Said Slate writer Arthur Allen as he was about to criticize Oprah Winfrey, “Chastising a celebrity is an exercise in futility. You feel like a kitten being held by the scruff of its neck, scrabbling wildly in the air without drawing blood.” The man has a point. What other celebrity out there has a daily invitation into American homes, whose mere mention of a tip or product can inspire hysterics? Sure, one could argue that Sarah Palin or Glenn Beck might impose the same influence on a select group of Americans. But then, Oprah isn’t as politically polarizing as Palin or Beck. Or is she?

The career of a media mogul inevitably will be marked with scandal and lawsuits, particularly with a figure who commands as much influence as Oprah Winfrey. There is no denying that she can throw down some serious authority when she’s up for it. A mere mention of mad cow disease on her show in the 1990s brought on an infamous defamation suit from the Texas cattle industry. Angry cattle rustlers claimed her show caused the industry to lose 11 million. Free speech prevailed and Oprah was exonerated, but it showed the world that this woman has a voice that could be instantly magnified by millions.

Just how loud is Oprah’s voice? Just one example is her book club which got America reading and made instant celebrities and sometimes millionaires of the authors. (This includes EcoSalon’s January Man We Love, Jonathan Franzen.) Critics of her book club tutt-tutted what seemed to be blind masses following her every word. Even Franzen notoriously worried that her selections, essentially perceived as “chick lit,” may alienate a male audience. But others pointed out she was getting people to read. So what’s the problem?

And there’s the charm of Oprah. To many, she is “everywoman.” To others, she’s mocked as “everywoman.” With a media empire and range of influence that remains unchallenged, she still oozes reliability and empathy with every interview. You feel like you could tell her anything – and hundreds of her guests have done just that. And when she’s dealing with an uncomfortable subject, she is quick to express some variation of “we’re here to learn from your experience, not to exploit your pain.”

And, people respond. Hell, do they respond. Even when she gave away a car at her final “favorite things” show in 2010, she proposed that the utter hysterics in the audience, which she herself called a parody and Saturday Night Live skit, was really about the joy of something unexpected happening during the day. And not, you know, about the free cars.

But when has she gotten it wrong? She publicly scolded author James Frey for fabricating his supposed memoir of drug abuse, A Million Little Pieces. She later apologized for doing so, saying she had felt personally duped and therefore lashed out.

Oprah also infamously featured Jenny McCarthy on her show, an actress on a quest to link vaccines and autism. Vaccines have been completely exonerated in their connection to autism. But has the damage been done? David T. Tayloe is president of the 60,000-member American Academy of Pediatricians. As he told Slate in 2009, even before this latest information came to light, “If you give her a bully pulpit, McCarthy is going to make people hesitate to vaccinate their children. She has no medical or scientific credentials. It disturbs us that she’s given all these opportunities to make her pitch about vaccines on Oprah or Larry King or U.S. News or whatever?”

For better or for worse, Oprah is a cultural force that cannot be ignored. Her power (or empowerment, perspective!) shows no sign of abating. As her epic show ends its run, the media mogul has turned her sights on an entire network, OWN. Now the world of basic cable can hold the hand of the media queen and her all-star spawns, such as Dr. Oz, Dr. Phil, Suzy Orman and more. Will it be a success? That remains to be seen. I’m willing to bet on the Big O before I discount her. Now excuse me while I get shaken like a kitten.

Image: Fuzzcat

Researchers at U.C. Davis are trying to connect the dots leading to 10 autism clusters in California. One theory is that those parents are using certain hazardous household products, exposing their kids to dangers linked to the neuro-developmental disorder that usually surfaces by the time a child turns three.

According to the Contra Costa Times and other news sources reporting the findings, the study authors don’t attribute the cases to a toxic waste plant or other widespread polluter, but rather to household items like cleaners or landscaping products.

The report released by the University this week says the clusters show autism rates nearly twice the amount of ones in surrounding areas, including three in the Bay Area: Parts of Redwood City, San Carlos and Belmong; Parts of Santa Clara and Sunnyvale; Western San Francisco. No clusters were found in the East Bay.

Other clusters are in Southern California and the Central Valley. And one San Diego cluster was found to have rates of 61.2 per 10,000 births, compared with 27.1 per 10,000 births in the surrounding region. The researchers said the study is the first one looking at the geography of autism births in the state to learn of local sections of elevated environmental risk.

In producing the study, which was published online in the journal Autism Research, the scientists looked at nearly all of the 2.5 million births recorded in California from 1996 to 2000. The report says some 10,000 children born during that period were later diagnosed with autism.

The scientists who conducted the study are now conducting two additional studies examining the environmental causes of autism, and plan to collect dust samples from the homes of 1,300 families to see if common chemicals are the culprits.

Main Image: Mercury News

A new study conducted by Swedish and American scientists accidentally uncovered a possible link between an environmental chemical and autism.

The original focus of the study was to look at causes of allergies and indoor air pollutants. But one of the questions asked of the Swedish families taking part in the study turned up an interesting curve ball. On asking the families what type of flooring was in their houses, the researchers discovered that there was a high incidence of children with autism in homes that had vinyl floor covering.

It’s known that vinyl floors can emit phthalates. And previous studies have already shown a link between phthalates and allergies and asthma. In 2004, for example,  a study found that there was a higher rate of asthma and allergies among children living in households with dust containing phthalates. But this is the first time that a possible connection between phthalates and autism has been uncovered.

Researchers discovered, on further analysis of the survey data, that  four environmental factors in particular seem to be associated with autism: vinyl flooring, the mother’s smoking, family economic problems, and condensation on windows.

With the incidence of autism, a neurodevelopmental disorder, having increased tremendously over the past 20 years, these findings could be an important key to understanding why.

The scientists themselves have found the connections “intriguing and baffling” and warn that their results are “far from conclusive”.  However, with these clues indicating that environmental conditions are contributing to autism disorders,  they believe that further study is warranted.

Image: Jesse Millan

Mysteriously, autism rates in California have gone up 700% in the past 15 years. Theories abound. Some claim the explosion in cases is because doctors are more aware and are therefore diagnosing more children; but that doesn’t account for such a huge spike. Others insist it’s vaccines containing thimerosal that are to blame; but thimerosal (a mercury compound used as a preservative) was phased out in 1999 and autism continues to skyrocket. Environmentalists have long argued that it must be due to environmental factors.

A new study confirms this.

Flame retardants, mercury, pesticides, phthalates, flea shampoos, even chemicals in antibacterial soaps have been linked to autism if the mother had significant exposure to any of these during her pregnancy. Any and all of these substances can disrupt neurological development in fetuses and infants. What’s disturbing is how common most of these chemicals are – and when one’s environment includes more than one, as is the case for most of us, imagine the consequences.

Further studies are needed, but if you still haven’t greened your cosmetics, cleaning supplies and other household goods, now is the time to do so. No harm can come from switching to more natural products, but plenty of harm may come if collectively we don’t.

Image: Dianna