• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Many Would Like To Live 'In A World Where Chemical Substances Don't Exist'

maximus otter

maximus otter

Recovering policeman
Joined
Aug 9, 2001
Messages
13,943
A recent study published in Nature Chemistry finds that 39 percent of respondents in eight European countries say they "agree" with the statement that "I would like to live in a world where chemical substances don't exist." Another 39 percent say the "slightly agree" or "slightly disagree" with this statement.

Similarly, 40% say "they do everything I can to avoid contact with chemical substances in my daily life."

https://reason.com/2019/12/23/study...a-world-where-chemical-substances-dont-exist/

maximus otter
 
maximus otter said:
A recent study published in Nature Chemistry finds that 39 percent of respondents in eight European countries say they "agree" with the statement that "I would like to live in a world where chemical substances don't exist." Another 39 percent say the "slightly agree" or "slightly disagree" with this statement.

Similarly, 40% say "they do everything I can to avoid contact with chemical substances in my daily life."

https://reason.com/2019/12/23/study...a-world-where-chemical-substances-dont-exist/

maximus otter
Click to expand...

Morons! Don't they teach chemistry in secondary schools anymore?
 
I'd be happy enough if they quit putting mined or pumped material in our food.

They put this garbage in because it's a lot cheaper than real food and Congress has been bought off.
 
RaM said:
what they were on at the time
Click to expand...

The poor devils may have been exposed to molten Di-Hydrogen Monoxide: it's frequently-fatal if inhaled, even in small quantities.

In addition to the information outlined in the chemical warning data sheet below, if consumed in solid cubic crystalline form along with ethanol-based mixtures, it can cause drowsiness, slurring of speech, impaired cognitive abilities and unconsciousness.
uSPiMrD.jpg
 
Last edited:
Yeah, uh, a linguist writes that this all looks like massive sleight-of-hand, and it's a bit disingenuous of chemists to accuse people of lacking scientific knowledge when the whole set-up seems - at first glance, at any rate - to betray a fundamental lack of understanding about how people try to contextualise the information we are given, or the questions we are asked. So, you know, it's that whole pot-kettle interface again.
 
Krepostnoi said:
Yeah, uh, a linguist writes that this all looks like massive sleight-of-hand, and it's a bit disingenuous of chemists to accuse people of lacking scientific knowledge when the whole set-up seems - at first glance, at any rate - to betray a fundamental lack of understanding about how people try to contextualise the information we are given, or the questions we are asked. So, you know, it's that whole pot-kettle interface again.
Click to expand...

Agreed ... If you ask an ordinary person about "chemicals" in food or water they'll assume the subject refers to additives or pollutants (i.e., "chemicals" above and beyond what one expects to be in food or water).

The survey respondents were in multiple countries and from multiple native language backgrounds. I'd be interested in knowing whether and / or how the researchers controlled for lexical and semantic diversity in addressing "chemical substances."

Some cursory Googling indicates the study's authors have made something of a career in researching consumers' (mis-)perceptions of risk and acceptance in everyday products.
 
Min Bannister said:
What is the mined or pumped material in your food?
Click to expand...

They pump gallons of water into the food in the US. Since normal foods don't hold enough water to cheat the customer sufficiently they add sodium tripolyphosphate first. This chemical comes from China and is heavily contaminated. Additionally the pure version has never been tested on humans and its sole purpose is to increase the weight. They are so brazen here (since they own the regulators) that they'll put meat in a sopping wet diaper on packaging that weighs nearly 4 OZ. They more than double the weight of many products so it's very difficult to prepare and guess who pays for the roads being torn up by water?

The "food" in the US is barely food at all.

They also pump some things up with air and sell it by volume.

Every product is garbage. Each manufacturer is willing to spend a nickel to lower the quality of a product by a penny. Their goal is to always give you less than you think you're getting. Then they wail and moan that their customers aren't loyal any longer.
 
mummyknave said:
They pump gallons of water into the food in the US. Since normal foods don't hold enough water to cheat the customer sufficiently they add sodium tripolyphosphate first.
Click to expand...
:nails: I wish I hadn't asked now..

I am pretty sure they at least put that into bacon here. When cooked it shrinks to a fraction of its size and forms a white foam on top. That is the phosphate precipitating out.
 
mummyknave said:
Every product is garbage. Each manufacturer is willing to spend a nickel to lower the quality of a product by a penny. Their goal is to always give you less than you think you're getting. Then they wail and moan that their customers aren't loyal any longer.
Click to expand...
I don't agree that EVERY product is garbage, but definitely food and consumers are aggressively manipulated here, and it's to maximize profits and keep people addicted to crap. Even if you are determined to not consume weird power drinks, sodas, highly refined cereals and other concoctions, if you can't afford high end products, you either depend on less nutritious, adulterated food stuffs or go hungry. Packages appear to contain more than they do, which adds to the waste problem, plus the amount of plastic used in containing and merchandising all this stuff is really dismaying.
 
AlchoPwn said:
They teach chemistry, but nobody listens apparently. SMH, we live in a world of terrible fools. Thankfully there are places of refuge like this forum.
Click to expand...

I studied Science (Biology, Chemistry, Physics) up to Junior Certificate (1975) and Chemistry for my Leaving Certificate (1977). Whatever about students listening I wonder if Science subjects are largely optional now?
 
ramonmercado said:
I studied Science (Biology, Chemistry, Physics) up to Junior Certificate (1975) and Chemistry for my Leaving Certificate (1977). Whatever about students listening I wonder if Science subjects are largely optional now?
Click to expand...
I think scientific thinking now seems to be optional, worldwide.
 
ramonmercado said:
I studied Science (Biology, Chemistry, Physics) up to Junior Certificate (1975) and Chemistry for my Leaving Certificate (1977). Whatever about students listening I wonder if Science subjects are largely optional now?
Click to expand...
In the U.K. science is compulsory at secondary school in the lower school but when kids choose their subjects it is usually possible to opt out of science completely if you so desire.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top