Isn't everything a chemical?

[Mangetout]

@CurtC

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.

Well, that all seems perfectly reasonable to me - and it’s what should happen here instead of the “duh! DHMO” bollocks.

[njtt]

@CurtC

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.

Well, they may, yes. However, I suspect that there really are quite a few people out there, including many of those who fuss about “chemicals” in their food, etc., who really are not aware that everything is made of chemicals, or else have forgotten the fact, or sealed it off in a corner of their mind separate from the one where their worries about chemicals reside.

[SiXSwordS]

Not to go too far off topic, but I have the same problem with anything that is a ‘Fraction’ off, or a ‘Fraction’ of a mile (km) away. 13/3rds is a fraction!

Only a ‘Fraction’ of your food contains chemicals!

True, but it’s not like it’s 8/8ths, it’s only about 4/4ths.

[Mangetout]

When laypeople say ‘chemical’, they might well mean 'product of industrial chemical process that I think differs from naturally-occuring things somehow"
(they might be wrong about this difference or distinction, but that’s a different, non-semantic issue)

When laypeople say ‘organic’ they probably mean ‘of or related to organisms or natural processes’

When laypeople say ‘fraction’, they probably mean ‘small fraction’

These are the everyday, valid, non-technical meanings of these words. It’s not difficult. You know what they mean, or you wouldn’t feel the need to ‘correct’ them.

[SiXSwordS]

@Mangetout

When laypeople say ‘fraction’, they probably mean ‘small fraction’

So only Priests understand the whole mess?

[Greg_Charles]

The OP reminds me of the SNL Weekend Update (from 30 years ago!), where Al Franken, playing a PR man for the chemical industry explains why life without chemicals would be boring and impossible.

[QUOTE=Jane Curtain]
Hey, Jack – how would you like a glass of H2SO4? [ she hands him a glass of clear liquid ]
[/QUOTE]

I can’t find the video, but here’s the transcript.

[Mangetout]

@SiXSwordS

So only Priests understand the whole mess?

Another one for your list then:

When laypeople say ‘laypeople’, and the context is not obviously religious, they might just mean a person without professional or specialized knowledge in a particular subject

[DingoelGringo]

Looks like I walked in late. My take on it is that there are things that are natural and things that aren’t found in nature. What should we eat, butter that comes from a cow and we have evolved eating butter or a plastic substance called margarine. It was originally developed to fatten turkeys, but when 40% of the turkeys died from it they decided to feed it to humans instead. Yes you can break down butter into its constituent parts, but it is natural. I decided a long time ago that real food doesn’t have labels. Pull a carrot and see “No Label” Dig up a potato and no label. Slice a steak off a dead cow and still no label. But when one takes out their chemistry set and tries to play God by mixing things together and pretend it is edible, they’ve crossed the line.

[Mangetout]

@DingoelGringo

…we have evolved eating butter…

No we haven’t. If anything has evolved to consume butter fat, it’s cows (in the form of calves).

[Greg_Charles]

@DingoelGringo

Looks like I walked in late. My take on it is that there are things that are natural and things that aren’t found in nature. What should we eat, butter that comes from a cow and we have evolved eating butter or a plastic substance called margarine. It was originally developed to fatten turkeys, but when 40% of the turkeys died from it they decided to feed it to humans instead. Yes you can break down butter into its constituent parts, but it is natural. I decided a long time ago that real food doesn’t have labels. Pull a carrot and see “No Label” Dig up a potato and no label. Slice a steak off a dead cow and still no label. But when one takes out their chemistry set and tries to play God by mixing things together and pretend it is edible, they’ve crossed the line.

Margarine isn’t good for you, but “made for turkeys but killed them” is just a ridiculous claim. Here’s Snopes’s take on it.

[johnpost]

everything is natural.

[Mangetout]

@DingoelGringo

Looks like I walked in late. My take on it is that there are things that are natural and things that aren’t found in nature. What should we eat, butter that comes from a cow and we have evolved eating butter or a plastic substance called margarine. It was originally developed to fatten turkeys, but when 40% of the turkeys died from it they decided to feed it to humans instead. Yes you can break down butter into its constituent parts, but it is natural. I decided a long time ago that real food doesn’t have labels. Pull a carrot and see “No Label” Dig up a potato and no label. Slice a steak off a dead cow and still no label. But when one takes out their chemistry set and tries to play God by mixing things together and pretend it is edible, they’ve crossed the line.

Also, a lot of the above is bollocks.

Was Margarine Originally Manufactured to Fatten Turkeys?

[california_jobcase]

It is to be remembered that petroleum and its fractions are pretty much the definition of organic.

[bizzwire]

“All things are poison, and nothing is without poison: the dose alone makes a thing not poison"

Paracelsus

[LawMonkey]

@The_Second_Stone

Butter is superior to margarine for all purposes because it tastes wonderful and is no worse for you than margarine. That is the most important thing you can learn in this thread.

Well, except for “spreading on toast right out of the fridge.” Butter is complete shite for that. In this ever changing world in which we live in, butter requires a certain amount of forethought. (Or else you just give in and cry.)

I’ll leave it to a proper toxicologist to debunk ol’ Paracelsus with some things that are incredibly toxic regardless of dose, etc.

[bizzwire]

@LawMonkey

Well, except for “spreading on toast right out of the fridge.” Butter is complete shite for that. In this ever changing world in which we live in, butter requires a certain amount of forethought. (Or else you just give in and cry.)

I’ll leave it to a proper toxicologist to debunk ol’ Paracelsus with some things that are incredibly toxic regardless of dose, etc.

Funny you should say this; in searching for a reputable source of Paracelsus’s dictum, I ran across an article in Nature about several classes of compounds which deviate from the classic dose/response curve.

Oh…about the butter; you should leave it in a ramekin at room temperature ; spreads just fine.

[bizzwire]

@LawMonkey

Well, except for “spreading on toast right out of the fridge.” Butter is complete shite for that. In this ever changing world in which we live in, butter requires a certain amount of forethought. (Or else you just give in and cry.)

I’ll leave it to a proper toxicologist to debunk ol’ Paracelsus with some things that are incredibly toxic regardless of dose, etc.

Funny you should say this; in searching for a reputable source of Paracelsus’s dictum, I ran across an article in Nature about several classes of compounds which deviate from the classic dose/response curve

[california_jobcase]

Who refrigerates toast?

[Isilder]

@bizzwire

Funny you should say this; in searching for a reputable source of Paracelsus’s dictum, I ran across an article in Nature about several classes of compounds which deviate from the classic dose/response curve

all examples trivial … Well the tumor size one is rather XKCDian… Well yeah of course it limited the tumor size… it was killing the host. Maybe chart liver and kidney health while charting tumour size…
But anyway, I suppose you could add ethanol
ethanol vs pleasure … ^…
Up then down.

its hard to find something that is worse in the small dose, actually.

[CurtC]

@LawMonkey

Well, except for “spreading on toast right out of the fridge.” Butter is complete shite for that.

Wait - you keep your butter in the fridge? Why?