Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Biotech

Submission + - Scientists say Chemicals Turning Boys into Girls

pickens writes: Denmark has unveiled official research showing that two-year-old children are at risk from a bewildering array of gender-bending chemicals in such everyday items as waterproof clothes, rubber boots, bed linen, food, sunscreen lotion and moisturizing cream with a picture emerging of ubiquitous chemical contamination driving down sperm counts and feminizing male children all over the developed world. Research at Rotterdam's Erasmus University found that boys whose mothers were exposed to PCBs and dioxins were more likely to play with dolls and tea sets and dress up in female clothes. "The amounts that two-year-olds absorb from the [preservative] parabens propylparaben and butylparaben can constitute a risk for oestrogen-like disruptions of the endocrine system," says the report. "This contribution originates predominantly from cosmetic products such as oil-based creams, moisturizing creams, lotions and sunscreen." The contamination may also offer a clue to a mysterious shift in the sex of babies. Normally 106 boys are born for every 100 girls: it is thought to be nature's way of making up for the fact that men were more likely to be killed hunting or in conflict. But the proportion of females is rising, so much so that some 250,000 babies who statistically should have been boys have ended up as girls in Japan and the United States alone. "Both the public and wildlife are inadequately protected from harm, as regulation is based on looking at exposure to each substance in isolation, and yet it is now proven beyond doubt that hormone disrupting chemicals can act together to cause effects even when each by itself would not," says Gwynne Lyons, director of Chem Trust.

Comment Re:It's the first with bigger explosions... (Score 1) 1294

really, i was almost expecting an intelligent debate on the nature of causality. you'd think the machines would have been read up on their philosophy. f'rinstance, David Hume back in the 18th century made the following observation (simplified horrendously):

what we call 'causality' can be nothing other than the constant conjunction of the idea of the cause with that of the effect. we believe in cause and effect but can never know that an effect is actually caused, merely that stimulus B is repeatedly paired with stimulus A.

we're convinced, for example, that the sun will rise tomorrow. we have an entire worldview that shows why this is the case, and for hundreds of years it hasn't gone wrong. but there is no way to PROVE that the sun will rise. it's simply quite probable given all of our past observations. natural laws, though, are DESCRIPTIONS of reality as we understand it, not actually the hardcoded principles of the universe. causality seems to be wired in to us--we do induction in the real world not because we can logically prove it (unlike a priori mathematical induction), but because it makes sense to us.

at first i was thinking that the machines were deterministic consciousnesses, and thus had greater reason to "believe" in causality. but it's quite possible that's not the case. still, it would have been nice to see Neo take up Hume's argument and then the French dude to take up Zubiri's critique and duke it out in a civilized manner...

Slashdot Top Deals

Support bacteria -- it's the only culture some people have!

Working...