When I was a kid I remember being concerned about what was in the water.
Maybe it was just part of the culture at the time, but things like "runoff" were kind of a big deal, at least more-so than it appears to be today.
Back then we didn't worry about the more etherial environmental concerns like "climate change", but we were extremely concerned about the visceral problems like pollution, runoff, littering, and recycling. You know: things that people can actually work to do something about in their day to day life.
Well, needless to say, just because the narrative of environmental concerns has shifted away from runoff doesn't mean it's not still a problem today -- and an EVEN WORSE problem.
So today I thought I'd examine the only existing narrative of prominence that still deals with the danger of chemical runoff in the water supply: and that is the claim of Alex Jones that putting chemicals in the water turns the frickin' frogs gay.
The claim, the joke
He's mentioned it a few times but here's the clip that gets the most traction:
This is so weird-sounding that it's become a meme unto itself. This, personally, is my favorite rendition of the claim:
Because of the humorous nature of the clip and the way it's been memed, the claim itself seems ridiculous to people.
Example
I'm not typically an Alex Jones apologist or defender. But I do like to support people when they're in the right.
Here's an exchange I had with someone on Twitter about the gay frogs thing.
He says "the ONLY thing" Alex was right about was NSA spying. Well, that's not true, and I could think of two things off the top of my head that Alex has been right about AND provided plenty of evidence.
Admittedly, I put this out the way I did so that it would illicit a call to evidence. Depending on which issue he had a problem with, I'd provide the evidence for it. Or he could deflect, which is what he ended up deciding to do.
Total deflection, not one point is on track. So I brought it back.
This is one of the easiest ways to keep a thread from derailing: just insist that someone addresses your points.
Ah, so it's the gay frogs he's taking issue with. Good. There's plenty of evidence, but I decided to be direct and start with just one.
As you can see, that was posted several days ago. Yesterday, I checked up on the tweet to see if he had replied. He had not, so I ended it with this as evidence that some people care about facts and some simply do not (even when they have Christopher Hitchens as their avatar).
The fact of the matter is that this guy probably muted me.
That tends to happen when people who purport to care about facts and evidence are confronted with evidence that conflicts with their preexisting worldview.
Evidence
The simple fact is that the gay frogs thing is true.
It's well researched by serious scientists and well documented by serious institutions.
Here's the video I linked to in that thread.
If any of you have been following my blog for any period of time, you probably know how much I like abstracts and raw source material, so here are the abstracts from this study.
The herbicide atrazine is one of the most commonly applied pesticides in the world. As a result, atrazine is the most commonly detected pesticide contaminant of ground, surface, and drinking water.
How common is Atrazine? Here's another study that gives an indication:
The triazine herbicide atrazine (2‐chloro‐4‐ethylamino‐6‐isopropyl‐amino‐s‐triazine) is one of the most used pesticides in North America. Atrazine is principally used for control of certain annual broadleaf and grass weeds, primarily in corn but also in sorghum, sugarcane, and, to a lesser extent, other crops and landscaping. Atrazine is found in many surface and ground waters in North America, and aquatic ecological effects are a possible concern for the regulatory and regulated communities.
Ecological risk assessment of atrazine in North American surface waters
Continuing on the with original abstract:
Atrazine is also a potent endocrine disruptor that is active at low, ecologically relevant concentrations. Previous studies showed that atrazine adversely affects amphibian larval development. The present study demonstrates the reproductive consequences of atrazine exposure in adult amphibians.
So, the regulatory authorities have decided that the current level of atrazine in the water supply is "acceptable", but what has this study found?
Atrazine-exposed males were both demasculinized (chemically castrated) and completely feminized as adults. Ten percent of the exposed genetic males developed into functional females that copulated with unexposed males and produced viable eggs. Atrazine-exposed males suffered from depressed testosterone, decreased breeding gland size, demasculinized/feminized laryngeal development, suppressed mating behavior, reduced spermatogenesis, and decreased fertility.
Now, it's true that amphibians are sometimes more susceptible to such things, but that doesn't mean other species aren't affected:
These data are consistent with effects of atrazine observed in other vertebrate classes.
Conclusion
Yes, IN FACT, chemicals in the water are turning the frickin' frogs gay.
Just because something sounds outlandish doesn't mean it isn't true.
What do you think? Share your thoughts in the comments below.
