Of course you wouldn’t feed an infant rocket fuel from a bottle, right?  Actually, you might be surprised to find that you probably have.

Government researchers recently found a chemical that is used as the main ingredient in solid rocket fuel present in 15 out of 15 brands of baby formula tested.  Don’t worry though; the Environmental Protection Agency doesn’t have a problem with the contaminated formula.

The chemical, perchlorate, at the levels found in the formula, have been deemed safe by the EPA.

Perchlorate is known to interfere with the production of thyroid hormones.  The chemical effectively inhibits the absorption of iodine.  But it’s okay that it’s in your baby’s food – because the EPA says so.

Scientists at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found formula made with cow’s milk contained higher concentrations of perchlorate than soy formulas.  Unless a baby has an allergy or digestive problem with cow’s milk-based formula, it is what most are fed.

Two brands stood out with the highest levels of perchlorate.  Care to guess which ones?  The two brands that command 87 percent of the market share for baby formula had more than double the amount of the potentially dangerous chemical than other, less popular brands.

To compound the problem, drinking water in 25 states contains high levels of perchlorate.  If powdered baby formula is mixed with this water, parents could unknowingly be poisoning their children.

The Environmental Working Group has said the EPA’s recommended limit of perchlorate does not protect public health and downplays the risks.

So, who do you believe? The fact is that baby formulas contain perchlorate – the base ingredient of rocket fuel.  Scientist may debate about safe levels, but as a parent, do you really trust the EPA with your child’s health and safety?

With more than 200,000 vehicles, the USPS can make a significant impact if they were to revamp their fleet.

With an estimated 219,000 service vehicles, the United State Postal Service operates the largest civilian fleet in the country. Since the vast majority of these vehicles are powered by gasoline, rising gas prices are having a huge impact on operating costs.

According to the New York Times, every 1-cent increase in the price of a gallon of gas costs the USPS $8 million. In 2007, the fleet drank $1.7 billion in gasoline. This year costs are projected to go up by $600 million, giving the USPS the motivation to find alternatives.

President Obama has an idea to reduce dependence on gasoline. His energy plan calls for putting a million electric cars on American roads over the next six years. This gives Ruth Y. Goldway, a member of the United States Postal Regulatory Commission, an idea.

Goldway writes, “Converting just its 142,000 standard delivery trucks would reduce gasoline consumption by up to 68 million gallons a year and save the Postal Service millions of dollars. Delivery vehicles could be powered by electricity from solar panels installed on the roofs of mail sorting centers and local post offices — a self-sufficient system. You could plug in your own electric car there while you drop off parcels and buy stamps.“

She also points out that by converting at least a chunk of the USPS fleet, green jobs would be created across the country. Times are tough and the recession is taking a toll on virtually everyone. Could electric postal vehicles be just what the country needs?

The USPS already had one failed attempt at reducing dependence on gasoline. Between 1999 and 2005, it purchased more than 30,000 ethanol-capable trucks and minivans. The vehicles had larger engines than the vehicles they replaced and got as much as 29 percent fewer miles per gallon. Since corn-based fuel is not readily available in many areas, the USPS powered less than 1,000 of the vehicles with ethanol.

The result? The U.S. Postal Service increased its gasoline consumption by more than 1.5 million gallons after purchasing the ethanol-capable vehicles.

The USPS is deploying hydrogen-powered Chevrolet Equinox fuel cell vehicles in partnership with GM.

Ready to try again, the USPS is now testing a new hydrogen fuel cell vehicle. In July, General Motors provided the agency with the Chevrolet Equinox fuel cell vehicle. This fourth-generation vehicle uses no petroleum-based fuel.

The USPS entered an agreement with General Motors to participate in a two-year trial of the fuel cell vehicles.

Richard Maher, a USPS spokesperson in Irvine, Calif. told Government Executive, “The carriers like it a lot. It’s very comfortable.” He also said the vehicle is extremely quiet and has smooth acceleration.

This is not the first time the USPS has tested Chevrolet’s hydrogen cell vehicles. Maher said the previous prototype was rejected because it was smaller and quieter than the current Equinox model. Its small size restricted the amount of mail that could be carried on routes and it was a little too quiet, often startling pedestrians.

General Motors hopes to generate consumer interest as the hydrogen fuel cell vehicles hit the road to deliver the mail.

So what happens to a pound-less individual who can't control their bladder during a flight?

Using the toilet on an airplane is no fun under the best of circumstances. Ryanair has just proposed making it even worse. To cut costs and reduce basic ticket prices, the airline is considering charging passengers for the privilege of using bathrooms during flights.

Imagine feeling ill or that your bladder may burst while in transit. On most airlines, you would make a dash for the restroom and hope there is no line. On Ryanair, you would have to stop and fish around in your pocket or purse for a coin to put in the slot on the door before getting any relief.

Ryanair chief executive Michael O’Leary told the BBC that the airline was considering installing the pay per pee-pee doors so that “people might actually have to spend a pound ($1.42) to spend a penny.” He added, “I don’t think there’s anybody in history gone on board a Ryanair flight with less than a pound.”

Things could get messy.

The Dublin-based budget airline already has plans to close its airport check-in desks and charge extra for checking additional luggage to keep costs low.

“We are always at Ryanair looking at ways of constantly lowering the cost of air travel to make it affordable and easier for all passengers to fly with us,” said O’Leary.

The toilet charge is just another idea Ryanair execs are batting around, but some already admit it is one that should be flushed. Ryanair’s PR chief Steven McNamara says that charging passengers for in-flight toilet service probably will not happen any time soon.

McNamara told The Telegraph, “Michael makes a lot of this stuff up as he goes along and, while this has been discussed internally, there are no immediate plans to introduce it.”

Michael’s idea struck a chord with Rochelle Turner, head of research at Which? Holiday. Turner told The Telegraph, “It seems Ryanair is prepared to plumb any depth to make a fast buck and, once again, is putting profit before the comfort of its customers,” she said. “Charging people to go to the toilet might result in fewer people buying overpriced drinks on board, though – that would serve Ryanair right.”

If Ryanair were to start charging for in-flight toilet service, it could lead to many changes. Passengers might certainly avoid drinking on flights and be sure to empty their bladders before boarding – or they could decide to fly with an airline that includes toilet privileges with the ticket price.

So what happens if a passenger doesn’t have money to pay for bowel relief? Imagine having to contemplate whether to ask your seatmate to spare a pound, or even worse, the consequences of not doing so.