I've been speculating on industrial pollutants that act as endocrine disruptors for years now, and every so often some evidence emerges. People understandably don't like such mundane explanations when they've built large parts of their identity around the issues it may have caused them though.

Food. It’s food. We are only just beginning to understand the less obvious effects of the modern diet, including all the processing and additives. Much has not been explored, such as is if the abundance of various toxic chemicals at supposedly safe levels has a synergistic effect, for example the many endocrine disrupting compounds with diverse mechanisms. But over the past decade it has become pretty clear that the Gut-Brain relationship is extremely important, including in understanding psychopathology.

Another emerging idea is that much of the negative health trend that’s been progressing extra rapidly since the 90’s is the result of mitochondrial dysfunction, driven by the multifactored (ultraprocessed foods, icides and tives, sedentary lifestyle, the incessant toxin-boosted immune shocks throughout development, possibly even omnipresent modulated emf) assault on our biology. It makes a lot of sense, to me at least, that crippling the source of cellular energy would precipitate seemingly unrelated chronic pathologies. This last paragraph especially is still highly speculative and controversial.

> are ultimately just going to be proven to be purely biological

What else would it be?

This group didn’t have authorization or funding to do an experiment on humans, and of they attempted it the criticism would have been that the study was done wrong in some way

No other group seemed interested in doing the study of this specific material

Ideally now some other groups are interested

> I was thinking of putting a Reverse Osmosis filter in my Kitchen. Would RO water just leach this chemical out then from plastic containers? Since the RO water is pretty pure. All the RO units I've seen are made of plastic.

High density polyethylene is made without plasticizers.

> My nose tells me not to trust the quality of their "treating of water", since the creek smells like sewage and has algae blooms.

That's hydrogen sulfide. Humans are _highly_ sensitive to it, but in general it's safe in itself.

I don't know what the standard way to do it is, but, surely it's not too complicated to add some tasty minerals back in.

I make a water sweetener with a variety of electrolytes and sugar, and regularly add a tiny bit to my water bottle. Placebo or no, I love it.

One can also absorb chemicals through the skin (it is the largest exposed organ infact), so I've been thinking of getting a shower or whole-house filter. Definitely upgrade from the Brita though. Brita's aren't very effective at filtering PFAS last I read.

But to answer your question, I'd speculate that the filtered water from the RO filter would be superior to anything coming out of your tap, even if it had phthalates in the filter. You also have to account for PFAS, heavy metals, medicines people excrete back into the water supply, and many many other things...

I still vaguely remember hearing all the people saying to switch to plastic bags to save the trees. Huge ad campaigns, videos of sad animals and burned down, gutted forests on the TV and news all hours of the day.

25 years later and we are drowning in plastic, carrying it in our brains and gonads, it falls from the sky like rain, it is in the food we eat, our newborn children inherit the plastics from their mothers.

If I were a trickster god or the devil himself I couldn't have come up with a better joke than this.

Noo, but "think about the economy, think about the poor production line being halted or the prices modified, we cant do that".

Reminds me of the situation of climate change on Spain. The whole thing blew up yet the only thing they can do is damage control once it is too late.

> Typically, plasticizers are not chemically bound to the polymer, but can leak out over time and thus can affect humans and other organisms.

I wouldn't risk heating food with any kind of plastic.

Contact is enough to leech into food, though some are easier to leach into than others. Heat, time, acidity, fattiness increase rate of absorption. https://www.npr.org/2024/09/19/nx-s1-5116541/chemicals-from-...

I think since it eventually reaches ground water so everyone's water supply is at risk, we might consider that eliminating usage in one use packaging that is never recycled is better than thinking about individual use cases.

Vast majority of food packaging is plastics like PP and PE that don't use phthalates (or any other plasticiser) as they are naturally... plastic. PVC (soft) is the major application of plasticisers.

I don’t think that there is so much geographical difference in phthalate exposure. Exposure is through products used throughout countries. Probably you will find some jobs being correlated to higher exposure.

And suddenly realize it perfectly correlates with politics