4 ms·

The blanket statement of 'endocrine disruptors' takes away clarity. They mainly refer to Bisphenol and Pthalates which are present in the majority of Plastics

The blanket statement of 'endocrine disruptors' takes away clarity. They mainly refer to Bisphenol and Pthalates which are present in the majority of Plastics and cleaning products/cosmetics. These compounds are chemically too similar to estrogen and are processed by your body in pretty much the same way as the female hormone. Evidence on the health effects of Bisphenol and Pthalates: - Influence in hormone dependent types of cancer https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31471387/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31471387/ - Influence in Cardiovascular disease https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32438096/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32438096/ - Influence in Female and male fertility https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31238688/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31238688/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32046352/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32046352/ - Cofactor in Diabetes https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31286379/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31286379/

refurb 6y ago
Not going to lie but that 2nd reference is terrible. It’s a meta-analysis and a bunch of the odds ratios overlap with 1 (no effect). I’m not saying endocrine disruptors are harmless, but multiple things need to be proven before you can make any conclusions: 1. A specific endocrine disruptor has a negative biological effect. 2. That specific disruptor is found in common items. 3. That specific disruptor can be leeched out of that item through normal use. 4. The amount leeched out actually gets into the body. 5. The amount that gets into the body is at a high enough level to cause a toxic effect. I see cell or animal data for #1, #2, but I don’t see data for #3,4,5.
- jeffreyrogers 6y ago
  If there is anecdotal and circumstantial evidence that something is bad for you, and most of the people who avoid that thing are visibly healthier than those who don't, shouldn't you avoid it out of caution? This is also a sensitive topic to research because it impacts an enormous part of the economy if these things are shown to be harmful, and in many cases there are not good substitutes that are safe and economical. Edit: And if you disagree with my first point, are you consistent in your own life, e.g. did you treat coronavirus with the same skepticism? How about mask wearing? There's not much high quality of evidence on masks, or at least there wasn't early on.
  - refurb 6y ago
    You missed my point. I said nothing about avoiding these chemicals. My comment was around claiming a connection with no supported data. No, I don’t put much weight on anecdotal and circumstantial evidence. If we’re going to “follow the science” then it needs to be well supported science, no some person’s claim how they feel better after avoiding some perceived toxin.

refurb 6y ago

Not going to lie but that 2nd reference is terrible. It’s a meta-analysis and a bunch of the odds ratios overlap with 1 (no effect). I’m not saying endocrine disruptors are harmless, but multiple things need to be proven before you can make any conclusions: 1. A specific endocrine disruptor has a negative biological effect. 2. That specific disruptor is found in common items. 3. That specific disruptor can be leeched out of that item through normal use. 4. The amount leeched out actually gets into the body. 5. The amount that gets into the body is at a high enough level to cause a toxic effect. I see cell or animal data for #1, #2, but I don’t see data for #3,4,5.

jeffreyrogers 6y ago
If there is anecdotal and circumstantial evidence that something is bad for you, and most of the people who avoid that thing are visibly healthier than those who don't, shouldn't you avoid it out of caution? This is also a sensitive topic to research because it impacts an enormous part of the economy if these things are shown to be harmful, and in many cases there are not good substitutes that are safe and economical. Edit: And if you disagree with my first point, are you consistent in your own life, e.g. did you treat coronavirus with the same skepticism? How about mask wearing? There's not much high quality of evidence on masks, or at least there wasn't early on.
- refurb 6y ago
  You missed my point. I said nothing about avoiding these chemicals. My comment was around claiming a connection with no supported data. No, I don’t put much weight on anecdotal and circumstantial evidence. If we’re going to “follow the science” then it needs to be well supported science, no some person’s claim how they feel better after avoiding some perceived toxin.