[HN Gopher] Endocrine-disrupting chemical exposure in womb impac...
___________________________________________________________________
Endocrine-disrupting chemical exposure in womb impact fear, anxiety
behavior
Author : vitabenes
Score : 80 points
Date : 2022-06-14 17:21 UTC (2 days ago)
(HTM) web link (neurosciencenews.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (neurosciencenews.com)
| wyager wrote:
| I expect that in 100 years, they are going to look back on this
| period of widespread endocrine disruptor exposure from plastics,
| hormonal birth control, etc. with the same or greater horror and
| incredulity than we look back on the Romans poisoning themselves
| with lead. At least the Romans had the credible excuse of
| ignorance.
| sacrosancty wrote:
| People always choose the popular outrage topics as what they
| expect future generations will agree with them on. But wouldn't
| it more likely be something we're completely blindsided by?
| Perhaps something even opposite to our cultural values?
| kleer001 wrote:
| there's enough science denialism in the social sciences we're
| spoiled for choices, enough uncomfortable truths they'd fill
| many books
| UniverseHacker wrote:
| I think I saw this on here recently but not findingly the link
| right now... it was an article arguing pretty convincingly that
| the Romans did know about lead poisoning, and it was most
| likely very rare rather than widespread.
| maccaw wrote:
| 100%
| SoftTalker wrote:
| It's possible we may look back with some regrets, but I
| seriously doubt that plastics will be thought to cause anything
| close to the same or greater harm caused by lead. We'd know it
| by now if that were true.
| vjust wrote:
| The earth's soil, oceans are living things - anything we can do
| to avoid dumping plastic ( a non-living thing) with benefit us...
| to put it mildly.
| bergenty wrote:
| I don't know why people drink from plastic. Just because we know
| about BPA doesn't mean there are hundreds of other things in
| plastic not on our radar. Just use glass, fired clay (with no
| additives, just wood ash) or metal containers where container
| strength is required (copper ideally).
| lovich wrote:
| Well all of those cost more than plastic containers and I am
| unaware at the point of purchase if that's because
| externalities aren't priced in and someone else is paying to
| give me a deal or if it does take less resources to create and
| damages the environment less.
|
| I, and I presume most consumers, have a number of values we are
| always trading off when making purchases, but any single items
| ranking on those tradeoffs is usually obfuscated other than
| price.
| bergenty wrote:
| But they're completely reusable. You can technically use one
| for the rest of your life.
| lovich wrote:
| They are technically reusable. I don't doubt most people
| buying a reusable bottle get at least a few uses out of it.
|
| However, you have to deal with the risk of misplacing it,
| theft, destruction, moving without taking it, etc. All of
| these risks make the value of the reusable bottle possibly
| better but the low cost of the plastic one use bottles are
| a real benefit that can be immediately realized
| schroeding wrote:
| I'm in the same boat (preferring stainless steel), but plastic
| sure is handy. Almost indestructible compared to glass and clay
| and way lighter and cheaper than metal.
|
| And then there is also "sneaky plastic" in places people may
| not expect, e.g. in "bamboo" mugs that are mostly resin. So
| exactly the kind of mug that people may buy to avoid plastic
| ones... :/
| SoftTalker wrote:
| Almost all utility water is delivered in PVC piping. There is
| not really any avoiding it. So I don't really worry about the
| Nalgene bottle I use to drink water from.
| bashinator wrote:
| Yeah but Nalgene started as laboratory kit and I would
| imagine doesn't leach nearly as badly as an 0.25C/ soda
| bottle.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| If you ever buy takeaway coffee, you can't avoid it. All milk
| in UK is in plastic containers. In fact i struggle to find sny
| food that isn't
| nikolay wrote:
| The only luxury my family has is buying bottled water from
| Europe (Aqua Panna, San Benedetto) to avoid routinely ingesting
| microplastics. We only use natural fiber fabrics at home
| (cotton and wool) but it has become really hard to buy pure
| cotton wear nowadays - especially socks! Even brands like
| Cotton:On now have plenty of plastic wear, so, one needs to be
| very careful. Unfortunately, due to the supply chain issue,
| there's almost no more glass-bottled water from Europe anymore
| and the American one is grossly expensive! Not only glass
| bottles are hygienic and make water intake dosing easy, they
| also reduce pollution in nature as people perceive them
| differently, I believe. Kids love fleece, which is one of the
| worst airway and lung pollutants wit microplastic fibers, I
| believe.
| schroeding wrote:
| > there's almost no more glass-bottled water from Europe
| anymore and the American one is grossly expensive!
|
| Wait, was european bottled water _cheaper_ than american
| bottled water in California or am I misunderstanding this?
| That would be kinda insane, IMO :D
| nikolay wrote:
| Yes [0] [1] [2], including the subscription services, which
| offer glass gallon jugs for astronomical prices - that's
| why I chose individual bottles! Even Voss from Iceland is
| cheaper on per-case basis!
|
| [0]: Saratoga (https://sswc.com/)
|
| [1]: Mountain Valley Spring
| (https://www.mountainvalleyspring.com/)
|
| [2]: Starkey (https://starkeywater.com/)
| schroeding wrote:
| Ouch. Then let's hope the supply of glass-bottled
| european water returns to normal soon. ^^
|
| (Those gallon jugs look _really_ cool, though, never seen
| such massive glass bottles. But my god must they be
| heavy! :D)
| nikolay wrote:
| They must be heavy as even the plastic ones weigh a ton
| and even they are not so easy to install. I've been
| grossed out by busineses who put plastic on those
| commercial stations without bothering to even wipe them
| out from the road and storage dirt and the machines used
| to cool and heat the water from the jugs are full of hard
| plastic components, heat the water, which is even worse,
| and are rarely cleaned up - I always carry water with me
| for that reason as even a plastic bottle is better than
| drinking water from there!
| jimhefferon wrote:
| Cocks?
| nikolay wrote:
| Fixed. I meant "socks" - not sure how it happened, and, no,
| it's not a Freudian slip as I don't use that particular
| word.
| ParksNet wrote:
| Look on Etsy for locally made cottons socks.
|
| Investigate getting a reverse osmosis home water machine
| installed under your kitchen sink, and ensuring the tubing
| coming out of it all the way to the faucet is metallic.
| Gigachad wrote:
| > copper ideally
|
| Copper is toxic though. Especially bad with acidic drinks which
| a lot are.
| graypegg wrote:
| One thing that's always freaked me out (admittedly without any
| evidence beyond anxiety) are those triangular tea bags made
| entirely out of plastic. Very thin strands of plastic, heated
| to around boiling. I can't imagine that the plastic remains
| completely inert there, so I'd guess you're consuming some
| amount of plastic, and probably more than just drinking cold
| water out of a bottle.
| dqpb wrote:
| These are known to leach microplastics:
|
| https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49845940
| nerdponx wrote:
| I usually rip those open, brew the loose tea in a cup or bowl
| or whatever, and strain the tea into a mug afterwards.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| Huh? Is 'normal' loose tea not avaliable near you?
|
| Ripping the plastic you will end up with small threads or
| pieces of it in your drink
| jjtheblunt wrote:
| they're not necessarily plastic (some may be): i used one
| earlier and it states on the box it's some plant material, so
| edible truly.
|
| i was reading the box because of exactly what you said above,
| had thought the same!
| forum_ghost wrote:
| "derived from plant material" = bio-plastic.
|
| Most likely PLA. polylactic acid derived from starch.
| jjtheblunt wrote:
| that's possible : will look when i next have access, now
| curious too
| germinalphrase wrote:
| Why copper rather than stainless steel (the more common, less
| costly option)?
| e40 wrote:
| Perhaps because copper has antibacterial qualities? I use
| stainless steel, myself. Never plastic.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| Copper gets into acidic food, and is actually poisonous in
| large quantities
| michaelsshaw wrote:
| Copper is actually a reactive metal, will leach into acidic
| liquids, and is generally not permitted for restaurant use
| for this reason.
| potatochup wrote:
| It could be that some people are sensitive to nickel (which
| is the 10 in typical 18/10 stainless steel)
| bergenty wrote:
| Stainless steel is just as good.
| sneak wrote:
| For me personally? My favorite flavor of bottled water costs 3x
| in glass as it does in plastic.
|
| While traveling, plastic-contained beverages are almost all
| that is available. 100% of the drinking water on a commercial
| flight is in plastic. 100% of the drinking water in airport
| vending machines, etc.
| bergenty wrote:
| Take your own water with you. Some things are unavoidable
| (like flights, airports etc.) but this is a harm reduction
| exercise. It doesn't have to be perfect. If you take your own
| water with you, you should be able to cover 90%+ of your
| consumption.
| deathanatos wrote:
| > _Some things are unavoidable (like flights, airports
| etc.)_
|
| You can "take your own water with you" for those, for the
| amount that it matters to this discussion. It's not going
| to be literally your own water -- generally speaking, TSA
| will force one to dump "dangerous" water into a giant trash
| bin in the middle of the checkpoint1 -- but you can
| normally refill the bottle once inside the secure area from
| a water fountain. Now ... it might be tap, unfiltered, the
| local jurisdiction might be bad at water, IDK. But it's not
| quite an entirely lost cause.
|
| Specifically, an empty reusable water bottle can traverse
| the security checkpoint. (We own some _mostly_ non-plastic
| ones, too.)
|
| 1comically, we were once forced to discard water that came
| from within the secured zone at the checkpoint.
| sneak wrote:
| Tap water is way worse for me, personally. This is why I
| drink bottled in the first place.
|
| My point is that drinking out of plastic is basically
| unavoidable in many circumstances. It isn't a choice we
| make.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| Most bottled water is just filtered municipal tap water.
| And there are fewer regulations over bottled water
| quality than there are municipal water.
| sneak wrote:
| I'm aware; the filtration filters out the thing in tap
| water to which I am sensitive (chlorine). The regulations
| don't cover that.
| nradov wrote:
| Why is tap water worse? Is your local water contaminated?
| formerly_proven wrote:
| IV drips are made from soft PVC (both IV bag and tube) and I've
| always wondered how on earth they managed to get that certified
| for medical use. Interestingly, the tubes used with vacutainers
| for drawing blood samples are silicone.
| lifeisstillgood wrote:
| I think we need to stop seeing this (and many other things) as
| a personal choice behaviour. Why is this seen as "leave it to
| informed choice reflected through the market" and not simply
| "No, you can't sell that".
| jjoonathan wrote:
| Let's get the FDA a bigger lab budget and some sharper teeth
| -- but at the same time, we should not legislate based on
| hunches. If we do that, it will quickly devolve into every
| year we get a new brand of government-mandated Asbestos Free
| Cereal. No thanks.
| nonrandomstring wrote:
| I hear ya. But in no time, using any rational analysis, we'd
| be banning burgers and smartphones. One mans meat, another
| mans poison etc.
|
| Change has to come first as an informed choice. Once a
| critical, educated mass rejects a harmful product, a
| consensus to say "you can't sell that" can be sought.
|
| Problem is, as we've seen with oil, unhealthy foods, and now
| digital technologies, big, rich and influential companies
| will throw whatever money it takes to undermine research and
| messaging to disrupt rational choice from taking place.
| That's very frustrating.
| sacrosancty wrote:
| Is there any evidence that plastics we use for food
| containers are harmful? The continued life expectancy of
| humans seems to show that any harm is very small. This study
| wasn't feeding them food from a plastic container, it was
| feeding them two of the isolated chemicals in a solution, so
| it really doesn't show any harm in itself.
|
| Even drinking water from lead pipes is safe as long as there
| aren't failures that cause the lead to get carried away by
| the water. Same with asbestos building materials, etc. Just
| touching a toxic substance doesn't necessarily poison you.
| pengaru wrote:
| > Is there any evidence that plastics we use for food
| containers are harmful?
|
| Would you consider underdeveloped male fetuses a harmful
| consequence?
|
| Because we have some pretty strong evidence that Bisphenols
| are causing exactly that.
| loa_in_ wrote:
| The effects are probably counteracted by increase of
| charity funded additional health care disabled people get
| thanks to network effects
| reedjosh wrote:
| > The continued life expectancy of humans seems to show
| that any harm is very small
|
| Life expectancy is a bad measure for two reasons.
|
| 1). The major bump in life expectancy of the 20th century
| is largely due to the number of infants that survive
| compared to the past.
|
| 2). We wouldn't see a decline in life expectancy that's due
| to exposure in womb until said children were of an age that
| mattered.
|
| Not to mention pure quality of life issues.
| rajup wrote:
| Harm does not necessarily mean only life threatening issues
| IMO. There have been a bunch of studies recently indicating
| dropping male fertility with strong links to plastic
| consumption.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| > The continued life expectancy of humans seems to show
| that any harm is very small.
|
| This is terrible logic. If something causes deafness,
| blindness, or missing toes it will not affect life
| expectancy.
|
| Additionally, suppose in same year a drug against cancer
| i.proves life expectancy by 5 years and plastic pollution
| causes it to go down by 5 years - so you will never find
| out.
| bergenty wrote:
| Because there isn't really a good way to package liquids
| besides plastic. Glass would work but it's bulky and brittle.
| Paper and aluminum work but they cost the inside with plastic
| anyways. This might be the extremely rare thing where it
| makes sense for consumers to do at our level.
| loa_in_ wrote:
| Going with this line of thought, who should eat plastic
| anyway? Nobody. So how does it make any sense to ever use
| plastic? I don't understand.
| throwaway5752 wrote:
| Obesity is reducing sperm counts, which is still well in the
| normal range. Look up adipose cells and estrogen production.
|
| Anxiety and fear are more related to internet usage, which is
| created intentionally to get engagement numbers. Look up the
| relationship between cortisol and hormones/sperm counts.
|
| People are fat, sedentary, and driven to the point of neuroticism
| by stories like this.
| [deleted]
| bamboozled wrote:
| It hurts to think how bad plastic is, harmful on so many levels.
|
| Yes it's convenient but it seems pretty darn harmful in so so
| many ways.
| RyanShook wrote:
| I'm tired of studies on rats immediately being linked with human
| health. BPA may be harmful but until we get human studies I think
| these animal studies cause more confusion than answers.
| *nervously sips disposable water bottle*
| jvanderbot wrote:
| Punchline:
|
| "Female [rat] offspring administered BPA and a combination of BPA
| and low-dose DEHP displayed less anxiety in the Open Field Test,
| which measures activity and exploratory behavior. However, male
| offspring administered high-dose DEHP showed feminized anxiety-
| like behavior in a maze."
| ParksNet wrote:
| I wonder if many of the gender dysphoria issues and related
| politics we're seeing now have an underlying factor of hormone
| disruption due to widespread pollution.
|
| We should be pursuing the banning of bisphenols, phthalates,
| and PFAS for any products that touch food or water (or
| eventually leach into groundwater) as a strategic priority.
| bhouston wrote:
| > I wonder if many of the gender dysphoria issues and related
| politics we're seeing now have an underlying factor of
| hormone disruption due to widespread pollution.
|
| It is worth more research into this. Hard to make predictions
| but having environmental causes underlying some of these
| trends, at least to a degree, would make sense. I think the
| lower fertility rate among first world nations is also
| partially tied into endocrine disruptors as well.
| nipponese wrote:
| If you're making the connection that gender dysphoria could
| be "prevented" through environmental and FDA protections
| maybe you should be working in politics.
| bhouston wrote:
| It is hard to know for sure if it isn't studied.
| Environmental pollution can disrupt sexual development in
| animals. There are a number of chemicals that frogs are
| sensitive too that mess with their sexual development. Here
| is the first google hit I can find: https://www.berkeley.ed
| u/news/media/releases/2002/04/15_frog...
| tremon wrote:
| I wouldn't call that a punchline, that's just one of the stated
| observations. This would be closer to the punchline:
|
| _"Our study confirms sex-specific behavioral changes in
| offspring as a result of these exposures, highlighting the fact
| that exposure to these chemicals should be avoided during
| pregnancy"_
|
| But the article is short enough to read in its entirety. I find
| all the observations alarming, not just that one, given how
| prevalent BPA use has been in the past decades.
| [deleted]
| doodlebugging wrote:
| I remember a long time ago reading an article in Omni magazine
| about this very subject - plastic and how studies have shown that
| it is an endocrine disruptor with unpredictable consequences for
| people who will consume it by using plastic utensils, drinking
| cups, dishware, etc and especially by heating plastics in a
| microwave. They mentioned that many amphibians, considered canary
| species were being affected by the by-products accumulating in
| the environment and some were in danger of extinction as a result
| of them producing more female offspring than male due to the
| hormonal disruptions.
|
| That would've been back in the early 90's, before 1994, so this
| is not a new thing at all. I'm pretty sure they mentioned in the
| article that research had been done for decades prior to the
| article but that plastics manufacturers were pooh-poohing all the
| links.
|
| It could also have been Nature, National Geographic, Sierra Club
| magazine, Cousteau Society magazine, etc since I was a frequent
| reader of paper materials at the time.
| aaaaaaaaaaab wrote:
| This is where the notorious Alex Jones quote comes from:
| "They're making the friggin' frogs gay!"
| yarg wrote:
| Yeah, and it's even worse than that - full feminisation of
| male frogs.
|
| https://www.nature.com/articles/news021028-7
|
| https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0909519107
|
| It's not often that Alex Jones is any where near the right
| side of things, but he was treated somewhat unfairly in this
| instance.
| Gigachad wrote:
| I'm guessing we don't have much research but I'm wondering
| if these chemicals are largely responsible for gender
| dysphora.
| throwaway5752 wrote:
| The pesticide atrazine? Because it was atrazine that
| cause the frog deformities, not BPA. I'm not sure why
| we're talking about atrazine in an article about the
| different chemical, BPA. Since atrazine was invented in
| 1958 and gender dysphoria existed before then, I think
| your hypothesis is incorrect.
| hollerith wrote:
| Because reality wouldn't be so perverse as to have
| multiple endocrine disrupters.
| eeZah7Ux wrote:
| > greater LGBTQ+ acceptance recently has led to people
| being more open with that side of themselves, rather than
| it being the result of environmental pollution
|
| That's a very weird implication. All human beings are
| complex products of social, economical, genetic,
| environmental and historical factors.
|
| External factors do not make a person "less themselves"
| or "less real".
| throwaway5752 wrote:
| Of course there are, but it seems obvious to me that
| greater LGBTQ+ acceptance recently has led to people
| being more open with that side of themselves, rather than
| it being the result of environmental pollution.
|
| Anyway, the alarm is very selective. I don't see people
| rapidly reducing their animal product consumption because
| of dioxin, a potent endocrine disruptor that is
| bioaccumulating. Atrazine is still used in most US corn
| production, are all the people concerned about plastic
| avoiding non-organic corn and corn products?
| OJFord wrote:
| There's obvious correlation, but causation? And in
| particular that it would be obvious _which way_?
|
| I'm sure I'll regret this comment - I really don't have
| an axe to grind - I just don't find that 'obvious' at all
| (however real and fine the feeling itself).
| dcow wrote:
| > Of course there are, but it seems obvious to me that
| greater LGBTQ+ acceptance recently has led to people
| being more open with that side of themselves, rather than
| it being the result of environmental pollution.
|
| Why does that seem obvious to you? Additionally, even if
| it's true, it may not be the only cause in rise of cases
| of gender dysphoria. Additionally additionally, it's also
| possible that some change in our environment has affected
| the prevalence of "LGBTQ+ acceptance" in the first place.
| dcow wrote:
| But there's been an unnatural rise in instances of
| alleged gender dysphoria. I have no idea about any of the
| facts surrounding this issue, just wanted to point out
| that some X simply existing prior to a point in time when
| something else Y was introduced to the environment does
| not mean that Y cannot have any effect on the rate of
| instance of X.
| [deleted]
| yarg wrote:
| Multiple issues here:
|
| > I'm not sure why we're talking about atrazine in an
| article about the different chemical, BPA.
|
| It wasn't a top-level comment, further down the comment
| tree the subject can diverge - I responded to a comment
| about Alex Jones, not the specific endocrine disrupter in
| the article.
|
| > ... invented in 1958 and gender dysphoria existed
| before then, I think your hypothesis is incorrect.
|
| This doesn't logically follow the comment it replied to,
| the parent comment in no way claimed that endocrine
| disruption was entirely responsible for sex dysphoria,
| but wondered whether it was "largely responsible".
| [deleted]
| doodlebugging wrote:
| After reading that article back in the 90's I lobbied the
| wife hard to get rid of the microwave, replace the
| tupperware with glass or ceramics, and to stop buying
| prepared foods in plastic bottles and containers. It took
| nearly 10 years to get rid of the microwave. The other
| things were easier since glass, stainless steel, and
| ceramics are easier to manage in a kitchen anyway.
| Finding prepared foods in glass bottles like tomato
| sauce, soups, etc is more difficult but we manage.
| aaaaaaaaaaab wrote:
| What does microwave do?
| doodlebugging wrote:
| At the time, my wife was fond of heating food in the
| microwave and I could never get over the fact that the
| plastic would sometimes get hot enough to soften
| signalling to me that there were probably chemicals being
| released as it got hot. I didn't want those chemicals in
| my food and I was hoping to have kids later so I wanted
| to try to avoid the possibility that my kids would grow
| up eating food microwaved in plastic tubs, possibly
| poisoning them from infancy.
|
| And, most importantly from my own personal history, I
| hated microwaves since the first time I saw one in a
| convenience store. Popping a plastic-wrapped sandwich
| into one to have a hot lunch or heating some beanie-
| weenies or Dinty Moore Stew was just gross but I saw
| people do that all day long like it was great. When Mom
| finally convinced Dad to buy one back in the 70's she
| would use it because it supposedly saved time on things
| like baking potatoes or cooking meat. If you grew up back
| then you would have learned quickly that there is a huge
| textural difference between a potato baked in a microwave
| and one baked in an oven or in coals on a fire.
| Microwaved potatoes caused me to hate microwaves since
| the potato was not fluffy at all. It was very dense and
| chunky and hard to melt butter throughout the potato.
| Meat was an even worse indictment of the technology since
| it would come out red and uncooked looking even if it was
| scorching hot. It prefer steak medium well to well done
| or with a good smoke ring so I have to see that color
| difference for it to be edible.
|
| The microwave was a personal decision mostly because I
| knew that if we got rid of it we would use less plastic
| since no one would use a plastic container in a
| conventional oven. Eliminate the microwave and the
| incentive to keep other plastic kitchen things
| disappears. That's a win for me.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| It's not the microwaves, it's the tendency for people to
| use microwaves to heat food in plastic containers. Which
| is probably a bad thing to do, if you're concerned about
| the potential for chemicals leaching out of the plastic,
| and are going to consume the food you just heated.
| jchanimal wrote:
| Presumably, encourages cooking in plastic containers and
| use of plastic wrap for leftovers.
| yarg wrote:
| It's a disturbing question - one that's hardly going to
| get fair and objective consideration in out society.
|
| Neither the right wing nor the left have the ability to
| be objective enough to look into this without coming to
| whatever conclusions they intend to reach.
|
| It's a pity, because the implications are of an
| extinction level crisis impacting not only humanity, but
| all high order life on earth.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| > the implications are of an extinction level crisis
| impacting not only humanity, but all high order life on
| earth.
|
| You're right about the politics, but life is far more
| resilient than you're giving it credit for.
| yarg wrote:
| > You're right about the politics, but life is far more
| resilient than you're giving it credit for.
|
| Life's a house of cards, and we're kicking the pillars -
| chemicals that have never before existed are interfering
| with the fundamental chemistry of life on earth.
|
| I have no doubt that in 100-million years there'll be
| some form of life descended from what's currently around
| on earth, and it will be staggeringly robust.
|
| But vertebrates? Mammals? I'm not so sure.
|
| Mass extinction events on earth are rare:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event
|
| We're in the sixth that we know of; we caused it - and
| we're not slowing down.
| doodlebugging wrote:
| Very true. After reading that article and doing some
| initial research on the early internet I found a lot of
| people were worried that this indicator species(?) was
| signalling that waterways were in trouble, farm runoff
| was too heavily polluted by herbicides and nitrates and
| amphibians were disappearing, not just in the US but
| globally. It was an interesting article about a serious
| issue and for a short time it was in the news but then it
| just went away. Except it didn't.
| doodlebugging wrote:
| Probably true to some extent though from what I have read
| of his trials and his programs he evidently has no problem
| just telling a story that is not based on facts at all just
| to see how much of a rise he can get from his audience. He
| just apparently used facts in this case.
| doodlebugging wrote:
| I knew someone would mention this and almost didn't make that
| post, but it definitely is true that this is not a new area
| of study. He is basing some of his wild bullshit on reality.
| I don't listen to him so I don't know how much but when I
| first heard the gay frogs stuff I just thought that this was
| a known issue and couldn't figure why anyone would be
| highlighting it. I guess if your audience is that group of
| people who have never picked up a magazine or cared about
| science then it is pretty easy to find things to excite them
| about.
| [deleted]
| sva_ wrote:
| It should be noted that this study is on rats. But I think it's
| reasonable to use such a model to suspect a similar effect on
| humans.
|
| I've been following the impact that endocrine disruptors have on
| humans for a while now, and I'm quite frankly flabbergasted that
| there is so little research being done on it. It seems issues
| related to hormonal imbalances among people are an increasing
| phenomenon, and it appears reasonable to me to suspect that these
| chemicals may have an impact on humans, especially in the
| development stage.
|
| Perhaps people are afraid to do such research, as some of the
| implications could be threatening to their careers, considering
| the fact that some people seem to make hormonal imbalances part
| of their identity? I'm honestly a bit hesitant to even post this
| comment as it may quickly get flagged by people who oppose having
| an open discussion about these things, but oh well.
| user_7832 wrote:
| >Perhaps people are afraid to do such research, as some of the
| implications could be threatening to their careers, considering
| the fact that some people seem to make hormonal imbalances part
| of their identity? I'm honestly a bit hesitant to even post
| this comment as it may quickly get flagged by people who oppose
| having an open discussion about these things, but oh well.
|
| I would like to remind you that 90% of people in real life are
| not on either extreme of the political spectrum. The news
| channels get money by dramatizing everything, don't forget
| their motivation. I am pretty sure if there were interested
| researchers with enough funding and a chance to have media pick
| it up it would (likely) be done. My guess is that there is too
| little research and not enough publicity.
| space_fountain wrote:
| I was so with you until the last paragraph. I don't think
| that's either relevant or constructive. I'd posit that you make
| your particular hormone balance a part of your identity so I'm
| confused why you're surprised others do. By all means we should
| be trying to make sure as many people as possible can live
| happy lives, but saying something like being gay is a hormone
| imbalance isn't that. I think there's a way you could phrase
| your point, if the conclusion ended up being true, but without
| evidence it comes across as just more of a phobia
| Jarwain wrote:
| I feel pretty out of the loop here; is there a strain of
| beliefs that sexuality is based on some hormone imbalance?
| space_fountain wrote:
| Sorry perhaps I should have been less cagey. They didn't
| specify but I suspect they meant trans people or maybe
| asexual people when they say some people make a hormone
| imbalance part of their identity, but really I think you
| see this sort of rhetoric about most marginalized identity
| groups. I've definitely heard the same about gay people in
| the past. The point is this sort of rhetoric divorced from
| evidence seems likely to be motivated by bias. Obviously it
| doesn't have to be, and the goal should always be trying to
| make sure people live happy lives, but even if this were
| true, chemicals are turning the people gay, trans, ect,
| that shouldn't actually invalidate their identities or for
| that matter mean we shouldn't ban the chemicals.
|
| Side note: the historic record is clear that all these
| groups have existed before plastics so the most you might
| imagine is that the odds have gone up
| whatshisface wrote:
| > _The point is this sort of rhetoric divorced from
| evidence seems likely to be motivated by bias_
|
| If trans people don't have hormone imbalances, why are
| they treated with hormone replacement... Obviously they
| have hormone imbalances the only question is how and why.
| space_fountain wrote:
| I think you might be saying something quite different
| than I was complaining about. Saying trans people are
| trans because they had a hormone imbalance (presumably
| not enough hormones for the sex they were assigned at
| birth) isn't the same at all as saying trans people are
| trans because they didn't have enough hormones to develop
| as is typical for the gender they identify as. I'm not
| sure that conflating those two and saying both imply a
| hormone imbalance is useful, but if you want sure. The
| original comment was pretty clearly implying the former
| though right? It would be really weird if plastic was
| causing more xy people to develop with low estrogen
| levels than would have otherwise
| Dma54rhs wrote:
| Think the keyword here is transgender people.
| infogulch wrote:
| Male sperm counts have dropped by _half_ in the last 5 decades.
| This is an existential level threat more relevant than climate
| change by a large factor, I don 't understand why studying it
| is on a back burner.
| [deleted]
| reedjosh wrote:
| > This is an existential level threat more relevant than
| climate change by a large factor
|
| I agree, but the wealthy rulers that meet at Davos believe
| the opposite.
|
| They generally believe this sort of thing is a double win.
| The population decreases and the population that remains
| becomes emasculated.
|
| That's why Climate Change is a problem and Endocrine
| Disruptor proliferation is not. And you can be sure the
| wealthy like their all natural wool and glass bottles.
| rajup wrote:
| > They generally believe this sort of thing is a double
| win. The population decreases and the population that
| remains becomes emasculated.
|
| The whole model of capitalism is based on more people
| consuming more stuff, so I don't see the Davos capitalists
| wanting this.
| dqv wrote:
| Well that doesn't seem very effective, since climate
| activists are the most anti-oil people you'll ever meet.
| You can't make endocrine-disrupting plastics _without_ oil.
| nipponese wrote:
| Please tell me more about this "feminized anxiety-like behavior".
| EL_Loco wrote:
| What's also alarming is that a bunch of plastic is now clearly
| labeled 'BPA Free', and people think "problem solved", while
| quite a few studies show that these BPA free plastics have other,
| just as toxic, endocrine disruptors.
|
| Some time ago I got curious about Nalgene's new BPA free plastic
| called Tritan. Some of the stuff I read wasn't too reassuring:
| https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/03/tritan-certi...
| littledude wrote:
| i remember reading in order to make any plastic soft enough to
| stretch and mold (otherwise it's too brittle) additives like
| BPA are required. BPA is just one of many different options.
| BPA free doesn't mean endocrine disrupting free.
| colechristensen wrote:
| At this point I'm just doing everything to avoid plastic. Not
| completely but when i buy clothes they're usually natural
| fibers, when i eat and drink it's usually out of glass,
| ceramic, or steel.
| giantg2 wrote:
| Interesting. By just reading the headline I was expecting
| increases in anxiety in general. With these chemicals being so
| pervasive today as well as the increasing commoness of anxiety
| issues today, I now wonder if the anxiety issues could be even
| worse without them.
| [deleted]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-06-16 23:01 UTC)