7 Surprising Sperm Killers That Could Leave Men Shooting Blanks

Originally posted by kwakakev
From past experience they will not give up until there it a mountain of dead bodies that can no longer be ignored.

What past experience? If you mean tobacco, they haven't given up yet! Do you have other examples besides tobacco where a mountain of dead bodies piled up before the manufacturers did something?

I think other manufacturers have an interest in the safety of their customers, just to avoid bad press for one thing. I worked for one of them and it was part of my job to recommend safer materials if there were any, and if I could document a real problem and a safer alternative, I basically never got turned down by management. In the case of BPA, I expect all the manufacturers of infant food packaging have already started replacing BPA if they haven't already, based on concerns expressed by Health Canada and others.

With BPA I'm not sure I could sell management on a change for adult food packaging because:
1. The studies I've seen tend to show there's not the safety problem suggested in the media for adults (except perhaps pregnant women who should be very particular about everything), and
2. There are safer alternatives for some applications, like baby bottles, etc. But for canned foods, is there a known safer alternative?

One problem I have with a knee jerk reaction to media pressure is, if a manufacturer changes at all costs, to something they have less experience with, we could go from the frying pan to the fire, where what they switch to may be less safe than what they replaced. I've actually seen this happen. We need to be rational.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


James Hardy with Asbestos is another classic example, there where concerns from staff for at least a good 10-15 years before production finally stopped after immense public pressure. James Hardy then ran away over seas and still have not addressed their responsibilities, the court cases still go on. There are others when it comes to pollution and the repercussion.

1. The studies I've seen tend to show there's not the safety problem suggested in the media for adults (except perhaps pregnant women who should be very particular about everything),

Agreed that pregnant women are in the highest risk group, testicular problems for growing boys also appears to be another high risk group due to the BPA similarity with Estrogen.

2. There are safer alternatives for some applications, like baby bottles, etc. But for canned foods, is there a known safer alternative?

Tin cans just use to be tin, I am not aware of the reasons for BPA in the first place. Defiantly no need for it in glass products. If the medical community is finding problems with one product then the scientist need to go back to the lab and look for something else.

Originally posted by kwakakev
Tin cans just use to be tin, I am not aware of the reasons for BPA in the first place. Defiantly no need for it in glass products. If the medical community is finding problems with one product then the scientist need to go back to the lab and look for something else.

This is my point. That how we got to where we are. The corrosion with the metal in the can was a safety concern, so scientists went to the lab and found a safer alternative (or so they thought, and so far no study has contradicted it for adult use). Wikipedia explains why the cans are lined, to prevent interaction with the metal which can make us even sicker than the BPA:

en.wikipedia.org...

Although tin is corrosion resistant, acidic food like fruits and vegetables can cause corrosion of the tin layer. Nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea have been reported after ingesting canned food containing 200 mg/kg of tin. A study showed that 99.5% of tested cans contain below 200 mg/kg of tin.

The 2002 study gives more details: www.food.gov.uk...

Health effects of tin in food
High concentrations of tin in food irritate the digestive tract and may cause stomach upsets
in sensitive people at tin concentrations above 200 mg/kg, with an increased risk of
effects at concentrations above 250 mg/kg. These effects, the symptoms of which include
fever, headache, nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, abdominal cramps and bloating, are shortterm
with recovery expected soon after exposure...

The Survey shows that levels of tin in each type of food sampled, with one exception, are
lower than those reported in previous surveys

Perhaps the lower tin concentrations are due to improved coatings on the insides of the cans?

As expected, tin concentrations in products packed in fully lacquered cans, which have no
exposed tin on the inside of the can, had a lower mean tin content (less than 5 mg/kg, 166
samples) than those packed in unlacquered or partially lacquered cans (59 mg/kg, 234
samples). Other factors such as headspace (the atmosphere above the food i.e. space not
in contact with food) and vacuum were less significant, but for some types of product
appeared to have a contributing effect on tin concentration.

So it seems like they are using the coating to avoid contamination or interaction with the tin, or aluminum, or whatever the can is made of, The interactions with the metal may make us sicker than the coatings used?

Heinz had to recall their tin canned product due to tin content as a result of that study:

As soon as we were alerted to the preliminary results from the FSA tin surveillance
programme, we immediately initiated a full investigation. When this identified isolated
batches of Heinz Spaghetti in Tomato Sauce cans that may have contained levels of tin,
albeit in trace amounts, but above required levels, we immediately implemented a
voluntary national recall as a precautionary measure. No other Heinz products were
affected.

I can only guess what cause this was something like an inadequate coating of the inside of the can (and apparently BPA when used properly makes an effective coating to prevent tin contamination).

Originally posted by kwakakev
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.

Remember I said don't believe everything you read in the media?

This sounds misleading:

Consumers checking whether plastic items contain BPA should look for the number "7" at the bottom of the container, an indicator used for recycling.

Do you think that suggests that the number 7 on the container means it contains BPA? Well I could understand why some might interpret it that way, but #7 means "other" which is "other than recycling categories 1-6".

It may or may not have any BPA if it has a 7, they could have made that much more clear.

It may or may not have any BPA if it has a 7, they could have made that much more clear.

I am not sure if there are any international standards in regards to labelling of plastics. I know it is a very complex area and has been gradually evolving over time with many different types and variations of plastics around. In the early days of plastic recycling it did make a difference as to what type of plastic was used. These days I have heard of some projects that just mash it all up and mix in some new plastic to help with the binding. Here is Australia, waste management and recycling are local council issues, this has lead to a wide variety of techniques and lack of resources in some areas. The best source I could recommend for what the plastic labelling means is to start local.

reply to post by kwakakev
According to Wikipedia, it's used internationally, though I don't know how extensively:
Resin identification code

The SPI resin identification coding system is a set of symbols placed on plastics to identify the polymer type. It was developed by the Society of the Plastics Industry (SPI) in 1988, and is used internationally. The primary purpose of the codes is to allow efficient separation of different polymer types for recycling.

The other category is extremely broad because it includes anything not in the first 6 categories:

7-Other: Other plastics, including acrylic, acrylonitrile butadiene styrene, fiberglass, nylon, polycarbonate, and polylactic acid

This is the link to International Universal Recycling Codes
The plastics symbols are the same, except it adds "#9 or #ABS" (I don't know what happened to #8, they don't list one)? So the international list and the SPI list are pretty close regarding the plastics codes. I would even guess the majority of #7 items probably do NOT contain BPA., though that's just a guess and I don't have any stats on the overall breakdown of what code 7 consists of. But "Other" is an extremely broad category.

Edit to add: I think some of these plastics types are incompatible so I'm not sure by what process they could all be mixed up, that's one reason for sorting them. Some types will mix more easily than others, but others have different densities which means it's like trying to mix water and oil.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


From my understanding of the situation, a lot of the BPA problems are with the thin coating that is applied to tin cans and various drink containers, even glassware according to some reports. In the past you could place a can of baked bean in the fire (put a hole in it first) and could eat straight out of the can. Now if you try an do it there is a really bad taste that goes throughout the beans as the thin plastic coating is burnt in the process. A lot of drink containers also use a similar thin coating in their packaging. There is no plastic recycling number on a lot of these products because they are made of other materials including tin and cardboard/foil.

As for the solid plastic containers I can understand your confusion in trying to work it out. A lot of the plastics are derived from crude oil by products after refining for fuels and oils. There is a lot of variation in the crude oil that is collected with different sources having a different combination of stuff. The chemistry behind plastics also gets complex with many different types of polymers, combinations and properties. The #7 at least provides a starting point of other or unknown plastic, I am sorry it could not be more helpful. It is the thin coatings of BPA in tin cans, drinks and other containers that is the main problem at the moment. The manufactures would know what they are using. The regulators need to set the standard.

If one really gives it some thought,this is only the beginning.

The entire planet is contaminated with all manner of poisons which cause all manner of ailments.

You can thank that technology you have become so dependent upon.

Take a walk and look around your world,it's really quite a big mess.

I just posted this not too long ago:

Scorched Scrotums: Is Your Laptop Cooking Your Testicles?

Moral: keep the boys cool & clean

reply to post by Shikamaru


but surely that is a good thing.no need for contraceptives.fewer crazy people on the streets.

women can have sex at last without worrying about more horrible brats in their belly from their drug crazed boozing boyfriend.

reply to post by Shikamaru


I have been a passive male all my life so do not care, and i have no care for ever having children ever.

Do you people really care?

I think they will control birth rates with mobile phone radiations and similar things also,a nd i think its already started in west.