Is Atrazine making the boys trans?

[David Johansen]

The war isn't really about the environment.  It's about tearing down the existing social order.  Taking money from oil companies and giving it to China fits that narrative just fine.

[jhkim]

Nuclear Power!? Fucking Nuclear Power!? Dude, it's safer to operate and it's the cleanest energy source we have, you're NOT listening to scientists, you're listening to activists.

The fact he says this about nuke is undeniable proof he is simply a leftist parrot. No one who knows anything about energy thinks nuke is bad except morons deluded by "green energy" grifters. Nuke has the lowest incident of problems by an astronomical margin.

As I said GeekyBugle, I'm glad we're on the same page about nuclear power. I keep trying to convince anti-nuclear people I know about how nuclear power is safe and practical, but it's hard to get past prejudices. I've got an essay I've been working on about it - if you want to leave any suggestions/comments, you're welcome to.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tEMZ6I5tJX-h9ODkCYTibCNkEcLhtk--X6kM8G-cdAY/edit

[Brad]

As I said GeekyBugle, I'm glad we're on the same page about nuclear power. I keep trying to convince anti-nuclear people I know about how nuclear power is safe and practical, but it's hard to get past prejudices. I've got an essay I've been working on about it - if you want to leave any suggestions/comments, you're welcome to.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tEMZ6I5tJX-h9ODkCYTibCNkEcLhtk--X6kM8G-cdAY/edit

Fair enough, sorry for misinterpreting your statement.

[BoxCrayonTales]

We do see evidence of pollution causing decreasing IQs and sperm counts, but the data needs a lot more scrutiny and testing. So far there's no evidence that homosexuality in increasing in humans.

[Exploderwizard]

My conclusion isn't that we should listen to Alex Jones - it's that we should listen to scientists.

Honest scientists sure. The thing to realize is that (shocker) scientists are people. People can be bought off or just plain batshit crazy. Just because someone makes their living doing science doesn't mean that everything they present as science is universally true.

So many people followed the science on the whole fake pandemic BS and now regret it. SARS-COV2 has yet to be isolated. Despite repeated requests by actual scientists not a single pure sample taken from a live patient that isn't first cultivated in a syrup of pig kidney cell and bovine serum bullshit has been submitted for verification and isolation.

Despite this lack of verification scientists were coming out of the woodwork saying how deadly and scary this virus was, acting as loyal paid salespeople for the vax.

So don't look down on those who do not automatically believe everything any scientist says at face value. They may be smarter than you think.

[jhkim]

My conclusion isn't that we should listen to Alex Jones - it's that we should listen to scientists.

Honest scientists sure. The thing to realize is that (shocker) scientists are people. People can be bought off or just plain batshit crazy. Just because someone makes their living doing science doesn't mean that everything they present as science is universally true.

So don't look down on those who do not automatically believe everything any scientist says at face value. They may be smarter than you think.

Obviously, scientists disagree with each other and will have biases and so forth. And the track record of the scientific field is important: sociology and psychology (and to some degree medicine) have a worse track record than chemistry or physics, say.

But particularly if you want to answer a question like "What is the effect of 3 parts per billion of atrazine in drinking water on humans?" (3 parts per billion is the current EPA legal limit in the U.S.) I think that's a question that should be answered by scientists, and treated seriously.

I don't think that it's the sort of question that should be decided by having media personalities like Alex Jones broadcast to their listeners and have them decide based on Youtube videos, and for them to them get their representatives to vote the answer in Congress.

The role of government should be to remove biased sources of funding and other political influence from scientific research, not to decide the answers to science questions by popular vote or Youtube polls.

---

I am doubtful about the claim that atrazine is responsible for a rise in homosexuality among Americans. Some points regarding this:

• Atrazine has been banned in the EU since 2003, but the numbers of LGBT youth in the EU have not decreased.
• The largest relative increase in LGBT Americans is among bisexual (non-transgender) women.

[GeekyBugle]

My conclusion isn't that we should listen to Alex Jones - it's that we should listen to scientists.

Honest scientists sure. The thing to realize is that (shocker) scientists are people. People can be bought off or just plain batshit crazy. Just because someone makes their living doing science doesn't mean that everything they present as science is universally true.

So don't look down on those who do not automatically believe everything any scientist says at face value. They may be smarter than you think.

Obviously, scientists disagree with each other and will have biases and so forth. And the track record of the scientific field is important: sociology and psychology (and to some degree medicine) have a worse track record than chemistry or physics, say.

But particularly if you want to answer a question like "What is the effect of 3 parts per billion of atrazine in drinking water on humans?" (3 parts per billion is the current EPA legal limit in the U.S.) I think that's a question that should be answered by scientists, and treated seriously.

I don't think that it's the sort of question that should be decided by having media personalities like Alex Jones broadcast to their listeners and have them decide based on Youtube videos, and for them to them get their representatives to vote the answer in Congress.

The role of government should be to remove biased sources of funding and other political influence from scientific research, not to decide the answers to science questions by popular vote or Youtube polls.

---

I am doubtful about the claim that atrazine is responsible for a rise in homosexuality among Americans. Some points regarding this:

• Atrazine has been banned in the EU since 2003, but the numbers of LGBT youth in the EU have not decreased.
• The largest relative increase in LGBT Americans is among bisexual (non-transgender) women.

But is the LGBTMNOP % increasing at the same rate in the EU than in the US?

The EU has about 447 million while the US has about 334, so is that increase the same per capita?

Disregarding all the other letters in the alphabet, is the rate of M-F transgender identification increasing at the same speed in the EU than in the US per capita?

You do remember the part about FEMINIZATION right?

[jhkim]

I am doubtful about the claim that atrazine is responsible for a rise in homosexuality among Americans. Some points regarding this:

• Atrazine has been banned in the EU since 2003, but the numbers of LGBT youth in the EU have not decreased.
• The largest relative increase in LGBT Americans is among bisexual (non-transgender) women.

But is the LGBTMNOP % increasing at the same rate in the EU than in the US?

The EU has about 447 million while the US has about 334, so is that increase the same per capita?

Disregarding all the other letters in the alphabet, is the rate of M-F transgender identification increasing at the same speed in the EU than in the US per capita?

You do remember the part about FEMINIZATION right?

It's hard to get any hard-and-fast estimates of this, because there isn't regular yearly population estimates in either the EU or the U.S. So I don't know.

That said, my impression is that yes, transgender identification overall is increasing faster in the U.S. And yes, atrazine has androgen-blocking effects in mammals as well as amphibians, so it's a possible hypothesis.

Still, just as the fastest growing LGBT category is bisexual women, the fastest growing transgender subcategory is transmen and non-binary (AFAB - assigned female at birth). In the older generation, transwomen (mtf) greatly outnumbered transmen (ftm). In the younger generation, they are about equal. If feminization from atrazine was a primary effect, then I'd expect to see even more lopsided towards more transwomen.

Still, I'm not an endocrinologist. I don't really know - and I support banning atrazine.

I'd prefer it to be done by pushing for the EPA to study it and tighten up its standards in general, including on other herbicides. I don't like the idea of setting chemical limits in general based on popular vote.