Cow chemistry and toxic minds

It is far easier to put toxic thoughts in the general public mind than it is to put chemical at toxic level that would spread as far and persist as long.

Why?

Whenever there's a physically toxic effect due to a chemical compound in the population, an investigation is immediate. Regulations are verified, enforcement is increased, and the public safety is restored.

Whenever there's a mentally toxic effect due to propaganda against (a chemical for example), the general public tends to disregard previously attained scientifically knowledge, overlook numerous supporting facts as to the actual benign nature of the issue, and the fear and bias spreads and persist.

When we rely on "experts advice" how can we tell who is a genuine interest-free trust-worthy expert? It is hard. I faced such situations myself in the past, and am sure they will come again in the future.

But here's the decisive concept: numbers and relevance.
I already posted in the past on how it is easy to present a chemical as toxic, even though it may be a vitamin without which we surely will die. For the most part, amounts are a crucial piece of information we need to know in order to assess whether something is dangerous or not.
Jow Schwarcz said it clearly and elegantly just yesterday: http://blogs.nature.com/soapboxscience/2013/05/29/the-presence-of-a-chemical-is-not-the-same-as-presence-of-risk/

I met Dr. Schwarcz once, at the University of Toronto back in 2011, when he gave a talk at the Chemistry Department entitled: "Are cows more trustworthy than chemists?"

(the reference to cow can be found here:

But putting cows aside, his talk was all about how people get wrong ideas about chemicals, their nature, their uses and how to interpret what they see/hear from others. An example was a chemical which is both in a cleaning product as well as in a frozen dinner.

Thinking back at Dr. Schwarcz talk, I can say he is part of why I am engaged today in presenting science to the general public, working hard to fight chemophobia, and just enjoying sharing my love of science with anyone who cares to listen. Thank you Dr. Schwarcz.

I have a friend. Her name is Oxygen.

I must start with an apology. I am not an apologetic guy, but I know when an apology is warranted (or so I would like to believe).
My last post was over a month ago, when I just came back from vacation. It took me this long to catch up on myself and find the right state of mind to write yet another post.
I hope you understand...

Yesterday I had a really amazing discussion with a good friend of mine, Dorea Reeser.
An altogether amazing person. She and a few friends had won the Scientific American Iron Egghead contest, making a video explaining adrenal glands in a funny and approachable fashion:

 

She then went on to start her own Facebook page - https://www.facebook.com/ChemicalsAreYourFriends which addresses the same issue I had raised on February 12 -

A chemical is just a chemical after all

Which is all about how people think that "Chemicals" is "Bad", making a gross generalization of our reality (which I think some chemicals will be personally offended!)

The, Dorea got invited by Scientif American to write a bolg post for Scientific America, which was later posted on Salon.com .

Then she went on and started her own website http://chemicalsareyourfriends.com/

As you can see, a very active women.

So, Dorea, following your train of thoughts, I made friends with Oxygen. She is sometimes explosive, but I will suffocate without her. She makes fire burn wild, destroying life, but without her life could not have been there to start with. Such a dipolar personality, don't you think?

I'll make it short, so you can have time to read Dorea's words. Well worth reading...

Until next time...

Yours

Alon

A chemical is just a chemical after all

I just read a most inspiring article by Michelle M. Francl about chemophobia.
Yes, you read it right - CHEMOPHOBIA - the irrational fear of chemicals. It is this fear that makes people do anything from (a someone innocuous) switch from hard chemical cleaners to more environmentally friendly cleaning agents (which is not necessary a bad thing) to the more dangerous action of preventing life saving medication to your children.

But why do we fear chemicals?
Perhaps it is due to how media portrays them? (check out time 1:37 in Toxic Trespass)

Lets get something straight.

Chemicals can be bad for you! (and so do people)
Chemicals can also be good for you! (and so do people)

So how do we know which is good and which is bad? - Experience!
And the people who have experience with chemicals are called Chemists!

Here's an example.
A certain chemical has the following attributes:
When pure it comes as white to off-white powder
May be harmful if inhaled.
May cause respiratory tract irritation.
May be harmful if absorbed through skin.
May cause skin irritation.
May cause eye irritation.
May be harmful if swallowed.
The LD-50 (the lethal dose that would kill half of the rats tested) is only about 2 teaspoons per kg
Its chemical name is ascorbic acid

and here's the important point - you cannot function without it. This is Vitamin C.

The moral of the story is simple. Yes, chemicals can be bad for you. But it depends. How much of it is dangerous? in what form is it dangerous?

Chemicals should be treated as with anything else in life - in moderation and with care.
Don't accept things as dangerous just because they are "chemicals" (all matter around you is a chemical - even water), but also don't accept things as good for you just because they are "natural" or "organic" (they are still chemicals, like the extract of the bark of the Willow tree which is highly toxic, unlike its synthetically modified version of salicylate, better known as Aspirin, which has the same beneficial affects as the bark of the Willow tree, but much less toxic).