The Disappearing Male [video] | Hacker News Reader

The Disappearing Male [video]

video.google.com

48 pointsAlex391750 comments

Video description:

The Disappearing Male is a CBC documentary about one of the most important, and least publicized, issues facing the human species: the toxic threat to the male reproductive system. The last few decades have seen steady and dramatic increases in the incidence of boys and young men suffering from genital deformities, low sperm count, sperm abnormalities and testicular cancer. At the same time, boys are now far more at risk of suffering from ADHD, autism, Tourette's syndrome, cerebral palsy, and dyslexia. The Disappearing Male takes a close and disturbing look at what many doctors and researchers now suspect are responsible for many of these problems: a class of common chemicals that are ubiquitous in our world. Found in everything from shampoo, sunglasses, meat and dairy products, carpet, cosmetics and baby bottles, they are called "hormone mimicking" or "endocrine disrupting" chemicals and they may be starting to damage the most basic building blocks of human development

Are there any peer-reviewed, properly controlled studies used to back up their assertions?

I could watch the video and track the references on my own. However, doing so for every new consumer scare would be a full-time job.

By the way, I'm still happily using a cell phone and brain tumor free. I'm hoping to live a long life if avian influenza doesn't get me. Long enough to see the end of my species by catastrophic global warming, which is unstoppable if we don't act drastically and soon, according to some folks with fancy degrees. I figure I am pretty lucky - I got vaccinated as a child but managed to avoid autism - so maybe I'll even get to be the last person left. I am so hardy, I have even been exposed to second-hand smoke and managed to survive. So yeah, I'll probably make it.

Anything you guys want me to do when I'm the last man on the planet?

Judging by my lifestyle, I'll be dead before any of those issues can kill me. So, basically, I'm impervious to this destruction!

You might sing a different tune if you have children...

Bulverism is not a valid form of argument. I would likely sing a different tune were I currently on fire, so I fail to see your point.

Hmm, I've never heard of the term Bulverism before. Interesting.

Based on the definition on Wikipedia, I'm not sure my statement qualifies as Bulverism. The definition says that I assume your statement is wrong. What I did was state that if a certain condition exists, you might have a different opinion, which is to say that I assume your current statement is correct. If I misunderstood the meaning of Bulverism, please let me know.

Perhaps phrasing your original comment differently would help clarify:

"That's because you don't have children"

You haven't actually proven me wrong in any sense, you've just presented an alternate reality where I would be wrong, which you've framed as an argument against what I initially said. This assumes I am wrong, otherwise you would have agreed with me because there's no logic in presenting a rebuttal to an argument based on nonexistent data (hence the "logical fallacy" part).

The phrase "If you had children..." is always either a case of Bulverism or simple platitude; irrelevant either way. And given the number of times I've heard it, we should probably all be glad I don't have children ;)

My thought process was as follows: You used the word "impervious," which made me think about both physical and mental susceptibility to those issues. If you died before those issues could kill you, then indeed you would be impervious. However, if you had children, then your concern for them could make you vulnerable to the effects of those issues.

That's why I don't really feel that my statement fits the definition of Bulverism. I had no intention of proving you wrong, nor did I assume you were wrong. After all, who knows how you felt about the subject better than you? Because of that, there was really no point in agreeing with you, unless I thought you were lying, and since I don't know you, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. =)

Doing further research, I found the following statement on Bulverism: "The Bulverist’s thought is that if a person’s convictions can be fully explained as a result of non-rational factors then we need not bother about those convictions." Now I consider both the childless and child-laden conclusions to be very rational, though you're probably right in that it's a platitude, I don't hang out with child-laden people often enough. =)

doing so for every new consumer scare would be a full-time job

It's been around for at least 10 years...I was concerned about warming plastic baby bottles.

I read a book that devoted a chapter to this topic not too long ago called Exposed by Mark Schapiro. The end of the book had dozens of pages of reference citations. I think you could find the documents you are looking for by checking it out.

Anyway, this sort of stuff has been under review in Europe since the late 90s so it's not a "new consumer scare". The EU passed a temporary ban on certain plastic additives there just before 2000 and have made it a permanent ban in 2005. Old news link-> http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_20050706/ai_...

The EU doesn't need good reasons to ban something. It is every bit as political as any other democratic body.

For example, see their ban on GM foods.

I didn't make an assertion one way or another about it being a good reason or a bad reason. I was simply pointing out that it's old.

As for resources, perhaps you can find a peer reviewed study in one of these sites.

This site has pro-phthalate information -> http://www.phthalates.org/

This site has anti-phthalate information under the Chapter 3 section-> http://centerforinvestigativereporting.org/articles/exposeds...

Found this post off reddit:

Don't be so quick to condemn "unnatural, synthetic" chemicals. Some of the biggest troublemakers are plant estrogen that is sprayed on crops to increase plant yields. This has been known, studied and re-studied since the 1960s. Here's the science:

About halfway through gestation, a male fetus emits a small amount of testosterone that travels from its testes to its brain. This tells it that it is a "male" brain. If it does not get that bit of hormone, the brain remains "female", by default. Importantly, while in animals this may determine mating behavior, it DOES NOT DO SO IN HUMANS. So please set aside any ideas about homosexuality, which is much more complicated than this.

If during early pregnancy, the mother either uptakes a chemical that blocks this transfer, interferes with this transfer, significantly increases the amount of estrogen in her body (usually from eating Tofu), or increases the tiny amount of natural testosterone in her body (from other chemicals), it interferes with the process.

While again, this will not determine sexual attraction, it will play some considerable part in the secondary sexual characteristics of the offspring. Either androgyny, more feminine males, or more masculine females.

When this was first discovered in the 1960s, they evaluated the gamut of variations, even putting testosterone in just half the brain, but not the other half, which resulted in both male and female mating behavior, the animal, but not human, version of bisexuality.

To conclude, once again, humans are a lot more complicated. But this is a serious problem.

"Don't be so quick to condemn 'unnatural, synthetic' chemicals."

Completely wrong. Phthalates and bpa have already been proven harmful. Certainly there are other chemicals that mimick estrogens as well, but saying we shouldn't condemn bpa and phthalates is ridiculous.

His point is that the problem with Phthalates and bpa is not that they are "unnatural and synthetic" but rather that they are bad for you. They'd be just as bad if they were natural.

Ahh I see now, thanks for pointing that out.

Proven is a very strong word. Care to state your proof?

"I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of this, which this margin is too narrow to contain"

Unfortunately my friend took down her blog with links to all the studies, so I don't have my original sources. But if you google phthalates estrogenic there are a bunch of studies confirming the premise.

Also, it's been proven to bioaccumulate in humans, which, given that it hasn't been proven safe, should be considered a harm in and of itself.

No offense, but I'm inclined to be skeptical about a comment on a social news site by some random person who is (ostensibly) reposting a comment from another social news site by another random person that purports to be explaining research of a complicated biological process, all without citing any references or linking to any sources.

None taken. I should have put a disclaimer that you need to do your own research, but the comment was a pretty decent signal through a bunch of noise.

> usually from eating Tofu

Evidence?

You just keep chowing down on your steak burgers and corn derivatives mate and we'll measure the differential in results in about 20 years OK? Tofu seems to work fine for the Japanese.

It has been argued that we are actually getting more soy than the Japanese, now, due to soy additives in all kinds of processed foods that aren't very tofu like at all. It has also been suggested that fermented soy (like Japanese miso) is different in its effects.

I know, I know, no citations, but at least wanted to put forth the arguments I've heard as to why the soy the average American is getting is worse and in greater quantities than the average Japanese.

So now you have moved your position from tofu to soy in general and you still don't even present the slightest hint of evidence. You simply say "you've heard arguments". I'm guessing you weren't so concerned over trifles like evidence when you were hearing these arguments. Very insightfull.

Uh, I'm not the one who made the original point about tofu. You should be more careful about paying attention to who made what arguments when replying.

I'm not sure what utility you see in pointing out that I did not present any evidence when I plainly said myself that I am not presenting any evidence.

OK fair enough. I did think you were the same person. However like the first post your post does tend to perpetuate a meme that exists in the absence of evidence or common sense. Without any evidence it falls into the same category as 'Obama is an Ayrab' and for further propagating it you deserve criticism.

They're not putting things into the proper context: Sure, these chemicals probably are threats to human well-being, and figuring out how to remove them from our environment is worthwhile. However, the 20th century saw an unprecedented increase in life expectancy and quality of life, two great wars and god knows how many chemicals notwithstanding. I doubt many -- even those inflicted with the abnormalities mentioned in this documentary -- would choose to live in the world before synthetic materials were available, in 1908, say.

Also, it's totally one-sided and they lose a lot of credibility with the sensationalist tone of the piece -- ominous music, tableaux of helpless children next to deadly chemicals, mentions of human extinction... Please.

I doubt many -- even those inflicted with the abnormalities mentioned in this documentary -- would choose to live in the world before synthetic materials were available, in 1908, say.

We could make everything out of straw. Including men.

This isn't a straw man. It was open speculation (I doubt...) on my part. I wasn't attempting to misrepresent their argument, but making the point that the presentation is completely unbalanced. They make vague reference to modern day synthetics being 'convenient'. It would be like denouncing medicine for its side-effects and high cost while barely alluding to the fact that it saves lives.

Can someone just summarize what compounds are thought to be responsible?

http://www.cbc.ca/documentaries/doczone/2008/disappearingmal...

Bisphenol A (found mostly in hard colored plastics) is becoming particularly non grata (update: in Canada) these days.

Edit: according to the article it's also "the de facto lining used in food cans". Wow.

"Bisphenol A (found mostly in hard colored plastics) is becoming particularly non grata these days."

Not in the United States.

Funny, my comment originally said something about Canada and I cut it out for brevity. I'll add it back. (Actually, it's not funny at all. The industry's argument appears to be: "But if we don't poison people, how will we make all those shiny plastic bottles?" With the fallback position: "How about if we just don't poison babies? Will that do?")

Some food storage containers, water bottles, and the like are advertising "BPA-free."

Sounds like the probem is stuff made out of plastic. Is that a reasonable summary?

I have the impression it's some plastics but not all. A rule of thumb many people up here use is to avoid plastics with recycling number 6 (polystyrene) or 7 (polycarbonate). These are said to be the worst.

Alex, does the film contain specific recommendations to consumers? (Normally I hate using the word "consumer" to mean "citizen" but in this case it could hardly be more accurate.)

I didn't watch the last few min of the film, but here is a good list of things to avoid:

http://www.sailhome.org/Concerns/BodyBurden/Burdens/Phthalat...

Realistically it will be impossible to completely avoid the stuff until it's made illegal.

Given that the list includes water, I'd have to agree!

From what I could tell in the video, bisphenol a's a petroleum derivative that is used to harden polycarbonates. The other one, pthalates (also a petroleum derivative) is used to soften PVC. So technically, not made out of plastic, but used to make plastic.

Edit: Realized I misread your comment. Yes, the problem is with some plastic products, which use these chemicals (but not all, since the video mentioned that one hospital using safe plastic products).

Somewhat--but phthalates are also in cosmetics, carpeting, deodorants, and many other household items.

You left out phthalates, which are also in plastics, but are not the same thing as BPA.

Phthalates and bpa.

Didn't watch the video, but I have also heard bad things about soy, which is also in a lot of processed food.

Yes, soy protein isoflavones are phytoestrogens. Males should limit soy consumption.

Phthalates, which are in products made of PVC plastics (like the pipes) which includes childrens toys but are also found in tons of other things like cosmetics, deodorants, and fragranced products.

Bisphenol A (BPA) is the other major offender. Many companies are at least removing from baby bottles and teethers now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisphenol_A

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phthalate

Why would infertility in males result in fewer males? Since reproduction requires both, wouldn't it result in fewer males and females (assuming otherwise constant rate of reproduction)? I can't think of any evolutionary explanation.

Males have only one copy of the X chromosome, which makes them more fragile. Not sure if this is the mechanism proposed, but if male fetuses do not make it to term due to environmental insults, there would be fewer males in a given population.

Yeah, I think that's one of the real reasons, but at the beginning they imply it has something to do with males becoming more infertile, which makes no sense.

WHy couldn't this have happened sooner? I would have preferred to be born into a world with at least a 2:1 girl:guy ratio.

Umm... The other half of the issue is not only increased male fetus mortality, but also birth defects, like smaller genitalia and deformities thereof. So, yeah, the odds are better, but you have no dick.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com