Chemicals

From SkepticWiki

Jump to: navigation, search
:…[E]very human being is now subjected to contact with dangerous chemicals from the moment of conception until death. —Rachel Carson

Contents

[edit] Definition

A chemical is a substance formed of atoms and molecules. Almost everything we come into contact with in daily life is a chemical or is composed of chemicals: water, air, dirt, food, etc.

[edit] Organic Chemicals

The word organic in chemistry means “containing carbon”; gasoline, dioxin, and bovine growth hormone are all organic.

The meaning of “organic” in advertising and common usage is difficult to state definitively; some have criticized the common use of the word as a meaningless, feel-good adjective. It generally excludes compounds derived from petroleum (which is organic in the technical sense), such as paraffin, gasoline, or plastic. It may mean “minimally processed”, (fructose is organic, refined white sugar is not) or “not synthetic” (almond oil is organic, benzaldehyde is not). The word “organic” generally carries a connotation of “harmless” or even “healthy”, although the “organic” substance pyrethrum is a powerful insecticide. Some attempts to standardize the meaning of “organic” legally have resulted in a list of unrelated conditions designed to include the socially favored chemicals of the day, and exclude the disfavored ones.

[edit] Synthetic Chemicals

But to worship the natural at the exclusion of the unnatural is to practice Organic Fascism… If lipstick has advantages over berry juice, then let us praise that part of technology that produced lipstick – Tom Robbins

A synthetic chemical is a chemical produced by human-designed chemical reactions. Synthetic chemicals may or may not be found in nature.

In popular understanding, the line between synthetic and natural chemicals may be indistinct, since chemical reactions may occur by “traditional” processes that begin with “natural” ingredients. It would be odd to consider soap to be a synthetic chemical, yet it undoubtedly is a chemical not occurring in nature, formed by an artificially induced chemical reaction. The more modern sodium lauryl sulfate is unquestionably synthetic.

In 1860, Pierre Berthelot first created synthetic ethanol. This substance was marketed as being just as good as the real thing, a claim which tended to obscure the fact that it was the real thing, in every respect.

Chemical engineering soon began to create chemicals which did not occur in nature. In many cases, these synthetic chemicals were used as substitutes for naturally-occurring chemicals, often being superior for the application, or at least cheaper. Thus Novocain™ replaced cocaine in medicine, bakelite was used instead of glass or ceramics, and nylon replaced silk.

Synthetic chemicals were developed for applications in which no natural chemical could possibly work: Polytetrafluoroethylene was originally used to contain strong acids that would dissolve ordinary containers; cyanoacrylate adhesives could hold hundreds of pounds with one drop, and “mauve” became a newly popular textile color.

[edit] Fear of Chemicals

The word “chemical” has acquired a suggestion in the popular consciousness of artificiality or toxicity. The very word evokes images of white-coated scientists cooking stinky sludge inside evil corporate factories that pour their concoctions into public drinking supplies. Other terms that have become synonymous with “chemicals” in this sense are additives, preservatives, artificial ingredients, pesticides, insecticides and herbicides.

Advertisers, always sensitive to the trends in common thinking, have seized upon the distrust of chemicals for their own ends, without regard to whether the “fear of chemicals” is justified. For example:

  • Primacide B cleaning and extraction fluid is completely free of chemicals, soaps, detergents or shampoos [1]
  • [Our tobacco is] grown with no chemicals, and packaged untreated, the seed is delivered to you with no additives, chemicals, or in any way adulterated.[2]
  • At the touch of a button, Aquasana transforms tap water into naturally healthy, chemical free water![3]

Note that any advertisement claiming that a product is chemical-free is essentially claiming that the product consists of a perfect vacuum.

The following may contribute to the general fear or distrust of chemicals in individuals:

[edit] Toxic Panics

Various scares centered around individual chemicals (often devoid of any critical reasoning) have maligned individual chemicals. Once implicated by media attention, these chemicals may become quite feared individually, and the “chemicals are bad” feeling is seen to be confirmed. Often, the mere existence of a study of a chemical for dangerous properties will result in a popular panic surrounding that chemical. Subsequent findings that a chemical is harmless are less widely spread, or greeted with greater suspicion.

To be sure, mass-media is responsible for much of this, but so are more grass-roots vehicles such as email. The common detergent sodium laureth sulfate was identified as a cancer-causing agent in an anonymous chain-email that circulated in 1998. Sodium laureth sulfate does not cause cancer.

Most notably, the inert chemical silicone, which was never positively linked to adverse health effects, was banned by the FDA for use in breast implants, a subject which remains controversial to this day.

It may be argued that unreasoned panic was responsible for the banning of the pesticide DDT in the United States in 1972, following the publishing of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring. DDT has never been shown to cause environmental problems or health effects in humans. The ban covered any application whatsoever, without regard to the region or method of use, or to mitigating circumstances or potential benefit to human health.

[edit] Anti-Technology Sentiment

Aversion to “chemicals” is common in subcultures that see a conflict between “natural” existence and the dubious benefits of modern technology. Synthetic chemicals, as products of technology, are distrusted at least. This may explain the currency of chemical distrust in so-called “organic” farming, natural medicine, and new age styles of living.

[edit] Psychological Aversions to Artificiality

Throughout history, rare items that were symbols of wealth and status have been accompanied by cheap imitations: fake gold, fake diamonds, fake saffron, fake Gucci purses. Smart consumers, therefore, are always wary of the possibility of cheap imitation, and instinctively dislike imitations. This distrust extends to synthetic chemicals, especially where they may be substituted for more expensive natural chemicals. This dislike of artificiality is without regard to whether the synthetic substitute is inferior or not.

[edit] Aesthetic Considerations

Many natural substances we encounter in life are composed of hundreds or thousands of chemicals, or are composed of chemicals so complex that we have not yet been able to duplicate them efficiently. In these cases, the synthetic approximations can be judged to be different from (and, therefore, inferior to) the naturally occurring ones. For example, discriminating palates can distinguish between synthetic vanillin and the rich mixture of chemicals found in vanilla extract. This has given rise to the prejudice that all synthetic chemicals are necessarily inferior to the natural forms they were meant to imitate. We may speculate that synthetic wine, when it becomes available, will be rather disparaged in its initial reviews.

[edit] Environmental effects

One valid concern with the mass production of synthetic chemicals is that they eventually find their way into the environment which has not adapted mechanisms for degrading and recycling them, at least not on the scale that humans produce them. It is reasonable to believe that in general, synthetic chemicals would be less compatible with existing natural systems than natural chemicals. Plastics in particular are particularly troublesome because of their insolubility. It is worth noting that accumulation on a large scale of any chemical, synthetic or not, can be detrimental to the environment. The natural chemicals in crude oil, or sulfur dioxide, for example, are easily handled by the environment in small quantities, but are disastrous when released in great quantities. This speaks not to the danger of synthetic chemicals, but the danger to the environment of any chemical concentrated in sufficient quantity.

[edit] Health Concerns

There may be real quantifiable health concerns related to chemicals encountered in daily life. Many household pesticides, food ingredients (including naturally-occurring food ingredients), and environmental pollutants have a known health risk associated with them. Since exposure to these chemicals is presumably associated with some benefit, it is important to weigh the benefit against the risk, rather than dismiss any benefit at all because of a risk which may be acceptable.

For example, the possible risk health effects from inhaling mercury vapor from tooth fillings may be compared to the health benefit to be gained from not spending more money on mercury-free fillings. Such economical comparisons as these are subject to normal human irrationality that accompanies fear of the uncontrollable. People who are indignant at the exposure to potentially harmful mercury tooth fillings may not think twice about eating more vegetables, driving slower, or testing their house for Radon.

[edit] Avoiding Chemicals

It is perfectly reasonable to wish to limit one’s exposure to dangerous chemicals in life. It is also reasonable to be concerned about the health effects of chemicals of unknown safety, particularly when these chemicals are consumed or encountered in quantities beyond what has been adequately studied. (See also: Precautionary Principle)

However, implementing a policy based on these concerns would require one to be familiar with the various levels of danger on a chemical-by-chemical basis, as well as to be knowledgeable about exposure routes and amounts. This ability is, needless to say, beyond the capability of the average person. Instead, various less-effective techniques are commonly found to address the concern for dangerous chemical exposure.

[edit] Avoiding All Chemicals

One idea is to simply avoid all chemicals. Technically speaking, this is ridiculous: you can’t avoid chemicals, you are made of them. Air, water, and anything you eat or touch is completely and totally made of chemicals. This does not prevent advertisements from claiming that a product is chemical-free, which gives the false impression that it may be used by those wishing to avoid chemicals.

[edit] Avoiding Synthetic Chemicals

Since we cannot avoid chemicals, and it is too difficult to be knowledgeable about the health effects of all chemicals, some may resort to the simple expedient of avoiding synthetic chemicals, reasoning that these are more likely to be dangerous. In general, however, this is a very poor way to identify potentially harmful chemicals. There are certainly many natural chemicals, such as hydrocyanic acid or carbon dioxide that can kill you in minutes. Likewise, many synthetic chemicals such as silicone or Teflon™ are harmless, inert, or even beneficial.

[edit] Avoiding Bad Chemicals

Another idea is to avoid all exposure to all chemicals which are suspected to be harmful in any way. This is difficult, since just about anything can be dangerous or deadly in some way. It ignores the role of the route of exposure (asbestos, which causes cancer when inhaled, nearly caused a panic when it was found in crayons, which children might eat). It ignores consideration of the level of the exposure (inhaling second hand smoke on a sidewalk is widely believed to be equally dangerous as inhaling it right from the cigarette). It ignores the different effects that the chemical may have on different people (the natural chemical monosodium glutamate causes allergies in some people, for most it is a harmless food seasoning). Finally, this strategy generally relies on a questionable source of information on what is dangerous: the mass media, looking for a riveting story.

[edit] The “Don’t eat anything you can’t pronounce” Test.

It may be expected that natural or familiar chemicals have, over the years, acquired common names that are easy to pronounce, while newer arrivals may be only known by technical names. This has given rise to the tendency to favor or distrust chemicals based on their names. A popular television commercial for ice cream plays upon this tendency, showing adorable children attempting to pronounce the chemical-laden ingredient list of the competing product. This “test” does nothing to identify synthetic chemicals in general, much less harmful chemicals. Many synthetic chemicals have easy to pronounce names (e.g.: “Olean™”), and many natural chemicals are known only by their chemical formula (e.g.: monosodium glutamate). In any case there is no relation between pronounceability and safety. Titanium dioxide, with its seven syllables, is a completely harmless artificial coloring, while “cream” can cause obesity and heart disease.

[edit] Trusting the Experts

One solution to the problem of limiting exposure to dangerous chemicals is to rely on expert judgment of the danger, together with governmental regulation on the presence of dangerous chemicals. In America, the regulation concerning chemicals in food is done by the Food and Drug Administration. This entity is often criticized as being unduly influenced by chemical manufacturers and politics. Regulation of airborne or waterborne chemicals is regulated by various environmental protection agencies at the federal, state, and local level. These may also be perceived to be subject to undue influence. Government agencies may be perceived as especially untrustworthy when their policies are at odds with environmental lobbies, proponents of “natural” living, or the latest chemical scare.

[edit] Recent Toxic Scares

Listed below are various recent health scares identifying specific chemicals. The accompanying links provide trustworthy information.

  • Aspartame purported to cause multiple sclerosis or lupus, ACSH
  • Sodium Laureth Sulfate blamed for causing cancer,ACS
  • Crayons said to contain asbestos,CPSC
  • Plastic water bottles supposedly contain dioxin, Johns Hopkins
  • Aluminum thought to cause Alzheimer’s disease, Alzheimer’s Society
  • Canola Oil thought to be toxic, Whole Foods Market

[edit] Dihydrogen Monoxide

Dihydrogen Monoxide (or DHMO) is a facetious term for ordinary water, used in satire of chemical scares. Under this moniker, water is presented in a similar way to media reports of toxic chemicals. This exercise demonstrates how the presentation alone is responsible for fear of a chemical, rather than the chemical itself.

Highlighted are

  • the health effects, such as the extreme inhalation hazard,
  • the detected presence in the environment, playing upon environmental reactionism,
  • the industrial use, such as an industrial solvent, for a guilt-by-association with the chemical industry.

In 1997, 14-year old Nathan Zohner won a local science fair for demonstrating the susceptibility of his peers to toxic scares involving DHMO. There have only been rare isolated cases of concern for DHMO in the public and in government agencies. As might be expected, a pro-DHMO satire-on-satire web site exists.

Seriously-intentioned Material Safety Data Sheets for water exist, and usually mention reactivity with sodium, magnesium, and strong bases. “Heavy water” (Dideuterium oxide, D2O or 2H2O) is toxic when ingested to the exclusion of light water (H2O). Normal drinking water consists of about 1 part in 3200 of heavy water or semiheavy water (DHO or 2H1HO).

[edit] Related Articles

[edit] References and Further reading

Retrieved from "http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Chemicals"
Personal tools