Comments on: Chemical Irritation http://www.sciencebase.com/science-blog/chemical-irritation.html Science Blog from Freelance Science Writer David Bradley Thu, 09 Feb 2012 08:25:37 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: chemspy http://www.sciencebase.com/science-blog/chemical-irritation.html/comment-page-1#comment-381133 chemspy Thu, 31 Jan 2008 06:37:27 +0000 http://www.chemspy.com/chemistry-news/chemical-irritation.html#comment-381133 Couldn't agree more Chemrox! db Couldn’t agree more Chemrox!

db

]]> By: Chemrox http://www.sciencebase.com/science-blog/chemical-irritation.html/comment-page-1#comment-381132 Chemrox Thu, 31 Jan 2008 06:17:57 +0000 http://www.chemspy.com/chemistry-news/chemical-irritation.html#comment-381132 She's using a common, highly imprecise distinction that people make believing they are understood when they make it. Actually, each user of the term has his own definition and usually is unaware of the unique and vague nature of it. The related term "organic" used to mean from plants and animals. Now it includes certain legally defined origin and supply parameters. The example above is flagrant and extra irritating as it carries a kind of "chemophobia." As a chemistry student in the '60's-70's I heard a lot of that kind of thing. "No chemicals man," as a great virtue. I even had a guy try to tell me why LSD wasn't really a "chemical." Chemophobia has a basis in history. Many compounds at first thought to be entirely beneficial turned out to have a dark side. We learned lessons about biodegradation and some persistent environmental consequences of the chemical cornucopia. But the failure to recognize copper and aspirin as "chemicals" is a mark of ignorance and an indicator of the decline in education in this country. On the other hand a lot of us have gotten smart about food additives and agrochemicals and insist on organic produce where the term is well defined. Why anyone cares what cut flowers are preserved with is beyond my ken. She’s using a common, highly imprecise distinction that people make believing they are understood when they make it. Actually, each user of the term has his own definition and usually is unaware of the unique and vague nature of it. The related term “organic” used to mean from plants and animals. Now it includes certain legally defined origin and supply parameters. The example above is flagrant and extra irritating as it carries a kind of “chemophobia.”

As a chemistry student in the ’60′s-70′s I heard a lot of that kind of thing. “No chemicals man,” as a great virtue. I even had a guy try to tell me why LSD wasn’t really a “chemical.” Chemophobia has a basis in history. Many compounds at first thought to be entirely beneficial turned out to have a dark side. We learned lessons about biodegradation and some persistent environmental consequences of the chemical cornucopia. But the failure to recognize copper and aspirin as “chemicals” is a mark of ignorance and an indicator of the decline in education in this country. On the other hand a lot of us have gotten smart about food additives and agrochemicals and insist on organic produce where the term is well defined. Why anyone cares what cut flowers are preserved with is beyond my ken.

]]>