Toddlers and Tiaras, AKA the Worst Show Ever

So, I watched Toddlers and Tiaras tonight (don't judge). I'm appalled. Honestly, it made me kind of sick to my stomach.


There was a four-year-old in a sexy nurse outfit. I kind of want to share the horror. I was going to include a picture of an adult wearing a similar outfit, but then I'd feel dirty for putting that in a post that also includes the word toddler, and I'm not going to search "toddler sexy nurse." Ever. There was another in a sexy cop outfit. Ditto. Gross.


This pageant has an under two division. Even the six-month-olds were wearing more makeup than I did to get married. Seriously, there are parents out there who look at their baby who can't yet walk or talk and think, "Oh, I know what she needs. Let's highlight her cheekbones and bring out her eyes" And then they don't think, "Oh, wait. Let's not, because she's a baby and that would be unnecessary and kinda creepy." Also they were wearing wigs (I assume; most babies don't really have hair, and these babies have heads piled with curls).

No makeup or wig required.

The most disgusting part, though, was listening to the judges. "Oh, her hair isn't perfectly set. Did you see how it was kind of moving?" Oh, the horrors of movable hair! "What we're really looking for in makeup is for the contestants to look like a Barbie." Mission accomplished. Blech. 

Anyone else super weirded out by this?

Oh, and by the way, the prize all this disgusting-ness was designed to win? $500. OK, one mother said she spent $1600 on a new dress for this pageant. That's a loss of $1100 even if her dolled up child wins, not even counting the professional hair, makeup, and nails.

How Everyone (except me) Went to Disneyland

Once upon a time (last month), I had a different job and a vacation scheduled and approved for this coming week. The plan was to join my family in a week-long California adventure, including Sea World, the San Diego Zoo, kayaking, exploring Old Town San Diego, and Disneyland. Then I got a new job.

When I was hired, I told my recruiter that I had two vacations scheduled, one of which was set in stone (a trip to Wales later, which we had already paid for), and the other of which was not (California). However, I did mention that I would appreciate if I could have them both off, paid or unpaid. When I got my training schedule and saw that I was set to be in Chicago for the entire week my family would be gone, I assumed that my recruiter had been able to get me off the two weeks for Wales, but had been unsuccessful in getting me California off, and that was fine. I can certainly understand how that would be the case, and I didn't want to seem like a complainer, so I resolved to say nothing.

BUT, I was talking to my boss yesterday. She mentioned it must be hard for me to be in Chicago by myself for so long (I'm here for four weeks). I said to be honest, the hardest part was missing the vacation my family was taking. Long story short, my recruiter had not mentioned it. My boss was shocked. "Why didn't you say something earlier? We would have rearranged your training schedule!" Then she suggested I look up flights from Chicago to San Diego. "We could give you Monday and Tuesday off next week!" Unfortunately, flights are about $600, and leave at inconvenient times, so it's not worth it.

And that's how I ended up sitting in a hotel room while everyone else goes to Disneyland. Morals of the story: my boss is pretty cool, and next time I'm going to speak up.

Geeking out

So on the news the other day, they were talking about sunscreen. I liked the program right away because they were asking random passers-by how they think sunscreen works. I knew the answer before they explained it, which strokes my science-y ego (in case you are interested, the active ingredient in sunscreen can absorb the energy of UV rays and store it by exciting its electrons, then slowly release the energy in a more harmless form over time).

Next, they started talking about how SPF is misleading - SPF 15 sunscreen blocks 93% of UV-B rays, while SPF 30 blocks 97% and SPF 50 blocks 98%. In other words, there is a serious diminishing return going on. So, being the nerd I am, I decided to determine the formula. After some messing around, I determined that the amount of rays that are blocked is equal to 1-1/x, where x is the SPF. It turns out this is supported by actual truth (hurray, I love it when I'm right!)

Some of the interesting implications of this:

1) Really, SPF 100 is hardly better than SPF 30. So I guess don't waste money if SPF 30 is cheaper.
2) If you are wondering whether it's even worth it to put on SPF 6, the answer is probably yes, as it will block 83% of the sun's rays - that's a pretty good deal for something that sounds negligible. Even SPF 2 will block half of rays. Not too shabby for something that sounds like a joke.
3) Math and science are cool.

Source:  http://www.personal-care.basf.com/docs/personal-care-pdf/description-of-methods.pdf 
Original news story:  http://www.npr.org/2012/07/06/156380368/whats-your-iq-on-spf