Hacker News Reader

Comment by jonex | Hacker News Reader

What are the poisons of today that we allow?

I general, from what I've gathered, we have been replacing substances that accumulates in nature with substances that breaks down over time. So for instance, we still do allow ozone but also watch the levels to ensure they aren't too high.

I know there are issues with a lot of medication as it goes out in the sewage and there's still a big question mark on the safety of some modern materials such as nano particles. However, the overall the feeling I get is that the awareness of the dangers with allowing use of poisonous substances is a lot higher today than before. I'm interested in hearing about the exceptions.

View on HN

Read up on BPA, drinking from plastic bottles and other endocrine disruptors we still allow in our food supply. As a side note, a lot of people think more quantity = more poisonous. This is not always the case as a small amount can mimic a hormone wrecking our hormone levels over time.

BPA and other xenoestrogens scare me the most. Men's sperm counts have gone down 50% in the last 30 years, nobody knows why, but the estrogens in our products/water/air aren't out of the question.

It's scary how little it scares everyone else.

With an ever expanding world population, possibly on the verge of unsustainable, would a plummeting birth rate necessary be a bad thing? Sure it would mean redesigning how we see the world (the retirement and economic models), but we can either tackle it now or when it's forced upon us.

Well if the only effect was a plummeting birth rate, then maybe it wouldn't be bad, but it's also been testosterone levels that have dropped considerably[1], which according to that site "[decreased testosterone] is often associated with diabetes, abdominal obesity, sexual dysfunction, depression and other adverse conditions."

There have also been increases in those who identify as LGBT[2]. Such massive increases in younger generations can't be explained away by cultural changes IMO. I don't think it's a coincidence that at the same time that exposure to hormonal disruptors has increased, changes in gender and drops in testosterone have been found.

[1] https://www.healio.com/endocrinology/hormone-therapy/news/pr...

[2] http://news.gallup.com/poll/201731/lgbt-identification-rises...

Though this topic is incredibly sensitive, it needs to be considered. On a somewhat related note, boys who are prenatally exposed DES (a strong estrogen) while pregnant are significantly more likely to be transgender.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diethylstilbestrol [See Des Sons]

Are you sure it couldn't be explained by cultural changes? Perhaps the numbers were always there, but higher cultural tolerance has simply brought more out of the closet? At the very least I would expect that to be a contributing factor.

I remember reading about how the increase in mental illness could just be that we are better at diagnosing and recognizing them (and lazy doctors who would rather just prescribe something for your "depression").

No I'm not sure, nor is anyone. But having 1.4% of boomers and 7.3% of millennials identifying as LGBT is a _massive_ difference. Homosexuality is something that by all indications causes incredible mental anguish by suppressing, and from what we understand doesn't really change over a lifetime. Wouldn't we see a massively large number of older people coming out of the closet? Would it really be surprising if endocrine disruptors could have such a massive impact?

I'm not married to either reason, but I'm just feeling very skeptical about your assumption.

A) I don't think we would see a massive number of older people coming out of the closet, because this culture change is generational. Most of your peers aren't going to change their minds just because a younger generation is more tolerant. It's the same reason my 100 year old (really!) grandmother may still use the occasional racial slur. I definitely think there's more peer friction for an older LBGT individual than a younger one.

B) I don't think these numbers are actually out of line with the impact of cultural change.

C) Base on your linked datas, religion may also be a factor. Given that religion is on the decline in the US, especially among millennials, I wouldn't rule that out as a factor either.

It's probably a combination of factors as usual, and maybe endocrine disruptors is one of them.

My understanding is that medically speaking, increasing your testosterone levels is something you can do fairly easy, compared, say, to dealing with the cognitive impairment caused by heavy metal poisoning.

>Men's sperm counts have gone down 50% in the last 30 years, nobody knows why, but the estrogens in our products/water/air aren't out of the question.

I... guess I don't really see this as nearly as scary as "impaired mental development in children" or "increased cancer rates for everyone" - I mean, sure, if you can't have children after medical intervention, that's a problem; but I'm not sure that requiring medical intervention to have a child is in and of itself a particularly bad thing. it's not something you want to do by accident, and raising a child is incredibly expensive; adding a bit to the up-front cost seems a lot less scary than adding to the costs down the line (I mean, through the development problems caused by lead.)

Also we vastly increased our intake of things like high-fructose corn syrup and sitting on our asses all day leading to "metabolic syndrome", which might play a role.

https://newrepublic.com/article/86339/toxins-plastic-shampoo... is interesting.

Thanks for sharing, this should be required reading.

You're kind to say that, but I literally just meant it was interesting. I don't know how reliable it is. I search for things debunking the endocrine disruptor claim and found it, and it didn't ring any credibility alarm bells.

long-chain perfluorinated chemicals (C8 , involved in the production of teflon) see https://theintercept.com/2015/08/11/dupont-chemistry-decepti...

Nictonoides in general (pesticides) are poisons, which we don't ingest directly but still spew in the environment.

A poison we monitor and accumulates in the environment but don't regulate to the level it deserve given the damage it causes is of course CO2, as well as the other greenhouse gases (SO2, NOx etc... as produced by ships and planes).

It's inaccurate and misleading to call CO2 a poison in the context of climate change. Yes, it's a poison at high concentrations (as is just about everything), but the concentration required to cause climate change is way lower.

In the case of exhaust fumes in particular: Nitrogen oxides.

Though to be fair, the latest EU standards demand diesels have ‘Ad blu’ tanks that add Urea to the catalytic converts, mitigating most NOx emissions. So at least we are doing something about it.

But it’s no good when manufacturers program their cars to inject too little urea, or turn urea injection off on the highway, etc.

Sugar.

Time will tell, but maybe microplastic. WHO just started a review on the topic: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/mar/15/micropla...

Mercury: Dental amalgams (aka silver fillings) Pesticides and herbicides

Probably most common in food industry now: palm oil.

Nanoparticles of soot, magnetite, and other industrial atmospheric pollutants.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/09/industrial-air-pollu...

We already accept the impact of millions a year dying as a result of industrial pollution, especially from burning coal; we mostly shrug and move on.

VOC’s, microplastic, nanoparticles such as TiO2, a lot of the crap in cosmetics, and probably a lot more.

>We already accept the impact of millions a year dying as a result of industrial pollution...

We accept them because the mainstream narrative does not make a big issue of it. On the other side, we make a big deal when there is a measles death, calling for death of anti-vaxxers, because the mainstream narrative suggests so...

In other words, the public, including the people here. is a bunch of morons who won't jump away from the path of a slow moving road roller, unless the mainstream narrative tells us to do so...

As for who decides the main stream narrative, I would say the ones with the most resources...

Industrialization has many positive aspects. Its byproducts may lead to some deaths, but they also lead to saved or longer lives for many. There is a decent chance that the positives outweigh the negatives.

Measles...it's hard to make a case that the benefits of getting measles outweigh anything.

This is my viewpoint as well, with the additional though that where we can reduce the negative impacts of industrialization, we should. We can definitely do much more to reduce pollution, without giving up the advantages of industry.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com