The Survive and Thrive Boomer Guide

‘Brain drain’ predicted – again – as boomers get ready to retire

Before the Great Recession, the Internet and newspapers were abuzz with articles about the bad shape American companies and government agencies would be in when large numbers of baby boomers retired.

With so many people, including boomers, out of work, the topic hasn’t come up much lately. In fact, many articles have been written about boomers working well beyond retirement age.

However, in a recent report, Ithaca College sociologist Stephen Sweet says, as millions of baby boomers prepare to retire, “the inevitable talent drain threatens to alter the national economy.”

The report – "The Pressures of Talent Management" – examined talent management practices at 696 organizations across the 10 leading sectors of the economy.

“Four of every ten employers surveyed anticipate the aging workforce will have a negative impact on their business over the next three years,” said Sweet.

However, 77 percent of employers surveyed had not analyzed projected employee retirement rates or assessed employee career plans.

In 2000, baby boomers represented the largest portion of the U.S. labor force at 48 percent. By 2010, they're projected to shrink to 37 percent of the workforce. As a result, some economists are predicting a shortage of 10 to 15 million workers in the coming decade, with large numbers of inexperienced workers in a dwindling labor pool.

U.S. companies need to start planning for this loss of workers, Sweet said, adding:

Employers should take advantage of programs designed to meet the evolving needs of employees nearing retirement, while at the same time meeting business needs by keeping experienced talent longer and ensuring business continuity.

That’s good advice. Boomers need flexibility, such as being able to work part time, if they stay in their jobs, or if they look for new ones.

Copyright 2009, Rita R. Robison, Consumer Specialist

Watch your wallet on Black Friday and Cyber Monday

"Black Friday is soooo close. It’s my favorite holiday!!!"

"Debating whether or not to enjoy Black Friday shopping. Nothing really needed, just enjoy the thrill of the hunt."

"Old Navy started their Black Friday sales this morning [Tuesday]!"

That’s what three consumers writing on Twitter said about Black Friday, the big shopping day after Thanksgiving that got its name because it was the day that retailers started making money after being in the "red."

Black Friday, Saturday, and Sunday will attract up to 134 million shoppers this year, up from 128 million last year. According to the National Retail Federation, 57 million people say they will definitely hit the stores while another 77 million are waiting to see what retailers are planning before heading out the door.

Cyber Monday is a term coined by Shop.org in 2005, when retailers noticed a large increase of people shopping online on the Monday after Thanksgiving.

But don’t be stampeded into spending a lot of money this weekend or on Cyber Monday just because of all the news in the media about Black Friday and "how important it is to give the economy a much-needed boost."

The article "Dirty Secrets of Black Friday" describes these problems shoppers may run into on the big shopping day:

• Limited quantities.

• Derivatives offered, models that have a few less features than a standard model in that product line.

• No information on what Black Friday sales are offered online.

• Online deals that don’t get shipped.

• Rain checks that don’t result in the cheap Black Friday deal.

Public Citizen, a consumer advocacy organization, urges consumers to not get wound up in the hype about Black Friday:

So let me get this straight. One year after the financial sector took our economy to the brink of collapse, we’re rooting for Wall Street’s success, which depends on the willingness of consumers to spend as much as they can – most likely more than they can afford, since that’s how the financial sector makes its money– during the worst economy in 26 years and while 10.2 percent are unemployed? Sounds like some seriously misplaced priorities.

So make a plan for your holiday gift giving and spend only what you can afford. It will reduce your holiday stress and make for a happier new year.

Copyright 2009, Rita R. Robison, Consumer Specialist

New breast cancer recommendations offer helpful advice to baby boomer women on what to do about breast cancer screening

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force revised guidelines on breast cancer screening recommend against universal screening mammography for women aged 40 to 49, recommend every other year screening for women 50 to 74, rather than annual screening, and recommend against teaching breast self-examination.

I believe the new recommendations provide valuable information for baby boomer women as they access their breast cancer screening needs.

Among the groups that agree is the National Breast Cancer Coalition.
 
For over a decade, the coalition has had the position that over-emphasis on the importance of breast cancer screening, despite a lack of strong evidence, has been elevated to such a degree that some even equate screening with prevention.

The coalition hopes that the task force revised recommendations will put screening and its limitations into proper perspective.

"We hope that policy makers, the public, and the health care community will take the time to carefully analyze the basis of the revised recommendations,” said coalition President, Fran Visco in a statement in response to the task force’s recommendations. “Women have been given different messages for years, but unfortunately those messages were not based on strong evidence."

"Women deserve the truth even when it is complicated,” Visco added. “They can accept it."

Everyone deserves to know the facts and has the right to make informed decisions regarding their health care. The coalition encourages women to make informed decisions regarding screening based on the actual evidence.

To learn more about the myths and truths concerning breast cancer and screening, and to find out how to take action against this disease, visit the coalition’s StopBreastCancer.org.

The coalition is an organization working to ending breast cancer through grassroots action and advocacy.

The Breast Cancer Fund also has raised questions about radiation as being implicated in breast cancer causation. See the articles “Do Chemicals and Radiation Cause Breast Cancer?” and “Preventing Breast Cancer: 20 Risk Factors.”

The Breast Cancer Fund is an organization that works to identify – and advocate for elimination of – the environmental and other preventable causes of breast cancer.

Copyright 2009, Rita R. Robison, Consumer Specialist

Top 10 best small towns in America

Small towns with strong economies still exist. Along with a good economy, you can also find great schools, affordable homes, and low crime in these towns.

Here’s Money magazine’s list of America’s best small towns:

1. Louisville, Colo. (shown in photo)
2. Chanhassen, Minn.
3. Papillion, Neb.
4. Middleton, Wis.
5. Milton, Mass.
6. Warren, N.J.
7. Keller, Texas
8. Peachtree City, Ga.
9. Lake St. Louis, Mo.
10. Mukilteo, Wash.

See “Best Places to Live” for details on why these towns made Money’s list.

Copyright 2009, Rita R. Robison, Consumer Specialist

What are the most dangerous times to drive?

More than 40,000 people are killed in motor vehicle traffic crashes every year. That’s about 110 people daily throughout the nation.

Motor vehicle traffic crashes are the leading cause of death for all Americans between 2 and 34 years of age, reports the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

What times are the worst for traffic accidents?

Forbes magazine calculated the most dangerous times to drive using crash reports from the administration, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, and AAA’s Foundation for Traffic Study. Its researchers also examined studies from the University of California at Berkeley’s Traffic Safety Center.

Knowing when the most fatal traffic collisions occur can help consumers make decisions on when to stay off the roads.

Time of day also is important when considering traffic safety because other dangerous factors increase at night: drunk driving, speeding, and driving without a seat belt, the Forbes article reports.

Most dangerous times to drive:

• Daytime hours. An average of 6.6 people are killed between the hours of 5 p.m. and 6 p.m., with another 6.6 killed between 6 p.m. and 7 p.m. These are the highest daytime rates.

• At night. Midnight to 4 a.m. have the highest number of fatalities when calculated as a percentage of the amount of people on the road; 5.87 per 100 million people.

• Day of the Week. Saturday has the highest total number of fatalities, with an average of 158 each Saturday.

• Month. August had the most total deaths on the road in 2008 with a total of 3,612.

• Day of the year. July 4, Independence Day, is the most dangerous day of the year to drive. In 2007, 926 people were killed in auto accidents on July 4.

• Holiday weekend. Thanksgiving is the deadliest holiday weekend on the road, when daily totals are averaged over a several-day period around the holiday.

Other activities that can increase your risk of having a fatal traffic crash:

• Cell phone usage. Using a cell phone while driving nearly quadruples the risk of crashing.

• Speeding. In 2006, 32 percent of fatalities were directly related to speeding.

• Seatbelt unbuckled. Fifty-five percent of traffic fatalities in 2006 didn’t wear a seatbelt. Seventy-one percent of those fatalities occurred between midnight and 3 a.m.

• Driving drunk. More than 12,995 people died in alcohol-related crashes in 2007. Alcohol impairment among drivers involved in fatal crashes was four times higher at night than during the day – 36 percent versus 9 percent.

• First day after a snowstorm. The first snowy day of the year is more dangerous for drivers than other snow days in terms of fatalities. Fatal accidents were 14 percent more likely on the first snowy day of the season compared with later ones.

Drive safely, especially with winter weather beginning to descend upon us.

Copyright 2009, Rita R. Robison, Consumer Journalist

Which 2009 vehicles are the most dangerous?

A list of 2009’s most dangerous vehicles has been compiled Forbes magazine.

Forbes researchers used crash results from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety and rollover ratings from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

The institute uses a scale of "good," "acceptable," "marginal," and "poor," while the administration awards up to five stars for rollover safety

Test dummies are checked for trauma in 28 regions for front crashes and 37 regions for side crashes after each institute crash. Each region is awarded a rating based on specific parameters for trauma.

A "good" rating means little to no trauma occurred to drivers and/or passengers during the crash, while a "poor" rating means severe and possibly fatal trauma happened.
 
Forbes assigned point values for each administration and institute rating, with more points awarded for better results, according to the article. The 16 cars on its list of the most dangerous vehicles scored the lowest number of total points. They are:

• Chevrolet Aveo

• Chevrolet Colorado

• Chevrolet Trailblazer

• Chrysler PT Cruiser

• Dodge Nitro

• Ford Ranger

• GMC Canyon

• GMC Envoy

• Hummer H3

• Hyundai Accent

• Jeep Liberty

• Jeep Wrangler

• Kia Rio

• Mazda B Series

• Nissan Frontier

• Suzuki Equator

Among the lowest-scoring were the Chevrolet Trailblazer SUV, the Kia Rio small sedan, and the Ford Ranger pickup, the Forbes article reports.

See the article for details on each vehicle, automakers responses to the Forbes article, and how to use the list when buying a vehicle.

My next post will be on “What Are the Most Dangerous Times to Drive?”

Copyright 2009, Rita R. Robison, Consumer Specialist

What are the top 10 risky foods regulated by the FDA?

Leafy greens, eggs, and tuna are on the top of a list of the 10 riskiest foods regulated by the Food and Drug Administration. Those and seven other foods account for nearly 40 percent of all foodborne outbreaks linked to FDA-regulated food.

That's no reason to forgo salads, says the Center for Science in the Public Interest, which wrote a report on risky foods, nor pass up tomatoes, sprouts, and berries, even though those foods are also on the list.

But the consumer advocacy group says the presence of so many healthy foods on such a list is why the U.S. Senate should follow the House and pass legislation that reforms outdated food safety laws.

The FDA is responsible for regulating produce, seafood, egg, and dairy products, as well as packaged foods such as cookie dough and peanut butter – nearly 80 percent of the food supply.

More than 1,500 separate outbreaks were associated with the top 10 riskiest FDA-regulated foods, causing nearly 50,000 reported illnesses, reports CSPI. Since most foodborne illnesses are never reported, these outbreaks are only small part of a much larger problem.

Advertisement

CSPI identified 363 outbreaks linked to iceberg lettuce, romaine, spinach, and other leafy greens, contaminated with E. coli, Norovirus, or Salmonella, and causing 13,568 cases of illness. Manure, contaminated irrigation water, or poor handling practices are all possible culprits in those outbreaks, CSPI’s research shows.

The FDA doesn’t currently require farms and processors to have written food safety plans, nor does it provide specific safety standards for growers – even the largest companies – to meet.

Eggs were linked 352 outbreaks and 11,163 illnesses; tuna to 268 outbreaks and 2,341 cases of illness; and oysters to 132 outbreaks causing 3,409 illnesses. Outbreaks involving potatoes don’t often make headlines, but they’re linked to 108 outbreaks and 3,659 cases of illness. Cheese, ice cream, tomatoes, sprouts, and berries round out the top 10 list.

The data come from CSPI's Outbreak Alert! Database, which includes outbreaks from 1990 to 2006, using data collected from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other sources.

"As consumers, we don't have the power to check on these products," said Kathleen Chrismer, whose 9-year-old daughter Rylee Gustafson was hospitalized for a month after becoming seriously ill from eating spinach salad contaminated with E. coli O157:H7. "Without a better system to protect us, we are totally at the mercy of the next outbreak."

Copyright 2009, Rita R. Robison, Consumer Specialist

Preventing breast cancer: 20 risk factors

October is National Breast Cancer Awareness Month.

The Breast Cancer Fund is an organization that works to identify – and advocate for elimination of – the environmental and other preventable causes of breast cancer. It says:

Research has taught us that many widely understood risk factors play a role, including our genetic makeup and whether or not we've had kids or breast-fed.

But these risk factors don't explain it all. A substantial body of scientific evidence indicates that exposures to common chemicals and radiation, alone and in combination, may contribute to the unacceptably high incidence of breast cancer.

Here are risk factors the Breast Cancer Fund offers in its article “How to Prevent Breast Cancer: 20 Risk Factors”:

1. Cook with stainless steel. Aluminum may be a risk factor for breast cancer. To be cautious, avoid aluminum pots and pans and aluminum-based deodorants.

2. Use natural sunscreens. Many sunscreens contain chemicals that may be breast cancer risk factors.

3. Check your old foam furniture. Old foam mattresses and furniture can contain PBDEs, flame retardants that may be a breast cancer risk factor.

4. Minimize car exhaust. PAHs in vehicle exhaust are a breast cancer risk factor, particularly at certain vulnerable moments in life. Minimize your exposure.

5. Eat soy, but not too much. Natural plant-based estrogens in soy may provide healthy benefits in low doses, but may be a risk factor for breast cancer in higher doses.

6. Avoid CT scans and x-rays. Some common medical procedures may come with a high dose of radiation, a known breast cancer risk factor. There are alternatives.

7. Check older toys. Exposure to phthalates in plastics, present in many older – and not so old – toys and children's products, could be a breast cancer risk factor.

8. Avoid synthetic hormone replacement therapy. If you use HRT, use estrogen-only formulations to avoid a well-documented breast cancer risk factor.

9. Recycle batteries. Some batteries and other consumer products contain cadmium, which has been linked to early-onset puberty, a risk factor for breast cancer.

10. Eat clean fish. Some fish can be contaminated with PCBs and dioxins, both breast cancer risk factors. Learn how to choose safe, nontoxic fish.

11. Be wary of dry cleaning chemicals. PERC, a chemical used by many dry cleaners, and in some carpet cleaners and spot removers, may be a breast cancer risk factor.

12. Use natural cosmetics. Some beauty products contain toxic and endocrine disrupting chemicals that may be breast cancer risk factors.

13. Avoid bleach and chlorine. Bleached products, including some tampons and household disinfectant bleaches, may be harmful.

14. Use natural pesticides. Some chemical pesticides contain endocrine disrupting chemicals that can harm human health, as well as kill insects and rodents.

15. Avoid weed killers. Herbicides do more than kill weeds. Some may mimic hormones, a breast cancer risk factor.

16. Use nontoxic cleaning supplies. Warning labels on cleaning products are there for a reason: Some contain breast cancer risk factors. Use alternative green cleansers or do-it-yourself cleansers instead.

17. Avoid canned food. The lining in canned food can leach chemicals. Choosing farmers' market-fresh vegetables is a better choice.

18. Choose truly “microwave safe” containers. Even so-called "microwave safe" plastic can leach chemicals into your food. Choose glass or ceramic bowls instead.

19. Drink safe water. Bottled water may contain Bisphenol A or other contaminants, while filtered public tap water is closely monitored for safety.

20. Choose BPA-free baby and water bottles. Bisphenol A has been linked to a variety of health problems, and may be a risk factor for breast cancer. Start early – for your daughter’s sake.

See the article for details on each risk factor.

Copyright 2009, Rita R. Robison, Consumer Specialist

Do chemicals and radiation cause breast cancer?

 

Growing up on apple farms after World War II where pesticides were sprayed liberally on everything, I began to wonder at an early age about the dangers of the wide use of chemicals.

As a consumer journalist, I’ve interviewed Devra Lee Davis, Ph.D.,M.P.H., director of the Center for Environmental Oncology and professor at the University of Pittsburgh, several times about the link between chemicals and breast cancer.

October is National Breast Cancer Awareness Month.

When I was doing research for yesterday’s post on the Obama administration’s plans to revamp the nation’s chemical management program, I found information on the Breast Cancer Fund. It works to identify – and advocate for elimination of – the environmental and other preventable causes of breast cancer.

The group’s latest report on breast cancer and chemicals, the 2008 edition of the "State of Evidence: The Connection Between Breast Cancer and the Environment," is must reading for every woman.

The report states that a woman’s lifetime risk of getting breast cancer in the United States has increased rapidly since the 1900s. More specifically:

Between 1973 and 1998, breast cancer incidence rates in the United States increased by more than 40 percent. Today, a woman’s lifetime risk of breast cancer is one in eight.

Information is offered in the report on the latest research on the breast cancer-chemicals link:

A recent survey conducted at the Massachusetts-based Silent Spring Institute indicated that 216 chemicals and radiation sources have been recognized by national and international regulatory agencies as being implicated in breast cancer causation.

Many other chemicals, especially those classified as endocrine-disrupting compounds or EDCs, are not listed by the regulatory agencies, the researchers said; yet the scientific evidence linking EDCs to breast cancer risk is substantial and growing.

An important body of scientific evidence demonstrates that exposure to common chemicals and radiation may contribute to the staggering incidence of breast cancer. In our daily lives, we are rarely exposed to these substances in isolation; the pervasiveness of many of these substances means we likely have multiple, low-level exposures over the course of weeks, months, even years.

The 2008 "State of Evidence" describes how different kinds of exposures may increase cancer risk:

There are several examples in recent scientific literature demonstrating that mixtures of environmental chemicals, chemicals and radiation, or complex combinations of chemicals and particular genetic or hormonal profiles may alter biological processes and possibly lead to increases in breast cancer risk.

These new data show that we need to begin to think of breast cancer causation as a complex web of often interconnected factors, each exerting direct and interactive effects on cellular processes in mammary tissue.

The report calls for action:

Together, we must move forward to identify and eliminate the environmental causes of breast cancer. The Moving Forward section [of the report] provides a call to action for advocates and policy makers. It offers a menu of different ways, from crafting state and federal policy to research initiatives, that supporters can be active in breast cancer prevention.

The evidence is clear and growing. There are actions we can take today to reduce the public’s exposures to toxic chemicals and radiation.

Be sure to take a look at this important report.

Tomorrow’s post will be on 20 ways women can prevent breast cancer.

Copyright 2009, Rita R. Robison, Consumer Specialist

Federal agency’s effort to revamp the nation’s chemical management program laudable, but doesn’t go far enough

 

With cancer rates skyrocketing and continual questions about how chemicals affect the health of consumers, the Obama Administration has announced its goals for reforming of this country’s chemical management law, the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act or TSCA.

In addition, the Environmental Protection Agency also made known its plans for a major effort to strengthen the agency’s current chemical management program and increase the pace of the agency’s efforts to address chemicals that pose a risk to the public.

  
 
U.S. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said in a recent talk at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco:

As more and more chemicals are found in our bodies and the environment, the public is understandably anxious and confused. Many are turning to government for assurance that chemicals have been assessed using the best available science, and that unacceptable risks haven’t been ignored.

Our oversight of the 21st century chemical industry is based on the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act....over the years, not only has TSCA fallen behind the industry it’s supposed to regulate – it’s been proven an inadequate tool for providing the protection against chemical risks that the public rightfully expects.

Today I’m announcing clear administration principles to guide Congress in writing a new chemical risk management law that will fix the weaknesses in TSCA.

Legislation strengthening TSCA is expected to be introduced shortly. The Obama administration’s goals for the revision are:

• Chemicals should be reviewed against risk-based safety standards based on sound science and protective of human health and the environment.

• Manufacturers should provide EPA with the necessary information to conclude that new and existing chemicals are safe and don’t endanger public health or the environment.

• EPA should have clear authority to take risk management actions when chemicals don’t meet the safety standard, with flexibility to take into account sensitive subpopulations, costs, social benefits, equity, and other relevant considerations.

• Manufacturers and EPA should assess and act on priority chemicals, both existing and new, in a timely manner.

• Green chemistry should be encouraged and provisions assuring transparency and public access to Information should be strengthened.

• EPA should be given a sustained source of funding for implementation.

EPA will strengthen the performance of its current chemical management program while Congress considers new legislation.

However, representatives of the Environmental Working Group, Earthjustice, and the Breast Cancer Action Fund question how the new regulatory program might work, reports the article "EPA Announced Plan to Review Six Controversial Chemicals" on the Web site Scientific American.

Many experts say the United States has fallen far behind in regulating toxic substances, according to the article. In 2007, the European Union began implementing the world's most restrictive chemicals law. It requires manufacturers to provide basic data on the properties of thousands of chemical substances. The European Chemicals Agency then will review the chemicals, and require substitution of the most dangerous ones.

The EPA will begin its chemical reforms by analyzing and regulating six high-profile chemicals that have raised health concerns: bisphenol A, or BPA, found in hard, clear polycarbonate bottles; phthalates, used in vinyl and cosmetics; brominated flame retardants, added to electronics and other goods; perfluorinated compounds, used in manufacturing nonstick coatings and food packaging; some parafins used in lubricants, and benzidine dyes and pigments.

Many scientists say these chemicals can mimic hormones and obstruct development of fetuses and children, as well as possibly cause reproductive problems, cancer, or other health effects, reports the article.

To strengthen EPA’s chemical management program, chemical action plans will be developed, which will outline the agency’s risk management efforts on the chemicals of greatest concern.

EPA plans to post an initial set of four action plans in December and additional action plans every four month after that.

Efforts also will be accelerated to gather the critical information from industry that the agency needs to make chemical risk determinations. EPA is also reviewing ways to increase consumers’ access to information about chemicals.

Information on EPA’s chemical management program can be found at: www.epa.gov/oppt/existingchemicals/index.html.

Copyright 2009, Rita R. Robison, Consumer Specialist