3 ms·
Honest question: given the incredible variety of chemical compounds in nature, if one wants to describe specifically those that are directly harmful to health,
by lukifer 12y ago
Honest question: given the incredible variety of chemical compounds in nature, if one wants to describe specifically those that are directly harmful to health, or that trigger an immune response in some persons, what is the optimal umbrella term? ("Toxin" is every bit as overloaded and fuzzy as "chemical" in common parlance.)
- o_____________o 12y agoThat's the problem, isn't it? What is directly harmful to health? Beyond those agents we've universally codified as people poison, "harmful" is a constantly shifting designation that will always be misappropriated by those with a cross to bear over their pet subject. Health is such a complex, nuanced subject that its hard to imagine anything different than the messy passions we're describing.
- lukifer 12y agoThat doesn't address the question. To most people, peanuts aren't harmful, but a small number of people can die due to exposure. A laundry detergent with no effect on most people may cause some to break out in hives. What do you call these substances, whether natural or man-made?
- o_____________o 12y agoI understood. My answer is that outside of outright toxicants, the language will always be reduced to a "fuzzy" value, because the proposition of "harmful" is itself fuzzy, and is doubly so inside a contentious and complex environment.