3 ms·

The weariness against 'chemicals' is not FUD. Yes, a little trace amount of formaldehyde, benzene, ethanol and other VOCs isn't going to kill you, but it certa

by jimmy1 8y ago

The weariness against 'chemicals' is not FUD. Yes, a little trace amount of formaldehyde, benzene, ethanol and other VOCs isn't going to kill you, but it certainly has a cumulative effect on the body. You got a tiny amount in your lacquered floors you walk on, a tiny amount in your mattress, a tiny amount in those fancy non-iron dress shirts you wear, you bring back a tiny amount from the dry cleaners, a tiny amount in those moth balls you use, a tiny amount in your scented candles and perfumes and dyes, a tiny amount in your workout "sweat wicking" clothing, a tiny amount from all those various forms of plastics you use to eat and drink with, a tiny amount from all those foams you encounter throughout the day -- whether its car seats, office chairs or your pillows, all of a sudden you now have a little bit constantly in your system. And it's not about having a tiny amount of one. What happens when you have built up a couple micrograms in your system, and how does it react when combined with another? Who knows right -- no one is studying that. Combine this with all the processed junk most Americans eat, the lack of sleep and exercise and de-stressing time, and the increasingly dirty air we breathe, I don't think it is a stretch to say we aren't doing anything to help our body and to be weary of things made with 'chemicals' considering we already have so much shit out there that has more than what we should probably be getting exposed to.

chrisseaton 8y ago
I think you're missing the point. Using the term 'chemicals' is too broad. Chemicals includes the water you drink. And the issue is that when you teach people 'chemicals are bad' then anyone else can say 'this is a chemical' and get people to avoid it, even when there is no need to, such as the anti-vaccine movement saying vaccines 'contain chemicals'. It's hard to refute that because yes, they do contain chemicals. The problem is that 'chemicals' were the wrong thing to be taking issue with. Criticising a process for using a 'toxic gas' without any of the nuance of what the gas is being used for and what the properties and toxicity of the gas are and if they're relevant is just as illiterate and dangerous, and should be challenged when you see it.
- andai 8y ago
  That may be so. But still, I strive to only drink water that doesn't have any chemicals in it.
  - chrisseaton 8y ago
    > I strive to only drink water that doesn't have any chemicals in it Water is a chemical. And the water you drink probably contains many other beneficial chemicals such as dissolved minerals.
    - andai 8y ago
      https://www.themarysue.com/chemistry-set-no-chemicals/ https://www.themarysue.com/chemistry-set-no-chemicals/
  - nkrisc 8y ago
    I don't eat any chemicals: I'm on a pure carbon diet.
- jimmy1 8y ago
  I think you are being overly specific. When the average person says "I try to avoid chemicals" you know good and well what they are talking about. That issue is your perceived issue. The fact is chemicals can most certainly be bad -- but you need to teach them that the positives gained from receiving a vaccine greatly outweigh the risks in the minuscule amount of volatile chemicals (mainly, mercury) you receive. Ionizing Radiation is most certainly not good for you, and exposes you to risk for cell damage, but people understand the tradeoff when they go to the hospital to get an MRI to find out how best to repair their knee, or PET Scan to find out what the best course of treatment for their cancer is. You get into these problems when you turn your nose up at people, act smugly, and say "chemicals are fine!" Rather a better strategy to combat those anti-vaxxers is to be up front "Yes there is mercury in here, and yes too much is bad for you. But your body has a liver, kidneys, and lymphatic system that does a tremendous job of cleansing toxins from your system, and the benefits you receive from this vaccine far outweigh the cons from a little bit of mercury."
Nasrudith 8y ago
The sheer lack of nuance in just chemicals is ignorant and inherently leads to foolishness. It is about as good a framework as trying to decide if binary 1s or 0s are more dangerous. Bioaccumulation is totally peripheral to inherit toxicity although it makes toxins more problematic. Drinking too much colloidal silver will turn you blue-gray but it won't kill you. Reminds me of "organic pesticides" being treated as rhetorically as safer because they are easier to understand despite it being the exact opposite and including heavy metals. They are broad mechanism toxins that effect essentially everything organic while synthetics are tailored to do things like disrupt very specific proteins that aren't even found in the vertabrates - much less humans themselves. Preferring known dangerous heavy metals over a remote possibility that something far safer and biodegradable that /might/ have something unknown is FUD just as sure as a known embezzler running for reelection saying his opponent might raise taxes.
- strainer 8y ago
  Organic standards allow use of copper sulphate (subject to more controls that non-organic certified produce) It is entirely false to characterize organic as "including heavy metals" when they simply allow a fairly common and light "heavy metal" compound which is already permitted outside their standards (ALL organic standards are permitted for non organic use) Its striking that you could begin by lamenting "sheer lack of nuance" and proceed to base an entire criticism on deceived and inaccurate nuance.
  - Nasrudith 8y ago
    I was thinking of the lead arsenate used in apple orchards. Specifically its widespread use to combat moth epidemics that were causing major problems and is related to contamination of groundwater around them. It was first replaced by the technically less longterm contaminating DDT briefly before a less toxic effective replacement could be found. Apparently it was banned by the 80s so I messed up the specifics but the point is that "organic" old style pesticides were often worse in toxicity and are far more general in their targetting.
    - 8y ago

by jimmy1 8y ago

chrisseaton 8y ago

I think you're missing the point. Using the term 'chemicals' is too broad. Chemicals includes the water you drink. And the issue is that when you teach people 'chemicals are bad' then anyone else can say 'this is a chemical' and get people to avoid it, even when there is no need to, such as the anti-vaccine movement saying vaccines 'contain chemicals'. It's hard to refute that because yes, they do contain chemicals. The problem is that 'chemicals' were the wrong thing to be taking issue with. Criticising a process for using a 'toxic gas' without any of the nuance of what the gas is being used for and what the properties and toxicity of the gas are and if they're relevant is just as illiterate and dangerous, and should be challenged when you see it.

andai 8y ago
That may be so. But still, I strive to only drink water that doesn't have any chemicals in it.
- chrisseaton 8y ago
  > I strive to only drink water that doesn't have any chemicals in it Water is a chemical. And the water you drink probably contains many other beneficial chemicals such as dissolved minerals.
  - andai 8y ago
    https://www.themarysue.com/chemistry-set-no-chemicals/ https://www.themarysue.com/chemistry-set-no-chemicals/
- nkrisc 8y ago
  I don't eat any chemicals: I'm on a pure carbon diet.
jimmy1 8y ago
I think you are being overly specific. When the average person says "I try to avoid chemicals" you know good and well what they are talking about. That issue is your perceived issue. The fact is chemicals can most certainly be bad -- but you need to teach them that the positives gained from receiving a vaccine greatly outweigh the risks in the minuscule amount of volatile chemicals (mainly, mercury) you receive. Ionizing Radiation is most certainly not good for you, and exposes you to risk for cell damage, but people understand the tradeoff when they go to the hospital to get an MRI to find out how best to repair their knee, or PET Scan to find out what the best course of treatment for their cancer is. You get into these problems when you turn your nose up at people, act smugly, and say "chemicals are fine!" Rather a better strategy to combat those anti-vaxxers is to be up front "Yes there is mercury in here, and yes too much is bad for you. But your body has a liver, kidneys, and lymphatic system that does a tremendous job of cleansing toxins from your system, and the benefits you receive from this vaccine far outweigh the cons from a little bit of mercury."

Nasrudith 8y ago

The sheer lack of nuance in just chemicals is ignorant and inherently leads to foolishness. It is about as good a framework as trying to decide if binary 1s or 0s are more dangerous. Bioaccumulation is totally peripheral to inherit toxicity although it makes toxins more problematic. Drinking too much colloidal silver will turn you blue-gray but it won't kill you. Reminds me of "organic pesticides" being treated as rhetorically as safer because they are easier to understand despite it being the exact opposite and including heavy metals. They are broad mechanism toxins that effect essentially everything organic while synthetics are tailored to do things like disrupt very specific proteins that aren't even found in the vertabrates - much less humans themselves. Preferring known dangerous heavy metals over a remote possibility that something far safer and biodegradable that /might/ have something unknown is FUD just as sure as a known embezzler running for reelection saying his opponent might raise taxes.

strainer 8y ago
Organic standards allow use of copper sulphate (subject to more controls that non-organic certified produce) It is entirely false to characterize organic as "including heavy metals" when they simply allow a fairly common and light "heavy metal" compound which is already permitted outside their standards (ALL organic standards are permitted for non organic use) Its striking that you could begin by lamenting "sheer lack of nuance" and proceed to base an entire criticism on deceived and inaccurate nuance.
- Nasrudith 8y ago
  I was thinking of the lead arsenate used in apple orchards. Specifically its widespread use to combat moth epidemics that were causing major problems and is related to contamination of groundwater around them. It was first replaced by the technically less longterm contaminating DDT briefly before a less toxic effective replacement could be found. Apparently it was banned by the 80s so I messed up the specifics but the point is that "organic" old style pesticides were often worse in toxicity and are far more general in their targetting.
  - 8y ago