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?"
frist (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes. This is not an either/or question here; both are true.
On the flip side (Score:5, Insightful)
They can't even get "hacker" write (Score:4, Insightful)
They've successfully re-educated the public and turned a good word (hacker==hobbyist) into an evil word, such that stores yank magazines off shelves if the title says, "How to hack your Linux computer". And you expect reporters to correctly published chemical formulas when they never took chemistry classes in college??? LOL.
(And yes I picked the subject on purpose.)
Better living through chemistry (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, but once that phrase was co-opted by the enviro-wackos to mean that all chemicals were bad it should have been clear that things were going to take a turn for the worse. Today it is clear to everyone that "chemicals" are bad. Nearly everyone does not understand that "chemicals" are things that are present in the heavily filtered water you are drinking, the nice organic food you are eating and in the very air you are breathing. Most people think you can filter out all the "chemicals" and that if you do not, you aren't safe.
This has been going on since the 1970s and with 40 years of it behind us there is almost nothing anyone is going to be able to do to stop it.
We have politicians that believe this or at least profess to agree with their constituents who believe it. Laws are being made to accomodate these beliefs.
Re:Alarmists tend to have names . . . (Score:4, Insightful)
What does your token anti-vax friend say while they pick up their teeth with broken fingers? If you haven't fucking punched them right in the face, you aren't doing your civic duty.
Re:Liberal eco freaks (Score:5, Insightful)
To some extent, yes. On the other hand, our society is built upon specialization so not everyone can be expected to invest in literacy in all fields. Really where the failure occurs which allows irrational fear of "chemicals" to evolve is in the large number of cases where an actually harmful chemical does real damage, and said damage is denied and covered up by institutions which the public feels powerless against. That poisons the well, and after that, is is open season for sensationalist media profiteers.
I find it hard to call a group of conspiracy theorists and/or worry warts "sheep" by the way, because the true sheep are the people that rely on arguments to authority to dismiss any disturbing information. Modern society is more like a bunch of confused squirrels.
Stop Being Pedantic (Score:5, Insightful)
no. morons. (Score:5, Insightful)
you can bombard some people with facts, and logic, and 2x4s all day long, and they will stubbornly refuse to accept a stone-cold fact if it falls on their foot.
they are beyond cure, or explaination, or apology.
they are morons. their little pea-brains are furiously working all the time to reject information and cling to what The Voices tell them. they are not capable of understanding that...
FACT: enough of anything is a poison.
FACT: some stuff is more poisonous than others.
FACT: some stuff is so frikkin deadly that if some nut whispers its name a continent away, birds fall in flight.
FACT: grouping all these types of chemicals as one by either side of a stupid argument should require using those idiots as guinea pigs in testing all known classes of chemicals in LD100 tests.
you're welcome. next global issue, please... .
Re:Liberal eco freaks (Score:4, Insightful)
It all comes down to ...
IGNORANT PEOPLE
I say ignorant rather than stupid because of something a colleague told me years ago:
IGNORANT PEOPLE with internet access.
100 years ago, ignorance spread rather slowly. Today, you can convince 1000 people of some bullshit in a matter of seconds.
Re:Alarmists tend to have names . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
Haven't seen him in person since high school, honestly. Good ol' Facebook with the Facebook 'friends' and suchlike.
Punching someone with a strong belief in something only strengthens their belief. I'd much prefer to convince them that it doesn't matter as much as they think, and then change their belief through reason once all that pesky emotion is out of the way. One asshole science-person counteracts hundreds of completely fine science-people.
That said, if I had kids, I would give him a fucking piece of my mind, because I don't want their god damn disease-ridden kids getting my kids sick. And aside from that, anti-vaccine people treat autism like it's some sort of death sentence. Like any autistic person is instantly a pariah. It's the more subtle douchery of anti-vaccine people.
Both explanations are true (Score:5, Insightful)
Truth1: Chemistry reporting is as bad as all other science reporting.
Truth2: The Chemical industry is as unconcerned with "externalities" as any other business.
Reporters will get you to panic even if they don't have a good reason; the reason that reporters are capable of spreading panic easily is because chemical manufacturers will poison you in order to make a buck. So, from a certain standpoint, the response of the general public is rational - they don't trust the chemical industry, and they shouldn't, so why not err on the side of caution when dealing with certified professional liars (marketing, PR and advertising people). Particulates are bad for you; the chemical industry (and domestic manufacturing generally) denies this, but they're lying. Vaccines are not harmful; but they are a big emerging profit center for pharma. If vaccines were harmful (again, they aren't), would pharma lie about it? Damn straight they'd lie through their teeth. So it becomes a double problem - it's difficult to educate the public about what is safe (vaccines are safe), and at the same time it's difficult to get robust action on what isn't safe (airborne particulates are not safe; neither are most chlorinated organics, heavy metals, etc.)
Colloquial vs. technical language? (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't this just a case of colloquial vs. technical language?
I think most non-technical folk associate the term "chemical" with artificially manufactured or extracted substances not usually encountered in our little corner of nature. Colloquial meanings often differ from modern technical usage (see also "organic", "work", "weight"). Words mean different things in different contexts - deal with it.
By all means challenge specific cases of "chemophobia" but you won't win any hearts and minds by telling people they're stupid because they don't use the same definition of "chemical" as you.
Also, remember the hidden wisdom of the old "dihydrogenmonoxide" joke: there ain't no such thing as a "harmless substance" and anything can be toxic or dangerous if too much of it turns up in the wrong place at the wrong time. I mean, harmless old Sodium Chloride might not seem a problem until every food manufacturer starts adding it in huge quantities to make their product tastier without paying for more expensive spices.
Re:Liberal eco freaks (Score:2, Insightful)
That's funny .. I was going to suggest Science illiterate, anti-education Conservative rednecks.
Let's dissect this, shall we? Just for shits n' giggles. :)
Firstly, the offending reporter, Nicholas Kirstof, works for the NYT -- a publication that is hardly a bastion of conservatism. (Not a complaint, just an observation.)
Secondly, you've identified a highly specific and narrow subset of "rednecks". Not all rednecks are anti-education, not all rednecks are science-illiterate (nor, by presumed extension, anti-science), not all rednecks are anti-education, and for the really fun part, not all rednecks ascribe to what is commonly accepted as conservatism.
Tangentially, I've noticed a theme around here, which basically states that the terms conservative, redneck, anti-science, bigot, and racist are all treated as if they were synonyms. Such a thing I can only attribute to the left-wing echo chamber (note I distinguish left-wing from liberal; the two are not synonymous, and the former is sadly succeeding in co-opting the latter... but that's a different rant).
Less generalization and black-and-white thinking, and more critical thought, please. And thank you in advance.
Re:As a former chemist (Score:5, Insightful)
Thankfully in my native language we don't use the term "organic" for food items - we use ... well, something like "ecologically".
However, when I'm talking to English speaking 'green freaks', it is rather fun to point out that by their own standards dog shit is organic.
The same is true for urine. Not only is it organic in the chemical sense (uric acid), but for people who swear by organic foods etc., it is also a wholly organic product.
Granted, I rather doubt either of those are particularly healthy, but hey - at least it's organic, right?
The whole organic vs organic thing reminds me of an old anecdote (not sure if it's true though).
A news crew gets a call about a tanker truck crashing, resulting in a large chemical spill nearby, so they rush off to cover it. Two minutes later they get another call from their boss:
"Don't bother with the tanker truck story - turns out it was only organic chemicals."
Re:Alarmists tend to have names . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
>>>What does your token anti-vax friend say while they pick up their teeth with broken fingers?
Yes because the way to deal with people who hold "wrongthought" is to punish them with brutality. Maybe even send them to a re-education camp, like they did in Socialist Russia. Are you a Democrat per chance? I may not like your opinion or your group (KKK) but you still have a natural right to express yourself using the body given to you.
The New York Times Wants Your Eyeballs (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:On the flip side (Score:2, Insightful)
Hydrogen (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think the layperson fears "chemicals", so much as artificially produced and altered chemicals that are in our food.
It's not the chemicals (or the elements) themselves that are feared, but what they do to our body -- and the lack of disclosure about what they are doing. Look how long it took to get the trans-fat containing partially hydrogenated vegetable oil removed from our food (which wasn't even removed, but when manufacturers had to report trans-fat grams, suddenly hydrogenated oils weren't so necessary for many of their products).
So even that innocuous hydrogen that is so important to basic life can become a threat when combined with other chemicals.
Of course, the Hindenburg disaster gives another reason to fear "harmless" hydrogen. (ok ok, so maybe it was the fabric shell covered with incendiary paint that triggered the disaster, but the 200,000 cubic meters of flammable hydrogen didn't help).
Re:frist (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, the media is generally shit at dealing with anything remotely scientific. The results of a single unreproduced inclusive study is plenty for a journalist to trumpet a the next major scientific breakthrough that'll see us living in moon bases in five years, or the hitherto harmless thing that's about to give our children ebola of the arse. It's the nature of the beast, of course with varying levels of culpability. Take the Daily Mail as an example of the extreme end of mainstream fucknuttery - they're famous for their never ending list of things that'll either cause or cure cancer, and of course they have a nice sideline in racism. Next time you read a few crime reports from this rag, note their ethnic references. It's pretty odd for a suspect to be described as "white", yet if he's black The Mail will almost invariably point this out in their text. Conversely, look at the Zimmerman/Martin photos that were shown in the media. Of course they chose a pretty skanky looking one for Zimmerman, while for Martin they seemed eager to give the impression that Martin was a straight-As young boy at the time. Personally I think Zimmerman is likely guilty as sin, but such sneaky tactics are counter-productive.
I was strangely shocked the other night while watching Discovery. During the show, which covered the investigation of alleged Christian miracles, they actually took a fairly sceptical stance. This is in stark contrast of course with the random late night bullshit that crops up, covering things like ghosts or very fringe science. In the case of the latter, Morgan Freeman was hosting a show in which completely way out there science was presented as if they were just regular 'old scientists. There was absolutely no opposing view given. I had to afterwards to a bit of research on this because it seemed too odd, and I was right. Despite claims on the show that they've significant measurements, the main reason they have these is because they've no hard set criteria for discerning hits among the many misses. Specifically they were claiming that some kind of human mass consciousness could impact random number generator machines during heavily emotional moments - such as terrorists attacks or Obama's inauguration. This kind of bullshit is contributing to the general lack of scientific thinking that leads people to fear everyday chemicals. One of the people who was with me at the time (a well accomplished professional) certainly didn't realise that all the studies shown were absolutely on the fringe of science, and not methodologically rigorous enough to be taken seriously by mainstream science.
We need critical thinking to be taught in schools. Hopefully people would be less likely to be caught by scams and deceived by the media. It may also have the side effect of reducing religious fundamentalism, which the US sorely needs to control. Given the YEC crowd, tonguing O'Reilly's rusty sheriff's badge, I'd be happy enough to settle for a country where a more intelligent and thoughtful Christianity held sway (even if it is likely little more than wishful thinking and/or arrogance).
Distortions Are Everywhere (Score:5, Insightful)
There are distortions everywhere. Some are more subtle than others. When Kirstoff generically refers to "chemicals", most people recognize that he is either biased or using shorthand for "a compound which I did some research on and found to be risky in the context in question." Deciding which he is doing is an exercise for the reader, and must always be. Using "perfluorooctanoic acid" is certainly better for an educated audience that has the will, time, and ability to do its own research, but it is better for Kirstoff to do the research and shorthanding -- in a truly unbiased fashion, which may not be the case here -- for an audience that either lacks the will, time, or ability to dig deeper on their own. Perhaps ideal is for the article to have hyperlinks for more information.
While we're on the subject of distortion, I recently read a summery that had a couple of strong shorthand distortions in it, which may provide some interesting points of comparison:
"Pulitzer-prize winning science writer Deborah Blum" -- appeal to emotion -- it asserts that the reader should assume that Deborah Blum is an expert on science matters because she won an award for writing. If her article stands on its own, leave that bit out. If it rests on her expertise, this brief note is not enough to establish it. This sentence is fine for an audience that has the time, will, and ability to check on Deborah Blum's actual credentials, but relies upon the author's research and integrity for those audience which lack those criteria.
"decided to call out" -- appeal to emotion -- trying to get the listener to emotionally go along with a rebel who's fighting the power.
"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?" -- false dichotomy -- the options are "Kirstoff is wrong because Blum says so" or "Kirstoff is wrong because he uses scare tactics."
Distortions are everywhere, and journalism necessarily calls for using shorthand. Eldavojohn wanted to communicate the essence of Blum's piece without reproducing it verbatim. He used shorthand which he hopes will give a fair image of the underlying work, by using turns of phrase which would -- in isolation -- be clear-cut distortions. The point is elegantly made by Blum herself (though she gets it backward):
But if we, as journalists, are going to demand meticulous standards for the study and oversight of chemical compounds then we should try to be meticulous ourselves in making the case.
No, you are wrong. It is specifically the case that chemical compound oversight should be far more technical than public writing. Public writing, whether from Eldavojohn, Blum, or Kirstoff, is about communicating complex underlying issues in a brief and simplified form. That is its very nature. If such simplification is biased, then there is a very serious problem -- but the mere act of simplification is not a fault in itself.
Re:Liberal eco freaks (Score:4, Insightful)
There are two components to this. The first being that we are a society of specialists. It is impossible to know everything about everything, the best you can hope for is knowing a little about everything. The second part, are chemical corps and their cousins--typically referred to as big chemical and big pharma--that are well known for chasing the dollar regardless of the cost in terms of the effects their products have on people and the environment. When combined, this causes people to have a natural distrust of all of these poly-syllabic words on the back of the products they buy. In many cases it's well founded, others at least suspect. It isn't uncommon to learn that commonly used additives for food and cosmetic preservation, coloring, etc. or even the materials used in their containers area actually not very healthy for you. One of the earliest examples in human history being that of lead. But has been followed on by plenty of others, mercury, radium, DDT, PVC, hydrogenated oils, ... Even now we're learning that even though people or test animals don't drop dead or develop tumors, etc. right away it's still quite possible to manifest negative consequences many years later. There's also reasonable concern over synergistic effects of chemicals considered safe in isolation being quite the opposite when combined with certain others.
Under this kind of climate, is there any wonder why when given a choice between ingredient lists that look like, "wheat, sugar, soybean oil, salt" or "wheat, high-fructose corn syrup, sorbitol, maltodextrin, salt, yellow no. 5, polysorbate 80" people are going to prefer the former?
As usual Slashdot summary is a mess... (Score:5, Insightful)
The latest article by Kristof points out the dangers of "endocrine disruptor" chemicals and he makes it clear (from the very first sentence) that he is talking only about these chemicals. The red herring about hydrogen and oxygen was inserted by his attacker. Kristof says nothing about hydrogen.
Endocrine disruptors have been shown to have serious adverse effects and they are poorly studied and regulated. He is calling for more study and regulation. They are becoming ubiquitous in our environment (from your cash register receipted to most canned foods).
Re:As a former chemist (Score:5, Insightful)
"Organic" pertaining to food also refers to production methods consistent with sustainability, not just reduction of carcinogenic pesticide use.
While I also partake in the joys of shooting down uneducated neohippies who shell out money without a skeptical eye toward marketing (re: "all natural"), it's almost impossible to rationally defend industrial agriculture as a peer to certified organic farming. I know you weren't doing that, but it sounded like you may be headed down that path, so I offer my unsolicited comment.
Re:Better living through chemistry (Score:3, Insightful)
Common language just isn't exact. When people say they want to filter the chemicals out of their water it's pretty clear that they'd like to get as close to H2O as possible and filter out other chemicals even if they are healthy. When people say they don't want chemicals on/in their apples it's pretty clear that they don't mean the sucrose that occurs naturally in them, they mean specifically the chemicals that are specifically designed to kill insects or drive off other pests. Worrying that the "lingo" has been co-opted by the "enviro-wackos" is just being pedantic. People want foods in their purest naturally occurring form and are willing to pay a premium for that, so why not let them?
Re:frist (Score:5, Insightful)
No, poison can be painless. Car crashes can be slow and painful. People understand car accidents, they know when they're happening. A car hits another one. Bam. You get crushed or burn up or something. Poison? Maybe you just ate some. Maybe not. Maybe you're slowly dying and you don't know it.
People are afraid of what they don't know/understand. It's natural, why do you think there's such a widespread fear of the dark? You don't know what's there when it's dark.
Re:frist (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
My personal bugbear is the word 'toxin', although 'chemical' and 'toxic waste' qualify as well. Any compound can be toxic, is a chemical, and may be toxic waste. As an example, water is toxic in the wrong place/situation/amount, it is definitely a chemical compound, and it can be a waste product of various chemical processes so effectively could be 'toxic waste'. Toxic waste is ANY excess product from a reaction that *may* be toxic, the term itself is emotional and not truly descriptive.
Re:frist (Score:4, Insightful)
We need critical thinking to be taught in schools.
I am skeptical of the claim that critical thinking can be taught. Nurtured, yes; taught, I'm not so sure.
Re:DHMO (Score:5, Insightful)
Guys, I appreciate the joke, but the nomenclature sucks. Dihydrogenmonoxide is just not IUPAC conform.
Bravo! Your post illustrates that the wags who like to bring up the tired old DHM joke aren't as clever as they might presume about chemicals.
Rant on.........
At the possible expense of ruining all the fun, my own read on why so many people are phobic regarding chemicals isn't necessarily stupidity and ignorance, but a combination of real world experience and anecdotal experience, plus a lot of lies they have been told. And ridicule too. So they think that a safe course is to assume that all "chemicals" are bad.
Contact dermatitis from cleaning solutions is not a mental issue. I obtained a nice case from photographic chemicals which spread over my hands - made worse by latex gloves I wore in an effort to keep the chemicals away. Interesting enough, a cream of various chemicals cured it right up - but the lay person thinks of that as "medicine", not chemicals.
Interesting that some of the chemicals in photo processing - like Sodium EDTA, snd Sodium Sulfite are used in cleaning soultions and salad lettuce "freshener" respectivley. Not with universal good results either.
As for the lies, Love Canal was not the cause of any of the people who lived there's illnesses. Minimata? There's a scary story,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minamata_disease [wikipedia.org] Just some quick examples.
Then there is the ridicule factor. While the Dihydrogen Monoxide joke was funny the first dozen times or so, it in reality is a symptom of the problem. And for the geniuses out there, it is entirely possible to suffer and or die from water intoxication.
During the Fukushima Tsunami/Powerplant disaster, the riducule was out in full force here on Slashdot. While the wags were decrying the stupidity of people who thought that maybe something bad was going on, those same fools were able to view the destruction caused specifically by the reactor problems, not those caused by the Tsunami. The initial figures of radiation release have been updated to new levels of 15,000 TBq for the combined amount of iodine-131 and caesium-137. Not so good, given that TEPCO initially told people the release was only 4,720 TBq. There's a lot more info, but this is only used as an example.
So while chemophobia is absolutely wrong, it is perfectly understandible why most people have the affliction. They've been able to see the damage, sometimes to themselves, and they've been lied to and ridiculed. What prudent person wouldn't adopt a "I don't know what is good, and what isn't, so I just have to presume it's all bed" attitude.
The cure of course is education, and for crissakes stop the lying,