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

111–120 of 164 posts

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

#111

Post by jnbiche »

zilitor wrote: post #75
shrimp_emoji wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your outlook does seem quite diseased. I don't know if phthalates are part of the etiology though.

The evidence is here: - epigenetic changes - https://www.whatisepigenetics.com/fathers-exposure-phthalate... - less masculine men - https://health.usnews.com/health-news/blogs/on-men/2009/11/1... - exposure during women's pregnancy lowers child's iq - http://time.com/3625352/phthalates-iq-toxins/ - obesity and epigenetic changes in rat models - https://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/epigenetics/nutritio... With the…

Can someone explain why this comment was flagged to death (I vouched for it)? These are all mainstream publications. It's not exactly a controversial claim that the sperm counts and testosterone levels of US men are in decline. In fact, it's backed up by years and years of epidemiological data. I'm not convinced by the parent's assertion that these trends have "feminized" men, but low testosterone levels are associated with sundry negative health outcomes (heart disease, depression, etc), with significant evidence for causality.

The comment author's original (GP) comment had some extraneous political references, but nothing flag-worthy. I'm fairly liberal, and yet I'm disappointed by how many fellow liberal react irrationally to Jordan Peterson's name. Disagreement is fine, but this urge to aggressively shut down any discussion of issues like gender relationships, or the role of men and women in society, is not a healthy thing for our society. Yes, neo-Nazis don't merit a platform, but counter to what he may have read from your Twitter pals, Peterson is far from being a neo-Nazi (and has routinely railed against Nazis both old and new).

I can have a rational discussion with my strongly feminist wife about these issues, even when we disagree. Yet people are shutting down for a comment for providing well-sourced data on the decline of testosterone levels and sperm counts. Frustrating.

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

#112

Post by whatshisface »

spacehome wrote: post #107
TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You forgot the Golden Rule. Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. ¹ 1. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I'm really trying. Some things some people think are just nonsensical because their model of reality is too inaccurate.

"Chemical-free" is an abbreviation of "dangerous chemical free," or in some cases (for car seats, not so much food), "chemically inert." Nobody would ever have a reason to specify that something should contain no chemicals at all, so the word "dangerous" is dropped in what is essentially an application of Huffman coding. ;)

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

#113

Post by DoreenMichele »

jnbiche wrote: post #111
zilitor wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The evidence is here: - epigenetic changes - https://www.whatisepigenetics.com/fathers-exposure-phthalate... - less masculine men - https://health.usnews.com/health-news/blogs/on-men/2009/11/1... - exposure during women's pregnancy lowers child's iq - http://time.com/3625352/phthalates-iq-toxins/ - obesity and epigenetic changes in rat models - https://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/epigenetics/nutritio... With the…

Can someone explain why this comment was flagged to death (I vouched for it)? These are all mainstream publications. It's not exactly a controversial claim that the sperm counts and testosterone levels of US men are in decline. In fact, it's backed up by years and years of epidemiological data. I'm not convinced by the parent's assertion that these trends have "feminized" men, but low testosterone levels are associat…

The comment you are replying to is not currently flagged to death. The GP is and probably because of framing.

I post as openly female on HN. I appear to be the only woman to have spent time on the leaderboard.

In my experience, you can successfully have good discussion about such issues here, but you really need to meet a high bar of etiquette to do so, basically.

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

#114

Post by jnbiche »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #113
jnbiche wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can someone explain why this comment was flagged to death (I vouched for it)? These are all mainstream publications. It's not exactly a controversial claim that the sperm counts and testosterone levels of US men are in decline. In fact, it's backed up by years and years of epidemiological data. I'm not convinced by the parent's assertion that these trends have "feminized" men, but low testosterone levels are associat…

The comment you are replying to is not currently flagged to death. The GP is and probably because of framing. I post as openly female on HN. I appear to be the only woman to have spent time on the leaderboard. In my experience, you can successfully have good discussion about such issues here, but you really need to meet a high bar of etiquette to do so, basically.

It's not flagged to death because I vouched for it.

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

#115

Post by DoreenMichele »

jnbiche wrote: post #114
DoreenMichele wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The comment you are replying to is not currently flagged to death. The GP is and probably because of framing. I post as openly female on HN. I appear to be the only woman to have spent time on the leaderboard. In my experience, you can successfully have good discussion about such issues here, but you really need to meet a high bar of etiquette to do so, basically.

It's not flagged to death because I vouched for it.

Well, then, the system works.

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

#117

Post by checkyoursudo »

srj wrote: post #108
checkyoursudo wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 manufacture…

How long ago was this? California, which had been the primary driver of the flame retardants being added nationwide, recently updated the regulations. The labeling now will state that no flame retardants were added.

It was years ago, not recently. It was still when all car seats were definitely treated with additive flame retardants.

I have been excited that CA is reversing on flame retardants. It was hard to find certain kinds of furniture without flame retardants. Every kind of kids pajamas that relatives gave as gifts had flame retardants. I don't remember about strollers for sure, but it seems like even many strollers had it, but that could be wrong.

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

#118

Post by checkyoursudo »

whatshisface wrote: post #112
spacehome wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm really trying. Some things some people think are just nonsensical because their model of reality is too inaccurate.

"Chemical-free" is an abbreviation of "dangerous chemical free," or in some cases (for car seats, not so much food), "chemically inert." Nobody would ever have a reason to specify that something should contain no chemicals at all , so the word "dangerous" is dropped in what is essentially an application of Huffman coding. ;)

Yes, this is what the endorsers were meaning, and what most people mean when saying it (general populace, marketers, etc).

Toxin-free. Poison-free. Dye-free. Fragrance-free.

This is the vernacular usage of "chemical free" in the US.

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

#119

Post by checkyoursudo »

checkyoursudo wrote: post #104
spacehome wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> chemical-free Are they selling a vacuum? What could that phrase possibly mean with regards to baryonic matter?

The types of mommy-bloggers and non-a-list celebs who would think dihydrogen monoxide is a caustic toxin. It's a certain type. You'll know them when you see/read them. ;)

I am sorry. That was a dumb joke to try to make.

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

#120

Post by chestervonwinch »

h4b4n3r0 wrote: post #106
logfromblammo wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the farmer's perspective, it is a bit of an inconvenience to sell you anything less than a whole animal. The fixed costs of an on-farm slaughter building or mobile slaughter truck are comparable to the facility that processes thousands of animals per hour, but spread out among fewer animals. If you want it cheaper, best be prepared buy live and do the slaughter and butchering yourself, and plan some meals around…

It gets worse: there are u-pick farms where you _come and pick stuff yourself_ and they still charge you more than grocery store.

Yes, but you also must account for the 3 pounds of blueberries I will eat whilst u-picking.
Post reply on HN