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

Sperm counts worldwide are plummeting faster than we thought

nationalgeographic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 1001 posts

Re: Sperm counts worldwide are plummeting faster than we thought

#431

Post by cm_silva »

cameldrv wrote: post #197
prox wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would be massively in favour of adding a QR Code that details as much as possible (without giving away trade secrets if that is possible) where and how something is sourced and then adding how it was processed. Much like you get a track and trace with a package.

EWG has something that’s a lot better than nothing: https://www.ewg.org/skindeep/ They also have an app that can scan UPC codes.

I knew I'd find EWG mentioned here, they're fantastic. Thank you for posting.

Re: Sperm counts worldwide are plummeting faster than we thought

#435

Post by consumer451 »

rootusrootus wrote: post #260
zug_zug wrote: post #151

So this trend has been going on for a while now, I looked a bit into it about 5 years ago here's what I found: - Tons of popular and legal products/chemicals are "endocrine disruptors"[1] (fancy term for mess with hormones). - The FDA/EPA doesn't deny that, they don't themselves even really require tests for long-term health effects in humans (too difficult). Instead they give animals a 1000x+ dose and look for immed…

Perhaps we need to invest in more testing, and then work on a whitelist instead of blacklist approach.

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

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/EPRS_ID...

Re: Sperm counts worldwide are plummeting faster than we thought

#436

Post by Aeolun »

fhd2 wrote: post #384
thehappypm wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another lesson from your story (similar to many of my friends’) is to just have kids younger. It sounds like you started at around 35 — if people started at 30, even, fertility is higher.

I started at 24 - certainly regret nothing, but I also can't say it was the smoothest path :D Trying to provide and care while being new to the job market was quite a ride. There's been some changes to make having kids less of a challenge in recent years - at least in Europe. But it still seems like there's a long way to go, especially in terms of corporate cultures that, in my experience, don't really know what to d…

> corporate cultures that, in my experience, don't really know what to do with young parents

What do they not know? I’ve been mostly treated fairly (not exactly a young parent though).

Re: Sperm counts worldwide are plummeting faster than we thought

#437

Post by seedead99 »

mule1 wrote: post #120

I always wanted to have a family but I'm straight up too mentally ill to. And I reckon any woman that I'd lock down would be more mentally ill than me. I really think we're in a weird transitory period that child bearing is going to look a lot different in the next 10 years, seeing the age of marriage in the west is almost 30 for women, where > 35 is considered a geriatric pregnancy. There's going to have to be solut…

Even recently 28 was considered geriatric pregnancy before it was reclassified.

Re: Sperm counts worldwide are plummeting faster than we thought

#438

Post by jamiegreen »

zug_zug wrote: post #151

So this trend has been going on for a while now, I looked a bit into it about 5 years ago here's what I found: - Tons of popular and legal products/chemicals are "endocrine disruptors"[1] (fancy term for mess with hormones). - The FDA/EPA doesn't deny that, they don't themselves even really require tests for long-term health effects in humans (too difficult). Instead they give animals a 1000x+ dose and look for immed…

As someone who is too lazy to do their own research on this topic....did you happen to find which products generally contain the most endocrine disruptors?

Re: Sperm counts worldwide are plummeting faster than we thought

#439

Post by ed25519FUUU »

cortesoft wrote: post #385
thehappypm wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another lesson from your story (similar to many of my friends’) is to just have kids younger. It sounds like you started at around 35 — if people started at 30, even, fertility is higher.

Having kids younger is not a simple choice. My wife was already 35 when we met, we couldn't have started younger.

I think the idea is that many societal choices need to be moved up, not just the decision to have children.

Re: Sperm counts worldwide are plummeting faster than we thought

#440

Post by Aeolun »

droopyEyelids wrote: post #429
thehappypm wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another lesson from your story (similar to many of my friends’) is to just have kids younger. It sounds like you started at around 35 — if people started at 30, even, fertility is higher.

Fertility isn't the only consideration with having children when you're old. Skin elasticity and athleticism decreases with age, and that translates into worse tearing, and more difficult births, longer recovery, and more trouble keeping up with a baby after all that. Then, on top of all that, your parents are entering their sunset years rather where you have to help them rather than having grandparents young enough…

Can you imagine having two generations of kids at 20 years old? ‘Grandma’ will be 40 when she has her first grandkid.
Post reply on HN