FIRSTLY PLEASE EXCUSE THE TYPO IN THE TITLE OF THE THREAD, THE CORRECTION IS "OFF the planet".... sorry.. can't change it now! Ok.. on with the thread.
I recently had to do a short paper at Uni on "Technologies" and there effect on society. I thought this may be of interest here - specifically xenoestrogens. I thought this might evoke an interesting discussion
--
With increasingly complex interactions of both direct and indirect pressures on human health and reproduction, the next century will surely provide many challenges for the future of humanity. Xenoestrogens, lifestyle choices and interference with genetic selection could have unforeseen and dire consequences. The purpose of this discussion is to explore the interactions of society and technology and how the combination of various factors could in the long‐term affect the survivability of the human race. The focus will be on specific chemicals, lifestyle choices, scientific technologies and their interaction. This essay will show that we have to seriously rethink our use of these related technologies and their impact to ensure a future where reproduction is possible.
Environmental chemicals known as xenoestrogens are presenting themselves as direct challengers to long‐term human reproduction in both the terms of increasing infertility and as carcinogenic agents. DDT and PCBs have been shown to have a strong estrogenic effect on wildlife and have long half‐lives of 60+ and 10+ years respectively (Toppari et. al. 1996, 748 ‐ 756). It has been expressed that these persistent organic pollutants “may undergo global scale redistribution” (Kalantzi et. al. 2001, 1013). This raises the concerns about their continual use in developing countries as posing a much larger global threat. Bisphenol A is commonly used in the manufacturing of plastic goods, food containers, toys, medical goods, plastic water bottles and lacquer coating in food cans (Vandenberg, et.al 2007, 140). In a study the canned foods and their associated liquids, both tested positive for xenoestrogens (Brotons et. al. 1995, 609). Perinatal exposure of certain levels of BPA has been shown to alter the fetus in ways that may predispose the child to future disease, reduced fertility and gender related cancers (Maffini et. al. 180). Parabens are xenoestrogens that are widely used internationally as preservatives in lotions, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, food and contact lenses. (Darbre et. al. 2004, 5). Parabens have been observed to exhibit dose related decreases of both sperm and testosterone in rats. In this study a daily intake of Parabens in which a hormonal disruption was observed was within the acceptable daily upper‐limit as stated by the EU and Japan (Oishi 2002, 1811) and recent scientific literature also states that Parables may not be as safe as first thought (Tavares, Martins, Oliveira, Ramalho‐Santos, Peixoto 2009, 2). These environmental xenoestrogens pose a threat to the future of human reproduction in there own right, but individual lifestyles choices are also exposing people to situations that impact on their ability to reproduce.
Lifestyle choices can also impact seriously on an individual’s fertility. Living in a city with elevated levels of pollution and breathing poor quality air has been shown to have impacts on sperm quality in human males (Selevan, et. al. 2000, 887). This is not limited to the male but also fetal deaths, the following stated “a significant and robust association between air pollution and intrauterine mortality” (Pereira et. al 1998, 328). Moderate alcohol consumption has shown to have negative trends on sperm quality (Pajarinen et. al. 1996, 334). Cigarette smoking has been linked to low sperm density, especially in heavy smokers (Chia, Xu, Ong, Tsakok & Lee 1994, 292). The increasing use in laptop computers if used on the lap of male has raised concerns about increasing scrotal temperature and has been shown to have negative impacts on sperm maturation. Lifestyle choices have a definite link to male infertility. Are we wiping our selves out of the gene pool with poor lifestyle choices or is this just a modern incarnation of the evolutionary theory of survival of the fittest?
Survival of the fittest in the traditional sense, no longer seems to ring true in our society. What would have once been considered weak genes are now able to remain in the human gene pool due to advancements in medicine and society. Though one may question is this actual a good thing for the future of humanity or are we diluting the gene pool? Though fertility technology, males with defective sperm have been able allowed to reproduce. Through this process it is possible that the defective genes are passed onto the children (David et. al. 1999, 1722). This then presents as a temporary bandaid as opposed to a real solution. Allowing defective genes to survive is not only limited to the realms of fertility. Historically humans with colour defective vision faced challenges throughout evolution with survival and hunting. Through advancements in agriculture, outdated evolutionary style hunting was no longer a heavy requirement for survival. One would assume the inability to effectively read colours from the environment, is no longer a major challenge or threat to an individuals survival. The question then presents that is this really supportive of the long‐term survival of the human race? This avenue of science presents direct conflict with Darwin’s theory of natural selection.
Historically little was know about the long‐term effects of all of substances when they were originally released into the market place. Items once labelled “scientific breakthroughs” or considered totally safe have later presented to be the opposite. It is now well known that these each of these individual examples provided here present varying levels of opposition to human reproduction on varying levels. A concern is how little is known about their long‐term synergistic effects. Daily exposure to pollution, environmental chemicals, plastics, skin care products and laptops seem to a relatively unquestioned and common lifestyle norm. If our environment and lifestyle choices fail us along with it our fertility, having fertility science as a bandaid does not seem to be a viable solution. Overall it is concerning how little is know about the interaction of these “technologies”, substances and factors. Considering the common and increasing levels of exposure, it raises some serious concerns about the long‐term sustainability of the human race. A serious re‐evaluation of recently suspect technologies, future technologies, certain manufacturing processes, chemical usage, environmental waist and our lifestyles is needed to insure our long‐term survivability.
Refernces:
Brotons, J. A., M F Olea‐Serrano, M Villalobos, V Pedraza, and N Olea. 1995.Xenoestrogens released from lacquer coatings in food cans.Environmental Health Perspectives 103(6): 608–612.
Chia SE, Xu B, Ong CN, Tsakok FM, Lee ST. 1994. Effect of cadmium and cigarette smoking on human semen quality. International journal of fertility and menopausal studies, v39(5): 292‐298.
Darbre, P. D., A. Aljarrah, W. R. Miller, N. G. Coldham, M. J. Sauer and G. S. Pope. 2004. Parabens in Human Breast Tumors. Journal of Applied Toxicology 24: 5–13.
David C., Sherman Silber and Laura G. Brown. 1999. Men with infertility caused by AZFc deletion can produce sons by intracytoplasmic sperm injection, but are likely to transmit the deletion and infertility. Human Reproduction, v14(7): 1722‐1726.
Kalantzi, O. I., R. E Alcock, P. A. Johnston, D. Santillo, R. L. Stringer, G. O. Thomas, and K. C. Jones. 2001. The Global Distribution of PCBs and Organochlorine Pesticides in Butter. Environmental Science and Technology 35 (6): 1013–1018
Maffini, Maricel V., Beverly S. Rubin, Carlos Sonnenschein and Ana M. Soto. 2006. Endocrine disruptors and reproductive health: The case of bisphenol‐A.Molecular and Cellular Endocrinology 254–255: 179–186.
Oishi, S. 2002. Effects of propyl paraben on the male reproductive system. Food and Chemical Toxicology 40: 1807–1813.
Pajarinen, Jarkko., Pekka J. Karhunen, Vesa Savolainen, Kaisa Lalu, Antti Penttil, Pekka Laippala. 1996. Moderate Alcohol Consumption and Disorders of Human Spermatogenesis. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, v20(2): 332‐337.
Pereira, L A., D Loomis, G M Conceição, A L Braga, R M Arcas, H S Kishi, J M Singer, G M Böhm, and P H Saldiva. 1998. Association between air pollution and intrauterine mortality in São Paulo, Brazil. Environmental Health Perspectives, v106(6): 325–329.
Selevan, Sherry G., Libor Borkovec, Valerie L. Slott, Zdena Zudova, Jir̆i Rubes̆, Donald P. Evenson and Sally D. Perreault. 2008. Semen Quality and Reproductive Health of Young Czech Men Exposed to Seasonal Air Pollution. Environmental Health Perspectives, v108(9): 887‐894.
Tavares, Renata S, Fátima C. Martins, Paulo J. Oliveira, João Ramalho‐Santos, Francisco P. Peixoto. 2009. Parabens in male infertility—Is there a mitochondrial connection? Reproductive Toxicology 27(1): 11‐7.
Toppari J, Larsen J, Christiansen P, Giwercman A, Grandjean P, Guillette L, Jégou B, Jensen TK, Jouannet P, Keiding N, Leffers H, McLachlan JA, Meyer O, Müller J, Rajpert‐De Meyts E, Scheike T, Sharpe R, Sumpter J, Skakkebaek NE. 1996. Male reproductive health and environmental xenoestrogens. Environmental Health Perspectives. v104: 741–803.
Vandenberg, Laura N., Russ Hauser, Michele Marcus, Nicolas Olea, Wade V. Welshons. 2007. Human exposure to bisphenol A (BPA). Reproductive Toxicology 24(2): 139‐177.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by JiGGaMaN
