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

Post by zilitor » Tue, Aug 14, 2018, 3:14 AM UTC

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.

Post by slededit » Tue, Aug 14, 2018, 3:36 AM UTC

lumberjack wrote: post #70

sschueller wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The purchase of Monsanto by Beyer has to be dumbest corporate acquisition ever. After all these years it is now that the lawsuits are coming in as the science and leaks start pilling up providing the fodder. Even dumber is that Beyer is retiring the brand Monsanto which will result in Beyer itself being named in the lawsuits and media. They probably thought they could shake it off like Dow chemical when they aquired…

Monsanto teamed up with Bayer to gain influence within the EU. Monsanto was having trouble bribing EU officials. Bayer already have them in their pockets. Might not be good for PR, but Monsanto was terrified because the EU almost banned Glyphosate last year. Bayer itself does not have a good PR image either.

Post by bayesian_horse » Tue, Aug 14, 2018, 4:56 AM UTC

Post by Dylan16807 » Tue, Aug 14, 2018, 5:16 AM UTC

ProAm wrote: post #94

geoalchimista wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

While the system isn't perfect, advocating stealing someones product seems so backwards for a startup accelerators forum. >The publishers did nothing except typesetting, publishing, and maintaining an online database, Lets not act like this is nothing, if the authors wanted they could have self published but likely their results wouldnt be accepted, so not only do they provide the infrastructure, it also provides cre…

Post by TeMPOraL » Tue, Aug 14, 2018, 5:30 AM UTC

checkyoursudo wrote: post #118

whatshisface wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.