hckrnws

Obviously this is baseless speculation, but I sure do wonder if various psychological conditions that are so diverse and hard to pin down (i.e. 3 out of these 9 symptoms around attention, social behavior, or impulse control) are ultimately just going to be proven to be purely biological. And since genetics can only explain less than half of it, it sure seems that something messing with chemical signaling would be a reasonable explanation for the rest.

I've been speculating on industrial pollutants that act as endocrine disruptors for years now, and every so often some evidence emerges. People understandably don't like such mundane explanations when they've built large parts of their identity around the issues it may have caused them though.

You're idea is hardly novel. I've had plenty of people tell me this or that chemical caused me to be trans. I've also spent plenty of time researching possible biological causes of transness. I'm personally open to the idea that maybe there's a biological cause but I haven't found a convincing explanation yet.

The problem is that when I have conversations with people about soy turning me trans or social media turning me trans they are often trying to use that as a way to deny me any agency over my own life.

> I've had plenty of people tell me this or that chemical caused me to be trans.

Isn't this pretty obviously true? Some chemical in the womb caused every one of us to be or feel the gender they do.

They should look on the bright side: eliminating plastic exposure could be a great wellspring of identity. I mean to really avoid them you’d have to make all your food from raw unprocessed ingredients, and then there’s clothing, all the objects you interact with throughout the day, etc.

Edit: expanding a bit more on the idea. DIYing all the stuff you’d need to avoid plastics is a much bigger identity statement than neurodivergent. Tho saying I’ve been subtly poisoned is far less sexy than saying I’m neurodivergent.

Food. It’s food. We are only just beginning to understand the less obvious effects of the modern diet, including all the processing and additives. Much has not been explored, such as is if the abundance of various toxic chemicals at supposedly safe levels has a synergistic effect, for example the many endocrine disrupting compounds with diverse mechanisms. But over the past decade it has become pretty clear that the Gut-Brain relationship is extremely important, including in understanding psychopathology.

Another emerging idea is that much of the negative health trend that’s been progressing extra rapidly since the 90’s is the result of mitochondrial dysfunction, driven by the multifactored (ultraprocessed foods, icides and tives, sedentary lifestyle, the incessant toxin-boosted immune shocks throughout development, possibly even omnipresent modulated emf) assault on our biology. It makes a lot of sense, to me at least, that crippling the source of cellular energy would precipitate seemingly unrelated chronic pathologies. This last paragraph especially is still highly speculative and controversial.

Thanks for clearing this up, I certainly find your citations compelling.

It’s trivial to find studies detailing lower-magnitude negative effects of the things mentioned, but in isolation. As far is I’m aware, the net impact on our biology of the dozens of environmental stressors we face remains to be studied.

This doesn’t directly go to anything I said, but I will share this fun review: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221475002...

Ah, VAERS strikes again.

Sure? Is “Of all reported SIDS cases post-vaccination, 75 % occurred within 7 days (p < 0.00001)” that simple?

No, it's just a lie. For example, vaccines _prevent_ SIDS: https://www.chop.edu/vaccine-education-center/vaccine-safety...

But wait, there's more: https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/missed-vaccinations-did-n...

Missing vaccines did not reduce the incidence of SIDS. This is as close to a clean experiment as possible to get.

"The fact that we were able to detect similar effects of phthalate exposure on the function of central neurons for the low and 10-fold higher environmental concentration tested is important in this context: humans get exposed to phthalates mostly through ingestion and their indoor environment, while fish in this study got exposed to phthalates through the surrounding water. These differences in exposure may mean that humans generally take up fewer phthalates from the environment than the fish in the present study. However, even if fewer phthalates are taken up and reach/cross the BBB in humans, it must be assumed on the basis of our results that the effect could still be similar to that observed in our experiments on goldfish. "

It seems sloppy not to attempt to address the relevance of typical human exposure to the study amounts?

This group didn’t have authorization or funding to do an experiment on humans, and of they attempted it the criticism would have been that the study was done wrong in some way

No other group seemed interested in doing the study of this specific material

Ideally now some other groups are interested

But why did they chose one of the furthest classes of vertebrates compared to humans, exposing them in a way that is impossible for a human since we don't live underwater?

The obvious thing to do would be to use mice and put phtalates in their food. Maybe I am missing something, but it seems like a much better model if studying the potential effect in humans is the goal.

Note: here, vertebrates = goldfishes

How relevant is this for plastic food packaging?

Vast majority of food packaging is plastics like PP and PE that don't use phthalates (or any other plasticiser) as they are naturally... plastic. PVC (soft) is the major application of plasticisers.

> Typically, plasticizers are not chemically bound to the polymer, but can leak out over time and thus can affect humans and other organisms.

I wouldn't risk heating food with any kind of plastic.

I'd like to see a study of the dosage from heating food in plastic containers vs the risks from storing food in plastic for days or weeks while in the supermarket, or transporting water for food making in plastic pipes, or growing crops for human consumption in phthalate contaminated land, or eating food from cans lined with phthalates etc.

There are so many potential sources, and it doesn't really make any sense to put effort into something that isn't a substantial source.

Contact is enough to leech into food, though some are easier to leach into than others. Heat, time, acidity, fattiness increase rate of absorption. https://www.npr.org/2024/09/19/nx-s1-5116541/chemicals-from-...

I think since it eventually reaches ground water so everyone's water supply is at risk, we might consider that eliminating usage in one use packaging that is never recycled is better than thinking about individual use cases.

Now, for fun, plot the percentage of people exposed to toxic amounts over a map.

I don’t think that there is so much geographical difference in phthalate exposure. Exposure is through products used throughout countries. Probably you will find some jobs being correlated to higher exposure.

I was thinking of putting a Reverse Osmosis filter in my Kitchen. Would RO water just leach this chemical out then from plastic containers? Since the RO water is pretty pure. All the RO units I've seen are made of plastic.

My dilemma is that a massive car battery plant is being built right next to a local creek. The city water intake is down river. They obviously placed the plant next to a creek for a reason. The creek already smells like sewage because they have a water treatment plant on it. My nose tells me not to trust the quality of their "treating of water", since the creek smells like sewage and has algae blooms.

So was thinking of getting a kitchen RO unit. Currently use a Britta filter.

> I was thinking of putting a Reverse Osmosis filter in my Kitchen. Would RO water just leach this chemical out then from plastic containers? Since the RO water is pretty pure. All the RO units I've seen are made of plastic.

High density polyethylene is made without plasticizers.

> My nose tells me not to trust the quality of their "treating of water", since the creek smells like sewage and has algae blooms.

That's hydrogen sulfide. Humans are _highly_ sensitive to it, but in general it's safe in itself.

I don't know what the standard way to do it is, but, surely it's not too complicated to add some tasty minerals back in.

I make a water sweetener with a variety of electrolytes and sugar, and regularly add a tiny bit to my water bottle. Placebo or no, I love it.

Reminder that a recent autopsy study found that the average American brain now has about a quarter oz of microplastics in it [0]. That's up 50% from 8 years ago. Phthalate directly in the brain itself.

Microplastic is now found basically everywhere we look, from our own testicles/ovaries and other organs, to wild animals who never heated a ready meal in the microwave in their life. Yet plastic producers show no intention to err on the side of caution when it comes to plasticizing the planet.

Which is a shame, because there are alternatives.

0 - https://edition.cnn.com/2024/08/23/health/plastics-in-brain-...

Noo, but "think about the economy, think about the poor production line being halted or the prices modified, we cant do that".

Reminds me of the situation of climate change on Spain. The whole thing blew up yet the only thing they can do is damage control once it is too late.