NationStates Jolt Archive

Would you take these meds to reverse/prevent the effects of the contaminatede water supply?

No.

Would you support legislation that would introduce it into the water supply of y our city?

No, though I would support policies allowing easy access to the medicine for people who wanted it.

What would you do with this 'new information' that shows that Homosexuality is infact, not natural, but man-made?

Not much.

I would take the protective medication only if it was reasonably priced. Other than that, I would not do anything. I would not view homosexuals any differently because they are effectively the same thing. Whether one becomes a homosexual or is born one does not alter the effect, which are null for me anyway.

We've seen these kinds of threads... what if...

What if Jesus/God did/did not exist?
What if the USA did NOT drop the A-bomb?
What if country A did/did not invade/win the war...

so here's another What if...

For a while it was argued whether or not Homosexuality was within one's genetic or if it was a concious choice...

now they found trace elements of Meds in the water around the world.

there are reports that fish, due to the meds, are showing signs of having both male and female sex organs. same with oysters along the east coast...

so here is the Hypothetical, this is by NO MEANS baised on facts, and I am in NO WAY saying that this is true this is just another What If...

Due to the fact that for many generations, humans have been drinking these cocktails of meds, some altered by chlorine, chemicals and other runoffs from farms as well as processing plants and human wastes. and it's found that over time, it's these meds that are actually altering the genes of those drinking it and actually 'turning' them into homosexuals over long periods of time that vary from a couple of decades to a couple of generations due to human's individual responses to the cocktail of meds and chemicals. Some scientists are researching the long term effects and theorize that there is a chance that there would be an increase in Hermaphroditic as well as infertile humans (say... .05% per generation compounded, but nothing conclusive has been found... yet)

Some companies developed another drug that could reverse these effects over the same period of time (again, either a couple of decades to a couple of generations)

Would you take these meds to reverse/prevent the effects of the contaminatede water supply?
Would you support legislation that would introduce it into the water supply of y our city?
What would you do with this 'new information' that shows that Homosexuality is infact, not natural, but man-made?

(for those who say penguins and other animals in remote areas don't drink tap water, we can assume that these trace elements have been found in oceans, rivers and streams, thus are 'everywhere'. after all, we humans are a prolific bunch.)

Would you take these meds to reverse/prevent the effects of the contaminatede water supply?
No, especially since just pouring them down the drain should have the same effect. Making me take them seems like an unnecessary step.
Would you support legislation that would introduce it into the water supply of y our city?
No. I don't even support fluoridation.
What would you do with this 'new information' that shows that Homosexuality is infact, not natural, but man-made?
This would be evidence that homosexuality is man-makable, but not that it only occurs when man-made.

wouldn't people build up a resistance to these drugs over time anyway?

Would you take these meds to reverse/prevent the effects of the contaminatede water supply?
Nah. No sense using a resource I don't need, right?

Would you support legislation that would introduce it into the water supply of y our city?
Any hint of an attempt to do so against people's wishes would see me oppose it. However, I'd be happy to abstain if there were no objections to the idea, as long as the "cure" is all that's being added to the water...

What would you do with this 'new information' that shows that Homosexuality is infact, not natural, but man-made?
Actually, that supposition has always existed in the back of my mind. It's just not important. People are who they are, and it's not my business to judge them for it.

This would be evidence that homosexuality is man-makable, but not that it only occurs when man-made.

"Naturally."

Nah. No sense using a resource I don't need, right?

Only if you are interested in "preventive" measures.

Due to the fact that for many generations, humans have been drinking these cocktails of meds, some altered by chlorine, chemicals and other runoffs from farms as well as processing plants and human wastes. and it's found that over time, it's these meds that are actually altering the genes of those drinking it and actually 'turning' them into homosexuals over long periods of time that vary from a couple of decades to a couple of generations due to human's individual responses to the cocktail of meds and chemicals. Some scientists are researching the long term effects and theorize that there is a chance that there would be an increase in Hermaphroditic as well as infertile humans (say... .05% per generation compounded, but nothing conclusive has been found... yet)

With such a flawed, pseudoscientific premise, I see no sense in answering your questions.

Cheers!

Only if you are interested in "preventive" measures.
I suppose the question is not so much one of the homosexuality or infertility, but whether reducing the probability of hermaphroditism in my kids is worth it. I don't know enough about it to know whether or not it's something I should be trying to prevent. Who knows, maybe my kid would quite like the chance to choose how they want to gender-align?

While you make a good point Junii, I don't see it, even as a hypothetical explanation because it does occur even without the interference of human-made medicines. It's still an interesting observation.

With such a flawed, pseudoscientific premise, I see no sense in answering your questions.

Cheers!
hence why I said this hypothetical was no way baised on facts, if it was, it wouldn't be hypothetical... thanks for reading. :p

While you make a good point Junii, I don't see it, even as a hypothetical explanation because it does occur even without the interference of human-made medicines. It's still an interesting observation.
how can you be sure?

Considering both water and animals in streams and rivers tend to make their way to the ocean and into the food chain...

and can plants also absorb the same meds from the water (considering the dyed water and celery experiment)

then you add food programs where countries and organizations are spreading grain and meats all over the world.

granted it does occur in nature, but can one really be sure that it's completely non-man-makable (to borrow Llewdor's phrase :cool:).

hence why I said this hypothetical was no way baised on facts, if it was, it wouldn't be hypothetical... thanks for reading. :p


how can you be sure?

Considering both water and animals in streams and rivers tend to make their way to the ocean and into the food chain...

and can plants also absorb the same meds from the water (considering the dyed water and celery experiment)

then you add food programs where countries and organizations are spreading grain and meats all over the world.

granted it does occur in nature, but can one really be sure that it's completely non-man-makable (to borrow Llewdor's phrase :cool:).

Um. It is one thing to pose a hypothetical, no matter how ridiculous. As you say, it's just a hypothetical.

But, in the second part of your answer above, you seem to be defending the possibility of the premise of your hypothetical. That you can rightfully be criticized for, as the premise is -- to be blunt -- stupid.

BTW, you do know that there are fish that naturally change gender at certain stages of development? This isn't that shocking.

Um. It is one thing to pose a hypothetical, no matter how ridiculous. As you say, it's just a hypothetical.

But, in the second part of your answer above, you seem to be defending the possibility of the premise of your hypothetical. That you can rightfully be criticized for, as the premise is -- to be blunt -- stupid. however, I did place in the premise, the 'explination' on how it could affect 'remote' areas (See last parentasised section.) all I did was reiterate that 'explination'.

BTW, you do know that there are fish that naturally change gender at certain stages of development? This isn't that shocking.
but not all (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23504633/) fish do this.

while my OP is a hypothetical, it's reports like these (not this particular one tho) that made me think of this as a 'possible' effect on humans. Granted this report made me think about the Grains we 'donate' to other countries.

Severe reproductive problems
Pharmaceuticals in the water are being blamed for severe reproductive problems in many types of fish: The endangered razorback sucker and male fathead minnow have been found with lower sperm counts and damaged sperm; some walleyes and male carp have become what are called feminized fish, producing egg yolk proteins typically made only by females.

Meanwhile, female fish have developed male genital organs. Also, there are skewed sex ratios in some aquatic populations, and sexually abnormal bass that produce cells for both sperm and eggs.

There are problems with other wildlife as well: kidney failure in vultures, impaired reproduction in mussels, inhibited growth in algae.

“We have no reason to think that this is a unique situation,” says Erik Orsak, an environmental contaminants specialist with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, pulling off rubber gloves splattered with fish blood at Lake Mead. “We find pretty much anywhere we look, these compounds are ubiquitous.”

For example:

In a broad study still under way, fish collected in waterways near or in Chicago; West Chester, Pa.; Orlando; Dallas; and Phoenix have tested positive for an array of pharmaceuticals — analgesics, antibiotics, antidepressants, antihistamines, anti-hypertension drugs and anti-seizure medications.
That research follows a 2003 study in northern Texas, where every bluegill, black crappie and channel catfish researchers caught living downstream of a wastewater treatment plant tested positive for the active ingredients in two widely used antidepressants — one of the first times the residues of such drugs were detected in wildlife.
In several recent studies of soil fertilized with livestock manure or with the sludge product from wastewater treatment plants, American scientists found earthworms had accumulated those same compounds, while vegetables — including corn, lettuce and potatoes — had absorbed antibiotics. “These results raise potential human health concerns,” wrote researchers.
Blood and liver samples of bull sharks in Florida’s Caloosahatchee River, a nursery area for juvenile bullsharks and home to six wastewater treatment plants, are being tested for the presence of an array of medications this winter. Of the first ten sharks sampled, nine tested positive for the active ingredient in an antidepressant.
And in Colorado’s Boulder Creek, 50 of the 60 white suckers collected downstream of Boulder’s wastewater treatment plant were female, compared to about half of them upstream.


Elsewhere in the world — from the icy streams of England to the wild game reserves of South Africa — snails, fish, even antelope, are showing signs of possible pharmaceutical contamination. For example, fish and prawn in China exposed to treated wastewater had shortened life spans, Pacific oysters off the coast of Singapore had inhibited growth, and in Norway, Atlantic salmon exposed to levels of estrogen similar to those found in the North Sea had severe reproductive problems.

More than 100 different pharmaceuticals have been detected in surface waters throughout the world.

So while the effects of these drugs on humans are not known, it is a wide spread problem and it being widespread is what I covered in the OP as part of the Hypothetical.