Sciencemadness Discussion Board - Californian chemophobia

Californian chemophobia

pyrochemix - 19-3-2008 at 14:09

Everything these days from electrical cords to plastics to alcoholic beverages to testosterone has had california call cancerous on it why just california? why are they such chemophobic hippies? only they call cancer on the stupidest things a friend of mine once told me "california is bordered by ocean on one side and mountains on the other, wind comes in from the ocean swooping over dairy farms picking up feces of cows and then the wind reaches the mountains and it gets sent higher in the atmosphere and back over near the coast where this wind is a horizontal cyclone, swooping and swirling circulating tons of BULL!@#$" that explains the orangish "smog" which they blame on pollution even though its been around since the gold rush, I want your opinion, why is california so quick to catch on to the political economical propaganda of global warming, environmental pollution and everything thing else. I mean they are blaming cancer on things that we will never be exposed to enough of to cause cancer. I want your input and please dont argue with me about global warming, I can discredit it on every level possible and provide great motives to create such BS , thanks guys

CyrusGrey - 19-3-2008 at 14:21

Quote:

I want your opinion, why is california so quick to catch on to the political economical propaganda of global warming, environmental pollution and everything thing else.

Quote:

I want your input and please dont argue with me about global warming, I can discredit it on every level possible and provide great motives to create such BS

You have inserted a somewhat vague and very strong opinion into your question. You then try to deny any debate about this opinion before it surfaces (Which runs contrairy to a large body of evidence). I very much doubt you will get any useful answer to your inquiry because of this. It almost seems like you are trying to intentinally provoke people into disagreeing with you.

I would like to hear your discreditations, and also to hear the motives you would give. If they use facts that are not common knowlege, please cite your sources.

Magpie - 19-3-2008 at 14:50

I won't touch your claim about global warming. But as to why Californians are so perverse (as a class) I have some theories.

They are overcrowded. They took a natural paradise and ruined it by overpopulation and lack of mass transporation. They want to blame somebody for their smog and cancer other than themselves so blame every substance that ever showed any cancer in any study no matter what the experimental conditions - which may have been totally unrealistic to human exposure.

They are on the forefront of all social evils, including the one to blame and sue anyone else for their self-induced problems. Unfortunately, they are usually trend setters.

I have lived in California (only for 1 year) and have relatives living there. Some parts are quite nice. You have to be careful with stereotypes.

[Edited on 19-3-2008 by Magpie]

MagicJigPipe - 19-3-2008 at 16:08

Not to mention California has more laws and regulations on the books than just about every other state. We can blame people like Diane Feinstein and former governer Gray Davis for much of that bullshit. I agree CA is full of shit and I wouldn't wish it upon anyone to live in such a superficial, "freedom hating" society.

Apparently, they know what's best for the rest of the country.

The_Davster - 19-3-2008 at 18:48

We have already done the global warming discussion, and no ones opinions are going to be swayed here. If this thread is to remain open, it would be inadvisable to turn it into another global warming flame war.

I blame hollywood.
It attracts the least educated with shiny things etc. These people eventually began to outnumber the intellectuals. Democratic voting did the rest

pyrochemix: Please use punctuation including periods and capital letters, it was difficult to read your post.

woelen - 19-3-2008 at 23:48

The Netherlands is even more crowded than California, I think it is (together with some areas in the Far East) the most crowded area of the world. But we don't have such draconic regulations on really everything as they have in California, fortunately not

So, density of population is not the key indicator here, of course it might have added to the problem, but there is more to say about that. Maybe The_Davster is right with his Hollywood hypothesis

Magpie - 20-3-2008 at 08:50

Yes, population density per se cannot be the reason, for as you say there are many more people dense places in the world. Even in the US the eastern seaboard is much denser overall. The Los Angeles basin, where Hollywood is located, is just plagued with urban sprawl.

People outside the US especially place way too much importance on Hollywood as often this is their portal to US culture. It gets way too much attention from both US and non-US people in the media. It is just a small community where actors and wannabes go to make movies. I lived in the LA basin for 1 year and paid no attention to Hollywood.

The LA basin is hemmed in by mountains and gets seabreeze from the coast. They have a lot of weather "inversions" which trap the smog they generate with every person driving alone on their 40 mile commute to work. They know they are poisoning themselves and the California legislature reacts, sometimes irrationaly, to try and stop this.

chloric1 - 20-3-2008 at 15:31

Decadence without wisdom or intelligence, in general, is a prelude to rampant perdition.

pyrochemix - 21-3-2008 at 20:08

!@#$ I typed like 8 paragraphs and my computer decided to take a !@$@, let me sum it up
I replied to all of you
CyrusGrey- I respect your ideas and want to hear them rather than challenge them. I approached this thread with a hostile mood and that made me seem like a A-hole who wants to stir up sh!t I`m sorry and you typed that very reasonably and professionally, I respect you for that
the rest of you: you all have good points I think they all attribute to the idea
Sorry about the spelling and punctuation but i just typed 8 and a half paragraphs with good punctuation and I`m done I also have no idea the difference from ` and ' so I alternate
when using apostrophes
davster: thats completely true and I find it hard living in a society led by those people
I was just joking about the cyclone of bullshit and I think the problem is rooted in californias hippy movement, I like to call it the Neo-eco-nazihippy movement
and chloric1, those words really get me, I have a section on the wall in my room made for qoutes, you have just replaced "I would fight cancer, but I don`t have the chance to, so if I find someone with cancer I`ll beat the shit out of them" - The narrator in Fight Club, played by Edward Norton-- as my favorite qoute

CyrusGrey - 21-3-2008 at 21:07

Thank you for your respect.

I am not really too worried about global warming, but only because we are starting to do something about it. I'll make three major points for you here if you like:

Firstly, the global temperature is rising. And the rate it is rising is increasing. We know that both nature and humans are contributing to this, but not to what degree.

Temperature record graphs

1* rise in global temperature sounds quite substantial to me, perhaps not in the short term, but on the span of decades/centuries.

Secondly, the effects of global warming are quite alarming. Some effects that have been correlated to a global increase in temperatures are: more extreme weather (hurricanes, etc.), changing climates disrupting ecosystems, glaciers are caving faster (I have seen documentaries that showed the differences in rates of glacier caving, it has doubled or tripled in the last 50-100 years). I have seen documentaries stating that if the glaciers on Greenland were to melt, we would see a global sea level rise of 5-8 feet. This would make all homes, seaports, etc. located on the coast start experiencing severe flooding (and knowing how stubborn people are, they will just rebuild. Imagine most coastal cities being in the same situation New Orleans is in.) If Antarctica were to melt we would see a global sea level rise of hundreds of feet, that would mean that where I live now (Florida) would be almost completely underwater. Wikipedia also cites quite a few other scenarios:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming

Thirdly, there are a number of positive feedback loops with global warming. One is an increase in forest fires due to higher temperature, erosion, etc. Another is because of the fact that ice reflects a good portion of the sun's light. And the most hellish one would be if the methane hydrates at the bottom of the ocean started melting/releasing methane. That would not just flood our coasts, that would turn earth into a planet more like Venus. Luckily I think the cited temperature change for that to occur is 4* which is quite a lot. Try googling "clathrate gun" for that last one.

All in all, I don't really know if it would be a problem or not, but there is a good bit of evidence saying that it could be and the consequences are very bad if it is a problem. I agree that there is a good bit of fear mongering about global warming, and people using that to their advantage, but that always happens whenever you can make large numbers of people react to something. Certainly California has some of that going on.

I hope you found this informative. Maybe you could make some good counterpoints that I haven't heard.

I feel like I have hijacked the thread now though.

[Edited on 22-3-2008 by CyrusGrey]

bio2 - 22-3-2008 at 13:01

Magpie got it right when he said.....

They are on the forefront of all social evils, including the one to blame and sue anyone else for their self-induced problems.
..................

It's easy. Many Californians are sue happy and also have some paranoia imagining that everything is dangerous.

That being said, the rural areas in CA are very nice and much different than the cities and the people in these rural areas unfortunately are not the majority of the people that vote in all the "control freak" politicians.

Ridiculous Laws

MadHatter - 22-3-2008 at 16:07

One key word in opening post says quite a bit: HIPPIE
Another key word,in another post that says much: HOLLYWOOD

Now, that 2 key initiators of events have been pointed out, there's that 3rd den of evil: POLITICS

For politicians, there are 2 states out of the 50 that become the immediate targets of their
bullshit social agenda. California because it has the highest population(and electoral votes),
and Mayrland because it wraps around Washington, D.C. for all of Congress to see.

Fortunately, here in Maryland, we haven't had to put up with the restrictions on lab equipment
and chemicals - so far. But that may change given the existing hysteria concerning drug
and terrorist activities - real or imagined, mostly imagined from what I can see.

MagicJigPipe - 22-3-2008 at 16:30

You forgot about New York City. It's one of only 2 cities (that I know of) where handgun ownership is virtually outlawed. Washington D.C. is the other. California has the most restrictive (except for outlawing handguns; I suppose that might be too far for a whole state, even CA) gun laws of any other state.

I'm not trying to turn this into a discussion on gun control, I'm simply saying that the severity of gun laws in a state or city seems to be indicative of it's practice of increasing regulations across the board. Seattle, Washington is getting bad. As another example, Alaska has some of the least restrictive gun laws and also appears to have less other regulations as well.

Magpie - 22-3-2008 at 16:38

It doesn't surprise me that Alaska has the least restrictive laws as it has a low overall population density and the residents live closer to nature. I would suspect the same holds true for Wyoming where they are proud of their independence and lack of regulations (its the place to buy firecrackers!

) New Hampshire's state motto is "Live Free or Die" IIRC. I wonder how they are doing in living up to that motto?

joeflsts - 22-3-2008 at 17:27

Quote:

Originally posted by MagicJigPipe
You forgot about New York City. It's one of only 2 cities (that I know of) where handgun ownership is virtually outlawed. Washington D.C. is the other. California has the most restrictive (except for outlawing handguns; I suppose that might be too far for a whole state, even CA) gun laws of any other state.

I'm not trying to turn this into a discussion on gun control, I'm simply saying that the severity of gun laws in a state or city seems to be indicative of it's practice of increasing regulations across the board. Seattle, Washington is getting bad. As another example, Alaska has some of the least restrictive gun laws and also appears to have less other regulations as well.

Excellent post - I would point out that the most restrictive places for gun & chemical ownership are liberal states. Obviously Texas is as backward as the hills of Kentucky but I think it is worth noticing that both parties, repub and democrats are the same.

Joe

The_Davster - 22-3-2008 at 23:30

While the comparison of gun and chemical freedoms is valid for US states, it does not explain other countries. Germany, The Netherlands, and Canada seem alright in terms of chemical freedoms, but have very strict gun laws. However in the spectrum of what possessions are allowed, it does seem that a propensity for banning one leads to banning other things.
Many things seem regulated in california; guns, chemicals, smoking, trans fats. Canada regulates and has attempted to ban or severely restrict 1 and 3, and more recently, 2, and 4.

Quote:

Originally posted by Magpie
the residents live closer to nature.

There are a lot of really really big bears up that way....

[Edited on 23-3-2008 by The_Davster]

MagicJigPipe - 22-3-2008 at 23:36

"New Hampshire's state motto is "Live Free or Die" IIRC. I wonder how they are doing in living up to that motto?"

I know that either New Hampshire or Vermont is one of only two states (Alaska is the other one) where posession of a concealed handgun does not require registration or licensing. So, if it is NH then I would say they are certainly living up to their motto.

Pure Stupidity

tumadre - 23-3-2008 at 20:59

Well this is only on topic to the extent that one more Californian regulatory board has shown that they are pure Evil.

The California Air Resources Board seeks to limit zero emission vehicle manufacture to 2500 per year

MagicJigPipe - 24-3-2008 at 18:56

Hmmmm... I don't know if that's bad or not. If people won't buy them then don't make the companies manufacture them. Fuel cells (at this time) suck IMO. They're inefficient, expensive and only useful in certain situations. I say, if people are buying them, have them make more. If not, leave it alone.

A methanol economy show's more promise than any other proposals IMO.

The_Davster - 24-3-2008 at 19:05

From your link:
"at the next California Air Resources Board meeting, they’re proposing to reduce the number of Zero-Emission Vehicles required of automakers by 90%"

They are not setting a maximum, they lowered a minimum. However they worded the rest as if it meant producing too many would be illegal.

[Edited on 24-3-2008 by The_Davster]

tumadre - 25-3-2008 at 06:31

Well here is the proposed changes: a 52 page pdf.
Lets not start a war until they divide what to do with this program in a few days.

some (IMO) biased backround

I bet that the battery EV died because the automakers couldn't make a profit selling them in the minimum quantity as mandated.

MagicJigPipe - 3-4-2008 at 19:25

My battery died in my car so I went to get a few parts and a new battery. I came across a product that is used to clean the battery and "detect acid".

It had the standard CA warning "This product contains chemicals known to the state of California to cause cancer".

Guess what it contained.

Propane, butane, 2-propanol, water and sodium bicarbonate.

THESE CAUSE CANCER!!??!

We're all gonna die!!!!

DerAlte - 3-4-2008 at 21:51

"This product contains chemicals known to the state of California to cause cancer".

We need not bother. folks. "The State of California" is an inanimate object and as such "knows" absolutely FA. Even less than its politicians...

Der Alte

Arrhenius - 17-8-2008 at 11:45

Well what do you propose to change this sort of attitude/behavior in California and the rest of the US? Everyone knows that cancer kills, and that many things may cause it, though I believe most worries are irrational (except smoking). What will this situation look like in ten years? Do you and I have any influence over the matter, or is it hopeless?

If you agree global warming exists, then I would say you might like California for their environmental laws. The smog only gets bad in the south, but that is somewhat attributed to wind patterns and population density. Again, how would you propose global warming be approached? I hope you won't say that we should pump CO2 underground (as is currently underway), and our economy seems to suffer when we damper the use of oil, so what's a reasonable approach?

chloric1 - 17-8-2008 at 12:08

Quote:

Originally posted by MagicJigPipe
My battery died in my car so I went to get a few parts and a new battery. I came across a product that is used to clean the battery and "detect acid".

It had the standard CA warning "This product contains chemicals known to the state of California to cause cancer".

Guess what it contained.

Propane, butane, 2-propanol, water and sodium bicarbonate.

THESE CAUSE CANCER!!??!

We're all gonna die!!!!

I tell you Magic, its the 2-propanol. I once rented this property and a temporary roomate of mine wathcing me organize my belongins saw me with a bottle of 2-bromopropanol in my hand. He said " Oh no!, chemicals with
numbers in there name are REALLY nasty! They cause cancer or something!" LMAO!!

This guy was one of those crooked opportunistic stock broker types who cleaned up from investing life savings for little old ladies. These are the kind of people you cannot trust.

I like some of the rural areas of California between Fresno and Sequoia National Forest. Got some neat pics of Success lake. It gets stuffy there July and August though! Phew! I know I know its a dry heat but its still hot.

Aperturescience27 - 23-4-2012 at 22:27

Quote: Originally posted by MagicJigPipe

I'm simply saying that the severity of gun laws in a state or city seems to be indicative of it's practice of increasing regulations across the board.

What about Texas? All the guns you want, but Erlenmeyer flasks? Never!

DieForelle - 28-8-2012 at 11:28

Yes, as the Texas example shows, this kind of idiocy can show up just about anywhere.
The California Prop 65 warnings are absurd. Some chemical manufacturers don't want to bother getting approval for any of their products, even non-hazardous ones. Thus a 500 gram bottle of Spectrum Sodium Chloride, USP, says on the side: "This product contains a chemical known in the State of California to cause cancer".

Brain&Force - 27-6-2014 at 19:13

Eventually Cheerios will have a Proposition 65 sticker - oh, wait, that almost happened.

I hate it when people say, "If you can't pronounce it, don't eat it or use it!" The thing about us amateur chemists is that we can pronounce dimethylpolysiloxane and selenocysteine without a problem.

The chemophobes can't even pronounce "linoleic acid," (and are probably deathly afraid of it), yet they eat it every. Single. DAY.

[Edited on 28.6.2014 by Brain&Force]

Texium - 27-6-2014 at 19:57

Quote: Originally posted by Brain&Force

I hate it when people say, "If you can't pronounce it, don't eat it or use it!" The thing about us amateur chemists is that we can pronounce dimethylpolysiloxane and selenocysteine without a problem.

The chemophobes can't even pronounce "linoleic acid," (and are probably deathly afraid of it), yet they eat it every. Single. DAY.
[Edited on 28.6.2014 by Brain&Force]

A very good point, and I hate that too, although by the end of her little article she does suggest actually reading and researching about the ingredients in the products, which I find to be much more reasonable than her original claims…
I usually do research unfamiliar ingredients, but more out of curiosity rather than anything else. I think that doing that is actually a really good thing that everybody should do. Not only does it inform you about what it is that you're consuming, but it can be potentially very interesting and actually lessen chemophobia in the long run, as many of the "hard to pronounce" chemicals are actually found to be completely benign upon researching them. Eventually if everyone's doing that, then suspicion regarding artificial ingredients becomes much more measured and reasonable.

Metacelsus - 27-6-2014 at 19:58

Hmm... I can pronounce dimethylmercury!

Texium - 27-6-2014 at 20:22

Apparently that may become a quite realistic problem in the food of school kids and inmates soon:
http://discovermagazine.com/2014/julyaug/50-dogfish-mercury

Hm, dogfish is cheap… also 30% higher in mercury than tuna, already infamous for its high mercury levels. Let's put it in school lunches! That'll help balance the budget. They'll be fine if they only eat it once a month or so. You know, they're just the generation that's supposed to fix everything that's wrong with the world now. Gotta get 'em off to a healthy start!

arkoma - 27-6-2014 at 21:49

As a NATIVE Californian, and having spent 30 of my 50 years there, I can weigh in on the OP's original question. The problem, as I see it, is the State Constitution can be AMENDED by 51% of those that BOTHER to vote. Hence we are saddled with a bunch of conflicted bullshit like Prop 65 and Prop 8. The "cancer" warnings and gay marriage ban respectively. But yet CA canna bring itself to legalize something as innocuous as cannabis. "Hippies" my ass. CA is at the mercy (in my biased opinion) of a bunch of "reactionary tree-huggers". Yes that is an oxymoron, but that's how my home is. *sigh* Why I am in NEVADA at the moment LMFAO.

Oh, and we just LOVE to build and FILL penitentiaries in Cali...............ask me how I know.

Edit--BTW, most of Cali is rather RURAL. Los Angeles FUKKIN TERRIFIES me. I've spent three whole days there in my whole life. Don't "tar" the whole state with the LA brush. My home is at the "gateway" to Joshua Tree National Park. I won't even go to Palm Springs without kicking and screaming, and it's actually pretty small. (my home zip code is 92277)

[Edited on 6-28-2014 by arkoma]

Boron Trioxide - 28-6-2014 at 07:36

I think i can win this non existent contest to have the stupidest cancer label ...

On bottled oxygen, apparently a bottle of oxygen you can buy at home depot causes cancer who knew?

Honestly the only way you can tell by a glance if something could potentially cause cancer is some other country declares it a carcinogen. California cancer labels get thrown around so much they lose all effectiveness.

And also for California don get me started on there pollution laws, apparently none of the small engine power equipment we enjoy in the rest of the world can be sold in California. Which apparently means it has to be printed on absolutely everything.

Texium - 28-6-2014 at 07:49

Is that really just oxygen, with nothing else in it?
If so, we need to hurry and warn the California state legislature that they're all breathing in a ton of carcinogenic gas every day! (And not even from the smog!)

Boron Trioxide - 28-6-2014 at 08:01

I am not sure if it is 100% pure as it is supposed to be used for small scale soldering.

arkoma - 28-6-2014 at 09:10

*OFF TOPIC* sort of:
I just love the hypocrisy of the "Good cheese comes from happy cows" ad campaign. Having traveled extensively in my fair state, I have not once laid eyes on a dairy that was anything other than a feedlot.

See how they frolic in a mountain meadow? LMFAO Feedlots are environmental disasters.
I have a friend from Humboldt county who is a logger--the tr**hu**ers shut him down--yet they just LOVE redwood.

Quote:

Though Gore has long been against logging the old-growth forests of the Pacific Northwest, shortly after being sworn in as Vice President, he added a verandah made of old-growth redwood and Douglas fir to the Vice President's mansion, according to MIT Tech edition.

But try to buy MEK or Xylene........

Zyklon-A - 28-6-2014 at 14:12

Quote: Originally posted by Boron Trioxide

I think i can win this non existent contest to have the stupidest cancer label ...

On bottled oxygen, apparently a bottle of oxygen you can buy at home depot causes cancer who knew?

Honestly the only way you can tell by a glance if something could potentially cause cancer is some other country declares it a carcinogen. California cancer labels get thrown around so much they lose all effectiveness.

And also for California don get me started on there pollution laws, apparently none of the small engine power equipment we enjoy in the rest of the world can be sold in California. Which apparently means it has to be printed on absolutely everything.

Not necessarily. Oxygen is killing you!
Free oxygen radicals (which are formed more often then you'd like to think) have been know to cause cancer quite effectively.
Now I doubt any can exist in a O₂ cylinder. I imagine the way such substances are categorized as "potentially carcinogenic" relies on different methods, of which are irrelevant to many of the products that stamped with the label: "Potentially carcinogenic".
For example, They (whoever "they" is) probably thought, "Oxygen radicals can cause cancer. This is a oxygen cylinder, so it can cause cancer." Even though under the circumstances of compressed O₂, in a steel container, the likelihood of such is almost certainly negligible.

arkoma - 29-6-2014 at 06:06

".........byproducts of the combustion of the contents..........."

Read the label, guys.

MrHomeScientist - 30-6-2014 at 07:53

Quote: Originally posted by Zyklon-A

For example, They (whoever "they" is) probably thought, "Oxygen radicals can cause cancer. This is a oxygen cylinder, so it can cause cancer."

Probably these guys:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZ6Ex8E1q50

SM2 - 30-6-2014 at 10:27

Hold on, we talking about the state of So Cal, or N. Cali. Even Mendocino has been ruined somewhat, but way up on Oregon coast, Manzanita is still a nice place to get to. I'll never forgete the bizarre town of Willits N. Cali, a meth town.

arkoma - 30-6-2014 at 10:39

^^^LOL, ever been to Twentynine Palms? It's like there is meth in the city water supply

SM2 - 7-8-2014 at 14:57

Quote: Originally posted by pyrochemix

I want your opinion, why is california so quick to catch on to the political economical propaganda of global warming, environmental pollution and everything thing else. s\

In my opinion, there are several factors working simultaneously here. The bastion of liberalism in the state with the largest GDP (Cali), is Berkeley. Most of Hollywood is leftist, (except N. Hollywood, sorry!), democratic, and with a very large Jewish population (just like New Jersey +Miami/Boca Florida), lol., I'd say ~87% or more. Having so much Democratic representation makes Cali, a sugardaddy for M $street purses. California has a tradition of starting laws, trends, etc. All one must do to have an initiative reviewed for passage, is have like 1000 signatures. So I think there MOST LIKELY is a synergy of factors with a multiple effect, and this synergy accounts for the amplification of your observations. Just the exponential effect. I still can not believe with a straight face that Isreali / US relations hit a new low. We're not fooling NO-ONE. The US+Isreal are joined at hip. The US has six humongous underground, permanent military bases constructed in Isreal. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&a...

Humus's & Olive-spread had tunnels no more. Sure, I actually have a very close Palestinian friend to our family, and she is the most decent person you will ever meet....but STILL, my dark side wants to shoot all those tunelling roaches with a big propane blow torch. OFF TOPIC NOE: I know it sounds sick, and I almost always want to save even an insect if possible. But I do have a dark desire that if I were to stumble upon like a 500Lb mound of tiny red ants/termites, I would SO love to torch them all with the big torch, and hear all the popping. Guess I'd have to look out for formic acid vapor.

Yours truly

So why I once called Anders Hoveland? The attempt is so nerdy (I do like nerds as I am one) that the laughter is shared at most between several very close only friends. SO, Very close, just short of incestual intimacy. And one's knowledge of some name or topic does not mean that person therefore has some very cool and connected intellectual attributes.

Zyklon-A - 8-8-2014 at 09:37

Quote: Originally posted by arkoma

".........byproducts of the combustion of the contents..........."

Read the label, guys.

So I finally got around to reading the label...
It says, "This container, and byproducts of the combustion of it's contents contain chemicals know to [...]"
So you're only half right.
Read the label guy.

[Edited on 8-8-2014 by Zyklon-A]

arkoma - 8-8-2014 at 09:54

NitratedKittens - 27-11-2016 at 07:36

Quote: Originally posted by Brain&Force

Eventually Cheerios will have a Proposition 65 sticker - oh, wait, that almost happened.

I hate it when people say, "If you can't pronounce it, don't eat it or use it!" The thing about us amateur chemists is that we can pronounce dimethylpolysiloxane and selenocysteine without a problem.

The chemophobes can't even pronounce "linoleic acid," (and are probably deathly afraid of it), yet they eat it every. Single. DAY.

[Edited on 28.6.2014 by Brain&Force]

Not to mention they would be terrified of
2-Amino-4-methylpentanoic acid and would probably consider it poison, yet they contain large amounts of it and need it for nearly every protein to function.