Big deal or not?
Depends on the kind of disruptor. Among the classic are bad nutrition, stress, medication that believe me can be quite harmful.
I was referring specifically to synthetic chemicals, like those found in water bottles. There is a segment of people who are very concerned about the cumulative effects of the amount of artificial disruptors we are exposed to. I was trying to get a sense of how big a problem this is.
The problem is that we are exposed to many different disruptors. For example, water bottles are not a big problem, however these+plastic plates+detergent+...+...+... +long term exposure is harmful. Also, this is one main reason for carcinogenesis.
You need to post the valid peer reviewed scientific research to back up your statement.
This is a science forum and it is required. Thanks.
These two are a sample of tons of papers published at ncbi.
I don't get the connection.
Your first link is to flame retardents. Your second link is to
Please post the studies pertinent to your claim that "plastic plates+detergent" is harmful.
Yes, these are a big deal and a growing problem. However, this is a broad category. There are compounds that are, for example contaminating water supplies and presenting real serious issues, especially for aquatic species, while there is also a lot of misinformation riding on the coattails of the legitimate problems. There are also a lot of concerns about potential endocrine disruptors that don't yet have enough evidence to determine one way or another yet. The literature on the subject spans from endocrinology and reproduction journals to toxicology journals, often depending on whether the source of the compound is natural or man-made and the main research interest of the group studying it.
Regarding the concern of additive vs. synergistic effects of exposure to multiple endocrine disruptors, this really isn't well studied. Some of the common ones were tested in one study a few years ago and were found to simply have additive effects. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17651883
However, a few other relatively recent articles have raised this same concern regarding disruptors of different classes, rather than those all acting on the same receptor. Basically, in the past people have been so focused on individual disruptors that they haven't been studying them in combination, and this is a growing appeal from toxicologists that looking at different classes of disruptors in combination needs to be studied more carefully, because they just don't know what happens if you're exposed to a mixture of them.
I think that there's a misundersanding here and this is my fault. Plastic plates+detergent etc was just an example (apparently a bad one) in order to show that we come in contact with chemicals everyday. What i really meant was something like the links from ncbi. Let me know if the fog is gone.
Yes, big deal (at least IMO). Here's a fairly comprehensive publication of the state of knowledge as of last year. Population based studies are difficult to do because of the problem in obtaining valid control groups given the ubiquitous presence of many of these chemicals in the modern environment.
Hmm. These seem so ubiquitous. How does one try to limit one's exposure?
Drink distilled water from clear glass containers, grow all your own food hydroponically (no meat, eggs or dairy), make all your own clothes from natural fibers with no synthetic dyes, filter the air you breath and don't go near anyone else.
EDIT: Your question is a serious one and I don't mean to minimize it. There is no practical way to completely avoid potentially hazardous chemicals, even if you moved to what you think is a pristine environment Getting your food, water and clothing from natural sources helps; particularly organic food you grow yourself. I would eliminate all animal products. Your home and its contents should be made of natural materials (stone and wood with no paint, plaster, or wall paper or wallboard). If you are prepared to go this route, research the best kinds of wood to use. The more you can avoid synthetic/processed products and materials, the better off you are regarding potential exposure to hazardous chemicals.
It's funny you mention avoiding animal products. Isn't soy with it's phyto-estrogen a big ED? I guess you would have to get protein from combining amino acids from different foods.
I don't know your gender, but possible health issues with soy products mainly concern women and breast cancer risk. Studies have indicated possible weak protective as well as possible contributing effects. In general phytoestrogens in the amounts they occur in natural sources are thought to confer some health benefits. The usual admonition is "everything in moderation". I would avoid phytoestrogen supplements or any products containing xenoestrogens (not naturally present).
EDIT: BTW, I'm answering your question as to how to reduce exposure to EDs, not necessarily suggesting a life style that I would generally recommend. For most people, I would suggest eating only whole natural foods, preferably organic. You can eat some meat and eggs, preferably from animals raised on only natural feed (for example grass with no chemical fertilizers) and with no supplements. To the extent you can practically rid your home of synthetic materials, you should do so. However, by far, the biggest known preventable threats to human health in developed countries remain smoking cigarettes, eating too much sugar, salt and fat, and lack of exercise.
Separate names with a comma.