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

Review of 17α-ethynylestradiol in water across 32 countries: Estrogenic effects

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 166 posts

Re: Review of 17α-ethynylestradiol in water across 32 countries: Estrogenic effects

#151

Post by rayiner »

zozbot234 wrote: post #143
rayiner wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Traditional gender roles aren’t a creation of “Christo-nationalistic subjective identity.” Maybe that’s what’s responsible for OP’s confusion—the belief that Reagan invented these notions about gender, and they’re not near universal outside a handful of countries populated by descendants of Europeans?

Yup, even the "atheistic Russian communists" mentioned in parent post have held on to remarkably traditional ideas about gender roles, and this was in a context of promoting high female achievement in education, work and society in general.

Forget Afghanistan or Russia. 60% of Dutch women who work do so part time: https://www.oecd.org/social/part-time-and-partly-equal-gende...

Re: Review of 17α-ethynylestradiol in water across 32 countries: Estrogenic effects

#152

Post by rayiner »

sudosysgen wrote: post #148
rayiner wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> backlash against "feminization of men" is something that people seem to care about more in the USA than other countries Only because in most countries the established gender norms are taken for granted and aren’t being challenged.

Not really. Gender norms are being challenged pretty much everywhere. They certainly are in the Islamic world, in East Asia (including China), and in South America, which is most of the world. Just because they didn't change in the same way or magnitude as they did in the West as of now doesn't mean they aren't being challenged - they very much are.

In my home country, "challenging gender norms" means "maybe women should go to school and participate in the work force." They're covering territory that western countries covered decades ago. By contrast, the reaction in America is to progressives who want to push us into uncharted territory ("gender is a spectrum").

It's very odd to suggest that America is more right wing than other countries for the backlash against progressive ideas that are gaining traction in America but would not even be viable in those other countries.

Re: Review of 17α-ethynylestradiol in water across 32 countries: Estrogenic effects

#153

Post by panarky »

mancerayder wrote: post #123
panarky wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> not a "right wing fear", but a scientific fact Of course it's both, with the kernel of scientific fact being hyped and exaggerated by the right. It's important to call this out so people can evaluate whether the discussion is in good faith or if it's part of an information operation.

No, what's important is the truth or falsehood of a given claim. To attack the messenger, or to put focus on the messenger, is a dangerous path that leads to the deep divides we see, where reality seems just subjective to entire groups of people. It also contributes to a society more concerned about whether a fact is convenient or not for one's belief system, as opposed to an inquiry by a hungry mind which seeks to u…

You are correct in normal circumstances, but when there is an active information operation in progress, people should be aware of that so they can evaluate claims in that light.

Re: Review of 17α-ethynylestradiol in water across 32 countries: Estrogenic effects

#154

Post by underlying1941 »

marricks wrote: post #8

I'm concerned this is making numbers here because of fear mongers so I want to run the numbers a bit to > The top 10 countries ranked in the order of high to low average EE2 concentration in surface water, were Vietnam, Cambodia, China, Laos, Brazil, Argentina, Kuwait, Thailand, Indonesia and Portugal, with the respective mean concentrations of 27.7, 22.1, 21.5, 21.1, 13.6, 9.6, 9.5, 8.8, 7.6 and 6.6 ng/L Going by Wi…

>More specifically for transfem use of 2mg orally is considered a low dose

That refers to "regular" estradiol. Ethinylestradiol is much more powerful. You can't compare doses 1:1.

Re: Review of 17α-ethynylestradiol in water across 32 countries: Estrogenic effects

#155

Post by davmar »

jhugo wrote: post #76
davmar wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The top 10 countries ... were Vietnam, Cambodia, China, Laos, Brazil, Argentina, Kuwait, Thailand, Indonesia and Portugal... in many of those countries people drink bottled or purified (not surface) water.

The average person in most of those countries drinks tap water, either boiled or filtered to varying levels of efficiency. In addition, fish are often caught in surface water, livestock may drink it, etc.

dude, you're right, my mistake. i was thinking of how i travel through those places.

Re: Review of 17α-ethynylestradiol in water across 32 countries: Estrogenic effects

#156

Post by bergenty »

sudosysgen wrote: post #148
rayiner wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> backlash against "feminization of men" is something that people seem to care about more in the USA than other countries Only because in most countries the established gender norms are taken for granted and aren’t being challenged.

Not really. Gender norms are being challenged pretty much everywhere. They certainly are in the Islamic world, in East Asia (including China), and in South America, which is most of the world. Just because they didn't change in the same way or magnitude as they did in the West as of now doesn't mean they aren't being challenged - they very much are.

Asia, the Middle East and South America skipped the giving rights to women part and have jumped straight to the backlash against it in sync with what’s happening in the west. I’m not even joking.

Re: Review of 17α-ethynylestradiol in water across 32 countries: Estrogenic effects

#157

Post by dbetteridge »

mancerayder wrote: post #135
athorax wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where do you think the water in those bottles comes from exactly?

What are you implying? San Pellegrino, Evian, etc - I'd expect less garbage in it than municipal water. Why would spring sources be contaminated in the same way?

> Nearly 64% of bottled water in the U.S. comes from municipal tap water sources. Which means we often pay for water that we could drink for free from our tap. Companies that sell bottled tap water, collect the water and treat it before bottling.

https://waterpurificationguide.com/brands-of-bottled-water-t...

Re: Review of 17α-ethynylestradiol in water across 32 countries: Estrogenic effects

#158

Post by pkphilip »

panarky wrote: post #110
pure_simplicity wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dropping testosterone levels and decreasing sperm quality are not a "right wing fear", but a scientific fact, and that should concern everyone: right and left wing, men and women. Also, to look at this 1 compound in isolation and downplay the significance of it, without considering the cumulative and synergistic effects of all the other xeno estrogens we are exposed to on a daily basis is irresponsible.

> not a "right wing fear", but a scientific fact Of course it's both, with the kernel of scientific fact being hyped and exaggerated by the right. It's important to call this out so people can evaluate whether the discussion is in good faith or if it's part of an information operation.

It is not a myth. There are serious concerns about the drop of testosterone levels in men - as much as 25% from the 1980s.

https://www.urologytimes.com/view/testosterone-levels-show-s...

Also, sperm count in men has dropped around 59% from the 1970s and so infertility among men is at an all time high: https://nypost.com/2021/02/20/why-more-men-are-suffering-fro...

Re: Review of 17α-ethynylestradiol in water across 32 countries: Estrogenic effects

#159

Post by mancerayder »

dbetteridge wrote: post #157
mancerayder wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are you implying? San Pellegrino, Evian, etc - I'd expect less garbage in it than municipal water. Why would spring sources be contaminated in the same way?

> Nearly 64% of bottled water in the U.S. comes from municipal tap water sources. Which means we often pay for water that we could drink for free from our tap. Companies that sell bottled tap water, collect the water and treat it before bottling. https://waterpurificationguide.com/brands-of-bottled-water-t...

The two examples above aren't in the 64%.

Re: Review of 17α-ethynylestradiol in water across 32 countries: Estrogenic effects

#160

Post by Zacru »

zackmorris wrote: post #102
oceanplexian wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This still sounds concerning to me, if the dose is 2mg for a healthy adult what is it for children and infants? What about babies in the womb? We saw the same exact thing with PFAS/PFOA, the experts said it was harmless, present in impossibly small quantities, and it would "pass right through you" for literally years. But then it turned out the experts were completely wrong. They found 2000PPM of PFAS in my Mom's wel…

Also it's not just endocrine disruption. Forever chemicals and microplastics can lodge in muscle and cause accumulated damage as the body tries to encapsulate it to keep from getting injured. And the circulatory system where it can clog arteries/veins/capillaries and cut off circulation. The images in this paper show plastic fibers embedded in fish muscle: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004896971.…

>We eat a credit card's worth of microplastic every week

No, we don't. Here is a 4 minute video explaining how this bit of misinformation came to be spread across the internet. https://youtu.be/2Ntp6BqhSng

Post reply on HN