It turns out that BPA, according to some studies, makes females less motherly, less caring about their offspring, and their maternal instincts are disrupted. It also causes puberty to start earlier. At least, in mice.
But nobody is mentioning this:
BPA apparently affects pregnant women and infants most strongly. BPA was first used in plastics for consumer uses in the 1940s and 50s. This corresponded with the increase in the use of formula (often stored in BPA-lined cans) and bottles (made with BPA plastic, although perhaps not until later than this). It also heralded the dawn of the popularity of tupperware, which, being hard plastic, we can assume contained BPA.
The mothers who were pregnant then spawned the daughters that became the first generation of radical feminists--the ones who were anti-family, anti-child. The ones who attacked anyone who showed any apparent sign of maternal instinct. Interesting, no?
And their daughters (not the radical feminists, necessarily, but that generation's daughters)--me and my generation--was the plastic generation. We wore it, we ate off it, we carried it around. And look how many many many of us grew up to have fewer children and be more interested in going to work than raising babies?
Now this new thing, which is really really controversial for me to even hint at. A common weed killer, in levels LOWER than are allowed by the EPA in our drinking water, can make genetically male frogs act like--and actually, since some amphibians can do this--become for all intents and purposes female. Except that they lack the genes to become female--but they even lay eggs and reproduce. Absent the chemical, atrazine, they do not become female. http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/56787/description/Frogs_Weed_killer_creates_real_Mr._Moms
There. I said it.
Atrazine was introduced in 1958 and, considered safe, used indiscriminately until 1990--and even now, 20 years later, is still being debated (I love how the atrazine guy at the end of that article just willfully closed his eyes to the fairly definitive research).
What I'm wondering is, if you could find the history, has the increase in use in atrazine paralleled the increase in the numbers of homosexual males? Of the human variety, I mean. I don't doubt that there are a few people out there who are genetically gay--but I have a hard time believing that ALL the "gay" people out there are genetically so because that is a genetic dead end. It's not a trait that can be passed on to your offspring; nor does it encourage offspring at all! Survival of the fittest would just about mandate that genetic homosexuals would die out in very few generations. Which means it's not a heritable trait, but a genetic accident--and that would, of necessity, be rare. Extremely rare.
And yet, look at our culture now! I don't buy the idea that making it more acceptable has made it so more people are admitting they're gay. I have wondered if it was a social thing--it's acceptable, so people try it.
But now I'm also wondering if it's similar to the decrease in motherly feelings paralleling the increase in use of BPA--as we increase the use of atrazine, do we find that there are more homosexual males in the world?
Unfortunately, nobody could ever do the research because it has become politically impossible to search for any but "approved" "truth", and the accepted "approved truth" is that all gays are genetically so, and we can't discriminate based on genetics.
But what if it's a condition that is the result of poison? How would that change things?
Oh, and, as another suggestion for further research: Atrazine, in the presence of estrogen, can cause breast cancer. BPA mimics estrogen in the body, leading to early puberty. Perhaps the combination is causing a breast cancer surge?
In fact, interesting that atrazine increases feminine behavior in men and BPA increases masculine behavior in women.....I wonder how they interact with each other. Does the combination make for an epidemic of homosexuality?
I wish someone could find out.