Beyond Swiffer

A couple of months ago, I tried to mop the floor. Mop, not Swiffer. I carefully swept everywhere first, trying to remove all the dust. When I was finished mopping however, wet dustballs clung to the white strings like leeches. I used copious amounts of water and then, discovering that the sink was clogged, used more water and cleaning agent to unclog it. There was no way that entire process was better for the environment than a discarded Swiffer cloth--was there?

This weekend I mopped my bedroom floor for the first time in months. I have a special sponge mop for this, and use Murphy's wood soap. The sponge mop took about 10 seconds to clean, though I still regretted the dirty chemical-ridden water that I had to pour down the drain. That couldn't be good for the ducks, either.

Tonight, I came across this article. One of their suggestions is to mix vinegar and baking soda with some warm water and use that to clean your floors (with a sponge mop, of course). This doesn't sound too time-consuming and is certainly inexpensive. I plan to try it sometime in the coming week. I am skeptical about some of their suggestions, though. Buying natural sponges from "sponge farms" sounds more expensive and I doubt that they last any longer. And while using a dishwasher might be more efficient, I don't have one, and will have to continue wasting water the old-fashioned way.

Finally, here are 2 saving water suggestions I probably won't try, but wholeheartedly support those who do:
1. Recycle your greywater. Save the water from the shower or dishwasher and use it to mop the floor.

2. Instead of showers or baths, try bathing with a bucket. Whenever I visit my relatives in Asia, they fill a bucket with water, hand you a jug, and you're good to go. This includes washing your hair and shaving your legs. Trust me, it can be done.

On University Administration

I am constantly surprised by the level of bureaucracy in University administrative offices. This morning I submitted the paperwork to advance to candidacy for the PhD. One of my labmates heard me complaining about the $65 fee and claimed that he hadn't paid anything. Since he's in a different department, I went to our (new) departmental secretary (sorry, administrative assisstant) and asked if our department could also waive the fee. She refused. Then, I asked our lab's administrative assisstant if our advisor has ever been charged the fee. He also said no. So when I submitted my check to the Graduate Office, I asked if it was common to have this mismatch between departments. I was told that all students paid their own fee and my labmate must have slipped through the cracks. Not wanting to incriminate him, I let the subject drop. What gets me is that if didn't submit a check and just hoped I'd "slip through the cracks", I would instead be notified on graduation day that I hadn't fulfilled requirements and would be delayed a semester in receiving my degree. That's what happens to the chump (chumpette?) who actually reads these pesky forms.

On Grammar

My research advisor forbids the use of split infinitives and gerunds. The split infinitive issue is, in my opinion, archaic, especially as using them usually increases clarity, a crucial aspect of scientific writing. The gerund rule is uniquely his. I think this symbolizes the dominance of old white males in science. Just because some woman in her 50s told my advisor in the 50s that split infinitives were a bad idea, does not mean that currently accepted standards are in some way inferior. How is anyone surprised at the prevalence of outmoded thinking when it comes to women in science when it is such a big issue in even small, far less significant aspects of the field?

On "Elements of Style"

After a fitful night's sleep (I went to the midnight showing of Harry Potter), I spent the day "working from home". Sometime mid-afternoon, I stopped pretending to respond to reviewer comments re: the discussion section and picked up Wendy Wasserstein's "Elements of Style". I got the book for my birthday and while I feel compelled to finish it, I've now descended into the blahs. A page or two of irony about the idle rich of NYC wearing Prada and drinking champagne is fun; an entire novel is draining. Even if it is meant to be ironic, inhabiting the minds of these superficial characters is zapping the fun out of life. It is also rendering me incapable of deciding whether to accomodate reviewer #1 and remove any discussion of papers x and y.

On "Sicko"

You'd be hard-pressed to find me tearing up during a romantic comedy. But show me happy, caring doctors and pharmacists in Canada, England, and France, and I have to struggle to keep from bawling. "But BOLDgirl," you might say, "the future of the healthcare systems in these countries looks grim." Perhaps. But with all this talk of the global economy, how much of that is due to American companies jacking up the prices of their products? I will spare you further discussion of the wonders of these other countries and shall instead, leave you with this, just one more reason I love my adopted state.

"Come Disconnect the Dots With Me, Poppet"*

Lately, I've seen a flurry of posts about the changing attitude of collegiate women towards feminism and sexuality. Feminism is a tricky thing. How to define equality when the value of a human being is constantly being re-evaluated? Born on the cusp of two generations (not to mention two zodiacs), I'm never quite sure whether I'm supposed to be a sexually uninhibited neo-feminist or an anti-feminist of the type recently paraded around the New York Times: a brilliant star at Harvard Law/Med who is willing to give it all up to make flaxseed and carob cupcakes for their children's lacrosse practice. That I am a female scientist/engineer in a post-Summersgate Era who regularly reads the NYT Fashion & Style section only adds to the confusion. While the current focus on sexual empowerment and individual academic/career achievement might be representative of our fascination with Paris Hilton and the seemingly pervasive Ivy dreams of upper-middle class White and Asian media darlings, I think it oversimplifies the basic exploration of male/female power dynamics. Why all this concern that young women are shunning sex and miniskirts (two things which I doubt are highly correlated)? I mean, is there really a dramatic shift in sexual mores? I doubt it. And I can't help but wonder if this recent shift of focus is indicative of a perceived inability to address more longstanding and basic problems such as the glass ceiling. So long live sexual freedom for all (certainly an important aspect of feminism), but why should the sexual habits of a few vocal individuals concern me any more than their toilet habits?

*Of Montreal, "Disconnect the Dots"

More on Donating

Some quick updates on blood donation:
-I'm in the process of finding out my blood type. If I'm a universal donor, then the whole apheresis vs. whole blood might be a bigger issue. My medical student friend thinks whole blood is more likely to be in high demand

-there is a blood drive a couple miles away from my apartment (and therefore, walkable) this Saturday. If I choose to donate whole blood, my goal is 4 times/year. Being an inherently flawed individual, I make no promises. But I shall try.


All this thinking about giving blood has me thinking about bone marrow as well. A family friend in Houston campaigns to get more South Asians to join the National Marrow Donor Program Registry. It's relatively painless, consisting of a quick swab inside your cheek. And if you aren't South Asian, don't think there isn't a need to join the registry. According to the website, the following groups are under-represented: "American Indian and Alaska Native, Asian, Black and African American, Hispanic and Latino, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, and multiple-race patients". Finally, have you considered donating your baby's umbilical cord?

Lest you think I'm developing an eighteenth century nurse complex, stay tuned for my next "thing to do". It promises to be more lighthearted.