dear kathryn, and i thought babies couldn't get into those concerts . . . it seems to me it might be a good thing, however, to test samples of whichever, colostrum or milk, so that "they" won't just begin telling all the women there to not breastfeed. my thought was, isn't breastmilk (and therefore also colostrum?) constantly being reabsorbed and recreated by the breast until it is consumed? so wouldn't pumping and dumping be of no effect if there is indeed a constant environmental source? also, there is the old (at least i remember first hearing it a long time ago) advice about not encouraging drastic weight loss during lactation because it would dump these sorts of things into the milk. i always had an impression of toxic sludge being liberated from those nasty old fat cells. does this, if true (and we certainly in LLLL still tell women this) imply that these things are not readily available in breastmilk but are rather stored in fat cells, which sounds contradictory? and last on this subject, could colostrum not be collected in tiny amounts before delivery? a request of this nature would make me hesitate, but this would not interfere with its availability to baby after delivery. my latest worst reason to wean story comes from the pediatrician who must have trained with the dental professor. mother is going on a trip, and baby must be able to take a bottle to unblock his ears during takeoff and landing. my friend at the milk bank tell me this is not a new reason. the mother actually didn't call me about this, but about the pain in her breast after being bound for four days, as the pediatrician's nurse advised to do. luckily she was anxious to resume breastfeeding with some proper information and i'm trying not to contemplate revenge fantasies involving the pediatrician and the nurse. the mother reports that the pediatrician said, quote, you've nursed three months, that's enough, unquote. too bad his professional group disagrees; i love to hoiset'em by their own petard. llllove, carol