Feminizing Effects Of Environmental Toxins

A study from 2010 shows that .1 parts per billion of Atrazine (introduced in 1958) is enough to make 10% of male frogs become fully functional female frogs who are able to reproduce with male frogs and lay viable eggs. The other 90% were feminized to varying degrees. This study reproduces the results of an earlier study done before 2000, but which was not allowed to be published. (Here is a TED Talk that mentions additional chemicals and species.)

Here is a quote from the abstract:

The herbicide atrazine is one of the most commonly applied pesticides in the world. As a result, atrazine is the most commonly detected pesticide contaminant of ground, surface, and drinking water. Atrazine is also a potent endocrine disruptor that is active at low, ecologically relevant concentrations. Previous studies showed that atrazine adversely affects amphibian larval development. The present study demonstrates the reproductive consequences of atrazine exposure in adult amphibians. Atrazine-exposed males were both demasculinized (chemically castrated) and completely feminized as adults. Ten percent of the exposed genetic males developed into functional females that copulated with unexposed males and produced viable eggs. Atrazine-exposed males suffered from depressed testosterone, decreased breeding gland size, demasculinized/feminized laryngeal development, suppressed mating behavior, reduced spermatogenesis, and decreased fertility. These data are consistent with effects of atrazine observed in other vertebrate classes. The present findings exemplify the role that atrazine and other endocrine-disrupting pesticides likely play in global amphibian declines.

(These frogs were only exposed to .1 parts per billion; whereas, agricultural workers who work with Atrazine have 2400 parts per billion in their urine. Yes, that is 24,000 times as much.)

Atrazine is just one of many such toxins we absorb from our environment, other examples are BPA and pthalates, not just from water, but from foods, plastics, clothes, carpet, furniture, mattresses, pillows, etc. Therefore, given how humans use the same hormones for reproduction that animals do, and given how humans also absorb toxins through our skin, as well as when we eat, drink, and breathe, such environmental toxins are obviously the most probable explanation for the increase many related conditions such as LGBT, lower testosterone, lower sperm count, and micropenis.

These chemicals cross the placental barrier and are also in breast milk, which is of critical importance because the effects on those who were exposed in the womb, or shortly thereafter, are probably going to be more pronounced than the effects on those exposed only as an adulthood. For example, male-specific brain structures develop during three windows when an individual is exposed to testosterone. One is as a fetus, and one is shortly after birth. (The other is at puberty.) Consider that American women today have 30,000 to 50,000 chemicals in their bodies that their grandparents did not have. This would explain why the effects on each generation seems more pronounced than the previous generation.

Each individual’s genes are likely to react in different ways, so not everyone will be affected in the same way, and given that we did not evolve with these toxins, we may also be affected in ways never before observed. Richard Dawkins says much the same thing:

When we talk about a gene for anything, whether it’s homosexuality or anything else, we don’t necessarily mean that the gene inevitably has that effect. A gene only has the effect that it does in the right environment. So it could be that a gene that has the effect of causing a male to be homosexual in the present environment—in our present technological environment—civilized environment—would not have had that effect in a different [past] environment.

Anyone whose health has been affected (e.g. LGBT) should be treated with as much respect as anyone else, but the media actually celebrate and promote LGBT in spite of the clear evidence suggesting that many (perhaps most) could be the victims of poisoning. Like the media, the entire establishment ignores the facts, and celebrates and promotes LGBT instead.

One who has been radically transformed by environmental toxins has a right to be very angry at the source and at those who try to cover up, perpetuate, and promote such victimization.

The entire establishment is guilty, and must be held accountable.

How is it the party that cares the most about LGBT individuals is the party that tries the hardest to cover up endocrine disrupting toxins in the environment?

In the end, it’s the things you didn’t do you’ll regret most.

Jim
 

>