Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Endocrine-disrupting chemical exposure in US: disease burden and cost analysis

thelancet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 164 posts

Re: Endocrine-disrupting chemical exposure in US: disease burden and cost analysis

#11

Post by [deleted] »

eebynight wrote: post #6
tlb wrote: post #2

Consider the possibility that some such chemicals are good for society. For example, exposure to pseudoestrogens may reduce violence. Medical literature doesn't really have a category for this -- there is only 'burden and cost' of environmental effects, assuming that any change from evolved human biology is bad. But it seems like evolved human biology is a little too violent for the society we want, and perhaps we'd…

This is a perfect example of naive intervention. there is no evidence that pseudoestrogens may reduce violence and I have no idea how you came to such a ludicrous conclusion. Is it because you believe the myth that high testosterone causes violence? That "roid rage" people normally picture when thinking of people who do steroids is actually people who neglect or don't put enough effort into post cycle therapy or arom…

[deleted]

Re: Endocrine-disrupting chemical exposure in US: disease burden and cost analysis

#12

Post by tomp »

tlb wrote: post #2

Consider the possibility that some such chemicals are good for society. For example, exposure to pseudoestrogens may reduce violence. Medical literature doesn't really have a category for this -- there is only 'burden and cost' of environmental effects, assuming that any change from evolved human biology is bad. But it seems like evolved human biology is a little too violent for the society we want, and perhaps we'd…

Brave New World? After all, maybe slavery, exploitation, the Holocaust and potential "AI overlords" (I Robot-the-movie-style) are overall "good" for the (majority of) society. But I'd still try to avoid any (all) of them.

Re: Endocrine-disrupting chemical exposure in US: disease burden and cost analysis

#13

Post by Raphmedia »

tlb wrote: post #2

Consider the possibility that some such chemicals are good for society. For example, exposure to pseudoestrogens may reduce violence. Medical literature doesn't really have a category for this -- there is only 'burden and cost' of environmental effects, assuming that any change from evolved human biology is bad. But it seems like evolved human biology is a little too violent for the society we want, and perhaps we'd…

The issue is that you are not getting proper hormone replacement therapy with those. You are getting random levels of chemicals that mess up your hormone balance.

Ask anyone on hormone replacement therapy what happens when they skip a dose or mix up the dosage. Depression, headaches, migraines, suicidal thoughts etc.

Not something you want the entire society to experience.

Re: Endocrine-disrupting chemical exposure in US: disease burden and cost analysis

#14

Post by cryoshon »

note: monsanto's roundup chemical is an endocrine disruptor. we put it on most of our food supply. this contributes to the high cost burden.

secondary note: you don't want to have endocrine disruptors anywhere. they aren't good for you.

Re: Endocrine-disrupting chemical exposure in US: disease burden and cost analysis

#15

Post by smt88 »

Raphmedia wrote: post #13
tlb wrote: post #2

Consider the possibility that some such chemicals are good for society. For example, exposure to pseudoestrogens may reduce violence. Medical literature doesn't really have a category for this -- there is only 'burden and cost' of environmental effects, assuming that any change from evolved human biology is bad. But it seems like evolved human biology is a little too violent for the society we want, and perhaps we'd…

The issue is that you are not getting proper hormone replacement therapy with those. You are getting random levels of chemicals that mess up your hormone balance. Ask anyone on hormone replacement therapy what happens when they skip a dose or mix up the dosage. Depression, headaches, migraines, suicidal thoughts etc. Not something you want the entire society to experience.

Another major difference between the pseudoestrogen problem and proper hormone replacement: consent.

The general public has not consented to poorly-understood, poorly-controlled hormone therapy.

Most of us are already nonviolent, so the proposed decrease in violence isn't even possible for us. The only net effect, therefore, is likely negative.

It's kind of like saying that a minority of men have a testosterone deficiency, so let's put it in the water supply. Doesn't it sound more insane when formulated that way?

Re: Endocrine-disrupting chemical exposure in US: disease burden and cost analysis

#16

Post by [deleted] »

ra1n85 wrote: post #8
tlb wrote: post #2

Consider the possibility that some such chemicals are good for society. For example, exposure to pseudoestrogens may reduce violence. Medical literature doesn't really have a category for this -- there is only 'burden and cost' of environmental effects, assuming that any change from evolved human biology is bad. But it seems like evolved human biology is a little too violent for the society we want, and perhaps we'd…

This is the kind of perverse-nightmare-thought I only imagined strummed along in the heads of the psychopathic power hungry.

[deleted]

Re: Endocrine-disrupting chemical exposure in US: disease burden and cost analysis

#17

Post by nabla9 »

cryoshon wrote: post #14

note: monsanto's roundup chemical is an endocrine disruptor. we put it on most of our food supply. this contributes to the high cost burden. secondary note: you don't want to have endocrine disruptors anywhere. they aren't good for you.

That's not true as far as I know.

EPA selected glyphosate for screening based on the widespread use of the chemical. Not because it was suspected to be endocrine disruptor for any real reason. After tier 1 screening did not find any evidence no other testing was considered necessary.

Re: Endocrine-disrupting chemical exposure in US: disease burden and cost analysis

#18

Post by core-questions »

tlb wrote: post #2

Consider the possibility that some such chemicals are good for society. For example, exposure to pseudoestrogens may reduce violence. Medical literature doesn't really have a category for this -- there is only 'burden and cost' of environmental effects, assuming that any change from evolved human biology is bad. But it seems like evolved human biology is a little too violent for the society we want, and perhaps we'd…

Are you literally arguing for men to become the "soy boy" stereotype with insufficient testosterone for proper male development simply because it will keep them docile?

Today, I watched a leftist argue for something worse than eugenics.

Re: Endocrine-disrupting chemical exposure in US: disease burden and cost analysis

#19

Post by acct1771 »

tlb wrote: post #2

Consider the possibility that some such chemicals are good for society. For example, exposure to pseudoestrogens may reduce violence. Medical literature doesn't really have a category for this -- there is only 'burden and cost' of environmental effects, assuming that any change from evolved human biology is bad. But it seems like evolved human biology is a little too violent for the society we want, and perhaps we'd…

Consider the possibility that human sovereignty doesn't give a good goddamn what's "good for society", only the ability to be free.

I'll decide how I want my interactions with the rest of humanity to go, thanks.

We'd be 100% safe if we were all in cells with a telescreen, or if we had our brainwaves monitored for aggressive thoughts/disruptive emotions.

Think that's too extreme of a comparison? Well, that's where your comment leads: China is monitoring employees' brain waves and emotions: $315M profit increase - https://nordic.businessinsider.com/china-emotional-surveilla...

Re: Endocrine-disrupting chemical exposure in US: disease burden and cost analysis

#20

Post by hammock »

tlb wrote: post #2

Consider the possibility that some such chemicals are good for society. For example, exposure to pseudoestrogens may reduce violence. Medical literature doesn't really have a category for this -- there is only 'burden and cost' of environmental effects, assuming that any change from evolved human biology is bad. But it seems like evolved human biology is a little too violent for the society we want, and perhaps we'd…

Wish you weren't downvoted because there are probably people in power who think along the same line.

7-UP soda used to be lithiated and there have been proposals to add lithium to drinking water (mood stabilizer). People have suggested that fluoride in drinking water can achieve the same. Of course testosterone levels have been cut in half among comparable men over the last 20 years. So endocrine disruptors in our environment are something to look into.

Post reply on HN