The statistical studies that evaluation of chemical hazards rely on run into limitations when small numbers are involved. Consider the famous case of chromium pollution uncovered by Erin Brockovich. Statistical analysis reveals no excess cancers in the area of Hinckley, CA. The area population was 3644 during the period studied (1996-2008), and suffered 196 cases of cancer when 224 would be expected statistically. Can we conclude that the elevated levels of hexavalent chromium observed caused no cancers? Of course not, hexavalent chromium is a known carcinogen, but it shows that it may be very difficult to sort out cause and effect, particularly in small populations.
A blog authored by "Chemistry in the Media", a class at the University of Delaware, dedicated to exploring and breaking stereotypes and stigmas applied to science and scientists by the media.
Thursday, March 21, 2013
Saturday, March 16, 2013
A Hundred Years of Synthetic Fertilizers
A hundred years ago this year Carl Bosch opened the first synthetic ammonia plant. Bosch's accomplishment has been essential to the development of the enormous productivity of modern agriculture. Probably no other development in modern chemistry resulted in such profound change and unintended consequences. Bosch was a real life modern Prometheus, in contrast to Mary Shelley's Frankenstein whom she called a modern Prometheus. While he was a fictitious character who did not materially change modern life, he had a more profound effect than Carl Bosch on the image of a chemist in the modern popular imagination.
Fertilizing rice in Burma ( Slate)
Fertilizing rice in Burma ( Slate)
Thursday, March 14, 2013
Tuesday, March 12, 2013
Follow the yellow brick blog
The blog I am following is called "Built on facts" from science blogs.com
Its more physics then chemistry but it proposes some very interesting ideas.
Also, check out this article from scientific American. "Chemical is not a bad word"
Its more physics then chemistry but it proposes some very interesting ideas.
Also, check out this article from scientific American. "Chemical is not a bad word"
Misconceptions of Anti-biotic Resistant Bacteria
"Resistance Nightmare"
An infectious disease doctor discusses the stigmas of anti-biotics and their connection to resistant bacteria.
An infectious disease doctor discusses the stigmas of anti-biotics and their connection to resistant bacteria.
Monday, March 11, 2013
Thursday, March 7, 2013
The Human Element
I recently saw some very positive commercials by Dow about the way that chemistry is being used to improve the lives of the average person. These beautiful commercials are a great way to combat chemophobia. They can be found here
Wednesday, March 6, 2013
Chemophobia in the NYT!
Slate writer Michele M. Francl finds evidence for chemophobia in a New York Times article about a mother's search for a treatment of her son's arthritis.
Frankenstein, Jekyl and now Spock?
From Nicole:
This article is hands down an "ethical minefield" as the article states. The whole idea of a "mind meld" and brain to brain sharing sounds straight of science fiction. Like all scientific discoveries, I'm sure this could benefit many, and help mankind to further understand science and the world around us. However, the idea of meld several brains together to perform things that a single brain couldn't sounds like an episode of one of my favorite shows, Doctor Who. In the episode, all people are plugged into a computer and together share all knowledge and are extremely intelligent. However, this is not a future I really want. Thinking along the story lines of Frankenstein and Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, just because you CAN do something, does it mean you should? And this, in it of itself, is the argument against nearly everything that has been discovered or researched in science, ever. Every discovery has both a plus and negative. Take nuclear energy, for instance. Obviously nuclear weapons such as the A-bomb are an extreme negative, wasting human life and causing social and political problems. However, nuclear energy is an amazing discovery that has led to many others, and furthered our understanding of the atom. So my question to you is, where do you side on this research, future downfall of society, or amazing discovery that will lead to our enhanced knowledge of medicine and the human brain?
http://www.newsdaily.com/ stories/bre91r0u6-us-brain- mindmeld/
This article is hands down an "ethical minefield" as the article states. The whole idea of a "mind meld" and brain to brain sharing sounds straight of science fiction. Like all scientific discoveries, I'm sure this could benefit many, and help mankind to further understand science and the world around us. However, the idea of meld several brains together to perform things that a single brain couldn't sounds like an episode of one of my favorite shows, Doctor Who. In the episode, all people are plugged into a computer and together share all knowledge and are extremely intelligent. However, this is not a future I really want. Thinking along the story lines of Frankenstein and Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, just because you CAN do something, does it mean you should? And this, in it of itself, is the argument against nearly everything that has been discovered or researched in science, ever. Every discovery has both a plus and negative. Take nuclear energy, for instance. Obviously nuclear weapons such as the A-bomb are an extreme negative, wasting human life and causing social and political problems. However, nuclear energy is an amazing discovery that has led to many others, and furthered our understanding of the atom. So my question to you is, where do you side on this research, future downfall of society, or amazing discovery that will lead to our enhanced knowledge of medicine and the human brain?
Movie Star Chemists 2
Cary Grant plays a chemist. He wears thick glasses, and he is absent-minded. But he is married to Ginger Rogers who wants to dance with him!
Tuesday, March 5, 2013
Monday, March 4, 2013
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)