The term ‘chemical’ is therefore useless because it means Marklar. Also, everyone is a chemist, because everything that anyone works with, is a chemical.
Therefore HCN is perfectly safe… NOT… Hydrogen Cyanide.
β-D-galactopyranosyl-(1→4)-D-(2R,3S,4R,5R)-2,3,4,5,6-Pentahydroxyhexanal Sounds scary ? lactose - the sugar in milk.
Yep “scientist” was just saying stuff to sound smart.
The main principle in “natural” is that “everything is toxic in large amounts”.
Sure there are toxins in tomatoes and potatoes, but a range of difference ones each in a small amount…
On the other hand, if you have food allergies, those natural low calorie sweeteners (sucrose /corn sugar replacement, as found in cordials these days) may well be an irritant to you while aspartame causes no problem…
That might be the practice in some places, but in Norway at least it’s always fully hydrogenated ever since the problems with trans fats were discovered. If you want it just hard enough to be solid at room temperature you mix it with fats with a lower melting point.
I recently found out that the local water utility permits large quantities of DHMO to get past their filters. I called them, and they told me that it was intentional and that they had no plans to start filtering out DHMO. Should I call my congressman over this?
The sort of people who maintain they abstain from chemicals are the sort of people who think this is legitimate. We have to start remedial with those sorts of people.
The “natural = good for you, or at least, safe” myth is even more pernicious - it has real-world consequences, as stuff like traditional herbal medicines are, in Canada, actually considerably less regulated than manufactured “drugs” (they are under the Natural Health Products regime).
Yup, it’s the same pretty much everywhere. Trans fats are really easy to avoid and provide no particular benefit, so everyone avoids them now.
I agree that ignorance is to be fought. But "everything is a chemical’ is also a form of ignorance (of language in context).
I’m not saying we should let people continue thinking natural=good, artificial=bad; I’m saying that “everything is in one big category” simply doesn’t help to advance any argument.
You don’t have to say it, then.
I didn’t say it.
Well, then I’m not sure what bee is in your bonnet. Everything is a chemical is a true statement. It’s rather obvious, but that doesn’t negate its fundamental veracity. You are smart enough to see that further delineation is useful. Not everyone is. I know you think they are, but there genuinely are people in this world who think that all chemicals exist in glass jars in labs and make liquids turn strange colors, smoke and sometimes glow.
“Everything is a chemical” is a completely true statement. There is no sense in which it isn’t true, aside from nitpicks like light and gravity. There are some people who think that there is another meaning of “chemical”, and that this other meaning provides an important distinction, but those people are wrong, and there’s no reason we shouldn’t point out that they’re wrong.
That’s ridiculous. Words can have more than one meaning depending on context and this is no exception. If you think the meaning of the word chemical is that rigid, what use is the word?
All weapons are chemical weapons, right? A board with a nail in it is a chemical weapon.
I’ve found from experience that you have to carefully point out what you mean. If I start by pointing out that everything is a chemical, the reaction I’ve gotten is that they assume I’m making some kind of pedantic point, while all the time knowing what they really meant.
And what they really meant was “synthetic chemicals” versus “natural chemicals,” and I although I really did know what they meant, I am challenging their underlying assumption that natural is good while synthetic is bad.
In other words, they miss/ignore your subtext when you miss/ignore theirs.
They make a statement which you, and everyone else, understand completely.
You then counter their statement with a point that leads them to completely misunderstand what you are trying to say. Instead of challenging their natural/synthetic assumption directly, you make what appears to be a pedantic point regarding their choice of word. You’re banking on the “it’s technically correct” aspect of your point to win the day, when you haven’t addressed the point they were actually making, the point you knew they were making.
They are called chemical weapons because the chemicals are what inflict injury. A board with a nail in it may be composed of chemicals, but what inflicts injury is damage to bodily organs from being impaled. That’s not giving a “different meaning” to the word chemical. It means exactly the same thing in both instances.
Thank you for this concise and eloquent summary, that’s exactly the point I have been trying, and failing to make.
Fair enough, perhaps that was not the best example, but the term ‘chemical’ has various contextual meanings nonetheless.
Right. Or at least they would be thinking all that if I just said “everything’s a chemical” and stopped. Note that I was responding to Chronos’s statement where it sounded like he was stopping there.
If you’re going to respond to “those people” by starting off with “everything’s a chemical,” be aware that they may hear that and think you’re making a pedantic point and stop listening right there. You have to be careful to let them know that you’re building to something and that’s not the end of the point. Something like:
“Well, everything is a chemical, so I think what you’re saying is that you want to avoid synthetic chemicals as opposed to natural chemicals. The fact is that many of the most toxic chemicals known are completely natural, and that whether it’s synthetic is not a good measure for whether it’s bad for you. Every chemical is toxic at a high enough dose, even all the natural ones. You need to test to know how much of anything is toxic, and with synthetic chemicals in our food, it’s almost always the case that those tests have been done. I don’t see any reason to try to avoid all synthetic chemicals.”
My point was that the first few words could be misinterpreted if it wasn’t clear that you’re not just being pedantic and you’re building to something.