Slashdot Mirror
The Rise of Chemophobia In the News
eldavojohn writes "American news outlets like The New York Times seem to thrive on chemophobia — consumer fear of the ambiguous concept of 'chemicals.' As a result, Pulitzer-prize winning science writer Deborah Blum has decided to call out New York Times journalist Nicholas Kirstof for his secondary crusade (she notes he is an admirable journalist in other realms) against chemicals. She's quick to point out the absurdity of fearing chemicals like Hydrogen which could be a puzzler considering its integral role played in life-giving water as well as life-destroying hydrogen cyanide. Another example is O2 versus O3. Blum calls upon journalists to be more specific, to avoid the use of vague terms like 'toxin' let alone 'chemical' and instead inform the public with lengthy chemical names like perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) instead of omitting the actual culprit altogether. Kristof has, of course, resorted to calling makers of these specific compounds 'Big Chem' and Blum chastises his poorly researched reporting along with chemophobic lingo. Chemists of Slashdot, have you found reporting on 'chemicals' to be as poor as Blum alleges or is this no more erroneous than any scare tactic used to move newspapers and garner eyeballs?"
Yes. This is not an either/or question here; both are true.
So when is Kirstof's writing an article about the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide?
First bad joke?
Dyhydrogen monoxide is a powerful chemical solvent! And I drink it every day...
Need I point out the most dangerous of all chemicals, Dihydrogen Monoxide? Especially with this year being the 100th anniversary of the Titanic incident, where a large number of the fatalities were actually due to DHMO poisioning, a fact that the One World Government has covered up?
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
This is a scary one and it's all over the place ;)
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
Will save us What idiot came up with this label anyway ?
Here in germany it is almost as bad, the products are called Bio-"whateveryoufancy"
I find much in the popular media to be anti-chemical. Invariably, "Chemical" is used as a perjorative, almost always being prefixed with either toxic or hazardous. Further, it seems that the term "organic" means without "chemicals", which is idiotic, since Every! Single! Thing! is composed of chemicals.
So, anyway, I have a wonderful time with the chemophobes, preferring to use the term "Organic" to refer to a class of covalently-bonded chemicals, primarily composed of carbon and hydrogen atoms, with various other elements occasionally found.
So, most pesticides (with the exception of things like Bordeaux powder) are organic, as artificial sweeteners, etc. Water is never organic, btw.
I find it somewhat annoying that there seems to be a mainstream association with the "natural" to mean "safe". There are lots of naturally occurring dangerous substances.
They've successfully re-educated the public and turned a good word (hacker==hobbyist) into an evil word, such that stores yank magazines off shelves if the title says, "How to hack your Linux computer". And you expect reporters to correctly published chemical formulas when they never took chemistry classes in college??? LOL.
(And yes I picked the subject on purpose.)
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Crap, QuietLagoon beat me to it.
Science illiterate, social media sheeps.
That's funny .. I was going to suggest Science illiterate, anti-education Conservative rednecks.
...
It all comes down to
IGNORANT PEOPLE
I say ignorant rather than stupid because of something a colleague told me years ago:
Ignorance can be cured with education. Stupidity can only be cured with a hand gun
So as I am an optimist I am hoping for "ignorant"
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
I'm made of them.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
the correct term is molecufear as in a fear of molecules, fearing what you can't see.
...they're just usually not the right ones. For example, the token anti-vaccine person I know rails first about vaccines. Then, if pressed, he will say that the issue is the mercury. Then, if pressed more, he will say some specific compound involving mercury such as thimerosal.
The point is, people can fixate on names all day. It's people's tribalism that's the problem. If one person has a terrible problem with one doctor, that means that he or she will tell all of his or her friends that doctors are bad, and science is bad, and that home birth is the ONLY WAY. And then he or she will go out in search of anecdotes and outlier studies to support his or her claim.
And yes. There will be studies to support any claim. This is why news sources need to slap their sources' confidence intervals right next to any reporting done on studies, ever.
well done, more people need to make these demands on journalists.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I'm drinking soda and it's listed on the back as an ingredient! What can I do?!?
I've notice that whenever they want people to be afraid of something, they always use the scientific name. Don't want people to drink sea water, tell them that the sodium chloride and other fancy salt names are poisonous; hydrocarbons and polyethylene discovered in the Pacific Gyre; and other such nonsense.
It's what plants crave!
Yes! Dihydrogen Monoxide is so prevalent in our polluted environment that we likely breath it in with every breath we take!
Resistance is futile. Your technological distinctiveness will be added to our own. You will become one with the morgue
Sorry, but once that phrase was co-opted by the enviro-wackos to mean that all chemicals were bad it should have been clear that things were going to take a turn for the worse. Today it is clear to everyone that "chemicals" are bad. Nearly everyone does not understand that "chemicals" are things that are present in the heavily filtered water you are drinking, the nice organic food you are eating and in the very air you are breathing. Most people think you can filter out all the "chemicals" and that if you do not, you aren't safe.
This has been going on since the 1970s and with 40 years of it behind us there is almost nothing anyone is going to be able to do to stop it.
We have politicians that believe this or at least profess to agree with their constituents who believe it. Laws are being made to accomodate these beliefs.
It's probably better just to accept it at this point. We believe marketing over scientifically proven facts by an overwhelming margin. I'm just going to enjoy my gentleman's latte with happy ending and the latest episode of "Ow! my balls"
Enough of this, I need to go water my lawn with Brawndo. It's got what plants crave.
I am a chemist, and the word "chemical" has become anathema to the public based on irresponsible reporting. It irritates me everytime I see it. YOU are made up of chemicals. The problem is that people are scientifically illiterate, including most reporters, so being more specific is too difficult for the reporters and irrelevant for most of the public. Yeah, I'm a little cynical.
We've been told for decades to "just say no" to drugs. Is the fact that some folks internalized the concept really so surprising?
Remember, "better living through chemistry" means drug abuse as surely as "gay" means homosexual.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
Science reporting in general is quite bad, so this isn't surprising. However, I hope articles like this aren't cited by the ignorant to justify all manner of chemicals - many of which ARE harmful. We would all benefit for higher standards of testing, and a saner approach to approving or rejecting potentially toxic chemicals.
While the ideal would be for everyone to be educated, that's not going to happen. It is far better for the ignorant to be skeptical than to be trusting, and I'd much rather see chemophobia than blind acceptance.
Especially with this year being the 100th anniversary of the Titanic incident, where a large number of the fatalities were actually due to DHMO poisioning
No, most deaths on the Titanic were most likely due to hypothermia due to the cold water. Those that got hit on the head or trapped or were too infirm to stay afloat long enough for hypothermia to get them and so drowned died because their lungs could not extract oxygen from water. I am guessing that it is a very safe bet that nobody died from drinking too much water which is how you die of DHMO poisoning.
What, like out of the toilet?
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
To some extent, yes. On the other hand, our society is built upon specialization so not everyone can be expected to invest in literacy in all fields. Really where the failure occurs which allows irrational fear of "chemicals" to evolve is in the large number of cases where an actually harmful chemical does real damage, and said damage is denied and covered up by institutions which the public feels powerless against. That poisons the well, and after that, is is open season for sensationalist media profiteers.
I find it hard to call a group of conspiracy theorists and/or worry warts "sheep" by the way, because the true sheep are the people that rely on arguments to authority to dismiss any disturbing information. Modern society is more like a bunch of confused squirrels.
Someone had to do it.
Being the husband of a pregnant wife that has way too much time to spend on the internet, it does seem as though "chemicals" are, in fact, going to kill us all and that it's nothing short of a miracle that any of us survived childhood.
I've found out that people sees "chemichals" as being bad, and "minerals" as being a good thing. Also they see mining for those minerals is a bad thing, again. F
Yes, they are using the word "chemicals" wrong. Get over it. Use your brain to substitute something that is correct and listen to what they are saying. Just because they paint all chemicals as evil, and they are wrong, does not mean that all chemicals are safe. With snakes, I assume they are poisonous unless I know otherwise. Why not do the same with things I put in my body?
Sig intentionaly left blank
This is really a reflection of the state of education in our U.S. of A. I used to teach high school chemistry, and one of the first exercises I had my students do was to think of some daily activity and to really consider everything they did which made use of chemicals. Since a chemical is simply anything made by chemistry, everything they came into contact with was a chemical. Getting them to realize this though was not always easy. Is cotton a chemical? Yes! Is water a chemical? Yes! Is the metal of your bedframe a chemical? Yes! Just because something is created through a natural chemical process does not mean it is not a chemical. Most people however do not realize this, and do indeed think that "all chemicals are bad". The truth is closer to one of my favorite chemistry/alchemy quotes "All things are poison, and nothing is without poison; only the dose permits something not to be poisonous." --Paracelsus.
Many students also commented on the different meanings of the term "organic" within the clasroom and the grocery store.
One of the great chemistry writers is John Emsley, and his "Molecules at an Exhibition" is an excellent read about the chemicals around us every day, and the effects they have on our daily lives and long term health. If more writers wrote like that about chemicals in our daily lives than the public would be better informed.
"Better living through chemistry."
That was either DuPont or Timothy Leary's motto. I forget which.
Have gnu, will travel.
... for a chemical-free substance. See: http://www.rsc.org/AboutUs/News/PressReleases/2008/ChemicalFree.asp
you can bombard some people with facts, and logic, and 2x4s all day long, and they will stubbornly refuse to accept a stone-cold fact if it falls on their foot.
they are beyond cure, or explaination, or apology.
they are morons. their little pea-brains are furiously working all the time to reject information and cling to what The Voices tell them. they are not capable of understanding that...
FACT: enough of anything is a poison.
FACT: some stuff is more poisonous than others.
FACT: some stuff is so frikkin deadly that if some nut whispers its name a continent away, birds fall in flight.
FACT: grouping all these types of chemicals as one by either side of a stupid argument should require using those idiots as guinea pigs in testing all known classes of chemicals in LD100 tests.
you're welcome. next global issue, please... .
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
I really don't mind the lax reporting, what irks me is when the journalists classify stuff as "toxic." WRT chemical industry, the proper term to use is "hazardous."
When you recognize love in another and realize how precious it is, everything else seems so insignificant.
Willful ignorance can not be cured with education because they refuse to believe the education.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
It all comes down to ...
IGNORANT PEOPLE
I say ignorant rather than stupid because of something a colleague told me years ago:
IGNORANT PEOPLE with internet access.
100 years ago, ignorance spread rather slowly. Today, you can convince 1000 people of some bullshit in a matter of seconds.
Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
Truth1: Chemistry reporting is as bad as all other science reporting.
Truth2: The Chemical industry is as unconcerned with "externalities" as any other business.
Reporters will get you to panic even if they don't have a good reason; the reason that reporters are capable of spreading panic easily is because chemical manufacturers will poison you in order to make a buck. So, from a certain standpoint, the response of the general public is rational - they don't trust the chemical industry, and they shouldn't, so why not err on the side of caution when dealing with certified professional liars (marketing, PR and advertising people). Particulates are bad for you; the chemical industry (and domestic manufacturing generally) denies this, but they're lying. Vaccines are not harmful; but they are a big emerging profit center for pharma. If vaccines were harmful (again, they aren't), would pharma lie about it? Damn straight they'd lie through their teeth. So it becomes a double problem - it's difficult to educate the public about what is safe (vaccines are safe), and at the same time it's difficult to get robust action on what isn't safe (airborne particulates are not safe; neither are most chlorinated organics, heavy metals, etc.)
The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
TFA makes a fair point that some authors will talk about "chemicals" as having specific toxic effects on certain species, without specifying which chemicals they are talking about. She is not arguing against environmentalists, though. Clearly when people complain about chemicals in the environment, they are talking about man-made toxins that need to be regulated better, not about dihidrogen monoxide or whatever other smartass examples people want to come up with. The fact still stands that there are A LOT of toxins in our environment, and that number is growing at an alarming rate.
As a liberal that has lived in a commune (Zendik Farm, Bastrop Texas, late 90's) I can attest to the huge number of hippies afraid of "chemicals", Sodium lauryl sulfate (derived from coconut or palm oils) is one that really grinds their gears. Fuckers kept tossing my toothpaste when I wasn't looking.
This is usually a liberal issue, unless you live in a cancer cluster and then you'll see a fair number for conservatives pick up the chemophobia banner.
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
It is one thing to bleat in the press about global warming, which is happening to every planet in the solar system, and another thing to blame global warming only on mankind. Let's ignore the one factor that makes the most sense for every every planet in our solar system, changes in the Sun. Let's cripple all of the economies of the developed world, and send our wealth to the international banksters as penance for not being "carbon-neutral". It's not as if the international banksters, or Al Gore, don't have enough of our money already.
I suppose that all of those robotic probes that mankind has landed throughout the solar system are generating so much CO2 from their internal combustion engines that we are causing the global warming of these other planets (besides Earth). It just could not be cyclical changes in the Sun, or the impending arrival of an exo-planet with enough mass to cause tectonic plate shifts and resistance to rotation of the Earth's molten core, could it?
Focusing on CO2 levels, instead of radiation from nuclear power plant failures, use of depleted uranium for warfare, deadly chemicals in our air, soil, & water, and genetic franken-foods aren't the bigger threats is really, really short-sighted & misdirected.
Isn't this just a case of colloquial vs. technical language?
I think most non-technical folk associate the term "chemical" with artificially manufactured or extracted substances not usually encountered in our little corner of nature. Colloquial meanings often differ from modern technical usage (see also "organic", "work", "weight"). Words mean different things in different contexts - deal with it.
By all means challenge specific cases of "chemophobia" but you won't win any hearts and minds by telling people they're stupid because they don't use the same definition of "chemical" as you.
Also, remember the hidden wisdom of the old "dihydrogenmonoxide" joke: there ain't no such thing as a "harmless substance" and anything can be toxic or dangerous if too much of it turns up in the wrong place at the wrong time. I mean, harmless old Sodium Chloride might not seem a problem until every food manufacturer starts adding it in huge quantities to make their product tastier without paying for more expensive spices.
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
From http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html, "Research conducted by award-winning U.S. scientist Nathan Zohner concluded that roughly 86 percent of the population supports a ban on dihydrogen monoxide. Although his results are preliminary, Zohner believes people need to pay closer attention to the information presented to them regarding Dihydrogen Monoxide. He adds that if more people knew the truth about DHMO then studies like the one he conducted would not be necessary."
I'm not sure how that will inform the public.
I'd guess plenty of college freshmen on science-heavy courses wouldn't know the empirical or structural formula, let alone know what its properties are.
I wouldn't (it looks like an odd mixture of the old & new systems to me).
Only "LD100" tests?
But what if they come back as zombies? Would LD200 be sufficient? Or do zombies respnd better to shotguns?
"She's furniture with a pulse"
That's funny .. I was going to suggest Science illiterate, anti-education Conservative rednecks.
Let's dissect this, shall we? Just for shits n' giggles. :)
Firstly, the offending reporter, Nicholas Kirstof, works for the NYT -- a publication that is hardly a bastion of conservatism. (Not a complaint, just an observation.)
Secondly, you've identified a highly specific and narrow subset of "rednecks". Not all rednecks are anti-education, not all rednecks are science-illiterate (nor, by presumed extension, anti-science), not all rednecks are anti-education, and for the really fun part, not all rednecks ascribe to what is commonly accepted as conservatism.
Tangentially, I've noticed a theme around here, which basically states that the terms conservative, redneck, anti-science, bigot, and racist are all treated as if they were synonyms. Such a thing I can only attribute to the left-wing echo chamber (note I distinguish left-wing from liberal; the two are not synonymous, and the former is sadly succeeding in co-opting the latter... but that's a different rant).
Less generalization and black-and-white thinking, and more critical thought, please. And thank you in advance.
The far right and far left have a lot more in common than they realize. I think it mainly stems from putting ideology ahead of common sense.
those hydrides, man, they're reactive as all hell. why, this stuff will corrode even steel! it dissolves poisons and carrier them throughout the human body! oh, woe is us!!!
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
The sad thing is that people devote so much time and energy complaining about, worrying about and fighting pointless hyperbole when there are plenty of serious threats to our health out there. One example is the uproar about PG&E's new meters (which are wireless, and significantly more accurate). It's possible that everyone who claims to be worried about the "radiation" is just trying to prevent their usage from being accurately reported, but it seems like they really are convinced. That effort would be much better spent, say, trying to ban BPA.
Responsible reporting about potentially dangerous compounds means (1) using their correct names and (2) recognizing that similar compounds have similar properties. How many news outlets are really so remote that they can't at least pick up the phone, call a local university's chemistry department and ask them, "Yo what should I call this?"
.: Semper Absurda
Tastes delicious!
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
There is an excellent book, Fly in the Ointment, that debunks a number of these kinds of issues.
I especially like the one about peeling apples because they have been coated in chemicals. The chemicals they are coated with is simple wax used to replace the naturally occurring wax that is removed during the washing process. Why wash the apples? To remove fungus spores, dirt and insect eggs. Why replace the wax? To prevent premature spoilage due to excess oxygen getting to the fruit.
Not a chemist, but I really appreciate this blog about chemicals that seem crazy-dangerous:
http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/things_i_wont_work_with/
So you mean that discounting large, diverse groups of people by attempting to characterize them in 8 inflamatory words is unlikely to result in enlightenment or productive discussion?
It is interesting to see a Slashdot user refer to social media users as "sheep", considering that Slashdot itself is successful because it is such an effective social medium.
I hate using this word as much as anyone, but, honestly, can't these fear-mongers be legitimately called terrorists? Sure, they're playing to peoples' fears and selling copy, but, still, spreading fear through either ignorance or malicious intent is pretty much the definition of terrorism.
Why aren't we hauling these jackals off to Gitmo?
See Sense About Science http://www.senseaboutscience.org/ for a wonderful resource to point Journalists too. Not just for chemicals but all Science.
It all starts at 0
In a shocking report released by slashdot contributor mcgrew today, the Times and other newspapers use "scare tactics" to "bring eyeballs and ad revenue." Experts were appalled to find that media outlets across the nation were engaging in what amounts to terrorism in a ploy to control America's eyeballs, extorting advertising agencies in the process. It is not known at this time what reporters want to do with our eyeballs, considering that it is currently illegal to sell human body parts; it is assumed that such large businesses would have a tough time discreetly participating in the black market.
Then there is science. If we are looking scientifically there is LD50 which is half of some other illegal drugs. One can argue a pack a day gives you excess the lethal dose in a week, so how much is accrued over a lifetime. On could theoretically figure out a non lethal dose over a lifetime, which would presumably be less than a pack of day.
Some scientists will just say that nutrition is simply vitamins, minerals, protein, and calories in versus calories expended. Therefore a healthy person can have McDonalds as a primary source of nutrition is calories are controlled and suitable activities are engaged. It is the same thing with BPA. Probably not a problem, so lets just monitor. This is the rational discussion.
Anyone who believes that humans are rational agents are pseudoscientists of the economic or psychological form. While I encourage everyone to use precise language and accurate statements, this is going to do nothing for to the base rationality of the human mind. Using chemical names, and LD50, and maximum allowable dosages, is not make people believe that things are dangerous are safe. I am not going to voluntarily drink from the bayou even though it is probably safe.
Of course when industry wins due to fear, we do not see these articles. Americans take tons of vitamins every year that are not necessary. Their production and sales is seriously harming our environment, and it is just peed out. Where are the articles saying that we just eat vegetables? Bottled water is also destroying the environment. Where is the article deriding our culture of bottle drink instead of just tap water? No, chemicals are good, and anything said against them is luddite. If we were "chemophobic" we would be taking much few vitamins, and drinking much less bottle water a flavor carbonated beverages.
One thing I am sure that some might talk about is vaccines. They have a chemical that is probably safe in the doses provided, but some think it is not. So there is damage due to so-called Chemophobia. This is fact not true. The issue here is the government protecting drug manufacturers based on questionable "medical research" in such a way that innovation does not have to occur to meet consumer demand. In some way this protection is justifiable, but in terms of vaccine there should have been a more immediate response to placate the populous, as was done with BPA.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
As did half of slashdot.
It's been nearly two hundred years since Friedrich Wöhler synthesized urea, a compound which has previously been known only from biological source, from substances not of biological origin. This should have demonstrated that we are all made of chemicals, as are animals and plants, and that no substance exists which is not chemical in nature. Yet, this Vitalism persists. I don't know if Vitalism is the cause or effect of the Chemophobia which seems to be increasing its hold on the populace of advanced nations. I see both as related to the fear of fire and the disregard for human observation. The legend of Prometheus, and others like it, seem to demonstrate a recurrent thread of thought which damns such uses of powerful natural forces by man. In the twentieth century, the twin gift and curse of fire became more powerful with the harnessing of nuclear energy for productive or destructive purposes. In the twenty-first century, we are brought again to the question of Vitalism with the boom and boon of biotechnology, and this time the Vitalism is contained within the DNA itself, and when humans directly change these molecules, other humans rise up in a resentment that goes beyond reason, though it is often cloaked in arguments which attempt to manipulate reason.
Chemophobia is merely another aspect of a widening rift between those who trust in reason and its utilization in the realms of science and technology, and those who do not. The anti-science people conglomerate in the anti-evolution movement on the right side of the political spectrum, and the anti-chemical movement on the left.
I don't think the layperson fears "chemicals", so much as artificially produced and altered chemicals that are in our food.
It's not the chemicals (or the elements) themselves that are feared, but what they do to our body -- and the lack of disclosure about what they are doing. Look how long it took to get the trans-fat containing partially hydrogenated vegetable oil removed from our food (which wasn't even removed, but when manufacturers had to report trans-fat grams, suddenly hydrogenated oils weren't so necessary for many of their products).
So even that innocuous hydrogen that is so important to basic life can become a threat when combined with other chemicals.
Of course, the Hindenburg disaster gives another reason to fear "harmless" hydrogen. (ok ok, so maybe it was the fabric shell covered with incendiary paint that triggered the disaster, but the 200,000 cubic meters of flammable hydrogen didn't help).
"Not all chemicals are bad. Without chemicals such as hydrogen and oxygen, for example, there would be no way to make water, a vital ingredient in beer."
--Dave Barry
Hmmm, some of the stupidest people I know have lots of hand guns.
Having worked in a couple of newsrooms I have some experience with this phenomenon. To wit:
o Reporters come out of college with a BA in journalism, communications, or literature and usually have little to no background in the physical sciences.
o Assignment editors running the news desk tend to have a rather low opinion of their viewers, based on viewership ratings and their own prejudices.
o Most newsroom managers handle the "big picture" decisions and leave the copy writing to the reporters and editors.
o Most copy editors, research staff and proofreaders simply check the facts within the story and the grammar, leaving the content to the writer.
The majority of writers are either predisposed to dumb down their reporting due to their lack of expertise in the subject or the pressures of 1) lack of time for researching, and/or 2) column space and time limitations describing the subject. Over time they also are conditioned to self-edit their works by their assignment editors or others who review their work and edit out the "technical parts" for brevity and to keep the readers/listeners/viewers from "tuning out."
There are distortions everywhere. Some are more subtle than others. When Kirstoff generically refers to "chemicals", most people recognize that he is either biased or using shorthand for "a compound which I did some research on and found to be risky in the context in question." Deciding which he is doing is an exercise for the reader, and must always be. Using "perfluorooctanoic acid" is certainly better for an educated audience that has the will, time, and ability to do its own research, but it is better for Kirstoff to do the research and shorthanding -- in a truly unbiased fashion, which may not be the case here -- for an audience that either lacks the will, time, or ability to dig deeper on their own. Perhaps ideal is for the article to have hyperlinks for more information.
While we're on the subject of distortion, I recently read a summery that had a couple of strong shorthand distortions in it, which may provide some interesting points of comparison:
"Pulitzer-prize winning science writer Deborah Blum" -- appeal to emotion -- it asserts that the reader should assume that Deborah Blum is an expert on science matters because she won an award for writing. If her article stands on its own, leave that bit out. If it rests on her expertise, this brief note is not enough to establish it. This sentence is fine for an audience that has the time, will, and ability to check on Deborah Blum's actual credentials, but relies upon the author's research and integrity for those audience which lack those criteria.
"decided to call out" -- appeal to emotion -- trying to get the listener to emotionally go along with a rebel who's fighting the power.
"have you found reporting on 'chemicals' to be as poor as Blum alleges or is this no more erroneous than any scare tactic used to move newspapers and garner eyeballs?" -- false dichotomy -- the options are "Kirstoff is wrong because Blum says so" or "Kirstoff is wrong because he uses scare tactics."
Distortions are everywhere, and journalism necessarily calls for using shorthand. Eldavojohn wanted to communicate the essence of Blum's piece without reproducing it verbatim. He used shorthand which he hopes will give a fair image of the underlying work, by using turns of phrase which would -- in isolation -- be clear-cut distortions. The point is elegantly made by Blum herself (though she gets it backward):
But if we, as journalists, are going to demand meticulous standards for the study and oversight of chemical compounds then we should try to be meticulous ourselves in making the case.
No, you are wrong. It is specifically the case that chemical compound oversight should be far more technical than public writing. Public writing, whether from Eldavojohn, Blum, or Kirstoff, is about communicating complex underlying issues in a brief and simplified form. That is its very nature. If such simplification is biased, then there is a very serious problem -- but the mere act of simplification is not a fault in itself.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Disclaimer: I am a PhD chemist, but I am not your chemist (or something like that).
The nebulous threat of 'chemicals' has been present for years, but there has been a bit of an uptick in rhetoric recently.
Much as the traditional computer hacker resents the rise in the use of the term hacker in the media to mean malicious computer criminal, most chemists I know are quick to dismiss the silly bias against 'chemicals' in the media. But the term has become a catchphrase for the larger population, and pointing out that everything is made of chemicals has little effect. 'Organic' food is the same way - no one would eat inorganic cucumbers (aka rocks), but the word organic means something else in that context.
Long-hand chemical names won't fix it, because your eyes just gloss over the *fnord*perfluorooctanoic acid*fnord* chemical names. If you want to call out specific chemicals, give them a shorter name (maybe spell them out for people who really want to know), but then explain them and why they are bad.
There are plenty of naturally occuring chemicals that will kill you in small doses, there are manufactured chemicals that are perfectly safe to spray on your children, and every spectrum in between. If the media wants to call out 'chemicals', I think we would all appreciate them specifying which ones.
The whole 'fraking' thing is a great example of this. Most 'fraking fluid' is water and PEG (polyethylene glycol, a harmless 'chemical' found in lots of beauty products - see what I did here?). So who cares if you inject that into a shale formation miles below the water table? Are there other chemicals in there that might be harmeful? Could be (and often are). Call them out specifically if you want me to worry about them. But we have a problem here - people won't panic if you tell it like it is, making it much better to light someones tap water on fire! What's burning? Not 'fraking fluid', not any of those nasty 'chemicals', just natural gas that was probably there before any drilling started. But if you tell people that the oil companies are pumping nasty chemicals into the ground, and show them a faucet on fire, they'll draw their own conclusions, based an anecdotal evidence rather than logic and causality. And this is, or course, exactly what was supposed to happen in response to the scaremongering in the media.
People love to get riled up about something, and there are no shortage of chemicals that they could be getting riled up about. Some more careful journalism, and a requirement that most people need at least science 101 and math 101 to really understand the information they will be presented with would all be good, but I don't see any of those changes happening in the short term. It is at once wonderfully reassuring and extremely terrifying that you don't need a brain to have an opinion.
-V-
Who can decide a priori? Nobody.
-Sartre
Pulitzer-prize winning science writer Deborah Blum has decided to call out New York Times journalist Nicholas Kirstof for his secondary crusade (she notes he is an admirable journalist in other realms)
Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them. In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.
How does this Blum know that Kristof really is an "admirable journalist" on other topics? Maybe he's just as useless with other topics as he is with chemicals?
There are two components to this. The first being that we are a society of specialists. It is impossible to know everything about everything, the best you can hope for is knowing a little about everything. The second part, are chemical corps and their cousins--typically referred to as big chemical and big pharma--that are well known for chasing the dollar regardless of the cost in terms of the effects their products have on people and the environment. When combined, this causes people to have a natural distrust of all of these poly-syllabic words on the back of the products they buy. In many cases it's well founded, others at least suspect. It isn't uncommon to learn that commonly used additives for food and cosmetic preservation, coloring, etc. or even the materials used in their containers area actually not very healthy for you. One of the earliest examples in human history being that of lead. But has been followed on by plenty of others, mercury, radium, DDT, PVC, hydrogenated oils, ... Even now we're learning that even though people or test animals don't drop dead or develop tumors, etc. right away it's still quite possible to manifest negative consequences many years later. There's also reasonable concern over synergistic effects of chemicals considered safe in isolation being quite the opposite when combined with certain others.
Under this kind of climate, is there any wonder why when given a choice between ingredient lists that look like, "wheat, sugar, soybean oil, salt" or "wheat, high-fructose corn syrup, sorbitol, maltodextrin, salt, yellow no. 5, polysorbate 80" people are going to prefer the former?
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
The latest article by Kristof points out the dangers of "endocrine disruptor" chemicals and he makes it clear (from the very first sentence) that he is talking only about these chemicals. The red herring about hydrogen and oxygen was inserted by his attacker. Kristof says nothing about hydrogen.
Endocrine disruptors have been shown to have serious adverse effects and they are poorly studied and regulated. He is calling for more study and regulation. They are becoming ubiquitous in our environment (from your cash register receipted to most canned foods).
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
Here's the problem: bombarding them with facts just confuses them. What you have to do is take a fact and dilute it with water until the fact is essentially no longer there. Then have them drink the water.
... you guys in the US *really* have a huge educational problem
I think it's mostly just the ignorant conservative anti-science rednecks in Texas that give conservatives a bad name. Nothing says anti-science like trying to force evolution out of a science textbook. Or banning ALL chemistry equipment, because it could be used to make meth (seriously, you have to have a permit to buy an Erlenmeyer flask in TX)
Thanks for that link. As a guy who switched his major from chemistry to physics only after spending a year working in a chem lab and learning that most real world chem lab work is tedious or sleep inducing I can say this guy knows *way* more about chemistry than the average journalist.
Oh jesus, we got a redneck Glenn Beck lover here. Let's tar and feather his god-fearing, education-hating redneck ass. I bet he's also a racist, and hates scientific theories.
It distresses me a bit that now because I'm a conservative I'm also ant-education (add to the list of things like racist)
This journalist, of which they are complaining about, I'm sure is not doubt very well educated.
I question the effectiveness (especially for the cost) of our education.
This journalist may be further evidence of the effectiveness of our education.
What good is education if it only further instills a sense of brashness in our ignorant population? I'd rather they be un-educated *and*know*it* (and hopefully work toward fixing it) then have a pice of paper that says they are smart when they are not.
Funny that you can make meth using a 2 liter plastic bottle so that law, like so many others, is completely useless at doing what it was intended to do.
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
After one day without dihydrogen monoxide you'll undergo changes in mental faculty, headache frequency and even muscle soreness.
After two days you'll sweat less, will no longer taste dihydrogen monoxide in your mouth and will have begun to lose weight.
After three days your whole presence of mind will change and you'll start to see things you've never seen before.
After four days your body will undergo permanent changes and your dihydrogen monoxide addiction will be entirely cured. In fact, addition of dihydrogen monoxide after that point is likely to only increase the deterioration of your body and staying in a dihydrogen monoxide free environment is likely to preserve your body in its current state for many years.
It's the science nerds that are causing the problems. We all know what he means by big science. Big food is a problem too, but that doesn't mean we should be against real food.
The false outrage by the author is a waste of time.
Its Hydrogen Hydroxide HOH,
like Lithium Hydroxide LiOH,
and Sodium Hydroxide NaOH,
. . . just walking up the periodic table's left column . . . . that's the way I always thought of it.
It doesn't take a lot of effort to Google the names of "chemicals" on a food label so you don't look like a total ass when complaining about how a school lunch hamburger has B-Vitamin enriched flour in the buns.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
This is an extension of one of my big soap box issues, the pitiful degree to which the public at large is scientifically illiterate.
This sad situation also facilitates businesses taking advantage of people by making obviously false statements that their product does/does not do X.
I don't expect every individual in the nation to be a PhD, nor am I. But I'm 61, and I encounter people almost daily, otherwise intelligent people, that don't know even a tiny fraction of what I learned in high school physics and chemistry simply by not falling asleep in class and more-less paying attention.
I mean it's really simple junior high level chemistry and thousands of people didn't get it.
Partial explanation why people didn't get it : http://xkcd.com/1050/
Another explanation is that some of the signature are from people playing along the joke.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
... blasts "chemicals" on nearly every page of "Silent Spring," and I'd bet you 95% of the posters here think that book is a work of indisputable scientific fact (and I'd also bet less than 1% have actually read Carson's purple prose).
... everything labled "atom" as a dangerous ring to it since Hiroshima/Nagasaki and Chernobyl/Fukushima, in spite of the fact that everything is made of atoms. The last time "atom" had a positive connotation was when the bikini was named.
The law is only useless if you assume that stopping meth was the point of this law. However, if you assume the point of this law was to stop SCIENCE, then I say it's been pretty effective
Same and some of the smartest people I know have lots of guns as well. Do we need to have a discussion of sampling bias?
Some years ago I accidentally fell into a conversation with a colleague's mother regarding a topic similar to this. She had said that she refuses to eat margarine because "it is only one molecule away from being plastic". After explaining in much politer terms that "no, no it's fucking not" I really had to ask the question "...and what if it was?". So what? It's not going to instantly transform into a choking hazard mid-bite into your toast. Did you know that H20 is only FOUR MOLECULES away from the deadly H2S04? Did you know that if you let your kids play in the ocean that you are letting them play in potential fuel for a fusion reactor!?
It can get absolutely ridiculous very quickly. Some people rag on four year universities but if you do it right you get some chemistry, some physics, some math, some art, some poli-sci, and so on. I find this to be very important in the development of a person, instead of only getting their education in the field of their choice. It's OK to not be versed in the latest chemistry, physics, or computer science, especially if those are not your career fields. It is NOT ok to believe that Yellow #5 decreases your sperm count, that radiocarbon dating is an atheist lie, or that your computer runs on "magic smoke".
IGNORANT PEOPLE with internet access.
100 years ago, ignorance spread rather slowly. Today, you can convince 1000 people of some bullshit in a matter of seconds.
I'll buy that.
<Complete your profile by adding a signature!>
A member of the American Chemical Society once noted the negative connotations surrounding the term "chemical" and suggested that they start referring to them as "substances." Others weren't so thrilled with what that would do to their acronym.
You would have to be pretty goddamn paranoid to think that the government is trying to stop SCIENCE.
It's just stupid people making stupid laws. They don't put too much thought into it beyond the fear of being labelled anti-crime for not passing the stupid law.
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
You generalize about NYT employees' but deride generalization in general.
Except you are MADE OF chemicals, and not MADE OF snakes
The "chemicals" that people are concerned about are generally synthesized or derived from industrial practices -- i.e. not the chemicals that we are made of and encounter in nature.
Per the previous comment, we know what these people mean. Refusing to address their concerns in good faith only reinforces their skepticism.
The most oxymorontastic product I've seen recently was "Carbon-Free Organic Sugar". Not only are "Carbon-Free" and "Organic" direct contradictions, but all sugars contain carbon by definition.
That's funny, since I've been classed as one of those "science illiterate, media sheeps [sic]" and yet I'm a chemist. Funny thing about sweeping generalisations eh?
Just throwing this out there, but isn't the point of the ingredient label to let people know what is in the food? Why are we labeling an essential vitamin with a name that many people won't understand?
Worse yet, all of your chemicals are made of........ISOTOPES!
nope.
I disagree...kinda.
While you are correct, bad information from one source can spread faster now then ever. But so can the accurate information,
Before the internet, each ';group' had it's own source of ignorance, and not an easy way to correct it.
The 9/11 conspiracy theorists. Had it been 1975, that conspiracy would have spread un-checked for over a decade. Now it peak quickly, and was shot down very quickly. So while there are people who believe no matter what, when some crew comes along looking into it, we can point them to several places that show why the Conspiracy theorist are wrong. With facts and data.
And conversely to that, if the bigfoot footage surfaced today, it would be picked apart pretty damn quick, and not bees seen in shows for decades.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
The problem is that a lot of people seem to think that if a substance is created in a test tube is different and worse than the exact same substance created as a 'natural' product. Fundamentally, the same stuff is the same stuff, regardless of the source. To think that the history of a substance is the important part, rather than what it actually is composed of, is essentially a kind of primitive mysticism. This nonsensical belief system is distressingly common.
What do you really mean by "in nature" and why do you think it's superior to whatever else it is that you've arbitrarily defined not to have the status "in nature"? It sure seems to me that the "nature" is used here as some sort of magical/mystical distinction rather than anything real and tangible.
If by 'Texas' you mean 'the south' then you may be correct.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Dihydrogen Monoxide is SO prevalent, it's already come up at least 4 times in the discussion. The HORROR!
Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
Some people are trying,, especially in the south. And some of those people are in office. Hell 6 of them were running for the republican nomination.
It's hard not to think they are anti-science when they refuse to understand evolution, and climate science.
Just like its hard to think they actually respect the constitution when they want to ban gay marriage, books, and cartoons because of there belief.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Sure, you have a sampling bias, you might want to know some people with average or higher IQs~
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
On the one hand there is chemophobia and on the other some journalists take every second major publication that only alludes to having found some drug/compound against X (X=substitue with scary type of illnes) and back it up with pseudo experts just to draw a maximum amount of attention without even citing their sources.
I just started not giving two shits about "science" in newspapers. Every newspaper should have a dedicated science consultant to correct such shitty articles.
Would you say that the reason for the banning of some chemistry equipment in Texas is in place to stop drugs or stop science?
Although there is a severe anti-intellectual movement in conservative circles I just cannot believe for one minute that the banning of some chemistry equipment is being done as an anti-science campaign.
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
As a liberal that has lived in a commune (Zendik Farm, Bastrop Texas, late 90's) I can attest to the huge number of hippies afraid of "chemicals", Sodium lauryl sulfate (derived from coconut or palm oils) is one that really grinds their gears. Fuckers kept tossing my toothpaste when I wasn't looking.
Before or after the communal sex?
There were a number of rules regarding sex, no penetrating until the test results get back was a big one.
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
But even I can tell when they're using loaded, fuzzy and incorrect terms to demonize their target.
I've been seeing this for years during any reporting relating to firearms. It is the rare article indeed that gets all facts straight and avoids loaded or vague terms.
Just because the law has now made it damn-near impossible for allergery sufferers to purchase Sudafed, doesn't mean you can't get some meth from the guy on the street corner and follow the directions: "A Simple and Convenient Synthesis of Pseudoephedrine From N-Methylamphetamine"
Attention Fed web-scrapers: It's a joke, you fucking retards. The point is that thanks to your meddling, the legal and effective cold medication is rapidly becoming more difficult acquire than the illegal substance you're trying to ban. I hate meth-heads as much as you do. Probably even more so, since they're a danger to me, rather than a source of guaranteed employment to you.
No, 'hazardous' is ambiguous.
How about "hazard"? Is that ambiguous? If so, perhaps you should to a different site. Can we use the term "hazardous" to apply to materials warranting a hazard label?
You must be a republican, because you're attacking democrats with some weird out-of-left-field comparison to Stalin, claiming that the left-leaning among us want to silence expression, when it's the republicans who:
* want to suppress political expression in the form of one bogus voter ID law after another, running on a fraudulent specter of non-existent voter fraud (one source of many), or because "kids vote liberal" (source)
* want to suppress emotional expression by way of banning gay marriage for no discernable reason other than "gays make us uncomfortable" (and remember, these are the same guys who also don't like interracial marriage!) (source)
* want to suppress academic and scientific speech using bogus lawsuits AT THE GOVERNMENT LEVEL (source) just because they don't like the facts the science reveals
* fight repeatedly to curtail regulations on what chemicals big industries pump into the ground (source) or what they put in our food (three republicans eating pink slime to stick it to obama)
Oh, wait, it's because someone made a joke about punching an anti-science, anti-vaxxer in the face, that dems are teh eeevil! That same anti-science, anti-vaccine nonsense, by the way, which has led to many deaths.
Republicans...what will they think of next? Nothing! That's the joke..they don't really think.
<more pedantic than you and better at chemistry>
Really? Well if it splits into uncharged radicals that would certainly explain why, in its pure state, it's a relatively poor electrical conductor.
Or maybe it's because, given the low dissociation constant, there are several orders of magnitude more intact molecules than ions? </more pedantic than you and better at chemistry>
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Congratulations on your victory over that imaginary strawman version of the GP you constructed.
In 1973 or around I worked in a machine shop running drill presses and milling machines. I got little tiny raised bumps on my hands which were often bathed in kerosene. Kerosene is a good cheap cutting fluid that prevents scoring when machining aluminum. A few years later, those little bumps had persisted (they eventually faded away). I was then back in college, and in the medical library looked up kerosene. I found two books with reference to kerosene and specifically if it causes cancer. One book said it did, the other said it did not. Guess which book was published by a petrochemical industry group and which wasn't?
The little bumps went away. I just googled kerosene + cancer. Amazingly it has been a 'folk' cure for cancer. One resource cited The International Agency for Research on Cancer, Part of the World Health Organization, as concluding that there is not enough evidence to state that it does.
Anyway, part of the fun of science and knowledge in general (as opposed to belief--anyone remember the last few minutes of the movie Dogma, where that is mentioned?) is all facts, with more data, may be refined, changed, tweaked, or even overthrown.
But to the average person, the book published by the industry (50 years or so ago) is self serving. Given other evidence that disputes that, we may cleave to believe the opposing evidence.
BTW, I avoid most household chemicals if I can. I hate paint fumes, damn unpleasant to me even if they don't cause cancer or hangnails. I think, and there is a lot of data to back it up, that paint fumes have health issues.
I think spraying pesticides indoors is just a really dumb idea in general. Black widow spiders and scorpions are not insects; the stuff kill them is usually nasty nerve toxins. If you have a major infestation, maybe. The only other bug that might justify it (in the USA) would be mosquitos.
In other words, Better Living Through Chemistry is two edges sword. Water treatment of tap water to kill bacteria is great. Kerosene in tap water, isn't.
Here's the problem: bombarding them with facts just confuses them. What you have to do is take a fact and dilute it with water until the fact is essentially no longer there. Then have them drink the water.
There's an idea... I bet we could bottle that stuff up and sell it, maybe call it "Holy Water" just to confuse people.
XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
The war on drugs is futile and creates more problems than it solves.
Drug abuse should be treated as a disease.
Drug production and distribution should be legalized and most importantly regulated.
Currently since the government is 100% against drugs it has no means of regulating the market which allows it to flourish everywhere.
If there is one thing conservatives should be able to grasp is that the government can do a better job suppressing an industry with regulation than it can by making the industry illegal.
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
Science illiterate, social media sheeps.
Speaking of illiterate, it's sheep and fish, not sheeps and fishes. Thanks, Teabagger or Libertariantard.
Righty-diddly-doodly-oh.
Because it would like totally violate the laws of the Medes, the Persians, special relabastardtivity and thermofuckingdynamics to lock the post for editing if:
1) a reply to it has been posted
or
2) someone currently has a "reply" form open against it.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Exactly. People are way too literal around here.
Oh so you dont like chemicals? *snicker* Well what happens if i told you that WATER was a CHEMICAL!?!?hahaha /conversation with snarky asshole
No, I don't like the overabundance of added man made chemicals with possibly dubious purposes. The history of petrochemicals is filled with horrible mistakes by mankind. There is nothing wrong with trying to resist the trend of the last 80 years to put chemicals into every food product in order to increase its shelf life, increase its colour, etc. Plus now they do genetic engineering so they can spray more and more petrochemical pesticides on crops. How could anyone make fun of someone for not wanting to put that kind of shit in their bodies? Only on the king of the literal, slashdot.
As a potential lottery winner, I totally support tax cuts for the wealthy
It distresses me a bit that now because I'm a conservative I'm also ant-education (add to the list of things like racist)
This journalist, of which they are complaining about, I'm sure is not doubt very well educated.
I question the effectiveness (especially for the cost) of our education.
This journalist may be further evidence of the effectiveness of our education.
What good is education if it only further instills a sense of brashness in our ignorant population? I'd rather they be un-educated *and*know*it* (and hopefully work toward fixing it) then have a pice of paper that says they are smart when they are not.
“Mass education was designed to turn independent farmers into docile, passive tools of production. That was its primary purpose. And don’t think people didn’t know it. They knew it and they fought against it. There was a lot of resistance to mass education for exactly that reason. It was also understood by the elites. Emerson once said something about how we’re educating them to keep them from our throats. If you don’t educate them, what we call “education,” they’re going to take control — “they” being what Alexander Hamilton called the “great beast,” namely the people. The anti-democratic thrust of opinion in what are called democratic societies is really ferocious. And for good reason. Because the freer the society gets, the more dangerous the great beast becomes and the more you have to be careful to cage it somehow.” -Noam Chomsky
I always find it amazing how close together the far left and far right are on certain issues. If the far right ever started studying Chomsky, watch out. First off, they might learn something. Second, there might be a revolution.
I wouldn't be so quick to say 'earliest known'. There are many historical records from the British Empire detailing the lengths businessmen would go to improve profits. How about powdered copper added to black tea for that extra guarantee of quality? Or just a pinch of raw unmeasured sulphur in your port, for extra flavour?
You know if greedy merchants were doing that 200 years ago, what was going on before?
i thought you (elvadojohn) left slashdot . last i noticed you , you were complaining about the comment system and took you ball and went home
I knew a guy back in college who had a phobia about chemicals. He couldn't even walk down the grocery aisle that had laundry detergents in it. He was also worried about chemicals such as solvents that he'd encounter in labs, which makes quite a bit of sense because they are dangerous, but he was excessively fearful about them. I don't think he was paranoid schizophrenic, because he wasn't really delusional, and his fears had some grounding. But he had a psychiatric problem of some kind and it was focused on chemicals. He was getting therapy and possibly medication to help him out.
Hell, I'll take the former just on Occam's razor principles alone, no reason to add more ingredients than are needed to get the job done.
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
I was going with lead vessels and pipes from ancient Rome and before. Either way, your examples fill in yet another time period.
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
While I agree, some people really freak out about some chemicals just because of the names and they don't know what they are. There's also plenty of examples of companies putting profit above health and putting out products straight up containing unsafe things. So I'd say, worrying a bit about what's in things is healthy as long as you take the time to learn what things are.
On a similar note, this ties in a lot to this idea of getting rid of government regulation and instead letting companies do basically whatever they want. But people always seem to miss, that to have a "Free Market", we also need Full Disclosure. So that the market actually CAN make an informed decision on the quality of products and where they want to give their money.
Don't be fooled! This chemophobia is just a cover for quantumphobia!
"I think this line is mostly filler"
"family business" also sounds nice, but the Mafia is one example.
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
It's already called homeopathic medicine.
WHOOOSH
XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
I like that.
But the flaw is that long before, it had already established itself as the entrenched default position; it didn't need to spread.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
It's just stupid people making stupid laws.
Sounds like government to me.
There are lots of chemicals that don't occur naturally, i.e. without humans setting up the very specific conditions necessary to create them.
Now if you're one of those twerps who claim that humans are natural and hence anything made by them is also natural, that's wrong on several levels. One, you have not established that the property of "naturalness" is heritable from the creator to the created. Two, a definition that is all encompassing is useless because it's redundant as its complement does not exist. Third, it flies in the face of commonly accepted usage.
Try selling polyester shirts as "100% natural fiber" & see who the judge agrees with.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
was your confusion between "molecules" and "atoms"
What do you really mean by "in nature" and why do you think it's superior to whatever else it is that you've arbitrarily defined not to have the status "in nature"? It sure seems to me that the "nature" is used here as some sort of magical/mystical distinction rather than anything real and tangible.
Please. It's like you can't understand the difference between a runners high and a heroine injection.
The chemicals that humans were exposed to in significant concentrations were basically unchanged for a hundred thousand years or more. Those chemicals which have increased in concentration in our immediate environment since the advent of agriculture (or the industrial revolution, if you prefer) are hereby deemed non-natural chemicals for the purpose of this discussion.
Sig intentionaly left blank
If we knew the exact chemical formula for a "runner's high" and could copy it, then you would not be able to tell the difference between natural and non-natural, unless someone shot-up with an unnaturally large amount of the stuff.
Those chemicals which have increased in concentration in our immediate environment since the advent of agriculture (or the industrial revolution, if you prefer) are hereby deemed non-natural chemicals for the purpose of this discussion.
By mentioning increasing concentration you get at the the real heart of the problem. Its not the chemical formula or whether or not the chemical is "natural", it's the unnaturally large concentrations that result from mass production (and mass by-production) of them.
I laugh! Chemicals are comical!
Words, words, words
Google trends has this to say about the "Chemophobia" rage...
Your terms - chemophobia - do not have enough search volume to show graphs.
Suggestions:
Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
Try different keywords.
Try more general keywords.
Try fewer keywords.
Try viewing data for all years and all regions.
Although... Biebermania seems to be maintaining nicely. http://www.google.com/trends/?q=biebermania&ctab=0&geo=all&date=ytd&sort=0
- Holy crap, I've got MOD points! Who thought that was a good idea.
> a mainstream association with the "natural" to mean
> "safe". There are lots of naturally occurring dangerous
> substances.
^.^ Reminds me of a PBS pledge week (are they weeklong, anymore? they go on forever now!) program on health issues I saw circa ten years ago.
PBS health-dude sweetly chiding a lady whom's taking things ad absurdum: ``So she says, `but how can it be bad, bad for my health, bad for my weight, bad for my glucose levels, cause diabetes, etc.? It's just honey, the little bees make it. It's wholesome, it's natural, it's organic.' So I said, madam, gonorrhea is natural too.''
when it comes to food chemicals are bad.
when it comes to chemistry chemicals are good.
how about we just grow up and put our brains to good use determining the context of the words as a whole rather than telling people which words to use.