Estimated concentrations of atrazine in agricultural groundwater
water.usgs.gov
water.usgs.gov
I've seen far too many of his talks and interviews on youtube to recall which ones had him speaking about it himself, but here is his wife:
> "Tyrone was asked to be on a scientific panel to review the evidence about atrazine. When he discovered these results and reported it to them, they asked him to do some additional work to make sure that these things were really accurate. So he did some additional work and then they wanted him to do more and more and more and this is where Syngenta said basically we can fund you for a really long time if you'll just keep repeating this. It could have been very easy just to take all the money they were offering and be set for life. It would have been like an endowment for life for him, for research." (https://www.newyorker.com/video/watch/the-new-yorker-present...)
https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/atra...
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:...
Who banned what first isn't a really salient point since each respective governing body has their own criteria and methodology.
As a rule of thumb, the US just operates differently - spending much more effort on testing and inspection and labeling on the final product - whereas Europe has stricter, more precautionary scrutiny of ingredients, but operates with less oversight. (If you can remember the horse meat fiasco in Europe a decade ago, something like that could have never happened in the US.)
There are also some counter examples like Chlorpyrifos which is banned in the US but not the EU.
Someone can claim atrazine is in food and that's bad, while the system thinks that's fine. Then you can't cite a source that considers atrazine in food to be fine, to prove the food is actually fine.
Countries with a high measure of security aren't likely to quickly go hungry in the event of a neighbouring war, etc.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2017-01/documents/pe...
That's the key element to effective conspiracy theories. A thread of truth, exaggerated, twisted and manipulated for maximum virality. Debunkers are met with links like the one you provided, and that's typically enough to discourage further debate because the truth is boring and a lot of hard work. And who wants to spend time trying to debunk when the believers don't want the truth!
Which actually has the ultimate effect of blunting change rather than fostering it.
It makes frogs that would otherwise develop as male become female or intersex instead.
"The resulting larvae were all male when raised to metamorphosis and sampled (n = 100), confirming that atrazine-induced females were, in fact, chromosomal males. Furthermore, atrazine-induced females lacked the DM-W further confirming that these atrazine-induced females were indeed chromosomal males (Fig. 2). These ZZ females expressed gonadal aromatase, as did true ZW females (n = 4, from our stock colony), but ZZ males (n = 8, control or treated) did not"
The frogs ARE genetically male. They are female (or neither) as a result of development.
So, can we get started now blaming the farmers for wokeness?
Only humans can "self-identify". True whether you think this is good or bad.
Farmers are to blame for sex changes in frogs. There may be other effects, but we do not know. It may well be harmful to humans: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atrazine#Mammals
Personally I also think something shown to have such effects on wildlife should be banned, and definitely should not be in our food. It is banned in some countries.
Other animals that observably have language and culture may have social identities that include how they feel about themselves as well. Perhaps.
But at any rate, I’m relatively sure frogs are not a part of that potential group lol.
Frogs are a bit smarter than I used to give them credit for, though.
I live on the edge of a jungle, and I’ve had to transport frogs out of my house. First 20 meters, came back. (The frog in question had an identifiable scar or deformity)
Then 100 meters.
Then 250 meters to a nearby stream…. Back in my sink within a week lol.
If you block that process, you’d wind up with an XY female.
We're talking about a person with a uterus, vulva, vagina, etc. But without the widening of hips or development of breasts that happen in most women. No penis, no scrotum, no vas deferens, no testosterone. Nothing you would find in the majority of men.
The only thing they have are testes and the testes present in these individuals are basically inert. They're usually removed because they're more likely to develop testicular cancer.
With hormone therapy, they will develop the secondary sex characteristics of women.
But the overall point here is that atrazine would need to be administered in utero to have the effects claimed by Alex Jones. Frogs reproduce externally. They lay eggs that are then fertilized. These eggs can be contaminated with surface atrazine which would then affect their development as described earlier.
Note: the claim was “they’re turning the frogs gay!!” which is quite inaccurate in several aspects (who’s “they?”). The general thrust is correct, however.
It's in there, among all the other shouting.
Look up Lyndon LaRouche, or hell Mussolini & Hitler. They start from what seems like legitimate concerns and often from what seems like a pro working class agenda, but ultimately the purpose is more power to the Market and more power to people themselves or people like themselves, and usually there's this huge socially regressive aspect to it especially attacking minorities, huge amounts of anti-Semitism, yada yada yada
Hitler has a whole part of Mein Kampf where he talks about a communist trade union protest and how his explicit goal is to capture that same anti-establishment anger and form of organizing but direct it in the service of the Nation and the Leader. Hence keeping around the "socialist" symbolism in the NAZI name and symbolism long after they murdered any actual "socialists" in the party.
Two can be true. Atrazine can be bad, and Alex Jones claims about it can be outrageous unfounded conspiracy theories.
Alex and the circa 2010 Occupy Wall Street crowd have a lot more in common with each other than the "other side", which would be the warmongering "Neocons". But this might be more than some will want to contend with cognitively. Easier to bamboozle someone than tell them they have been bamboozled, and all that.
Edit: to the people talking about RFK Jr., he's not going to be running the EPA; anti-regulation crusader and laissez-faire fan Lee Zeldin will be.[4]
[0]https://biologicaldiversity.org/w/news/press-releases/trumps...
[1]https://biologicaldiversity.org/w/news/press-releases/trump-...
[2]https://www.eenews.net/articles/epa-tightens-limit-on-popula...
[3]https://www.sej.org/headlines/biden-proposes-raising-accepta...
[4]https://www.eenews.net/articles/meet-the-great-deregulator-t...
The org chart is always just a suggestion.
RFK has demonstrated repeatedly that he has absolutely no principles whatsoever, and he'll sell out if a soft breeze passes by. If the agribusiness sector tells Trump that banning this chemical will cost them 10% of their profits, Trump will tell RFK to get in line, and he'll give a slight whimper as he does so.
The game of politics makes enemies one day become allies the next. If you want real progress on an agenda, being dogmatic generally isn't the best way to accomplish it (imo).
The GOP couldn't even form a coalition with itself, you saw a lot of people within the GOP who wouldn't endorse their candidate (the most stark example being the former VP). The democratic nominee coalition built to a fault. Many point to exactly this, and the failure to scorch the opposition to the degree warranted, as the reason for the loss.
RFK is your garden variety opportunist grifter, as are the entire confederacy of scammers and dunces (no offense, this is strictly a factual assessment) who are now on their way to positions of power based purely on their loyalty.
Trump Republicans very much dislike Liz Cheney for being completely against Trump during J6 investigations, and recent news implicates Liz Cheney in having tampered with lawyer relations for one the J6 testifiers [1,2]. Right-leaning commentary during the J6 investigations considered them sham investigations with the Republicans on the J6 committee often called RINOs (Republicans In Name Only), as those Republicans were anti-Trump.
This is the perspective that makes the Chenys supporting Democrats seem ridiculous. Other republicans supporting the Democrats generally have pro-war big government views which are largely incompatible with the new Trump Republican base.
I'll disagree that this was just an "endorsement of bizzare personality-cult fringe candidate" as these individuals all have some political pull and have been given substantial positions in the upcoming administrations.
[1] - https://cha.house.gov/2024/10/new-texts-reveal-liz-cheney-co... [2] - https://tuckercarlson.com/tucker-show-stef-passantino
Meanwhile The Trump-endorsing 'coalition' individuals in question are wildly unserious people, to the point that they're going to be laughed out of their senate confirmation hearings if they don't withdraw beforehand.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_former_Trump_administr...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Republicans_who_oppose...
It does seem like there's room here for a study to see what the general oxytocin level is in the US versus other countries — if it's notably reduced, I wonder if that can help explain why all the US legislation around societal benefits and e.g. healthcare, feels not just apathetic towards, but particularly hostile and mean spirited to people who are suffering.
* - When i originally penned this, I was under the assumption it was Atrazine, but it isn't and I can't find the pesticide in question and don't feel like sifting through a list of "1000 pesticides banned in the EU that the US loves to use" to find the one in question
edit, NB:
HNers that love to skim read and argue based on that, take note — the only claims made here are:
- At least one US pesticide that is banned in the EU disrupts oxytocin (plausible, if not cited)
- Oxytocin is directly connected to expression of empathy (incredibly well-founded)
- US legislation around societal benefits and healthcare feels apathetic and mean spirited (opinion, take it or leave it)
Note that I very carefully do not claim that a {pesicide contact -> reduced oxytocin-> reduced empathy -> mistreatment of the poor and sick} chain is actually the case (I leave that in speculation — "I wonder if"), I only say that it seems viable and worthy of investigation if and only if the first claim in the list above is true. I also do not claim it to be the only cause — that's why I say the words "can help explain". Thank you for reading.
They're not good for cats, but are generally recognized to do ... not much of anything... to mammals.
Insects develop resistance to them quite quickly, too. But damn, we'd be somewhat in trouble without them.
I very carefully did not attribute election results solely to that cause :)
Russian funding and mass media covert ops are likely more to blame[1][2]
At the same time, I do think that there's room to explain why vast swathes of the US has a very "I've got mine, fuck you" attitude. This also seems to be somewhat recent, because "Universal right to food" was one of the things proposed in, I want to say the 40s-50s? as one of the basic fundamental rights. Which, outright couldn't happen now with the current state of American Politics.
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZ5XN_mJE8Y
[2]: idk there's a laundry list of news outlets confirming both of these points, if someone wants to argue about it then it's likely we'll never agree in the first place, as the evidence has been widely available for almost a decade now and is very clear in terms of evidence of Russian influence in voter manipulation, general public opinion manipulation, and outright paying off politicians and working to inflate the puritanical right wing.
Those ideas are far from new, and I'm afraid to never see them implemented in my lifetime, but I remain hopeful and will still advocate for them however I can.
"Atr decreased the mRNA expression and protein level of oxytocin receptor (OTR)"
On the other hand, given European's response to immigration has been to cut their social spending, it seems more likely that the difference in social support can be confidently attributed to racism.
As far as I know we haven't found any chemicals that either create or diminish racism, though it is an interesting direction for future research.
The fact that you believe it to be incorrect also doesn't really make it incorrect, does it. Notably, I am also not saying that it is correct, but simply making a claim based on if it is correct — which may or may not be true.
I am sorry that you feel that I slandered and denigrated your countrymen but surely the bigger denigration against the american people here is the voting patterns of your countrymen — in repeatedly voting against social measures that would provide aid and care to the poor, sick, and disabled. I would look upon that as something to get insulted, deeply upset about, and use that feeling as a force to try to argue for and push for change politically, as opposed to a random comment on the internet.
The fact that it's incorrect is what makes it incorrect.
Hey! Maybe microplastics and PFAS/PFOA/BPA do too? Whoo hoo hoo!
† Venerable and decrepit.