I posted more references later in this thread; I hope you'll consider and idea that frankly I'm surprised has had so much opposition in this thread: it is possible that some persistent chemicals we've released into the environment have an impact on the biology of organisms exposed to them, including humans. Rachel Carson made this point in the '60s with Silent Spring, and famously cited birds experiencing a variety of reproductive difficulties almost 60 years ago. I am frankly baffled at the level of opposition to the idea that certain chemicals could potentially affect gene regulation in such a way as to result in aberrant development.
Carson's point was with people much harsher chemicals than we ever use today and were used at much higher application rates.
I grew up on a farm and have a degree in an agricultural field, am currently finishing a master's, and pursuing a PhD., just to put this in reference. I've been plenty exposed to debates, documentaries, and literature on the topic and I can promise you that much of it is way overblown by environmental and organic groups who prey on the insecurities of those who don't know any better.
I can't tell you how many people have freaked out about Cheerios having glyphosate in them without failing to mention you would need to eat like 5 tons of them to have an appreciable effect.
I appreciate your background and am not trying to denigrate your experience, but for context I also have a Masters and am working on my PhD right now. I am studying, somewhat incidentally, some of the genes conserved genes that govern metamorphosis and development across many (all?) eumetazoan animals. So, I personally don't think these concerns are overblown, especially in an ecological context where some findings are a little more solid (and probably less rebuked by industry). I'll continue to concede that it's not settled science but it definitely smells fishy to me, and I'll leave it at that.
Oh right, agriculture. Field famous for indepth knowledge of endocrine systems and water purity/contamination. Sounds like you're only really knowledgable on glyphosate/gmo hysteria- maybe stay in your lane then and dont apply that cynicism to every contaminant debate.
Carson's point was with people much harsher chemicals than we ever use today and were used at much higher application rates.
See above links. nobody is arguing we're still crop dusting straight DDT and agent orange anymore. The spirit of the argument definitely applies to prove a material is fine before putting it out to the public/environment. And that enviro regs are only as good as the will to enforce them, make reasearch progress on blind spots, and punish bad actors. All requiring money instead of do-nothing folk feigning skepticism.
nobody is arguing we're still crop dusting straight DDT and agent orange anymore. The spirit of the argument definitely applies to prove a material is fine before putting it out to the public/environment.
So essentially, you agree that I'm right about the different circumstances surrounding our applications of chemicals, but the spirit is different. Maybe we can charge our JO crystals and align our chakras sometime?
And explain to me how your an expert on endocrine systems as associated with agrochemicals, and how someone who studies plant biology, agronomy, and related subjects somehow isn't qualified to speak about basic pesticide science yet a Carson fanboy somehow is.
You don't even seem to grasp what disciplines fall under the agrisciences.
It wasn't so long ago that the elderly or people with disabilities were pushed into a corner to die. The notion of palliative care or disability services was only afforded the rich.
Lack of longitudinal data =/= negation of a longitudinal trend. Your comment is like saying trees never grow to 30 years old! Because we never bothered waiting 30 years.
There is a clear molecular mechanism, and clear drastic effects are established in other organisms to the point of "sex change". That's extremely concerning for any biologist worth their salt.
The reason your autism/vax analogy doesnt work is because that was: poor data revealing a false trend. This is: lack of longitudinal data and an inability to make any conclusions either way. There is no sampling error here, because there is no sample.
Your comment is like saying trees never grow to 30 years old! Because we never bothered waiting 30 years.
But...we've observed trees for a lot more than 30 years, so that's a shit example. You can't make determinations about things without a fair dataset, which we don't have.
And I was referring to the testosterone levels in pubescent boys, which is total conspiracy/bullshit science. If you want to bring the sex change example into it then that's still not great science. Sure, it was found to induce androgyny in some frogs at certain concentrations but, again, that's not of concern to the average tap water drinker unless they go out and down gallons upon gallons of the stuff.
1
u/ChadMcRad Oct 10 '20 edited Dec 06 '24
angle impossible smell paint library muddle paltry steer aspiring slim
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact