Saturday, August 13, 2005

Second-Hand Estrogens Revisited

Many people have asked me if I can back up my absurd charge that synthetic estrogens from oral contraceptives are disrupting the environment.

Here's but a few of the hundreds of URLs that can be brought forward:

http://www.aperc.org/docs/bulletin01-16-02.htm

http://sports.espn.go.com/outdoors/bassmaster/news/story?page=b_fea_bt_0412_news_pollution_girly_bass

http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/innews/fishfert2003.htm

http://www.anapsid.org/cnd/hormones/estrogen5.html

http://www.healthfinder.gov/news/newsstory.asp?docID=522249

http://www.eurekalert.org/features/doe/2003-07/dnnl-see082703.php

http://pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/trib/regional/s_354359.html

http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/press/2003/2003-0627-KR-estrogenizedfish.htm

http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2001AM/finalprogram/abstract_25760.htm

http://www.jcaa.org/JCNL0411/MutantFish.htm

Note in the MSNBC piece that estrogens are said to be a “natural” part of sewage, but no one talks about how it gets in there.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6436617/


This is an extremely well-known problem among experts in waste management. Sadly, most of us prefer to concentrate on the evils of big manufacturing plants rather than our own contributions through the use of hormonal birth control drugs.
at

4 comments:

  1. Anonymous6:09 PM, August 13, 2005

    Steve,
    Nice to see your links on estrogen in the watershed.
    Used this info in a research paper for a college class
    last year, and the teacher could not believe that this
    was not more widely publized.
    Joe Dobbs

    ReplyDelete
  2. Steve Kellmeyer7:37 PM, August 13, 2005

    Joe,

    I'd love to come and talk on this issue - anywhere in the US. Everyone is refusing to acknowledge it. MSM ignores it because they are pro-contracept, the rest of the blogs ignore it for the same reason.

    When the whole culture is oriented towards death, few are going to acknowledge it.

    Steve

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous12:17 PM, August 15, 2005

    I find it interesting that I knew about this hormone pollution research more than a decade ago and at the time, my pre-med biology professor had called it "too early research" to make any kind of association. Yet, he had no problems with population and global warming predictions at the time that are laughably inaccurate today. This shows you how science can turn a blind eye to hard facts when it doesn't support their biases.

    ReplyDelete
  4. mcmlxix4:52 PM, August 16, 2005

    Of course it’s not just hormonal BCPs, it’s many drugs. The London water supply has Prozac in it for example.

    Now for the past couple of decades the anti-public smoking push has been rather successful in eliminating, or shifting the location of second-hand smoke. Smokers are told to "go over there if you want to smoke." What if we told users of hormonal BCPs, Prozac, and other excreted drugs, that if they want to urinate they must do so "over there" out of our watersheds. HA!

    Big tobacco was also made to pay to smoke related problems; maybe, so to should big pharma be made to clean up their excess.

    ReplyDelete