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

Falling sperm counts, declining egg quality, and endocrine disruptors

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

501–510 of 640 posts

Re: Falling sperm counts, declining egg quality, and endocrine disruptors

#501

Post by tenebrisalietum »

greenonions wrote: post #429
calvinmorrison wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Some of this bias may be for good intentions (allowing less fertile couples to conceive) while some may have questionable outcomes (selection based purely on socioeconomic status)." First let's not anthropomorphize nature, or natural selection. But secondly, in 1st world countries, the more money you make, the less likely you are to have kids! We've done a terrible job at incentivizing couples to have kids since wom…

Shocking to think that our society would discount the future for the present... On a serious note however, babies and a growing population is an enormous advantage to a nation. I would think it would be massively popular to increase benefits to those who are having children. Full disclosure, I found out my wife is pregnant yesterday, but still.

Babies and a growing population is an enormous advantage only if there are enough resources for everyone and they are distributed in such a form that does not end up cause social infighting. Otherwise it just contributes to instability.

There are also women who are infertile due to no fault of their own (e.g. cancer, etc.), why should they be excluded from any resources whatsoever due to something that is not their fault?

Re: Falling sperm counts, declining egg quality, and endocrine disruptors

#502

Post by tsdlts »

klmadfejno wrote: post #277
Cthulhu_ wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least you know what's in bottled water, the water supply and its contents can vary wildly. In some places they still use lead pipes iirc.

In many American locales, especially in areas with access to large clean aquifers, tap water will be cleaner than bottled water. Don't go assuming bottled is better. If you can afford to put a filter on your tap (this is expensive), I would on tap water being much cleaner.

I'd generally recommend avoiding tap water altogether in the U.S. and making sure you're not drinking fluoridated water. It's been show to decrease a child's IQ by up to 4 points when used by pregnant moms[1].

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31424532/

Re: Falling sperm counts, declining egg quality, and endocrine disruptors

#503

Post by gamblor956 »

ejolto wrote: post #212
Nilef wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would love to hear more about the mind of brands/foods you ate with no sugar. I’ve attempted this before and it’s extremely hard to find products with 0 sugar! Guessing you avoided the local Tesco?

Not OP but I do this by avoiding processed foods, making everything "from scratch". Examples: - Pizza sauce from crushed tomatoes, tomato puré and spices. - Marinade for marinating meat from spices and olive oil and either balsamic vinegar or lime. - Pick my own blueberries that I freeze and put in plain yoghurt.

Word of caution: most food cans are lined with BPA. Try to avoid canned food products and make the puree yourself if possible.

Re: Falling sperm counts, declining egg quality, and endocrine disruptors

#504

Post by zug_zug »

pb7 wrote: post #457
zug_zug wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Terminology is super important. Obviously everything about a person is a biological fact, but "medical condition" implies a certain severity and negativity. It's sort of like asking if being shorter than 6' a medical condition. Or if being unattractive is a medical condition. Obviously not in the common parlance, and anybody who wanted to classify it as such would be seen as a real agitator. I suppose for people who…

> It's sort of like asking if being shorter than 6' a medical condition. Maybe not 6' but isn't dwarfism considered a medical condition? > Or if being unattractive is a medical condition. Again, most cases not, but things like crooked teeth, cleft lips, acne, etc that could be left alone but are frequently treated because they reduce quality of life are considered medical conditions. I buy the argument that "medical…

>> I buy the argument that "medical condition" can carry heavy negative connotations, especially for minority populations, but still believe anything that requires medical intervention (like hormone therapy but especially reassignment surgery) qualifies.

Yeah I mean my point is it's mostly just semantics and lines in the sand. But semantics matter emotionally.

The important thing if you want to research the hypothesis that xenoestrogens can cause trans is just to not offend people along the way. If phrased right I think both left and right can get behind the sentiment that chemical pollution potentially influencing gender identity is something worth investigating.

Re: Falling sperm counts, declining egg quality, and endocrine disruptors

#505

Post by jk7tarYZAQNpTQa »

adrianN wrote: post #482
jk7tarYZAQNpTQa wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> labeling things does exactly nothing for consumers, because most of them don't have a Phd in endocrinology They don't need to. We, as technologists and scientists, can develop solutions to make the decision process very easy, almost automatic. A smartphone app that reads a barcode and produces a color-coded safety value, from green to red, is all a consumer needs to shop safely. Or a website containing whitelists o…

Technology is not the solution to everything. Almost nobody wants to go to a store and consult their phone for every item they purchase and do a complex optimization problem involving safety, ecological footprint, socially responsible supply chains, the dozen other problems we want to burden "informed consumers" with, their personal valuation function and the purchase price.

> Technology is not the solution to everything

It's not the solution, but in many situations (like this one) it helps the consumer make an informed decision overwhelmingly easier and faster.

> Almost nobody wants to go to a store and consult their phone for every item they purchase

How are you so sure about it? Have you read a survey? Could you please cite it?

You don't need to do it everytime, just the first time, and then settle on a brand for a given product, indefinitely. People already use similar apps for a health summary. And you don't need to do it all at once, it can be done incrementally. "Today I'm going to look for the best frozen lasagna". It takes 30 seconds to scan every option, and then some extra seconds to decide which one works best for you. The next time you go to the store you spend your 30 secs deciding on a frozen pizza brand.

> the dozen other problems we want to burden "informed consumers" with

So what do you propose? Assume the public is ignorant and just doesn't care? As individuals we have a responsibility to make informed decisions, award manufacturers with our money on an informed manner, and help other become and stay informed. And as technologists we have a much bigger responsibility to use technology as a fundamental tool in the process.

Re: Falling sperm counts, declining egg quality, and endocrine disruptors

#506

Post by DC1350 »

airhead969 wrote: post #498
pb7 wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It can be true if your judgment is poor. > Are you aware that many models you see in magazines are only in their early teens, made to look older with makeup? I'm not sure what this proves considering you can manipulate photos to look like anything. I would be able to tell within minutes of talking to them in person -- as would any reasonable person -- which is what the discussion is about. If you want to go that rout…

Judgement has nothing to do with my experience. It can also be true if someone experienced extreme precocious puberty from unknown causes, is highly gifted and a voracious learner/autodidact, is emotionally intelligent, went through some shit in life, and basically had to become the "adult" (became authentically internally-stronger and didn't fall apart) of the family and of siblings when their birth parents were irr…

> went through some shit in life

> birth parents were irresponsible

This makes it even worse. You should stop posting before somebody contacts the FBI.

Re: Falling sperm counts, declining egg quality, and endocrine disruptors

#507

Post by com2kid »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #176
eyko wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They are typically made to improve profit in some fashion, not to improve human health. The main goals of GMOs are to increase yield and protect against disease / pests, which is practically the same goal we've had for thousands of years of crop domestication. Take for instance wild pre-domesticated maize vs present day non-GMO maize[1] and you'll see what "natural" crop selection does. Not only do we select for st…

we've been eating GMOs for millenia. That's a little like saying "There's zero difference between traditional animal husbandry and cloning." Sorry, I think there is a meaningful distinction between traditional human intervention in plant varieties and the more recent intervention called GMO. Most of the world seems to agree that there is a distinction, enough so that we invented new language for what it is we are doi…

> Sorry, I think there is a meaningful distinction between traditional human intervention in plant varieties and the more recent intervention called GMO.

One is a semi-random process where an unknown (but large!) number of genes are modified in the hopes of getting a few desired good traits to express themselves.

The other is a targeted change to the smallest number of genes to get a single desired good trait to be expressed.

Imagine you are going in for surgery to remove a lump, and the doctor tells you there are two options, he can cut out 20 lumps of flesh, and good chance he'll get the one you want removed, or he can remove just the lump that is causing a problem.

Which of the two options would you choose?

GMO is the later. Traditional breeding is the former.

If people want to criticize WHAT modification was done via GMO, great! Lots of good debate there, maybe inserting some particular gene is a bad idea. But let's have that discussion, not "all GMO is bad!"

Because "all GMO is bad" is nonsensical. GMO isn't some process that turns food into poison. It just changes it, in a more controlled way than breeding changes it.

Re: Falling sperm counts, declining egg quality, and endocrine disruptors

#508

Post by dalbasal »

csharptwdec19 wrote: post #245
dalbasal wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> aversion to dietary fat for the past 3 generations combined with refined seed/bean oils Aye... This is probably the first medically/scientifically prescribed diet for society at large and it has been a disaster.

And the worst thing is, as we've learned from Big Tobacco, They're -never- going to admit it. Nestle, Kraft, etc. will stop at nothing to make sure they aren't liable for the way they cut costs at the expense of generations of human beings health.

They're definitely bad actors, but the whole thing is/was much bigger than just packaged food companies. National medical authorities. Your local doctor or nutritionist. The food pyramid hanging in your classroom.

We're not good at mea culpas and the baggage hangs around.

Re: Falling sperm counts, declining egg quality, and endocrine disruptors

#509

Post by rhinoceraptor »

hojjat12000 wrote: post #473
rhinoceraptor wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least in men, there is a very clear mechanism. If you have excess body fat, your aromatase may be overexpressed, and if so, you will convert more of your testosterone to estradiol. This interacts with the hypothalamus' negative feedback loop, lowering your GnRH, (and therefore your LH/FSH) making you less fertile and lowering your testosterone until homeostasis is achieved.

I was recently watching a video on Doublespeak[0], one of the types of doublespeak is to bombard the audience with technical jargon which means you automatically win, unless they know more technical terms than you do! In your case, your comment does not mean anything to me (or probably 99% of the HN users). Instead of this, you could at least cite a reputable source for this claim, this would be 100 times more effect…

I get that it's slightly esoteric, but this is all pretty basic biochem/endocrinology.

Here's a small study that demonstrates that losing weight can increase fertility:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3177768/

Additionally, this mechanism is why drugs like clomifene and anastrazole work for male infertility.

Re: Falling sperm counts, declining egg quality, and endocrine disruptors

#510

Post by com2kid »

Retric wrote: post #261
gameswithgo wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

genes get arbitrarily modified by evolution, breeding, or manual intervention. could a gmo food cause a problem? sure, so could a food whose genes were modified by breeding or accident of nature

Evolution and selective breeding don’t arbitrarily modify DNA. The actual methods are small random changes, copying from some other location possibly backwards, or removing segments. GMO significantly expands what kinds of changes are possible. In practice the difference is generally not that significant, but there is some increase in risks. Personally, I would prefer a different label for new GMO foods. Presumably,…

> Evolution and selective breeding don’t arbitrarily modify DNA.

Except for random mutations, which are, well, random changes to DNA.

There is a reason the nightshade family[1] is so varied.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solanaceae

Post reply on HN