5 ms·

From the article: "We are a chemophobic culture. Chemical has become a synonym for something artificial, adulterated, hazardous, or toxic. Chemicals are bad—for

From the article: "We are a chemophobic culture. Chemical has become a synonym for something artificial, adulterated, hazardous, or toxic. Chemicals are bad—for you, for your children, for the environment. But whatever chemophobics would like to think, there is no avoiding chemicals, no way to create chemical-free zones. Absolutely everything is made of atoms and molecules; it’s all chemistry." This was striking to me, as I had seen an example just recently elsewhere in cyberspace of reasoning that "chemicals" are bad ingredients to have in a food, even though all foods are materials made up of, um, chemicals. I have seen similar comments earlier here on Hacker News. Matter is made up of atoms, and those atoms form various chemical elements or compounds or mixtures. We breath chemicals, we eat chemicals, we touch chemicals every day. Just because some foodstuffs have listed ingredients, with names that are sometimes difficult to read out loud (I have no trouble with the names, but then again I grew up with a parent who majored in chemistry) doesn't mean that those foods are dangerous. Whatever kind of food you think is perfectly safe surely contains some compounds with chemical names that are hard to spell or pronounce, but are nevertheless perfectly "natural," and usually not listed on an ingredients label. Don't worry about it.

jacques_chester 14y ago
My favourite example was a "natural" shampoo bottle I saw: "100% Chemical Free!" My joke about selling bottles of hard vacuum didn't seem to hurt their sales.
- drakeandrews 14y ago
  There was a company in the UK that did that, and got pounced on by Trading Standards. They now say something equally stupid, but less offensive to the powers that be.
bane 14y ago
Please don't even get me started on "natural" or "processed foods".
- sliverstorm 14y ago
  Can I interest you in some all-natural arsenic I extracted from apple seeds?
  - AngryParsley 14y ago
    Apple seeds contain cyanide, not arsenic: http://www.snopes.com/food/warnings/apples.asp http://www.snopes.com/food/warnings/apples.asp I agree with your point though. Lots of natural things are deadly. In fact, the most toxic compound known is natural: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botulinum_toxin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botulinum_toxin
a_p 14y ago
The public's fear of "chemicals" was so great that Dow Chemical effectively dropped the "Chemical", so they now effectively brand themselves as just "Dow". I learned about this name change from what has to be my favorite interview with a CEO ever, in which the Dow Chemical CEO actually said "Yeah, it’s a branding topic. So we’ve got to go out there and really re-educate humanity, because at the end of the day, 95 percent of all products out there have chemistry in them." One of my favorite "scientific" journals, the JAYFK (title is NSFW, the content is fine), had a lot of fun with this quote. http://www.thejayfk.com/?p=2212 http://www.thejayfk.com/?p=2212
- skrebbel 14y ago
  I don't think the Dow CEO quote is all wrong. He runs a bunch of chemical plants. When he says "Have chemistry in them", I think it's safe to assume that he means "chemical processes induced by humans". Which is, as a matter of fact, how most people interpret the term "chemistry", even if it's wrong in the strict sense. So by that definition, that salad I harvested from my allotment garden last summer doesn't have "chemistry in it". It grew all by its own, and then I washed it and ate it raw.
short_circut 14y ago
Everything this article says is exactly what I think when ever I hear the word "chemicals" or "toxins". Its often people who have no freaking clue what they are talking about spewing nonsense. The benefits they see if they see any by falling into the natural woo fallacy is entirely a result of them no longer eating pounds of meat and wheat products and instead eating more fruits and veggies. It has nothing to do with processed or toxins or chemicals or what ever the bad guy buzzword of the day is.
firefoxman1 14y ago
Never heard the term "chemophobic" before, but now that I think about it I have some chemophobic friends. Their argument is always something like this: "Humans evolved consuming only organic material from their very beginnings up until about 100 years ago. Humans just haven't evolved to tolerate synthesised chemicals in a mere 100 years." (that's obviously paraphrased but you get the point) But when it's said like that, I tend to agree with them. When they're called "chemophobic" in articles like this, I tend not to agree with them. I've no clue which to agree with.
- e2e8 14y ago
  You have to keep in mind that humans evolved to live as hunter gathers in the savanna of Africa. Most of the things that come after that we were not evolved for. For example humans were not evolved to sleep in beds in air conditioned houses, etc. So evolution is not necessarily the most important factor. Life is a very complicated chemical process.
- sliverstorm 14y ago
  Considering you can synthesize organic material, life can produce inorganic compounds, and plenty of organic material is toxic as shit, I'm not sure I agree with that line of thinking. I can't speak for everyone, but I am of the opinion that glucose synthesized in a lab requires no special evolution on the part of humans to process.
  - megablast 14y ago
    What you are saying is disingenuous. Clearly the pills made for pharmaceutical are incredibly dangerous, even when taken as per the instructions. That is why they are prescribed. Avoiding taking prescription drugs unless you really have to (ie are going to die), as I do, is not a bad way to live. Just because natural things will kill you, does not mean we should not avoid man made things. So I do not take pills for headaches, for sleeping, etc... You thinking is because you can die by a bear, you should not look before crossing the road.
    - 14y ago
aheilbut 14y ago
Skepticism towards synthetic chemicals is quite justified given a century of irresponsible dumping of genuinely toxic chemicals which still goes on in many parts of the world. Be rational about risks and benefits of chemistry and pharmaceuticals, but do worry about it.

jacques_chester 14y ago

My favourite example was a "natural" shampoo bottle I saw: "100% Chemical Free!" My joke about selling bottles of hard vacuum didn't seem to hurt their sales.

drakeandrews 14y ago
There was a company in the UK that did that, and got pounced on by Trading Standards. They now say something equally stupid, but less offensive to the powers that be.

bane 14y ago

Please don't even get me started on "natural" or "processed foods".

sliverstorm 14y ago
Can I interest you in some all-natural arsenic I extracted from apple seeds?
- AngryParsley 14y ago
  Apple seeds contain cyanide, not arsenic: http://www.snopes.com/food/warnings/apples.asp http://www.snopes.com/food/warnings/apples.asp I agree with your point though. Lots of natural things are deadly. In fact, the most toxic compound known is natural: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botulinum_toxin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botulinum_toxin

a_p 14y ago

The public's fear of "chemicals" was so great that Dow Chemical effectively dropped the "Chemical", so they now effectively brand themselves as just "Dow". I learned about this name change from what has to be my favorite interview with a CEO ever, in which the Dow Chemical CEO actually said "Yeah, it’s a branding topic. So we’ve got to go out there and really re-educate humanity, because at the end of the day, 95 percent of all products out there have chemistry in them." One of my favorite "scientific" journals, the JAYFK (title is NSFW, the content is fine), had a lot of fun with this quote. http://www.thejayfk.com/?p=2212 http://www.thejayfk.com/?p=2212

skrebbel 14y ago
I don't think the Dow CEO quote is all wrong. He runs a bunch of chemical plants. When he says "Have chemistry in them", I think it's safe to assume that he means "chemical processes induced by humans". Which is, as a matter of fact, how most people interpret the term "chemistry", even if it's wrong in the strict sense. So by that definition, that salad I harvested from my allotment garden last summer doesn't have "chemistry in it". It grew all by its own, and then I washed it and ate it raw.

short_circut 14y ago

Everything this article says is exactly what I think when ever I hear the word "chemicals" or "toxins". Its often people who have no freaking clue what they are talking about spewing nonsense. The benefits they see if they see any by falling into the natural woo fallacy is entirely a result of them no longer eating pounds of meat and wheat products and instead eating more fruits and veggies. It has nothing to do with processed or toxins or chemicals or what ever the bad guy buzzword of the day is.

firefoxman1 14y ago

Never heard the term "chemophobic" before, but now that I think about it I have some chemophobic friends. Their argument is always something like this: "Humans evolved consuming only organic material from their very beginnings up until about 100 years ago. Humans just haven't evolved to tolerate synthesised chemicals in a mere 100 years." (that's obviously paraphrased but you get the point) But when it's said like that, I tend to agree with them. When they're called "chemophobic" in articles like this, I tend not to agree with them. I've no clue which to agree with.

e2e8 14y ago
You have to keep in mind that humans evolved to live as hunter gathers in the savanna of Africa. Most of the things that come after that we were not evolved for. For example humans were not evolved to sleep in beds in air conditioned houses, etc. So evolution is not necessarily the most important factor. Life is a very complicated chemical process.
sliverstorm 14y ago
Considering you can synthesize organic material, life can produce inorganic compounds, and plenty of organic material is toxic as shit, I'm not sure I agree with that line of thinking. I can't speak for everyone, but I am of the opinion that glucose synthesized in a lab requires no special evolution on the part of humans to process.
- megablast 14y ago
  What you are saying is disingenuous. Clearly the pills made for pharmaceutical are incredibly dangerous, even when taken as per the instructions. That is why they are prescribed. Avoiding taking prescription drugs unless you really have to (ie are going to die), as I do, is not a bad way to live. Just because natural things will kill you, does not mean we should not avoid man made things. So I do not take pills for headaches, for sleeping, etc... You thinking is because you can die by a bear, you should not look before crossing the road.
  - 14y ago

aheilbut 14y ago

Skepticism towards synthetic chemicals is quite justified given a century of irresponsible dumping of genuinely toxic chemicals which still goes on in many parts of the world. Be rational about risks and benefits of chemistry and pharmaceuticals, but do worry about it.