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

101–110 of 166 posts

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

#101

Post by stuckinhell »

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…

That's a bit misleading. One of the major issues is that we have a food chain, in which these chemicals can become concentrated and yes at higher concentrations it would feminize men, or earlier puberty in young girls.

At the same time, we have radical increases in transgendered humans, and earlier puberty in young girls worldwide. Correlation isn't causation, but its often a place to start running experiments looking at causation.

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

#102

Post by zackmorris »

oceanplexian wrote: post #35
marricks wrote: post #23

Apparently everyone is downvoting everything they can because this is a sensitive topic. I'd just like to call out, where feminization is a major concern (US, maybe Europe), there is less than 1ng/L of this compound in water, see elsewhere on this thread for the graphic. The lowest dose of EE2 for trans-women is 2mg a day orally. That means whatever the dosage is in the US it's less than 1/10th* of what trans folk fi…

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...

Maybe most particles are too large to cross the intestinal lining, but can they prove that's still the case with "leaky gut" which a large number of people in the US are susceptible to due to the missing fiber in our diet? What about worse inflammation like IBS, IBD, Crohn's disease and diverticulitis?

https://nypost.com/2021/12/23/irritable-bowel-syndrome-linke...

We eat a credit card's worth of microplastic every week, mostly coming from our water supply apparently. This is the kind of news whose implications are so serious that it's much easier to just ignore it!

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

#103

Post by stuckinhell »

marricks wrote: post #27
georgia_peach wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ideology doesn't factor into this. There is something in the water that shouldn't be there, and someone put it there---largely without permission. And what constitutes a "low dose" frequently changes by several orders of magnitude depending on who does the study, and who paid for the study.

I agree! I explicitly state that I don't think random pollutants are good in that comment and there could be other reasons to care about it. I'm merely calling out that the thing most people freak out about with this compound (feminization) is not worth freaking out about .

Something in the water, that doesn't belong there, is worth freaking out about. I don't think you can decide what people decide is important to them.

I'm a woman, and I still don't want it in the water. I certainly don't want my daughter getting hormone imbalances or early irregular puberty either.

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

#104

Post by sudosysgen »

baldisbasics wrote: post #94
zackmorris wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's interesting, which part of the US is it, and does anyone have hard evidence of that trend? Only one datapoint, but: the outer half of my eyebrows fell out in 2018 just before my digestive issues flared up and I burned out in the spring of 2019. I wondered if maybe radiation from Fukushima affected my thyroid, since radiation levels in southern Idaho were 80 times normal before they quit reporting them. I've si…

It was everyone I know in Indiana and South Carolina, so it appears to have been wide spread. Some were spared, but this was notably pre-COVID. I wouldn't be surprised if it isn't directly the chemical mentioned in this study, but a multifactor issue. My key point is that out hunch was "what could be leaking into the water or food supply to cause this?" I always leaned more toward the microplastic theory, but that br…

Another, big reason why hairloss products are aimed at young men is that the current crop of hairloss treatments are drastically more effective if you take them before you undergo any hair loss.

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

#105

Post by stuckinhell »

lazzlazzlazz wrote: post #95
marricks wrote: post #23

Apparently everyone is downvoting everything they can because this is a sensitive topic. I'd just like to call out, where feminization is a major concern (US, maybe Europe), there is less than 1ng/L of this compound in water, see elsewhere on this thread for the graphic. The lowest dose of EE2 for trans-women is 2mg a day orally. That means whatever the dosage is in the US it's less than 1/10th* of what trans folk fi…

If just drinking water gives you 10% of the dose that a trans person would seek medically, that seems like an incredibly high amount. Your post seems to reinforce concerns, not dissolve them.

I agree here. It bothers me to see people try to defend a contaminant in the water supply.

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

#106

Post by jackmott »

baldisbasics wrote: post #38

I swear, everyone in my part of the US had massive hair shedding around 2018 or so (man and woman, young and old). We speculated at the time that maybe something in the water supply was causing everyone to lose hair in clumps, and by golly this appears to match with our pet theories.

No post body was provided.

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

#107

Post by bergenty »

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #16
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…

I think it's also worth bearing in mind that œstradiol is not some exclusively “female” hormone: cis men have it in their blood too, just at a lower concentration. In fact, without it, males are infertile!

Sure but when you’re talking about order of magnitude differences there is a clear delineation and the fear is not unwarranted.

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

#108

Post by baldisbasics »

sudosysgen wrote: post #104
baldisbasics wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was everyone I know in Indiana and South Carolina, so it appears to have been wide spread. Some were spared, but this was notably pre-COVID. I wouldn't be surprised if it isn't directly the chemical mentioned in this study, but a multifactor issue. My key point is that out hunch was "what could be leaking into the water or food supply to cause this?" I always leaned more toward the microplastic theory, but that br…

Another, big reason why hairloss products are aimed at young men is that the current crop of hairloss treatments are drastically more effective if you take them before you undergo any hair loss.

True, but these youth campaigns only started recently. I guarantee you that a rogaine advertisement from the 90s to the 2000s will feature middle aged actors and a narrator with a robust voice.

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

#109

Post by zdkl »

DoingIsLearning wrote: post #68
formerly_proven wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Female fish are generally bigger than male fish and caviar can only be harvested from females.

The example source in the paper is in Malaysia which I think is a bit too warm for sturgeon.

The same process can be applied to many species of fish. I highly recommend finding some Poutargue or Tarama for alternative examples.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bottarga https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taramasalata

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

#110

Post by panarky »

pure_simplicity wrote: post #13
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…

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.

Post reply on HN