Why So Much Fear Over Chemicals?

Written by Robert E. Hanes, Jr. PhD (Chemistry) on February 18, 2019. Posted in Current News

I am a chemist. The chorus of ‘get rid of chemicals’ grows louder, almost daily. What exactly is a chemical? What exactly do people mean, when they state a fear of chemicals? From my vantage point, everything you see, all matter is a chemical. What exactly do you want to ban?

Water arguably kills more people than any other every year than any other substance. Check this out.

According to WHO, water is the third leading cause of unintentional injury death worldwide. Pure water will kill you if you drink it. Without an ion balance similar to your physiology, pure water pulls vital ions from your body. When sodium gets too low, your brain swells and you die.

Yep, that is the same sodium that people are scared of causing high blood pressure. But is that not the point? Does not context or concentration or quantity make a big difference in what is harmful? I had a person approach me and cited the properties of fluorine gas (which can dissolve glass) as a reason not to use fluoride toothpaste!

This person would not accept the fact that fluoride and fluorine gas are not the same thing. Instead, they got angry with me because the facts I presented did not fit their world view.

The fact is most of the most dangerous chemicals react with water, oxygen or sunlight and decompose very quickly. Excluding intentional ingestion, the vast majority of the population never comes into contact with pure chemicals. Excluding solvents, most commercial chemicals are dilute solutions in water.

When used and disposed of properly, certainly are a vital part of increased life span across the world. Gasoline is one of the most dangerous substances because of its low flash point, but clearly many governments approve its use by average citizens.

Yet, someone with malintent could clearly cause massive casualties with gasoline. Every chemist I know, regardless of politics shares the same ideal for the improvement of people and planet.

By its very definition, in order to make a new chemical, one needs to use a more reactive chemical. This is simple thermodynamics and the nature of Gibb’s free energy substances seek lower energy states.

I am a synthetic, organic chemist. If I can dream it, and its physically possible, I can build any molecule. What is lost in the ‘ban BPA type scare tactics’ is that there are infinite variations of similar compounds that can be made, and I am quite certain that ‘BPA-free’ plastic contains a BPA substitute than functions just as good, or better.

By the way, I read the original BPA study, it is not an impressive work of science. A case of context- sure you can show BPA could be dangerous, alone, but are you going to claw on a plastic cage then eat it? BPA with modern plastic preparation is NOT BPA, it is a perfect safe polymer. It has been chemically changed with permanent bonds.

Yet the ‘non-biodegradable’ engineering grade plastic in my yard has crumbled under the Texas sun and must be replaced. So which is it? Plastics decompose and release ‘BPA’ which is not physically possible, or they are not biodegradable and harm the environment?

It funny how these science scare stories contradict themselves.

Were you aware many biodegradation studies are specified to be tested in the dark and in cold water? HHHMMMM, I wonder why they do not test them in sunlight in the presence of oxygen.

Even electronics and phones have boards through which their manufacture would not be possible without the use of extremely dangerous chemicals. Yes, there are many ‘green’ chemistry initiatives. But what is green chemistry?

Typically it is using more energy by using less reactive chemicals. Most reactive chemical intermediates actually are by-products from process that produce commodity chemicals. From that vantage point, these reactive intermediates are sold and repurposed. Is that not the essence of recycling?

If we’re concerned about waste, then why would we waste valuable chemical intermediates? The closest thing there is to free energy is oil and gas- great energy stored in chemical bonds which makes modern life possible. If you think the world does not need oil and gas, go to any hardware store and look at the number of lubricants alone. Go to the grocery store and look at the vegetable oil.

Many synthetic chemical processes sourced from oil and gas have eliminated the need for harvesting plants or animals (think whaling – image above).

So are we not ‘helping the planet’ by cleaning up the ‘pollution’ of naturally occurring oil and gas and ‘recycling it’ into useful products to protect plants (trees) and animals? Oh yeah, I did the math for fun, we burned like 50 billion T-Rex dinosaurs by mass last year!

The whole concept of fossil fuel requires geothermal process that take place in earth’s mantle to even get close the mass of these hydrocarbons available. There is a carbon cycle that is far beyond plants and animals.

It takes energy and water to destroy dangerous chemicals, or they can be used by trained, qualified people. They, therefore are usually inexpensive, and valuable intermediates for the preparation of new compounds.

The Oklahoma City bombing clearly showed that those with malintent with the right knowledge can cause great harm with commonly available agents.

Fortunately, for those untrained, it is very difficult to correctly prepare truly dangerous compounds without drawing the attention of authorities. If you find yourself worried about chemicals in the environment, I would start with your pantry and the things you choose to put in your mouth.

Many artificial sweeteners are completely synthetic organic chemicals that are not found in nature! My favorite is sucralose (tradename Splenda).

It starts from actual sucrose (table sugar) but has been chlorinated. I am not aware of any organic compounds that contain chlorine that also do not have safety sheets that bring cause for safety precautions- because of the added chloride.

There is a surprising few studies on sucralose, yet how many in fear of chemicals eat this stuff, and a lot of it. Perhaps some moderate use of table sugar is not so bad, after all. Do not live in fear, ask a chemist!

PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. Telephone: Calls from within the UK: 020 7419 5027. International dialling: (44) 20 7419 5027. 

Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.

Trackback from your site.