At the science department celebration/good-bye get together I was talking to two female colleagues, one whom had a baby a few months ago and one due this summer, both girls. One brought up that she'd heard that more girls are being born in New York now because of environmental pollution issues. I went home and did a Google search on this idea and while there's no evidence that this is happening currently in New York, it's true that in times and places where there have been significant pollution increases there have also been changes in the girl:boy ratio (which is typically 100:105; males have higher mortality rates though).
For example:
Pollution makes for more girls. The stress of dirty air skews sex ratios in Sao Paulo. Nature, October 2005.
Number of baby boys declining in U.S., Japan
Environmental toxins may be to blame, researchers say
"Researchers suspect the decline in male births can be explained, at least in part, by paternal exposure to environmental toxins, such as certain pesticides, heavy metals, solvents or dioxins — chemical byproducts produced during incineration or the manufacture of other chemicals." Reuters.
Also from the article:
"Men in the Italian town of Seveso who were exposed to large amounts of dioxin through an industrial explosion in 1976 fathered significantly more girls than boys. Similarly, a study of workers at a Russian herbicide plant found that only 38 percent of children born to male workers were boys; female workers, on the other hand, had the expected ratio of male-to-female children."
It's not known if low-level everyday exposure might have the same effect, but the article does cite an expert recommending limiting exposure to household chemicals i.e. when it says fragrance but doesn't say what it is. I also know families, especially with kids, who are trying to go more "organic" in their cleaning products...need to look into this.
Another interesting demography note: For those who conceive w/o a live-in male partner, odds are slightly toward having a girl. And the number of single moms has certainly gone up greatly in the past few decades.
On a side note, they had lots of good food at the get together, and someone even came up with ziploc bags so we could take leftovers home. They also gave us tokens of their appreciation, in my case a very generous gift certificate to Amazon, which is incidentally, where we've started a baby registry so it was perfect.
E had some feedback for me after a dinner we had with a friend of his this week. I didn't like how he framed it and at first didn't take it very well. We were able to talk about it and everything is okay now, but upon later reflection one thing that struck me was how not only is it important how you say things but the general relationship context in which you say them. I think we all know that in certain relationships you feel more free to give constructive feedback than others. But even in close relationships how things are received can depend a lot on the current state of the relationship--context matters. For example, he and I hadn't been spending a lot of time together recently so when one of the first things said when you do have time alone is "helpful," at least in my case it makes it harder to hear.
I'm currently reading Grace (Eventually), Thoughts on Faith by Anne Lamott. So far it's okay. In one excerpt she talks about a children's Sunday School class she teaches. I like this one activity they do called Loved & Chosen. She sits on a couch and looks around the room and then says, "Is anyone here wearing a blue sweatshirt with Pokemon on it?" The four-year-olds look down and seem surprised to see that they are indeed wearing a shirt with said description and raise their hand. Then that child is called to come over to the couch and told, "You are so loved, and so chosen." Each child is loved and chosen. She goes on to talk about how a Jesuit friend took the opportunity to say it's a good exercise because the truth is that we are all loved and chosen, even particular government officials that Lamott doesn't like, which can make it hard to make sense of.
I got a haircut yesterday, shorter, cutting off most of my scraggly layers. Yesterday it was blown dry kind of poofy, today looks a little flat...don't really like any of my self portraits but this gives you an idea...(also wearing one of my new maternity tops but you can't really see it):
One E took later:
Yesterday we took the bus to New Jersey to visit the Design Within Reach Annex/outlet because they were having a sale. Unfortunately, they didn't have any cribs this time around but we got a nice rug for the hallway. E said it was his idea of hell....outlet shopping, low slung warehouses, big parking lots, no pedestrians, nly cars.
Also yesterday, some gals invited me to join them to have dinner and watch Anne of Green Gables. I hadn't seen that in ages--my first time was a MLK Jr. movie marathon day where we saw the movie and its sequel. I thought it was called Anne of Avonlea even though they mushed a bunch of books together, but apparently it's called Anne of Green Gables--The Sequel. I haven't seen the third one "The Continuing Story" (how lame are these titles) but apparently at least one big Anne fan said it's not worth watching.
I always like having girls' night so I was happy to join them. Also, I feel like us old married ladies get invited less often sometimes because it's assumed we're hanging out with our hubbies (though the hostess was also married with a hubby out of town). I did feel a bit old when I heard two of them had stayed out until about 4am the night before (with different people). Then again, I was never one to really do that anyway, even when I was single and fancy free. We commented on how we'd forgotten how funny that movie is. I cried almost every single time they had a Matthew/Anne seen. They certainly encourage it by cuing that music (which actually makes me think of studying because one of my college friends had it and we'd play it a lot because it was instrumental). I said I was up for round 2 (Anne of Avonlea) but apparently they don't have it out on DVD, yet! Ah, but I just checked Amazon and it is indeed out, you can even get a boxed set. Ooh...maybe I should start stocking up on these to read and then watch with my daughter. :)Made a batch of brownies yesterday, another recipe from that one NY Times article. Homemade brownies are the bomb I must say. There were "French" brownies. I think I like the "Supernatural" ones better. Maybe I'll make the "New Classic" ones next.
SUPERNATURAL BROWNIES
Adapted from ''Chocolate: From Simple Cookies to Extravagant Showstoppers,'' by Nick Malgieri (Morrow Cookbooks, 1998)
Time: About 1 hour
2 sticks (16 tablespoons) butter, more for pan and parchment paper
8 ounces bittersweet chocolate
4 eggs
1/2 teaspoon salt
1 cup dark brown sugar, such as muscovado
1 cup granulated sugar
2 teaspoons vanilla extract
1 cup flour
1/2 cup chopped walnuts or 3/4 cup whole walnuts, optional.
1. Butter a 13-by-9-inch baking pan and line with buttered parchment paper. Preheat oven to 350 degrees. In top of a double boiler set over barely simmering water, or on low power in a microwave, melt butter and chocolate together. Cool slightly. In a large bowl or mixer, whisk eggs. Whisk in salt, sugars and vanilla.
2. Whisk in chocolate mixture. Fold in flour just until combined. If using chopped walnuts, stir them in. Pour batter into prepared pan. If using whole walnuts, arrange on top of batter. Bake for 35 to 40 minutes or until shiny and beginning to crack on top. Cool in pan on rack.
Yield: 15 large or 24 small brownies.
Note: For best flavor, bake 1 day before serving, let cool and store, tightly wrapped.
FRENCH CHOCOLATE BROWNIES
Adapted from ''Baking: From My Home to Yours,'' by Dorie Greenspan (Houghton Mifflin, 2006)
Time: 11/4 hours
12 tablespoons butter, cut into pieces, plus 1 teaspoon melted butter for brushing pan
1/2 cup all-purpose flour
1/8 teaspoon salt
6 ounces bittersweet chocolate, in pieces
3 eggs
1 cup sugar
1/2 teaspoon vanilla extract
2/3 cup lightly toasted walnuts or hazelnuts (optional).
1. Place a rack just below center of oven and preheat to 300 degrees. Line an 8-inch-square pan with foil and brush with melted butter.
2. In a bowl, whisk flour and salt together. In top of a double boiler set over barely simmering water, or on low power in a microwave, melt remaining butter and chocolate together. Stir often and remove from heat when a few lumps remain. Stir until smooth.
3. In a mixer, beat eggs and sugar together until thick and pale yellow. Add chocolate mixture and vanilla and mix at low speed until smooth. Add dry ingredients and mix 30 seconds, then finish mixing by hand, adding nuts if using. Pour into prepared pan and bake 50 to 60 minutes, until top is dry. Let cool in pan, then lift out and cut into bars or wrap in foil.
Yield: 12 to 16 brownies.
NEW CLASSIC BROWNIES
Adapted from ''Alice Medrich's Cookies and Brownies'' (Warner Books, 1999)
Time: 40 minutes
8 tablespoons unsalted butter
4 ounces unsweetened chocolate
1 1/4 cups sugar
1 teaspoon vanilla extract
1/4 teaspoon salt
2 eggs
1/2 cup all-purpose flour
2/3 cup lightly toasted walnuts or pecans (optional).
1. Preheat oven to 400 degrees. Line an 8-inch-square metal baking pan with foil. In top of a double boiler set over barely simmering water, or on low power in a microwave, melt butter and chocolate together. Stir often, and remove from heat when a few lumps remain. Stir until smooth.
2. Stir in sugar, vanilla and salt. Stir in eggs one at a time, followed by flour. Stir until very smooth, about 1 minute, until mixture pulls away from sides of bowl. Add nuts, if using. Scrape batter into prepared pan and bake 20 minutes.
3. Meanwhile, prepare a water bath: Pour ice water into a large roasting pan or kitchen sink to a depth of about 1 inch. Remove pan from oven and place in water bath, being careful not to splash water on brownies. Let cool completely, then lift out and cut into 1-inch squares or wrap in foil.
Yield: 16 brownies.
No comments:
Post a Comment