Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Science News

The Rise of Chemophobia In the News 463

eldavojohn writes "American news outlets like The New York Times seem to thrive on chemophobia — consumer fear of the ambiguous concept of 'chemicals.' As a result, Pulitzer-prize winning science writer Deborah Blum has decided to call out New York Times journalist Nicholas Kirstof for his secondary crusade (she notes he is an admirable journalist in other realms) against chemicals. She's quick to point out the absurdity of fearing chemicals like Hydrogen which could be a puzzler considering its integral role played in life-giving water as well as life-destroying hydrogen cyanide. Another example is O2 versus O3. Blum calls upon journalists to be more specific, to avoid the use of vague terms like 'toxin' let alone 'chemical' and instead inform the public with lengthy chemical names like perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) instead of omitting the actual culprit altogether. Kristof has, of course, resorted to calling makers of these specific compounds 'Big Chem' and Blum chastises his poorly researched reporting along with chemophobic lingo. Chemists of Slashdot, have you found reporting on 'chemicals' to be as poor as Blum alleges or is this no more erroneous than any scare tactic used to move newspapers and garner eyeballs?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Rise of Chemophobia In the News

Comments Filter:
  • As a former chemist (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 09, 2012 @01:58PM (#39944161)

    I find much in the popular media to be anti-chemical. Invariably, "Chemical" is used as a perjorative, almost always being prefixed with either toxic or hazardous. Further, it seems that the term "organic" means without "chemicals", which is idiotic, since Every! Single! Thing! is composed of chemicals.

    So, anyway, I have a wonderful time with the chemophobes, preferring to use the term "Organic" to refer to a class of covalently-bonded chemicals, primarily composed of carbon and hydrogen atoms, with various other elements occasionally found.

    So, most pesticides (with the exception of things like Bordeaux powder) are organic, as artificial sweeteners, etc. Water is never organic, btw.

  • by OzPeter ( 195038 ) on Wednesday May 09, 2012 @02:02PM (#39944233)

    Science illiterate, social media sheeps.

    That's funny .. I was going to suggest Science illiterate, anti-education Conservative rednecks.
     
    It all comes down to ...
     
    IGNORANT PEOPLE
     
    I say ignorant rather than stupid because of something a colleague told me years ago:

    Ignorance can be cured with education. Stupidity can only be cured with a hand gun

    So as I am an optimist I am hoping for "ignorant"

  • by InvisibleClergy ( 1430277 ) on Wednesday May 09, 2012 @02:04PM (#39944257)

    ...they're just usually not the right ones. For example, the token anti-vaccine person I know rails first about vaccines. Then, if pressed, he will say that the issue is the mercury. Then, if pressed more, he will say some specific compound involving mercury such as thimerosal.

    The point is, people can fixate on names all day. It's people's tribalism that's the problem. If one person has a terrible problem with one doctor, that means that he or she will tell all of his or her friends that doctors are bad, and science is bad, and that home birth is the ONLY WAY. And then he or she will go out in search of anecdotes and outlier studies to support his or her claim.

    And yes. There will be studies to support any claim. This is why news sources need to slap their sources' confidence intervals [wikipedia.org] right next to any reporting done on studies, ever.

  • Re:DHMO (Score:5, Informative)

    by Mindcontrolled ( 1388007 ) on Wednesday May 09, 2012 @02:05PM (#39944281)
    Guys, I appreciate the joke, but the nomenclature sucks. Dihydrogenmonoxide is just not IUPAC conform. Or would you call methane with a systematic name of "Tetrahydrogen monocarbide"? Either you go with the Silane, Borane etc. nomenclature and call it Oxiran, or you go the usual way and call it Oxygen hydride.
  • Re:frist (Score:5, Informative)

    by mcgrew ( 92797 ) * on Wednesday May 09, 2012 @02:10PM (#39944403) Homepage Journal

    There's nothing new here, reporters screw up all their stories, whether it's a city council meeting, a new scientific discovery, or an engineering breakthrough. I'm pretty sure everyone here has seen a news story reporting about something in their field that they just had to shake their head in wonder at how stupid the reporter must be.

    And don't forget, scare tactics and sensationalism bring eyeballs and ad revenue.

  • by Jeng ( 926980 ) on Wednesday May 09, 2012 @02:25PM (#39944649)

    As a liberal that has lived in a commune (Zendik Farm, Bastrop Texas, late 90's) I can attest to the huge number of hippies afraid of "chemicals", Sodium lauryl sulfate (derived from coconut or palm oils) is one that really grinds their gears. Fuckers kept tossing my toothpaste when I wasn't looking.

    This is usually a liberal issue, unless you live in a cancer cluster and then you'll see a fair number for conservatives pick up the chemophobia banner.

  • Fly in the Ointment (Score:4, Informative)

    by jklovanc ( 1603149 ) on Wednesday May 09, 2012 @02:31PM (#39944749)

    There is an excellent book, Fly in the Ointment [amazon.com], that debunks a number of these kinds of issues.

    I especially like the one about peeling apples because they have been coated in chemicals. The chemicals they are coated with is simple wax used to replace the naturally occurring wax that is removed during the washing process. Why wash the apples? To remove fungus spores, dirt and insect eggs. Why replace the wax? To prevent premature spoilage due to excess oxygen getting to the fruit.

  • by Idaho ( 12907 ) on Wednesday May 09, 2012 @02:39PM (#39944905)

    My favorite source for actually scary chemicals is Things I won't work with [corante.com], a chemists weblog detailing all sorts of stuff that, well, he won't work with. Random quote:

    The experimental section of the paper enjoins the reader to wear a face shield, leather suit, and ear plugs, to work behind all sorts of blast shields, and to use Teflon and stainless steel apparatus so as to minimize shrapnel. Hmm. Ranking my equipment in terms of its shrapneliferousness is not something that's ever occurred to me, I have to say. It's safe to assume that any procedure which involves considering which parts of the apparatus I'd prefer to have flying past me will not get much business in my lab, no matter how dashing I might look in a leather suit.

  • Re:DHMO (Score:5, Informative)

    by Mindcontrolled ( 1388007 ) on Wednesday May 09, 2012 @02:55PM (#39945173)
    When you only have one oxidation state, e.g. -2 in oxygen, you don't usually state the counters, since they are implied.

With your bare hands?!?

Working...