Chemical Pollution Is Destroying Masculinity 773
myrdos2 writes "A host of common chemicals is feminizing males of every class of vertebrate animals, from fish to mammals, including people. Many have been identified as 'endocrine disruptors' or gender-benders because they interfere with hormones. Communities heavily polluted with gender-benders in Canada, Russia, and Italy have given birth to twice as many girls as boys, which may offer a clue to the mysterious shift in sex ratios worldwide. And a study at Rotterdam's Erasmus University showed that boys whose mothers had been exposed to PCBs grew up wanting to play with dolls and tea sets rather than with traditionally male toys. It also follows hard on the heels of new American research which shows that baby boys born to women exposed to widespread chemicals in pregnancy are born with smaller penises and feminized genitals. It is calculated that 250,000 babies who would have been boys have been born as girls instead in the US and Japan alone. And sperm counts are dropping precipitously. Studies in more than 20 countries have shown that they have dropped from 150 million per milliliter of sperm fluid to 60 million over 50 years."
Re:That sucks (Score:5, Informative)
This makes me think about a period after a war with Brazil and Argentina when Paraguay's government actually encouraged polygamy.
I could be happy in a place like that.
Like an English 1A professor says (Score:1, Informative)
check your sources.
it's the independent. they're a notorious tabloid/shitrag.
Re:Cultural influence (Score:5, Informative)
one [springerlink.com]
two [questia.com]
three [wiley.com]
This is a common misconception. Think about a society were there is no tea or car (somewere in africa). Do you think their children would choose tea set and car toys based on gender?
Re:Y-chromosome (Score:4, Informative)
IANOB but in the womb at some point there is a trigger of testosterone that causes the male characteristics to appear. If that trigger fails or for some reason the testosterone doesn't do its job, the foetus remains in the default mode which is female.
Reliable source? (Score:1, Informative)
This report is made by a campaigning NGO and is not a peer reviewed paper.
From the Independent article "[...]the report comes out at a particularly sensitive time for ministers[...]". That's because CHEM Trust [chemtrust.org.uk] chose to release it now.
Yes, it references peer reviewed papers but the way they are using the data is not responsible science. Some of the links between chemicals and reproductive effects is "suggested". (See the press release.)
Don't get me wrong, these effects scare the ____ out of me but it isn't helpful to use bad science.
Disclosure: I'm a chemistry undergrad.
Please get this religious garbage off of /. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:That sucks (Score:4, Informative)
Mormons have not had plural marriages in well over a century.
Mormons, or FLDS? (Score:3, Informative)
Polygamy is here, today. Depending on your culture or country, it might be officially sanctioned (muslims if n=4, or mormons)
As Zordak pointed out, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints doesn't do polygamy anymore. Are you thinking of the FLDS church [wikipedia.org], which formed when the mainstream LDS dropped polygamy?
Re:Cultural influence (Score:2, Informative)
That is a known myth spread by feminists. I'm afraid that actually, what research has consistently and repeatedly proven is just the opposite.
A couple of links (this is what I have just found in a 30-second google search, but there is much more evidence):
http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/108552 [azstarnet.com]
http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/family/08/20/parenting.gender/index.html [cnn.com]
Please, don't take things from granted as if they were science just because they sound good.
Re:Cultural influence (Score:1, Informative)
.. and does your son or daughter have friends? Go outside? Watch TV? There is a society outside, I hear.
Re:That sucks (Score:3, Informative)
You assume you'd be one of the rich, attractve guys with multiple wives. And not, you know, one of the not so rich, less attractive guys who now can't even get a date with the women who'd rather be "number 3" than "number only" to someone like you.
Re:That sucks (Score:4, Informative)
And Latin American cultures (and many other ones as well) are where mother-in-laws living in the house with you is the norm. (Shudders)
Re:The right is against pollution.. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Unfortunately, in reality most likely different (Score:2, Informative)
Monogamy (enforced by law/church) was a way of reducing societal violence.
Exactly. It's worked so well, we haven't seen crimes of passion for generations.
Oh wait.
Seriously? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:That sucks (Score:4, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:That sucks (Score:3, Informative)
If, by "Mormons", you mean only members of the organization known as "the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints", but not any of the many offshoot splinter sects of that group. Since many outside observers refer to offshoot splinter sects that break off of and are out of Communion with the Roman Catholic Church but identify themselves as the "correct" form of the same faith tradition, as "Catholic" groups, its not really that unusual that outside observers might use parallel language in discussing "Mormon" groups.
For those interested in the Science... (Score:4, Informative)
Terry Collins: Persuasive Communication about Matters of Great Urgency: Endocrine Disruption: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es800079k [acs.org]
Shanna Swan: Decrease in Anogenital Distance among Male Infants with Prenatal Phthalate Exposure http://www.ehponline.org/members/2005/8100/8100.html [ehponline.org]
My understanding is that *endocrine disruptors* are the chemical pollutants responsible for these gender shifts. EDs cause shifts in cellular development, which is particularly important because it is a very fragile process. For example, the fundamental difference (from a molecular perspective) between testosterone and estrogen is very subtle. Therefore minor mistakes can cause drastic changes depending upon the timing and dose of exposure. You don't want things to disrupt *how* your maleness cells develop. What scientists are beginning to find is that babies (in the womb) who have exposure to EDs during development are showing significant differences in the finalized male genitals.
Today two types of endocrine disruptors: Bisphenol A and Phthalates are ubiquitous in our lives, namely in vinyl, PVC, and polycarbonate (plastics 3 and 7). Regulatory committees struggle to monitor the impact of these chemicals because of their ubiquitous application and the tiny size of what constitutes an *exposure* (something like 4 parts per trillion). Supposedly there have been lots of discussions in the scientific community about EDs since these findings started to come out in the mid 90s. However, its been a lot more talk than it has research and action.
But I can't sell everybody short. There was a big Nalgene bottle recall last year for this exact reason. The state of California has banned EDs from pesticides. Companies like BornFree make baby products without EDs. It feels like its coming, awareness just isn't there yet.
Re:About time somebody noticed (Score:5, Informative)
The EPA has, so far, failed utterly.
You must not have been around before the EPA was established. I grew up in Cahokia, Il and you had to drive past Monsanto and Cerro Copper (and some other factories) through Sauget to get to St. Louis.
You had to roll your windows up driving past Monsanto, even if it was 95F and you had no air conditioning. The air would burn your eyes and lungs and throat if you didn't; you literally could not breathe. I don't know how anyone worked there, but I imagine the cancer rate among Monsanto workers was sky high.
Runoff into the creek by it (it was named "Dead Creek iirc) polluted it so badly the creek caught fire one summer.
All the vegetation from Collinsville to Dupo was sickly looking. There were no frogs or fireflies (some toads). Today the vegetation is healthy and green, it doesn't stink driving past Monsanto, and there are fireflies almost every summer.
So I wouldn't say the EPA has failed, although it could certainly be a whole lot better.
Re:Finally an excuse! (Score:3, Informative)
Seriously, all sorts of iron, oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, methane, hydrogen, helium, chlorine, sodium (this one is explosive!!!!), potassium, nitrogen, fluorine, phosphorous, calcium, copper, nickel, gold, silver, zinc, aluminum, silicon, sulfur, and probably a lot more! With all these evil chemicals in her system, it's no wonder I'm this way!
Technically, those are all elements, not chemicals, the way you are using them. "A chemical" is not "a molecule" but generally is a fuzzier term, like "bug," "vermin," "natural," or "rhythm" which are hard to nail down technically and deterministically.
And you know damned good and well there's a difference between C2H5OH and CH3OH on the human body despite being nothing but carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen.
("Widespread chemicals" indeed... I weep for our science-fearing society)
Who fears science more? Those who use science to ensure their safety or those who disregard science when it threatens their modern conveniences?
Estrogens from birth control pills in wastewater (Score:2, Informative)
Re:That sucks (Score:3, Informative)
This sounds like a genotype of XX but with the male SRY gene translocated on one X arms. This would give you the above phenotype and infertile with most likely diminished genitalia in all areas. For a lot of slashdot readers this means that there will be smaller breasts. This is bad news for slashdotters everywhere as we will have to try twice as hard to find someone that is a normal female and is not infertile. XY females are also possible but they are caused by androgen insensitivity and lack a uterus.
No, actually, if you look at it, it's more common that it's a form of 5-alpha reductase deficiency [wikipedia.org]. Or, essentially, it's an XY female, however due to decreased levels of dihydrogen-testosterone during genital development, they didn't develop masculine genitalia, and rather developed female genitalia.
None of this implies an XX genotype with SRY translocation, which would be significantly less rare than XY females. In fact, it would cause XX genotype XY phenotype, and likely not result in any infertility at all. In fact, this form of translocation is known to occur fairly often, for instance in kangaroos, the SRY gene is no longer on the "Y chromosome", and has been shown to have moved a few times. Meanwhile, the original Y chromosomes have degenerated so entirely to be entirely vestigial chromosomes essentially. It's the reason why the Y chromosome in humans and primates doesn't carry full information either anymore... the chromosome is only transmitting the SRY gene, anything else can be dropped off, but the SRY must remain there.