[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.

[marshray]

So how would you say it instead?

[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.

[marshray]

Here you go, here's one plain vanilla dictionary definition, absent context.

Now would you like to discuss which "substances produced by chemical processes" are likely to be the most impactful upon the environment, or would you like to continue quibbling over semantics?

chemical [ kem-i-kuhl ]SHOW IPA

noun

a substance produced by or used in a chemical process.

chemicals, Slang. narcotic or mind-altering drugs or substances.

adjective

of, used in, produced by, or concerned with chemistry or chemicals: a chemical formula; chemical agents.

used in chemical warfare: chemical weapons.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/chemical

[bawolff]

Well given this is in response to the statement:

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

Then i still maintain anyone using that definition of chemical in the context of that statement is an utter idiot.

> Now would you like to discuss which "substances produced by chemical processes" are likely to be the most impactful upon the environment

Why? There is already a government department tasked with that, that can probably do a better job then you or i could.

If you're trying to argue that the status quo is fine and we shouldn't change anything, then you have a weird way of doing so.

[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?

[Bluecobra]

Well for starters, maybe it was a bad idea to dump 27,000 barrels of DDT in the ocean near Los Angeles.

https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2022-05-18/heres-w...

[paulmd]

> I’m just trying to understand what “don’t dump chemicals in water or on land” even means.

classic bad-faith interpretation, using the classic bad-faith slogan. No, you’re not “just trying to understand” anything, and GP is absolutely correct about that.

We are not dying for content here without your “hurr durr don’t you know water is a chemical posts, and we generally try to maintain a higher level of discourse here. Maybe try Reddit instead.

Please see the site rules about using the most generous possible interpretation of a comment, and if you actually have something to contribute then maybe try again.

[amarant]

The comment that spurred this conversation did claim that the problem was overly complicated legislation to a simple problem. "Don't dump chemicals" is about as good a solution as "don't do bad things". You can't oversimplify a complex issue like that and expect to get anywhere.

I'm being plenty charitable in assuming you're arguing in good faith, at first glance your comment comes off as anti-intellectual value signalling, which will never ever solve anything. Ever.

But this is HN, so I'm going to assume you've simply misunderstood the concern, as anti intellectualism has no place here.

[hcurtiss]

How about anhydrous ammonia? Or phosphate? I’m sorry, but there is no generous interpretation of “don’t dump chemicals on land.” It’s an empty statement that amounts to little more than value signaling. And it was presented with righteous indignation. I thought it best to counter that extreme position with obvious and irrefutable exceptions in an effort to open the door to a more thoughtful conversation. Unfortunately, on environmental issues, it seems for some there is only dogma.

[epcoa]

This is completely uncalled for. You should be ashamed. Ok so dump water. How about detergents with phosphates. Those were fine until they weren’t.

[edgyquant]

Nah you’re playing stupid in bad faith.

[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.