• Scientists Warn Chemicals May Be Altering Breast Development
    29 replies, posted
[img]http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/4/2011/06/boobies.jpg[/img] [quote=Scientific American] Exposure to chemicals early in life may alter how breast tissue develops and raise the risks of breast cancer and lactation problems later in life, scientists concluded in a set of reports published Wednesday. The scientists are urging federal officials to add new tests for industrial chemicals and pesticides to identify ones that might disrupt breast development. In some cases, they said, mammary glands are more sensitive to effects of hormone-disrupting chemicals than any other part of the body, so low levels of exposure may be causing breast changes. "Few chemicals coming into the marketplace are evaluated for these effects," said one of the reports, based on the findings of more than 60 scientists who convened a workshop in Oakland, Calif., in 2009. Although many experts have long debated the role of the environment in breast cancer, the possibility that chemicals are changing how and when breasts develop is a relatively new concern for scientists. Recent animal tests show that when rodents are exposed to some hormonally active chemicals in the womb or as newborns, their mammary glands do not grow normally, and the changes can slow or speed up breast development, impair breastfeeding or cause cancerous tumors later in life. Included are estrogens used as pharmaceuticals, phytoestrogens in plants consumed as foods and synthetic compounds including bisphenol A, flame retardants and pesticides, according to the report, which was published online in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives. Whether the same thing happens with human beings is largely unknown, although scientists say that rodent breasts develop much like human breasts, in the same stages. "Animal studies demonstrate that early life exposure to hormonally active agents can lead to effects on mammary gland development, impaired lactation and increased susceptibility to cancer. However, the influence of environmental exposures on breast development outcomes is poorly understood, as is the relationship between breast development, lactational deficits, and breast cancer," wrote the authors, who are scientists from the National Toxicology Program, the Environmental Protection Agency and the nonprofit Silent Spring Institute. In a companion report published Wednesday, scientists with three federal agencies who studied mice exposed in the womb to a chemical used to make Teflon found delayed breast development and impaired lactation. The effects were found in the mice at the concentrations detected in the water supply of an Ohio town near a DuPont Co. plant that uses the chemical, known as PFOA. Water supplies are not routinely monitored for it. "If human exposures in distinct populations are approximating those provided in this study, concern over human breast health and lactational competency are justified," said the authors, led by Suzanne Fenton, a mammary gland expert at the National Toxicology Program. Traditional animal tests required by federal officials have linked more than 200 chemicals and contaminants to breast cancer. But, in an editorial published with the three reports, Julia Brody and Ruthann Rudel of the Silent Spring Institute and Mhel Kavanaugh-Lynch of University of California said that those tests "may be missing many more" because they look only for tumors and "neglect development effects." Breast cancer is the leading form of cancer in women, and some experts are concerned that chemicals acting like hormones may raise the risk if exposures come during critical development times. The most critical times are in the womb, and during puberty and pregnancy. During these times, hormones regulate how mammary glands grow, and if they grow abnormally, it may cause cancer and other problems later. [/quote] Source: [url]http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=scientists-warn-chemicals-altering-breast-development&WT.mc_id=SA_Twitter_sciam[/url] AWWW FUCK.
Well all we need to do now is get rid of the chemicals and this problem will be solved.
[QUOTE=valkery;30637034]Well all we need to do now is get rid of the chemicals and this problem will be solved.[/QUOTE] The companies that juice up the animals could care less though.
I see 12 year olds with tits bigger than my head, no shit something's happening here
Think about all the titties and booby's. [img]http://www.roysephotos.com/zzOakTitmouse1.jpg[/img][img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8f/Blue-footed_Booby_%28Sula_nebouxii%29_-one_leg_raised.jpg/240px-Blue-footed_Booby_%28Sula_nebouxii%29_-one_leg_raised.jpg[/img] Dont worry, we're going to save you.
[QUOTE=CjienX;30637083]I see 12 year olds with tits bigger than my head, no shit something's happening here[/QUOTE] You must have a tiny head then
Well of course he does. If his penis his tiny it only makes sense for the head to be tiny, too. I kid, but seriously all these hormones and shit are fucking shit up.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/BW5sP.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=CjienX;30637083]I see 12 year olds with tits bigger than my head, no shit something's happening here[/QUOTE] Same thing, over here. It is said chickens are fed growth hormones and 'roids, so they can gain size in the smallest time lapse possible... so if they eat chicken, all those hormones from the chicken are going to affect them...
Yay big tits :v: People act like this is a new thing...
I'm okay with this.
Fail to see the problem
I'm glad my girlfriend isn't being affected by them.
My girlfriend has had 34D breasts longer than I can remember, even while we were in middle school she had them and that was about eight years ago.
[QUOTE=Canesfan;30650633]Fail to see the problem[/QUOTE] Cancer.
I guess most facepunchers have an excuse for having tits bigger than their sister's now
[QUOTE=valkery;30637034]Well all we need to do now is get rid of the chemicals and this problem will be solved.[/QUOTE] Easiest solution: Get rid of all chemicals ever.
[QUOTE=BldrGyMnGy;30637063]The companies that juice up the animals could care less though.[/QUOTE] Couldn't care less.
[QUOTE=Alex_DeLarge;30651595]My girlfriend has had 34D breasts longer than I can remember, even while we were in middle school she had them and that was about eight years ago.[/QUOTE] 34Ds, best size. EVER.
Glad to see that you guys are so childish that you would sacrifice a woman's health to see ~HUGE BOOBIES XD~
[QUOTE=fenwick;30651972]Easiest solution: Get rid of all chemicals ever.[/QUOTE] But our entire body and everything is made out of chemicals [editline]23rd June 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Sanius;30663006]Glad to see that you guys are so childish that you would sacrifice a woman's health to see ~HUGE BOOBIES XD~[/QUOTE]I'm ok with small chest. I find them cuter
[QUOTE=johan_sm;30663086]I'm ok with small chest. I find them cuter[/QUOTE] So that means you're okay with defective and cancerous breasts?
[QUOTE=Jack Noir;30663981]So that means you're okay with defective and cancerous breasts?[/QUOTE] How the hell are small breasts cancerous or defective? And yeah I'm ok with that, no one is perfect, a defect here and there doesn't mean shit.
if only there was chemicals out there that can actually help grow the breasts and actually fight against breast cancer and other anomalies for women.
[QUOTE=johan_sm;30664096]How the hell are small breasts cancerous or defective?[/QUOTE] The article explained how chemicals may be altering breast development and causing health issues such as breast cancer or defections. You implied you were okay with that in your first post. I quoted that post and questioned how you didn't care about the cancer and defections. I'm not sure how to explain it any more than that.
[QUOTE=Jack Noir;30664725]The article explained how chemicals may be altering breast development and causing health issues such as breast cancer or defections. You implied you were okay with that in your first post. I quoted that post and questioned how you didn't care about the cancer and defections. I'm not sure how to explain it any more than that.[/QUOTE] I said I was ok with small breasts, not with chemically damaged ones.
Yeah I agree with Sanius for once, I'd rather have her have smaller breasts than having to chop them off due to cancer :(
Funny how the article says nothing about breast size and that's what you all automatically start talking about
God damn photo in OP gave me a boner.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.