6 ms·

Apparently everyone is downvoting everything they can because this is a sensitive topic. I'd just like to call out, where feminization is a major concern (US, m

Apparently everyone is downvoting everything they can because this is a sensitive topic. I'd just like to call out, where feminization is a major concern (US, maybe Europe), there is less than 1ng/L of this compound in water, see elsewhere on this thread for the graphic. The lowest dose of EE2 for trans-women is 2mg a day orally. That means whatever the dosage is in the US it's less than 1/10th* of what trans folk find actually useful. That's based off drinking 4 liters of water a day, lord knows most people don't drink that though. In summary: US and Europe folks don't need to care about this and if you see a news story hyping this compound up, it's probably just that: hype. *EDIT: I had a couple mistakes here: - EE2 is not estrogen and can be considered ~100x more effective - 1ng / 1mg is 1000th not 100th.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
goda90 4y ago
Is there any accumulation in food? Is it heat stable to survive cooking?
- marricks 4y ago
  If you live in the US lead* is probably a far greater concern, and that sure does survive cooking.
  - georgia_peach 4y ago
    This is a diversion, not a direct answer to the question asked.
  - lazide 4y ago
    s/led/lead/ ?
oceanplexian 4y ago
This still sounds concerning to me, if the dose is 2mg for a healthy adult what is it for children and infants? What about babies in the womb? We saw the same exact thing with PFAS/PFOA, the experts said it was harmless, present in impossibly small quantities, and it would "pass right through you" for literally years. But then it turned out the experts were completely wrong. They found 2000PPM of PFAS in my Mom's well in New Hampshire, out in in the country, miles away from a Teflon factory that leaked into the water supply. She found it after hundreds of dollars of testing when I told her she should be paranoid.
- marricks 4y ago
  For this specific chemical, it actually has been studied since at least 1943[1] and used in a few different medical contexts. That mean it has a leg on some random pollutant never considered for medicinal use. Does that mean it's great in drinking water? No... but I think we shouldn't just jump from one type of catastrophizing to the next. There's endless questions we can ask to scare ourselves, but maybe it's a better use of our time to point that concern on things which we already know or damaging our kids, like: lead in drinking water, malnutrition, lack of affordable pre school options, etc etc. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethinylestradiol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethinylestradiol
- wjnc 4y ago
  2000 PPM is 0.2% or one-in-fivehundred, right? That’s massive pollution. My layman’s logic would suggest you need to dump 0.2% of total aquifer volume of 100% PFAS to reach that level? And then I expect pollution to spread in a semi-sphere unless there are rocky sediments. Edit: thinking more about water, perhaps you can dump less in wetter conditions and then in a drought get higher values because PFAS won’t evaporate. But still, it suggests tons and tons of dumping?
  - eurasiantiger 4y ago
    It sounds like the Teflon plant has been dumping their polymerization process water into the environment, much like what happened in Parkersburg, WV.
- Sunspark 4y ago
  The forever chemicals like those are absolutely awful. Fracking is another source of chemicals into water supplies.
- zackmorris 4y ago
  Also it's not just endocrine disruption. Forever chemicals and microplastics can lodge in muscle and cause accumulated damage as the body tries to encapsulate it to keep from getting injured. And the circulatory system where it can clog arteries/veins/capillaries and cut off circulation. The images in this paper show plastic fibers embedded in fish muscle: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969719346169 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004896971... Maybe most particles are too large to cross the intestinal lining, but can they prove that's still the case with "leaky gut" which a large number of people in the US are susceptible to due to the missing fiber in our diet? What about worse inflammation like IBS, IBD, Crohn's disease and diverticulitis? https://nypost.com/2021/12/23/irritable-bowel-syndrome-linked-to-more-microplastics-in-gut/ https://nypost.com/2021/12/23/irritable-bowel-syndrome-linke... We eat a credit card's worth of microplastic every week, mostly coming from our water supply apparently. This is the kind of news whose implications are so serious that it's much easier to just ignore it!
elil17 4y ago
Trans women typically take E2 (bioidentical estrogen), not EE2. EE2 is 100 times more potent than E2 for certain endocrine interactions. Unlike E2, EE2 is not a naturally occurring hormone. E2 causes female puberty when administered to males (except for menstruation), but EE2 isn’t necessarily going to do the same thing because it is a different molecule. While worrying about “feminizing” is probably hype, worrying about possible effects such as infertility seems totally reasonable.
- marricks 4y ago
  Thank you for the correction!
- gcr 4y ago
  Back in the day ('70s and '80s i think), trans women used to take synthetic estrogens (such as premarin, IIRC was the drug of choice) before switching to bioidentical estrogen from estradiol tablets in the '90s and '00s, I think because bioidentical E is seen as more effective with a softer side effect profile than the synthetics, in particular bioidentical doesn't hurt the liver as much. Drinking horse piss in the 70s sure was metal though. ("pre-mar-in" = "pregnant mare urine," a source of estrogen since 1930). (folk knowledge and personal anecdata)
  - elil17 4y ago
    Permarin was made into pills, not drank directly. Permarin is a conjugate estrogen (mix of natural estrogens). It had a higher risk of blood clots than pure E2. However it was not EE2.
- sudosysgen 4y ago
  It's still not that bad though, because the math is off. 4 ng is about 250,000x less than the smallest E2 dose a trans woman would take, and 2 million times less than the strongest doses some take.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
rayiner 4y ago
> I'd just like to call out, where feminization is a major concern (US, maybe Europe) What’s that supposed to mean? The article shows the rates in Southeast Asia are 10 times higher than the US. I can assure you that “feminization” would be a much more significant concern there than in the US or Europe.
- xeromal 4y ago
  I believe they mean the fear of feminization.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- gcr 4y ago
  i think OP's two points are that 1. backlash against "feminization of men" is something that people seem to care about more in the USA than other countries (HN audiences skew toward this population anyway); 2. these days, right-wing extremists in my country (USA) see "feminization of men" as a politically beneficial wedge issue, and this politicization makes it impossible to study the actual societal effects impartially/neutrally.
  - rayiner 4y ago
    > backlash against "feminization of men" is something that people seem to care about more in the USA than other countries Only because in most countries the established gender norms are taken for granted and aren’t being challenged.
    - sudosysgen 4y ago
      Not really. Gender norms are being challenged pretty much everywhere. They certainly are in the Islamic world, in East Asia (including China), and in South America, which is most of the world. Just because they didn't change in the same way or magnitude as they did in the West as of now doesn't mean they aren't being challenged - they very much are.
gcr 4y ago
Another important point is that trans women typically start on an antiandrogen as well as an estradiol supplement. Testosterone's effects are orders of mag stronger than estrogen, so trans women typically have to take drastic measures to significantly reduce testosterone first so the estrogen can work, such as taking large amounts of spironolactone or cyproterone acetate or orchiectomy; without these measures, estrogen isn't nearly as effective. You don't exactly see much spironolactone in the water supply! (Personal anecdata)
sudosysgen 4y ago
Your math is a bit off. 4 liters would be 4 nanograms, which is 250,000 times less than a trans woman would take (in the milligrams, not micrograms)
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
lazzlazzlazz 4y ago
If just drinking water gives you 10% of the dose that a trans person would seek medically, that seems like an incredibly high amount. Your post seems to reinforce concerns, not dissolve them.
- stuckinhell 4y ago
  I agree here. It bothers me to see people try to defend a contaminant in the water supply.
throwaway0x7E6 4y ago
>So in the end the number is less than 1/20th. even for fully-grown adults it is an extremely alarming figure. god only knows the full extent of damage done to children by this and other phytoestrogens.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

goda90 4y ago

Is there any accumulation in food? Is it heat stable to survive cooking?

marricks 4y ago
If you live in the US lead* is probably a far greater concern, and that sure does survive cooking.
- georgia_peach 4y ago
  This is a diversion, not a direct answer to the question asked.
- lazide 4y ago
  s/led/lead/ ?

oceanplexian 4y ago

This still sounds concerning to me, if the dose is 2mg for a healthy adult what is it for children and infants? What about babies in the womb? We saw the same exact thing with PFAS/PFOA, the experts said it was harmless, present in impossibly small quantities, and it would "pass right through you" for literally years. But then it turned out the experts were completely wrong. They found 2000PPM of PFAS in my Mom's well in New Hampshire, out in in the country, miles away from a Teflon factory that leaked into the water supply. She found it after hundreds of dollars of testing when I told her she should be paranoid.

marricks 4y ago
For this specific chemical, it actually has been studied since at least 1943[1] and used in a few different medical contexts. That mean it has a leg on some random pollutant never considered for medicinal use. Does that mean it's great in drinking water? No... but I think we shouldn't just jump from one type of catastrophizing to the next. There's endless questions we can ask to scare ourselves, but maybe it's a better use of our time to point that concern on things which we already know or damaging our kids, like: lead in drinking water, malnutrition, lack of affordable pre school options, etc etc. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethinylestradiol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethinylestradiol
wjnc 4y ago
2000 PPM is 0.2% or one-in-fivehundred, right? That’s massive pollution. My layman’s logic would suggest you need to dump 0.2% of total aquifer volume of 100% PFAS to reach that level? And then I expect pollution to spread in a semi-sphere unless there are rocky sediments. Edit: thinking more about water, perhaps you can dump less in wetter conditions and then in a drought get higher values because PFAS won’t evaporate. But still, it suggests tons and tons of dumping?
- eurasiantiger 4y ago
  It sounds like the Teflon plant has been dumping their polymerization process water into the environment, much like what happened in Parkersburg, WV.
Sunspark 4y ago
The forever chemicals like those are absolutely awful. Fracking is another source of chemicals into water supplies.
zackmorris 4y ago
Also it's not just endocrine disruption. Forever chemicals and microplastics can lodge in muscle and cause accumulated damage as the body tries to encapsulate it to keep from getting injured. And the circulatory system where it can clog arteries/veins/capillaries and cut off circulation. The images in this paper show plastic fibers embedded in fish muscle: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969719346169 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004896971... Maybe most particles are too large to cross the intestinal lining, but can they prove that's still the case with "leaky gut" which a large number of people in the US are susceptible to due to the missing fiber in our diet? What about worse inflammation like IBS, IBD, Crohn's disease and diverticulitis? https://nypost.com/2021/12/23/irritable-bowel-syndrome-linked-to-more-microplastics-in-gut/ https://nypost.com/2021/12/23/irritable-bowel-syndrome-linke... We eat a credit card's worth of microplastic every week, mostly coming from our water supply apparently. This is the kind of news whose implications are so serious that it's much easier to just ignore it!

elil17 4y ago

Trans women typically take E2 (bioidentical estrogen), not EE2. EE2 is 100 times more potent than E2 for certain endocrine interactions. Unlike E2, EE2 is not a naturally occurring hormone. E2 causes female puberty when administered to males (except for menstruation), but EE2 isn’t necessarily going to do the same thing because it is a different molecule. While worrying about “feminizing” is probably hype, worrying about possible effects such as infertility seems totally reasonable.

marricks 4y ago
Thank you for the correction!
gcr 4y ago
Back in the day ('70s and '80s i think), trans women used to take synthetic estrogens (such as premarin, IIRC was the drug of choice) before switching to bioidentical estrogen from estradiol tablets in the '90s and '00s, I think because bioidentical E is seen as more effective with a softer side effect profile than the synthetics, in particular bioidentical doesn't hurt the liver as much. Drinking horse piss in the 70s sure was metal though. ("pre-mar-in" = "pregnant mare urine," a source of estrogen since 1930). (folk knowledge and personal anecdata)
- elil17 4y ago
  Permarin was made into pills, not drank directly. Permarin is a conjugate estrogen (mix of natural estrogens). It had a higher risk of blood clots than pure E2. However it was not EE2.
sudosysgen 4y ago
It's still not that bad though, because the math is off. 4 ng is about 250,000x less than the smallest E2 dose a trans woman would take, and 2 million times less than the strongest doses some take.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

rayiner 4y ago

> I'd just like to call out, where feminization is a major concern (US, maybe Europe) What’s that supposed to mean? The article shows the rates in Southeast Asia are 10 times higher than the US. I can assure you that “feminization” would be a much more significant concern there than in the US or Europe.

xeromal 4y ago
I believe they mean the fear of feminization.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
gcr 4y ago
i think OP's two points are that 1. backlash against "feminization of men" is something that people seem to care about more in the USA than other countries (HN audiences skew toward this population anyway); 2. these days, right-wing extremists in my country (USA) see "feminization of men" as a politically beneficial wedge issue, and this politicization makes it impossible to study the actual societal effects impartially/neutrally.
- rayiner 4y ago
  > backlash against "feminization of men" is something that people seem to care about more in the USA than other countries Only because in most countries the established gender norms are taken for granted and aren’t being challenged.
  - sudosysgen 4y ago
    Not really. Gender norms are being challenged pretty much everywhere. They certainly are in the Islamic world, in East Asia (including China), and in South America, which is most of the world. Just because they didn't change in the same way or magnitude as they did in the West as of now doesn't mean they aren't being challenged - they very much are.

gcr 4y ago

Another important point is that trans women typically start on an antiandrogen as well as an estradiol supplement. Testosterone's effects are orders of mag stronger than estrogen, so trans women typically have to take drastic measures to significantly reduce testosterone first so the estrogen can work, such as taking large amounts of spironolactone or cyproterone acetate or orchiectomy; without these measures, estrogen isn't nearly as effective. You don't exactly see much spironolactone in the water supply! (Personal anecdata)

sudosysgen 4y ago

Your math is a bit off. 4 liters would be 4 nanograms, which is 250,000 times less than a trans woman would take (in the milligrams, not micrograms)

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

lazzlazzlazz 4y ago

If just drinking water gives you 10% of the dose that a trans person would seek medically, that seems like an incredibly high amount. Your post seems to reinforce concerns, not dissolve them.

stuckinhell 4y ago
I agree here. It bothers me to see people try to defend a contaminant in the water supply.

throwaway0x7E6 4y ago

>So in the end the number is less than 1/20th. even for fully-grown adults it is an extremely alarming figure. god only knows the full extent of damage done to children by this and other phytoestrogens.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]