7 ms·

> It’s pretty simple, don’t dump chemicals in water or on land period. Everything is chemicals. You just described 2/3 of all industrial activity and proposed

> It’s pretty simple, don’t dump chemicals in water or on land period. Everything is chemicals. You just described 2/3 of all industrial activity and proposed we should stop them. Are you willing to take the consequences which follow from that proposal? (And somehow forgot the 1/3 “dump chemicals in air”)

edgyquant 3y ago
No you’re being pedantic and proving my point. Everyone, every single person, knows when you’re doing something that could potentially devastate an environment and if you have to ask if it could don’t be dumping. Why should anyone be allowed to dump anything at all into the local environment?
sitkack 3y ago
> Everything is chemicals. This is a thought terminating cliche and pedantically destroys the conversation.
- lazide 3y ago
  What is the difference between lye (dangerous), sand (not dangerous unless it suffocates things or gets crushed and inhaled), water (can cause flooding or drowning, otherwise harmless), and sodium bicarbonate (quite basic, generally harmless), and hydrazine (mutagenic, highly toxic, highly flammable)? All of these have hazards in specific circumstances, and huge benefits in others. All are chemicals. All are well known and characterized. Many other compounds are too new for that level of knowledge and characterization. They are chemicals too. If we allow someone to make new chemicals (it’s hard to stop, frankly!), either we say ‘no, not until they are fully understood and characterized’, or ‘yes, unless we learn it’s too hazardous’. Saying no first is a bit of a catch-22 since how are you going learn anything and characterize the dangers if you don’t make and use it a bunch? If you say ‘yes, unless we learn it’s too dangerous’ then we learn a huge amount quite quickly - but inevitably have something too dangerous causing problems. It’s a fundamentally conservative vs liberal development strategy debate.
  - naremu 3y ago
    >What is the difference between lye (dangerous), sand (not dangerous unless it suffocates things or gets crushed and inhaled), water (can cause flooding or drowning, otherwise harmless), and sodium bicarbonate (quite basic, generally harmless), and hydrazine (mutagenic, highly toxic, highly flammable)? The MSDSes will elaborate on this and you probably know that. This thread chain has gotten impressively disingenuous very fast. We aren't arguing the colloquial definition of chemicals which if we're not being pedantic, we know brings up ideas of substances damaging to other substances or life itself. Which is fairly obviously the line that you're giving a good traditional "but where would we POSSIBLY STOP?!" gambit that comes out of paid lobbyist's mouths more often than hello or goodbye. The line to be crossed is obviously at least a few blocks up the way from "what is the difference between water and hydrazine though". And also, anything cumulative becomes "too hazardous" within years. But by then profits are made, and war chests are filled to keep the spice flowing. The world got by for thousands of years sustainably without a lot of these "huge benefits" and I'm willing to take a hit or two within my lifetime to ensure there's still lifetimes at all down the road.
    - lazide 3y ago
      No, you’re just being disingenuous. How do you create a MSDS for a chemical that hasn’t been made yet? How do you decide it’s safe to create a large enough quantity of a chemical to figure out what even should be in that MSDS? How can you know if something is mutagenic without exposing it to DNA? Or cancer causing without exposing it to a living organism? Or causes reproductive harm without exposing it to organisms and seeing how it impacts reproduction? Those all are potential harms. Traditionally, some enterprising alchemist/chemist would just try it - and if they lived, would write a paper on it. Further research and experience would then inform if a better alternative should be used. The Haber-Bosch process that allowed the creation of artificial fertilizers has allowed for the massive expansion of the human race. Roughly 3/4 of the humans on this planet right now would starve to death without it. Assuming they didn’t get nuked first. That was in 1909. It also allowed for the creation of modern high explosives (and propellants) at scale, and the horrors of WW1 and WW2. And the mining revolution, which has provided the raw materials necessary to build our modern economies at vastly cheaper prices than were ever possible before for humanity. Chemistry is a fundamental building block of modern society, and removing it would literally cause its sudden and violent collapse. Deciding if ‘freezing’ it in place, or letting it continue to develop new and interesting applications is the discussion - because no, we weren’t sustainable before (unless you count constant and ongoing genocides as ‘sustainable’), and we’ve long passed the point where trying to return to that would be anything but apocalyptic. Literally. And keeping in mind that just because we agree to stop research in one area doesn’t mean anyone else (competitors) will do so. Regardless of if that is in the realm of drugs, or weapons, or soaps, or foods, or whatever.
- thaumasiotes 3y ago
  No, it's pretty much the only appropriate response to edgyquant's demand that we do the impossible.
- krisoft 3y ago
  > This is a thought terminating cliche and pedantically destroys the conversation. It is not. Quite contrary. The thought it provokes is "what chemicals do you want to ban?" Do you want to ban water? Should we throw anyone in a prison who transports it? It is a chemical after all. One which is quite dangerous in many circumstances. But surely that is not what edgyquant meant. Should we prohibit people selling soap? It is a chemical! But that is silly. We would probably lose more by banning that than by not banning it. Should we ban plastics? Maybe? Which types? All types? All uses? Should we sell hydrazine in grocery stores? Oh, we better not. Can we use hydrazine in special applications like fuelling satellites? If so what do we require from people who handle/store/dispose of it? So many thoughts provoked by that simple observation.
  - sitkack 3y ago
    > Do you want to ban water? Should we throw anyone in a prison who transports it? It is a chemical after all. Exactly. You prove my point.
  - epcoa 3y ago
    > Should we prohibit people selling soap? I mean, there's a good example there with phosphate compounds in detergents.
legulere 3y ago
Chemicals are shorthand for synthetic chemicals. We co-evolved with natural chemicals which means that they're usually not too harmful to us and get easily biodegraded. In this case it's about PFAS, a subgroup of organofluorine compounds. There's only 5 known organofluorine compounds produced by organisms.
- bawolff 3y ago
  > We co-evolved with natural chemicals which means that they're usually not too harmful to us There are plenty of counter examples to this (and also pretty unclear what is meant by "natural") Lead is natural. Mercury is natural.
  - legulere 3y ago
    Notice the word usually I used. It's about probabilities, and with vastly different probabilities come different burdens of proof. If you had the choice to put something random from the forest in your mouth or something from a chemistry lab?
  - edgyquant 3y ago
    Neither lead nor mercury are chemicals that naturally exist in large quantities in a typical human habitat.
    - defrost 3y ago
      Aside from the evidence of > 2,000 years of lead and mercury poisoning, of course. Humans have been naturally digging these things up and refining them since at least the Roman Empire [1] in the west and the earliest Chinese Dynasties in the East [2]. [1] https://sites.dartmouth.edu/toxmetal/more-metals/lead-versatile-metal-long-legacy/ https://sites.dartmouth.edu/toxmetal/more-metals/lead-versat... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mausoleum_of_the_First_Qin_Emperor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mausoleum_of_the_First_Qin_Emp...
  - marshray 3y ago
    Jesus this is a stupid argument. "Don’t dump chemicals in water or on land" is a perfectly logical and defensible statement.

edgyquant 3y ago

No you’re being pedantic and proving my point. Everyone, every single person, knows when you’re doing something that could potentially devastate an environment and if you have to ask if it could don’t be dumping. Why should anyone be allowed to dump anything at all into the local environment?

sitkack 3y ago

> Everything is chemicals. This is a thought terminating cliche and pedantically destroys the conversation.

lazide 3y ago
What is the difference between lye (dangerous), sand (not dangerous unless it suffocates things or gets crushed and inhaled), water (can cause flooding or drowning, otherwise harmless), and sodium bicarbonate (quite basic, generally harmless), and hydrazine (mutagenic, highly toxic, highly flammable)? All of these have hazards in specific circumstances, and huge benefits in others. All are chemicals. All are well known and characterized. Many other compounds are too new for that level of knowledge and characterization. They are chemicals too. If we allow someone to make new chemicals (it’s hard to stop, frankly!), either we say ‘no, not until they are fully understood and characterized’, or ‘yes, unless we learn it’s too hazardous’. Saying no first is a bit of a catch-22 since how are you going learn anything and characterize the dangers if you don’t make and use it a bunch? If you say ‘yes, unless we learn it’s too dangerous’ then we learn a huge amount quite quickly - but inevitably have something too dangerous causing problems. It’s a fundamentally conservative vs liberal development strategy debate.
- naremu 3y ago
  >What is the difference between lye (dangerous), sand (not dangerous unless it suffocates things or gets crushed and inhaled), water (can cause flooding or drowning, otherwise harmless), and sodium bicarbonate (quite basic, generally harmless), and hydrazine (mutagenic, highly toxic, highly flammable)? The MSDSes will elaborate on this and you probably know that. This thread chain has gotten impressively disingenuous very fast. We aren't arguing the colloquial definition of chemicals which if we're not being pedantic, we know brings up ideas of substances damaging to other substances or life itself. Which is fairly obviously the line that you're giving a good traditional "but where would we POSSIBLY STOP?!" gambit that comes out of paid lobbyist's mouths more often than hello or goodbye. The line to be crossed is obviously at least a few blocks up the way from "what is the difference between water and hydrazine though". And also, anything cumulative becomes "too hazardous" within years. But by then profits are made, and war chests are filled to keep the spice flowing. The world got by for thousands of years sustainably without a lot of these "huge benefits" and I'm willing to take a hit or two within my lifetime to ensure there's still lifetimes at all down the road.
  - lazide 3y ago
    No, you’re just being disingenuous. How do you create a MSDS for a chemical that hasn’t been made yet? How do you decide it’s safe to create a large enough quantity of a chemical to figure out what even should be in that MSDS? How can you know if something is mutagenic without exposing it to DNA? Or cancer causing without exposing it to a living organism? Or causes reproductive harm without exposing it to organisms and seeing how it impacts reproduction? Those all are potential harms. Traditionally, some enterprising alchemist/chemist would just try it - and if they lived, would write a paper on it. Further research and experience would then inform if a better alternative should be used. The Haber-Bosch process that allowed the creation of artificial fertilizers has allowed for the massive expansion of the human race. Roughly 3/4 of the humans on this planet right now would starve to death without it. Assuming they didn’t get nuked first. That was in 1909. It also allowed for the creation of modern high explosives (and propellants) at scale, and the horrors of WW1 and WW2. And the mining revolution, which has provided the raw materials necessary to build our modern economies at vastly cheaper prices than were ever possible before for humanity. Chemistry is a fundamental building block of modern society, and removing it would literally cause its sudden and violent collapse. Deciding if ‘freezing’ it in place, or letting it continue to develop new and interesting applications is the discussion - because no, we weren’t sustainable before (unless you count constant and ongoing genocides as ‘sustainable’), and we’ve long passed the point where trying to return to that would be anything but apocalyptic. Literally. And keeping in mind that just because we agree to stop research in one area doesn’t mean anyone else (competitors) will do so. Regardless of if that is in the realm of drugs, or weapons, or soaps, or foods, or whatever.
thaumasiotes 3y ago
No, it's pretty much the only appropriate response to edgyquant's demand that we do the impossible.
krisoft 3y ago
> This is a thought terminating cliche and pedantically destroys the conversation. It is not. Quite contrary. The thought it provokes is "what chemicals do you want to ban?" Do you want to ban water? Should we throw anyone in a prison who transports it? It is a chemical after all. One which is quite dangerous in many circumstances. But surely that is not what edgyquant meant. Should we prohibit people selling soap? It is a chemical! But that is silly. We would probably lose more by banning that than by not banning it. Should we ban plastics? Maybe? Which types? All types? All uses? Should we sell hydrazine in grocery stores? Oh, we better not. Can we use hydrazine in special applications like fuelling satellites? If so what do we require from people who handle/store/dispose of it? So many thoughts provoked by that simple observation.
- sitkack 3y ago
  > Do you want to ban water? Should we throw anyone in a prison who transports it? It is a chemical after all. Exactly. You prove my point.
- epcoa 3y ago
  > Should we prohibit people selling soap? I mean, there's a good example there with phosphate compounds in detergents.

legulere 3y ago

Chemicals are shorthand for synthetic chemicals. We co-evolved with natural chemicals which means that they're usually not too harmful to us and get easily biodegraded. In this case it's about PFAS, a subgroup of organofluorine compounds. There's only 5 known organofluorine compounds produced by organisms.

bawolff 3y ago
> We co-evolved with natural chemicals which means that they're usually not too harmful to us There are plenty of counter examples to this (and also pretty unclear what is meant by "natural") Lead is natural. Mercury is natural.
- legulere 3y ago
  Notice the word usually I used. It's about probabilities, and with vastly different probabilities come different burdens of proof. If you had the choice to put something random from the forest in your mouth or something from a chemistry lab?
- edgyquant 3y ago
  Neither lead nor mercury are chemicals that naturally exist in large quantities in a typical human habitat.
  - defrost 3y ago
    Aside from the evidence of > 2,000 years of lead and mercury poisoning, of course. Humans have been naturally digging these things up and refining them since at least the Roman Empire [1] in the west and the earliest Chinese Dynasties in the East [2]. [1] https://sites.dartmouth.edu/toxmetal/more-metals/lead-versatile-metal-long-legacy/ https://sites.dartmouth.edu/toxmetal/more-metals/lead-versat... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mausoleum_of_the_First_Qin_Emperor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mausoleum_of_the_First_Qin_Emp...
- marshray 3y ago
  Jesus this is a stupid argument. "Don’t dump chemicals in water or on land" is a perfectly logical and defensible statement.