A new study enumerates prenatal exposure to potentially harmful chemicals. Here’s what you can do to protect your child.

[In his ongoing but sporadic series Don't Throw That Away!, the Green Cheapskate shows you how to repurpose just about anything, saving money and the environment in the process. Send him your repurposing ideas and challenges, but whatever you do, Don't Throw That Away!]

Since nearly half of all marriages in the U.S. now end in divorce — and those that do last less than eight years on average — I suppose it’s a matrimonial miracle that after more than 25 years of wedded bliss, my wife and I have only one major dispute.

I’m referring, of course, to fabric softener sheets. She swears by them, and I swear about them, every time she buys them at the supermarket or I find one clinging to the inside of my boxer shorts. (Trust me, at my age you don’t need softening sheets in your shorts.)

Rather than argue with my truly wonderful wife about whether fabric softener sheets are worth the money, I decided to instead go for the Guinness Book of World Records for lengthy marriages and keep ours intact by finding some creative ways to reuse spent fabric softener sheets. Here’s what I found:

* Use them more than once. Although my wife disagrees, I’ve found that the same softener sheet can be used up to three or four times in the dryer and still get the job done.

* Anti-static dust wipes: The anti-cling chemicals in dryer sheets make them perfect for dusting television and computer screens and other electronic dust-magnets.

* Lint brush in a pinch: Used fabric softener sheets can be used to remove pet hair and lint from clothing and upholstery.

* Pot scrubbers: The softening chemicals in dryer sheets help loosen food particles stuck on pots and baking dishes; place a used sheet in the dish, cover with hot water, and let soak overnight. Rinse thoroughly after cleaning. (Editor’s Note: this one may not be for the chemically squeamish.)

[In his ongoing but sporadic series Don't Throw That Away!, the Green Cheapskate shows you how to repurpose just about anything, saving money and the environment in the process. Send him your repurposing ideas and challenges, but whatever you do, Don't Throw That Away!]

Since nearly half of all marriages in the U.S. now end in divorce — and those that do last less than eight years on average — I suppose it’s a matrimonial miracle that after more than 25 years of wedded bliss, my wife and I have only one major dispute.

I’m referring, of course, to fabric softener sheets. She swears by them, and I swear about them, every time she buys them at the supermarket or I find one clinging to the inside of my boxer shorts. (Trust me, at my age you don’t need softening sheets in your shorts.)

Rather than argue with my truly wonderful wife about whether fabric softener sheets are worth the money, I decided to instead go for the Guinness Book of World Records for lengthy marriages and keep ours intact by finding some creative ways to reuse spent fabric softener sheets. Here’s what I found:

* Use them more than once. Although my wife disagrees, I’ve found that the same softener sheet can be used up to three or four times in the dryer and still get the job done.

* Anti-static dust wipes: The anti-cling chemicals in dryer sheets make them perfect for dusting television and computer screens and other electronic dust-magnets.

* Lint brush in a pinch: Used fabric softener sheets can be used to remove pet hair and lint from clothing and upholstery.

* Pot scrubbers: The softening chemicals in dryer sheets help loosen food particles stuck on pots and baking dishes; place a used sheet in the dish, cover with hot water, and let soak overnight. Rinse thoroughly after cleaning. (Editor’s Note: this one may not be for the chemically squeamish.)

Fox Business had me on last week to talk about the growing controversy over the stolen emails at the Climate Research Unit of Britain’s University of East Anglia. Unlike host Charles Payne, who clearly sees a near-fatal blow to the integrity of climate science, I have mixed feelings, which I expressed on the air:

Watch the latest business video at FOXBusiness.com

Scientists have to protect the integrity of their research, and any appearance that data is being manipulated is serious, indeed. Of course, stealing email is serious, too, but it would be better if there were nothing for thieves to find.

The RealClimate.org blog says the most interesting thing is what is not in the emails: “There is no evidence of a worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research…no admission that global warming is a hoax…and no ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords.” No, but there is some embarrassing stuff nonetheless.

As I mentioned on the air, there’s nothing new about manipulating science. According to (TDG contributor) Chris Mooney’s The Republican War on Science, it was common practice during the Bush Administration. You’ll get an earful from Robert Kennedy, Jr.’s Crimes Against Nature, too.

It’s also clear that climate changes are well underway (see the book I edited, Feeling the Heat), and that global warming is very real. Evidence continues to accumulate daily. The situation is serious, and it’s another reason for protecting the integrity of the scientific process. At a critical time, with Copenhagen climate talks around the corner and a global warming bill pending in Congress, distractions like this are really regrettable.

Fox Business had me on last week to talk about the growing controversy over the stolen emails at the Climate Research Unit of Britain’s University of East Anglia. Unlike host Charles Payne, who clearly sees a near-fatal blow to the integrity of climate science, I have mixed feelings, which I expressed on the air:

Watch the latest business video at FOXBusiness.com

Scientists have to protect the integrity of their research, and any appearance that data is being manipulated is serious, indeed. Of course, stealing email is serious, too, but it would be better if there were nothing for thieves to find.

The RealClimate.org blog says the most interesting thing is what is not in the emails: “There is no evidence of a worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research…no admission that global warming is a hoax…and no ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords.” No, but there is some embarrassing stuff nonetheless.

As I mentioned on the air, there’s nothing new about manipulating science. According to (TDG contributor) Chris Mooney’s The Republican War on Science, it was common practice during the Bush Administration. You’ll get an earful from Robert Kennedy, Jr.’s Crimes Against Nature, too.

It’s also clear that climate changes are well underway (see the book I edited, Feeling the Heat), and that global warming is very real. Evidence continues to accumulate daily. The situation is serious, and it’s another reason for protecting the integrity of the scientific process. At a critical time, with Copenhagen climate talks around the corner and a global warming bill pending in Congress, distractions like this are really regrettable.

I’m going on Fox Business tonight to talk about global warming, and it will be an interesting chance to talk about current events. We’re entering a critical period of climate negotiations, and the chances for serious discussions at the global COP15 forum next month in Copenhagen were probably set back this week by a skeptical computer hacker.

The politically minded raider penetrated the server security at the well-connected Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia in England and dragged out a treasure trove of 160 megabytes of email and documents. Was there a smoking gun? Probably not, but I’m sure the hacker yelled “Eureka!” when he came across a piece of 1999 correspondence from Phil Jones, director of the unit.

In what some took as evidence that a scientist was jumping into the politics of global warming with both feet, Jones wrote that he used a “trick” to “hide the decline” in world temperatures. When that made headlines, Jones declared that any idea that he would manipulate data is “complete rubbish.”

The university was drawn in, and declared on its website, “There is nothing in the stolen material which indicates that peer-reviewed publications by CRU, and others, on the nature of global warming and related climate change are not of the highest-quality of scientific investigation and interpretation. CRU’s peer-reviewed publications are consistent with, and have contributed to, the overwhelming scientific consensus that the climate is being strongly influenced by human activity.”

Jones declared himself to be “a very apolitical person,” who is “happier doing the science and producing the papers.” Jones said he used the phrase “hiding the decline” in “an email written in haste.” He charged that the email disclosure “may be a concerted attempt to put a question mark over the science of climate change in the run-up to the Copenhagen talks.” But Jones didn’t say why he used the word “trick,” and his explanation didn’t quiet the calls for his resignation.

Guardian columnist Mark Lynas, author of Six Degrees, dismisses as “absurd” and “laughable” the idea of scientists colluding with government to foist an unworkable global warming theory on a gullible public. “None of this would matter if the public weren’t fooled,” he wrote. “But they are: Polls show climate ‘skepticism’ is rising, perhaps even to a majority position, on both sides of the Atlantic.”

I’m going on Fox Business tonight to talk about global warming, and it will be an interesting chance to talk about current events. We’re entering a critical period of climate negotiations, and the chances for serious discussions at the global COP15 forum next month in Copenhagen were probably set back this week by a skeptical computer hacker.

The politically minded raider penetrated the server security at the well-connected Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia in England and dragged out a treasure trove of 160 megabytes of email and documents. Was there a smoking gun? Probably not, but I’m sure the hacker yelled “Eureka!” when he came across a piece of 1999 correspondence from Phil Jones, director of the unit.

In what some took as evidence that a scientist was jumping into the politics of global warming with both feet, Jones wrote that he used a “trick” to “hide the decline” in world temperatures. When that made headlines, Jones declared that any idea that he would manipulate data is “complete rubbish.”

The university was drawn in, and declared on its website, “There is nothing in the stolen material which indicates that peer-reviewed publications by CRU, and others, on the nature of global warming and related climate change are not of the highest-quality of scientific investigation and interpretation. CRU’s peer-reviewed publications are consistent with, and have contributed to, the overwhelming scientific consensus that the climate is being strongly influenced by human activity.”

Jones declared himself to be “a very apolitical person,” who is “happier doing the science and producing the papers.” Jones said he used the phrase “hiding the decline” in “an email written in haste.” He charged that the email disclosure “may be a concerted attempt to put a question mark over the science of climate change in the run-up to the Copenhagen talks.” But Jones didn’t say why he used the word “trick,” and his explanation didn’t quiet the calls for his resignation.

Guardian columnist Mark Lynas, author of Six Degrees, dismisses as “absurd” and “laughable” the idea of scientists colluding with government to foist an unworkable global warming theory on a gullible public. “None of this would matter if the public weren’t fooled,” he wrote. “But they are: Polls show climate ‘skepticism’ is rising, perhaps even to a majority position, on both sides of the Atlantic.”

While many people think of bras primarily as functional clothing, apparently they can also be vehicles for high fashion. Or at least fashion that would make even Jacob the Jeweler blush. Black Book did some clever accounting of just how much good will some of the hottest celebrity bras could do, and the results are shocking.

That $5 million black diamond fantasy miracle bra, for instance, could feed 100,000 starving African children for a year, pay for 1,333,333 efficient light bulbs, plant 714,285 apple trees through the Arbor Day Foundation or buy 263 hybrid cars. One note: while the colorful charts list the efficient light bulbs as “LEDs,” they look like CFLs, and at $3.75 each are more likely the cheaper technology. Still, we get the idea!

It’s not easy to think of more outlandish symbols of consumption ran rampant than jewel-encrused under garments!