CLOSE
IStock
IStock

The Most (and Least) Expensive Cities for Giving Birth

IStock
IStock

While there is no inexpensive way of having a baby—parents will spend an estimated $245,000 on living expenses by the time their offspring reaches their 18th birthday—your delivery fees can vary depending on your location. And people in Northern California may have it worst of all.  

According to health care information company Castlight Health, it will cost San Francisco and Sacramento residents a rough average of $15,000 in medical fees to bring their cooing infant into the world. That’s a considerable bump from the third city on the list, Minneapolis, Minnesota, which has medical professionals handing over an average bill of around $11,000.

The least expensive? Kansas City, Missouri, with an average baby bill of $6075.

Castlight believes the discrepancy in their Costliest Babies data research is due to provider consolidation in California markets, leading to fewer health care choices for employers and employees. And while the true cost to parents varies depending on your insurance plan and deductibles, an average out-of-pocket bill of $3400 isn't uncommon.

If you have a mini-me due soon, it pays to shop around: Castlight also found that prices for vaginal deliveries can fluctuate wildly, with Los Angeles practitioners charging between $4223 and $27,326. You can also try a birthing center instead of a hospital, which can lower costs by as much as 50 percent. Check with your insurance carrier to see if it's covered. 

[h/t Money]

nextArticle.image_alt|e
iStock
arrow
Live Smarter
Why You Should Think Twice About Drinking From Ceramics You Made by Hand
iStock
iStock

Ceramic ware is much safer than it used to be (Fiesta ware hasn’t coated its plates in uranium since 1973), but according to NPR, not all new ceramics are free of dangerous chemicals. If you own a mug, bowl, plate, or other ceramic kitchen item that was glazed before entering the kiln, it may contain trace amounts of harmful lead.

Earthenware is often coated with a shiny, ceramic glaze. If the clay used to sculpt the vessel is nontoxic, that doesn’t necessarily mean the glaze is. Historically, the chemical has been used in glazes to give pottery a glossy finish and brighten colors like orange, yellow, and red.

Sometimes the amount of lead in a product is minuscule, but even trace amounts can contaminate whatever you're eating or drinking. Over time, exposure to lead in small doses can lead to heightened blood pressure, lowered kidney function, and reproductive issues. Lead can cause even more serious problems in kids, including slowed physical and mental development.

As the dangers of even small amounts of lead have become more widely known, the ceramics industry has gradually eliminated the additive from its products. Most of the big-name commercial ceramic brands, like Crock-Pot and Fiesta ware, have cut it out all together. But there are still some manufacturers, especially abroad, that still use it. Luckily, the FDA keeps a list of the ceramic ware it tests that has been shown to contain lead.

Beyond that list, there’s another group of products consumers should be wary of: kiln-baked dishware that you either bought from an independent artist or made yourself. The ceramic mug you crafted at your local pottery studio isn’t subject to FDA regulations, and therefore it may be better suited to looking pretty on your shelf than to holding beverages. This is especially true when consuming something acidic, like coffee, which can cause any lead hiding in the glaze to leach out.

If you’re not ready to retire your hand-crafted ceramic plates, the FDA offers one possible solution: Purchase a home lead testing kit and analyze the items yourself. If the tests come back negative, your homemade dishware can keep its spot on your dinner table.

[h/t NPR]

nextArticle.image_alt|e
iStock
arrow
Live Smarter
Marathon Running Won't Undo Poor Lifestyle Choices, Study Suggests
iStock
iStock

Even marathon participants can't outrun an unhealthy lifestyle, according to a new study highlighted by The New York Times.

For years, expert opinion has been mixed on whether long-distance running helps or hurts hearts. In the 1970s, research suggested that marathon running and a heart-healthy diet would completely prevent atherosclerosis (a buildup of harmful plaque in the arteries). But since high-profile runners have died of heart attacks, scientists in the 1980s began to worry that running might actually harm the vital organ. Compounding this fear in recent years were studies suggesting that male endurance athletes exhibited more signs of heart scarring or plaques than their less-active counterparts.

Experts don't have a verdict quite yet, but researchers from the University of Minnesota and Stanford and their colleagues have some good news—running doesn't seem to harm athletes' hearts, but it's also not a panacea for heart disease. They figured this out by asking 50 longtime marathon runners, all male, with an average age of 59, to fill out questionnaires about their training, health history, and habits, and then examining them for signs of atherosclerosis.

Only 16 of the runners ended up having no plaque in their arteries, and the rest exhibited slight, moderate, or worrisome amounts. The men who had unhealthy hearts also had a history of smoking and high cholesterol. A grueling training regime seemed to have no effect on these levels.

Bottom line? Marathon running won't hurt your heart, but it's not a magic bullet for poor lifestyle choices.

[h/t The New York Times]

SECTIONS

arrow
LIVE SMARTER
More from mental floss studios