Hacker News Reader

Comment by doodlebugging | Hacker News Reader

I remember a long time ago reading an article in Omni magazine about this very subject - plastic and how studies have shown that it is an endocrine disruptor with unpredictable consequences for people who will consume it by using plastic utensils, drinking cups, dishware, etc and especially by heating plastics in a microwave. They mentioned that many amphibians, considered canary species were being affected by the by-products accumulating in the environment and some were in danger of extinction as a result of them producing more female offspring than male due to the hormonal disruptions.

That would've been back in the early 90's, before 1994, so this is not a new thing at all. I'm pretty sure they mentioned in the article that research had been done for decades prior to the article but that plastics manufacturers were pooh-poohing all the links.

It could also have been Nature, National Geographic, Sierra Club magazine, Cousteau Society magazine, etc since I was a frequent reader of paper materials at the time.

View on HN

This is where the notorious Alex Jones quote comes from: "They're making the friggin' frogs gay!"

Yeah, and it's even worse than that - full feminisation of male frogs.

https://www.nature.com/articles/news021028-7

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0909519107

It's not often that Alex Jones is any where near the right side of things, but he was treated somewhat unfairly in this instance.

I’m guessing we don’t have much research but I’m wondering if these chemicals are largely responsible for gender dysphora.

After reading that article back in the 90's I lobbied the wife hard to get rid of the microwave, replace the tupperware with glass or ceramics, and to stop buying prepared foods in plastic bottles and containers. It took nearly 10 years to get rid of the microwave. The other things were easier since glass, stainless steel, and ceramics are easier to manage in a kitchen anyway. Finding prepared foods in glass bottles like tomato sauce, soups, etc is more difficult but we manage.

What does microwave do?

At the time, my wife was fond of heating food in the microwave and I could never get over the fact that the plastic would sometimes get hot enough to soften signalling to me that there were probably chemicals being released as it got hot. I didn't want those chemicals in my food and I was hoping to have kids later so I wanted to try to avoid the possibility that my kids would grow up eating food microwaved in plastic tubs, possibly poisoning them from infancy.

And, most importantly from my own personal history, I hated microwaves since the first time I saw one in a convenience store. Popping a plastic-wrapped sandwich into one to have a hot lunch or heating some beanie-weenies or Dinty Moore Stew was just gross but I saw people do that all day long like it was great. When Mom finally convinced Dad to buy one back in the 70's she would use it because it supposedly saved time on things like baking potatoes or cooking meat. If you grew up back then you would have learned quickly that there is a huge textural difference between a potato baked in a microwave and one baked in an oven or in coals on a fire. Microwaved potatoes caused me to hate microwaves since the potato was not fluffy at all. It was very dense and chunky and hard to melt butter throughout the potato. Meat was an even worse indictment of the technology since it would come out red and uncooked looking even if it was scorching hot. It prefer steak medium well to well done or with a good smoke ring so I have to see that color difference for it to be edible.

The microwave was a personal decision mostly because I knew that if we got rid of it we would use less plastic since no one would use a plastic container in a conventional oven. Eliminate the microwave and the incentive to keep other plastic kitchen things disappears. That's a win for me.

Huh, I never had a microwave growing up. But I use one fairly regularly now for heating up sauces, reheating leftovers, or frozen foods (either home frozen or store bought). I feel like it’s case of the right tool for the right job.

What about reheating or defrosting food in non-plastic containers? That's pretty much the only thing I use a microwave for.

Before we got rid of ours this was the only use we had for it, reheating foods that were refrigerated or frozen in glass or ceramic containers that were microwave safe.

It's not the microwaves, it's the tendency for people to use microwaves to heat food in plastic containers. Which is probably a bad thing to do, if you're concerned about the potential for chemicals leaching out of the plastic, and are going to consume the food you just heated.

Presumably, encourages cooking in plastic containers and use of plastic wrap for leftovers.

best article I've seen was from NYT a few years back... do a startpage.com search for: new york times plastic microwave plastic hormones

my view credits are up so I can't find the exact one, I feel it may be well explained in this one: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/23/well/chemicals-food-child...

maybe I can check bookmarks on my other system and be more sure.

And yet, even your tomato sauce in the glass jar went through probably hundreds of yards of plastic tubing that leaches phthalates in the factory. It's essentially impossible to get away from this stuff entirely, although I do think you're doing the right thing to reduce your exposure. They've shown that, for example, if you get an IV, you get a big spike of phthalates in your blood from the medical grade tubing.

Now granted, that tubing is brand new and probably leaches more than what's in the tomato sauce factory, but you also don't get an IV every day.

If you want to reduce your exposure to these things say, 50%, you can achieve that with some changes like you've made that aren't too onerous. Going much beyond that though as an individual is extremely difficult because these chemicals are in absolutely everything.

Yes. This is the approach we settled on. Minimize to the best extent possible and don't waste time worrying about things we can't control. Basically just accept that you can't control everything and won't be able to totally eliminate exposure but make the attempt to minimize it as much as possible.

It's a disturbing question - one that's hardly going to get fair and objective consideration in out society.

Neither the right wing nor the left have the ability to be objective enough to look into this without coming to whatever conclusions they intend to reach.

It's a pity, because the implications are of an extinction level crisis impacting not only humanity, but all high order life on earth.

Very true. After reading that article and doing some initial research on the early internet I found a lot of people were worried that this indicator species(?) was signalling that waterways were in trouble, farm runoff was too heavily polluted by herbicides and nitrates and amphibians were disappearing, not just in the US but globally. It was an interesting article about a serious issue and for a short time it was in the news but then it just went away. Except it didn't.

> the implications are of an extinction level crisis impacting not only humanity, but all high order life on earth.

You're right about the politics, but life is far more resilient than you're giving it credit for.

> You're right about the politics, but life is far more resilient than you're giving it credit for.

Life's a house of cards, and we're kicking the pillars - chemicals that have never before existed are interfering with the fundamental chemistry of life on earth.

I have no doubt that in 100-million years there'll be some form of life descended from what's currently around on earth, and it will be staggeringly robust.

But vertebrates? Mammals? I'm not so sure.

Mass extinction events on earth are rare: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event

We're in the sixth that we know of; we caused it - and we're not slowing down.

> Life's a house of cards

Life has picked it self back up after every major extinction level event.

But the dinosaurs didn't.

But their descendants. Chickens! So much so, that with our industrial help, there would be a layer of fossilized chicken bones, for our desendents to discover, if we wouldn't use almost everything from them for other (industrial) purposes. Maybe they'd call it the chicktropozene, or something ;-)

Life in some form is, but life as we know it is not so resilient and we can very easily end up with a massively world which isn't so ideal.

The pesticide atrazine? Because it was atrazine that cause the frog deformities, not BPA. I'm not sure why we're talking about atrazine in an article about the different chemical, BPA. Since atrazine was invented in 1958 and gender dysphoria existed before then, I think your hypothesis is incorrect.

Because reality wouldn't be so perverse as to have multiple endocrine disrupters.

Of course there are, but it seems obvious to me that greater LGBTQ+ acceptance recently has led to people being more open with that side of themselves, rather than it being the result of environmental pollution.

Anyway, the alarm is very selective. I don't see people rapidly reducing their animal product consumption because of dioxin, a potent endocrine disruptor that is bioaccumulating. Atrazine is still used in most US corn production, are all the people concerned about plastic avoiding non-organic corn and corn products?

> Of course there are, but it seems obvious to me that greater LGBTQ+ acceptance recently has led to people being more open with that side of themselves, rather than it being the result of environmental pollution.

Why does that seem obvious to you? Additionally, even if it's true, it may not be the only cause in rise of cases of gender dysphoria. Additionally additionally, it's also possible that some change in our environment has affected the prevalence of "LGBTQ+ acceptance" in the first place.

The West's movement away from an Abrahamic worldview has certainly helped with the acceptability.

There's no doubt that there's an aspect of the expectation of acceptance and safety that makes self-identification more viable (certainly more so than the expectation that your family is about to throw a bunch of rocks at you).

However, that does not mean there's been no change in the underlying rates - it just means that the data is noisy.

We've dealt with noisy data before.

I guess a more succinct way to phrase my question-point is: what if as western liberal humans we've always been accepting of anything as it increases in prevalence and something has cased the prevalence of LGBTQ+ to rise to a point where we naturally accept it more? Just a thought experiment I'm definitely not trying to question all the work activists have done. More-so opening the table and asking what if it's an effect and not a cause. I guess covid may be an obvious counter-example but meh.

If there's a shared cause to both it's industrialisation.

It is the reason we're well fed and well educated - here's where I'd look for the cause of acceptance.

It's also the beast we built to burn the world.

It seems that as more people start to absorb the ideology of gender identity that is being pushed upon society, some who wouldn't have otherwise considered it are applying these concepts to themselves.

Hence the trend of people identifying as 'non-binary' in recent years - it's the logical conclusion of believing that 'man' and 'woman' refer to a collection of gendered stereotypes, rather than a description of one's sex.

There's obvious correlation, but causation? And in particular that it would be obvious which way?

I'm sure I'll regret this comment - I really don't have an axe to grind - I just don't find that 'obvious' at all (however real and fine the feeling itself).

> greater LGBTQ+ acceptance recently has led to people being more open with that side of themselves, rather than it being the result of environmental pollution

That's a very weird implication. All human beings are complex products of social, economical, genetic, environmental and historical factors.

External factors do not make a person "less themselves" or "less real".

I think he's overstating the impact, but external factors absolutely impact how people present themselves.

There aren't to many openly gay Saudi Arabians.

Do you think Saudi Arabia is secretly 20% LGBT, like the US gen-z is openly?

That suspiciously high 20% doesn't just include people who are LGB or identify as T. It originates from a poll commissioned by GLAAD, who also included in that category anyone who described themselves as "gender non-conforming". Which could mean anything really: clothing styles, haircuts, hobbies, etc.

But there's been an unnatural rise in instances of alleged gender dysphoria. I have no idea about any of the facts surrounding this issue, just wanted to point out that some X simply existing prior to a point in time when something else Y was introduced to the environment does not mean that Y cannot have any effect on the rate of instance of X.

Edit: I don't mean unnatural in a bad way. I mean it like something has caused the previous rate to change in a noticeable way that warrants studying. s/unnatural/noticeable

That's what I would think, but actually it's just that gay rights have improved, and trans people are just asking to be heard too.

It's a social awakening, it's not linked to chemicals.

How can you know its not both? What we are seeing is some chemicals are clearly disrupting hormones and its something we have tested pretty well in other animals. At the minimum I don't think that we can rule out new chemicals as a part. It also seems likely that gender dysphoria and sexuality are very different things that can't be reasoned about the same way.

Some sexologists do consider this to be related to sexuality. For example, Anne Lawrence, who has considerable expertise with gender dysphoria, has noted that in many cases it appears to be a type of 'erotic target identity inversion', in which the subject of sexual desire is oneself in a different physical form - in this case, the opposite sex.

It can be both (it almost certainly is).

And as for the social awakening, acceptance is one thing (marriage and rights were a long time coming) - denial of reality for the sake of people's feelings is quite another.

100% of all LGBTQ+ people have some form of a fertility disorder.

I'm not saying that to be cruel or unkind - but if the gametes don't meet, there can be no zygote.

At an individual level it does not matter to me in the least - but when it comes to the question of universal fertility it's a different matter.

> 100% of all LGBTQ+ people have some form of a fertility disorder.

> I'm not saying that to be cruel or unkind - but if the gametes don't meet, there can be no zygote.

gametes can easily meet in BTQ+ relationships. L&G, too, especially if there is T involved.

cis-cis L & G relationships aren't the whole of the LGBTQ+ space.

> L&G, too, especially if there is T involved.

If T is involved, e.g. a woman being impregnated by a trans-identifying male, then that would be a heterosexual pairing, not a homosexual one.

Even if we accept that your use of language may in some sense be legitimate, it's not accurate as far as the term LGBTQ+ that you borrowed is defined, so it doesn't matter.

It matters to people who are actually lesbian or gay, as an accurate definition of our sexuality.

I mean, just have a look at this article, it explains exactly what happens when heterosexuals start identifying into homosexuality https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-57853385.

Sure, but depending on the T the delivery/reception mechanism can be somewhat functionally compromised.

I would appreciate some source for this

Why is it an "unnatural" rise? How do we distinguish it from a natural rise?

We can't. That's why its such a difficult thing to study let alone the political issues of such a study. It seems almost obvious that some rise is a rise in reporting but its not possible to rule out other factors either. And these other factors seem pretty likely considering we can observe them in tests on other animals.

Because to the extent that it's induced by chemicals that have never naturally existed, it's unnatural?

There's been a rise in autism during the same period, some people chalk that up to increased diagnosis but pollution is a very reasonable hypothesis as well.

Multiple issues here:

> I'm not sure why we're talking about atrazine in an article about the different chemical, BPA.

It wasn't a top-level comment, further down the comment tree the subject can diverge - I responded to a comment about Alex Jones, not the specific endocrine disrupter in the article.

> ... invented in 1958 and gender dysphoria existed before then, I think your hypothesis is incorrect.

This doesn't logically follow the comment it replied to, the parent comment in no way claimed that endocrine disruption was entirely responsible for sex dysphoria, but wondered whether it was "largely responsible".

Probably true to some extent though from what I have read of his trials and his programs he evidently has no problem just telling a story that is not based on facts at all just to see how much of a rise he can get from his audience. He just apparently used facts in this case.

The more discerning question to ask is:

In that video, Alex Jones was quoting (in his own, 'passionate' way) a study that linked Atrazine (a widely used herbicide) to hormonal disturbances[0]. Mainstream media had access to the same study. Why was he the only one (besides niche, specialized publications) talking about it, or the numerous studies like it, including some in humans? Why were the media, governments, and celebrities, who often promote issues ranging from important to frivolous[1], silent on this? Where were the reproductive rights groups, on this issue that relates directly to people's rights not to have their fertility attacked by Big Agro lobby groups? Why was Alex Jones directly attacked, quite aggressively, and even denounced as "anti-LGBT" [2] for his video? One can argue it's because of his "style", but why did the media universally denounce it as a "dangerous conspiracy theory" instead of simply covering the issue more dispassionately?

Was the US National Academy of Sciences targeted with these same labels when it published[3] the original study? No need to; there was no way a scientific paper itself would go viral. But coverage of it was suppressed. Why?

Cue 2021: "Reproductive Problems in Both Men and Women Are Rising at an Alarming Rate", Scientific American[4]. Oh, really?

Note: do not mistake this commment for a plaudit of Alex Jones. It is a study in narrative control.

[0]: Study: Atrazine induces complete feminization and chemical castration in male African clawed frogs (Xenopus laevis) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2842049/

[1]: just today, the White House released a memorandum highlighting the issue of "women and LGBTQI+ political leaders, public figures, activists, and journalists" who are "survivors" of online harassment https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-action...

[2]: Find in Page -> "frog" https://www.glaad.org/blog/glaad-releases-background-informa...

[3]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2842049/

[4]: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/reproductive-prob...

But is it permanent? I'm sure some chemicals can undo the fear & anxiety.

As our knowledge increases we invent new ways to decrease the population.

Knowledge is power.

Your [3] reference is not the original study. Some of the original studies were late 80's, early 90's and were discussed in the media even on the nightly news. They were printed in magazines that people at the time subscribed to. The discussion about the issue died down and was later resurrected by those who published that article.

The original time period when this was in the news would be 1995-1998 since I know where I worked at the time.

I don't know why it did not stick in the public's consciousness back in the 90's. I do know that it faded from the news stream over time only to be resurrected years later when the issues that were highlighted had affected a much larger number of people.

> he was treated somewhat unfairly

It could be the toddler-like way he beat his hands on the table shortly after. I get that belief shouldn't entirely be founded on reputation, but here we have a man that tries as hard as possible to be an absolute character. Everything about him screams "satire" on the level that Borat also does.

It's not often that Alex Jones is any where near the right side of things

I apologize in advance, but I laughed hard at that statement. It's not often that Alex Jones is anywhere near the left side of things either ;)

I knew someone would mention this and almost didn't make that post, but it definitely is true that this is not a new area of study. He is basing some of his wild bullshit on reality. I don't listen to him so I don't know how much but when I first heard the gay frogs stuff I just thought that this was a known issue and couldn't figure why anyone would be highlighting it. I guess if your audience is that group of people who have never picked up a magazine or cared about science then it is pretty easy to find things to excite them about.

Sadly his comments didn't help, he's talking about a serious issue with science backed evidence. Comments like his cause the issue to be taken less lightly.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com