Loss of mankind due to chemicals?

[razz]

Because this is affecting all families now and the future of families and impacts all human relationships not just political or financial wealth issues, I placed it in the Families forum. This is not just more politics, it is the wellbeing of society itself. Chemicals are killing mankind and its future. Some will flatly deny that this possible, some will snarkly comment, "maybe that is a good thing for the earth" but what I hope is that some will examine the facts realistically.


In this article in the Guardian news https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/mar/18/toxic-chemicals-health-humanity-erin-brokovich?utm_term=6f2392ef7cbb89855ea7ab2449762f6 6&utm_campaign=GuardianTodayUK&utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&CMP=GTUK_email, "a new book called Countdown, by Shanna Swan, an environmental and reproductive epidemiologist at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, finds that sperm counts have dropped almost 60% since 1973. Following the trajectory we are on, Swan’s research suggests sperm counts could reach zero by 2045...

Swan’s book is staggering in its findings. “In some parts of the world, the average twentysomething woman today is less fertile than her grandmother was at 35,” Swan writes. In addition to that, Swan finds that, on average, a man today will have half of the sperm his grandfather had. “The current state of reproductive affairs can’t continue much longer without threatening human survival,” writes Swan, adding: “It’s a global existential crisis.” That’s not hyperbole. That’s just science.

As if this wasn’t terrifying enough, Swan’s research finds that these chemicals aren’t just dramatically reducing semen quality, they are also shrinking penis size and volume of the testes. This is nothing short of a full-scale emergency for humanity.

Swan’s book echoes previous research, which has found that PFAS harms sperm production, disrupts the male hormone and is correlated to a “reduction of semen quality, testicular volume and penile length”. These chemicals are literally confusing our bodies, making them send mix messages and go haywire.

Given everything we know about these chemicals, why isn’t more being done? Right now, there is a paltry patchwork of inadequate legislation responding to this threat. Laws and regulations vary from country to country, region to region, and, in the United States, state to state. The European Union, for example, has restricted several phthalates in toys and sets limits on phthalates considered “reprotoxic” – meaning they harm the human reproductive capacities – in food production.

In the United States, a scientific study found phthalate exposure “widespread” in infants, and that the chemicals were found in the urine of babies who came into contact with baby shampoos, lotions and powders. Still, aggressive regulation is lacking, not least because of lobbying by chemical industry giants.

In the state of Washington, lawmakers managed to pass the Pollution Prevention for Our Future Act, which “directs state agencies to address classes of chemicals and moves away from a chemical by chemical approach, which has historically resulted in companies switching to equally bad or worse substitutes. The first chemical classes to be addressed in products include phthalates, PFAS, PCBs, alkyphenol ethoxylate and bisphenol compounds, and organohalogen flame retardants.” The state has taken important steps to address the extent of chemical pollution, but by and large, the United States, like many other countries, is fighting a losing battle because of weak, inadequate legislation."

[Yppej]

Yes, I'm one of the snarky ones. It seems like this is the solution to overpopulation and climate change. Shouldn't we be happy fewer humans are filling the earth?

[razz]

Why don't you see that whatever destructive chemicals so negatively impact mankind are also impacting everything other living thing in our world? Mankind is not isolated from his environment.

[Yppej]

Covid is another response of nature to overpopulation.

[JaneV2.0]

This isn't anything new; there was a (PBS?) documentary on the risks plastics pose in the mid-seventies. I wish I could remember its name. Apparently, the people who count in this world don't care.

[catherine]

razz, is this article about the whole class of plastics known as endocrine disruptors?

This is from the NIH:


What are some common endocrine disruptors?

Bisphenol A (BPA) — used to make polycarbonate plastics and epoxy resins, which are found in many plastic products including food storage containers
Dioxins — produced as a byproduct in herbicide production and paper bleaching, they are also released into the environment during waste burning and wildfires
Perchlorate — a by-product of aerospace, weapon, and pharmaceutical industries found in drinking water and fireworks
Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) — used widely in industrial applications, such as firefighting foams and non-stick pan, paper, and textile coatings
Phthalates — used to make plastics more flexible, they are also found in some food packaging, cosmetics, children’s toys, and medical devices
Phytoestrogens — naturally occurring substances in plants that have hormone-like activity, such as genistein and daidzein that are in soy products, like tofu or soy milk
Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDE) — used to make flame retardants for household products such as furniture foam and carpets
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) — used to make electrical equipment like transformers, and in hydraulic fluids, heat transfer fluids, lubricants, and plasticizers
Triclosan — may be found in some anti-microbial and personal care products, like liquid body wash
How do people encounter endocrine-disrupting chemicals?

People may be exposed to endocrine disruptors through food and beverages consumed, pesticides applied, and cosmetics used. In essence, your contact with these chemicals may occur through diet, air, skin, and water.

Even low doses of endocrine-disrupting chemicals may be unsafe. The body’s normal endocrine functioning involves very small changes in hormone levels, yet we know even these small changes can cause significant developmental and biological effects. This observation leads scientists to think that endocrine-disrupting chemical exposures, even at low amounts, can alter the body’s sensitive systems and lead to health problems.

This is scary stuff.

Gee, it's a downer week for me environmentally-speaking. Not only reading your post, razz, but I was reading the section of Bright Green Lies on recycling, and the part on plastics was just sad. "Industrial humans produce roughly as much plastic each year as the weight of all humans combined. Half of the 8.3 billion metric tons of plastic t his culture has fabricated since 1950 was made in the past 13 years. Like all the other harms to the planet, plastic production is 'rapidly accelerating.'"

Think about it--the mainstream lifespan of plastics is roughly the same as MY lifespan! And this 8.3 billion metric tons of this plastic crap can never go away! And it's everywhere! And while plastic has some utility, it is also harmful.

I don't know what the answer is, but to your point, it's not just the idea of plastic--it's how one thing leads to another as the web of life breaks down.

[ApatheticNoMore]

Why isn't anything done?

Well why can't we deal with climate change? Because it's the same reasons it seems to me.

However it is more difficult to grasp than climate change because quite frankly, population is NOT DECREASING and that's a fact, rate of growth in population maybe, but population is not decreasing. Whereas people can see climate change all around them even if occasionally paradoxically (ie cold spells). So it's even harder to grasp an entirely theoretical concern that has not even manifested in reality. So it's the 6th great extinction of other species, and that is happening right now, but human population keeps increasing. But a theoretical concern might come to pass, yes, but humans don't seem to do well conceptualizing such things.

If it's that deeply entrenched in all our manufacturing processes, then it's as hard to deal with as climate change. If it's basically everything and everywhere as fossil fuel is now. I mean it's not always so hard to ban one chemical used for one thing, oh DDT is bad, oh flurocholorcarbons destroy the ozone layer, but when it gets to be pervasive, oh yes it's everything everywhere ... and if it's at that point.

One thing that makes it easier to deal with than climate change is there is probably some localized effect from say just banning stuff in one country, pollution travels but it isn't as concentrated, none of that to climate change, it's a global climate.

But why should one care in one country? When many people are having less kids not because they can't have kids, but because they can't afford them, or because they can't see bringing kids into so much collapse including of course environmental collapse? I mean it's a theoretical concern years out, but there are probably health effects, more than fertility effects going on now.


"Swan’s book is staggering in its findings. “In some parts of the world, the average twentysomething woman today is less fertile than her grandmother was at 35,” Swan writes."

yes well women are generally pretty fertile at 35, so what kind of comparison is that?

[ApatheticNoMore]

Why don't you see that whatever destructive chemicals so negatively impact mankind are also impacting everything other living thing in our world? Mankind is not isolated from his environment.

because they are probably impacting other species less than an ever growing human population is, but sure it's a matter of debate I suppose.

[pinkytoe]

I think these chemicals are also making male brains smaller:)
This is one of those topics that is too much to bear since there is little we can do about it short of how we choose to spend our dollars.

[Rogar]

I think these chemicals are also making male brains smaller:)
This is one of those topics that is too much to bear since there is little we can do about it short of how we choose to spend our dollars.

In the age of the me too movement, I'd think of that as unnecessary sexist remark, even in humor.

The advances in genetics and genetic manipulations will probably find a way to propagate humanity out of any threat to fertility. In my early school days The Limits to Growth was required reading. I think something unpleasant will solve some of our over population problem sooner or later, but I think it will be more environmental issues around food supply, pestilence, global warming, or self destructive wars. Though who knows.

[razz]

Catherine, this article was based on the release of the new book, https://www.amazon.com/Count-Down-Threatening-Reproductive-Development/dp/1982113669/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1WME8QEKK78B6&dchild=1&keywords=countdown+by+shanna+swan&qid=1616173214&sprefix=Countdown+byShanna+%2Caps%2C172&sr=8-1.

It was interesting to read the readers' responses to this article in the Guardian. Some said that world population needs control anyway; nature will correct itself when the population is sufficiently reduced; magically the long lasting chemicals will be found to have neutralizers; a big yawn; apathy as it is too late or too big a problem...
Not sure what it will take to awaken the world to the realization that toxic chemicals while very profitable to the boards of directors and shareholders may not be a good idea and just maybe corporations that produce them should stop. There is an ethical aspect that is seriously lacking. Funny how the impact on the individual and his/her choice is the main focus and not on The Common of humanity and the world. It really puzzles me.

Isn't that what simple living is really all about?

[catherine]

Not sure what it will take to awaken the world to the realization that toxic chemicals while very profitable to the boards of directors and shareholders may not be a good idea and just maybe corporations that produce them should stop.

Isn't that what simple living is really all about?

Well, there have been a handful of movies and books about corporate cover-ups of pollutants that have killed people in the surrounding communities--such as Erin Brockovich--there are tons of pollutants that kill--it would be too hard to name them all--whether to talk about Phillip Morris and their cover up about smoking or cover-ups around people killed by glysophate and DDT..the list could go on and on. So, yes, ethics are lacking, but criminal behavior is not.

Polly Higgins was an environmental lawyer. She used to "represent" the environment and tried to litigate "crimes against the planet." We need more of her.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polly_Higgins

[pinkytoe]

I haven't read the article yet but will. Aren't most of these chemicals derived from oil? It seems like they must make as much off of plastic as they do oil and gas.

[ApatheticNoMore]

I haven't read the article yet but will. Aren't most of these chemicals derived from oil? It seems like they must make as much off of plastic as they do oil and gas.

so I don't know, but if carbon is tied up in plastic isn't it carbon that is at least not presently in the atmosphere? I mean if we are going to extract every last drop of usable fossil fuel, maybe it's less bad than burning it.

[happystuff]

Because this is affecting all families now and the future of families and impacts all human relationships not just political or financial wealth issues, I placed it in the Families forum. This is not just more politics, it is the wellbeing of society itself. Chemicals are killing mankind and its future. Some will flatly deny that this possible, some will snarkly comment, "maybe that is a good thing for the earth" but what I hope is that some will examine the facts realistically.


In this article in the Guardian news https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/mar/18/toxic-chemicals-health-humanity-erin-brokovich?utm_term=6f2392ef7cbb89855ea7ab2449762f6 6&utm_campaign=GuardianTodayUK&utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&CMP=GTUK_email, "a new book called Countdown, by Shanna Swan, an environmental and reproductive epidemiologist at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, finds that sperm counts have dropped almost 60% since 1973. Following the trajectory we are on, Swan’s research suggests sperm counts could reach zero by 2045...

Swan’s book is staggering in its findings. “In some parts of the world, the average twentysomething woman today is less fertile than her grandmother was at 35,” Swan writes. In addition to that, Swan finds that, on average, a man today will have half of the sperm his grandfather had. “The current state of reproductive affairs can’t continue much longer without threatening human survival,” writes Swan, adding: “It’s a global existential crisis.” That’s not hyperbole. That’s just science.

As if this wasn’t terrifying enough, Swan’s research finds that these chemicals aren’t just dramatically reducing semen quality, they are also shrinking penis size and volume of the testes. This is nothing short of a full-scale emergency for humanity.

Swan’s book echoes previous research, which has found that PFAS harms sperm production, disrupts the male hormone and is correlated to a “reduction of semen quality, testicular volume and penile length”. These chemicals are literally confusing our bodies, making them send mix messages and go haywire.

Given everything we know about these chemicals, why isn’t more being done? Right now, there is a paltry patchwork of inadequate legislation responding to this threat. Laws and regulations vary from country to country, region to region, and, in the United States, state to state. The European Union, for example, has restricted several phthalates in toys and sets limits on phthalates considered “reprotoxic” – meaning they harm the human reproductive capacities – in food production.

In the United States, a scientific study found phthalate exposure “widespread” in infants, and that the chemicals were found in the urine of babies who came into contact with baby shampoos, lotions and powders. Still, aggressive regulation is lacking, not least because of lobbying by chemical industry giants.

In the state of Washington, lawmakers managed to pass the Pollution Prevention for Our Future Act, which “directs state agencies to address classes of chemicals and moves away from a chemical by chemical approach, which has historically resulted in companies switching to equally bad or worse substitutes. The first chemical classes to be addressed in products include phthalates, PFAS, PCBs, alkyphenol ethoxylate and bisphenol compounds, and organohalogen flame retardants.” The state has taken important steps to address the extent of chemical pollution, but by and large, the United States, like many other countries, is fighting a losing battle because of weak, inadequate legislation."

My first thought on all this was the exchange from Jurassic Park:

“Dr. Ian Malcolm, "God creates dinosaurs, God destroys dinosaurs. God creates Man, man destroys God. Man creates dinosaurs"
Dr. Ellie Sattler, "Dinosaurs eat man..... Woman inherits the earth”

Seriously, I think individual apathy is huge. I believe that, even little steps each individual does to help will make a difference, but it seems most people want to leave it to the next generation or think it will "work itself out", or whatever - I can only guess at what other people might be thinking. Overall, it's just sad and makes me glad that I am old and probably won't live to see the devastating results that I believe are coming. I will not, however, let that prevent me from continuing to do what I can - reduce consumption, avoid as much plastic as I can, reduce my environmental footprint and, yes, even do without.

[catherine]

Regarding apathy:

3703

[happystuff]

Regarding apathy:

3703

+1

[razz]

+2