971–980 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good grief, just trying to find products that are unscented is a nightmare. So many say "unscented" on the front, then have "parfum" or something in the ingredients.
Yes. After much exploration, my family switched shampoo and soap to this alone: https://www.aleavia.com/products/enzymatic-body-cleanse
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 th…
That's the thing -- there isn't. At best, it's a working theory that is equal to any other theory.
Saying that something is dangerous means that we should err on the side of caution, it does not mean that we should not discuss it. Plenty of scientific topics are dangerous and require a close cooperation with an ethics board to advance.
To name a few theories that are ongoing: genetics, endocrine disruptors (doesn't single phtalates), childhood experience, parasites, neurodevelopmental disorders, relationship with autism spectrum, etc.
None of the above is winning the race. The current leading theory is that the gender identity, including cisgender identities, is complex and a mix of genetic, biological, environmental, and cultural factors.
The WHO describes a disease as "any harmful deviation from the normal structural or functional state of an organism, generally associated with certain signs and symptoms and differing in nature from physical injury".
The trans identity is not a disease, it is not something to be fixed. In the same way that homosexuality is not a disease. Both have been on a road of depathologization, they are not harmful but regular variations of the human experience.
I'll close with a question: how can phtalates be the cause of gender incongruence and gender diversity when communities that falls under that umbrella exist since before the use of plastics? See: "Hijra", "Mukhannath", "Mahu", "Two-spirit", "Fa'afafine", "Muxe", "Bangala", "Mamluk", "Xanith", etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
> It's dangerous to push the idea that minorities are caused by chemicals. But if it is true it could be dangerous to them for us not to discuss the possibility. If they are people with a medical problem rather than a perfectly naturally occurring identity then we may not be giving them the treatments that will help them most while causing them the least harm. What if there were treatments that would mitigate or reve…
Being transgender is not a medical problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
Feels pretty anti-science to be outraged by discussion of current evidence. No one is pushing an idea.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 t…
https://www.the-nutrivore.com/post/a-comprehensive-rebuttal-... Canola oil in particular seems most interesting. Its nutrient composition is more impressive than olive oil. As for your theory, seed oils only make up 7% of US diet calories. Saturated fat makes up more than twice that. Replacing saturated fat with canola seems like an uncontroversial outcome improvement.
I’m certainly in favour of exchanging saturated fat for canola. I believe it was Finland where they made a big push to use canola rather than butter and the health outcomes seemed significant. There were confounding factors, but nonetheless, it was clear that a reduction in saturated fats yielded better life expectancy and lower rates of heart disease. The results were actually in line with what prior research indicated. Finland went from a lowest life expectancy in the world to one of the highest over decades, likely in part because of that transition away from dairy fats.
In that sense I think canola is amazing. I personally avoid both (of course it’s impossible to do so 100% of the time), but I fully support people choosing relatively healthier options.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've heard on a few podcasts that this is how European countries do this. We need to stop letting for-profit companies gamble with the health and longevity of the species in the interest of profits.
The species that mutilates and heats the planet, and which created those companies? This may be a long-overdue self-correction. Global infertility may just be what solves global warming.
I did my Master Degree in Organic Chemistry where we tried to develop a male contraceptive pill. I spend a lot of time studying sperm so here is a short list of thing to avoid regarding sperm quality (not ranked): 1. Eating and drinking from plastics (This includes aluminum cans which are plastic lined) [a] 2. Heating food in ANY type of plastic [a] 3. Caffein intake [b] 4. Sugar intake [c] 5. NOT exercising regularl…
Why is this so rarely discussed?
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…
On the other hand, people in more industrial countries are exposed to different chemicals (BPA, FPOAs, flame retardants, food additives, etc.), than people in more agrarian countries (field chemicals, like fertilizers and pesticides). These chemicals are all harmful, but it's hard to blame a single class of them for a global problem.
If I had to pick a truly universal issue, I would say childhood and young adult obesity. Surprisingly, obesity is growing rapidly even in countries where hunger is also a problem.