Wednesday, December 04, 2013
Why do people hate the word 'chemicals'?
Written by Dr Mark Lorch, BBC
Chemistry is everywhere in the world around us - so why are we so scared of it, asks Dr Mark Lorch.
I really enjoy my job, I'm a chemist in academia. I get to wallow in the fascinating world of research science and then pass on my passions to eager young minds.
But my job is even better than that. I'm an academic who gets let out of my ivory tower and into schools, shopping centres and festivals where I perform all the most entertaining chemistry. And I pull out all the stops - liquid nitrogen gets sloshed around in abundance, hydrogen balloons are ignited like mini-Hindenburgs, and ethanol-fuelled rockets zip around the playgrounds. Chemistry is fun.
So why is everybody scared of chemicals?
Because we are, aren't we? The very word chemical is often synonymous with toxin or poison. We use phrases like "it's chock-full of chemicals" to imply something is artificial and bad for you.
Meaningless slogans like "chemical-free" pop up on products in health food stores and billboards. And nobody seems to mind, least of all the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA). I know - I've complained to them and they told me that consumers clearly understand that "chemical-free" really means "free of synthetic chemicals".
I don't get the distinction. Why are synthetic chemicals worse than natural ones? Why is the synthetic food additive E300 bad, while the vitamin C in your freshly squeezed glass of orange juice is good? (Even though they are both the same thing.)
Chemistry is fascinating because of the way it can be used to synthesise new stuff - it's like molecular Lego. The fact that everything is made from 100-odd building blocks is remarkable. Throw chemicals in a pot in the right way and you can build the world around us.
So why is chemistry the bad boy of the sciences? Why is there this chemophobia? Biology doesn't get a bad rap - quite the opposite. Biology has amazing animals, plants, the human genome project and David Attenborough. It's natural and good.
What about physics? Well, physics is just pretty damn cool. It's got stars, lasers and the most impressive machine ever built - the Large Hadron Collider. All fronted by Brian Cox beautifully explaining the wonders of the universe. It doesn't get any cooler than that.
And then there's chemistry which, by reputation, has pollution, poisons, and weapons so bad that they warrant a Nobel Peace Prize-winning organisation to control them. And the closest thing we've got to a celebrity chemist comes from the drama Breaking Bad, where Walter White, a chemistry teacher turned drug kingpin, uses his encyclopaedic chemistry knowledge to synthesise hard drugs, poison his enemies and dissolve the bodies of his victims. He doesn't really do much to combat chemophobia.
To me, chemistry's bad reputation seems very odd. Consider the estimated 1,300 deaths in Syria as the result of sarin gas. They were, of course, absolutely horrific. But why were they worse than the 100,000 deaths caused by conventional, physical weapons?
And closer to home what's the most likely cause of injury or illness? I'm willing to bet my house that if you've been laid up in bed lately, it's been due to some biological bug or physical injury and not any sort of chemical-related poisoning. And what do you take to ease the symptoms of that dreadful stinking "natural" cold, sprained ankle or pounding headache? Some chemical analgesic of course.
It is true that chemicals can be dangerous. My horticulturist grandfather taught me that. He had a smallholding with a large brick outbuilding that housed his lab. He'd assembled the contents over years of amateur experimenting with plants and soils. To a 10-year-old fledgling chemistry geek, it was an Aladdin's cave of strange instruments, bottles and weird muddy mixtures.
Some grandfathers' idea of a treat for their grandchildren is a chewy toffee. Not mine. If we were really good, he'd get out his sodium metal, mysteriously sitting in its jar of oil (he'd acquired it some time in the distant past when health and safety wasn't quite what we know and love now). Then he'd gingerly take it to a quiet corner of his plot and, with a long pair of forceps, he'd carefully extract a lump of the soft glistening metal before hurling it into a bucket of water. FIZZZZZ, BANG!
Maybe you had a chemistry teacher who was fond of that demonstration. But trust me, my grandfather did it bigger and better.
So Grandfather taught me that chemicals can be dangerous, and if something dreadful had gone wrong in his makeshift lab, then no doubt the papers would have reported on the role of chemistry. But what if Grandpa had been negligent with the upkeep of the railings around his balcony? What if someone had fallen off, gravity accelerating them at 9.8m per second per second, until they hit the hard ground below? Would anyone have described it as an awful physics accident?
So why does chemistry's role in accidents get highlighted, and whose fault is it that people are so scared of chemicals?
Simple - mine.
It's my fault, and my grandfather's. We are responsible for chemophobia. Why? Well, grandfather's sodium demo certainly fuelled my enthusiasm for chemistry. But it didn't spark it - that happened somewhere else. And sparking an interest is what he should have done and what I should be doing.
Pouring fuel onto the flames of enthusiasm is easy, especially with chemistry. The theatre is easy, too - the bangs, the flames, the explosions, the pops, the whizzes, the smoke and the rockets are fabulously entertaining. I love it, and I love the whoops and cries and applause from the audience.
Australian TV show on cholesterol gets results
THE fallout from the controversial ABC TV Catalyst program on anti-cholesterol drugs is gathering pace with three in four doctors reporting patients have stopped their medications.
Almost half of the patients that have stopped their drugs are considered at high risk of a heart attack.
The ABC's own health expert Norman Swan has warned "people will die" as a result of the Catalyst program that questioned the role of cholesterol in heart disease and the benefit of statin drugs that reduce cholesterol.
Drug company Merck Sharp Dohme commissioned a survey of 150 doctors a week after the Catalyst program aired on ABC TV and found two in three had patients who had stopped taking the drugs or considered ceasing them.
A follow up study just released has found that had increased to three out of four doctors on two weeks later on November 21.
Again, half the patients who had dropped their medicine were considered at high risk of a heart attack.
And nine out of ten doctors told the survey they feared they had patients who had stopped their drugs without consulting a doctor.
The survey found two in three patients who wanted to drop their anti-cholesterol treatments after watching the Catalyst program cited side effects as another reason for stopping their drugs.
Almost a third said they wanted to drop their medication because of the cost.
Merck Sharp Dohme manufactures a cholesterol lowering stating drug called zocor.
The Catalyst program was based on the evidence of a group of doctors and a supplement salesperson who are all promoting their own books on the subject.
The Australian Medical Association branded the program "sensationalist" and the chair of the Australian Advisory Committee on the Safety of Medicines asked the ABC to pull part two of the program off the air.
One doctor responding to the Merck Sharp Dohme survey said "the Catalyst program has been the most biased and damaging TV show ... medically ... in years".
Another doctor commented that "it was a rubbish and biased program in the same grain as anti-vaccination propaganda".
"There should be a governing body to stop idiots reporting on shows like Catalyst that can have devastating results to the overall health of the community.......and Medicines Australia worry about us hard working Dr's being influenced by a pen or a dinner! " another doctor said.
Most of the doctors surveyed said they would not change their prescribing of statins as a result of the Catalyst program.
However, 14 per cent said they would decrease their prescribing of statins to low risk patients.
Shortly after Catalyst went to air the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (Nice) in the United Kingdom announced it would reconsider its guidelines on the drugs as new evidence suggest more people could benefit from them.
Leading researcher and cardiologist Professor David Colquoun says a 1996 Australian trial of over 9,000 patients that he took part in found decreasing cholesterol in people who had experience a heart attack reduced the risk of stroke by 20 per cent, the need for a heart bypass by 25 per cent and a further heart attack by 30 per cent.
Posted by jonjayray at 12:14 AM