Environmental Endocrine disruptors

  • Context: Medical 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Galteeth
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Environmental
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the impact of environmental endocrine disruptors, particularly focusing on synthetic chemicals and their potential effects on health and the environment. Participants explore various types of disruptors, their sources, and the complexities surrounding exposure and risk assessment.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express concern about the cumulative effects of synthetic chemicals found in everyday items like water bottles, suggesting that long-term exposure may be harmful.
  • Others argue that while certain disruptors may not pose significant risks individually, the combination of multiple sources (e.g., plastic plates, detergents) could contribute to health issues, including carcinogenesis.
  • A participant emphasizes the need for valid peer-reviewed scientific research to support claims about the harmfulness of specific chemicals.
  • Some participants highlight the challenges in studying the additive versus synergistic effects of multiple endocrine disruptors, noting that existing studies have primarily focused on individual substances.
  • There is a discussion about practical ways to limit exposure to endocrine disruptors, with suggestions ranging from dietary changes to using natural materials in living environments.
  • Concerns are raised regarding the potential health implications of phytoestrogens found in soy products, with differing views on their effects on health.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that endocrine disruptors are a significant concern, but there is no consensus on the extent of the problem, the specific risks associated with various chemicals, or the best strategies for limiting exposure. Multiple competing views remain regarding the implications of different disruptors and the validity of claims made about them.

Contextual Notes

Limitations in the discussion include the reliance on anecdotal evidence and the need for more comprehensive studies on the interactions between various endocrine disruptors. Participants acknowledge the complexity of assessing risks due to the ubiquitous presence of these chemicals in modern life.

Galteeth
Messages
69
Reaction score
1
Big deal or not?
 
Biology news on Phys.org
Depends on the kind of disruptor. Among the classic are bad nutrition, stress, medication that believe me can be quite harmful.
 
dark_raider said:
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.
 
dark_raider said:
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.
 
dark_raider said:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20509646

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20478588

These two are a sample of tons of papers published at ncbi.
I don't get the connection.

You said
however these+plastic plates+detergent+...+...+... +long term exposure is harmful

Your first link is to flame retardents. Your second link is to
Studies on the influence of pesticides, vegetarian diets, diethylstilbestrol, oral contraceptives and corticosteroids on hypospadias have yielded varied conclusions

Please post the studies pertinent to your claim that "plastic plates+detergent" is harmful.
 
Galteeth said:
Big deal or not?

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.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18248400
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18174957
 
Evo said:
I don't get the connection.

You said

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.

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.
 
  • #10
Galteeth said:
Big deal or not?

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.

http://www.endo-society.org/journals/ScientificStatements/upload/EDC_Scientific_Statement.pdf
 
Last edited:
  • #11
Hmm. These seem so ubiquitous. How does one try to limit one's exposure?
 
  • #12
Galteeth said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #13
SW VandeCarr said:
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.
 
  • #14
Galteeth said:
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).

http://envirocancer.cornell.edu/FactSheet/Diet/fs1.phyto.cfm

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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

Replies
11
Views
6K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
4K
Replies
15
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K