|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by JulianDroms on 01:41 AM December 2nd, 2005 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
What a bunch of crap.
There is no proof that any of this has anything to do with any man-made products.
Sounds a lot like the frog scare. You know, the scare about the "abnormal incidence" of frogs with too many legs. Turns out the culprit was a naturally occuring parasite:
http://www.fumento.com/jeremy.html
Environmentalists are always trying to cook up bullshit scare tactics. Until I see an increased incidence of babies with one testicle and one ovary, I don't care in the least. Who gives a shit about frogs and fish?
I need access to my children, should I ever get a divorce. Fuck the fish ovaries and testes.
http://www.fumento.com/bomis16.html
http://www.fumento.com/erinwsj.html
Whoever poasted this article to mensnewsdaily needs to seriously amputate their ovaries and purge themselves their gyn-feminist-environmentalist brainwashing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 03:10 AM December 2nd, 2005 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
Know anything about the science behind endocrine interferents or bioaccumulation? Chemical fate and pathways in the environment? Guess not, or you'd know that there are mountains of evidence about the effects of human industry on the endocrine systems (including the reproductive systems) of aquatic and amphibian species. Humans too.
Try Googling "endocrine interferents" and having a read.
I am a professional scientist (and a man and MRA) who's conducted and published actual research in the area of toxicology and endocrine interferents over the last 20 years (sorry, no references, anonymity has its price), and there are volumes and volumes of evidence about the impact, fate and effects of human-made or human-released industrial endocrine intereferents that are affecting large ranges of our fresh and saltwater ecosystems. Amphibians, fish and other species that live in polluted water are all being adversely affected, as are humans. Fish don't run pulp mills or refineries, much as I'd like to blame them for their own problems.
One project I ran looked at the output or "effluent" of pulp and paper mill processes (they can process and contaminate 100-200K tons of water/day/plant) and how these materials were affecting the local fish. As it turns out, there are massive quantities of endocrine interferents pumped out as wood is delignified and processed via mechanical and chemical means, even when the effluent is properly treated. Ever smelled turpentine? Think your kids would have normal 'nads if they swam in it all their lives? Well, guess where terpenes and other compounds in turpentine come from. You got it - wood processing in the pulp and paper industry, and much of what's released goes directly into waterways, despite treatment. Estrogenic (oestrogenic for our UK friends) and androgenic compounds are among the hundreds that are released. These compounds affect fertility, secondary sexual characteristics, breeding patterns, viability, gonad size/type and other features of animals and humans. That's just from one industry alone.
Please tell me you don't also think that global warming and carbon dioxide accumulation is all some hippie, left-wing plot by feminists too...
I used to tell people I was studying how trees killed fish, but the fact is that unless we fuck around with them, trees don't kill fish, 'less of course they fall on them. Hence, human intervention is causing the release of materials which are directly and conclusively harmful to freshwater wildlife. Period.
I'm not a feminist or an environmentalist (I'm interested in sustainable industrialization so our economy keeps chugging along without killing us and cutting off our food in the process), and I'll grant you that the entire areas of environmental toxicology and biology are overrun by women in academia, but that doesn't change the findings in my own research on the matter. I am a men's rights activist who just happens to be a published scientist.
As for what this has to do with men's rights other than the fact that we need more researchers to be hired as faculty based on merit rather than which type of genitals they have, I'm guessing it's loosely related to male reproduction and caught the author's eye. There is compelling evidence to support the fact that human reproduction (i.e. sperm counts, endocrine and reproductive abnormalities and other problems to do with gender) are occurring in larger numbers as the levels of various endocrine interferents increase in the atmosphere. All of it backed by properly designed, refereed and published studies.
I don't especially "give a shit about frogs and fish" - science serves humanity, but I will when they're so contaminated that eating them starts to cause my kids to develop abnormally. Oooops, that's right - we're already there. Like I said, read up on bioaccumulation and you'll see how the food chain delivers the crap we pump into streams right back to us in incredibly concentrated amounts. It's affecting gender and male fertility, so I guess that's why it was posted here - a men's issue if ever there was one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by JulianDroms on 11:26 AM December 2nd, 2005 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
No, among other things, my B.S. from M.I.T. in Biology, multiple years research experience, four years of medical school, and five years of residency training, must be clouding my judgement.
And by the way, yes, I train in allopathic medicine, not homeopathic medicine (a.k.a. bullshit), and I *have* read a lot of the most cited papers in your field and find them thoroughly unconvincing, if not decepetive and borderline fraudulent.
How the National Academy of Sciences was ever convinced to even bother writing a report on the topic when the evidence was so week, I'll hardly know. Chalk it up to political grandstanding an no-nothing beaurocrats without the clackers to tell the lay public the way it is, I guess. It just goes to show how the public sector and NGO community is filled with political hacks who try to manipulate "science" to make a political point.
FYI, I do believe that global warming is likely to be a real phenomenon. But I also believe the IPCC (UN intergovernmental panel on climate change) when it says that Kyoto protocol, even if fully implemented, isn't going to do jack shit for the problem of global warming, at the cost of tens of trillions of dollars:
http://www.techcentralstation.com/021605D.html
Just another example of impotent administrators and "academics" trying to make their "moral" point, while costing the common man tons of money for no benefit other than the preservation of their own (the administrators) taxpayer-funded jobs.
Stop trying to "help", you're killing me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 12:19 PM December 2nd, 2005 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
Ah, a fellow man of letters. Nice to meet you. Ironic that someone from a field filled with statements like "the mechanism of which is unknown" would have a problem with hard science.
Pop scientists and Tech Central Station are your sources for all this? "Where free markets meet technology"? Gee, I'm sure they're totally different from the feminists you accuse of warping science for political gain, and that they're unbiased sources with no underlying agenda. Like, say, selling books or pushing a globalist economic view. Thanks, but I'll stick to the work of scientists who don't stand to gain financially from their findings.
Sarcasm and all kidding aside, what I don't buy is the feminist line that this is all men's fault somehow (along with everything else - women don't have any responsibilities whatsoever that I can detect). Who is it that drives our consumer economy to produce and dispose of finished goods? Women, most of the time. Would be nice if they'd take some responsibility for the mess that their insatiable greed is creating. Then again, I also don't buy the economic inevitabilty arguments that support unsustainable industrial development. There's just something about ideology trying to mix with science that generally makes me scream "bullshit!"
Look, I also agree with you that feminists everywhere have hijacked the leftist side of politics, medicine, academia, flaky environmentalism and otherwise legitimate political protest for their own gains - they're trying to arrange it so you have to buy the whole package when you vote for anyone but a frigging preacher these days. Why don't we try taking some of it back and returning it to the forums of legitimate science, economics and politics, which men always have and always will dominate.
If you're an MD, then surely you understand that endocrine interferents do cause reproductive and developmental abnormalities. Why on earth would you believe the contrary? What does feminism have to do with this science? In my view, the two are completely opposed: science is a flexible and continuously evolving body of knowledge and ideas about the way the universe works, and the other is a rigid ideology that attacks any part of reality which interferes with its dogma.
I realize that most doctors are not scientists - medicine is a particularly complex trade, but still, how can you ignore the overwhelming evidence from controlled studies which expose statistically relevlant groups of animals to these materials and then compare them with groups of otherwise identical "clean" specimens treated and fed under the same controlled conditions where no such changes are found? Again, feminists didn't claim that, scientists did. The fact that some hairy NOW idiot puts it into her spewing androphobia and tries to blame the evil straight white male oppressor for it doesn't change the fact that it's happening.
The whole point of my posts was that you can "buy" the science and maintain an open mind without buying the feminist takeover thereof.
There's no "morality" behind that or anything else I said, and believe me, I'm not trying to help you in any way, unless it's to further the cause of men's rights.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Uh . . huh:
This research is not new, in England where a lot of our water is treated and reused countless times . . it was found that this very same problem was probably causing the reduced Sperm Count among human males !
Research has been ongoing for about a decade into this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Thundercloud on 02:37 PM December 4th, 2005 EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas-
You are right. But since it IS a men's health issue, it will get NO air time in the media.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by JulianDroms on 01:52 AM December 2nd, 2005 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
Also, before you even start to worry about eating male fish which presumably (according to environmentalist folklore) contain minute amounts of estrogens, you should first:
(1) Refuse to eat female fish (because they contain estrogens, duh)
(2) Refuse to eat chicken (female, therefore estrogen - containing), cows (female, therefore estrogen - containing)
(3) Refuse to eat soy beans (phytoestrogens)
(4) Most of all, stop being a bunch of gullible idiots.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 03:31 AM December 2nd, 2005 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
Are you aware that we male humans have normal, healthy levels of estrogen and its precursors (estrogen is in fact derived from the same precursors as androgenic hormones in mammals), and that the impact of phytoestrogens in soy products is so minimal as to be almost meaningless to a developed adult when eaten in normal, incidental (i.e. unintentional consumption) quantities? Or that estrogens and androgen-blockers/aromatase enhancers are beneficial to prostate cancer sufferers?
Small amounts of estrogenic compounds help men avoid male pattern baldness, prostate hyerplasia (benign or malignant) and some other problems as they age, so eating soy and other materials containing weak estrogenic compounds (like flavones and isoflavones, which are the primary estrogenic components of soy foods) or that taking small amounts of Serenoa repens (saw palmetto), Curcurbita pepo (pumpkin seed) and Pygeum africanum (all of which contain a small amount of a much more potent estrogenic compound called beta-sitosterol), can be substantially beneficial to men's health under the right circumstances. Go browse around Medline if you think I'm being gullible. (Hint: I'm not).
You're entitled to a misinformed opinion on such things, and welcome to tell me what a feminist I must be for paying attention to toxicology and science, but I have to ask: are you posting here just to call those of us who actually know something about these things idiots, or did you have a point relating to men's rights to make?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You don't need to be a scientist to see that more and more men become feminized poopsies. Just look around you. And that has nothing to do with estrogen and polluted water, they voluntary hand their balls over to mistress.
Bert
--------------------
From now on, men's rights first.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Thundercloud on 02:42 PM December 2nd, 2005 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
Yep.
They're called "Wussie-poopies".
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 09:20 AM December 3rd, 2005 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
Bert, that is true, but where I live if a Man doesn't have a female, or is tied into the gay community he automatically becomes a target. I live in Eugene, Springfield, Oregon. I have seen many Men lose everything and be driven out of the area because they wouldn't submit. Those that don't leave are subjected to false charges, and a communal effort to displace them. I am of the later group, I depend on the good will of good people, and am living what I have helped others survive. Only the Men that I helped are gone, and it is up to me to stand my ground. There is a reason they call this area the land of OZ folks, but the "wizard" behind the curtain is not an old Man, it is a womyn, not a Woman.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry for the late response Davidadelong.
I live in the Netherlands and my country is one of the most feminized places in Europe. I'm not married and I probably never will be. If I feel the need I just bang a hooker. I own a small business, have a nice house and a pretty good life. I refuse to surrender these things to some stupid bitch and I don't give a rat's ass what people think of me. I wish more men would think that way, no matter where they live.
BTW, banging a hooker now and then is much cheaper than living with a nagging bitch who doesn't even know what a blowjob is.
Bert
--------------------
From now on, men's rights first.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 09:11 AM December 3rd, 2005 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
Lets' see, tobacco causes cancer, ecessive use of almost any Human made drug can alter our bodies, excessive consumption of natural steroids has an adverse affect, Alchohol in excess can damage the Human body, I could go on about these other scare tactics, but I believe I made my point. It has been proven that whatever we eat has an affect on us, perhaps we should adopt a more open mind and consider the possibilities. Or, pull the head back in the shell and go to sleep!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 08:56 AM December 5th, 2005 EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas,
It seems we have said the same thing, but in truth, you Sir were much more eloquent than I. As an aside, isn't that what our tax dollars are paying for, unbiased research done by professionals, oh, I forgot about those darn hidden agendas! Have a GOOD day Sir!
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
I've gotta say,