After looking at that iBridge site for a little while, I can see how it would be useful, but I doubt it ever will be.
The problem is the buzzword creep which effects everything in research from grant writing to paper titles. There are too many people (PR departments?) out there who want their reserach to be meta-nano-bio-info stuff for national security. So searching for actual ideas in any popular area brings up a lot of research only very tenuously connected to the subject you're looking for.
What causes an electorate to change it's mind? The people who do that are leaders. I would rather have them elected, in the public eye and subject to the laws of government than not.
What you are arguing for is often called the tyranny of the majority, and is the reason most people thought the United States would self destruct in it's early years (democracy has been around for thousands of years, and usually does not work). The hallmark of modern democracy is that the rights of the minority must be protected over the wishes of the majority. What you describe IS an authoritarian state. Saddam Hussein was elected... unanimously, so he was doing the right things? Arguments that the majority should be allowed set the rules however they would like have led to the Nazi party, Communism, and Bush's signing statements.
Doing what people want is a good thing, but only within certain limits.
As a physicist, anyone can copy and use the ideas I publish (journals don't own the ideas or the research results), and that's a good thing. Everyone pays into a general fund (taxes, or large multi-corporation projects), and those funds are given out based on performance. I get paid a salary, and am rewarded for how much work I share, and by how many other people use it. If the people running the general fund fail to support good research, it will be snatched up by other groups and taken out of the system, so that everyone must then pay to get access to it again. This system could be applied to entertainment in a number of ways.
The government has purposefully constructed the research market to maximize output, and it does control the research market. If you're asking the government to start spending more money enforcing entertainment laws, you're potentially taking money away from my projects to do that. Is it better for the government to spend resources enforcing the current entertainment market structure, or would it make more sense to push it in a new direction which would require less government attention?
Industries are reshuffled and contracted all the time. I think we would be ok with a few less movies made per year, or a few fewer millionnaire entertainers.
This really isn't as dramatic as everyone is making it out to be.
Many of the satellite receivers on the market are hand held and work as a short range FM transmitter. Basically, you CAN have both units in your car. If you don't want the FM transmitter deal, there are plenty of 3rd party units which will work with either service (I have one, a Sony).
According to Sirius, they've moved from losing money to making money, so they don't need to do anything drastic to stay in business.
The exclusivity agreements are a pain in the ass, but it's not Stern or Oprah you're really missing out on. Stern has a ton of programming, but he's not for everyone, and Oprah's just there for promotions. For me the exclusivity of sports is the problem.
Good thing AM radio still exists... and the internet... and television... in the end, it's not really that exclusive.
I look at things from my point of view. I'm a physicist. My job requires an advanced degree. I got paid more working in construction. My job requires that I work as much as possible so that I can finish some of my research before my competitors do. After I get my PhD, chances are I will be replaced with an international student. Not because it's cheaper (it's not), but because truly not enough people in the US want to do what I do. I didn't come up with my arguments on my own, they're what our department talks about and what our organizations talk about.
If software engineers and IT are treated so well, and getting a good job is so easy, then I must be wrong to lump them in with physical scientists. We have some idea why women don't go into science (search for Larry Summers if you think it's some innate difference), there must be a different reason for them not going into software engineering.
It used to be that there not enough women in law or medicine either. Now, those fields are pretty equal. Why is it that some fields (programming, engineering, physical sciences...) can't get this right?
There are lots of little reasons (time demands, male oriented, no role models...), but the big root reason is that these are just not good jobs. All those little reasons were there in law and medicine, and were overcome. Rather than ask why no women want these jobs, ask why any person WOULD want these jobs. Most reasons women have for staying away from these areas should probably keep men away as well.
Even if you don't buy that women should be more or less equally represented in most jobs, it can be very educational learning exactly why they're staying away.
It's very hard to use awards as a judge of the scientific worth of an institution. For example, my school (UCI) has three Nobels in the last 15 years or so, but none of them for research done at UCI.
If you're a good enough scientist to get a Nobel (or Fields, and so on...), then chances are at some point some big, well known, well paying school is going to recruit you. It doesn't take a Nobel prize for other scientists to recognize a great researcher, but recruiting someone who has already done their life's great work doesn't make you a great scientific institution.
No matter how much loyalty you may have to a particular place, there are perks at big private schools that state schools like Berkely and Michigan just can't offer. Some well known scientists stick around in smaller incubation schools, but many find that being a big fish in a little pond is just more work and doesn't pay as well.
If you're going to use awards to determine scientific worth, you need to look at where the research which won the prize was done. Of course, this would put my school off the list with a grand total of 0 Nobels. I'm sure other small universities would start moving up the list.
There are a lot of solutions to Maxwell's equations beyond the version taught in introductory electromagnetism. In a co-ax, there are different states allowed than if there was just a metal tube. I don't really want to get more technical than that, because I'll get things wrong. You could think of this system as changing light from photons to electrons and back.
They use coaxial wires so that their waveguide can be long and skinny.
It's thinner than the wavelength of the light, which is not possible with fiberoptics. There are other ways of making subwavelength waveguides, but they don't work over long distances. In the co-ax, light is transmitted basically as if it were in free space, and doesn't attenuate very much. In most nanostructures used for optics, light is transmitted as a plasmon (a rather quickly attenuating surface bound state).
There's a bonus third effect: By replacing the optically clear insulator between the conductors with something more exotic, you can do light mixing and switching. These guys don't actually do that, but mention the possibility in their conclusion.
You cannot claim to break a law in a news release, while in the scientific paper (where it counts) they say:
"While our best measured values of the hyperpolarizability are still more than an order of magnitude from the fundamental limit, this design strategy appears to be a promising new paradigm for making better molecules."
I would actually like people like Roland writing about science if they did even just a tiny, tiny bit of work. It took me all of 15 minutes to read that paper and follow a few references. This particular paper is talking about a scientific curiousity: a system with a single molecule interacting with the light without interactions with it's neighbors. Systems with multiple molecular interactions are much better (55% of the fundamental limit), but harder to match to theory. The broken "law" was more of a guess (which none of the people in any of these papers made or supported), and was found to be wrong years ago.
There's plenty of interesting stuff going on there, and Roland missed it all and chose to make up his own story. We'd all know more about science by avoiding this kind of stuff.
Any physicist who needs to fall back on a conscious observer needs to retake basic quantum mechanics. It's vey hard, conceptually, for most people to make the connection between the math and the real world. An observation in physics is any interaction, the person plays no role but to get the data from the data taking computer to the laptop. Generally, when some particle in an undefined state runs into something else: a wall, detector, person... the undefined state becomes "known" by whatever it ran into. A person then gets the information second hand out of some light which has been emmitted or something like that. That doesn't mean free will is gone, it just means a conscious observer is not necessary.
Here's why free will is gone: In physics, we often talk about a particle and a detector. The particle is in some undefined state, and when it hits the detector, the state is known. That's an approximation. If, at the big bang, all the matter in the universe was in one state, that state could be evolved into the present universe. Everything is really in one big state, and we just infer bits and pieces out of it. While what we can know about that state is uncertain, the time evolution of that single, universal state has been determined from the beggining. (in physics-speak: quantum states are exact and have exact time evolution, the probability we get out of those states is uncertain in space and time.)
And lastly, here's where free will comes back: If the universe is infinite, there can't be a single state with determined time evolution... I think...
In physics we're trained to think in terms of single particles, and the physics experiments used to prove quantum mechanics in classes are all based on one or two particles. Every physicist knows we can't solve three or more. That doesn't mean there's not a single state for multiple particle systems. Spectroscopists and solid state physicists know this. It's not a hidden variable problem, just a problem with our mathmatical tools. Of course, if you don't think the quantum state is real, then disregard this entire comment.
If anyone's got good arguments against me, I'd love to try them out. I spent a year arguing with my graduate quantum professor over this... he won.
My dad was a politician, and while I think career politicians are a big problem, actually being in politics convinced him it's not. His argument is that like anything else, politics takes some time to learn. Thus, you will always have people with more experience than others, and the ability of these more experienced politicians is much greater than that of the rookies. The end result is that people with new representatives are not represented as well as those with seasoned representatives.
My opinion is that the old politicians simply push around the rookies. He is absolutely right that rookie politicians just can't get as much done. Also, he got out of politics on term limits which were repealed just after he left office, so I think that might be clouding his judgement.
Keep in mind that this guy (the aide trying to hire hackers) is not a politician. By enforcing the responsibility of politicians to ensure their staff is not breaking any laws, a lot of this kind of stuff goes away. To get rid of career politicians, you really need to get rid of political parties, or at least prevent the parties themselves from employing anyone. True career politicians won't let something like term limits stand in the way of political power.
Scientists hate to see any funding go away. Sure, it would be better to get that $500 million invested directly into research, but cutting that money out of a military research program hardly means it will be directly spent on research. The total NIH budget (the government's medical research department) has a budget of around $30 billion, and goes up by something like 1% per year (less than inflation, or Congress's cost-of-living raises).
Until more science-minded people actually go into the deciding (rather than advising) areas of government, this kind of situation will continue.
There's a subtle difference between having NSF fund more graduate students at a higher stipend and having more graduate students in the country. I don't think we need more students (see biology in the 90s), we just need to encourage the better ones to stay in science.
How do you convince someone to get into scientific research? It doesn't pay well, no one outside of science trusts you and worst of all, no one is interested in your work. Some people are so put off by their (grossly incorrect) assumptions that they don't want to talk to you (try going to lobby your local politicians as a physicist some time).
I've given a few talks on this to local non-profits who have funded graduate fellowships. The extra money is nice, but not the most important thing. My current fellowship actually pays me a bit less than I would make without it (teaching), and the best fellowship I've had didn't pay as much as my old job: digging ditches. The most important aspect of fellowships is that there is someone outside of your department who is interested enough in your work to pay you to do it.
Most graduate students feel like we're frauds and failures, and the validation that comes from having someone outside our immediate fields appreciate our research is enough to keep us in research. It's the only thing that stops us all from getting MBAs or JDs.
There are two different things you're talking about. This is different than taking a biological process and applying it to a different field (such as genetic algorithms).
Quantitative biology (such as bioinformatics) is still relatively new, and although computer science people understand it, there's a significant old guard in biology which still thinks of the science as a qualitative, observation based field. This modeling is just one example of biology moving from a "look what I found" field to a "look what I did" one.
Think about how old other hot areas of biology like genetics or evolutionary biology are, and bioinformatics looks pretty young.
I totally agree. People may point to the Wii as a good example of design over brute strength, but it's still just a new technology. Without good, creative games, none of that fancy stuff will be any fun. A couple of new lucas arts style adventure games would be a lot of fun to play on any system.
My local district is the second largest in the US (Los Angeles), and it has a system similar to the one you describe in Germany.
My wife went to one of the "professionals schools" (in LAUSD called magnet schools), while her brother went to "secretaries school" and her mom teaches the future "ditch diggers." This tiered system is great for some people, it certainly was for my wife, who is now working on her PhD. The average kids have a good opportunity to get into local colleges, but it's not uniform. Even at the best funded average schools, the teachers have trouble coping with the problems kids face growing up in the bad areas of LA, and we have a very large dropout rate. The lower tier kids are caught up in paperwork, over-regulation and a lack of relevant classes.
I can't begin to do the subject justice. The school district was the major issue of the last mayorial election here, and there are constant lawsuits over who has authority to do what. As you may guess, the whole system is very controversial and is full of economic and racial tensions.
In the end, I don't think many people are spared the boredom of slow moving high school classes. I think it's a person's own responsibility to find a subject or craft they enjoy and to study it on their own, in addition to school. High school may seem pointless, but people bored with high school for whatever reason will need the self-discipline and patience learned from sticking through it.
Nanoparticles and nanostructured materials have been around for a long, long time. Just last night, there was an article posted here on how carbon nanotubes were a key component of Damascus steel. Nanoparticles are produced in many natural chemical reactions, in all biological systems and any time something burns. My point is that simply being a nanoparticle does not make something dangerous.
New materials, or old materials put to new uses should absolutely be tested for safety, whether that new material is a new pesticide or a new nanoparticle. I don't think there's any reason to treat nanostructured materials any different from a new drug, new pesticide or other such dangerous chemical.
Slashdot Mirror
After looking at that iBridge site for a little while, I can see how it would be useful, but I doubt it ever will be.
The problem is the buzzword creep which effects everything in research from grant writing to paper titles. There are too many people (PR departments?) out there who want their reserach to be meta-nano-bio-info stuff for national security. So searching for actual ideas in any popular area brings up a lot of research only very tenuously connected to the subject you're looking for.
What causes an electorate to change it's mind? The people who do that are leaders. I would rather have them elected, in the public eye and subject to the laws of government than not.
What you are arguing for is often called the tyranny of the majority, and is the reason most people thought the United States would self destruct in it's early years (democracy has been around for thousands of years, and usually does not work). The hallmark of modern democracy is that the rights of the minority must be protected over the wishes of the majority. What you describe IS an authoritarian state. Saddam Hussein was elected... unanimously, so he was doing the right things? Arguments that the majority should be allowed set the rules however they would like have led to the Nazi party, Communism, and Bush's signing statements.
Doing what people want is a good thing, but only within certain limits.
As a physicist, anyone can copy and use the ideas I publish (journals don't own the ideas or the research results), and that's a good thing. Everyone pays into a general fund (taxes, or large multi-corporation projects), and those funds are given out based on performance. I get paid a salary, and am rewarded for how much work I share, and by how many other people use it. If the people running the general fund fail to support good research, it will be snatched up by other groups and taken out of the system, so that everyone must then pay to get access to it again. This system could be applied to entertainment in a number of ways.
The government has purposefully constructed the research market to maximize output, and it does control the research market. If you're asking the government to start spending more money enforcing entertainment laws, you're potentially taking money away from my projects to do that. Is it better for the government to spend resources enforcing the current entertainment market structure, or would it make more sense to push it in a new direction which would require less government attention?
Industries are reshuffled and contracted all the time. I think we would be ok with a few less movies made per year, or a few fewer millionnaire entertainers.
This really isn't as dramatic as everyone is making it out to be.
Many of the satellite receivers on the market are hand held and work as a short range FM transmitter. Basically, you CAN have both units in your car. If you don't want the FM transmitter deal, there are plenty of 3rd party units which will work with either service (I have one, a Sony).
According to Sirius, they've moved from losing money to making money, so they don't need to do anything drastic to stay in business.
The exclusivity agreements are a pain in the ass, but it's not Stern or Oprah you're really missing out on. Stern has a ton of programming, but he's not for everyone, and Oprah's just there for promotions. For me the exclusivity of sports is the problem.
Good thing AM radio still exists... and the internet... and television... in the end, it's not really that exclusive.
Exactly.
They describe my physics grad school experience: small groups, collaborative, with a problem solving point of view.
I look at things from my point of view. I'm a physicist. My job requires an advanced degree. I got paid more working in construction. My job requires that I work as much as possible so that I can finish some of my research before my competitors do. After I get my PhD, chances are I will be replaced with an international student. Not because it's cheaper (it's not), but because truly not enough people in the US want to do what I do. I didn't come up with my arguments on my own, they're what our department talks about and what our organizations talk about.
If software engineers and IT are treated so well, and getting a good job is so easy, then I must be wrong to lump them in with physical scientists. We have some idea why women don't go into science (search for Larry Summers if you think it's some innate difference), there must be a different reason for them not going into software engineering.
It used to be that there not enough women in law or medicine either. Now, those fields are pretty equal. Why is it that some fields (programming, engineering, physical sciences...) can't get this right?
There are lots of little reasons (time demands, male oriented, no role models...), but the big root reason is that these are just not good jobs. All those little reasons were there in law and medicine, and were overcome. Rather than ask why no women want these jobs, ask why any person WOULD want these jobs. Most reasons women have for staying away from these areas should probably keep men away as well.
Even if you don't buy that women should be more or less equally represented in most jobs, it can be very educational learning exactly why they're staying away.
It's very hard to use awards as a judge of the scientific worth of an institution. For example, my school (UCI) has three Nobels in the last 15 years or so, but none of them for research done at UCI.
If you're a good enough scientist to get a Nobel (or Fields, and so on...), then chances are at some point some big, well known, well paying school is going to recruit you. It doesn't take a Nobel prize for other scientists to recognize a great researcher, but recruiting someone who has already done their life's great work doesn't make you a great scientific institution.
No matter how much loyalty you may have to a particular place, there are perks at big private schools that state schools like Berkely and Michigan just can't offer. Some well known scientists stick around in smaller incubation schools, but many find that being a big fish in a little pond is just more work and doesn't pay as well.
If you're going to use awards to determine scientific worth, you need to look at where the research which won the prize was done. Of course, this would put my school off the list with a grand total of 0 Nobels. I'm sure other small universities would start moving up the list.
There are a lot of solutions to Maxwell's equations beyond the version taught in introductory electromagnetism. In a co-ax, there are different states allowed than if there was just a metal tube. I don't really want to get more technical than that, because I'll get things wrong. You could think of this system as changing light from photons to electrons and back.
They use coaxial wires so that their waveguide can be long and skinny.
It's thinner than the wavelength of the light, which is not possible with fiberoptics. There are other ways of making subwavelength waveguides, but they don't work over long distances. In the co-ax, light is transmitted basically as if it were in free space, and doesn't attenuate very much. In most nanostructures used for optics, light is transmitted as a plasmon (a rather quickly attenuating surface bound state).
There's a bonus third effect: By replacing the optically clear insulator between the conductors with something more exotic, you can do light mixing and switching. These guys don't actually do that, but mention the possibility in their conclusion.
You cannot claim to break a law in a news release, while in the scientific paper (where it counts) they say:
"While our best measured values of the hyperpolarizability are still more than an order of magnitude from the fundamental limit, this design strategy appears to be a promising new paradigm for making better molecules."
I would actually like people like Roland writing about science if they did even just a tiny, tiny bit of work. It took me all of 15 minutes to read that paper and follow a few references.
This particular paper is talking about a scientific curiousity: a system with a single molecule interacting with the light without interactions with it's neighbors. Systems with multiple molecular interactions are much better (55% of the fundamental limit), but harder to match to theory. The broken "law" was more of a guess (which none of the people in any of these papers made or supported), and was found to be wrong years ago.
There's plenty of interesting stuff going on there, and Roland missed it all and chose to make up his own story. We'd all know more about science by avoiding this kind of stuff.
Any physicist who needs to fall back on a conscious observer needs to retake basic quantum mechanics. It's vey hard, conceptually, for most people to make the connection between the math and the real world. An observation in physics is any interaction, the person plays no role but to get the data from the data taking computer to the laptop. Generally, when some particle in an undefined state runs into something else: a wall, detector, person... the undefined state becomes "known" by whatever it ran into. A person then gets the information second hand out of some light which has been emmitted or something like that. That doesn't mean free will is gone, it just means a conscious observer is not necessary.
Here's why free will is gone:
In physics, we often talk about a particle and a detector. The particle is in some undefined state, and when it hits the detector, the state is known. That's an approximation. If, at the big bang, all the matter in the universe was in one state, that state could be evolved into the present universe. Everything is really in one big state, and we just infer bits and pieces out of it. While what we can know about that state is uncertain, the time evolution of that single, universal state has been determined from the beggining. (in physics-speak: quantum states are exact and have exact time evolution, the probability we get out of those states is uncertain in space and time.)
And lastly, here's where free will comes back:
If the universe is infinite, there can't be a single state with determined time evolution... I think...
In physics we're trained to think in terms of single particles, and the physics experiments used to prove quantum mechanics in classes are all based on one or two particles. Every physicist knows we can't solve three or more. That doesn't mean there's not a single state for multiple particle systems. Spectroscopists and solid state physicists know this. It's not a hidden variable problem, just a problem with our mathmatical tools. Of course, if you don't think the quantum state is real, then disregard this entire comment.
If anyone's got good arguments against me, I'd love to try them out. I spent a year arguing with my graduate quantum professor over this... he won.
My dad was a politician, and while I think career politicians are a big problem, actually being in politics convinced him it's not. His argument is that like anything else, politics takes some time to learn. Thus, you will always have people with more experience than others, and the ability of these more experienced politicians is much greater than that of the rookies. The end result is that people with new representatives are not represented as well as those with seasoned representatives.
My opinion is that the old politicians simply push around the rookies. He is absolutely right that rookie politicians just can't get as much done. Also, he got out of politics on term limits which were repealed just after he left office, so I think that might be clouding his judgement.
Keep in mind that this guy (the aide trying to hire hackers) is not a politician. By enforcing the responsibility of politicians to ensure their staff is not breaking any laws, a lot of this kind of stuff goes away. To get rid of career politicians, you really need to get rid of political parties, or at least prevent the parties themselves from employing anyone. True career politicians won't let something like term limits stand in the way of political power.
Scientists hate to see any funding go away. Sure, it would be better to get that $500 million invested directly into research, but cutting that money out of a military research program hardly means it will be directly spent on research. The total NIH budget (the government's medical research department) has a budget of around $30 billion, and goes up by something like 1% per year (less than inflation, or Congress's cost-of-living raises).
Until more science-minded people actually go into the deciding (rather than advising) areas of government, this kind of situation will continue.
There's a subtle difference between having NSF fund more graduate students at a higher stipend and having more graduate students in the country. I don't think we need more students (see biology in the 90s), we just need to encourage the better ones to stay in science.
How do you convince someone to get into scientific research? It doesn't pay well, no one outside of science trusts you and worst of all, no one is interested in your work. Some people are so put off by their (grossly incorrect) assumptions that they don't want to talk to you (try going to lobby your local politicians as a physicist some time).
I've given a few talks on this to local non-profits who have funded graduate fellowships. The extra money is nice, but not the most important thing. My current fellowship actually pays me a bit less than I would make without it (teaching), and the best fellowship I've had didn't pay as much as my old job: digging ditches. The most important aspect of fellowships is that there is someone outside of your department who is interested enough in your work to pay you to do it.
Most graduate students feel like we're frauds and failures, and the validation that comes from having someone outside our immediate fields appreciate our research is enough to keep us in research. It's the only thing that stops us all from getting MBAs or JDs.
What's it say about his co-author on the paper that the University of Buffalo says Jain "works alone"?
I guess post-docs don't actually count as people.
Gee, that's about the size of Utah.
There are two different things you're talking about. This is different than taking a biological process and applying it to a different field (such as genetic algorithms).
Quantitative biology (such as bioinformatics) is still relatively new, and although computer science people understand it, there's a significant old guard in biology which still thinks of the science as a qualitative, observation based field. This modeling is just one example of biology moving from a "look what I found" field to a "look what I did" one.
Think about how old other hot areas of biology like genetics or evolutionary biology are, and bioinformatics looks pretty young.
Of course, I am biased.
I totally agree. People may point to the Wii as a good example of design over brute strength, but it's still just a new technology. Without good, creative games, none of that fancy stuff will be any fun. A couple of new lucas arts style adventure games would be a lot of fun to play on any system.
And you're telling me that's smart?
Sorry, it may be good business, but it's still stupid.
There's a difference between "making money" and "making money illegally and perhaps getting it all taken away." So yes, he is an idiot.
My local district is the second largest in the US (Los Angeles), and it has a system similar to the one you describe in Germany.
My wife went to one of the "professionals schools" (in LAUSD called magnet schools), while her brother went to "secretaries school" and her mom teaches the future "ditch diggers." This tiered system is great for some people, it certainly was for my wife, who is now working on her PhD. The average kids have a good opportunity to get into local colleges, but it's not uniform. Even at the best funded average schools, the teachers have trouble coping with the problems kids face growing up in the bad areas of LA, and we have a very large dropout rate. The lower tier kids are caught up in paperwork, over-regulation and a lack of relevant classes.
I can't begin to do the subject justice. The school district was the major issue of the last mayorial election here, and there are constant lawsuits over who has authority to do what. As you may guess, the whole system is very controversial and is full of economic and racial tensions.
In the end, I don't think many people are spared the boredom of slow moving high school classes. I think it's a person's own responsibility to find a subject or craft they enjoy and to study it on their own, in addition to school. High school may seem pointless, but people bored with high school for whatever reason will need the self-discipline and patience learned from sticking through it.
Despite getting the solution wrong, he does have some good observations.
First, that it's too hard for international students to come to the US to study.
Second, that our compitition populates it's governement with engineers, while we populate our government with lawyers (and Poli Sci grads).
With those observations, he should realize that he is actually part of the problem. I wonder if he sees that... probably not.
What's several orders of magnitude more than 0?
Nanoparticles and nanostructured materials have been around for a long, long time. Just last night, there was an article posted here on how carbon nanotubes were a key component of Damascus steel. Nanoparticles are produced in many natural chemical reactions, in all biological systems and any time something burns. My point is that simply being a nanoparticle does not make something dangerous.
New materials, or old materials put to new uses should absolutely be tested for safety, whether that new material is a new pesticide or a new nanoparticle. I don't think there's any reason to treat nanostructured materials any different from a new drug, new pesticide or other such dangerous chemical.