[krisoft]

> It’s pretty simple, don’t dump chemicals in water or on land period.

Everything is chemicals. You just described 2/3 of all industrial activity and proposed we should stop them. Are you willing to take the consequences which follow from that proposal? (And somehow forgot the 1/3 “dump chemicals in air”)

[legulere]

Chemicals are shorthand for synthetic chemicals. We co-evolved with natural chemicals which means that they're usually not too harmful to us and get easily biodegraded.

In this case it's about PFAS, a subgroup of organofluorine compounds. There's only 5 known organofluorine compounds produced by organisms.

[bawolff]

> We co-evolved with natural chemicals which means that they're usually not too harmful to us

There are plenty of counter examples to this (and also pretty unclear what is meant by "natural")

Lead is natural. Mercury is natural.

[legulere]

Notice the word usually I used. It's about probabilities, and with vastly different probabilities come different burdens of proof. If you had the choice to put something random from the forest in your mouth or something from a chemistry lab?

[edgyquant]

Neither lead nor mercury are chemicals that naturally exist in large quantities in a typical human habitat.

[defrost]

Aside from the evidence of > 2,000 years of lead and mercury poisoning, of course.

Humans have been naturally digging these things up and refining them since at least the Roman Empire [1] in the west and the earliest Chinese Dynasties in the East [2].

[1] https://sites.dartmouth.edu/toxmetal/more-metals/lead-versat...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mausoleum_of_the_First_Qin_Emp...

[marshray]

Jesus this is a stupid argument.

"Don’t dump chemicals in water or on land" is a perfectly logical and defensible statement.

[thereisnospork]

No its not. Its an absurd statement that doesn't adequately define chemicals, water, or land nor does it address the very necessary industrial processes wherein 'chemicals' are and need to be dumped on water or land. A trivial for instance:

Okay, no more fertilizer on the crops then. Enjoy the famine.

[marshray]

Obviously it's broad and there will be many exceptions. The exceptions are often the interesting part of the discussion.

Words have different meanings in different contexts. Pretending that "chemicals" can only ever be used to refer to all material substances equally is just intentionally trying to sabotage productive discussion.

[thereisnospork]

The usage of chemicals is so broad and incorrect as to be inane in historical context and rhetorically useless, as demonstrated previously. If there's something to discuss regulating, then is necessary to describe it, otherwise all that's been said is 'BAD THINGS' shouldnt be put on the ground. A: duh B: meaningless, because "bad things" doesn't create a basis for a rule or judgement of aforementioned exceptions be because here 'chemicals' are already being assigned the negative connotation. No true chemical (Scotsman fallacy) could be put on the ground and so forth.

[bawolff]

> Words have different meanings in different contexts

Well define it then.

Nobody is complaing that there might be an alternative definition of chemical.

The complaint is that you're not using any widely known definition of "chemical" and not providing your own definition.

You can shut everyone up by just defining how you are using the word. I doubt you will since i think you are lying about there existing some other definition that makes sense in the context you are arguing, and you lack the knowledge/ability to make up your own definition that would fit your argument.

[hcurtiss]

Is water a chemical? How about nitrogen, which comprises 3/4 of our atmosphere?

[marshray]

Is Bose–Einstein condensate a chemical? How about Neutronium?

See how that works?

Real productive mode of conversation, huh.

[hcurtiss]

I’m just trying to understand what “don’t dump chemicals in water or on land” even means. If nitrogen and water are OK, then the directive is plainly wrong. What else would be OK? And how would we make that decision?

[edgyquant]

You know what was meant and this question is the perfect example of someone who is bad faith actor and we should jail for pretending to not get it. Water is a necessity to life and what humans drink, toxic chemicals aren’t. It’s simple, if it isn’t water don’t dump it, period.

[sitkack]

> Everything is chemicals.

This is a thought terminating cliche and pedantically destroys the conversation.

[krisoft]

> This is a thought terminating cliche and pedantically destroys the conversation.

It is not. Quite contrary. The thought it provokes is "what chemicals do you want to ban?" Do you want to ban water? Should we throw anyone in a prison who transports it? It is a chemical after all. One which is quite dangerous in many circumstances.

But surely that is not what edgyquant meant. Should we prohibit people selling soap? It is a chemical! But that is silly. We would probably lose more by banning that than by not banning it.

Should we ban plastics? Maybe? Which types? All types? All uses?

Should we sell hydrazine in grocery stores? Oh, we better not. Can we use hydrazine in special applications like fuelling satellites? If so what do we require from people who handle/store/dispose of it?

So many thoughts provoked by that simple observation.

[sitkack]

> Do you want to ban water? Should we throw anyone in a prison who transports it? It is a chemical after all.

Exactly. You prove my point.

[epcoa]

> Should we prohibit people selling soap?

I mean, there's a good example there with phosphate compounds in detergents.

[lazide]

What is the difference between lye (dangerous), sand (not dangerous unless it suffocates things or gets crushed and inhaled), water (can cause flooding or drowning, otherwise harmless), and sodium bicarbonate (quite basic, generally harmless), and hydrazine (mutagenic, highly toxic, highly flammable)?

All of these have hazards in specific circumstances, and huge benefits in others. All are chemicals.

All are well known and characterized. Many other compounds are too new for that level of knowledge and characterization. They are chemicals too.

If we allow someone to make new chemicals (it’s hard to stop, frankly!), either we say ‘no, not until they are fully understood and characterized’, or ‘yes, unless we learn it’s too hazardous’.

Saying no first is a bit of a catch-22 since how are you going learn anything and characterize the dangers if you don’t make and use it a bunch?

If you say ‘yes, unless we learn it’s too dangerous’ then we learn a huge amount quite quickly - but inevitably have something too dangerous causing problems.

It’s a fundamentally conservative vs liberal development strategy debate.

[naremu]

>What is the difference between lye (dangerous), sand (not dangerous unless it suffocates things or gets crushed and inhaled), water (can cause flooding or drowning, otherwise harmless), and sodium bicarbonate (quite basic, generally harmless), and hydrazine (mutagenic, highly toxic, highly flammable)?

The MSDSes will elaborate on this and you probably know that.

This thread chain has gotten impressively disingenuous very fast. We aren't arguing the colloquial definition of chemicals which if we're not being pedantic, we know brings up ideas of substances damaging to other substances or life itself.

Which is fairly obviously the line that you're giving a good traditional "but where would we POSSIBLY STOP?!" gambit that comes out of paid lobbyist's mouths more often than hello or goodbye.

The line to be crossed is obviously at least a few blocks up the way from "what is the difference between water and hydrazine though".

And also, anything cumulative becomes "too hazardous" within years. But by then profits are made, and war chests are filled to keep the spice flowing.

The world got by for thousands of years sustainably without a lot of these "huge benefits" and I'm willing to take a hit or two within my lifetime to ensure there's still lifetimes at all down the road.

[bawolff]

> The line to be crossed is obviously at least a few blocks up the way from "what is the difference between water and hydrazine though".

Do you actually have a line? We can't make a law out of people saying "you know what i mean".

[naremu]

> the colloquial definition of chemicals which if we're not being pedantic, we know brings up ideas of substances damaging to other substances or life itself.

From the comment you're responding to. Damage is quantifiable, if it wasn't, the OP (EPA proposing hazardous substance classification) wouldn't even exist.

[bawolff]

one presumes it is not when there is any quantifiable damage, no matter how slight. I assume nobody is proposing banning water, etc. But even plain water can result in large amounts of environmental damage in certain contexts.

If the point is just to ban things when the risks outweigh the benefits, that is simply the status quo.

[lazide]

No, you’re just being disingenuous.

How do you create a MSDS for a chemical that hasn’t been made yet?

How do you decide it’s safe to create a large enough quantity of a chemical to figure out what even should be in that MSDS?

How can you know if something is mutagenic without exposing it to DNA? Or cancer causing without exposing it to a living organism? Or causes reproductive harm without exposing it to organisms and seeing how it impacts reproduction?

Those all are potential harms.

Traditionally, some enterprising alchemist/chemist would just try it - and if they lived, would write a paper on it. Further research and experience would then inform if a better alternative should be used.

The Haber-Bosch process that allowed the creation of artificial fertilizers has allowed for the massive expansion of the human race. Roughly 3/4 of the humans on this planet right now would starve to death without it. Assuming they didn’t get nuked first. That was in 1909.

It also allowed for the creation of modern high explosives (and propellants) at scale, and the horrors of WW1 and WW2. And the mining revolution, which has provided the raw materials necessary to build our modern economies at vastly cheaper prices than were ever possible before for humanity.

Chemistry is a fundamental building block of modern society, and removing it would literally cause its sudden and violent collapse.

Deciding if ‘freezing’ it in place, or letting it continue to develop new and interesting applications is the discussion - because no, we weren’t sustainable before (unless you count constant and ongoing genocides as ‘sustainable’), and we’ve long passed the point where trying to return to that would be anything but apocalyptic.

Literally.

And keeping in mind that just because we agree to stop research in one area doesn’t mean anyone else (competitors) will do so. Regardless of if that is in the realm of drugs, or weapons, or soaps, or foods, or whatever.

[naremu]

So, let me get this straight: I've claimed reducing everything to "chemicals" is disingenuous, and in response, I'm immediately told "no, you" and then challenged with debates over topics or ideas I haven't actually talked about like

>How do you create a MSDS for a chemical that hasn’t been made yet?

What argument that I've made do you present this logical fallacy to?

> Deciding if ‘freezing’ it in place, or letting it continue to develop new and interesting applications is the discussion

This is not my viewpoint and was never mentioned by me. This is an argument you're either making in reference to another comment, a point not addressed by myself, or you're talking to your own strawman, who doesn't seem to have a significant stance other than "well, it's basically unsolveable!".

That is the discussion I was having. You're doing exactly what I mentioned, being disingenuous about the literal technical definition of chemicals and muddying waters because water is a chemical too, man!

Well watering my lawn doesn't kill it or give organisms that live mere decades cancer. That's a reasonable measurement to start.

And if you're really saying there can't be more in depth, slower research to chemicals that people will end up having in their bloodstream, then I don't even know what to say to that, other than Andrew Ryan would be proud.

[lazide]

It doesn’t seem like you’re reading your comments or my replies?

The concern about the chemicals we’re talking about is that they are in the water you are using to water your lawn, anmong other things, and have been getting made at scale for over 50 years. And is a family of 6 million something chemicals, some of which we suspect now may be dangerous - including causing cancer - and some we have no idea.

We can only test for things we suspect are an actual issue and have a test for. And for which we actually test.

Which we don’t really have reasonable tests for ‘doesn’t bio degrade over decades+ and bio accumulates to potentially dangerous levels’ yet. Except watching nature, anyway, which is how we discovered this problem. There are millions more chemicals that this hasn’t happened either.

So what do you propose doing here besides freezing it until such tests can be put in place and developed?

[thaumasiotes]

No, it's pretty much the only appropriate response to edgyquant's demand that we do the impossible.

[edgyquant]

No you’re being pedantic and proving my point. Everyone, every single person, knows when you’re doing something that could potentially devastate an environment and if you have to ask if it could don’t be dumping. Why should anyone be allowed to dump anything at all into the local environment?