Pollution may be to blame for collapse in sperm counts in Britain

Cheyenne

Ms. Smarty Pantsless
Joined
Apr 18, 2000
Posts
59,553
Where's p_p_man today? :D I think he'll like this one.


By Geoffrey Lean and Richard Sadler
17 March 2002
Sperm counts are falling dramatically across Britain and the rest of
industrialised world, and scientists are increasingly convinced that
pollution is to blame. Studies around the world have shown that average sperm counts in men have dropped by more than half over the past 50 years - from about 160 million per millilitre of semen to 66 million.

The Medical Research Council reports that the fertility of Scottish men born since 1970 was 25 per cent less than those born in the 1950s, with sperm counts continuing to drop by two per cent a year.

Other research by the US Government's Environmental Protection Agency shows that, proportionately, a man now produce only about a third as much sperm as a hamster.

Scientists increasingly blame a whole class of hormone-disrupting chemicals. Evidence suggests that they cause cancer and damage the immune system, as well as impairing fertility. And they are ever more ubiquitous.

DDT and other pesticides disrupt hormones, as do PCBs, used in countless products worldwide, from plastics and paint to electrical equipment.

Other components of plastics have been found to leach hormone-disrupters including phthalates, which have been found in a wide range of foods including baby milk.

Furthermore, an investigation by the BBC's Countryfile and The Independent on Sunday has revealed research, to be published this month, that shows that artificial oestrogens, used in contraceptive pills and emitted through sewage works, appear to be changing the sex of half the fish in Britain's lowland rivers.

Scientists and environmentalists fear that the powerful chemicals are getting into drinking water and affecting human fertility. One third of Britain's drinking water comes from rivers; most of it is taken from below sewage works.

The Environment Agency denies that there is any danger. Water UK, which represents the water companies, says that no hormone-disrupting chemical has ever been detected in British drinking water, and that fish placed in the water to test it did not become feminised.

But some scientists say that the chemicals may not have been detected, because there is no routine testing for them in drinking water, and because the equipment used in Britain is not sensitive enough.

Research at the University of Ulm, in West Germany, using more sophisticated techniques, found small amounts in four out of every 10 samples tested. And environmentalists fear that effects in people may occur over much longer periods than those used to test the fish.

Dr Susan Jobling of Brunel University, who led the research, says: "Unlike in fish, it is going to take 20 years to see if my children have been affected by developmental exposure to this same cocktail of chemicals."
 
I read that article in The Independent on Sunday last week - it's pretty scary stuff!
 
Oh great now my nut's aren't gonna work.......like I don't already have enough reasons to wanna leave this place after being mugged.

:confused: :rolleyes:
 
I used to be more up to date on this matter, because I found it interesting, having worked in both artificial insemination technology and the water filtration business previously.

I've read other articles to support this, with one exception.

It's meaningless to compare sperm counts & volumes between species. What is normal for one isn't for another. The same glands don't even add the same components to semen. There are many fertility factors which come into play, among them length of the fallopian tubes, the number of eggs to ripen in a cycle, the number of males or matings per female per cycle, etc.
Physiology & practice vary widely.

A comparisson of hamster sperm count over the decades might have been meaningful.
 
patient1 said:
I used to be more up to date on this matter, because I found it interesting, having worked in both artificial insemination technology and the water filtration business previously.

Hmmmm... interesting to think that those two industries could be related!
 
Glad to note it includes the rest of the industrialised world, wouldn't like to think our American cousins were missing out!

Of course some of us were born long before 1970:(
 
bluespoke said:


Of course some of us were born long before 1970:(

Psssst! In this case, that's a GOOD thing. The men born after 1970 are the ones with the lower sperm count.
 
Cheyenne said:


Psssst! In this case, that's a GOOD thing. The men born after 1970 are the ones with the lower sperm count.


Psssst! I know, that's why I mentioned it!:D
 
Devil of a job counting them all this morning - but I reckon they were all there. Born 1949. I'm unpolluted too, Bluespoke.
 
Alternative cause

While the enviro-nuts are out chasing chemicals, another group of scientists have been looking at the problem from another perspective.

It seems that the use of 'disposable diapers' has more subtle effects than clogging up the land fills. Subtle cahnges in the males genitilia have been associated with their use. Disposable diapers retain heat (you know, that plastic covering that doesn't let the liquid out either) and effect the natural growth of the male sex organs during the early years. (Heat has a profound effect on the male reproductive system. Particualrly sperm counts. It has been proven that men who regularly use hot tubs have lower sperm counts. The count returns to 'normal' when regular use of the tub is discontinued. This study indicates that the excessive heat in early life does permanent damage.) No untowards effects have been found in female children yet, and it is thought that none may be found due to the differences in the reproductive systems.

Regardless, this study is on going. Data so far indicates that it may be the more likely cause of reduced sperm counts and the damage is done early in the males life.

So instead of having the environment to blame, it just could be that lazy Mom's and Dad's have damaged their own children. (Of course they aren't necessarily to blame. This is a recent study. So no "flames" on this one thank you.)

Ishmael
 
May I call you Ishmael? (;) Sorry, I couldn't resist)

That is new & interesting information to me about disposable diapers. I'm not trying to descredit it. It 's free thinking. I didn't know that temperature was critical pre-puberty. It makes me wonder about the mumps, but maybe the disease's sterilizing effects are do to things other than temperature.

At least I was an Edsel -era cloth diaper baby.


I've also heard of enviornmental estrogens causing hermaphrodite reptiles in Florida.

It's also possible that estrogens & pseudo-estrogens in the enviornment result in girls reaching puberty at younger ages.

Or maybe it was from cattle treated with hormones.

Interesting.
 
it's in the science news.

patient1 said:
May I call you Ishmael? (;) Sorry, I couldn't resist)

That is new & interesting information to me about disposable diapers. I'm not trying to descredit it. It 's free thinking. I didn't know that temperature was critical pre-puberty. It makes me wonder about the mumps, but maybe the disease's sterilizing effects are do to things other than temperature.


That is what the study is all about. The determination of the effects of temperature. Cloth diapers are still in use in some areas of the country and they are 'tracking' the cloth vs plastic crowd. The problem is that you can't do 'invasive' tests on the children, and you have to wait 10 to 12 years to start doing the sperm counts. Soooooooo, they've had to backtrack as much as they can. They have found a correlation though.

They started the study because the reduced sperm count is more or less restricted to the industrialized nations (the largest users of disposables) and pollution knows no borders. Further, there was no explanation for there NOT being any evidence of reduced sperm counts in places like Mexico City. And if you've ever been there, you'd wonder why too.

Ishmael

*A clear day in Mexico City means you can see across the street.*
 
I've heard of Mexico City. I'm baffled as to why they don't share the sperm count problem if it's pollution related.

Sounds like a good explanation to me.


What if it's not the heat, but the close proximity of the highly absorbant skin of the scrotum to fresh plastic in a uric acid solution? That blames plastic diapers on chemical grounds rather than thermal ones.


:confused:
 
Nice try :)

patient1 said:



What if it's not the heat, but the close proximity of the highly absorbant skin of the scrotum to fresh plastic in a uric acid solution? That blames plastic diapers on chemical grounds rather than thermal ones.


:confused:

You forgot about the highly absorbant paper/fiber (not unlike cotton) liner that seperates the plastic from the scrotum.

Oh well, it's a heads up on the research in the area. But if I were raising male kids today, I'd go with the cotton. But that's just me.

Ishmael
 
peeking my head into the room...

Ishmael...check your mail.


Sorry! Closing door behind me.
 
Cheyenne said:


Psssst! In this case, that's a GOOD thing. The men born after 1970 are the ones with the lower sperm count.

Wooooooooo......Hooooooooooooo.......I was born way back in 1967 and the first house's we lived in were colder than a witches tit........."Me nut's are safe again"
 
Copied from Cheyenne's opening post...

"Pollution may be to blame for collapse in sperm counts in Britain"

That fucking Bush! He'll have a lot to answer for in 2032!

May he rot in Hell...

:D
 
Hey - built in spermicide. Cool! :)

Honey, we don't need to worry about you getting pregnant; Cheyenne says I've got a low sperm count. Yes, we're bare backing it all night tonight baby!
 
Re: it's in the science news.

Ishmael said:


.... Soooooooo, they've had to backtrack as much as they can. They have found a correlation though.

They started the study because the reduced sperm count is more or less restricted to the industrialized nations (the largest users of disposables) and pollution knows no borders. Further, there was no explanation for there NOT being any evidence of reduced sperm counts in places like Mexico City. And if you've ever been there, you'd wonder why too.


Watch out for those "correlations" and "links". They do NOT certify cause and effect (see page 1 of any respectable statistics text).

For fun, I produced a high-probability correlation between the rise in the Gold price and the rise in the incidence of Gonorrhea in New York City, in the 60's. The Gold price hit $800. Now that it has dropped to $300, has there been a catastrophic collapse in the gonorrhea incidence? of course not.

I heard of the temperature link with male fertility about 40 years ago, in Abu Dhabi, of all places, where it is kind of hard to keep the 'nads cool. The locals wear a sort of long nightshirt, nothing under it. Cool.

Mens bikini pants as underwear keep your balls hot and your sperm count low. Return to the kilt (you don't need to wear those cissie tartans) and give up underpants, and watch the old sperm count soar.
 
Re: Re: it's in the science news.

geo.fraser said:


Watch out for those "correlations" and "links". They do NOT certify cause and effect (see page 1 of any respectable statistics text).

For fun, I produced a high-probability correlation between the rise in the Gold price and the rise in the incidence of Gonorrhea in New York City, in the 60's. The Gold price hit $800. Now that it has dropped to $300, has there been a catastrophic collapse in the gonorrhea incidence? of course not.

I heard of the temperature link with male fertility about 40 years ago, in Abu Dhabi, of all places, where it is kind of hard to keep the 'nads cool. The locals wear a sort of long nightshirt, nothing under it. Cool.

Mens bikini pants as underwear keep your balls hot and your sperm count low. Return to the kilt (you don't need to wear those cissie tartans) and give up underpants, and watch the old sperm count soar.

And yes, I did hear about the statistician that drowned in a lake whose mean depth was 2 inches.

And you're right about the bikini breifs too. Same effect as the hot tub.

Ishmael
 
Back
Top