Talk:Endocrine disruptor

message: The original text of this article comes from the public domain explanation of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency at . Lupo 07:19, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of text 

message: Removed most of the description of an endocrine system, clarified some language and added internal links. Kerowyn 02:31, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits 

message: I removed weasel word warning, and weasel words.  Will somone provide peer-reviewd citations for the points in this section? Pustelnik (talk) 23:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Theory

message: For begging the question and Fallacies of definition, please see reference to epistemological inquiry, now ref. 15, already quoted prior to citation request.  The quoted referrence now has an internal link to epistemology.Pustelnik (talk) 21:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Scientific Objections

message: Note that most of the "pro" arguments come from this one journal, and the "con" arguments are from multiple sources. Pustelnik (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Environmental Health Perspectives

message: This section should be expanded.  The whole concept of endocrine disruption was debunked by the National Academy of Science and the National Research Council in 1999.  It is considered to be a prime example of "junk science".Pustelnik 00:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: History and Science

message: *Remember the scare over chemicals, including pesticides, that supposedly acted as endocrine disruptors? Endocrine disruptors purportedly interfered with our bodies' hormonal systems, potentially harming all sorts of growth and developmental processes.
*One of the original research papers that got this whole thing started, published in in the journal "Science" in 1996, was eventually retracted. Neither the author nor any other researchers could duplicate the findings. 
Anyone seen the original Science article or the retraction? How about the quote from Office of Research Integrity saying that Arnold 
:"committed scientific misconduct by intentionally falsifying the research results published in the journal Science and by providing falsified and fabricated materials to investigating officials," and that "there is no original data or other corroborating evidence to support the research results and conclusions reported in the Science paper as a whole." 
I want to know if our article on "endocrine disruptors" is scientifically sound. --Uncle Ed 22:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And what would you be yelling if the fraud had been one with the opposite result, say that, instead of synergistically enhancing the effect, he had, without doing any actual research, published a paper showing that the compounds cancelled each other's effects? When I see a paper that reinforces a theory of mine, I'm probably going to tout it, knowing that science will eventually correct any untruths: that's why some of us have faith in the scientific method. What frightens me the most about EDs and similar chemicals is that some scientists may be so frightened of them also that they violate their own "vows," so to speak. We don't know, in that case, why Arnold did what he did: did he partly carry out the experiment, was he trying to cover up for laziness or some overwhelming personal problem that occurred at the time, or did he "know" the results in advance and decide not to waste the time doing the actual work, or what? If a scientist is so frightened by these things that he or she decides to fake or exaggerate the results in order to frighten us, I am more concerned than ever. The Endocrine Society is not a bunch of wild-eyed radicals or marching environmentalists: their concern should hit all of us at our cores.GeorgeButel (talk) 06:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Integrity of the findings

message: This is a review article, not an experimental study.  It does not claim the phthalates feminize the genitals of infants, nor does it postulate that any of the effects of phthalates are mediated by endocrine mechanisms.  It speculates that there are some effects on gonadal (not genital) development, but does not specify an endocrine mechanism. Pustelnik (talk) 03:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. I meant to reword the sentence to bring it in line with the reference and forgot. I just made the change, hopefully this clears things up. Thanks for pointing this out. Yilloslime (t) 03:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Dispute Jane Fisher Reference

message: How long does it take for these chemicals to leave the human body? BPA especially?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.37.212 (talk) 16:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Elimination from body?

message: "All people are exposed to chemicals with estrogenic effects in their everyday life, because endocrine disrupting chemicals are found in low doses in literally thousands of products"
Are the Bushmen of Southern Africa included in this category? Probably not.
The word "All" should be replaced with something else. Andrewtheart (talk) 23:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  All people are exposed to chemicals with estrogenic effects in their everyday life ... 

message: I propose that all of the following articles be merged into Endocrine disrupters: Xenoandrogen, Xenoestrogen, Xenohormone, and Environmental exogenous hormones. This is an important topic and the fragmentation makes it difficult to obtain information.125.7.63.177 (talk) 03:58, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Merging all these article into one would probably produce an article so long that it would need to be split back into pieces (see WP:SIZESPLIT). Xenoandrogen and Xenoestrogen are both fairly well developed and cover distinct subtopics and therefore should be kept separate.  Environmental exogenous hormones and Xenohormone are redundant and I would support merging both of those into this article after both are cleaned up.  Boghog (talk) 05:49, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh brother...I am rather new to this and do not have a strong chemistry background...I have been updating the Endocrine disruptor article regarding BPA, hence I find myself here.  Yes Boghog, I agree that Environmental exogenous hormones and Xenohormone should be merged. How do you suggest we go about it?  Gandydancer (talk) 23:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I would first add merger banners to Environmental exogenous hormones and Xenohormone and also clean those articles up before merging into this one.  Also with respect to the Xenoandrogen and Xenoestrogen articles, we want to avoid duplicating text in this article that already exists in other articles.  Hence I have condensed this material. I hope you don't mind. Boghog (talk) 03:55, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No I don't mind and please excuse my mistakes - I'm still learning...  I will read more as I have time.  Gandydancer (talk) 04:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries.  I went ahead and added merger banners to the articles.  We should wait at least a few days before completing the merger in order to give others a chance to comment.  In the mean time, we can start cleaning up the Environmental exogenous hormones and Xenohormone articles.  Cheers. Boghog (talk) 04:18, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd personally prefer to see these articles kept separate because they're able to accommodate an additional layer of information that would otherwise be much less accessible.   — C M B J   06:56, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that the Xenoandrogen and Xenoestrogen articles cover well defined subtopics and therefore they should be kept separate since they do provide additional layers of information.  Environmental exogenous hormones, Xenohormone, and Endocrine disruptor all cover essentially the same topic and therefore I feel that they should be merged. Boghog (talk) 07:35, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Environmental exogenous hormones should definitely be merged into xenoestrogen and xenohormone. I believe that we should retain xenohormone, though, because it is a parent topic for describing xenoandrogens, xenoestrogens, and other xenohormones in a broader context than homeostatic disruption. It is also worth considering that other (e.g., indirect) mechanisms for endocrine disruption exist.   — C M B J   09:49, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:   Per the consensus above, I have merged Environmental exogenous hormones (whose content was almost entirely about xenoestrogens) into xenoestrogen (more work needs to be done to cleanup the merged article however) and have retained xenohormone.  I do not see any need for further mergers so I took down the remaining merger banners.  I hope this is OK. Boghog (talk) 06:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested mergers

message: I am changing the first sentence of the lead to be less definitive.  There is significant scientific uncertainty on whether specific EDs cause harm to humans.  The "founding member" of the class, DES, of course did, but there is uncertainty for just about every other ED that is discussed.  The uncertainty is reflected in the following (emphases added):
"It is clear that some of these chemical pollutants can affect the endocrine (hormonal) system, and certain of these endocrine disruptors may also interfere with the developmental processes of humans and wildlife species." WHO "state of the science" report, executive summary, 2012, page v. http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/78102/1/WHO_HSE_PHE_IHE_2013.1_eng.pdf
"Endocrine disruptors are chemicals that may interfere with the body’s endocrine system and produce adverse developmental, reproductive, neurological, and immune effects in both humans and wildlife." National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.  http://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/agents/endocrine/
"In recent years, some scientists have proposed that chemicals might inadvertently be disrupting the endocrine system of humans and wildlife. A variety of chemicals have been found to disrupt the endocrine systems of animals in laboratory studies, and there is strong evidence that chemical exposure has been associated with adverse developmental and reproductive effects on fish and wildlife in particular locations. The relationship of human diseases of the endocrine system and exposure to environmental contaminants, however, is poorly understood and scientifically controversial (Kavlock et al., 1996, EPA, 1997)."
US EPA  http://www.epa.gov/endo/pubs/edspoverview/whatare.htm
"There is mounting concern in the scientific, environmental, private, and governmental sectors on a wide range of substances, known as endocrine disruptors, that may interfere with the normal functioning of a living organism's hormone system. Endocrine disruption has the potential to cause reproductive, behavioral, immune system, and neurological problems, and tumors."
US Fish and WIldlife Service  http://www.fws.gov/contaminants/Issues/EndocrineDisruptors.cfm Jytdog (talk) 23:12, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV first sentence 

message: As seen in the following editorials and comments, there exists disagreement among toxicologists and endocrinologists: , , , . Could and should this be added to the article? Best, 129.132.211.151 (talk) 00:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current scientific debate on EDCs 

message: I have updated the external link to the ACS National Historic Chemical Landmarks resource. I am the program coordinator of the ACS-NHCL program.KLindblom (talk) 23:11, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Updated External Link

message: This content was introduced today:
A study published in 2015 estimates the health costs of EDC in the European Union to be approximately €157 billion per year.http://www.eu-koordination.de/umweltnews/news/chemie/3071-edc-eu-kommissar-verteidigt-folgenabschaetzungEstimating Burden and Disease Costs of Exposure to Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals in the European Union, doi: 10.1210/jc.2014-4324
I removed this with edit note: "this is essentially a press release on publication of a WP:PRIMARY source. fails MEDRS", and Gandydancer  restored it with edit note, "This source seems OK to me".  I have not re-reverted. 
Issues:
* First the source is in German.
* second, it is an announcement in the EU parliament by a member of the Green party there.  This is just political posturing, noting that a scientific paper has been published that is good for that politician's POV.    With the German and the political nature of this, it is a bad source. 
* third there has been a shitload of popular media reports on these studies in English. like this, so if we were going to generate content from this, there are far better sources. 
* if you do some work, you will see that there are 4 WP:PRIMARY sources that were published at the same time by the same group, with one summarizing the other three:
** (summary) Trasande L et al. Estimating Burden and Disease Costs of Exposure to Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals in the European Union. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2015 Mar 5:jc20144324. [Epub ahead of print] 
** Legler J et al. Obesity, Diabetes, and Associated Costs of Exposure to Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals in the European Union. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2015 Mar 5:jc20144326.  [Epub ahead of print]  
** Hauser R, et al.  Male Reproductive Disorders, Diseases, and Costs of Exposure to Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals in the European Union. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2015 Mar 5:jc20144324. [Epub ahead of print] 
**Bellanger M et al.  Neurobehavioral Deficits, Diseases and Associated Costs of Exposure to Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals in the European Union. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2015 Mar 5:jc20144323. [Epub ahead of print]  
* These 4 papers are WP:PRIMARY sources, and per other science-based content in WP, we wait to see how these papers are treated by WP:SECONDARY sources.  We don't do science by press release in WP.  We don't do it when Big Pharma hypes clinical trial results published in a primary source, and we don't it here either.  Jytdog (talk) 12:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering that this information was published in the journal published by the Endocrine Society and that it reports: Accounting for probability of causation and using the midpoint of each range for probability of causation, Monte Carlo simulations produced a median cost of €157 billion (or $209 billion, corresponding to 1.23% of EU gross domestic product) annually across 1000 simulations, which is not medical information but a discussion of the cost of endocrine disease, it seems reasonable to include a mention.  Perhaps it could be phrased differently, but I see nothing wrong with including it.  Gandydancer (talk) 12:31, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: because the papers are WP:PRIMARY sources about science, and we should not base content in WP on such sources.  This is policy.   Please respond to that, thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  i was making a general statement about discussing science here, but you have brought up the health aspect which I do think is fundamental here - the authors decide what diseases are caused by ED and then come up with estimates of costs based on that decision.  This is indeed subject to MEDRS.  I'll bring it to the relevant board. Jytdog (talk) 12:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I have opened a discussion, and will not discuss further here, pending the resolution there.  Discussion is Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#MEDRS:_Splashy_press_around_splashy_PRIMARY_sources_on_costs_of_endocrine_disruptors.. Jytdog (talk) 12:53, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  Gandydancer (talk) 13:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: this was gracious of you. Thanks gandy. Jytdog (talk) 13:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

text: Not at all!  It will help me to better understand the use of sources. Gandydancer (talk) 13:20, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

text: Hi Leyo.  First, thank you for being on this - this fell off my radar and you did a good thing here.  In your view, what is the outcome?  In my view, there was no clear consensus on it and part of that is my fault for not bumping/keeping it going so more folks would respond and we could get a better read.  I could  repost at the same place with a link to the old discussion, and say that we need resolution.... anyway thanks again.  Jytdog (talk) 19:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually went ahead and re-listed it here. I will follow it better this time.  last week was terrible/ugly. Jytdog (talk) 20:00, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  New content 

message: I believe that the following science and policy debate happening in 2013 is important enough to be mentioned in the article. Key elements of the debate (roughly in chronological order):
* European Commission: New report outlines key scientific elements for identifying endocrine disrupters
* 89 scientists join call for EU action on hormone-disrupting chemicals (The 2013 Berlaymont Declaration on Endocrine Disrupters)
* Dietrich et al.: Editorial. Food and Chemical Toxicology, doi:10.1016/j.fct.2013.07.005
* Bergman et al.: Science and policy on endocrine disrupters must not be mixed: a reply to a “common sense” intervention by toxicology journal editors. Environmental Health, doi:10.1186/1476-069X-12-69
* Gore: Editorial: An International Riposte to Naysayers of Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals. Endocrinology, doi:10.1210/en.2013-1853
* Environmental Health News: Special report: Scientists critical of EU chemical policy have industry ties
* Gore et al.: Policy Decisions on Endocrine Disruptors Should Be Based on Science Across Disciplines: A Response to Dietrich et al.. Endocrinology, doi:10.1210/en.2013-1854
* Cressey: Journal editors trade blows over toxicology. Nature, doi:10.1038/nature.2013.13787
I don't know what would be the most appropriate way to summarize this debate by keeping a neutral point of view. Does anyone feel able to do this task? --Leyo 23:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for presenting that! I will take a shot at drafting something to bring here to Talk on Saturday. Jytdog (talk) 12:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I know i still owe you this,  - will get to that this weekend. Jytdog (talk) 11:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Important scientific debate missing 

message: doi:/10.1210/er.2015-1093 JFW | T@lk 09:17, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Endocrine Society statement 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Endocrine disruptor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://news.findlaw.com/andrews/en/tox/20070328/20070328_ganjei.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Endocrine disruptor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120905045805/http://www.ec.gc.ca/substances/ese/eng/challenge/batch2/batch2_80-05-7.cfm to http://www.ec.gc.ca/substances/ese/eng/challenge/batch2/batch2_80-05-7.cfm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:39, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: News: Endocrine disruptors: EFSA and ECHA outline guidance plans --Leyo 10:34, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Endocrine disruptors: EFSA and ECHA outline guidance plans 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Endocrine disruptor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081207044028/http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/PDF/OS.fireloss.pdf to http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/PDF/OS.fireloss.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:29, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Endocrine disruptor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090924000314/http://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/impacts/endocrine.cfm to http://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/impacts/endocrine.cfm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101030032442/http://endo-society.org/advocacy/policy/upload/Endocrine-Disrupting-Chemicals-Position-Statement.pdf to http://www.endo-society.org/advocacy/policy/upload/Endocrine-Disrupting-Chemicals-Position-Statement.pdf
*Added  tag to http://ehpnet1.niehs.nih.gov/docs/2005/8688/letter.html
*Added  tag to http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/2004/6601/6601.html
*Added  tag to http://www.foxriverwatch.com/fox_river_history_pcbs.html
*Added  tag to https://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A46648-2001Dec31
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081231093541/http://www.americanchemistry.com/s_plastics/doc.asp?CID=1102&DID=4665 to http://www.americanchemistry.com/s_plastics/doc.asp?CID=1102&DID=4665
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090402092714/http://epa.gov/scipoly/oscpendo/index.htm to http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/oscpendo/index.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:13, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Gay frogs. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 2#Gay frogs until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  œ™ 13:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Gay frogs" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: — Assignment last updated by TortyT (talk) 02:20, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Comparative Developmental Biology

message: The article itself is detailed and informative. Though, some of the references are 10 years or more old, I suggest updating some of those sources with more recent sources to keep the information fresh. JayRel23 (talk) 20:42, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:MEDRS, please remember to use secondary sources (review articles). Please also see the "Ideal sources" links at the top of this page. Thanks, Boghog (talk) 06:42, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: — Assignment last updated by Ash.cobbler (talk) 15:28, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Toxicology