7 ms·

This is where the notorious Alex Jones quote comes from: "They're making the friggin' frogs gay!"

yarg 4y ago
Yeah, and it's even worse than that - full feminisation of male frogs. https://www.nature.com/articles/news021028-7 https://www.nature.com/articles/news021028-7 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0909519107 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0909519107 It's not often that Alex Jones is any where near the right side of things, but he was treated somewhat unfairly in this instance.
- Gigachad 4y ago
  I’m guessing we don’t have much research but I’m wondering if these chemicals are largely responsible for gender dysphora.
  - doodlebugging 4y ago
    After reading that article back in the 90's I lobbied the wife hard to get rid of the microwave, replace the tupperware with glass or ceramics, and to stop buying prepared foods in plastic bottles and containers. It took nearly 10 years to get rid of the microwave. The other things were easier since glass, stainless steel, and ceramics are easier to manage in a kitchen anyway. Finding prepared foods in glass bottles like tomato sauce, soups, etc is more difficult but we manage.
    - aaaaaaaaaaab 4y ago
      What does microwave do?
      - doodlebugging 4y ago
        At the time, my wife was fond of heating food in the microwave and I could never get over the fact that the plastic would sometimes get hot enough to soften signalling to me that there were probably chemicals being released as it got hot. I didn't want those chemicals in my food and I was hoping to have kids later so I wanted to try to avoid the possibility that my kids would grow up eating food microwaved in plastic tubs, possibly poisoning them from infancy. And, most importantly from my own personal history, I hated microwaves since the first time I saw one in a convenience store. Popping a plastic-wrapped sandwich into one to have a hot lunch or heating some beanie-weenies or Dinty Moore Stew was just gross but I saw people do that all day long like it was great. When Mom finally convinced Dad to buy one back in the 70's she would use it because it supposedly saved time on things like baking potatoes or cooking meat. If you grew up back then you would have learned quickly that there is a huge textural difference between a potato baked in a microwave and one baked in an oven or in coals on a fire. Microwaved potatoes caused me to hate microwaves since the potato was not fluffy at all. It was very dense and chunky and hard to melt butter throughout the potato. Meat was an even worse indictment of the technology since it would come out red and uncooked looking even if it was scorching hot. It prefer steak medium well to well done or with a good smoke ring so I have to see that color difference for it to be edible. The microwave was a personal decision mostly because I knew that if we got rid of it we would use less plastic since no one would use a plastic container in a conventional oven. Eliminate the microwave and the incentive to keep other plastic kitchen things disappears. That's a win for me.
        nicoburns 4y ago
        Huh, I never had a microwave growing up. But I use one fairly regularly now for heating up sauces, reheating leftovers, or frozen foods (either home frozen or store bought). I feel like it’s case of the right tool for the right job.
        nerdponx 4y ago
        What about reheating or defrosting food in non-plastic containers? That's pretty much the only thing I use a microwave for.
        doodlebugging 4y ago
        Before we got rid of ours this was the only use we had for it, reheating foods that were refrigerated or frozen in glass or ceramic containers that were microwave safe.
      - SoftTalker 4y ago
        It's not the microwaves, it's the tendency for people to use microwaves to heat food in plastic containers. Which is probably a bad thing to do, if you're concerned about the potential for chemicals leaching out of the plastic, and are going to consume the food you just heated.
      - jchanimal 4y ago
        Presumably, encourages cooking in plastic containers and use of plastic wrap for leftovers.
      - stevenicr 4y ago
        best article I've seen was from NYT a few years back... do a startpage.com search for: new york times plastic microwave plastic hormones my view credits are up so I can't find the exact one, I feel it may be well explained in this one: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/23/well/chemicals-food-children-health.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/23/well/chemicals-food-child... maybe I can check bookmarks on my other system and be more sure.
    - cameldrv 4y ago
      And yet, even your tomato sauce in the glass jar went through probably hundreds of yards of plastic tubing that leaches phthalates in the factory. It's essentially impossible to get away from this stuff entirely, although I do think you're doing the right thing to reduce your exposure. They've shown that, for example, if you get an IV, you get a big spike of phthalates in your blood from the medical grade tubing. Now granted, that tubing is brand new and probably leaches more than what's in the tomato sauce factory, but you also don't get an IV every day. If you want to reduce your exposure to these things say, 50%, you can achieve that with some changes like you've made that aren't too onerous. Going much beyond that though as an individual is extremely difficult because these chemicals are in absolutely everything.
      - doodlebugging 4y ago
        Yes. This is the approach we settled on. Minimize to the best extent possible and don't waste time worrying about things we can't control. Basically just accept that you can't control everything and won't be able to totally eliminate exposure but make the attempt to minimize it as much as possible.
  - yarg 4y ago
    It's a disturbing question - one that's hardly going to get fair and objective consideration in out society. Neither the right wing nor the left have the ability to be objective enough to look into this without coming to whatever conclusions they intend to reach. It's a pity, because the implications are of an extinction level crisis impacting not only humanity, but all high order life on earth.
    - doodlebugging 4y ago
      Very true. After reading that article and doing some initial research on the early internet I found a lot of people were worried that this indicator species(?) was signalling that waterways were in trouble, farm runoff was too heavily polluted by herbicides and nitrates and amphibians were disappearing, not just in the US but globally. It was an interesting article about a serious issue and for a short time it was in the news but then it just went away. Except it didn't.
    - SoftTalker 4y ago
      > the implications are of an extinction level crisis impacting not only humanity, but all high order life on earth. You're right about the politics, but life is far more resilient than you're giving it credit for.
      - yarg 4y ago
        > You're right about the politics, but life is far more resilient than you're giving it credit for. Life's a house of cards, and we're kicking the pillars - chemicals that have never before existed are interfering with the fundamental chemistry of life on earth. I have no doubt that in 100-million years there'll be some form of life descended from what's currently around on earth, and it will be staggeringly robust. But vertebrates? Mammals? I'm not so sure. Mass extinction events on earth are rare: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event We're in the sixth that we know of; we caused it - and we're not slowing down.
        bognition 4y ago
  - throwaway5752 4y ago
    The pesticide atrazine? Because it was atrazine that cause the frog deformities, not BPA. I'm not sure why we're talking about atrazine in an article about the different chemical, BPA. Since atrazine was invented in 1958 and gender dysphoria existed before then, I think your hypothesis is incorrect.
    - hollerith 4y ago
      Because reality wouldn't be so perverse as to have multiple endocrine disrupters.
      - throwaway5752 4y ago
        Of course there are, but it seems obvious to me that greater LGBTQ+ acceptance recently has led to people being more open with that side of themselves, rather than it being the result of environmental pollution. Anyway, the alarm is very selective. I don't see people rapidly reducing their animal product consumption because of dioxin, a potent endocrine disruptor that is bioaccumulating. Atrazine is still used in most US corn production, are all the people concerned about plastic avoiding non-organic corn and corn products?
        OJFord 4y ago
        There's obvious correlation, but causation? And in particular that it would be obvious which way? I'm sure I'll regret this comment - I really don't have an axe to grind - I just don't find that 'obvious' at all (however real and fine the feeling itself).
        dcow 4y ago
        > Of course there are, but it seems obvious to me that greater LGBTQ+ acceptance recently has led to people being more open with that side of themselves, rather than it being the result of environmental pollution. Why does that seem obvious to you? Additionally, even if it's true, it may not be the only cause in rise of cases of gender dysphoria. Additionally additionally, it's also possible that some change in our environment has affected the prevalence of "LGBTQ+ acceptance" in the first place.
- doodlebugging 4y ago
  Probably true to some extent though from what I have read of his trials and his programs he evidently has no problem just telling a story that is not based on facts at all just to see how much of a rise he can get from his audience. He just apparently used facts in this case.
- concinds 4y ago
  The more discerning question to ask is: In that video, Alex Jones was quoting (in his own, 'passionate' way) a study that linked Atrazine (a widely used herbicide) to hormonal disturbances[0]. Mainstream media had access to the same study. Why was he the only one (besides niche, specialized publications) talking about it, or the numerous studies like it, including some in humans? Why were the media, governments, and celebrities, who often promote issues ranging from important to frivolous[1], silent on this? Where were the reproductive rights groups, on this issue that relates directly to people's rights not to have their fertility attacked by Big Agro lobby groups? Why was Alex Jones directly attacked, quite aggressively, and even denounced as "anti-LGBT" [2] for his video? One can argue it's because of his "style", but why did the media universally denounce it as a "dangerous conspiracy theory" instead of simply covering the issue more dispassionately? Was the US National Academy of Sciences targeted with these same labels when it published[3] the original study? No need to; there was no way a scientific paper itself would go viral. But coverage of it was suppressed. Why? Cue 2021: "Reproductive Problems in Both Men and Women Are Rising at an Alarming Rate", Scientific American[4]. Oh, really? Note: do not mistake this commment for a plaudit of Alex Jones. It is a study in narrative control. -- [0]: Study: Atrazine induces complete feminization and chemical castration in male African clawed frogs (Xenopus laevis) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2842049/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2842049/ [1]: just today, the White House released a memorandum highlighting the issue of "women and LGBTQI+ political leaders, public figures, activists, and journalists" who are "survivors" of online harassment https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2022/06/16/memorandum-on-the-establishment-of-the-white-house-task-force-to-address-online-harassment-and-abuse/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-action... [2]: Find in Page -> "frog" https://www.glaad.org/blog/glaad-releases-background-information-conspiracy-theorist-alex-jones-record-anti-lgbtq-activism https://www.glaad.org/blog/glaad-releases-background-informa... [3]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2842049/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2842049/ [4]: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/reproductive-problems-in-both-men-and-women-are-rising-at-an-alarming-rate/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/reproductive-prob...
  - Terry_Roll 4y ago
    But is it permanent? I'm sure some chemicals can undo the fear & anxiety. As our knowledge increases we invent new ways to decrease the population. Knowledge is power.
- krageon 4y ago
  > he was treated somewhat unfairly It could be the toddler-like way he beat his hands on the table shortly after. I get that belief shouldn't entirely be founded on reputation, but here we have a man that tries as hard as possible to be an absolute character. Everything about him screams "satire" on the level that Borat also does.
- tremon 4y ago
  It's not often that Alex Jones is any where near the right side of things I apologize in advance, but I laughed hard at that statement. It's not often that Alex Jones is anywhere near the left side of things either ;)
doodlebugging 4y ago
I knew someone would mention this and almost didn't make that post, but it definitely is true that this is not a new area of study. He is basing some of his wild bullshit on reality. I don't listen to him so I don't know how much but when I first heard the gay frogs stuff I just thought that this was a known issue and couldn't figure why anyone would be highlighting it. I guess if your audience is that group of people who have never picked up a magazine or cared about science then it is pretty easy to find things to excite them about.
CommanderData 4y ago
Sadly his comments didn't help, he's talking about a serious issue with science backed evidence. Comments like his cause the issue to be taken less lightly.
samhyde69 4y ago

yarg 4y ago

Yeah, and it's even worse than that - full feminisation of male frogs. https://www.nature.com/articles/news021028-7 https://www.nature.com/articles/news021028-7 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0909519107 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0909519107 It's not often that Alex Jones is any where near the right side of things, but he was treated somewhat unfairly in this instance.

Gigachad 4y ago
I’m guessing we don’t have much research but I’m wondering if these chemicals are largely responsible for gender dysphora.
- doodlebugging 4y ago
  After reading that article back in the 90's I lobbied the wife hard to get rid of the microwave, replace the tupperware with glass or ceramics, and to stop buying prepared foods in plastic bottles and containers. It took nearly 10 years to get rid of the microwave. The other things were easier since glass, stainless steel, and ceramics are easier to manage in a kitchen anyway. Finding prepared foods in glass bottles like tomato sauce, soups, etc is more difficult but we manage.
  - aaaaaaaaaaab 4y ago
    What does microwave do?
    - doodlebugging 4y ago
      At the time, my wife was fond of heating food in the microwave and I could never get over the fact that the plastic would sometimes get hot enough to soften signalling to me that there were probably chemicals being released as it got hot. I didn't want those chemicals in my food and I was hoping to have kids later so I wanted to try to avoid the possibility that my kids would grow up eating food microwaved in plastic tubs, possibly poisoning them from infancy. And, most importantly from my own personal history, I hated microwaves since the first time I saw one in a convenience store. Popping a plastic-wrapped sandwich into one to have a hot lunch or heating some beanie-weenies or Dinty Moore Stew was just gross but I saw people do that all day long like it was great. When Mom finally convinced Dad to buy one back in the 70's she would use it because it supposedly saved time on things like baking potatoes or cooking meat. If you grew up back then you would have learned quickly that there is a huge textural difference between a potato baked in a microwave and one baked in an oven or in coals on a fire. Microwaved potatoes caused me to hate microwaves since the potato was not fluffy at all. It was very dense and chunky and hard to melt butter throughout the potato. Meat was an even worse indictment of the technology since it would come out red and uncooked looking even if it was scorching hot. It prefer steak medium well to well done or with a good smoke ring so I have to see that color difference for it to be edible. The microwave was a personal decision mostly because I knew that if we got rid of it we would use less plastic since no one would use a plastic container in a conventional oven. Eliminate the microwave and the incentive to keep other plastic kitchen things disappears. That's a win for me.
      - nicoburns 4y ago
        Huh, I never had a microwave growing up. But I use one fairly regularly now for heating up sauces, reheating leftovers, or frozen foods (either home frozen or store bought). I feel like it’s case of the right tool for the right job.
      - nerdponx 4y ago
        What about reheating or defrosting food in non-plastic containers? That's pretty much the only thing I use a microwave for.
        doodlebugging 4y ago
        Before we got rid of ours this was the only use we had for it, reheating foods that were refrigerated or frozen in glass or ceramic containers that were microwave safe.
    - SoftTalker 4y ago
      It's not the microwaves, it's the tendency for people to use microwaves to heat food in plastic containers. Which is probably a bad thing to do, if you're concerned about the potential for chemicals leaching out of the plastic, and are going to consume the food you just heated.
    - jchanimal 4y ago
      Presumably, encourages cooking in plastic containers and use of plastic wrap for leftovers.
    - stevenicr 4y ago
      best article I've seen was from NYT a few years back... do a startpage.com search for: new york times plastic microwave plastic hormones my view credits are up so I can't find the exact one, I feel it may be well explained in this one: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/23/well/chemicals-food-children-health.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/23/well/chemicals-food-child... maybe I can check bookmarks on my other system and be more sure.
  - cameldrv 4y ago
    And yet, even your tomato sauce in the glass jar went through probably hundreds of yards of plastic tubing that leaches phthalates in the factory. It's essentially impossible to get away from this stuff entirely, although I do think you're doing the right thing to reduce your exposure. They've shown that, for example, if you get an IV, you get a big spike of phthalates in your blood from the medical grade tubing. Now granted, that tubing is brand new and probably leaches more than what's in the tomato sauce factory, but you also don't get an IV every day. If you want to reduce your exposure to these things say, 50%, you can achieve that with some changes like you've made that aren't too onerous. Going much beyond that though as an individual is extremely difficult because these chemicals are in absolutely everything.
    - doodlebugging 4y ago
      Yes. This is the approach we settled on. Minimize to the best extent possible and don't waste time worrying about things we can't control. Basically just accept that you can't control everything and won't be able to totally eliminate exposure but make the attempt to minimize it as much as possible.
- yarg 4y ago
  It's a disturbing question - one that's hardly going to get fair and objective consideration in out society. Neither the right wing nor the left have the ability to be objective enough to look into this without coming to whatever conclusions they intend to reach. It's a pity, because the implications are of an extinction level crisis impacting not only humanity, but all high order life on earth.
  - doodlebugging 4y ago
    Very true. After reading that article and doing some initial research on the early internet I found a lot of people were worried that this indicator species(?) was signalling that waterways were in trouble, farm runoff was too heavily polluted by herbicides and nitrates and amphibians were disappearing, not just in the US but globally. It was an interesting article about a serious issue and for a short time it was in the news but then it just went away. Except it didn't.
  - SoftTalker 4y ago
    > the implications are of an extinction level crisis impacting not only humanity, but all high order life on earth. You're right about the politics, but life is far more resilient than you're giving it credit for.
    - yarg 4y ago
      > You're right about the politics, but life is far more resilient than you're giving it credit for. Life's a house of cards, and we're kicking the pillars - chemicals that have never before existed are interfering with the fundamental chemistry of life on earth. I have no doubt that in 100-million years there'll be some form of life descended from what's currently around on earth, and it will be staggeringly robust. But vertebrates? Mammals? I'm not so sure. Mass extinction events on earth are rare: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event We're in the sixth that we know of; we caused it - and we're not slowing down.
      - bognition 4y ago
- throwaway5752 4y ago
  The pesticide atrazine? Because it was atrazine that cause the frog deformities, not BPA. I'm not sure why we're talking about atrazine in an article about the different chemical, BPA. Since atrazine was invented in 1958 and gender dysphoria existed before then, I think your hypothesis is incorrect.
  - hollerith 4y ago
    Because reality wouldn't be so perverse as to have multiple endocrine disrupters.
    - throwaway5752 4y ago
      Of course there are, but it seems obvious to me that greater LGBTQ+ acceptance recently has led to people being more open with that side of themselves, rather than it being the result of environmental pollution. Anyway, the alarm is very selective. I don't see people rapidly reducing their animal product consumption because of dioxin, a potent endocrine disruptor that is bioaccumulating. Atrazine is still used in most US corn production, are all the people concerned about plastic avoiding non-organic corn and corn products?
      - OJFord 4y ago
        There's obvious correlation, but causation? And in particular that it would be obvious which way? I'm sure I'll regret this comment - I really don't have an axe to grind - I just don't find that 'obvious' at all (however real and fine the feeling itself).
      - dcow 4y ago
        > Of course there are, but it seems obvious to me that greater LGBTQ+ acceptance recently has led to people being more open with that side of themselves, rather than it being the result of environmental pollution. Why does that seem obvious to you? Additionally, even if it's true, it may not be the only cause in rise of cases of gender dysphoria. Additionally additionally, it's also possible that some change in our environment has affected the prevalence of "LGBTQ+ acceptance" in the first place.
doodlebugging 4y ago
Probably true to some extent though from what I have read of his trials and his programs he evidently has no problem just telling a story that is not based on facts at all just to see how much of a rise he can get from his audience. He just apparently used facts in this case.
concinds 4y ago
The more discerning question to ask is: In that video, Alex Jones was quoting (in his own, 'passionate' way) a study that linked Atrazine (a widely used herbicide) to hormonal disturbances[0]. Mainstream media had access to the same study. Why was he the only one (besides niche, specialized publications) talking about it, or the numerous studies like it, including some in humans? Why were the media, governments, and celebrities, who often promote issues ranging from important to frivolous[1], silent on this? Where were the reproductive rights groups, on this issue that relates directly to people's rights not to have their fertility attacked by Big Agro lobby groups? Why was Alex Jones directly attacked, quite aggressively, and even denounced as "anti-LGBT" [2] for his video? One can argue it's because of his "style", but why did the media universally denounce it as a "dangerous conspiracy theory" instead of simply covering the issue more dispassionately? Was the US National Academy of Sciences targeted with these same labels when it published[3] the original study? No need to; there was no way a scientific paper itself would go viral. But coverage of it was suppressed. Why? Cue 2021: "Reproductive Problems in Both Men and Women Are Rising at an Alarming Rate", Scientific American[4]. Oh, really? Note: do not mistake this commment for a plaudit of Alex Jones. It is a study in narrative control. -- [0]: Study: Atrazine induces complete feminization and chemical castration in male African clawed frogs (Xenopus laevis) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2842049/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2842049/ [1]: just today, the White House released a memorandum highlighting the issue of "women and LGBTQI+ political leaders, public figures, activists, and journalists" who are "survivors" of online harassment https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2022/06/16/memorandum-on-the-establishment-of-the-white-house-task-force-to-address-online-harassment-and-abuse/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-action... [2]: Find in Page -> "frog" https://www.glaad.org/blog/glaad-releases-background-information-conspiracy-theorist-alex-jones-record-anti-lgbtq-activism https://www.glaad.org/blog/glaad-releases-background-informa... [3]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2842049/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2842049/ [4]: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/reproductive-problems-in-both-men-and-women-are-rising-at-an-alarming-rate/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/reproductive-prob...
- Terry_Roll 4y ago
  But is it permanent? I'm sure some chemicals can undo the fear & anxiety. As our knowledge increases we invent new ways to decrease the population. Knowledge is power.
krageon 4y ago
> he was treated somewhat unfairly It could be the toddler-like way he beat his hands on the table shortly after. I get that belief shouldn't entirely be founded on reputation, but here we have a man that tries as hard as possible to be an absolute character. Everything about him screams "satire" on the level that Borat also does.
tremon 4y ago
It's not often that Alex Jones is any where near the right side of things I apologize in advance, but I laughed hard at that statement. It's not often that Alex Jones is anywhere near the left side of things either ;)

doodlebugging 4y ago

I knew someone would mention this and almost didn't make that post, but it definitely is true that this is not a new area of study. He is basing some of his wild bullshit on reality. I don't listen to him so I don't know how much but when I first heard the gay frogs stuff I just thought that this was a known issue and couldn't figure why anyone would be highlighting it. I guess if your audience is that group of people who have never picked up a magazine or cared about science then it is pretty easy to find things to excite them about.

CommanderData 4y ago

Sadly his comments didn't help, he's talking about a serious issue with science backed evidence. Comments like his cause the issue to be taken less lightly.

samhyde69 4y ago