deciding whether to buy it, I was convinced it couldn't hurt to try the remedy of Mg + riboflavin + feverfew favored by the authors. I figured I'd try this because in the off chance it worked for me, it would be worth avoiding a prescription drug and any associated side effects. And as long as I stayed within the recommended daily allowances (RDA), I couldn't see a downside. This would be the best decision related to treating my headaches I have ever made.

B. This is me now. Really.

According to the U.S. National Institutes of Health office of dietary supplements, Mg is essential for more than 300 biochemical reactions in the body, helping to maintain normal muscle and nerve function, blood pressure, heart rhythym, a healthy immune system, strong bones and more. A lack of energy may also be associated with low levels of Mg.

A few other bits of info you should know before trying this for yourself: The U.S. recommended daily allowances for Mg and riboflavin vary depending on your age and gender (for women aged 31-50 it is 320 mg and 1.1 mg, respectively). As with any vitamin and mineral, it is possible to have too much of a good thing. Hence the RDAs.

My own headache/migraine prevention regimen includes:

• Calcium-magnesium supplement containing 300-400 mg of Mg every other day
• Daily multivitamin that contains the max for riboflavin and low to no Mg
  
• Drink lots of water, eat a balanced diet, exercise, and avoid any known triggers
• Magnesium-rich foods (pumpkin seeds, spinach, soybeans, Alaskan salmon and halibut, black beans, avocados) during times when I know I'm prone to getting headaches.

While my migraines have ceased, I continue to get headaches although not as regularly and not as severe. I feel it worth repeating my previous admonition to talk to your doctor before trying this or any other new regimen for yourself.

Diatomaceous update

Speaking of diatoms, a colleague just forwarded this to me - what a totally chunky bit of reporting!

Through the eye of a needle, a world writ small. In this award-winning image, wildlife photgrapher Peter Parks depicts a single drop of seawater collected at the Great Barrier Reef in Australia and magnified 20 times to reveal its living contents.

 

Go check the rest of it out for yourself at the San Diego Union-Tribune. (Photo courtesy of Nikon Small World and Imagemarinequest.com)

Diatoms are cool and hot, trust me on this

Has this ever happened to you, when you know what you are talking about but unfortunately [dumb ass!] cannot articulate at the time? It happened to me yesterday in a staff meeting, no less. As I lay in bed drifting off to sleep last night, the relevant info - dimethyl sulfide, of course! - that had been locked away in storage in the nether regions of my brain hit me like a bolt of lightening.

My organization has a journal club - once a month, we devote a part of our regular staff meeting to covering oceans-relevant studies and news from pre-assigned journals. I think it's a brilliant idea - from what I understand, it's a tradition borrowed from medical school (but I haven't verified this) - and makes staying on top of a number of journals much easier than any one person could do on her/his own.

While summarizing the microbial oceanography content from the May 14 Nature Insight, I included the what-I-thought-to-be-common-knowledge remark that "diatoms, as you know, are responsible for cloud production."

"Um, no we don't know" was the immediate response.

My colleagues were eager for an explanation, and the intricacies of phytoplanktonic life were momentarily eluding me. All I could say was, "I don't recall the precise biological and chemical processes, but, trust me, diatoms are linked to cloud formation and the regulation of temperature. I'll get back to you on this."

Here is the plain-speak answer I should have been able to articulate:

A. The picture that would have been worth 1,000 words. (courtesy of Oceanworld)

Phytoplankton such as diatoms emit dimethyl sulfide or DMS, a component in the "smell of the sea." Some of this gas ends up in the atmosphere, where it oxidizes and forms particles around which water can condense and form cloud droplets. The reflectivity of clouds (or their albedo) is influenced by the number of these condensation particles. According to my now totally outdated Environmental Science textbook (I see it's currently in its tenth edition), as the ocean warms more DMS is produced. Clouds block sunlight, so more DMS means more potential clouds to block sunlight. This, in turn, would result in a cooling effect, however, less solar energy means less active phytoplankton, which means less DMS and thus less cloud condensation particles. Hot, cold, hot, and so on...

In other words, what we have is a nice little feedback mechanism that is thought to help regulate temperature and keep it within a suitable range for life. Under normal conditions and all other things being equal, which of course we know they are not. (For more on diatoms and the regulation of planetary temperature, see Science Progress.)

Tastes like green

My older son, let's call him Big CL and my younger one Little CL, will be starting kindergarten this year (I can't believe it!). So in trying to maintain his sense of excitement while downplaying any associated anxiety, I've been looking for lunchboxes. I thought that: A) These were not still in existence, and B) All kids now buy their lunches.

Wow was I wrong.

A. I definitely had a real lunchbox with matching Thermos, but honestly don't remember what was on it. I DO remember bringing my lunch to school in a brown paper bag with my name in calligraphy letters in the sixth grade, though.

(I realize this post may jump the back-to-school hoopla. I did quite a bit of research that I don't want to get stale, and I know several other moms and dads of pre-kindergartners out there may be in a similar boat. So, onwards and upwards!)

"It's much easier to be for going green than it is to actually be green. Especially if you have kids." This is the argument I often hear, that it boils down to convenience over conscience. But frankly, I think that is a false dichotomy and having children is all the more reason to be green. Besides, my research into lunch boxes proves being eco-friendly is convenient for kids of all ages, too.

First place for creative ideas, inventive menu options and how-to's goes to Lunchinabox - hands down the most inspiring site I found. Other cool kids lunch gear:

• Lunchboxes (more soft lunch box options for girls AND boys than KooKoo)
  
• Kids Konserve has stainless steel lunch box kits
• Clickety Click bento-style BPA-free boxes and accessories
• Silicone baking cups (only if you are going the bento box route)
• The Wrap-n-Mat and snack bags at Reusablebags.com (note to Wrap-n-Mat: you need more cute/chic pattern options!)
• To-Go Ware (good options for grown-up kids)
• For background, tips and other goodies you might click over to The Daily Green, Good Housekeeping, or Center for American Progress.

Honorable mention goes to Lunch Box Cards (heart-warming idea but save your $$ and DIY) and Hoohobbers (like the design but has more girl-oriented color options). I wasn't all that impressed with Land's End or Pottery Barn Kids - though you don't have to question the quality/durability, not a wide enough selection and the PB options I suspect many boys will rather quickly grow out of.

After asking Big CL what kind of character he wanted on his lunch box (I presented a narrowed down list of three options), he of course picked D) none of the above. He wanted a Sponge Bob lunch box ($12.95 at Lunchboxes.com). I also bought a set of Wrap-n-mats, and he already has his own Sigg bottle. Because he loves Japanese food, I will probably get some boxes and a few extra sets of kid chopsticks (Bed Bath & Beyond) or make them, too.

About 'Chunk Light'

No, I'm really not an avid consumer of canned tuna, as one might otherwise surmise from the title of this blog. In fact, I actually do not like it very much at all, but more on that another time. I only mention this fact now in order to emphasize that this is most definitely not a blog devoted to tuna or any other fish, though some of my posts might be fishy (*wink), as the nature of my work in a previous job dealt with sustainable seafood.

But I want to talk chunky for a minute.

I chose "chunk light" for the somewhat oxymoronic connotation of the phrase. Can something truly be chunky and light at the same time? All the chunky things I adore in life - witness for example exhibits A and B - are not exactly what I would describe as "light". Chunky jewelry, shoes, ice cream, and soup (not to be confused with THE Chunky soup), though perhaps there is a chunk-style soup that really is "lite".

A. Little number by Rebecca Norman for $195 I am currently drooling over at Max & Chloe.

B. Vallis sandals by Nine West, $88.95 over at zappos.com.

And "light" which has two significant meanings relevant to this blog. The first is brightness - hopefully this becomes a place for a daily weekly dose of sunshine. Again, please take stock of exhibits A and B. The second is illumination, in the sense of understanding. Of course, light also means the opposite of both heavy and serious, both of which also aptly describe me/my outlook on life.

So roll that all up together and you have CHUNK light. Got it? Good. Now in the words of Slater (Rory Cochrane): Check ya later, chunksters!

UPDATE 7/15/2009: I seem to have found a comfortable rhythm posting one to two times weekly, not "daily" as I originally wrote. Something "chunky" and something "light"...