Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ProPublica)   It's not just the chocolate covered pork rinds loading lard on your love bumpers: Even chimps living in highly controlled laboratory conditions are getting porkulent in America. Some mystery chemical is to blame   (propublica.org ) divider line
    More: Scary, chemicals, laboratory, endocrine disruptors, captive animals, low testosterone, chimps, sperm counts, National Primate Research Center  
•       •       •

2612 clicks; posted to Geek » on 11 Oct 2013 at 9:06 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



47 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-10-11 08:21:35 PM  
Oh, ProPublica? Surely this story is written by a medical journalist and is not....

Oh. Oh right.

Prior to joining ProPublica, he was a senior writer at Sports Illustrated, where he co-authored the 2009 report that Yankees third baseman Alex Rodriguez had used steroids.

farm4.staticflickr.com

ProPublica, bringing you the woo that we copy off of NaturalNews.com.

/could that mystery chemical be called HFCS?
 
2013-10-11 08:24:05 PM  
Also, for added fun in this article, look up the linked research papers that he used to write the article, and see their sources.
 
2013-10-11 08:50:06 PM  
Whatever, porkulent is the single most cromulent word on teh farks this week.
 
2013-10-11 09:00:14 PM  
chemtrails dude. they're fattening us up for the harvest.  it's true, i read it on ats.
 
2013-10-11 09:14:54 PM  

PainInTheASP: chemtrails dude. they're fattening us up for the harvest.  it's true, i read it on ats.


coto2.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-10-11 09:17:30 PM  
Flouride in the water!
/Y'all know the nazis used it to pacify the population...
 
2013-10-11 09:26:09 PM  
from the article...

In men, phthalates   with the normal action of testosterone, an important hormone forhttp://www.urmc.rochester.edu/news/story/index.cfm?id=1405" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-size: 16px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(34, 98, 204); text-decoration: none; font-family: Georgia, serif; line-height: 22px; ">maintaining healthy body composition. Phthalate exposure in males has been associated with a suite of traits symptomatic of low testosterone, from lower sperm count to greater heft. (Interference with testosterone may also explain why baby boys of mothers with higher phthalate levels  , that is, the distance between the rectum and the scrotum. Call it what you want, fellas, but if you have a ruler handy and find that your AGD is shorter than two inches, you probably have a smaller penis volume and a of infertility.)

so, if your lady brings a rule to measure your taint...she's read this article and wants a baby...or doesn't want a baby...maybe...
 
2013-10-11 09:27:23 PM  
One such chemical might be atmospheric carbon dioxide.
 
2013-10-11 09:35:59 PM  
This guy just found out about a report from two years ago?

Isn't this a repeat? Ah, here it is. io9 article from August.

This is not why you are fat
 
2013-10-11 09:50:56 PM  
In other news, nothing is your fault. It's the fault of (choose as many as you deem appropriate):

Your parents
The Trilateral Commission (or whatever the modern equivalent is)
Chemicals (doesn't matter which one, they're all suspect)
Global Warming
The 1%
Society
Teabaggers
Treehuggers
Sportos
Motorheads
Geeks
Sluts
Bloods
Wastoids
Dweebies
Dickheads
Rustlers
Cutthroats
Murderers
Bounty hunters
Desperados
Mugs
Pugs
Thugs
Nitwits
Halfwits
Dimwits
Vipers
Snipers
Con men
Indian agents
Mexican bandits
Muggers
Buggerers
Bushwhackers
Hornswogglers
Horse thieves
Bull dykes
Train robbers
Bank robbers
Ass-kickers
Shiat-kickers
Methodists

NOTE: If you belong to any of the above-named groups, be sure to pick something else to explain and rationalize your behavior.

Ivo Shandor: One such chemical might be atmospheric carbon dioxide.


See what I mean?
 
2013-10-11 09:51:13 PM  

hardinparamedic: Oh, ProPublica? Surely this story is written by a medical journalist and is not....

Oh. Oh right.


You do realize that writers generally aren't, nor do they need to be, subject matter experts, right? That's why they...wait for it...interview people. Don't let that cloud your bias though.
 
2013-10-11 09:54:10 PM  

Harvey Manfrenjensenjen: In other news, nothing is your fault. It's the fault of (choose as many as you deem appropriate):


So Americans are just less responsible than everyone else? Please proceed. What evidence do you have to prove this assertion? Difficulty: no begging the question.

/lookup what "begging the question" actually means if you have to
 
2013-10-11 09:54:50 PM  

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: You do realize that writers generally aren't, nor do they need to be, subject matter experts, right? That's why they...wait for it...interview people. Don't let that cloud your bias though.


Oh, of course not. However, it might help matters a little bit if a writer writes for a news source that 
A) Recognizes and places that person in an area of their expertise.
B) Knows how to judge sources and their authenticity or level of evidence

The fact the linked "Studies" were either published in Alternative Medicine Journals, OR in Medical Hypothesis, and the fact that this article rambles like a conspiracy off of NaturalNews.com is enough to be "Biased" against it.

ProPublica is not a reliable source of medical information. It's right up there with Infowars, NaturalNews, and Mercola with being batty.
 
2013-10-11 10:02:11 PM  

Im_Gumby: Flouride in the water!
/Y'all know the nazis used it to pacify the population...


It's incredibly obvious, isn't it?  Foreign substances introduced into our precious bodily fluids, without the knowledge of the individual.  Certainly without any choice.  That's the way your hardcore Commie works.  We can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion, and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.
 
2013-10-11 10:08:08 PM  
The steroids contained potassium benzoate....
 
2013-10-11 10:15:03 PM  

I blame this chemical

paw.princeton.edu

 
2013-10-11 10:18:14 PM  
Is "chocolate covered pork rinds loading lard on your love bumpers" an euphemism for taking it from a black dude in the pooper? Cos it totally should be.

/dnrtfa
 
2013-10-11 10:19:41 PM  
www.aerojockey.com
 
2013-10-11 11:18:52 PM  

hardinparamedic: Oh, ProPublica? Surely this story is written by a medical journalist and is not....

Oh. Oh right.

Prior to joining ProPublica, he was a senior writer at Sports Illustrated, where he co-authored the 2009 report that Yankees third baseman Alex Rodriguez had used steroids.

[farm4.staticflickr.com image 250x272]

ProPublica, bringing you the woo that we copy off of NaturalNews.com.

/could that mystery chemical be called HFCS?


No I am pretty sure this was discussed on Science Friday on NPR.  It is a situation that is puzzling animal scientists all over the world.
 
2013-10-11 11:23:07 PM  

SpdrJay: The steroids contained potassium benzoate....


That's bad...
 
2013-10-11 11:26:25 PM  
So it WAS my shampoo making me fat when I was married to my ex-wife!

I knew I shouldn't have drunk so much of it.
 
2013-10-11 11:31:07 PM  

hardinparamedic: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: You do realize that writers generally aren't, nor do they need to be, subject matter experts, right? That's why they...wait for it...interview people. Don't let that cloud your bias though.

Oh, of course not. However, it might help matters a little bit if a writer writes for a news source that 
A) Recognizes and places that person in an area of their expertise.
B) Knows how to judge sources and their authenticity or level of evidence

The fact the linked "Studies" were either published in Alternative Medicine Journals, OR in Medical Hypothesis, and the fact that this article rambles like a conspiracy off of NaturalNews.com is enough to be "Biased" against it.

ProPublica is not a reliable source of medical information. It's right up there with Infowars, NaturalNews, and Mercola with being batty.


I think you might be throwing the bath water out with this baby.  I saw lots of links to Royal Society, NIH, CDC, etc in the article but not the ones you mentioned.

ProPublica may or may not be a reliable source of medical information (I don't see that as important for this conversation), but even a blind, mentally deficient squirrel can find evidence of nuts.  I've read more than a few studies investigating potential links between environmental contaminants and obesity (along with a number of other conditions, my sister has Graves'), and there is a lot of evidence for concern.  What there isn't is nearly enough science.  The article under consideration was poorly written and added exactly nothing new to the discussion.  It might bring a very serious issue more public attention, though, and that's not a bad thing.

Cheers.
 
2013-10-11 11:58:34 PM  
It's the air conditioning slowing down everybody's metabolism.

/Luddite
 
2013-10-12 12:50:27 AM  
If it's actually a global problem, I wouldn't be blaming agricultural and even construction/manufacturing technology because that's different in every part of the world, especially at a chemical and particulate level.

If the world IS, however, globally warming - then that's less calories that every warmblooded biological organism is burning, at base rate. Which means less food required.
 
2013-10-12 01:00:27 AM  

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Harvey Manfrenjensenjen: In other news, nothing is your fault. It's the fault of (choose as many as you deem appropriate):

So Americans are just less responsible than everyone else? Please proceed. What evidence do you have to prove this assertion? Difficulty: no begging the question.

/lookup what "begging the question" actually means if you have to


I think that pretty much sums up the gap between how clever you think you are and how clever you actually are.
 
2013-10-12 01:19:54 AM  

flucto: Whatever, porkulent is the single most cromulent word on teh farks this week.


I like this word porkulent. I will seek out opportunities to use it. The fact that it is made by simply switching two of the consonant sounds in the word corpulent, while remaining a synonym of that word, is a nice touch.
 
2013-10-12 01:24:23 AM  

hardinparamedic: The fact the linked "Studies" were either published in Alternative Medicine Journals, OR in Medical Hypothesis, and the fact that this article rambles like a conspiracy off of NaturalNews.com is enough to be "Biased" against it.


Let's see. The first link goes to the Centers for Disease Control. Later links go to Britain's Royal Society, the National Institute of Health (several times), and Science magazine.

Looks like the only person making up BS here is you.

Makes you wonder why such a busy Obama shill is terribly upset at a Pulitzer Prize winning nonprofit website focusing on investigative journalism in the public interest.

They haven't become one of the major outlets criticizing Obama over the NSA or anything, have they?

Oh, wait. They have.

When the House of Representatives recently considered an amendment that would have dismantled the NSA's bulk phone records collection program, the White House swiftly condemned the measure. But only five years ago, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. was part of a group of legislators that supported substantial changes to NSA surveillance programs. Here are some of the proposals the president co-sponsored as a senator.

As a senator, Obama wanted to limit bulk records collection.

As a senator, Obama wanted to require government analysts to get court approval before accessing incidentally collected American data.

As a senator, Obama wanted the executive branch to report to Congress how many American communications had been swept up during surveillance.

As a senator, Obama wanted to restrict the use of gag orders related to surveillance court orders.

As a senator, Obama wanted to give the accused a chance to challenge government surveillance.

As a senator, Obama wanted the attorney general to submit a public report giving aggregate data about how many people had been targeted for searches.

Damn you Pro Publica!!!
 
2013-10-12 03:02:52 AM  

BullBearMS: Damn you Pro Publica!!!


You don't have to politicize all the things. According ProPub:
More than a decade ago, Paula Baille-Hamilton, a visiting fellow at Stirling University in Scotland who studies toxicology and human metabolism, started perusing scientific literature for chemicals that might promote obesity. She turned up so many papers containing evidence of chemical-induced obesity in animals (often, she says, passed off by study authors as a fluke in their work) that it took her three years to organize evidence for the aptly titled 2002 review paper: "Chemical Toxins: A Hypothesis to Explain the Global Obesity Epidemic."

-- in other words, Ms. Baille-Hamilton started with a paper and THEN searched for evidence to do this.
If you have any kind of inkling how science should be done, you know that this is reversed. You don't start with a conclusion and then find evidence to prove it, because using that method, you can "prove" almost anything.

I don't care what kind of publication Pro Publica is or the politics around it; you don't need to consider the merits of the outlet to see that this particular article is suspect.
 
2013-10-12 04:30:32 AM  

starsrift: BullBearMS: Damn you Pro Publica!!!

You don't have to politicize all the things. According ProPub:
More than a decade ago, Paula Baille-Hamilton, a visiting fellow at Stirling University in Scotland who studies toxicology and human metabolism, started perusing scientific literature for chemicals that might promote obesity. She turned up so many papers containing evidence of chemical-induced obesity in animals (often, she says, passed off by study authors as a fluke in their work) that it took her three years to organize evidence for the aptly titled 2002 review paper: "Chemical Toxins: A Hypothesis to Explain the Global Obesity Epidemic."

-- in other words, Ms. Baille-Hamilton started with a paper and THEN searched for evidence to do this.
If you have any kind of inkling how science should be done, you know that this is reversed. You don't start with a conclusion and then find evidence to prove it, because using that method, you can "prove" almost anything.

I don't care what kind of publication Pro Publica is or the politics around it; you don't need to consider the merits of the outlet to see that this particular article is suspect.


So what you are saying is she had a hypothesis and started looking through the experimental data of others for evidence proving or disproving that hypothesis... and that's bad?

Basically, having a hypothesis, looking for data in existing peer reviewed literature to support it, and then publishing your own peer reviewed paper about that hypothesis is NOT science?

Seriously???
 
2013-10-12 04:58:00 AM  

starsrift: If you have any kind of inkling how science should be done, you know that this is reversed. You don't start with a conclusion and then find evidence to prove it, because using that method, you can "prove" almost anything.


It's pretty much how a large part of science is done in practice.  And there's nothing wrong with it per se, as long as people are willing to subject their results to peer review and attempts to reproduce the results.  (That's the rub, of course: not everyone is, and they will take their "discoveries" to the masses as a scientific fact before other scientists have a chance to prove or disprove their results.  Not saying that did or didn't happen here.)
 
2013-10-12 07:29:51 AM  
fordevillediaries.com
 
2013-10-12 08:27:16 AM  
That's right, ingesting certain chemicals makes thermodynamics not work!

/not fat
//American
///likes cake
 
2013-10-12 08:59:38 AM  

hardinparamedic: /could that mystery chemical be called HFCS?


What about the pets getting fatter, genius?
 
2013-10-12 09:58:15 AM  
ACtually, I don't think it's something so simple as HFCS.

I recall hearing a study on NPR that involved mice-there was *some* chemical they exposed them to. I don't remember what, but not only were those mice fat, *so were their descendants*-

I think the study of Epigenetics is going to help us nail down a *LOT* of what's going on here. (And goddamn, but Epigenetics is fascinating...
 
2013-10-12 11:59:21 AM  

BullBearMS: Makes you wonder why such a busy Obama shill is terribly upset at a Pulitzer Prize winning nonprofit website focusing on investigative journalism in the public interest.


What does a newspaper reporting on science have to do with their journalism on politics, again?

BullBearMS: Let's see. The first link goes to the Centers for Disease Control. Later links go to Britain's Royal Society, the National Institute of Health (several times), and Science magazine.

Chemical Toxins, published in the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine.


Sorry. I call bullshiat unless you can show me something more reliable than a journalist drawing his own conclusions based on a paper published in an AltMed journal.
 
2013-10-12 12:27:37 PM  

iaazathot: I am pretty sure this was discussed on Science Friday on NPR


NEVAR listen to NPR AGAIN, because Herp, Derp!
 
2013-10-12 12:27:56 PM  

BullBearMS: hardinparamedic: The fact the linked "Studies" were either published in Alternative Medicine Journals, OR in Medical Hypothesis, and the fact that this article rambles like a conspiracy off of NaturalNews.com is enough to be "Biased" against it.

Let's see. The first link goes to the Centers for Disease Control. Later links go to Britain's Royal Society, the National Institute of Health (several times), and Science magazine.

Looks like the only person making up BS here is you.

Makes you wonder why such a busy Obama shill is terribly upset at a Pulitzer Prize winning nonprofit website focusing on investigative journalism in the public interest.

They haven't become one of the major outlets criticizing Obama over the NSA or anything, have they?

Oh, wait. They have.

When the House of Representatives recently considered an amendment that would have dismantled the NSA's bulk phone records collection program, the White House swiftly condemned the measure. But only five years ago, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. was part of a group of legislators that supported substantial changes to NSA surveillance programs. Here are some of the proposals the president co-sponsored as a senator.

As a senator, Obama wanted to limit bulk records collection.

As a senator, Obama wanted to require government analysts to get court approval before accessing incidentally collected American data.

As a senator, Obama wanted the executive branch to report to Congress how many American communications had been swept up during surveillance.

As a senator, Obama wanted to restrict the use of gag orders related to surveillance court orders.

As a senator, Obama wanted to give the accused a chance to challenge government surveillance.

As a senator, Obama wanted the attorney general to submit a public report giving aggregate data about how many people had been targeted for searches.

Damn you Pro Publica!!!


nyrb.typepad.com
 
2013-10-12 01:07:18 PM  

BullBearMS: NEVAR listen to NPR AGAIN, because Herp, Derp!


Again. What does reporting on politics have to do with reporting on science?

To put this another way, if Infowars.com or NaturalNews.com reports on something Snowden has done, does that make it credible to report on medical matters?

And I'm far more likely to trust NPR to get it right than I am a sports reporter working for ProPublica, after their crap about Tylenol.
 
2013-10-12 02:11:53 PM  

hardinparamedic: BullBearMS: NEVAR listen to NPR AGAIN, because Herp, Derp!

Again. What does reporting on politics have to do with reporting on science?

To put this another way, if Infowars.com or NaturalNews.com reports on something Snowden has done, does that make it credible to report on medical matters?

And I'm far more likely to trust NPR to get it right than I am a sports reporter working for ProPublica, after their crap about Tylenol.


1) Can you identify the central point of the article
2) Do you have an objection to the point of the article that is based on fact rather than ad hominem?
 
2013-10-12 02:53:07 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: 2) Do you have an objection to the point of the article that is based on fact rather than ad hominem?


No.

No he can't.

He's just trying to convince people that Pro Publica is evil because they have recently published some pretty heavy criticism of Obama's actions.

This is, after all, the same guy who gets terribly upset if you say that Obama doesn't have the power to order Americans murdered without due process.

All he will do is continue to herp and derp.
 
2013-10-12 03:33:16 PM  
Wow, an actually informative article where I can compare and research the claims. As opposed to the Union of Concerned Scientists, who simply say "OH, well this has a chemical used as a flame retardant!" Leaving us to make irrational inferences all on our own about the safety of food. Example: This chemical is an industrial product used to control the spread of fire? I put out grease fires with baking soda... Is baking soda bad for me?
 
2013-10-12 07:28:11 PM  
Fatties should just be less fat. Fatties.
 
2013-10-12 07:32:47 PM  

BullBearMS: He's just trying to convince people that Pro Publica is evil because they have recently published some pretty heavy criticism of Obama's actions.


Are you trolling, or are you paranoid and mentally ill, and missed a dose of your lithium? Because those are the only two reasons why you would think that, considering I have not posted one thing about their political coverage, and was only criticising this article based on the use of Alternative Medicine publications and heavy use of the toxin gambit while drawing conclusions not supported by research papers linked. (Pthaltes decrease testosterone, which makes your penis/AGD smaller and makes you fat!).

I said nothing about their political coverage. Nor do I care about their political coverage. I'd rather get my information from the BBC or AJE.

If you would like to quote where I have posted about their political coverage in ANY thread (Hint: Google), please feel free to do so. I will admit you're absolutely correct, and apologize directly to you.

However, I feel you're like Brave Sir Robin, tilting at straw windmills because you can't find anything else to attack. You're like a rabid dog to people who disagree with you on anything.

BullBearMS: This is, after all, the same guy who gets terribly upset if you say that Obama doesn't have the power to order Americans murdered without due process.


WTF are you even on about, other than being a threadjacking troll?

BullBearMS: All he will do is continue to herp and derp.


At least I've been on topic with my criticism, rather than flying off in the center field.
 
2013-10-12 08:31:14 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: 1) Can you identify the central point of the article
2) Do you have an objection to the point of the article that is based on fact rather than ad hominem?


Look what somebody still hasn't done.
 
2013-10-13 12:21:57 AM  

BullBearMS: BraveNewCheneyWorld: 1) Can you identify the central point of the article
2) Do you have an objection to the point of the article that is based on fact rather than ad hominem?

Look what somebody still hasn't done.


Did you forget which alt you logged in under? Or the definition of Ad Hominem?

My entire criticism of this article was based on the fact that this guy took multiple endocrine papers and tied them together using an article published in an alternative medicine journal to support his claim that chemicals in the environment are responsible for obesity, without actually linking anything of substance to that, and then went far off into right field on the brominated vegetable oils by pursuing the chemical/toxin gambit.

Rather than address that, your alt and yourself decided to go full retard and attack me. You concocted this insane, ad hominem theory about me desiring to do so because I "didn't like them for 'slamming' Obama", which is not supported by anything I have ever posted or said. You further justified this claim by saying it was because I disagreed with your feelings on theAnwar al-Aulaqi matter, something that we argued about over a year ago.

Considering I had never even heard about ProPublica until about 3 weeks ago when FARK linked a scare article over Tylenol from them,  and you have yet to post any evidence on the other things you accused me of, I'm curious as to why you're acting like such a pedantic moron over this?

I get that you have obvious anger issues over people who disagree with you on matters of politics. But dude, you need to chill out, and stop coming off as a mentally unbalanced sociopath.

Seriously. If I affected your life SO MUCH with my opinions on the AaA matter that over a year later you're still acting like a rabid dog over it, you need professional help in real life before you hurt someone.

Now, I'm off shift in 20 minutes. I'm going to go enjoy a margarita with my partner and my girlfriend, and finish watching spirited away. Maybe you should so something similar.

Or just yell at people on the internet like an idiot. That seems to work for you too.
 
2013-10-13 12:49:06 AM  

hardinparamedic: BullBearMS: BraveNewCheneyWorld: 1) Can you identify the central point of the article
2) Do you have an objection to the point of the article that is based on fact rather than ad hominem?

Look what somebody still hasn't done.

Did you forget which alt you logged in under? Or the definition of Ad Hominem?


hardinparamedic: Rather than address that, your alt and yourself decided to go full retard and attack me


I give full permission for the fark mods to tell you if I'm BullBearMS's alt.

You either come back here with verification that you're correct, or you will now be known as that paranoid delusional idiot who still doesn't know what ad hominem means.
 
2013-10-13 10:33:16 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: You either come back here with verification that you're correct, or you will now be known as that paranoid delusional idiot who still doesn't know what ad hominem means.


I prefer the idiot who claims that all reporting on Pro Publica is in line with...

hardinparamedic: Infowars, NaturalNews, and Mercola with being batty.


...for no apparent reason that can be articulated.
 
Displayed 47 of 47 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report