Missing: 160 Million Girls

It's not every day that the New York Times publishes an op. ed. piece with which I agree.  Today's "160 Million and Counting," in which Ross Douthat discusses the problem of sex-selective abortion and its impact worldwide is one of those rare pieces. Specifically, his article revolves around Mara Hvistendahl's recent book Unnatural Selection: Choosing Boys Over Girls, and the Consequences of a World Full of Men.

Though Hvistendahl describes herself as "pro-abortion", her work is gaining attention from many different spheres. For those who favor abortion as a means of empowering women and for those who also favor population control, her findings are raising some very necessary questions.  For those who are pro-life, and especially for pro-life feminists, it confirms fears that (politically and eugenically motivated) American-sponsored abortion and population control programs in the third world would backfire, creating social change that actually leads to greater violence and increased  oppression of women.

Douthat discusses the implications of her findings in his article. He writes:

The spread of sex-selective abortion is often framed as a simple case of modern science being abused by patriarchal, misogynistic cultures. Patriarchy is certainly part of the story, but as Hvistendahl points out, the reality is more complicated — and more depressing.

Thus far, female empowerment often seems to have led to more sex selection, not less. In many communities, she writes, “women use their increased autonomy to select for sons,” because male offspring bring higher social status. In countries like India, sex selection began in “the urban, well-educated stratum of society,” before spreading down the income ladder.

Moreover, Western governments and philanthropic institutions have their fingerprints all over the story of the world’s missing women.

...

...A self-proclaimed agnostic about when life begins, Hvistendahl insists that she hasn’t written “a book about death and killing.” But this leaves her struggling to define a victim for the crime that she’s uncovered.

It’s society at large, she argues, citing evidence that gender-imbalanced countries tend to be violent and unstable. It’s the women in those countries, she adds, pointing out that skewed sex ratios are associated with increased prostitution and sex trafficking.

Read the rest at the New York Times.



Hvistendahl's book has exposed the consequences of the kind of feminism that early American feminists opposed: the kind that says that women must be like men to be equal to them, and must sacrifice the lives of their children as a condition of participation in society.

Hopefully, in light of this, more people will begin to realize that some choices are wrong.

Schoolmarm ruler wave to The Institute for Marriage and Public Policy
For more on pro-life feminism, visit Feminists for Life of America.

Cancer Chemistry

The Breast Cancer Fund is an advocacy group that draws attention to environmental toxins that are linked to breast cancer, including those in food storage containers, cosmetics, and even oral contraceptives.

One more group that recognizes the link between the Pill and cancer.

Pill harms environment/population, says its inventor

Yes ladies and gentlemen. One of the men responsible for producing the pill says it is a "demographic catastrophe" and an environmental hazard.

From Cathnews.com:

Eighty five year old Carl Djerassi the Austrian chemist who helped invent the contraceptive pill now says that his co-creation has led to a "demographic catastrophe."

In an article published by the Vatican this week, the head of the world's Catholic doctors broadened the attack on the pill, claiming it had also brought "devastating ecological effects" by releasing into the environment "tonnes of hormones" that had impaired male fertility, The Taiwan Times says.

The assault began with a personal commentary in the Austrian newspaper Der Standard by Carl Djerassi. The Austrian chemist was one of three whose formulation of the synthetic progestogen Norethisterone marked a key step toward the earliest oral contraceptive pill.

Djerassi outlined the "horror scenario" that occurred because of the population imbalance, for which his invention was partly to blame. He said that in most of Europe there was now "no connection at all between sexuality and reproduction." He said: "This divide in Catholic Austria, a country which has on average 1.4 children per family, is now complete."

...

The fall in the birth rate, he said, was an "epidemic" far worse, but given less attention, than obesity. Young Austrians, he said, were committing national suicide if they failed to procreate. And if it were not possible to reverse the population decline they would have to understand the necessity of an "intelligent immigration policy."

Of course the secular world is doing its usual scoffing. The Taipei Times headlines this story with "Catholic Church renews its attack on contraceptive pill". (Sorry, folks. You can't renew something that never let up in the first place.). Of course, there is a token quotation from a representative of an environmentalist group:

Angelo Bonelli, of the Italian Green party, said it was the first he had heard of a link between the pill and environmental pollution. The worst of poisons were to be found in the water supply.

“It strikes me as idiosyncratic to be worried about this,” he said.

I'm astonished that this is the "first he had heard" about this when secular researchers in Canada and the United States have recognized the negative environmental effects of hormonal contraceptive use on aquatic life and on human populations, which include poisoning fish, and causing increased rates of cancer in the people who eat them. The reasearch in Canada goes as far back as 2004.



So lets take stock here. So far the pill has managed to poison:
Fish
Men who eat fish
Women
Society
The Planet.

NFP, anybody?

--------------------------------------
Tip of the Schoolmarm Ruler to my husband, who told me about this.

Trees sentenced to death for shading solar panels

Which is more important? Preserving carbon-reducing trees, or maximizing the use of (carbon footprint minimizing) alternative energy sources?

In my home state of California, a six year legal battle ended when the court ruled that a couple must cut down redwood trees on their property that deprived their neighbor's solar panels of the light that makes their existence meaningful. (Read the story here.)

Once again, environmentalist principles have left people stuck between a rock and a hard place, pitting one of nature's largest and most beautiful trees against a synthetic device meant (perhaps ironically) to help mankind take advantage of what nature has to offer.

In this case, technology won, which means another manufactured device will soon be used to sacrifice these trees for the sake of our efforts to preserve the planet for their leafy bretheren.

It just goes to show that you can't make a vegan tofu scramble without killing a few soybeans.

---------------------------------------------
Related: Redwood National Park.

---------------------------------------------

In other news:

• Population reducing birth control pills poison aquatic environments.
• Environmental preservation may present environmental hazard.
• Squirrel bridges and other innovations: The dangers of protecting endangered species.

Another Study Confirms Estrogen Footprints

This time at the University of New Brunswick. See the story at LifeSite News. and also at the Gulf of Maine Times, MedicalNewsToday.com. Looking for a non-pro-life source? Even the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which supports embryonic stem cell research is covering this on their EurekAlert news site.

To review: Women take the pill, and the hormones are excreted into the sewage system. They do not get filtered out by water treatment processes, and end up back in the environment, where they do bizarre things to fish populations. To top it off, people who eat the fish, also eat the hormones.

I posted on this twice before. The first time, I linked to a report from Canada's Freshwater Institute Fisheries and Oceans on the effects of synthetic hormones on aquatic life.

The second post links to a Scientific American article that discusses potential breast cancer risks for human populations that ingest fish from waters contaminated with synthetic hormones. Hormones which are classified as known carcinogens by the World Health Organization, according to documents from a Mayo Clinic Study which I have cited previously.

That's three separate studies so far, people.

Think about it.

Nod: Tito

NFP good for women, couples, and environment.

There is a relatively decent article on NFP over at Lower Hudson Online.For its personal story, it revolves around a couple that uses the Creighton Model to track their fertility.

Here is an excerpt of the better parts of the article:

Some couples, such as the Antenuccis, had trouble getting pregnant. They wanted to learn the physical signs of a woman's fertile times of the month so they could target their efforts. Others, including David and Colleen Toder of New Paltz, sought an eco-friendly way to avoid pregnancy without the side effects associated with birth-control pills.

Both couples agree with the Pappalardos of Stony Point, who teach Natural Family Planning in Rockland County, that the methods promote healthier marriages because of the physical and emotional intimacy required to master the techniques.

"Theresa is our gift from NFP," Tracey Pappalardo, 43, said as her husband, Andrew, cuddled the sleepy toddler, their youngest of four children. "We decided to have her because NFP made us closer to each other, and more open to new life."

The Archdiocese of New York endorses the Creighton or the Sympto-Thermal methods, which use cervical mucus and temperature readings to determine when a woman is most likely to conceive so she can avoid or have sex on those seven to 10 days each month, depending on the desired outcome.

In contrast to the infamous calendar-based "rhythm method," which wrongly assumed all women had the same cycle, these recommended techniques boast contraceptive rates between the 99.6 percent reported in the American Journal of Reproductive Medicine and the 75 percent estimated by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

And, remember, NFP isn't just for Catholics, either:

David Toder, who grew up in a Reform Jewish family in Scarsdale, also argues that the Catholic connotations are secondary to the benefits of practicing environmentally friendly parenting that strengthens a couple's emotional bond.

"Contraception puts a barrier between the couple," he said. "With NFP, you have to work together and trust each other. And, there's a cyclical relationship - a dating and a honeymoon - and that adds to the spice of life and the appreciation you have, and your relationship is well-rounded."

That's good stuff. But we can't have a complete article without the usual dose of doom, gloom, condescension, and skeptical lecturing from the Left:

The American Fertility Association doesn't oppose Natural Family Planning, but Pamela Madsen, executive director, expressed concern that women most drawn to these methods might also be the least likely to use them effectively to avoid pregnancy.

"Many women who are engaged with Natural Family Planning tend to be more conservative and may not be as comfortable in getting to know their bodies in the way that is recommended," she said, adding that she also fears that women trying to get pregnant could waste time on these techniques when they really need medical help.

Since when does conservatism entail being afraid of one's body? Madsen is not basing her opinion on facts. She is working from the popular stereotype of conservative women as being squeamish about anything having to do with their bodies, especially their reproductive health. This is a fallacy.

If anything, it is the use of artificial birth control that suggests fear of one's body, because it allows one to suppress or block natural functions that one does not understand or wish to face. Women who are afraid of their bodies (and men who are afraid of women's bodies and can't even handle the idea of mucous) do not use NFP. Instead, they usually give up before they've even tried it , and go back to artificial methods. If Ms. Madsen spent even five minutes talking to couples at an NFP class, (and five more talking to other couples about why NFP scares them) she would see that her own fears are largely unfounded.

Her other concern, that women would use NFP as a substitute for necessary medical advice is also highly pessimistic, and gives little credit to women or NFP itself. Daily tracking of one's fertility signs allows a person to be more in touch with her body than ever. Speaking from my reading and from personal experience, I can say that it can actually improve doctor-patient communication by allowing women to know when they really do need to go to the doctor. If one is using NFP to get pregnant, for example, and it is still not working, one knows that it is time to see a fertility specialist to discuss any medical problems that could interfere with conception. Not only that, but NFP allows women to be more in touch with their cycles. This allows them to spot some abnormalities that they may not have noticed otherwise, and discuss these with their doctors. In short, NFP makes women more aware, not less, of when they "really need medical help"--and can help doctors to make that medical help more effective.

Madsen's head is so buried in her prejudices (or whatever else) that she is unwilling to give modern conservative women credit for their brains, or science credit for its discoveries.


But at least her comments, despite being strategically placed for maximum dramatic effect, sound properly negative next to comments like this from couples who are throughly familiar with the pros and cons of NFP (I don't hear any fear of the body, do you?):

"With your body, with NFP, you're a gift to your spouse," he said. "It's so important for a husband and wife to be gifts to each other. And children become the fruit of that covenant."

Amen.

Hat Tip: Dawn Eden.

Light a candle for them:

So when we stop using electricity in order to preserve the planet, I guess working (or praying) by candlelight instead is out now:


'Green Hanukkia' campaign sparks ire'


I wonder what they'd say about the Day of the Candles celebrations in Colombia.


Via: Catholic Pillow Fight, Modern Commentaries

Get a shovel...

...and see if there are any more ways for these people to dig themselves into a hole. Or should I say, "tunnel"?

This reminds me of an incident near my hometown, where beaches were closed to protect the young of a certain shorebird from humans. This left the birds vulnerable to birds of prey, who did more damage than the people did. Whoops.

Here, according to Reuters, we have salamanders who need to cross a road at night. Previously, volunteers had to help them along, because some environmentally insensitive human had put up a curb that they couldn't climb. The curb was removed, and the salamanders began to cross freely, only to get squashed by oncoming traffic. Now, tens of thousands of dollars are being spent to put tunnels under the road, so the salamanders can pass unscathed. They might want to consider putting the curb back too, just to be on the safe side.

Update: As an illustration of why I suggested replacing the curb upon the installation of the tunnels, check out this little Davis, CA landmark, graciously pointed out by friend and fellow blogger Michelle in her comment on this post. Also check out the appropriately named "Nutty Narrows" squirrel bridge in Longview, Washington.

True Colors

For those who think population control is a benign idea:

Have a look at what the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement is up to. (No, I am not making this up)

VHEMT advocates gradual elimination of the human race through voluntary avoidance of "breeding" they recommend a rate of zero as ideal, one child per family as okay, and two as an absolute maximum.

Their website states (emphasis and parentheticals mine):

We don't carry on about how the human race has shown itself to be a greedy, amoral parasite on the once-healthy face of this planet. That type of negativity offers no solution to the inexorable horrors which human activity is causing. (But they'll mention it in every other sentence anyway to make sure you are sufficiently depressed by human depravity. Negativity with a solution is sooo much better...)

Rather, The Movement presents an encouraging alternative to the callous exploitation and wholesale destruction of Earth's ecology.

As VHEMT Volunteers know, the hopeful alternative to the extinction of millions of species of plants and animals is the voluntary extinction of one species: Homo sapiens... us.

Each time another one of us decides to not add another one of us to the burgeoning billions already squatting on this ravaged planet, another ray of hope shines through the gloom.

When every human chooses to stop breeding, Earth's biosphere will be allowed to return to its former glory, and all remaining creatures will be free to live, die, evolve (if they believe in evolution), and will perhaps pass away, as so many of Nature's "experiments" have done throughout the eons.


They do stop just short of advocating forced population control (such as what they have in China). However, their rhetoric indicates an attitude toward human life that still leaves a great deal to be desired.

Here is a video and transcript of an interview with their founder on MSNBC. The mass media is giving increased attention to such advocates lately.
-----------------------------------------
Related:
Catholic Mom: Children or Dogs?
-----------------------------------------
Update: Another blog post on the same organization:
Secondhand Smoke: Anti-Humanism Gaining Traction (Via Tito)

We've got Carbon offsets. Up Next: Birth Offsets?

Having too many children is now officially a sin in the Environmental Religion, according to an Australian Newspaper:

HAVING large families should be frowned upon as an environmental misdemeanour in the same way as frequent long-haul flights, driving a big car and failing to reuse plastic bags, says a report to be published today by a green think tank.

The paper by the Optimum Population Trust will say that if couples had two children instead of three they could cut their family's carbon dioxide output by the equivalent of 620 return flights a year between London and New York

John Guillebaud, co-chairman of OPT and emeritus professor of family planning at University College London, said: "The effect on the planet of having one child less is an order of magnitude greater than all these other things we might do, such as switching off lights.

"The greatest thing anyone in Britain could do to help the future of the planet would be to have one less child."

So, it's not about preserving resources any more. It's about minimizing those luxury fashion accessories, like SUV's. Or children. Who would have thought that the two were of equal value?

The cumulative pitter-patter of little feet, and the child-size carbon footprints they leave behind has the population control gurus scared:

The world's population is expected to increase by 2.5 billion to 9.2 billion by 2050. Almost all the growth will take place in developing countries

"Oh, horror!" cries the population control machine! "We've been trying so hard in the "developed" world to take care of the environment! But, those childish primitive people in the developing world (and a few stubborn religious right types here in the first world) refuse to be enlightened by birth control, and are still breeding like bunny rabbits!" What's an environmentalist wacko to do?

Never fear, population control advocates. I have the solution for those of you who want to offset the "damage" done by those of us "breeders" who are Christians, Mormons, or denizens of the un-developed world.

The best part of this solution is that many "childfree" folks have already put it into place. Here it is: walk your talk and just stop having children.

And maybe stop talking so much. Breathing emits carbon dioxide, you know.

Maybe we can even get Al Gore to pay you.

Of course, it means you'll eventually be outnumbered by the rest of us, but no sacrifice is too great for the cause, now is it?


Hat Tip: Pertinacious Papist

Breast Cancer Follow-up.

Did anyone else see the episode of George Lopez where his son thought his daughter's BCP's were mints and ate the whole package? And now we have Femcon--the mint-flavored chewable birth control pills.

Yeah.

Moving right along, we have another reason to read the full prescribing information for your medications. The following are quotations from the Femcon Fe patient information regarding risks and side effects, many of which I have blogged about before (emphasis mine):

Most side effects of the pill are not serious. The most common are nausea, vomiting, bleeding or spotting between menstrual periods, weight gain, breast tenderness, and difficulty wearing contact lenses.

... you should know that the following medical conditions have been associated with or made worse by the pill:

1. Blood clots in the legs (thrombophlebitis), lungs (pulmonary embolism), stoppage or rupture of a blood vessel in the brain (stroke), blockage of blood vessels in the heart (heart attack or angina pectoris), or other organs of the body. As mentioned above, smoking increases the risk of heart attacks and strokes and subsequent serious medical consequences. Women with migraine also may be at increased risk of stroke when taking the pill.

2. Liver tumors, which may rupture and cause severe bleeding. A possible but not definite association has been found with the pill and liver cancer...

3. High blood pressure, although blood pressure usually returns to normal when the pill is stopped. The symptoms associated with these serious side effects are discussed in the detailed patient information leaflet given to you with your supply of pills. ...Breast cancer has been diagnosed slightly more often in women who use the pill than in women of the same age who do not use the pill. ...Women who currently have or have had breast cancer should not use hormonal contraceptives because breast cancer is usually a hormone-sensitive tumor. Some studies have found an increase in the incidence of cancer or precancerous lesions of the cervix in women who use the pill.

Interestingly, the Mayo Clinic study I cited before noted that increases in breast cancer diagnosis have been higher in developed countries--where hormonal birth control use is more frequent. This is certainly cause for concern in the public health arena, and should be considered by health care professionals when they decide how frequently hormonal contraceptives should be prescribed. Even more urgency is added when you consider that these synthetic hormones end up in aquatic environments, contaminating the fishier part of our food supply, and putting the general public at risk.

For a more personal look at what it means to find out about this after it is too late, here is a blog post by a long-term contraceptive user who was not told of their carcinogenic properties, and then ended up with breast cancer at the age of 31.

There is always NFP.

Global Warming Update: Exercises in Futility

We should really be willing to exercise some forethought when we try to take care of the planet.

Compact fluorescent light bulbs save energy, but disposal is tricky, because they contain mercury, and when broken become a toxic environmental hazard. (Click here to read about the dangers and cost of breaking one...)

Rumor has it our attempts to fix the ozone hole back in the late 80's may have contributed to Global warming. That's what it says in USA Today.

And the new, "green" Gaia Napa Valley Hotel and Spa in California, which features low-flow toilets and solar power now (in addition to the usual Gideon-issue Bible) keeps copies of Al Gore's global warming book in its rooms. Maybe they're trying to conserve toilet paper.

Regarding legal "Personhood"

Soooo....

There are people who think this should be a legal person....


But not this?


Chimps are cute and everything, but I don't get it.

Full story here.

Human fetal development info here.

Scientific American Discovers Estrogen Footprints

My husband and I have both posted before on the environmental hazards of hormonal birth control pills which Canadian researchers have been monitoring.

The heart of the problem here is that synthetic estrogens from the Pill and similar birth control medications gets excreted into the sewage system. Current water treatement techniques do not remove these estrogens, and so they enter aquatic environments when treated water is returned to nature. There, these hormones are ingested by fish and other forms of aquatic life.

Another problem, which I have also mentioned in previous posts is that synthetic female hormones are classified as known carcinogens by the World Health Organization.

Scientific American has now picked up on both stories in their April 17 issue, according to the California Catholic Daily. Apparently the problem exists in the U.S. as well, and has the potential to be problematic for our food supply.

The article, titled "Bringing Cancer to the Dinner Table" states (emphasis mine):

Many streams, rivers and lakes already bear warning signs that the fish caught within them may contain dangerously high levels of mercury, which can cause brain damage. But, according to a new study, these fish may also be carrying enough chemicals that mimic the female hormone estrogen to cause breast cancer cells to grow. "Fish are really a sentinel, just like canaries in the coal mine 100 years ago," says Conrad Volz, co-director of exposure assessment at the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute's Center for Environmental Ecology. "We need to pay attention to chemicals that are estrogenic in nature, because they find their way back into the water we all use."


Somebody call Al Gore about my Estrogen Offset Program idea...

So, let's tally up the reasons hormonal birth control such as the pill is lousy: decreased libido, increased risk of breast and other cancer, increased risk of cardiovascular disease, stroke, heart attack, and blood clots, and environmental damage including the emasculation of aquatic life. Now we can add increased breast cancer risk for everyone else (assuming they eat fish and/or drink estrogen contaminated water).

Hmm. Natural Family Planning, anyone?

Via Tito.

Hey, Congress, if you want to pass a useful bill...

...you should consider this idea for minimizing hot air! I gaurantee the voters will unanimously approve. It might even make a worthwhile ballot measure for voters to gather signatures on, if there is no action in Washington. Who is with me?

Three squares a day has a whole new meaning.

I like trees. They're pretty. I don't hug them, but I'm planning to add a few to my yard.

I don't litter

I eat a lot of veggies, though I'm far from being a vegetarian.

I already prefer local produce, when I can get it. It is generally fresher.

I'll buy organic if it is cheaper and/or tastes better.

I avoid processed foods.

I own a high efficiency washer and dryer.

I minimize my energy consumption, if only to keep expenses down.

I recycle when I can.

I re-use plastic bags and containers whenever possible.

I have been known to use biodegradable laundry detergent and compact fluorescent light bulbs.

I'm even willing to consider using fabric napkins now and then.



But you'll never see me rationing toilet paper to one square at a time.

(Which is, incidentally, why I don't own a low-flow toilet. One square is about all those monstrosities can handle.)

Sorry, Sheryl. Keep your bus out of my bathroom and off of my backside.

If you don't like it, you can buy some carbon offsets for me and plant a few extra trees.

:)

And Sheryl, just in case you didn't already know, even Dave Barry thinks you've gone overboard here.

And the favorite headline award goes to:
"Sheryl Crow wipes away global warming."

______________________________________
Update: Michelle, for the benefit of all humankind, has put her top-notch engineering degree to use and crunched the numbers to see if the one square idea will work. Even if you only have the physics knowledge of a hamster and the sense of humor of an IRS tax agent, you HAVE to read this.
______________________________________
Update Again: Sheryl says she was just kidding! Of course. Other than rehab, this is the most widely used butt-protection method for celebs and others that put their feet in their mouths in a public way. It's what Amanda Marcotte said after her anti-catholic blogging got her in trouble with the public. It's also what John Kerry said when he insulted the intelligence of our troops (though allegedly he just meant to target their commander in chief--oopsie! Botched joke!). As with the other two cases, I have a hard time believing the "just kidding" excuse. Her other suggestion (listed second in her post) of using fabric napkins sounded perfectly serious to me (being a bit more practical than the one square of toilet paper). Maybe it's just me, but if a ridiculous suggestion is followed by something serious, I tend to assume the absurd bit is serious too.

So, Sheryl, as a trained English teacher, who knows a little something of composition and rhetoric, I'll provide you with a free tip: Save your most profound point for LATER in your writing. Start with the serious and work your way up to the satirical. The punchline comes at the END of the joke, not at the beginning. Please take this into consideration. Or stick to singing.
______________________________________

Environmentalism and Economics

The associated press reports that increased ethanol use is decreasing the supply of edible corn for people and livestock. This means the cost of maintaining a dairy farm is increasing. The result is that milk prices are going to go up.

Interesting little corner we've painted ourselves into.

Paper or .... anything but plastic.

In its ongoing effort to improve living conditions for all humynkind (not humankind, that's sexist and patriarchal), San Francisco has banned grocery bags made of petroleum-based plastics. At this point, many grocery stores (at least in California) provide for such bags to be recycled. San Franciscans want to go the extra mile and eliminate them altogether. Unfortunately, we do not yet have an equally economical or (necessarily) more environmentally friendly alternative yet.

There is a corn-based plastic bag, which is expensive to produce, and potentially takes corn away from the supply that would otherwise be eaten (thereby making the price of corn go up, harming poor people in third world countries for whom corn is often a staple) but it is at least biodegradable. Then there are paper bags, which are the cheapest option, but as is noted in the article:

Craig Noble, a spokesman for the Natural Resources Defense Council, said it would be disappointing if grocers rejected the biodegradable plastic bag option, since more trees would have to be cut down if paper bag use increases.

The final option is the reusable canvas grocery bag, which are already sold to customers of stores like Sprouts and Trader Joe's for about $2 each. While these can be convenient when used one or two at a time to supplement paper and/or plastic bags, single people who prefer monthly grocery runs and non-singles who have families to feed will probably not be too keen on hauling a dozen or more of these with them on every shopping trip.

It looks as though we have a choice here between convenience and the environment. San Francisco, for the most part, consistently expresses a preference for the environment, even in the smallest matters.

Which reminds me, I recently posted on the environmental hazards of synthetic female hormones being excreted into aquatic habitats, and the attending environmental hazards from all of the extra garbage that comes from other forms of artificial birth control. This California-bred girl would love to see what the folks in 'Frisco think of that environmental hazard.


___________________________________________
A nod to Bill.
For more commentary on San Francisco and the government thereof, read Michelle's blog.

Never mind carbon. Estrogen footprints?

A lot of people take female hormones. Some for menopausal hormone replacement therapy. Some to treat health problems. Others for birth control.

The synthetic hormones used in birth control pills and hormone replacement therapy ultimately end up in our sewage systems. Sewage goes to sewage treatment plants. Treated water then goes back into the environment.

But the water treatment doesn't filter out the estrogens.

Which begs the question, what about the fish?

According to the Canadian Freshwater Institute Fisheries and Oceans, it doesn't look good. Their report Effects of a Synthetic Estrogen on Aquatic Populations: a Whole Ecosystem Study suggests that this is an environmental concern worth watching.

This is from their executive summary:

Municipal wastewater treatment plants (MWTP) discharge numerous contaminants into aquatic systems, and some of these chemicals are known or believed to act like hormones and interfere with the growth, reproduction and development of aquatic organisms. It is becoming increasingly apparent that male fish exposed to these effluents are becoming feminized due to the presence of natural and synthetic estrogens in the water. The potent synthetic estrogens excreted by women taking hormone replacement therapy or birth control pills are not completely broken down in the sewage treatment process and are discharged into waterways. The male fish exposed to these estrogens produce egg proteins, have smaller gonads and, in the more severe cases, develop eggs...

During the summer of 2001, the synthetic estrogen used in birth control pills, ethynylestradiol, was added continuously to one lake to maintain low and environmentally-relevant concentrations in the water. Laboratory and field studies had previously demonstrated that this estrogen does not persist in the water, and can be degraded by bacteria naturally present in the sediments of the lake. The additions were done from the end of May until the end of October, and mean concentrations of the estrogen were 6.1 ng/L in the surface waters of the lake. We monitored the lake for responses of the individual fish (lake trout, sucker and minnows) and their populations, as well as changes in the tadpoles, bacteria, algae, leeches, zooplankton and benthic invertebrates as a result of the estrogen additions.

This study was successful at reproducing some of the impacts seen in fish downstream of MWTPs. Male fish from the estrogen-addition lake produced high concentrations of egg protein precursors, had developmental delays in their gonads and, in one species of minnow, produced eggs. Female fish exposed to the estrogen also showed delays in reproductive development and changes in the amount and timing of the egg protein production. The kidneys and livers were also impacted likely due to the atypical and high production of egg proteins in these fish. In the fall of 2001, we did not see any changes in the sizes of the fish populations, fish growth rates, the numbers of males versus females, and the survival of the offspring. It is likely that population- level responses of long-lived organisms will take longer to appear, and for this reason we are continuing to monitor the fish populations in this lake for 3 years following the estrogen additions.

The short version? We've got some freaky fish out there now.

Which means we need some solutions here. Obviously we will need to alter our water treatment methods. Who knows what else might be geting through. Of course, it will take time and more research to figure out how to do that, so what do we do in the meantime to minimize the environmental impact of our excess artificial estrogen?

There will always be a few people who need their medical hormone treatments for their health, and they should be able to recieve them, but the rest of us have some thinking to do.

Personally, I'm still a fan of Natural Family Planning. No excess hormones. No trash to throw away. (Don't forget the used condoms, sponges, diaphragms, cervical caps, patches, nuva-rings, injection needles, pill packages, etc. have to go somewhere) And, as I have pointed out before, emerging German research indicates that NFP has the same success rates as the pill, when used properly.


But what about people who just don't want to give up their birth control pills? What are they going to do?

Maybe Al Gore could start an estrogen offset program. :)



Hat tip: Alan
----------------------------
Update May 2, 2007: Wondering if I could be the first to use the term "estrogen footprint" I did a Google search and found out that one other person (a commenter on another blog) has thought up the term besides myself and used it online, a mere 3 weeks before I originally composed this post. :) The two of us should get together and write a Wikipedia entry. It's kind of fun to be one of the first ones to use a new term in writing. (Yes, I'm a language nerd.)

Polar bear needs to die.

That's according to certain animal rights activists.

Story at CNN.com,
and at the Daily Mail,
and ABC News.