Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

7 Surprising Sperm Killers That Could Leave Men Shooting Blanks

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 11:42 AM
link   

7 Surprising Sperm Killers That Could Leave Men Shooting Blanks


health.msn.com

Sperm killers are everywhere. They saturate you in the shower, seep into your skin in the checkout line, and even ooze into the convenience food you grab on the fly. No matter the point of entry, many everyday chemicals are zapping sperm counts and even silently scrambling DNA sperm data for men all over the world. Some cause sperm mobility problems, leaving your swimmers not swimming so well.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 11:42 AM
link   
Incredible stuff! I had no idea there were so many probably chances of disabling a man's reproductive army. For men, like myself, who look forward to having children in the future, this makes me think twice about what I put in my hands and what I eat too.

I work in a retail electronics store that makes over 100k a day, so when I think about all the receipts I handle or other customer shandle, it makes me really nervous to know that BPA is going through my hands all the time.

And my soap?! I thought these things were supposed to be better for us? Smells like depopulation to me! Or just manufacturing with a purpose.

health.msn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 11:46 AM
link   
"Poisoned left and right, if only I could lift my arm then surely I would fight."



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 11:50 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 12:40 PM
link   
Hi, first time poster. I had no idea about chemicals in everyday things effecting men like that, interesting article.
Back in high school I remember myself and a friend joking about the effects of yellow five in mountain dew and he says, "It lowers your sperm count,thats why I drink it, don't have to worry about kids."
Weither it does or not I have no clue, however it raises an interesting question to me. Are men nowadays even concerned about such a thing or would they rather be sterile and be able to have sex with no strings attached?

PS. That picture is so number 8.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 12:57 PM
link   
More than half the list has applied to myself.

I worked as a bookkeeper in a grocery store - receipts. I have lived off canned foods for months at a time. I also enjoy my showers with scented soaps. I will eat produce whenever I get a chance. Yet I am still looking at the 2 children that my wife has popped out in the last 4 years. This is not a very news worthy item on MSN's part, under the how to protect yourself for the receipt papers it states there has been no confirmation that handling receipts has a link to decreased sperm production.

IMO this is just a story to get more people to go to the website, after all sex is one of the main staples of the internet.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 01:12 PM
link   
This really just seemed like advertisement for other products. In most of the scenarios the article kept saying try this, try this, try this, try this. I'm not going out and buying organic that cost atleast a dollar more so i can be more fertile. 75% of pregnancies end in a miscarriage so I doubt males being more fertile is going to bump up this stat.. (this comes from my biology teacher)



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by YEAHHA
I worked as a bookkeeper in a grocery store - receipts. I have lived off canned foods for months at a time. I also enjoy my showers with scented soaps. I will eat produce whenever I get a chance.
Thanks for the intelligent post. I agree.
The article does clearly say "While there's no direct evidence linking receipt handling to infertility" just as you said, they probably should have said that for every item on the list except the heated car seats. I think the first four are fear mongering and there's no real threat to sperm from receipts, canned food, sex toys, or soap. Some of this I have researched thoroughly though I haven't looked at soap yet but it sounds ridiculous.

The last three items might actually have SOME degree of validity, since produce does tend to be laced with chemicals, and it should be thoroughly washed. I wash it several times actually.

Heated car seats, definitely could kill some sperm, no doubt about it. It depends on a lot of things but anything that gets them too warm can kill them.

And contaminated fish, the best advice is to limit fish intake if you're not sure about the content of toxins in the fish.I used to eat fish 3-4 times a week because I love it, but I backed off to once a week and now even less, maybe twice a month because of toxicity concerns.

The heated car seats probably don't hurt women, but even women should probably wash their produce and avoid too much fish consumption.

But I'm also going to keep using soap, eating canned goods, and eating produce after I wash it. And receipts are the least of my worries.
edit on 16-1-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Shikamaru
 


I bet your thinking that many elitist sociopaths are conspiring to reduce the population...or tying to kill you! Your probably right. You shouldn't have kids anyway. After all to the uber elite psycho's, your just a plebe, a serf, a wage-slave, livestock and there are too many of you all ready. And let's face it, they are really sick of you pulling out pictures of your little darlings anyway. Babies all look like Mr. Potato Head. I'm sorry but they do. You may think that your little Oscar or Gwendolyn looks just like you, but trust me he or she doesn't. Babies all look a like. And maybe that's how it should be. A little reminder that we are all the same. We are the same family. We all just want a roof over our head, safe, nutritious, food on the table, some clean water and to be left alone to live and love IN PEACE! But these ultra-rich pricks don't care, they don't know that we are all the same. They have a delusion that they are better than you and me. That they have the right to steal and cheat and rape you and the Planet, causing war and hate and discontent. And they are getting away with it. So try and wrap your head around that one. How can you still doubt it? What to do? Well I might suggest educating yourself of their plans and thwarting them by non cooperation, NON VIOLENT non cooperation. Your here on ATS, so your on the right track. Believe what you gut tells you, you intuition. Stop eating crap in fast food joints. Don't by cans lined with toxic BPA plastic. Don't touch the receipts. NEVER believe what THEY say. In fact if THEY say something, it's more than likely that the opposite is true. Have a sense of humor. (Christ, poison dildo's, you've got to see some humor in that one, "Dildo's of death") THEY are not going to win. You are. We are. Screw them! With a BPA fake dick! Peace, Love to you all!



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 01:58 PM
link   
Bottom line is that none of these chemicals are good for you -- sperm being only one thing that gets damaged by them. So, ya, I am all for avoiding them.

I am close to 2 weeks now soap and detergent free in the shower or bath -- just warm water and a cloth to scrub with. No-one's complained so far.


An yes, I am buying more and more organics. It is cheaper in the long run if it keeps u out of the doctor's office.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 08:28 PM
link   
BPA has been a problem for a while www.bibliotecapleyades.net... . How long is it going to take for people to realise these big corporations care more about your money than you and do something about it?
edit on 16-1-2011 by kwakakev because: spelling 'than'



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by kwakakev
 
How long is it going to take for people to realize that even water is toxic if you get too much of it?

Do you want to ban water too?

Seawater contained very small amounts of toxins like heavy metals even before man polluted it, but in small enough amounts even toxic compounds don't seem to do any measurable harm. Apple seeds contain cyanide which is deadly in large doses but eating a few apple seeds won't kill you or even make you sick. Some people even think apple seeds can be good for you like curing cancer or something, though I wouldn't go that far.

My point is, the dosage of what we are exposed to matters, and if the dosage is small enough, I'm not convinced it's harmful. At high enough dosages just about anything can be harmful to us, so it helps to know what amounts we are exposed to. Have you looked into that?



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 




Do you want to ban water too?


Try and drink 7 litres of water really quickly and it can kill you. I agree that moderation is important. A little bit of fluoride in the water is good for the teeth, too much and it pacifies the brain and causes irregular bone growths. BPA is being used in all kinds of food packages and very easy to overdose if you eat a lot of canned food, packaged drinks and other products that use it. We never needed it in the past so why do we need it now? Why is there not a push for safer packaging when BPA does have a proven risk?

The main reason I see for being feed this poison is to save 0.1 cent per package so the executives can get a few extra thousand on their bonus and make the shareholders happy.
edit on 16-1-2011 by kwakakev because: added reason for BPA



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by kwakakev
BPA is being used in all kinds of food packages and very easy to overdose if you eat a lot of canned food, packaged drinks and other products that use it.
OK I'm open-minded, have you got any sources to back this up? What quantity of BPA is a harmful exposure, and what quantities are we getting exposed to from food packaging? The data I saw suggested it wasn't a problem but maybe you have a different source showing it is a problem? Here's the determination from health Canada:
www.hc-sc.gc.ca...

Health Canada's Food Directorate has concluded that the current dietary
exposure to BPA through food packaging uses is not expected to pose a health risk to the general population, including newborns and infants.
However they do make some recommendations about limiting use:


However, due to the uncertainty raised in some animal studies relating to the potential effects of low levels of BPA, the Government of Canada is taking action to enhance the protection of infants and young children. It is therefore recommended that the general principle of ALARA1 (as low as reasonably achievable) be applied to continue efforts on limiting BPA exposure from food packaging applications to infants and newborns, specifically from pre-packaged infant formula products as a sole source food, for this sensitive segment of the population.
edit on 16-1-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 11:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


www.naturalnews.com...

www.naturalnews.com...

latimesblogs.latimes.com...

I have not gone deep into the scientific literature, but I am expecting some damning evidence and case studies from what some of the media have portrayed.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by kwakakev
 
Thanks for the links. They recommend pregnant women and infants limit their exposure, and Health Canada said something similar. They didn't seem to say that adults have cause for concern about exposure to BPA from food packaging.

They also said that the Obama administration is going to sped $30 million on a study even though they just revisited it in 2008. Nothing wrong with studying it some more.

The problem with the media is, their objectives don't always align with either those of consumers or manufacturers, they are trying to gain readers/viewers with stories. Contrary to the belief of some people, manufacturers generally do want to provide products which are safe for the consumers (with the exception of the tobacco industry). So you may want to dig into the scientific literature instead of relying too much on general media which may not reflect the situation accurately. Here's some old data, we will have to see if the new $30 million study comes up with something different:
voices.idahostatesman.com...

the amount of BPA migrating from can coatings would result in the consumption of less than 0.105 micrograms (0.000105 milligrams) per kilogram body weight per day. This level is more than 475 times lower than the maximum acceptable or "reference" dose for BPA of 0.05 milligrams per kilogram body weight per day, which was determined to be the safe life-time exposure dose by the USEPA in 1993.

Also, per the European Food Safety Authority’s risk assessment notes, when BPA is ingested by humans it’s worked on by enzymes, gains a sugar molecule, loses all estrogenic power and is rapidly excreted in urine. But this is not what happens when BPA is administered to rats and mice either orally or intravenously. In each case the metabolic pathways are different, and there is more free BPA and/or other metabolites swimming around. This is, at a highly simplified level, why independent European, Japanese and American risk assessments rejected the studies which claim endocrine disruption.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 11:49 PM
link   
The main problem with BPA is as an endocrine disruptor by mimicking the body's own hormones. The Endocrine Society is a good source of professionals challenging the effects of BPA www.endo-society.org... .



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 12:00 AM
link   
reply to post by kwakakev
 
As I posted just before your post, the European Food Safety Authority says that rats metabolize BPA differently than humans do, so that casts some doubt on the relevance of rat studies. I don't know if the Endocrine Society acknowledges or disputes that, but I noticed their latest study is a rat study.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 12:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Differences between humans and rats are to be expected, especially with hormonal functions.



Also, per the European Food Safety Authority’s risk assessment notes, when BPA is ingested by humans it’s worked on by enzymes, gains a sugar molecule, loses all estrogenic power and is rapidly excreted in urine. But this is not what happens when BPA is administered to rats and mice either orally or intravenously. In each case the metabolic pathways are different, and there is more free BPA and/or other metabolites swimming around. This is, at a highly simplified level, why independent European, Japanese and American risk assessments rejected the studies which claim endocrine disruption.


This is not a simple situation with many interactions going on. Anyone who claims such comes across as just trying to whitewash the situation. Industry has invested millions, perhaps billions of dollars in this technology. From past experience they will not give up until there it a mountain of dead bodies that can no longer be ignored.

From my understanding of BPA it performs a similar function to Estrogen in the human body. Some people may be able to process and remove it, others possibly not. It could be why the studies into lower doses receive such conflicting results. Some people may have an immune system that can detect BPA and quickly neutralise it, others just get hormonal imbalances as their body does not know what is going on. By getting a large dose of BPA, the bodies immune system may wake up to what is going on and combat the effects of it better. Just a thought.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 12:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Shikamaru
 


i knew about hot tubs so the heated seats make sense but i was really shocked to hear about bike seats, receipts, soaps and shampoos, shower curtains, sex toys. alot of this stuff is just crazy.





new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join