Home » 2013 » November (Page 2)

Monthly Archives: November 2013

Advertisements

Razor Blade Prices Growing Faster Than Whiskers

What is up with the price of razor blades? 

There are few cheap plastic items as horribly expensive as razor blades.

It’s insane! Gentleman, where is your outrage? If these prices keep rising the length of women’s skirts and dresses will have to fall. It’s time for consumers to ask some pointed questions of companies like Gillette and Schick?

By some estimates the simple act of shaving our face can cost as much as a dollar per shave. I have been shopping for Gillette Mach 3 blades but can’t bring myself to cough up $24 bucks for eight cartridges. I went shopping again today and was shocked when I saw the unit price for them is $291 per hundred. The 4 blade Fusion cartridges are $180 more per hundred, or $469.75/ hundred.

I started looking around on the internet and discovered that the prices of these stupid plastic razors has been soaring everywhere, even in the United Kingdom. By one account on a British Website the cost of razor blades has climbed by 99% three years to as much as £3.49 (or $5.59 US) per cartridge. According to that article in costs Gillette less than 10p (about 16 cents) to make. (see below)

If you listen to business analysts or industry spokes persons it is either brand loyalty or the high cost of shaving research and marketing expences that is driving up the cost. I don’t believe it. I suspect something akin to price fixing is behind it all. I think it is time for someone to investigate the shaving industry to see why the costs are skyrocketing.

The great razor rip off: Prices of blades soar by up to 99% in just three years

By SEAN POULTER

PUBLISHED: 18:26 EST, 27 April 2012

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2136440/The-great-razor-rip-Prices-blades-soar-99-just-years.html#ixzz2kJ3Yy3wM
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

The price of razor blade cartridges has surged by as much as 99 per cent in just three years – driving many men to adopt designer stubble. The cartridges cost less than 10p to make, but shoppers are being charged as much as £3.49 each. The biggest player, Gillette, has imposed a stealth price rise by cutting the number of replacement cartridges in its Mach3 Turbo packs from five to four. [snip]

 

Allure Man Asks: Why Are Razor Blades So Damn Expensive?

If you, like me, can remember a time before razor blades were kept behind the drugstore counter along with the cigarettes and other controlled substances, then you probably also share my amazement at just how much they cost. A four-pack of Gillette Fusion Power razor cartridges retails for $19.49 at Walgreens. That’s, what, $4.87 for a week’s worth of shaves? Outrageous!

I put this question to Jeff Raider, a cofounder of Harry’s, a new online retailer that offers shaving supplies similar in quality to the major brands but at half the price: How did razor blades become fetish objects? All of the good ones, he says, are made from similar high-grade steel, which is then precision-milled to produce a blade that’s thick at the bottom, where it’s anchored to the plastic cartridge that clips onto your razor, yet thin as a single hair at the top, where it mows down morning stubble. “The steel is a very expensive product, but the real magic of a fine razor blade is how it’s ground,” says Raider.[snip]

Good Question: Why Are Razor Blades So Expensive?

October 21, 2013
http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2013/10/21/good-question-why-are-razor-blades-so-expensive-2/

MINNEAPOLIS (WCCO) — It can cost us anywhere between $20 and $30 dollars just to shave the hair from our faces or legs. Sometimes, the price of the razor blades is more expensive than the razors themselves.

So, why are razor blades so expensive? Good Question. [snip] Erin Lash is a senior equity analyst at Morningstar, anindependent investment research firm. She covers Gillette (owned by Proctor & Gamble), one of the the two dominant players in the razor market.  Schick (owned by Energizer Holdings, Inc.) is the other company.

Lash says part of the reason razor blades are so expensive is because consumers are loyal to the brand.

“Once you buy a particular razor, there’s no substitution for the razor blade,” she said. “Companies have a great ability to charge up for the blade once you’re locked into the actual product,” she said.[snip

Why Are Razors So Darn Expensive?

Because shaving is a science.

By  | Hub Health | August 9, 2013
[snip] “The complexity, length of time, and the cost of the [research and development] process is what factors into cost,” Vanoosthuyze says. “It looks so simple and so intuitive, yet it is so complex in its design and development process. The small details and dimensions go far beyond what the naked eye can see. For the ProGlide, to give you an idea of the scale of consumer testing that we do, 30,000 guys were involved in testing the innovation process,” she says.

So let’s do the math. In the photo above, a women’s package of razors costs $18.79 for five cartridges. If each cartridge lasts about a week, that comes out to about 54 cents a shave. Seems pricey, but what exactly goes into making a razor? Those stainless steel blades that you see are only a small part of the final product. [snip]

Advertisements

A Word About My Free Rooftop Solar

by Brian T. Lynch, MSW

Let me tell you about my free rooftop solar energy system which I recently had installed.

Solar panel installation

I’ve wanted solar energy for a long time, mostly because my wife and I are concerned about the global warming. We didn’t convert years ago because of the high cost and slow rate of return on the initial investment.  We live in Northern New Jersey which has considerably less sunlight than, say, Arizona. When I first looked into it, solar panels were far less efficient than they are today so the cost/benefit  for us couldn’t be justified.

 Now  we are retired and improved solar panels have really lowered investment recovery times, but we may want to downsize or relocate in the next few years. We  don’t want a solar energy project that won’t be paid off before we sell.

The solution for us was one of the new solar energy lease program that installs and maintains the entire system for free over a period of years. The solar panels send power  directly to the power grid in an arrangement with the utility companies know as “net metering”.  The solar electricity generated is deducted by the utility company from the power that I use.  When we generate more power than we use the utility company gives us a credit. On months when we use more power than we generate we apply the accumulated credits and pay for any difference.  

There is a catch, of course. The company who owns the system on our roof also owns the electricity it generates. We pay them for the solar electricity that we use, power which the original utility company no longer supplies. In effect, the solar energy company becomes our energy provider.  For the use of our roof the solar company sells us this electricity at a discounted rate.  In our case we paid nothing for the system, we will pay nothing for its maintenance over the next 20 years and we will save on our electricity bill each month.  Our solar electric rate is structured to increase the amount we will save each year over time relative to our current provider. We were told that over twenty years we should save about eighteen-thousand dollars by switching to solar through this lease program.   

The real beneficiary in all this is the environment. Over the course of one month we prevent over a quarter ton of carbon from entering the atmosphere.  That’s three tons a year or sixty tons over the next twenty years.  Through conservation measures our electric use is already half what a typical  homeowner uses, so most people would save even more on carbon emissions.  If everyone on our block had rooftop solar the atmosphere would be spared well over 3,000 tons of carbon a year.   

How did we pick a solar energy company? I would like to say we shopped and compared, but  it didn’t happen that way. I stopped to talk with a person offering information on rooftop solar at a kiosk in Home Depot. This lead me to invite a sales representative from Rooftop Diagnostic to come to our home.  The representative explained how the lease option worked and confirmed that our house was a candidate for a solar based on our homes orientation and the amount of sunlight it gets. Rooftop Diagnostics only designs, installs and maintains the system for a company called Enphase Energy and neither of these two companies are affiliated with Home Depot. 

Under a net metering arrangement homeowners are not allowed to produce more power than they use.  This means that rooftop solar installations can’t be designed to produce more than 100% of the homeowners average annual energy use. The initial electricity rate the solar company charges is somewhat negotiable, but it should be at or slightly below what the utility company charges now. Under our Enphase Energy contract our initial electric rate will increase by 3.5% per year, which they say is half of the historic rate increase for our current energy provider. That might sound like a lot, but the inflation rate over the past 10 years is 2.3%, so inflation alone accounts for most of the increase. In our specific case, our energy charge would start at about $36.00 per month and it will end up about $67.00 per month in twenty years. The power utilities also charges a delivery service charge each month based on energy use. Since about 96% of our electricity will come from the electricity generated on our roof, our delivery service charge will be 96% less per month as well.  Also, while our current electric rates vary seasonally, our solar energy rates remain the same each month. 

After I first met with the solar representative, I searched the internet for more information to comparison shop, but didn’t find what I was looking for.  I wanted a database listing companies that provide solar leasing options but there are none at present.  A lot of companies on the internet offer solar instillations but important details are lacking. Unfortunately, internet information about  solar electric companies is not as organized as is information about the sham alternative energy retailers that “compete”  to sell you lower electric rates.  These companies are wholesale purchasers of electricity who offer crazy gimmicks and low introductory rates to get you to buy power from them.  It is a dog and pony show masquerading as a competitive energy market, but the only real competition the utility companies face is from the nascent “distributed energy” alternatives such as rooftop solar and wind power systems.  Even though these true alternative energy sources are a tiny fraction of the energy market, the big utility companies are already organizing to protect their business model and market shares. If you think you might be interested in a rooftop solar system, to buy or lease, it would be wise to act soon because the current financial incentives will disappear if the energy industry has its way.  

[PS: If you live in New Jersey and already have a rooftop system from Rooftop Diagnostics, they will pay you a referral fee for any new customers you refer to them. Other companies might offer similar incentives,so if you are thinking about getting a system, check with friends and family members who might benefit from this incentive program. To be clear, I am not soliciting referrals and I have no pecuniary motivation in writing this post.]

Snippets: Toxic Stress and New Ways to Combat the Impact of Child Abuse and Neglect

What follows is a snip-it of an excellent article from the Opinionator section of the New York Times by David Bornstein. Within the article are hyperlinks to excellent source material on childhood toxic stress, its impact on children and new methods to prevent harm or treat children who are exposed to toxic stress. I have taken snippets of each of these hyperlinks to create an annotated index to the sources from Mr. Bornstein’s article. I hope that this will encourage further reading and understanding on this topic. Having spend 31 years as a social worker in child protective services it has been my experience that chronic and repetitive stress on children is both pervasive and incredibly damaging. It takes new protective service workers years of experience to recognize toxic stress and fully appreciate how damaging it truly is. The whole field of protective services is more oriented towards responding to physical abuse and acute safety risks than it is to chronic neglect or repetitive lower level trauma. – Brian T. Lynch, MSW

Protecting Children From Toxic Stress

By DAVID BORNSTEIN

New York Times – October 30, 2013

Imagine if scientists discovered a toxic substance that increased the risks of cancer, diabetes and heart, lung and liver disease for millions of people. Something that also increased one’s risks for smoking, drug abuse, suicide, teen pregnancy, sexually transmitted disease, domestic violence and depression — and simultaneously reduced the chances of succeeding in school, performing well on a job and maintaining stable relationships? It would be comparable to hazards like lead paint, tobacco smoke and mercury. We would do everything in our power to contain it and keep it far away from children. Right?

Well, there is such a thing, but it’s not a substance. It’s been called “toxic stress.” For more than a decade, researchers have understood that frequent or continual stress on young children who lack adequate protection and support from adults, is strongly associated with increases in the risks of lifelong health and social problems, including all those listed above.

[read more: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/30/protecting-children-from-toxic-stress/?_r=0 ]

Toxic stress response: Occurs when a child experiences strong, frequent, and/or prolonged adversity—such as physical or emotional abuse, chronic neglect, caregiver substance abuse or mental illness, exposure to violence, and/or the accumulated burdens of family economic hardship—without adequate adult support. This kind of prolonged activation of the stress response systems can disrupt the development of brain architecture and other organ systems, and increase the risk for stress-related disease and cognitive impairment, well into the adult years.
When toxic stress response occurs continually, or is triggered by multiple sources, it can have a cumulative toll on an individual’s physical and mental health—for a lifetime. The more adverse experiences in childhood, the greater the likelihood of developmental delays and later health problems, including heart disease, diabetes, substance abuse, and depression. Research also indicates that supportive, responsive relationships with caring adults as early in life as possible can prevent or reverse the damaging effects of toxic stress response.

[read more: http://developingchild.harvard.edu/topics/science_of_early_childhood/toxic_stress_response/ ]

Centers For Disease Control and Prevention

http://www.cdc.gov/ace/index.htm

Survey shows 1 in 5 Iowans have 3 or more adverse childhood experiences

October 14, 2013By Jane Ellen Stevensin 

Iowa’s 2012 ACE survey found that 55 percent of Iowans have at least one adverse childhood experience, while one in five of the state’s residents have an ACE score of 3 or higher.

In the Iowa study, there was more emotional abuse than physical and sexual abuse, while adult substance abuse was higher than other household dysfunctions.

This survey echoed the original CDC ACE Study in that as the number of types of adverse childhood experiences increase, the risk of chronic health problems — such as diabetes, depression, heart disease and cancer — increases. So does violence, becoming a victim of violence, and missing work days.

[read more: http://acestoohigh.com/2013/10/14/survey-shows-1-in-5-iowans-have-3-or-more-adverse-childhood-experiences/ ]

From the American Academy of Pediatrics

Technical Report

The Lifelong Effects of Early Childhood Adversity and Toxic Stress

  1. 1.       Benjamin S. Siegel, MD, 
  2. 2.       Mary I. Dobbins, MD, 
  3. 3.       Marian F. Earls, MD,
  4. 4.       Andrew S. Garner, MD, PhD, 
  5. 5.       Laura McGuinn, MD, 
  6. 6.       John Pascoe, MD, MPH, and 
  7. 7.       David L. Wood, MD

 

ABSTRACT

Advances in fields of inquiry as diverse as neuroscience, molecular biology, genomics, developmental psychology, epidemiology, sociology, and economics are catalyzing an important paradigm shift in our understanding of health and disease across the lifespan. This converging, multidisciplinary science of human development has profound implications for our ability to enhance the life prospects of children and to strengthen the social and economic fabric of society. Drawing on these multiple streams of investigation, this report presents an ecobiodevelopmental framework that illustrates how early experiences and environmental influences can leave a lasting signature on the genetic predispositions that affect emerging brain architecture and long-term health. The report also examines extensive evidence of the disruptive impacts of toxic stress, offering intriguing insights into causal mechanisms that link early adversity to later impairments in learning, behavior, and both physical and mental well-being. The implications of this framework for the practice of medicine, in general, and pediatrics, specifically, are potentially transformational. They suggest that many adult diseases should be viewed as developmental disorders that begin early in life and that persistent health disparities associated with poverty, discrimination, or maltreatment could be reduced by the alleviation of toxic stress in childhood. [snip]

[read more: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/129/1/e232.full ]

WORKING PAPER #3

Excessive Stress Disrupts the Architecture of the Developing Brain

New research suggests that exceptionally stressful experiences early in life may have long-term consequences for a child’s learning, behavior, and both physical and mental health. Some types of “positive stress” in a child’s life—overcoming the challenges and frustrations of learning a new, difficult task, for instance—can be beneficial. Severe, uncontrollable, chronic adversity—what this report defines as “toxic stress”—on the other hand, can produce detrimental effects on developing brain architecture as well as on the chemical and physiological systems that help an individual adapt to stressful events. This has implications for many policy issues, including family and medical leave, child care quality and availability, mental health services, and family support programs. This report from the National Scientific Council on the Developing Child explains how significant adversity early in life can alter—in a lasting way—a child’s capacity to learn and to adapt to stressful situations, how sensitive and responsive caregiving can buffer the effects of such stress, and how policies could be shaped to minimize the disruptive impacts of toxic stress on young children.

Suggested citation: National Scientific Council on the Developing Child (2005). Excessive Stress Disrupts the Architecture of the Developing Brain: Working Paper No. 3. Retrieved from http://www.developingchild.harvard.edu

Download PDF >>

Strengthening Adult Capacities to Improve Child Outcomes: A New Strategy for Reducing Integenerational Poverty

Jack P. Shonkoff, Harvard University – Posted April 22, 2012

[snip]
It’s clear that high-quality early childhood programs can make a measurable difference for children in poverty, but we must do more. Advances in neuroscience, molecular biology, and the behavioral sciences provide the evidence needed to build on best practices and to forge new ideas that can address the factors that contribute to intergenerational poverty. One promising path is to focus on fostering the skills in adults that allow them to be both better parents and better employees.

Science tells us that children who experience significant adversity without the buffering protection of supportive adults can suffer serious lifelong consequences. Such “toxic stress” in the early years can disrupt developing brain architecture and other maturing biological systems in a way that leads to poor outcomes in learning, behavior, and health. [snip] …[T]he goal is to prevent or mitigate the consequences of toxic stress by buffering young children from abuse or neglect, exposure to violence, parental mental illness or substance abuse, and other serious threats to their well-being.

Success in this area requires adults and communities to provide sufficient protection and supports that will help young children develop strong, adaptive capacities. Since many caregivers with limited education and low income have underdeveloped adaptive skills of their own, interventions that focus on adult capacity-building offer promising opportunities for greater impacts on children.

One area of development that appears to be particularly ripe for innovation is the domain of executive functioning. These skills include the ability to focus and sustain attention, set goals and make plans, follow rules, solve problems, monitor actions, delay gratification, and control impulses.[snip]

[ See more at: http://www.spotlightonpoverty.org/ExclusiveCommentary.aspx?id=7a0f1142-f33b-40b8-82eb-73306f86fb74#sthash.4XsuGXPI.dpuf ]

Stress reactivity and attachment security.

Gunnar MRBrodersen LNachmias MBuss KRigatuso J.

Source

Institute of Child Development, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis 55455, USA.

Abstract

Seventy-three 18-month-olds were tested in the Ainsworth Strange Situation. These children were a subset of 83 infants tested at 2, 4, 6, and 15 months during their well-baby examinations with inoculations. Salivary cortisol, behavioral distress, and maternal responsiveness measures obtained during these clinic visits were examined in relation to attachment classifications. In addition, parental report measures of the children’s social fearfulness in the 2nd year of life were used to classify the children into high-fearful versus average- to low-fearful groups. In the 2nd year, the combination of high fearfulness and insecure versus secure attachment was associated with higher cortisol responses to both the clinic exam-inoculation situation and the Strange Situation. Thus, attachment security moderates the physiological consequences of fearful, inhibited temperament. Regarding the 2-, 4-, and 6-month data, later attachment security was related to greater maternal responsiveness and lower cortisol baselines. Neither cortisol nor behavioral reactivity to the inoculations predicted later attachment classifications. There was some suggestion, however, that at their 2-month checkup, infants who would later be classified as insecurely attached exhibited larger dissociations between the magnitude of their behavioral and hormonal response to the inoculations. Greater differences between internal (hormonal) and external (crying) responses were also negatively correlated with maternal responsiveness and positively correlated with pretest cortisol levels during these early months of life.

[read more: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8666128 ]

Child FIRST

HIGHLIGHTS
  • Intervention: A home visitation program for low-income families with young children at high risk of emotional, behavioral, or developmental problems, or child maltreatment.
  • Evaluation Methods: A well-conducted randomized controlled trial.
  • Key Findings: At the three-year follow-up, a 33% reduction in families’ involvement with child protective services (CPS) for possible child maltreatment. At the one-year follow-up, 40-70% reductions in serious levels of (i) child conduct and language development problems, and (ii) mothers’ psychological distress.
  • Other: A study limitation is that its sample was geographically concentrated in Bridgeport, Connecticut.  Replication of these findings in a second trial, in another setting, would be desirable to confirm the initial results and establish that they generalize to other settings where the intervention might be implemented.

Download a printable version of this evidence summary (pdf, 4 pages)

Effects of Child FIRST one year after random assignment:

Compared to the control group, children in the Child FIRST group were –

  • 68% less likely to have clinically-concerning language development problems, as measured by a trained assessor (10.5% of Child FIRST children had such problems versus 33.3% of control group children).
  • 42% less likely to have clinically-concerning externalizing behaviors, such as aggression or impulsiveness, as reported by their mothers (17.0% of Child FIRST children versus 29.1% of control group children).

Compared to the control group, mothers in the Child FIRST group were –

  • 64% less likely to have clinically-concerning levels of psychological distress, based on self-reports (14.0% of Child FIRST mothers versus 39.0% of the control group mothers).
  • The study did not find statistically-significant effects on (i) the percent of children with clinically-concerning internalizing behaviors (e.g., depression or anxiety); (ii) the percent of children with clinically-concerning dysregulation (e.g., sleep or eating problems); (iii) the percent of mothers with clinically-concerning parenting stress; or (iv) the percent of mothers with clinically-concerning depression.3

[read more: http://toptierevidence.org/programs-reviewed/child-first ]

Research Finds a High Rate of Expulsions in Preschool

By TAMAR LEWIN

New York Times – Published: May 17, 2005

So what if typical 3-year-olds are just out of diapers, still take a daily nap and can’t tie their shoes? They are plenty old enough to be expelled, the first national study of expulsion rates in prekindergarten programs has found.

In fact, preschool children are three times as likely to be expelled as children in kindergarten through 12th grade, according to the new study, by researchers from the Yale Child Study Center.

[read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/17/education/17expel.html?_r=0 ]

Preschool and child care expulsion and suspension: Rates and predictors in one state.

Gilliam, Walter S.; Shahar, Golan

Infants & Young Children, Vol 19(3), Jul-Sep 2006, 228-245. doi: 10.1097/00001163-200607000-00007

ABSTRACT : Rates and predictors of preschool expulsion and suspension were examined in a randomly selected sample of Massachusetts preschool teachers (N = 119). During a 12-month period, 39% of teachers reported expelling at least one child, and 15% reported suspending. The preschool expulsion rate was 27.42 per 1000 enrollees, more than 34 times the Massachusetts K-12 rate and more than 13 times the national K-12 rate. Suspension rates for preschoolers were less than that for K-12. Larger classes, higher proportion of 3-year-olds in the class, and elevated teacher job stress predicted increased likelihood of expulsion.  [snip]

[read more: http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2009-04570-007 ]

Traumatic and stressful events in early childhood: Can treatment help those at highest risk?

Chandra Ghosh Ippen, William W. Harris, Patricia Van HornAlicia F. Lieberman

ABSTRACT: This study involves a reanalysis of data from a randomized controlled trial to examine whether child–parent psychotherapy (CPP), an empirically based treatment focusing on the parent–child relationship as the vehicle for child improvement, is efficacious for children who experienced multiple traumatic and stressful life events (TSEs)

[read more: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0145213411001499 ]

Listening to a Baby’s Brain: Changing the Pediatric Checkup to Reduce Toxic Stress

Listening to a baby’s heartbeat. Examining a toddler’s ears. Testing a preschooler for exposure to lead. These critical screenings have long been the hallmarks of early childhood checkups. Now, leading pediatricians are recommending major changes to the checkups of the future. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) wants primary care doctors to screen their youngest patients for social and emotional difficulties that could be early signs of toxic stress. Read more >>

[read more: http://developingchild.harvard.edu/resources/stories_from_the_field/tackling_toxic_stress/ ]

From the American Academy of Pediatrics

Policy Statement

Early Childhood Adversity, Toxic Stress, and the Role of the Pediatrician: Translating Developmental Science Into Lifelong Health

Andrew S. Garner, MD, PhD, Jack P. Shonkoff, MD, Benjamin S. Siegel, MD, Mary I. Dobbins, MD, Marian F. Earls, MD, Andrew S. Garner, MD, PhD, Laura McGuinn, MD, John Pascoe, MD, MPH, David L. Wood, MD

ABSTRACT : [snip] To this end, AAP endorses a developing leadership role for the entire pediatric community—one that mobilizes the scientific expertise of both basic and clinical researchers, the family-centered care of the pediatric medical home, and the public influence of AAP and its state chapters—to catalyze fundamental change in early childhood policy and services. AAP is committed to leveraging science to inform the development of innovative strategies to reduce the precipitants of toxic stress in young children and to mitigate their negative effects on the course of development and health across the life span.

[read more: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/129/1/e224.full.html ]

Top of Form

aces connection

HEALTHY, HAPPY KIDS GROW UP TO CREATE A HEALTHY, HAPPY WORLD.

This is a community of practice network. We use trauma-informed practices to prevent ACEs & further trauma, and to increase resilience.

[read more: http://acesconnection.com/ ]

ABOUT DAVID BORNSTEIN:

David Bornstein is the author of “How to Change the World,” which has been published in 20 languages, and “The Price of a Dream: The Story of the Grameen Bank,” and is co-author of “Social Entrepreneurship: What Everyone Needs to Know.” He is a co-founder of theSolutions Journalism Network, which supports rigorous reporting about responses to social problems.