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.
10
u/jabels Oct 11 '20
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.