What do ultra-libertarians make of this? On the one hand, banning these allegedly harmful chemicals would consitute interference in the private sector. On the other hand, there’s allegedly already interference in the, uh, private sector. 
1 Like
-
That is one of the strangest stories I’ve ever read anywhere. It’s a random mishmash.
-
Taipei Times poached that story from another source and it isn’t even an authentic news distributor and they don’t even claim to be.
So Taipei Times is just posting some random something something as news.
They should really check their sources better or quit claiming to be a news organization. Is in the editorial section but with all the data facts and figures that don’t even add up to a single point of a new story appears to be someone trying to report valid news instead of an editorial.
It’s from Bloomberg, as the byline shows, and it’s in the Editorials section. Newspapers do this all the time. I didn’t think it was necessary to dig up the original.
Reproductive health is still an issue, no matter how well or badly written the piece may be.
Bloomberg View is not news. Editorial section so I guess it gets a pass.
Typical junk science reporting, which is what you get when journalists write about science, spiced up with the almost-obligatory anti-Trump jab. The article is, however, semi-redeemed by the phrase “pendulous testicles.”
So, nothing to worry about, all those chemicals are perfectly safe, right? 
Well, they don’t seem to have had much effect on my pendulous testicles yet. If anything, they’re even more pendulous than they used to be (although, admittedly, that may be age-related).
And isn’t it past your bedtime? I hear staying up late has an adverse effect on sperm count. 
Oh, I didn’t know you had a healthy brood of little Milkers. Congratulations!
But suppose for a moment it’s true. What takes priority, in your variety of libertarianism: freedom to do one kind of business or freedom to do the other kind of business? Or is it a false dichotomy?
Btw my location is undisclosed and undisclosable…
Until there’s a proven scientific link, it’s all just hot air. My theory? The decreasing sperm count is caused by a combination of skinny jeans, rampant self-abuse to internet porn, third-wave feminism, vegetarianism, high-tofu diets, bicycle riding, metrosexualism and tanning salon irradiation. And the beauty of my theory is that it’s just as scientific.
1 Like
Your evasiveness reeks of either cognitive dissonance or lack of interest…
Where’s @jotham when we need a more committed ideologue?
I confess to my lack of interest in half-baked pseudoscience with a political slant. Guilty as charged.
I’ve seen better writing on the subject before. If I come across it again I’ll share it here.
Even if the theory turned out to be completely false, I would still be interested in the philosophical dimensions, like what would Salerno do? and so on.
It makes us relieved that - unlike in the UK - Taiwanese people aren’t forced to fund such politicized media drivel under the threat of force.
This stuff has been known for several decades at least, so I wouldn’t say it’s “news”. There is some very solid science demonstrating common environmental pollutants - pesticides, plastics and their monomers or breakdown products, pharmaceuticals in water, etc - having identifiable biological effects on humans.
While I agree that journalists invariably misunderstand science, I don’t see much in the article to criticize except that it’s too vague and too brief. But I can’t see anything that’s misleading or factually incorrect. The only silly bit is the policy recommendation: labeling hazardous chemicals. That’s just daft on several different levels.
Personally, I think the underlying problem is that the government already has interfered extensively in the market. A lot of plastic waste and chemical effluent, for example, is a direct result of foolish food regulations, which are themselves based on bad science (or sometimes just somebody’s opinion). Agricultural pollution is a direct result of peddling faulty science/technology to farmers, who mostly just believe what they’re told by their elders and betters. There are any number of situations where, if the government hadn’t tried to fix what wasn’t broke, there would be a lot less mess.
1 Like
A similar article I read said Latin American males still showed no lowering in their sperm but there were no definite or as numerous studies yet to determine why.
They’ll probably discover that enough machismo and three hail marys a day can cancel out the effect of endocrine disruptors.
Or more studies are needed…lol
However I am always in awe on how difficult it is to get pregnant if you are married and live in a developed country against a penniless teenager from the 4th world…Ayioo…
What, Taiwan has no state media? Bloomberg is state media? Bloomberg is British?
I’m so confused. 
How has government regulation resulted in more chemical effluent etc. than the private sector would have released without interference?
Trying to attract me back to the forum with a topic such as this? I agree with Dr Milker, all those things are taking a toll on sperm count. Particularly when it comes to heating the scrotum. In the 50s, during experiments, they found that men who regularly bathed in hot water, were rendered infertile for some 6 months. Those boys are meant to stay cool, which is why they become more pendant when its warmer, to keep it away from heat. Skinny jeans, cycling shorts, tanning salons make them too hot. It seems fashion in the 70s were more loose clothing than today. If you want really rich sperm, if you want children, really strong and healthy, take really cold baths every day before engaging in intercourse.
It’s a bit like perhaps finding a veritable problem but a wrong prescription. They said global warming was caused by human-made agents in the air, and now we find it was the sun all the time.
I was going to go out and buy an ice pack until I read this.
1 Like