[HN Gopher] Estimated concentrations of atrazine in agricultural...
___________________________________________________________________
Estimated concentrations of atrazine in agricultural groundwater
Author : Jimmc414
Score : 138 points
Date : 2024-12-11 17:25 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (water.usgs.gov)
(TXT) w3m dump (water.usgs.gov)
| Jimmc414 wrote:
| As recently as 2012, Atrazine was the second-most widely used
| weed killer in the United States, with more than 70 million
| pounds applied across the nation each year
|
| https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2017-01/documents/pe...
| bassrattle wrote:
| When Alex Jones' auction is on the top of HN, but his most famous
| claim is right there with it -- Atrazine in the water turning the
| frogs gay
| logicchains wrote:
| It's funny, he was almost correct, but in actuality Atrazine
| turns frogs transgender:
| https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2842049/ .
| josefresco wrote:
| > he was almost correct
|
| That's the key element to effective conspiracy theories. A
| thread of truth, exaggerated, twisted and manipulated for
| maximum virality. Debunkers are met with links like the one
| you provided, and that's typically enough to discourage
| further debate because the truth is boring and a lot of hard
| work. And who wants to spend time trying to debunk when the
| believers don't want the truth!
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| Yes, and the blame is always placed on some cabal or
| minority group or political tendency that the conspiracy
| theorist dislikes... rather than looking at anything
| systematic.
|
| Which actually has the ultimate effect of _blunting_ change
| rather than fostering it.
| TeaBrain wrote:
| The truth in this case is even more strange than the
| conspiracy theory though.
| calculatte wrote:
| His point was to keep the chemicals out of our food supply.
| Argue about the details all you want, but nobody wants to
| consume this toxin and feed it to their children. So yet
| again, Alex Jones was right.
| graemep wrote:
| In fact it makes them change sex, not gender (gender is a
| cultural construct, so only applies to humans).
|
| It makes frogs that would otherwise develop as male become
| female or intersex instead.
| TeaBrain wrote:
| It looks like it actually reverses sexual characteristics
| without reversing chromosomes, meaning the males that have
| reversed sexual characteristics are still technically
| genetically male.
|
| "The resulting larvae were all male when raised to
| metamorphosis and sampled (n = 100), confirming that
| atrazine-induced females were, in fact, chromosomal males.
| Furthermore, atrazine-induced females lacked the DM-W
| further confirming that these atrazine-induced females were
| indeed chromosomal males (Fig. 2). These ZZ females
| expressed gonadal aromatase, as did true ZW females (n = 4,
| from our stock colony), but ZZ males (n = 8, control or
| treated) did not"
|
| https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2842049/
| graemep wrote:
| Yes, exactly - that is why I said intersex. it covers
| both chromosomal and developmental abnormalities.
|
| The frogs ARE genetically male. They are female (or
| neither) as a result of development.
| TeaBrain wrote:
| I was more commenting on the first line of your comment,
| where you said that they were changing sex, but I don't
| think intersex is accurate either, as intersex traits are
| present at birth. In the study, they raised the male
| frogs to maturity before exposing them to atrazine, after
| which 10% had their adult male characteristics reversed
| to that of a female.
| graemep wrote:
| Good point, but. I suppose sex change might be more
| accurate.
| TeaBrain wrote:
| It's a weird phenomenon whatever the correct terminology
| may be.
| freeone3000 wrote:
| 75% of an exposed pop stop producing testosterone. 10% of the
| pop shift from male to female. These frogs still mate
| successfully with male frogs, and even produce male offspring
| -- it turns the frogs _trans_ :)
|
| (https://news.berkeley.edu/2010/03/01/frogs/)
| bassrattle wrote:
| Right! So it's worse than altering their behavior, it causes
| physical sexual changes
| cluckindan wrote:
| That's a bit of twist: in fact amphibians, like humans, start
| out all female - atrazine just interferes with the development
| of male characteristics, making male frogs develop intersex or
| even completely female characteristics.
| IG_Semmelweiss wrote:
| Can you elaborate on humans starting out all female ? Are you
| talking about the women's egg chromosomes ? I wouldn't call
| that a human.. an embryo has a strong claim to being a human,
| but an egg ?
| bena wrote:
| All embryos start out biological female, it's only after
| some time that the testosterone kicks in and differentiates
| males from females.
|
| If you block that process, you'd wind up with an XY female.
| chemeng wrote:
| Swyer syndrome being the representative example of this
| for those looking for more info.
|
| (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_gonadal_dysgenesis)
| giantg2 wrote:
| I thought that would be considered intersex as there are
| some anatomical structures that do not rely on the
| testosterone to develop minimally, such as udecended
| (non/minimally functioning) testicles in an XY individual
| who has external femal genitalia.
| bena wrote:
| If you would call that intersex, then go for it. I'm not
| here to argue the semantics. These are edge cases that
| are fairly complicated.
|
| We're talking about a person with a uterus, vulva,
| vagina, etc. But without the widening of hips or
| development of breasts that happen in most women. No
| penis, no scrotum, no vas deferens, no testosterone.
| Nothing you would find in the majority of men.
|
| The only thing they have are testes and the testes
| present in these individuals are basically inert. They're
| usually removed because they're more likely to develop
| testicular cancer.
|
| With hormone therapy, they will develop the secondary sex
| characteristics of women.
|
| But the overall point here is that atrazine would need to
| be administered in utero to have the effects claimed by
| Alex Jones. Frogs reproduce externally. They lay eggs
| that are then fertilized. These eggs can be contaminated
| with surface atrazine which would then affect their
| development as described earlier.
| freeone3000 wrote:
| so we need to ensure that pregnant women avoid atrazine,
| from sources such as _drinking water_
|
| Note: the claim was "they're turning the frogs gay!!"
| which is quite inaccurate in several aspects (who's
| "they?"). The general thrust is correct, however.
|
| https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3234399/
| cluckindan wrote:
| A human embryo is a human embryo. It cannot develop into an
| apple or a zebra.
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| The issue I think there is never the specific claim but the
| manner in which Jones makes these pronouncements linking a fact
| like this to broader conspiracies and politics. That somehow
| this shit is a left-wing / liberal conspiracy blah blah blah
| when it's just run of the mill (and far more insidious and
| systematic) corporate malfeasance in the search of profits.
| graemep wrote:
| I do not know what his claim is, but the the fact is it turns
| them female or intersex, not gay.
| gklitz wrote:
| If someone is claiming that global climate change has melted
| all the arctic ice and created a Vulcan into spring up in lower
| Manhatten, they are a crackpot. But that doesn't mean global
| climate change isn't real or isn't bad.
|
| Two can be true. Atrazine can be bad, and Alex Jones claims
| about it can be outrageous unfounded conspiracy theories.
| autoexec wrote:
| Shout out to Tyrone Hayes
| (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrone_Hayes), frog scientist, who
| turned down piles of industry hush money to speak out against the
| dangers of atrazine and publish his research. He seems like a
| cool guy. I'd totally buy him a drink and talk about frogs.
| benopal64 wrote:
| Wow-- props to Professor Hayes. This guy is a role model for
| researchers!
| cedws wrote:
| Guessing nobody went to prison over this?
| belter wrote:
| https://youtu.be/vm7dIAq7QwM?t=28
| nraleigh wrote:
| Guessing his research is what Alex Jones attributes to turning
| the frogs gay?
| IncreasePosts wrote:
| Where can I find out more about him turning down piles of
| industry hush money? All I can see on wikipedia is he was
| beefing with some makers of atrazine.
| autoexec wrote:
| I haven't seen him disclose a specific number but they
| basically offered to keep him very comfortably employed by
| them, but they also wanted him to manipulate his research and
| working for them meant that they could keep the research out
| of the public eye (They owned his research and he was under a
| confidentiality contract) so he left and continued his work
| independent of their funding so that he could publish.
|
| I've seen far too many of his talks on youtube to recall
| which ones had him speaking about it himself, but here is his
| wife:
|
| > Tyrone was asked to be on a scientific panel to review the
| evidence about atrazine. When he discovered these results and
| reported it to them, they asked him to do some additional
| work to make sure that these things were really accurate. So
| he did some additional work and then they wanted him to do
| more and more and more and this is where Syngenta said
| basically we can fund you for a really long time if you'll
| just keep repeating this. It could have been very easy just
| to take all the money they were offering and be set for life.
| It would have been like an endowment for life for him, for
| research. (https://www.newyorker.com/video/watch/the-new-
| yorker-present...)
| pakyr wrote:
| The Trump admin repeatedly weakened regulations around atrazine
| imposed by the Obama admin[0][1], only for the Biden admin to
| reimpose them.[2][3] I suppose we're about to see them severely
| weakened again.
|
| Edit: to the people talking about RFK Jr., he's not going to be
| running the EPA; anti-regulation crusader and laissez-faire fan
| Lee Zeldin will be.[4]
|
| [0]https://biologicaldiversity.org/w/news/press-
| releases/trumps...
|
| [1]https://biologicaldiversity.org/w/news/press-
| releases/trump-...
|
| [2]https://www.eenews.net/articles/epa-tightens-limit-on-
| popula...
|
| [3]https://www.sej.org/headlines/biden-proposes-raising-
| accepta...
|
| [4]https://www.eenews.net/articles/meet-the-great-
| deregulator-t...
| quotemstr wrote:
| I wouldn't be so sure of that. This chemical seems like a
| central example of something RFK would love to ban.
| anticorporate wrote:
| The FDA (potential future home of RFK) does not have
| oversight on pesticides. This is an EPA issue.
| quotemstr wrote:
| You're overindexing on formal authority and prematurely
| discounting informal influence. RFK will be a prominent
| member of the administration. He'll have the ears of
| powerful people. He'll get some wins at the FDA (because
| it's blindingly obvious we're poisoning ourselves), and
| he'll be able to use these wins to drive changes at other
| agencies.
|
| The org chart is always just a suggestion.
| stfp wrote:
| Is the next administration really likely to do, on
| purpose, _anything_ that would affect earnings for large
| corps? It would absolutely blow my mind. I think RFK will
| do zilch _unless_ it aligns with more profits for the
| right folks.
| quotemstr wrote:
| You might want to update your model of the political
| metagame. "Big Corp versus the people" is something like
| three Hegelian dialectics ago.
| voltaireodactyl wrote:
| Interesting, the UHC stuff would have led me to believe
| otherwise. What is the current Hegelian dialectic?
| staunton wrote:
| You're assuming he'd make a serious attempt to ban it
| mullingitover wrote:
| RFK was telling us he'd never support Trump, too, and here we
| are.
|
| RFK has demonstrated repeatedly that he has absolutely no
| principles whatsoever, and he'll sell out if a soft breeze
| passes by. If the agribusiness sector tells Trump that
| banning this chemical will cost them 10% of their profits,
| Trump will tell RFK to get in line, and he'll give a slight
| whimper as he does so.
| yaksha wrote:
| Trump was willing to build a coalition while Democrats were
| not. RFK, assuming he gets past the Senate, will be in a
| substantially better position to influence health policy
| than if he were to have snubbed Trump.
|
| The game of politics makes enemies one day become allies
| the next. If you want real progress on an agenda, being
| dogmatic generally isn't the best way to accomplish it
| (imo).
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| I'm not American, but to me this looks like a
| preposterous take, when the Democrats had Cheney and a
| pile of other Republicans lined up in what looks more to
| me like a coalition than getting the endorsement of a
| bizarre personality-cult fringe candidate.
| weberer wrote:
| RFK spoke out against this chemical specifically, so its likely
| on the chopping block.
|
| https://youtu.be/gGoNyvAvhf0?t=350
| rawgabbit wrote:
| The report said Atrazine is commonly used in corn and sorghum
| production. Can traces of Atrazine enter our bodies when eating
| corn or corn fed meat?
| roguecoder wrote:
| Yep: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3481744/
| rawgabbit wrote:
| Thanks
| zahma wrote:
| Doubt that's going to change anytime soon with Lee Zeldin the
| incoming EPA director.
| Coffeewine wrote:
| It will be an interesting dynamic, FDA taking a turn to ban
| much more, EPA taking a turn to ban much less.
| fao_ wrote:
| The last time I looked into this, at least one US pesticide*
| banned in the EU seemed to significantly disrupt oxytocin,
| notably the pesticide in question seems to be present on fruit,
| in the store, and can be absorbed through incidental contact.
| Oxytocin is most notably involved in empathy, giving people a
| nasal spray of oxytocin and testing them on empathy indicates
| higher response (in the one story it boiled down to roughly, "how
| much do you give a shit or relate to the suffering of other
| people who you do not know") after their oxytocin has been
| raised.
|
| It does seem like there's room here for a study to see what the
| general oxytocin level is in the US versus other countries -- if
| it's notably reduced, I wonder if that can help explain why all
| the US legislation around societal benefits and e.g. healthcare,
| feels not just apathetic towards, but particularly hostile and
| mean spirited to people who are suffering.
|
| * - When i originally penned this, I was under the assumption it
| was Atrazine, but it isn't and I can't find the pesticide in
| question and don't feel like sifting through a list of "1000
| pesticides banned in the EU that the US loves to use" to find the
| one in question
|
| edit, NB:
|
| HNers that love to skim read and argue based on that, take note
| -- the only claims made here are:
|
| - At least one US pesticide that is banned in the EU disrupts
| oxytocin (plausible, if not cited)
|
| - Oxytocin is directly connected to expression of empathy
| (incredibly well-founded)
|
| - US legislation around societal benefits and healthcare feels
| apathetic and mean spirited (opinion, take it or leave it)
|
| Note that I very carefully do not claim that a {pesicide contact
| -> reduced oxytocin-> reduced empathy -> mistreatment of the poor
| and sick} chain is actually the case (I leave that in speculation
| -- "I wonder if"), I only say that it seems _viable_ and _worthy
| of investigation_ if and only if the first claim in the list
| above is true. I also do not claim it to be the only cause --
| that 's why I say the words "can help explain". Thank you for
| reading.
| galangalalgol wrote:
| Atrazine does affect hypothalamic function so maybe? Could be
| Chlorpyrifos or permethrin too.
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| I don't think permethrin or pyrethrins generally are banned
| in the EU, are they?
|
| They're not good for cats, but are generally recognized to do
| ... not much of anything... to mammals.
|
| Insects develop resistance to them quite quickly, too. But
| damn, we'd be somewhat in trouble without them.
| galangalalgol wrote:
| I think it is banned for agriculture use but ok for
| personal insect repellent?
| thrance wrote:
| I'm no doctor, but if my understanding is correct oxytocin is
| also correlated with in-group out-group behavior. I think it's
| a bit reductionist to attribute election results to hormone
| imbalance. Culture and material conditions probably have a much
| greater impact on that.
| fao_ wrote:
| > I think it's a bit reductionist to attribute election
| results to hormone imbalance.
|
| I very carefully did not attribute election results _solely_
| to that cause :)
|
| Russian funding and mass media covert ops are likely more to
| blame[1][2]
|
| At the same time, I do think that there's room to explain why
| vast swathes of the US has a very "I've got mine, fuck you"
| attitude. This also seems to be somewhat recent, because
| "Universal right to food" was one of the things proposed in,
| I want to say the 40s-50s? as one of the basic fundamental
| rights. Which, outright couldn't happen now with the current
| state of American Politics.
|
| [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZ5XN_mJE8Y
|
| [2]: idk there's a laundry list of news outlets confirming
| both of these points, if someone wants to argue about it then
| it's likely we'll never agree in the first place, as the
| evidence has been widely available for almost a decade now
| and is very clear in terms of evidence of Russian influence
| in voter manipulation, general public opinion manipulation,
| and outright paying off politicians and working to inflate
| the puritanical right wing.
| thrance wrote:
| Oh for sure, I agree with you on that. This reminds me that
| as far back as during the french revolution, in 1789, some
| "radical republicans" succeeded in putting a _droit de
| subsistance_ , right to sustenance, in the very first
| constitution. That right would guarantee some form of food
| and shelter for everyone. It was removed in the second
| constitution by the bourgeoisie, of course.
|
| Those ideas are far from new, and I'm afraid to never see
| them implemented in my lifetime, but I remain hopeful and
| will still advocate for them however I can.
| TeaBrain wrote:
| Apparently Atrazine has been shown to suppress the oxytocin
| receptor in cows.
|
| "Atr decreased the mRNA expression and protein level of
| oxytocin receptor (OTR)"
|
| https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35193057/
| fao_ wrote:
| Mm, I did take a quick look but the majority seem to be
| studying within the cow cervix, which... it seems kind of
| iffy to then expand that to the wider body, and then jump
| species from cows to humans. Too many links of indirection to
| make a reasonable claim about.
| roguecoder wrote:
| It is interesting: I have long wondered if recreational drugs
| that created long-term feelings of safety and contentment
| (rather than the anxiety, depression & fear of the current
| options, especially among uppers) could improve political
| outcomes.
|
| On the other hand, given European's response to immigration has
| been to cut their social spending, it seems more likely that
| the difference in social support can be confidently attributed
| to racism.
|
| As far as I know we haven't found any chemicals that either
| create or diminish racism, though it is an interesting
| direction for future research.
| samatman wrote:
| My problem with what you're saying is that it relies on
| affirming the antecedent. Which not a proposition I believe to
| be correct, and in fact, view as denigration and slander of my
| countrymen. I do not look kindly on that.
| fao_ wrote:
| > view as denigration and slander of my countrymen
|
| The fact that you believe it to be incorrect also doesn't
| really make it incorrect, does it. Notably, I am also not
| saying that it is correct, but simply making a claim based on
| if it is correct -- which may or may not be true.
|
| I am sorry that you feel that I slandered and denigrated your
| countrymen but surely the bigger denigration against the
| american people here is the voting patterns of your
| countrymen -- in repeatedly voting against social measures
| that would provide aid and care to the poor, sick, and
| disabled. I would look upon that as something to get
| insulted, deeply upset about, and use that feeling as a force
| to try to argue for and push for change politically, as
| opposed to a random comment on the internet.
| samatman wrote:
| > _The fact that you believe it to be incorrect also doesn
| 't really make it incorrect_
|
| The fact that it's incorrect is what makes it incorrect.
| ourmandave wrote:
| Ask your doctor if Atrazine is right for you.
| nozzlegear wrote:
| No need - my senator, the venerable+ Chuck Grassley, has
| already decided for me!
|
| + Venerable and decrepit.
| asdasdsddd wrote:
| What are the actual vectors here, does it come thru the
| vegetables we eat, the meat from animals that eat the vegetables,
| or the ground water and do we measure this stuff?
| cluckindan wrote:
| Ground water. Although you'd probably do better being scared of
| PFAS compounds in everything around you.
| legitster wrote:
| The EPA has actually been pretty active regarding Atrazine in
| recent years, a lot of restrictions are in the works:
|
| https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/atra...
| jdietrich wrote:
| Banned in the EU since 2004.
|
| https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:...
| legitster wrote:
| Okay?
|
| Who banned what first isn't a really salient point since each
| respective governing body has their own criteria and
| methodology.
| geysersam wrote:
| The criteria are insufficient to protect people from
| harmful chemicals. That's the point.
| legitster wrote:
| Do you have a source on that? The US actually ranks third
| in the world in food safety:
| https://impact.economist.com/sustainability/project/food-
| sec...
|
| As a rule of thumb, the US just operates differently -
| spending much more effort on testing and inspection and
| labeling on the final product - whereas Europe has
| stricter, more precautionary scrutiny of ingredients, but
| operates with less oversight. (If you can remember the
| horse meat fiasco in Europe a decade ago, something like
| that could have never happened in the US.)
|
| There are also some counter examples like Chlorpyrifos
| which is banned in the US but not the EU.
| blackeyeblitzar wrote:
| It's crazy that various chemicals like this or food dyes are
| banned elsewhere but legal in America. Is this due to the power
| and influence of corporate lobbyists or just a failure of a slow
| bureaucracy? Either way it is unacceptable
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-12-11 23:02 UTC)