General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsManmade Or Natural, Tasty Or Toxic, They're All Chemicals … By Dr. Mark Lorch
The terms 'chemical' and 'poison' have become interchangeable in the popular consciousness and as a result the whole subject of chemistry has become tainted with unpleasant connotations
http://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2014/may/19/manmade-natural-tasty-toxic-chemicals
"Chemicals are bad, right? Otherwise why would so many purveyors of all things healthy proudly proclaim their products to be "chemical-free" and why would phrases such as "it's chock full of chemicals" be so commonly used to imply something is unnatural and therefore inherently dangerous?
On one level these phrases are meaningless after all, chemicals are everywhere, in everything. From the air that we breathe to the pills we pop, it's all chemicals. Conversely, many would argue (the Advertising Standards Agency included) that we all know perfectly well what "chemical-free" means and those who rail against the absurdity of the phrase are just being pedantic. Even the Oxford Dictionary defines a chemical as "a distinct compound or substance, especially one which has been artificially prepared or purified."
So "chemical-free" products are adhering to a recognised usage.
But pedantry and definition arent really the point. The point is that every time anti-chemical slogans are used people are being misinformed. The implication is always that the terms "chemical" and "poison" are interchangeable. This is a perception that permeates our subconscious to the extent that chemists themselves have been guilty of exactly the same lazy language.
..."
------------------------------
Good stuff!
Warpy
(111,270 posts)it bursts into flame when exposed to air, with every meal. We call it table salt and we'd die if we didn't have it in our diets.
I also love pointing out that those big, scary chemical names in their bread are mostly vitamins, cyanocobalamin especially tends to freak them out, "It's got cyanide in it?" It's B-12.
The sad part is that most of them are uneducable.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)intaglio
(8,170 posts)Even the water.
Just posted something on this to the Skeptics board Harmonzed H2O
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Romulox
(25,960 posts)That's a leap in logic, to say the least
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)As the article notes, all food is chemically engineered.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Romulox
(25,960 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)That doesn't mean you're making any sense at all.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)MineralMan
(146,317 posts)Really. Can you provide a definition?
Drew Richards
(1,558 posts)Response to MineralMan (Reply #11)
Post removed
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Unless you eat some deep sea crustaceans that feed of chemosynthesis bacterium, of course.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)Thanks for the "science" lesson, at any rate.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Put "science" in scare quotes all you want, all food that we eat on Earth is ultimately derived from the Sun through photosynthesis, plants are the base of ours and every other surface ecosystem's food chain. So when you talk about "chemically derived" food, as if that is supposed to be scary, you just illustrate your ignorance of the processes that occur around us every day.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)We didn't evolve to eat highly processed foods that are laden with preservatives, nitrates, pesticides, etc., though. Surely you're not arguing that a Twinkie or a hot dog or a diet soda are just as healthy for you as an organic apple? Because that is the issue, not that all are made of "chemicals." That's a straw man argument.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Of course, claiming that an organic apple is any more healthy than any other known apple is highly suspect. Oh, and reading through any thread at DU about vaccines, GMOs, food, supplements, alt-med quackery etc... one can see there are far too many people who do not understand this.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Chemophobia is often on display around here. Look at all the DUers who buy into the "Food Babe," and her anti-science crusades.
KT2000
(20,583 posts)as I recall is a word made up by industry to denigrate people who want rigorous testing of commercial chemicals and those who even question the safety of certain chemicals. I believe it was that organization composed of corporate medical officers and once headed by a woman who was a medical officer for a large chemical company - ACSH.
Otherwise known as propaganda - name calling.
Chemophobia is not a concept based on science.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)It's astoundingly common.
it was made up to counteract the claims of people who were sickened by chemical exposures and the call for adequate testing of commercial chemicals. It has been adopted by industry and free market folks.
It is not a term used in scientific papers - it is a word used for marketing, lobbying and propaganda.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Thank you.
Archae
(46,335 posts)A fear of chemicals.
One of the newsmagazine shows years ago showed a woman who locked herself in a little shack in the woods, she claimed to be "allergic" to just about everything.
Her words and actions during an interview showed just where the "allergy" was, yes. All in her head.
Just being inside her isolation shack with a reporter and cameraman outside was causing her to break out, have shortness of breath, etc.
KT2000
(20,583 posts)Last edited Wed May 21, 2014, 02:34 PM - Edit history (1)
was a real condition. I did not see that show in particular but I have seen some real hatchet jobs, especially one from John Stossel. It is easy to make fun of people with that condition.
There is quite a bit of literature on this condition. You may wish to look at the work by Claudia Miller MD (U of TX), Nicholas Ashford, PhD (MIT), Martin Pall PhD (WSU), William Meggs MD, Iris Bell MD
Here are some of the features: the nasal passages have tight junctions, meaning the cells are close together to prevent bad things from proceeding past the nasal passages. Certain chemicals can damage the tight junctions (such as acids), thereby leaving space for bad things to proceed.
They proceed through the olfactory bulb into the brain. Several researchers have focused on the kindling effect where the initial injury is "aggravated" by subsequent exposures. This causes an over-firing much like a person experiences with seizures.
Another feature is reduced blood flow to certain areas of the brain after exposure. Different people show different areas affected.
Since the injury is in the brain, it can trigger any number of problems - sympathetic nervous system, parasympathetic nervous system, digestion, heart (atrial fibrillation is common), skin disorders and immune dysfunction.
It is not an allergy it is a brain injury. It is a feature of Gulf War Syndrome, 9/11 responders, the oil spill in the Gulf and many other situations where people were very over-exposed or exposed to lower levels over a long period of time.
It is a tough way to have to live and the ridicule from others makes it nearly impossible for some to bear. Suicide is not uncommon. I hope you will learn more so you can show kindness to people in that situation.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)You wouldn't necessarily know that. You're welcome.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Try again.
MineralMan
(146,317 posts)Chemical reactions are the very stuff of life.
Understanding the metabolism of life isn't necessary for most people, but life is chemistry and chemical reactions
Romulox
(25,960 posts): a drug that makes a person calm
: a statement that is intended to make people feel happier or calmer but that is not original or effective
Full Definition of BROMIDE
1
: a binary compound of bromine with another element or a radical including some (as potassium bromide) used as sedatives
2
a : a commonplace or tiresome person : bore
b : a commonplace or hackneyed statement or notion
See bromide defined for English-language learners »
See bromide defined for kids »
scarletwoman
(31,893 posts)atomic bombs are natural!"
mathematic
(1,439 posts)It is precisely this common misunderstanding that makes the OP's point. The safety of a chemical cannot be judged by whether it occurs naturally.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Through evolution until only recently, the world evolved with natural chemicals. With the advent of man-made chemicals has come many dis-eases because our bodies had not evolutionally developed a defense to those chemicals.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)KT2000
(20,583 posts)Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)on supposedly debunking things they think are "woo".
It's a form of intellectual myopia and the behavior is akin to bullying.
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Evidence matters. There's nothing myopic about it.
DemocraticWing
(1,290 posts)People thought putting fluoride in the water supply was a Communist plot too.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)not to mention it gives the false sense that "natural" equals "safer".
AceAcme
(93 posts)Shades of 1984. Natural at one time did have meaning. But it was used so broadly by marketers that it eventually lost all relevance to shoppers who actually want clean food free of GMOs and synthetic corporate chemicals -- as opposed to the chemicals that nature -- in it's wisdom -- generates in living plants and animals.
Silent3
(15,220 posts)Thinking "natural = good, artificial = bad" and fear of "chemicals" go hand in hand.
mucifer
(23,549 posts)It's still probably better to eat less pesticides on your fruits and veggies.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)in this manner, they are WAY out of their depth.
Edit- and that the irony doesn't come across to the materialists, especially those who get off on what they think is "debunking" is hilarious.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Irony does not mean what you think it means.
Leme
(1,092 posts)pe·dan·tic
/pəˈdantik/
adjective
adjective: pedantic
of or like a pedant.
"many of the essays are long, dense, and too pedantic to hold great appeal"
synonyms: overscrupulous, scrupulous, precise, exact, perfectionist, punctilious, meticulous, fussy, fastidious, finicky
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Hmm.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)This is one of the dumbest threads ever on DU.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)... does not make this thread dumb.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Including here at DU. Going ad hominem on it doesn't change that either.
Leme
(1,092 posts)hobbit709
(41,694 posts)Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)I've never understood the total buffoonery of hating on chemicals. Funny how the body would not work at all, if not for chemical compounds in our brain and body.
Calling all chemicals poison is stupid, BUT some chemicals ARE poisonous to the body!
I dismiss people that treat chemicals as bad agents of the world, almost everything you drink, eat, think, do or say is influenced by chemical compounds and reactions in/to the body.