Slashdot Mirror
Pesticides Blamed for Fall in Male Fertility
hapdiddesigner writes "Man-Made Pesticides Blamed for Fall in Male Fertility Over Past 50 Years -- According to a new report by Michael Skinner of Washington State University in the June 3rd edition of Science Magazine, pesticides and environmental toxins can have a deleterious effect on fertility and susceptibility to disease for generations. A Commondreams.org posting of an Independent UK article states 'Pesticides and other man-made chemicals may lower male fertility for at least four generations, according to new research."' A Eurekalert.org copy of a Washington State University press release begins "A disease you are suffering today could be a result of your great-grandmother being exposed to an environmental toxin during pregnancy.'"
Is it possible that there would not even be four generations if fertility is lowered?
"Teleporting Rodents with D-Cell Battery Displacement" theory -- IgnoramusMaximus (692000)
Studies that intend to find problems with pesticides and other artificial chemical products frequently test at doses that on first glance would seem to be too much. It's better to start out at doses so high you're going to get some problems. Future experiments can then lower that dose and quickly pinpoint the level of exposure needed for results.
Of course, those followups aren't always performed and the press release is premature. A lot of news agencies don't bother to check if science stories are really stories because they don't understand it.
Remember RFC 873!
The issue is with polycarbonate, or "plexi-glass looking" hard plastic. Soda bottle and tupperware type plastics don't release the carcinogens into the fluids contained within. Careful how you spread FUD.
moox. for a new generation.
AFAIK, Nalgene is intentionally impregnated with antifungal/antibacterial agents, making this a separate case from the dangers of plastics in general.
It's ironic, really. Those Nalgene bottles were probably developed first for survival/military use, where a long-term risk of reduced fertility is much less threatening than the nasties all around you. Then someone got the bright idea of selling the convenience to the public at large while barely mentioning the chemical mechanism.
Whose responsibility is it to inform the public of these dangers, and how exactly can it be done at all without sounding shrill at first? It seems that banning the bottles completely is suboptimal, but the ignorance necessary to mass-market them is even worse. (shrug)