Vatican: Birth control pill pollutes environment

[jakee 1,605]

Quote

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

I've demonstrated in the past that they've lied about certain birth control issues, I wouldn't be surprised if they were doing the same again.

Quote

Would you, can you say that there is no effect of BC synthetic estrogen from urine in the water supply at all?

Why do you keep asking that? I have never so much as hinted that I hold that position.

You do know that "nothing" and "devastating" are not binary options, right?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Andy9o8 3]

Dude, this is where the rubber meets the road.

[micro 0]

Why do you keep asking that? I have never so much as hinted that I hold that position.

You do know that "nothing" and "devastating" are not binary options, right?

I keep asking that b/c it's germane to the discussion. Why do you keep avoiding it?

You do know that lying and overstating something are quite different, aren't they? You do know, or don't you, that some people in different cultures may be prone to using hyperbole or to using more exagerated language than in other cultures, or if a person was speaking in a language that wasn't his native tongue, he may have chosen a word (such as devasting) that may have been too strong? I don't know if these have in fact occurred here, but I wouldn't doubt they have. I've been to Rome many times and have spoken with people inside the vatican and know how exagerative people can be there in their language, in their gestures, etc.

To assume, which is what you have done, that they have outright lied about this, is unwarranted. I have no problem with admitting they may have overstated the issue or have used language that is too strong. However, to make the jump that they are therefore lying is unwarranted, and it's a mistake you won't admit you've made.

BTW, as for previous lies the vatican has allegedly propogated, please reference your posts. I'd like to do a little digging...

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

[billvon 3,130]

>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.

?? I didn't suggest they did anything "willy-nilly." Pretty much all such experiments start with a substance suspected of causing harm (xenoestrogens, mercury, PCB's etc) and then evaluate the harm done by the substance. It is important to have at least a superficial expectation of what harm is to be expected, so the appropriate metrics (i.e. male/female ratios) can be applied to the results.

As an example, you likely would not do male/female population studies on rats that had been exposed to UV radiation, because skin and eye effects would be expected to dominate.

>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.

I can't find any EE2 data for "US urban waterways" but in streams in Germany, measured levels were around 0.16 ng/L, increasing to 1-2 ng/L in untreated sewage. Denmark was similar, with untreated sewage coming in at around 5.2ng/L, and treated sewage (i.e. discharged water from sewage treatment plants) at around 1.7ng/L.

In other words, you could fill a pond with treated Denmark sewage and have less than half of the concentration in the experiment.

>The Florida site had 273 nanograms per liter.

Do you have a reference for this?

>So at 5 nanograms per liter, they saw gender bending,
>hermaphroditism and other anomalies. What fun can be had at 40
>times that amount?

We don't need to guess. It's been tested up to 1000ng/L, at which point it renders most fish populations sterile.

>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 don't think they should be dismissed at all - and since scientists are indeed testing for it, it is not being dismissed. However, a test that results in no long term damage to a given population can hardy be called "devastating."

[dmkellett 0]

Religion = control over minority groups (women especially)

Birth control = allows women freedom in their lives

Catholic church likes to assert control through fear of eternal suffering, so anything that gives a minority group more freedom is seen as evil.

Catholic Church = stupid, irrelevant, old fashioned, and damaging to humanity...and young boys...

When are we going to grow up and stop listening to these mad old freaks in positions of power? Is it not obvious that birth control is a good thing? I suppose not if your entire life you have been brainwashed by old men ranting in latin

[micro 0]

>>?? I didn't suggest they did anything "willy-nilly." Pretty much all such experiments start with a substance suspected of causing harm (xenoestrogens, mercury, PCB's etc) and then evaluate the harm done by the substance. It is important to have at least a superficial expectation of what harm is to be expected, so the appropriate metrics (i.e. male/female ratios) can be applied to the results.

Sorry, in your previous post, it sounded to me as if you were saying that the Canadian researchers did not necessarily have an M.O. for picking BCPs as their substance to start with.





>The Florida site had 273 nanograms per liter.

>>Do you have a reference for this?

I'm looking... It was mentioned in a study conducted by Larry Barber from the USGS in a couple of articles I read but I'm not having a lot of luck finding the original source on line.

>>We don't need to guess. It's been tested up to >>1000ng/L, at which point it renders most fish >>populations sterile.

And what would it do to humans, per se? Doesn't sound good does it. I'm seeing more and more articles on the feminization of boys/men and the suspected culprits are these same types of chemicals, the ones found in BCPs and others that you've mentioned.

>>I don't think they should be dismissed at all - >>and since scientists are indeed testing for it, it is >>not being dismissed. However, a test that results >>in no long term damage to a given population >>can hardy be called "devastating."

You can not say there is no long term damage. They haven't conducted tests long enough to make that conclusion.

From laboratorytalk.com... http://www.laboratorytalk.com/news/agi/agi470.html

"Low concentrations of parts-per-billion or parts-per-trillion generally aren't considered dangerous over the short term, but no one knows about the long-term human and ecological effects.

"There are also troubling effects on wildlife, such as male fathead minnows that are becoming 'feminised' from traces of the human birth-control compound EE2 in streams at concentrations of parts-per-trillion.

"This is noteworthy on a number of levels".

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

[billvon 3,130]

>And what would it do to humans, per se?

Well, to women, it would be like taking . . . oral contraceptives. To men it would likely wreak havoc with their endocrine systems at those concentrations.

>You can not say there is no long term damage.

I'm not saying it; I am referring to the study in Canada you cited. There is no way the results of that test can be called "devastating."

There may well be very long term damage. However, since we live in an environment with measurable levels of natural but non-intrinsic estrogens (i.e. phytoestrogens) it is likely that exposure to low concentrations of them is something we have evolved to cope with. As with any other substance, overexposure may cause problems.

[micro 0]

An irrelevant contribution, full of bigotry, vitriol AND a young boy joke? Wow. Now that is certainly a new, fresh take on things, isn't it. One we haven't heard before! Kudos to you chap, for freshening up this conversation with a real gem!

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

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

intellectual dishonesty in using environmental concerns as convenient re-packaging to make their ideological rulings more palatable to the herd.

all this means is that the Vatican is composed of people, just like every other scam artist using environmental concers as convenient re-packaging to make their ideological rulings....yada yada yada

honestly, 99% of the entire environmental movement is intellectual dishonestly aimed at gaining power

BTW - I planted your tree. You want a picture?

...
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

[dmkellett 0]

HA !

Any religious organisation that attempts to control the lives of its flock in the manner that the catholic church does deserves nothing but ridicule.

hello???? Condoms banned...!!! thats one of the most dangerous things a single person in power has ever uttered. Untold damage . A REAL BODYCOUNT THROUGH THE SPREAD OF HIV.........

I say the pope should stand trial for manslaughter for this and for covering up the naughty priests.

[micro 0]

Quote

HA !

Any religious organisation that attempts to control the lives of its flock in the manner that the catholic church does deserves nothing but ridicule.

hello???? Condoms banned...!!! thats one of the most dangerous things a single person in power has ever uttered. Untold damage . A REAL BODYCOUNT THROUGH THE SPREAD OF HIV.........

I say the pope should stand trial for manslaughter for this and for covering up the naughty priests.

Your powers of logic are just... they just leave me speechless. The Pope can no more ban condoms than he can force people to have sex, which what people are freely choosing to do w/o condoms. Don't you find it just a little odd, that in the countries that will listen to one aspect of church teaching, i.e. don't use condoms, won't listen to other aspects, i.e. don't use drugs, don't have sex outside of marriage, etc? How about taking the WHOLE message instead of just bits and pieces, hmmm?

And since you insist on bringing up molesting priests time and again... you do know don't you that the incidence rate of catholic priests molesting children is not any higher than other pedophiles and that pedophiles are found in other segments of society, hmm? Schools, other churches, other places where children congregate, hmm?

Probably not... when you see a roman collar, you probably immediately have a knee jerk reaction and think pedophile! Shame really. It belies your own bigotry and small thinking. The percentage of pedophiles in the church is quite small really. Am I saying that the hierarchy is w/o blame in all of this, hell no. Criminals, many of them are. But c'mon, grow the fuck up a little.

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

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

And since you insist on bringing up molesting priests time and again... you do know don't you that the incidence rate of catholic priests molesting children is not any higher than other pedophiles and that pedophiles are found in other segments of society, hmm? Schools, other churches, other places where children congregate, hmm?

Shouldn't priests be held to a higher standard than the general population? They're supposed to be a moral authority, no less.

[dmkellett 0]

oh come on, they KNEW what was going on and they COVERED it up. in multiple countries and for many many years. that makes me sick. to protect the church and the priests involved is just disgusting. the pope is at the top and so he should take responsibility, ie stand trial...

What the HELL (pun) is wrong with sex outside marriage? is it damaging? is it harmful to society? is it wrong? is it evil?......

ONLY if you believe the CRAP these mad old fools feed you.....like the CRAP about birth control they continue to push onto the flock in the third world. People who dont know better listen to this shite and then get HIV. of course there are other things that contribute to the overall problem in the 3rd world but the last thing these poor people need is idiots like the pope and his henchmen making things worse. It does not cost anything to say they were wrong and birth control is OK , but look at how long it was after they persecuted people for saying the world was not the centre of the universe before they gave in on that one????

anyone who listens to this shite is as mad as the idiot ranting it.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

And what would it do to humans, per se? Doesn't sound good does it. I'm seeing more and more articles on the feminization of boys/men and the suspected culprits are these same types of chemicals, the ones found in BCPs and others that you've mentioned.

There are lots of culprits - the use of soybeans throughout the food supply is another one. And then the notion that it's all bullshit, an overreaction to the 'sensitive male' and the strong woman going back to Linda Hamilton in Terminator 2.

[dmkellett 0]

“Ridicule is the only weapon that can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.”

-Thomas Jefferson

[rushmc 23]

Quote

“Ridicule is the only weapon that can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.”

-Thomas Jefferson

And since there were most likely many on this site who did not want to resort to what you quote, responses to you were limited

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

[dmkellett 0]

Doesn't supprise me at all,

USA = 90 % (ish) belief in GOD

Rest of DEVELOPED world = less than a 30% belief in GOD

some countries like sweden less than 10%......

Dorkzone.com is mostly populated by jumpers from the USA, therefore I am fully aware of the opposition to my views. I am just having fun, putting forward the most likely explanations (note logic and reason not superstition and storybooks..) and seeing how many crazy explanations from creationists I can illicit. IS that a crime? Even a sin? Is it as bad as sex outside marriage or even using a condom??? I hope so.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Doesn't supprise me at all,

USA = 90 % (ish) belief in GOD

Rest of DEVELOPED world = less than a 30% belief in GOD

some countries like sweden less than 10%......

Dorkzone.com is mostly populated by jumpers from the USA, therefore I am fully aware of the opposition to my views. I am just having fun, putting forward the most likely explanations (note logic and reason not superstition and storybooks..) and seeing how many crazy explanations from creationists I can illicit. IS that a crime? Even a sin? Is it as bad as sex outside marriage or even using a condom??? I hope so.

Fun? maybe....
Trolling? more liekely....

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

[dmkellett 0]

not trolling,

just interested in how people lie to themselves in the face of OVERWHELMING evidence. Care to supply any evidence that birth control is a bad thing?

Trolling is bad. Discussing hocus pocus is fun, especially when one is able to do so with such fervent true believers... I am amazed at how people can still believe in total crap. Whats wrong with secularism/atheism/logic/reason/rationality/common sense? how is stating the obvious trolling? please explain

thanks!

[rushmc 23]

Quote

not trolling,

just interested in how people lie to themselves in the face of OVERWHELMING evidence. Care to supply any evidence that birth control is a bad thing?

Trolling is bad. Discussing hocus pocus is fun, especially when one is able to do so with such fervent true believers... I am amazed at how people can still believe in total crap. Whats wrong with secularism/atheism/logic/reason/rationality/common sense? how is stating the obvious trolling? please explain

thanks!

Easy to explain.

You have taggeg someting you dont believe in as a lie. You cant prove it, you just have your opinion.

When you do not respect the opinion or belief of another and then post as you have here, well, I call it trolling.

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

[dmkellett 0]

Quote

Quote

not trolling,

just interested in how people lie to themselves in the face of OVERWHELMING evidence. Care to supply any evidence that birth control is a bad thing?

Trolling is bad. Discussing hocus pocus is fun, especially when one is able to do so with such fervent true believers... I am amazed at how people can still believe in total crap. Whats wrong with secularism/atheism/logic/reason/rationality/common sense? how is stating the obvious trolling? please explain

thanks!

Easy to explain.

You have taggeg someting you dont believe in as a lie. You cant prove it, you just have your opinion.

When you do not respect the opinion or belief of another and then post as you have here, well, I call it trolling.

show me the evidence, ill believe anything that there is evidence for. like the benefits of birth control for women. pretty easy stuff, unlike eternal suffering for fornication. thats just silly. see my earlier post quoting Mr Jefferson..... he hit the nail on the head.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

not trolling,

just interested in how people lie to themselves in the face of OVERWHELMING evidence. Care to supply any evidence that birth control is a bad thing?

Trolling is bad. Discussing hocus pocus is fun, especially when one is able to do so with such fervent true believers... I am amazed at how people can still believe in total crap. Whats wrong with secularism/atheism/logic/reason/rationality/common sense? how is stating the obvious trolling? please explain

thanks!

Easy to explain.

You have taggeg someting you dont believe in as a lie. You cant prove it, you just have your opinion.

When you do not respect the opinion or belief of another and then post as you have here, well, I call it trolling.

show me the evidence, ill believe anything that there is evidence for. like the benefits of birth control for women. pretty easy stuff, unlike eternal suffering for fornication. thats just silly. see my earlier post quoting Mr Jefferson..... he hit the nail on the head.

Yes he did. Your only confusion is he is referencing you, not those replying to you.

In any event, you jump around. Hard to talk with someone who does that. I responded to a specific point of your post. The lie being religion. Want to go back to that? Or do you dare.............

"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

You do know that lying and overstating something are quite different

No, I dont. If I did know that, I could say this - the majority of Roman Catholic priests are paedophiles, and the Vatican does everything in its power to stop a single one of them from being discovered - and not be lying.

Quote

You do know, or don't you, that some people in different cultures may be prone to using hyperbole or to using more exagerated language than in other cultures, or if a person was speaking in a language that wasn't his native tongue, he may have chosen a word (such as devasting) that may have been too strong?

It wasn't an off the cuff remark, it was contained in a written report. I doubt that a cosmopolitan institution like the Vatican has a lack of qualified translators Majorly overstating the problem is lying.

Quote

BTW, as for previous lies the vatican has allegedly propogated, please reference your posts. I'd like to do a little digging...

Search on condoms, aids, Vatican, words like that. The Vatcian has distributed information about condoms that has been rejected by every major world health organisation.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[micro 0]

Quote

Quote

And since you insist on bringing up molesting priests time and again... you do know don't you that the incidence rate of catholic priests molesting children is not any higher than other pedophiles and that pedophiles are found in other segments of society, hmm? Schools, other churches, other places where children congregate, hmm?

Shouldn't priests be held to a higher standard than the general population? They're supposed to be a moral authority, no less.

Absolutely they should! I don't disagree w/ that one bit. What I was addressing is the rather common -and erroneous- belief that most/a lot/all men who wear the roman collar have a penchant for young boys. There are many, many more good priests in the world than there are pedophiles. And the few rotten apples have indeed done much to spoil the bunch as far as public perception goes. That doesn't make it right for people to villify good men who are completely innocent.

As for those who are pedophiles and those who covered the shit up, I have a special disdain for them and the part of me that isn't so christian wishes they would be strung up and tortured. Having 5 kids of my own, and having a very dear friend in PHX who was a victim of priest sexual abuse, the whole thing just boils my blood. It's a stain on the church that may never be gotten over. It certainly should never be forgotten, lest such travesties happen again. And I think the church should be doing far more to make reparation and to show that their process for making sure it doesn't happen again has changed.

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

[micro 0]

i personally don't think you're capable of carrying on a rational conversation about this topic, given the way you choose to express yourself.

however, i do ask you to do this... go read a package insert on any birth control pill. ask yourself just how freeing you'd feel having to take that every day in order to supress a natural body function, indeed one of THE bodily function that identifies you and being a woman, that is working properly.

you've bought into a lie, pal. fertility is not a disease that needs to be treated.

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