Vatican: Birth control pill pollutes environment

[billvon 3,130]

>We shouldn't immediately discount the possiblity that the very products that
>helped usher in the age of sexual freedom (the pill and it's many derivitives)
>could be colliding with some other culturally relevant issue, like
>environmentalism.

If by your statement you mean "we shouldn't discount the risk that new products pose to the environment" I agree 100%. We should indeed continue to evaluate the environmental risks of everything from DDT to RU486 to Viagra.

If you mean that you think the underlying issue is a "cultural collision" then that may well be, but I have seen little evidence that that collision is either significant or masking any potential problems.

[jakee 1,605]

Quote

It is, however, using secular research in this area to back up it's existing prohibition, in effect saying look, we told you this wouldn't be good for a number of reasons.

It's not using secular research to back up its position, it is using exaggerated, distorted and sometimes completely fabricated interpretations of science to back up its position.

In other words, lies.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[micro 0]

Quote

>We shouldn't immediately discount the possiblity that the very products that
>helped usher in the age of sexual freedom (the pill and it's many derivitives)
>could be colliding with some other culturally relevant issue, like
>environmentalism.

If by your statement you mean "we shouldn't discount the risk that new products pose to the environment" I agree 100%. We should indeed continue to evaluate the environmental risks of everything from DDT to RU486 to Viagra.

If you mean that you think the underlying issue is a "cultural collision" then that may well be, but I have seen little evidence that that collision is either significant or masking any potential problems.

found this article that certainly supports your position... very interesting (and scary) stuff!

http://lists.dep.state.fl.us/pipermail/pharmwaste/2007-June/001193.html

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[micro 0]

Quote

Quote

It is, however, using secular research in this area to back up it's existing prohibition, in effect saying look, we told you this wouldn't be good for a number of reasons.

It's not using secular research to back up its position, it is using exaggerated, distorted and sometimes completely fabricated interpretations of science to back up its position.

In other words, lies.

You are completely sure that there is no influence of birth control chemicals on animals in water? you've read the work that David Norris did w/ the EPA at the Univ. of Colorado? You've also read the research out of the Battelle Marine Sciences Lab, where they purposely exposed trout to the synthetic estrogen found in BC pills? Just what research have you read, Jakee, that has convinced you that the synthetic estrogen that has been found in these waters is due to pesticides, household cleaners and other products and not at all, not one bit, from excretions of female urine? Please tell me where to find this work, Jakee, where researchers have categorically removed, without a doubt, the possible influence of synthetic estrogen from birth control on the environment.

I'll wait...

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[kelpdiver 2]

While we're on the question of how big a deal is it - how should old drugs (painkillers, antibiotics, whatever) be disposed of?

What Micro talks about is plausible enough that I'm reluctant to dump in down the toilet, but any method of disposal has potential issues.

[micro 0]

Quote

While we're on the question of how big a deal is it - how should old drugs (painkillers, antibiotics, whatever) be disposed of?

What Micro talks about is plausible enough that I'm reluctant to dump in down the toilet, but any method of disposal has potential issues.

Great question... a lot of pharmacies have a disposal program where you can bring your old/unused stuff in and they'll properly dispose of them free.

edited to add... but how THEY dispose of them, I don't know... I hope they don't just throw them in the trash. That'd be something worth looking into. In the clinical trial work I do, alot of investigational product that is not utilized has to be incinerated.

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[billvon 3,130]

>how should old drugs (painkillers, antibiotics, whatever) be disposed of?

Good question, and one problem is that the "standard" way of doing it is indeed the toilet for security reasons (i.e. so no one gets the oxycontin of a recently deceased person.) Plastic bag/trash is a much better way to do it from an environmental standpoint; a dedicated pharmaceutical disposal channel would be better still.

[jakee 1,605]

Quote

Quote

It's not using secular research to back up its position, it is using exaggerated, distorted and sometimes completely fabricated interpretations of science to back up its position.

You are completely sure that there is no influence of birth control chemicals on animals in water... synthetic estrogen that has been found in these waters is due to pesticides, household cleaners and other products and not at all, not one bit, from excretions of female urine

Why do you ask that? From the OP;

"The pill "has for some years had devastating effects on the environment by releasing tonnes of hormones into nature" through female urine, said Pedro Jose Maria Simon Castellvi, president of the International Federation of Catholic Medical Associations, in the report.

"We have sufficient evidence to state that a non-negligible cause of male infertility in the West is the environmental pollution caused by the pill," he said, without elaborating further."

Why in the world should I have to be sure that the pill has absolutely no effect at all on anything whatsoever in order to think that the Vatican's interpretation is an exaggeration and distortion?

You do understand the difference between what you said, and what the Vatican said, right? You do know what an exaggeration is, right?










(Not to mention that I've previously shown you information that the Vatican produces on other forms of birth control that is roundly rejected by every major international health organisation.)

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[micro 0]

I see you didn't answer my previous post that you just quoted. That's alright, I really didn't expect that you would.

I'm fully aware of what exaggeration and distortion are. However, I'm not so quick to ascribe nefarious motives to the church in this circumstance. You, on the otherhand, see nothing but nefarious motives coming from Rome. You have yet to demonstrate that they have exaggerated, distorted, and lied about this issue. I ask you again, please produce the evidence. Please, jakee, refute their position in such a sound manner that there is, without a doubt, no way that birth control hormone pollution can be causing these problems.

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[rehmwa 2]

why do people hate the earth? won't someone think of the CHILDREN?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

It is, however, using secular research in this area to back up it's existing prohibition, in effect saying look, we told you this wouldn't be good for a number of reasons.

It's not using secular research to back up its position, it is using exaggerated, distorted and sometimes completely fabricated interpretations of science to back up its position.

In other words, lies.

Just like the man made global warming types huh......

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jakee 1,605]

Quote

I see you didn't answer my previous post that you just quoted. That's alright, I really didn't expect that you would.

Because the questions you asked had nothing to do with what I said.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rehmwa 2]

what about buying"Birth Control Credits"

Take a pee, send a few bucks to me and I'll tell you I'm planting a tree in your name.

It's your chance to save the planet in an effort/guilt free way. Don't you love the planet?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[micro 0]

Quote

Quote

I see you didn't answer my previous post that you just quoted. That's alright, I really didn't expect that you would.

Because the questions you asked had nothing to do with what I said.

It has everything to do with what you said. You accused the Vatican of lying about this issue. So, please demonstrate that they are, in fact, lying. Please illustrate that birth control hormones, excreted in the urine of females, can not possibly account for what has been found in water sources around this country and in other areas of the industrialized world.

Bill Von has pointed me to sources that seem to indicate that there are other chemicals that are dumped into water sources that can mimic the effects of synthetic estrogen. While this seems to be the case, this doesn't necessarily account for what has been seen in the water. This doesn't put this matter to rest. Given the ubiquitous nature of artificial birth control in this country, I would imagine that the amount of synthetic estrogen that is excreted from urine and dumped into water supplies would be far from negligible. What would need to be determined is what percentage of water in region x where these abnormalities are found is due to BC hormones and what percentage is due to other possible sources. What happens in a lab when you subject fish to hormones found in BC pills vs. the chemicals found in pesticides and detergents that can mimic synthetic estrogen? Are there differences? If so, what are they? Has this been looked at? Do you know?

To dismiss the Vatican's statements out of hand b/c you disagree with their teachings on a particular issue of morality is irresponsible, myopic and only displays your prejudices. Better to get the facts and make a decision than to go slinging shit like "they're a bunch of liars."

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[wmw999 2,597]

Quote

Take a pee, send a few bucks to me and I'll tell you I'm planting a tree in your name.

I'll go one better. Send me the money, and I'll actually plant the tree, and send you a picture of it.

Just, um, don't send me the pee

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Just, um, don't send me the pee

Wendy W.

That might get Homeland Security in a snit. WMD by mail really pisses them off.

[micro 0]

Quote

Quote

Take a pee, send a few bucks to me and I'll tell you I'm planting a tree in your name.

I'll go one better. Send me the money, and I'll actually plant the tree, and send you a picture of it.

Just, um, don't send me the pee

Wendy W.

c'mon wendy, i thought you were a bit more open minded than that...

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[Andy9o8 3]

What I'm accusing the Vatican Hierarchy of is not so much lying, as intellectual dishonesty in using environmental concerns as convenient re-packaging to make their ideological rulings more palatable to the herd. Take this for example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condom#Disposal_and_environmental_impact

Quote

Experts recommend condoms be disposed of in a trash receptacle. Flushing down the toilet may clog plumbing or cause other problems.[122]

While biodegradable,[122] latex condoms damage the environment when disposed of improperly. According to the Ocean Conservancy, condoms, along with certain other types of trash, cover the coral reefs and smother sea grass and other bottom dwellers. The United States Environmental Protection Agency also has expressed concerns that many animals might mistake the litter for food.[137]

Condoms made of polyurethane, a plastic material, do not break down at all.

Now suppose all of this is more or less correct. If the Vatican Hierarchy cited this as a reason to condemn condom use for contraception (as opposed to using them as water balloons, which is OK), I'd call that intellectually dishonest, for it goes far afield of the original reasons for banning artificial contraception cited in Humanae Vitae (which, yes, I have read).

[jakee 1,605]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I see you didn't answer my previous post that you just quoted. That's alright, I really didn't expect that you would.

Because the questions you asked had nothing to do with what I said.

It has everything to do with what you said.

No, the questions you asked had nothing to do with what I said.

I took issue with the Vatican saying that birth control pills have had a 'devastating effect' on the environment, you asked me to prove that birth control pills have never had any effect on the environment whatsoever. You asked me to prove a position I had not taken.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[nerdgirl 0]

Both the initial announcement and the subsequent discussion reminds me in many ways of the 2003 announcement by Imams in Kano, Zamfara, and Kaduna states of northern Nigeria that polio vaccine would cause sterility in male infants:

Datti Ahmed, a Kano physician who heads a prominent Muslim group, the Supreme Council for Shariah in Nigeria, said polio vaccines were ‘corrupted and tainted by evildoers from America and their Western allies. We believe that modern-day Hitlers have deliberately adulterated the oral polio vaccines with anti-fertility drugs and contaminated with certain viruses which are known to cause HIV and AIDS.’

Muslim groups rejected the results [of testing in western laboratories]. Kano state officials insisted their own scientists tested the vaccines and found trace amounts of oestrogen and progesterone, female sex hormones which the officials feared could cause infertility.

Jama'atu Nasril Islam, an influential Muslim group, said it sponsored its own tests in Britain and India and got similar results.

That led to polio spreading to twenty countries (as far away as Indonesia), including a dozen or so that from which polio had previously been eradicated.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[billvon 3,130]

> Given the ubiquitous nature of artificial birth control in this country, I
> would imagine that the amount of synthetic estrogen that is excreted
>from urine and dumped into water supplies would be far from negligible.

Around 100 million women use oral contraceptives. At an average dose of .1mg per pill, that's about 2.7 tons a year of xenoestrogens, worldwide, most of which is absorbed by the woman's body during normal metabolism.

Now compare that amount to the amount of DDT that is used worldwide every year (5000 tons) the insecticide ingredient Dieldrin (12,000 tons) sunscreens (6000 tons) or phtalate plasticizers (400,000 tons) a year. All xenoestrogens or precursors, all suspected of causing the same sort of trouble. Also ask yourself the last time you drank out of a bottle made of birth control medication, sprayed birth control on your children or saw it sprayed on crops.

There's no question that we should keep an eye on what we're introducing into the environment. But we also have to understand the relative risks involved, and concentrate on the worst ones first. This is best done by science rather than religion, IMO.

[micro 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I see you didn't answer my previous post that you just quoted. That's alright, I really didn't expect that you would.

Because the questions you asked had nothing to do with what I said.

It has everything to do with what you said.

No, the questions you asked had nothing to do with what I said.

I took issue with the Vatican saying that birth control pills have had a 'devastating effect' on the environment, you asked me to prove that birth control pills have never had any effect on the environment whatsoever. You asked me to prove a position I had not taken.

You've called them liars yet cannot prove they are lying. That certainly seems to be intellectually dishonest of you, doesn't it?

What words would you use to describe what is happening, exactly? Would you, can you say that there is no effect of BC synthetic estrogen from urine in the water supply at all?

The Canadian Freshwater Institute specifically dumped birth control pills in an Ontario lake that was set aside for research to see what would happen... all male species were feminized, some male minnows grew eggs in their testes, one species of minnow could no longer reproduce and almost disappeared from the lake. How exactly would you describe these effects?

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[micro 0]

Quote

> Given the ubiquitous nature of artificial birth control in this country, I
> would imagine that the amount of synthetic estrogen that is excreted
>from urine and dumped into water supplies would be far from negligible.

Around 100 million women use oral contraceptives. At an average dose of .1mg per pill, that's about 2.7 tons a year of xenoestrogens, worldwide, most of which is absorbed by the woman's body during normal metabolism.

Now compare that amount to the amount of DDT that is used worldwide every year (5000 tons) the insecticide ingredient Dieldrin (12,000 tons) sunscreens (6000 tons) or phtalate plasticizers (400,000 tons) a year. All xenoestrogens or precursors, all suspected of causing the same sort of trouble. Also ask yourself the last time you drank out of a bottle made of birth control medication, sprayed birth control on your children or saw it sprayed on crops.

There's no question that we should keep an eye on what we're introducing into the environment. But we also have to understand the relative risks involved, and concentrate on the worst ones first. This is best done by science rather than religion, IMO.

Well that certainly puts this into perspective, thank you for answering what other posters would not.

However, why is the group I cited in Canada specifically dumping birth control into lakes? Why are they concerned about that particular impact if the possible contribution is, according to what you cited, negligible at best? This is not a group with any particular partisan axe to grind. I find that a bit curious.

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[billvon 3,130]

>However, why is the group I cited in Canada specifically dumping
>birth control into lakes?

As an experiment, to see what happened. It's a decent experiment. They did what many scientists do with lab animals - expose them to very high levels of a potential toxin to see if it causes cancer, liver failure etc. If any effects are seen, they can then cut back the dosage to more accurately define the level of toxicity that produces damage, increases cancer rates, or causes other undesirable results.

The results of the Canadian experiment:

===========================
Effects observed in fish were similar in type and severity to those seen in wild fish downstream of municipal waste water treatment plants. Male fish produced high levels of egg protein precursors, had delays in development of reproductive tissues, and in one species of minnow produced eggs. Female fish had delays in reproductive development and changes in the amount and timing of egg protein production. Kidneys and livers were also affected in fish. After about 6 months, there were no apparent changes in size of fish populations, fish growth rates, male to female ratios, or survival of offspring. There were no apparent affects on tadpole growth, development and sex ratios but a low number of males had eggs. Affects on sex ratio and egg production were observed in zooplankton populations. No effects were found on the numbers of bacteria, algae and leeches. Monitoring of the lake ecosystem will continue for three years following estrogen exposure to determine the long-term impacts on populations of fish and aquatic organisms.
==========================

In summary, there were some morphological and developmental timing changes, but nothing that could be described as "devastating effects."

[micro 0]

I don't think you quite have it as far as the reason these researchers chose to specifically dump BC into this lake... seems to me they had some more specific hypothesis in mind than just taking some chemical willy-nilly off the shelf to see what it does. Also, they didn't expose them to "very high levels" either. They seeded the lake with 5 nanograms of EE2 (ethynylestradiol) for every liter of water, a level roughly equivalent to a typical U.S. urban waterway. There are many sites in the US (Florida, NY, Mass, Montana) that have EE2 levels many times higher than what was used in this Ontario lake study. This was found by Larry Barber, a USGS geochemist. The Florida site had 273 nanograms per liter. So at 5 nanograms per liter, they saw gender bending, hermaphroditism and other anomalies. What fun can be had at 40 times that amount?

You may not call these "devestating effects" but it sounds to me like some here are being just a little too quick to dismiss this problem.

I'd like to try and contact the authors of the Ontario study and find out they chose to dump BC into the lake instead of other chemicals whose effects mimic synthetic estrogen. Maybe it's a simple answer, like it wouldn't be so offensive to the public or whatever. I don't think that's the answer though.

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...