@elbanditoroso: “Will this sort of data encourage pollution deniers to take the dangers of pollution seriously?”

Deniers – as in those that don’t believe in the science – don’t exist. They intentionally spread false information in order to maximize profit.

The prospect of threatening human survival hasn’t stopped them from maximizing profit. I don’t think the prospect of grandsons with micropenis will sway them to stop.

Only if it would shrink their own penii.

If increased rates of cancer and asthma don’t convince them, then even appealing to their fragile masculinity might not do it. (Many of them probably already have bum wieners anyway).

For a second I thought this was going to be about how male genitalia was causing pollution.

I remember this author’s first publication years ago about penis size (and urethral opening location, if I recall correctly) and phthalate exposure. This is not new information – it doesn’t seem to have changed public opinion.

As has been mentioned, this is based on in-utero exposure, not changing adult penis size. So probably not.

https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

This is all you need to know about this wasted click bait of an article.

@Caravanfan The article goes into details about the causal mechanisms. This is not mere correlation.

I can’t tell you how many crap medical articles I read that also go into so called causal mechanisms. Doesn’t mean that they are still not crap.