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.'"

Comments

Please note...

[Otter]

This is a study on rats, using what (according to the accompanying commentary; IANAF) is a fairly obscure pesticide used in vineyards, and performed at doses far above EPA limits.

The development of persistent epigenetic modification is interesting, but turning this into "Man-Made Pesticides Blamed for Fall in Male Fertility Over Past 50 Years" is a good example of the idiocy rampant at both the Independent and Common Dreams.

Re:Please note...

[QMO]

The study may have been correctly done (other than concentrations of fungicide). The commentary, however, is not for the critical thinker.

The article goes on to say, "If confirmed by further experiments, the findings could help explain the decline in human male fertility over the past 50 years." In other words, "This is priliminary research, and we don't know anything yet, but we'd like to alarm you, so you'll read more."

Then at the end, some more alarming is done with the (to me) incredibly unsupported-yet-very-sure statement in the final paragraph.

Re:Please note...

[Seumas]

Other studies have shown that it's more than just pesticides. A major concern is that plastics used in drinking bottles cause a major change in male hormones. This became fairly widely reported just a couple weeks ago, finally, too. They believe it affects male genital size, estrogen levels and so on.

I'm not a "sky is falling" type of person, but I had been looking at buying a really nice "nalgene" plastic water bottle (the kind that you can order in different colors and that are really sturdy - see the Google store for an example of one). I did some research and found reason to be concerned. Or, rather, cautious. So for now, I'll drink my drinks out of non-plastic containers.

While perhaps not scientifically proven, I think common sense would almost demand that we acknowledge that man made plastics and pesticides probably cause some undesired effects in humans. Making both of these products is not a simple, clean process and with enough exposure to the end-product, I think it's reasonable to suspect they could cause health problems of some sort to people.

Scientific proof is, of course, a different issue. But until there is irrefutable proof, I think it's sensible to avoid them. I also avoid fruits with pesticides when I can (or at least clean them very well to do what I can to protect myself). Again, not because of anything irrefutably proven by science, but because common sense tells me that something intended to kill insects is probably not great for me, either. I'm sure not going to take an apple sprayed with RAID, for example.

The problem I have is not with people who decide "I'll be safe until there's proof one way or the other", but with the people who scaremonger and invent facts or distort facts to push their causes like some of these groups do. It's beyond being cautionary and becomes just another tool for them to "dismantle" "the man" as they see him.

Re:Please note...

[N3Roaster]

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.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

A few questions

[lobsterGun]

How many people with a 5% cancer survival chance have you known?

How many of the them tried your "nothing but natural" miracle-diet?

Did they abstain from other forms of cancer treatment?