Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: long-gone who wrote (6295)	2/21/2001 12:20:04 PM
From: cosmicforce	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

If that is really a concern, then I'd recommend putting a limit on estrogenic chemicals in industrial use. The amount of natural hormones like progesterone and estrogen in BC pills is very low and are subject to metabolic processes that reduce them to inert products. People aren't going to be dumping this into creeks. Industrial, synthetic estrogenic compounds introduced into the environment as a result of industrial waste and detergent residues are a much more likely source of contamination than OTC BC pills would ever be, even if intentionally dumped. People are allowed access to insecticides, fungicides, weed killers, paints, solvents, poisons, and a thousand other products that have a considerably larger potential for environmental harm than BC pills. If you want to worry about something, worry about antibiotic-fed beef and poultry, overprescription of antibiotics, and bovine-hormone laced milk, E-fields, heavy metals and plasticizers. I think the potential benefit vs. harm is reasonable for BC and think the environmental risk is very low.