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

81–90 of 164 posts

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

#81

Post by sctb »

core-questions wrote: post #18
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.

This is not a good comment for Hacker News and it breaks several guidelines. Please don't post like this, no matter how you feel about what you're replying to.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#82

Post by maxerickson »

_qhtn wrote: post #36
Analemma_ wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Buy from a farmers' market, and ask. Most of the sellers will know off the top of their heads exactly how their crops have been grown and what was/wasn't used, and if they don't, that's a seller to avoid. As an added bonus, farmers' markets tend to be cheaper than supermarkets even as the food is better. It mystifies me that they aren't more commonly used and have a reputation as being for rich hipsters (i.e., like W…

> It mystifies me that they aren't more commonly used and have a reputation as being for rich hipsters Are there many farmers markets open for the second shift worker getting off at, say, 10pm?

The one here is open Saturday morning and Wednesday afternoon.

I guess a large chunk of people are able to make one or the other, but it also won't work all that well as an only source of produce.

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

#83

Post by geoalchimista »

ProAm wrote: post #80
eximius wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. The paper isn't the product, the journal is. 2. The paper is free. 3. $31.50 isn't cheap for a digital copy of a casual read.

That's the cost though. I can complain all day about how expensive everyone's startup product is, but that's the price. Is it wrong for me to steal those products?

I'm afraid the case isn't that simple for academic publishing.

The authors, i.e., scientists who conducted the research, usually pay a lot of money (typically 1500--2500 USD, depending on the journal) to the journal to get their paper published (of course, after peer review). In this process, neither the authors nor the reviewers get any payment for their work, although they put the most amount of efforts into it. On the other hand, most research papers are funded by the taxpayers, yet the products, aka the published papers, are behind the paywall for individual citizens. The publishers did nothing except typesetting, publishing, and maintaining an online database, but they profit the most from a researcher's work. Besides, some journals may even require the authors to sign away their copyright, meaning the publisher legally owns the work.

In my humble opinion, this is a kleptocratic model and I have no idea why academia has tolerated this for years. But I'm not suggesting any disruptive way to enforce social justice. I just want to emphasize that requesting the papers directly from the authors is totally legal and fair use, if someone does not feel comfortable to use sci-hub.

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

#84

Post by silencio »

simplecomplex wrote: post #54
Analemma_ wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Buy from a farmers' market, and ask. Most of the sellers will know off the top of their heads exactly how their crops have been grown and what was/wasn't used, and if they don't, that's a seller to avoid. As an added bonus, farmers' markets tend to be cheaper than supermarkets even as the food is better. It mystifies me that they aren't more commonly used and have a reputation as being for rich hipsters (i.e., like W…

They’re for rich hipsters because they’re very expensive, rarely open, and very small. In SF, vegetables at farmers markets and Whole Foods are 2-5x the cost compared to any Chinese grocery like New Mei Wah

in sf, the civic center (heart of the city) farmers market has a lot of farms catering to asian and lower income folks. the prices are pretty comparable to new may wah. think $1 bags of a couple pounds of produce.

the alemany farmers market is also similar in terms of cost and availability of produce. not too hard to avoid the ferry building and fort mason type hipster farmers markets :) not as easy as the markets in terms of hours/access, but...

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

#85

Post by NeoBasilisk »

xutopia wrote: post #33
hammock wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 en…

Testosterone levels halved over the last 20 years? You need to back that up with some evidence please.

It's a pretty well-documented phenomenon in the west.

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

#87

Post by checkyoursudo »

simplecomplex wrote: post #52
crawshaw wrote: post #27

How do I buy food in the US that I know hasn't been exposed to such pesticides?

You can’t. Best thing you can do is buy certified organic, which would preclude a lot of nasty agricultural practices. There’s no industry certification for pesticide-free. Certified organic allows natural pesticides, some of which are harmful.

I feel like this isn't well-enough understood in my circles. Many people I know and talk to about it seem to think that organic means no pesticides, which is indeed far from true.

Interestingly enough, something similar came up when we were looking for car seats for the first time, years ago. We were trying to limit flame retardants, which was(is still?) almost impossible. The best we could do was contact manufacturers and ask them what they used and how the fabric is made and flame retardant applied. At the time there was one pretty new, really expensive car seat company that basically implied that their car seats had no flame retardant at all, which wasn't true because otherwise they would not meet standards, and a bunch of popular bloggers and (at least minor) celebrities were promoting it as chemical-free, when it really, really wasn't.

In the end we found one brand that was OEKO-TEX certified and actually told us what they used and how they used it, which was about the best we could hope to get.

How many people know what pesticides their organic foods/producers use? I hardly know, and I care about this stuff more than just about anyone I know.

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

#88

Post by tomp »

tomp wrote: post #12
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.

I just wanted to say (and the edit window is gone), although I disagree with you, I want to encourage discussion, even of controversial ideas (I know, I have plenty!). It's a shame you're downvoted.

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

#89

Post by h4b4n3r0 »

tathougies wrote: post #72
crawshaw wrote: post #27

How do I buy food in the US that I know hasn't been exposed to such pesticides?

My wife and I buy most of our meats and vegetables directly from a farm. We have the farm owner's number on hand, and can call and ask. We can also ask to be there at the slaughter if we'd like or to visit the animals before hand. Surprisingly, it's not that much more expensive than whole foods for us. The farm is about a 20 mile drive from where we live. We like it. I found the program online. Didn't need any specia…

What's shocking is that buying from a farm is _more_ expensive than Whole Foods for you (or for anybody else for that matter). The price they charge wholesalers can be easily 1/10th of what you pay at a grocery store for a lot of common items, probably not beef, but vegetables for sure. To even consider the inconvenience of shopping at a farm, I'd have to see some serious cost advantages, of which there aren't any as far as I can tell.

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

#90

Post by h4b4n3r0 »

Analemma_ wrote: post #29
crawshaw wrote: post #27

How do I buy food in the US that I know hasn't been exposed to such pesticides?

Buy from a farmers' market, and ask. Most of the sellers will know off the top of their heads exactly how their crops have been grown and what was/wasn't used, and if they don't, that's a seller to avoid. As an added bonus, farmers' markets tend to be cheaper than supermarkets even as the food is better. It mystifies me that they aren't more commonly used and have a reputation as being for rich hipsters (i.e., like W…

I once bought Chilean grapes at a local "farmers" market. Since then I don't go to farmer's markets.
Post reply on HN