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

771–780 of 1001 posts

Re: Sperm counts worldwide are plummeting faster than we thought

#771

Post by justnotworthit »

dang wrote: post #745
UglyToad wrote: post #630

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah yes, that study of 99 (predominantly overweight) men from an infertility clinic that definitely shows soy affects sperm count. As far as I'm aware the evidence just isn't there with respect to soy and cherry picking the single study that shows some potential link is just helping fuel a dietary myth, would be my view.

Can you please make your substantive points without being snarky? This is in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html . This is particularly important when correcting misimpressions. If your comment is neutral, the neutral reader can absorb the new information fairly easily. But if you're hostile (as with " ah yes, that, definitely that "), then you're also signaling a pre-existing battle…

Of all the worthless, flame-inducing posts in hacker news comments, "Ah yes, that study" is the example that need to be highlighted?

Re: Sperm counts worldwide are plummeting faster than we thought

#772

Post by lemming »

themagician wrote: post #566

Whenever I read about things like decreasing sperm counts or increases in cancer I always think of the same phrase, "Everything is chemicals." It just really doesn't surprise me knowing how little evaluation is done on chemicals and materials throughout the supply chain. I believe the period from 1900 to around 2100 will be looked at as this horrible era where we filled our own ecosystem with an almost unimaginable a…

So you create a product, put it out and have it do unimaginable damage, then pay for the health and environmental damage you did

Or not. How often have companies actually had to pay for anything like the actual cost of the damage they have caused to the environment? Are there any cases when they have had to? They sometimes have to compensate a few of the humans involved, but never anything more general than that, and usually nothing approaching the real cost to society or the environment.

Re: Sperm counts worldwide are plummeting faster than we thought

#773

Post by saltcured »

monkeynotes wrote: post #388
DevX101 wrote: post #158

The thesis of the book 'Countdown' is that this is largely due to widespread plastic and other endocrine disrupting chemicals. I believe this is one of the most important risks to humanity, after climate change, and global war. So far, I've taken some lifestyle changes to combat this: 1) Threw out all of my teflon cooking pans 2) Refuse to consume food in heated plastics 3) Throw out teabags (they have plastics). Use…

Not all teabags are that "fancy" plastic-y webbing. Cheaper teas have traditional paper filters.

Plastics are so cheap and the paper industry has spent many decades learning how to make different composite blends of paper and plastic to get different characteristics. I had a friend who spent time in that industry and liked to point out how plastics could be in most paper-like products you would see every day. He also emphasized how "actual" paper can be unhealthy due to bleaching and other processing steps that leave byproducts.

I don't know if it's really solved anything, but I switched to loose leaf teas with a stainless steel "tea ball" for individual cups. Now I can instead wonder what metals the global supply chain decided to actually use in that product. ;-)

Re: Sperm counts worldwide are plummeting faster than we thought

#774

Post by RC_ITR »

hindsightbias wrote: post #662
RC_ITR wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>This is one of the problems, we are missing studies that can demonstrate sources and source contribution to this problem. This is why I hate when people compare climate change to other problems (like GP did). Sure, there's a lot of microplastics out there, but the science is still out on what that means for us. Meanwhile we know how bad Climate Change is, so if we have limited resources to fight problems, definitely…

> the science is still out Same thing I heard for decades about AGW. And still do. In fact, they probably make up a majority in Congress. There were decades of people out there saying the science was still out to worry warts asking about the wisdom of dumping gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere. We don’t have to worry about someones grandchildren starving in 2060 if they aren’t going to be born in the first place. I…

Are you trying to give a masterclass on logical fallacies?

>Same thing I heard for decades about AGW.In fact, they probably make up a majority in Congress. There were decades of people out there saying the science was still out to worry warts asking about the wisdom of dumping gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere.

People can deny the science, but C02 concentration is the mechanism for global climate eras and we've known that for almost 200 years [1]. I don't care who believes in science because that has no impact on whether it is correct or not (only you, my fellow scientist, can determine that for yourself).

There is no agreed-upon mechanism for how microplastics harm humans, but again to the point of science, if you can point me to proof, I'd love to see it.

Long story short, you are very likely making a false comparison between those two topics.

>We don’t have to worry about someones grandchildren starving in 2060 if they aren’t going to be born in the first place.

Sure, and again, show me the proof/model that this is going to lead to the end of mankind. I's love to see it.

>I know more than a few white conservatives who have had to use IVF, and the AGW-denying IVF doctor I know rants about phthalates/plastics even though it’s good for her business. We have a 100X more opportunity to convince them of plastics action than we do of climate action.

We have a 1,000,000x better chance of convincing them that Trump is an immortal demigod, doesn't mean we should do it.

Again, we should dedicate effort to things that we know matter even if it requires effort.

[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S163107131...

Re: Sperm counts worldwide are plummeting faster than we thought

#775

Post by bluecalm »

It seems most comments in this thread are about microplastics. What about the poison we breath every day that comes from exhaust pipes of diesel engines as well as tires/brake pads? It's already proven it's terrible for us in various ways. We already went through smoking case which is very similar. There are more and more cars and more and more health problems. It just seems like an obvious suspect to me.

Re: Sperm counts worldwide are plummeting faster than we thought

#776

Post by steve_adams_86 »

Klonoar wrote: post #635
UglyToad wrote: post #630

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah yes, that study of 99 (predominantly overweight) men from an infertility clinic that definitely shows soy affects sperm count. As far as I'm aware the evidence just isn't there with respect to soy and cherry picking the single study that shows some potential link is just helping fuel a dietary myth, would be my view.

Yeah, I feel like the soy myth has been disproven time and time again but won’t die already. This and seed oils get hit with the exact same playbook, then disregard significant chunks of the world that have zero issues with them.

I haven’t found anything compelling about seed oils being awful, but I haven’t found anything indicating that we should actually eat them, though. Have you?

I’m asking sincerely. It seems to me like they’re better than some alternatives if only to reduce saturated fat intake, but generally speaking, if any refined fat is avoided it’s probably to your benefit.

I often wonder if people think seed oils are bad because they eat way too much of it in general. Kind of like, if you take a shot of windex every morning you shouldn’t be surprised when you become ill, but instead people expect it to make them healthy (not actually comparing canola with windex).

Re: Sperm counts worldwide are plummeting faster than we thought

#777

Post by steve_adams_86 »

35amxn35 wrote: post #746
fredrikholm wrote: post #735

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you implying that having low testosterone increases the likelihood of you becoming vegan? I'm not following.

Yes, exactly.

Is there evidence of this being true, or is it a hunch?

Re: Sperm counts worldwide are plummeting faster than we thought

#778

Post by Dig1t »

Karawebnetwork wrote: post #765
Dig1t wrote: post #559

There is an excellent book on this topic called "Countdown". I highly recommend it. The author goes into detail about the causes (mostly phthalates, chemicals added to flexible plastics), presents good science to back it up, and overall is just very thorough. I found it compelling and well written. Another interesting tidbit presented in the book: the increase in the number of trans people is very likely also correla…

> the increase in the number of trans people is very likely also correlated with the decrease in sperm counts (due to phthalate exposure) There are no studies showing a clear link between trans identities and phthlate. Correlation is not causation. It's dangerous to push the idea that minorities are caused by chemicals. It is pure speculation to suggest that it could affect the way a person behaves and responds to so…

sigh

Okay, so there is a decent amount of scientific evidence suggesting there could be a link. I mentioned in my comment that she treats the subject very gingerly, rightly so, because people will respond the way you are likely to respond.

However, saying that it is dangerous is a very good way to shut down the conversation completely, or demonize those trying to gather an honest understanding of reality. Consider the case that there really is a link. Is it better to wall off the conversation completely instead of investigating? Is it possible to discuss the topic at all? ever?

I mean, read the book, it is backed by real science it is not political at all, not some alt-right hateful thing.

Re: Sperm counts worldwide are plummeting faster than we thought

#779

Post by fredrikholm »

35amxn35 wrote: post #746
fredrikholm wrote: post #735

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you implying that having low testosterone increases the likelihood of you becoming vegan? I'm not following.

Yes, exactly.

How did you arrive at that conclusion? The only studies I could find show no such correlation[0][1].

I remember reading that vegans had higher levels of testosterone when not controlling for body weight, as vegans tend to be less obese than non-vegans. Can't find the source, so pinch of salt here. Makes sense though.

0. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32468110/ 1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2374537/pdf/83-...

Re: Sperm counts worldwide are plummeting faster than we thought

#780

Post by Noumenon72 »

justnotworthit wrote: post #771
dang wrote: post #745

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you please make your substantive points without being snarky? This is in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html . This is particularly important when correcting misimpressions. If your comment is neutral, the neutral reader can absorb the new information fairly easily. But if you're hostile (as with " ah yes, that, definitely that "), then you're also signaling a pre-existing battle…

Of all the worthless, flame-inducing posts in hacker news comments, "Ah yes, that study" is the example that need to be highlighted?

It may be more educational to contest one that most readers might not realize is problematic (I didn't bat an eye) than one that is obviously flamebait.
Post reply on HN