Talk:Chemophobia/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Chemophobia. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Bias

The whole article is biased and uses weasel-ish language. Many common household chemicals are harmful; for example, chlorine (bleach) and ammonia are both toxic, with a host of harmful effects. Let's not even get started on stuff like Lysol. I wonder if any pharmacological or chemical companies have worked on this article?

But don't worry about me; I don't care that much to try to save the world from disinformation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.184.68.66 (talk) 14:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Fortunately, some people do care enough to try to save the world from disinformation. Some of these people edit wikipedia.

Chlorine is not the same as bleach, which is usually based on sodium chlorate (I) ('sodium hypochlorite'). So what if you shouldn't drink bleach anyway? Many 'natural' chemicals are harmful too, or have no effect, whereas the dreadful synthetic alternatives can be safer and more effective.

If any such companies had worked on this article (which I doubt), would that make its facts less true? If you have a problem with bias, tone, weasel words, etc, then you are free to make changes. But if you just don't like what you hear, and what you hear is the truth, then the problem's not with this page's content.

Ewen (talk) 18:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I know pure chlorine is not bleach. I just said "bleach" to let others know chlorine is in bleach. And never did I say anything about "drinking" anything. Inhaling bleach and ammonia and putting them on your skin is harmful as well. But on the whole, you said a lot without saying anything, including a stealthy personal attack, but that comes with the territory.

What are some of the "many" unhealthy natural alternatives used around the house? Vinegar? Essential oil of lemon? Black widow venom and swine stomach acid?

-~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.184.68.66 (talk) 07:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Reference for Chemophobia as a genuine phobia, not a prejudice.

Here's my old reference for a group who consider chemophobia to be like arachnophobia i.e. not just a prejudice but a psychological problem: Advertisement for a course to overcome Chemophobia

It's not exactly an unbiased group, but does this matter? I was simply illustrating that not everyone has the same idea of what 'chemophobia' is.

Ewen 05:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see -phob-#Phobia lists. This website is to grab your money no matter what. All specific phobias are alike and their description and treatment are very alike. And these websites capitalize on this. A person may develop phobia of anything. Unless you have a reputable reference from a serious publication which describes why this particular phobia is interesting or at least there was a recorded case of clinical chemophobia, there is no reason to put it in wikipedia. `'Miikka 15:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd say there is a reason. Let's say someone visits the website I mentioned above, and wants to check out 'chemophobia' before parting with their money. Shouldn't the article try to address the differences between the usual sense (prejudice) of 'chemophobia' and the specific phobia sense used to entice worried people to part with their money. Ewen 07:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

You seem to ignore all I wrote above and failed to read -phob-#Phobia lists section. If you find a reputable source about chemophobia as specific phobia, be my guest and update this article. `'Miikka 14:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

You seem not only ignore my advice you added yet another a snake oil selling website as reference. This site contains outright false information: chemophobia is NOT listsed] as rare disease bt National Institute of Health.

Please try to understand: internet contains much more GARBAGE and BULLSHIT and direct deception than correct information. PRESE USE REPUTABLE SOURCES. YOu must KNOW they are reputable and not judge from importantly-sounding name of the website. If you don't know which sources are reputable, please avoid editing subjects you don't understand. You have already created a decent and useful artile on a missing and interesting topic. Don't waste your time on nonsense and do something else: there is still much work to do in wikipedia. `'Miikka 14:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Woah! Calm down, mate! What happened to civility? Or assuming good faith?

I 'seem' to have 'ignored' you? Isn't that unjustified? It's certainly untrue to assume that I didn't read -phob-#Phobia lists - you might note that I added a link to -phob- after you pointed it out to me (thanks for finding it, BTW).

And you know, having used the internet since Mosaic was cutting-edge, I think I know about its content, thanks.

Anyway, back to the issue at hand...

What I said before still stands: It is a fact that some people are using a different definition of 'chemophobia'. I'm not saying it's the correct definition. I'm not saying that these people aren't trying to re-define the word to suit their own ends. I'm saying that there is a place in the article to point out this other definition, because the definition is commonly encountered if you do a naive search for the term 'chemophobia'.

It's not endorsing their point of view to note that it exists. We could delete the entire snake oil article on your grounds - snake oil was sold by disreputable charlatans so we should delete its very existence from wikipedia?

I'll wait for a reply but I'm minded to largely revert your changes.

Ewen 15:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

OK Miikka, I waited and although you were editing other things you didn't reply, so I've updated the article as I see fit and tried to address some of your concerns while I was at it. I hope it is acceptable to you now; but if not, please could you discuss changes you'd like.

Ewen 18:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I suppot Ewen's explanation. Indeed, misuse must also be explained. Otherwise there will be endless revert war with well-meaning but poorly informed additions. Al,thought I have to mention that this text is on a thin edge to original research: someone reputable must be quotes to say that there is no such specific phobia. Absence in 2-3 dictionaries and lists is a shaky argument. Mukadderat 23:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Ewen, please keep in mind that waiting from 15:17 to 18:29 in wikipedia is too short time period. Some people have real life you know :-). Usually it is advised to wait at least a day. There is no rush. Mukadderat 23:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

P.P.S. I guess that Miikka was hinting at the rule of Undue weight. We don't have to present unqualified opinions in wikipedia, especially taken from dubious sources. For example, articles like Islamophobia do not say that there is no such disease. But anyway, IMO you handled the issue correctly. Mukadderat 23:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for considering the issue, Mukadderat. I'd have waited longer but I noticed that Miika was busy with other editing so I presumed he'd chosen to pass on this issue. If he'd been offline it would have been another matter.

The status of the specific phobia definition is difficult to pin down. Certainly there are people who choose this definition because it suits their dubious business claims; but now we have the NIH listing it in their toxicology glossary but omitting it from their list of rare diseases (I'm not sure if they'd count a phobia as a disease - the list reads more like rare genetic conditions and infections). I took out the WrongDiagnosis reference as its claim about NIH recognition as a rare disease was clearly untrue.

Ewen 05:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

There are people who are (or at least seem to be) genuinely scared of buying anything that isn't 'organic' (whatever it means to them today) or for which they lack the ability to pronounce the ingredients of. That certainly makes it sound like a Phobia. 202.67.99.23 (talk) 06:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

"so low as to be harmless"

"Causes - as a toxicologist you cannot say anything is "so low as to be harmless". That statement is so loaded, I dont know where to begin.." said User:129.137.216.188 when removing a paragraph.

I completely disagree. For example, I've had to answer questions from people asking about how come nickel - a known carcinogen - is used for coins? Nickel is actually a necessary trace element i.e. levels of nickel in the diet can be so low as to be harmful. Yes, levels of nickel can be so high that they are harmful. The low levels of nickel usually encountered in the diet are harmless. Levels higher or lower than the safe range are harmful.

So, there's an example of something where the levels can be "so low as to be harmless".

Ewen 16:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I dont care that much about this to pour over numerous references. The fact is that extremely low doses of many, many chemicals have the ability to disrupt NUMEROUS physiological processes. Pubmed.com should straighten you out...Additionally, certain related compounds (think environmental estrogens, PAHs, even metals) have the ability to produce synergistic effects. My point is that the statement "so low as to be harmless" is loaded, and no concrete evidence is even given, just cherry picked quotes...

as a reference...http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/NewScience/lowdose/2007/2007-0525nmdrc.html.

User:129.137.216.188

Interesting reference... but it does support what I said about nickel - if you plot its harmful effects against dose you get a U-shaped graph, which falls below zero harm (it actually does us good) in the mid-range. Similarly, it is an area of active research whether low doses of radiation might not only be harmless, but actually beneficial (see e.g. [[1]]).

Anyway, you do rather miss the point. Let's say that there are chemicals which are harmless at low levels and toxic at higher levels. The point is that detection at low (harmless) levels is often reported, along with a description of the toxic effects at higher levels, but without drawing the reader's attention to the discrepancy in the detected and the harmful levels.

When I've time I'll dig out some examples of this type of reporting. I saw one two days ago in an advert for a company who will survey your house for radon, at a cost of course. They were very clear about the dangers of radon but failed to say that most houses in the country have negligible levels and houses at risk will have been identified from the geology they lie on and will have been surveyed by the local authority - for free. Talk about scaremongering!

BTW, you can sign your comments by typing ~~~~ at the end, which automatically converts to your username/IP and the date & time.

Ewen 19:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The Quote about Rachel Carson

The Quote about Rachel Carson is basically very weaselly. Who speaks here with what authority? Refer to articles on Carson and Silent Spring to see what I mean 203.97.98.36 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC).

Well, it is Bernadette Bensaude-Vincent who is quoted in Neil Eisberg's report How industry must win back the public’s faith in chemicals (Joint SCI/CEFIC Global Chemicals Industry Convention). She is a Professor of History and Philosophy of Science. Ewen (talk) 10:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's not good enough. The fact that this quote was floating -- without any signal phrase or indication of who is saying what -- should probably prompt the editor of this page to just remove it altogether. Granted, I think most chemophobia is pretty ridiculous, but this quote about Rachel Carson is an obvious attempt on someone's part to undermine environmental awareness. User:kamikazejonez 16:58, 7 September 2009

Additionally, as much as historians of science should be respected, it should be noted that Bensaude-Vincent is not a scientist herself. She's a historian who specializes in the history of science. There's a big difference. As demonstrated by the "postmodern" philosophical backlash against science in the 1990's, there are plenty of people out there writing about science who have no idea how science actually works or what it is. User:kamikazejonez 17:04, 7 September 2009

What's 'not good enough' when the quoted passage has the phrase 'According to Bernadette Bensaude-Vincent, ...' before it quotes her views on Carson? The quote-within-a-quote about Carson couldn't be more clearly signalled and attributed. I included the comment becuase it tries to identify the historical origins of chemophobia. Ewen (talk) 05:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Since the block being quoted is obviously an opinion (Eisberg's), the article should make this more explicit, by saying something like "according to Eisberg, editor of Chemistry & Industry, the causes of chemophobia are: [...]". --Itub (talk) 18:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

sorry, but isn't that contradictory? If it's 'obviously an opinion' then why does it need to made 'more explicit'? Go ahead and change it if you think you have a better way of putting it - you don't need my permission - 'obviously'! Ewen (talk) 07:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Non-encyclopedic statement

"how rigorously pesticides are tested and the unfeasibly high levels of pesticides a human would need to accumulate before coming to harm." is somewhat biased and quite one-sided, it does not tell the whole story..

I mean, DDT for example is quite safe for humans in low doses, obviously not so for many other animals. The statement also doesn't take things like bioaccumulation or environmental damage causing indirect harm to humans into account.

While the research that most are needlessly afraid of chemicals in general and then reassured in their safety by such a statement might be solid and correct research.. It by no means makes the statement itself true nor does it take into account that the safety of a chemical does not only depend on how directly toxic it is to humans, but how environmentally damaging it is. It sounds more like pesticice pusher propaganda than something that belongs in an encyclopedia. 90.224.168.149 (talk) 22:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The study asked about people's fears conerning agrichemicals. Bioaccumulation and environmental damage were not the m ain concerns, cancer was. In this respect, the testing and relatively low levels found in food were reassuring.

Do you dispute the testing of pesticides?

Ewen (talk) 10:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

No, but I do have a slight problem with your arrogant & overly-aggressive attitude. This is supposedly an encyclopedia, not your personal opinion-megaphone.

Besides, Link 5 doesn't work as it takes you to the university but not to no article, thus the whole characteristics section is unsupported anyways.

Further, the "causes" section consist mostly of quotes from various persons, thus it's opinion. So why is it actually presented as fact?

The first one is nothing BUT opinion and link 6 there doesn't even work either. The statement between the quotes is a generalisation and the last one is right now only relevant if the generalisation was true, which it isn't.

And lastly - "Plant extracts, described as "natural" remedies rather than "chemicals", often contain the same active ingredients as the "chemicals" made by the pharmaceutical industry, yet are subject to less rigorous testing.[8]" is incorrect as, while such might very well be the case for some, the New York Times article deals with SPIKED pills.

In short - this article is a complete mess! Might actually be the worst I've seen so far on wikipedia.

PS. And let's get this straight right away before you fling silly accusations of chemophobia in my general direction: I'm a chemist myself. I just happen to - both as a scientist and a person - belive in fair and impartial information even on subjects one might feel strongly about. Obviously, you don't. I hate chemophobia too, when people think that "natural" things aren't chemicals and that chemicals are all bad.. annoying as hell. But that's no reason to be a general asshole, make unsubstantiated claims or try to pass opinions off as fact. 90.224.168.149 (talk) 00:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

BTW dear.. I went ahead and changed it, not perfect, but atleast it isn't biased as all hell any more. 90.224.168.149 (talk) 01:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, 'dear', thanks for the changes. It's good to see that you're prepared to do something about the content rather than just assert that it's biased or POV.

I changed the 'characteristics' section back because its only problem was a broken link. The article was easily found on UNL's website with a slightly different address. Once I have time I'll pick through your other changes, but (seriously) thanks for pointing out your concerns.

If I had been 'trying to pass off opinions as facts' then I wouldn't have put them as quotes, would I? We could re-phrase those parts: "So-and-so says that 'Blah blah blah'" instead of "'Blah blah blah' - So-and-so"? The point is that few people have looked into the causes, characteristics and origins of chemophobia and so I quoted those I could find. Can you find others? With contrary opinions? Or people whose opinions are backed by research? I did what I could, made the status and source of the opinions very clear; what do you suggest?

As for 'the worst [article] I've seen so far on wikipedia' - I guess you've not been here long?

Ewen (talk) 08:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Heh.. you do got a point there.. I haven't "been here" very long as such no, I mostly read the chemistry wikis, and only done a few minor edits on those:

But then, science-related wikis are alot "easier" than others as there is much less room for opinions, and most of the chem-wikis here are pretty decent as far as I can tell. So my experience with wikis might be somewhat limited: I guess the more controversial the subject the wiki is about, the more of a mess, the more biased - it tends to be.

And yeah, finding unbiased sources on chemophobia, that is admittedly hard.. The term has, after all, been much abused, with some companies making, let's call it compunds of questionable safety, accusing their opponents of chemophobia while some enviromentalists claiming the term is ONLY that: a way to attack people with legitimate worries about the toxicity of some chemicals.

HOWEVER, I'd say the rule of thumb should be that if one has nothing impartial to contribute, nothing should be contributed. More isn't necessarily better and we can't really have quotes from only one, very partial, side of the story.. Especially not when it's such a controversial statement as that Silent Spring is nothing but "fabolous fiction".

The characteristics section.. I was going to keep it but deleted it just because of the broken link (unsubstantiated) so if it's fixed or the article is actually readily available from the university's starting page, then that's ok by me..

As for further changes while we're on the subject.. I think more could be added under "causes" (which should probably be renamed "contributing causes" as the main cause simply is prejudice and a lack of knowledge) with references to chemical disasters, especially the hype surrounding them: For instance - while the Bhopal incidence was awful, it was caused by severe neglect on the part of the company in regards to the storage of toxic chemicals. Obviously, such incidences doesn't make all "chemicals" toxic, nor does it make the chemical industry as a whole guilty of the same neglect and/or behavior.. but some people (ie chemophobes) seem to think so and disasters (and probably pollution issues etc) surely contribute to chemophobia.

90.224.168.149 (talk) 17:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

This quote:

"[The chemical industry's] reputation with the general public, once extremely high, has fallen to an all-time low as a result of accidents such as Bhopal and Seveso and health scares fed by campaigns by environmental groups and encouraged by a sometimes gullible media. "But where does this lack of trust [between society and business] originate? According to Bernadette Bensaude-Vincent, ...the present situation originated in the 'fabulous fiction' of Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring, which portrayed chemistry as a blind and brutal enemy of birds and other living creatures."^[1]

...certainly seems a lightning rod for criticism. And yet it's a quote within a quote, both sources referenced, and part of an analysis by a Professor of Science History.

If I can find a up-to-date link to the text it might be going back in. What say you?

Ewen (talk) 22:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I say you seem very good at pushing the parts you want in.. back in. :P (That's meant as a compliment btw)

As I said before - it's a quite one-sided opinion as to the causes. It's also nothing but an opinion (and one that can't be said to be backed up in science) that Silent Spring is nothing but fiction..

So if it's to be in it has to be presented as the THEORY of someone cause that's what it is. Something akin to:

According to ... chemophobia is a result from a public lack of trust - sometimes aggravated (or some other fitting term) by the media and certain enviromental groups - in the chemical industry after chemical disasters such as Bhopal and Seveso: (then follows the quotes)

Though I'd also like something pointing out that most scientists do not regard Silent Spring as fiction, atleast not "pure" fiction so to speak.. And some "see also" links to the disasters in question. (unless we're going to bring up what's the cause of those and why it's wrong to blame all the chemical industry or "chemicals" as such in this wiki)

90.224.168.149 (talk) 23:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The article is now hidden behind a paywall so it can't be verified by your average reader.

I wouldn't say I'm 'very good at pushing the parts [I] want in' but I would say that I did think about what I included in the article before I put it in in the first place.

As for the 'fabulous fiction' quote about Silent Spring, I rather thought that it referred to people's interpretation of the book and not the book itself. As I said elsewhere on this page, Carson was not in favour of a blanket ban on chemicals - she was certainly no chemophobe herself. A lot of criticism of 'chemicals' is from people who haven't actually read Silent Spring - more likely they've just heard Big Yellow Taxi.

Ewen (talk) 07:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, lot's of references on wikipedia are hidden behind paywalls.. Even such that are said to support a statement in a wiki with fact/evidence, so that shouldn't be much of a problem here then: especially since this is a quoted opinion and not a fact. And yeah, alot of people do seem to think Silent Spring calls for a blanket ban of chemicals while it only calls for the regulation and banning of certain chemicals for certain uses.. on which wikipedia actually has a pretty good summary..

"The book argued that uncontrolled and unexamined pesticide use was harming and even killing not only animals and birds, but also humans." (chemophobes should note the words being "uncontrolled" and "unexamined".)

So if you want my opinion: I'm for it being in - as long as the concerns I previously stated are met.. Thus, if you wanna go ahead and change it accordingly, please do.. don't have to be perfect right away either, we can always tweak it as we go along.

90.224.168.149 (talk) 19:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Seen the changes.. good wording, though one thing: Might wanna point out who Neil Eisberg is, where he's coming from (what organisation or project, if any, he's speaking on behalf of) - I assume he holds some title in a field of science or anything similar - and is not just an average joe?

90.224.168.149 (talk) 18:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Eisberg clarification already done by Itub (Thanks, Itub!). 'Good wording'? I just adapted your suggestion! Ewen (talk) 23:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Characteristics section

The "Characteristics" section seems really out of place to me. It's only one sentence, and it seems to be discussing a different issue--i.e. pesticides specifically, not chemophobia in general. I would support taking it out or fixing it up. I'm not sure which tag would apply, though.Salvar (talk) 16:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it's an important enough point to be kept, but perhaps 'Characteristics' isn't the right heading...?

Ewen (talk) 19:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

POV

I find this entire article to be very POV. While on one hand it briefly seems to denigrate chemophobia's status as a genuine phobia, with the other hand, the rest of the article seems to want to paint the entire phenomenon of chemophobia as being some sort of sinister, irrational prejudice or mass misconception fed by the "liberal media" that only harms the poor chemical industry and its hapless investors. It seems to me like it was mostly written by some apologist for the chemical industry (and an anti-environmentalist), quite possibly an objectivist, libertarian, or conservative who does NOT accept ANY environmental arguments as valid. As a former objectivist, I think I might have a nose for detecting this kind of POV. At the very least, it seems guilty of the same sort of oversimplification or reductionism that George Carlin and Penn & Teller have made: "Everything is natural". They are (most likely purposely) confusing or equivocating [2] two different senses of the word "natural [3]". Shanoman (talk) 19:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read the article more carefully? It explains that 'chemophobia' is not usually used to mean a genuine phobia but a prejudice.

Apologist for the chemical industry? Or alarmed that there are too many idiots out there who complain about 'chemicals' in their food, when it's all chemicals. Who forget that 'natural' means tetrodotoxin, botulism and lice as well as what they had in mind. Who have no idea that detectable levels of harmful chemicals are not necessarily harmful, and who are happy to fork out top dollar for cosmetics and foods with insignificantly small contents of beneficial chemicals?

If you think the article's wrong, change it. If you think it needs citations, ask for them (or better still, find them yourself)

Ewen (talk) 21:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

There appears to be a bias in the draft of this description of "chemophobia," especially as Rachel Caron's book is described as "fabulous fiction." All should read this famous book, which is not fiction, but a well documented assessment of DDT let lose into the environment. Well known are the interests of the Chemical Industry and well known apologists like Elizabeth Whelan, who fear the spread of chemphobia based on rational experience. We have seen much propaganda like articles written with titles, "Dioxin, less toxic than previously thought," and other attempts to minimize concerns about chemicals and the impact of chemicals. Years back, I responded to an article written about Chemophobia - using the term to note irrational fears (Footnoted below). Like the term NYBY, it was being used by former scientists, turned apologists to discount and discredit rational concerns about toxins freely discharged into the environment. Not much has changed, but those promoting this way of thinking are still heavily funded by the Chemical Industry and organizations like the Chlorine Institute.

(Comment added at 20:00, 25 August 2009 by |65.68.44.63, moved from article to talk page by Ewen (talk) 08:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC).)

I hope you're OK with my moving your comment, but the article itself wasn't the best place for it.

Silent Spring was written 47 years ago, and even then "Carson had made it clear she was not advocating the banning or complete withdrawal of helpful pesticides, but was instead encouraging responsible and carefully managed use, with an awareness of the chemicals' impact on the entire ecosystem." Is the adversarial mindset of environmental campaigners still useful? Is it a black and white choice between 'bad' 'chemicals' and 'natural' 'alternatives'?

I think, as Ben Goldacre would say, you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that.

Dioxin, 'the most poisonous chemical known to man' has killed nobody, not even at Seveso. Some animals seem much more sensitive to it than humans are but it is all too easy to scare people by extrapolating from animal studies to mis-estimate human toxicity. Oh, and it occurs naturally as well as being produced artificially.

I'm not funded by the chemical industry, just anxious that unhelpful, pantomime stereotypes of 'industrial chemists' and 'tree-hugging environmentalists' are not allowed to persist (and bioaccumulate in the intellectual foodchain?)

Ewen (talk) 08:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The reason why dioxins are found in the environment is because humans manufacture chlorine, which is NOT found in nature. So dioxins are NOT natural. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.184.68.66 (talk) 07:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Well that's just wrong. If you don't believe me then there's a link from wikipedia's own Dioxin page that states "Since chlorine is commonly found in our environment, natural events such as a volcano or a forest fire can lead to dioxin formation. However the greatest source of dioxin is human activity." [4]

This is exactly the type of 'shoot first, check facts later (if at all)' attitude that sustains people's prejudices about... well, anything.

Ewen (talk) 08:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Although I'm sympathetic to the article's POV, I think it most definitely has one. The discussion of Rachel Carson seems overly hyperbolic. The header of the page says (without citation I might add) that chemophobia is caused by 'incomplete knowledge of science, or a misunderstanding of science, and is a form of technophobia and fear of the unknown', but in the causes section we are instead treated to the opinion of a representative of the chemical industry, who states that the cause is a lack of trust in science, and the fact that our equipment can now detect lower concentrations of the substances. Neither of these items support the earlier claim that chemophobia is caused by a lack of scientific knowledge. If we think the base cause is a lack of scientific knowledge, then the cause section should make this clear, and maybe discuss a decline in scientific literacy of the public as a secondary cause.

I guess what I want to say is: _distrust_ of the chemical industry is not the cause of chemophobia. There are very good reasons to distrust the chemical industry which will not cause one to suffer from chemophobia. For example, I would not want a chemical plant built in my backyard because of the frequent spills of legitimately dangerous levels of toxins which happen at such plants when the chemical industry cuts corners (see Bhopal for example). Nonetheless, I am happy to use bleach, windex, dish detergent, chemical fertilizers and sprays and the rest of it.

The real issue is that people with chemophobia do not understand the _science_ behind chemical exposures, or how much the concentration of the chemical and degree of exposure matter. Thus, they attempt to avoid all artificial chemicals because they cannot predict the difference between drinking a gallon of bleach and a drop (for example).

The point is, the causes section doesn't discuss the true causes of this phenomenon, and instead appears to use the space to advance POV claims, or at least, claims that do not belong in this article. I am happy to remove it and replace it with a discussion of lack of science education/literacy etc. instead, but will only do so if Ewen agrees.

Jdoucett (talk) 20:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the original comment of this section. I see this article as being very POV and promoting a propaganda term as a reality. Very astute observations in seeing a streak of "objectivism" and other cultural things in the authorship of this page in such a POV way as well. 24.194.19.74 (talk) 15:31, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

"So low as to be harmless" again

There are two things about this sentence that need clarification:

(1) Detected where? do you mean in the environment? In chemical plants? After pesticide applications? The sentence doesn't say.
(2) Few things are totally harmless. Harmless to whom or what? Something more specific needs to be written - maybe you mean "well within/below government safety specifications"? —Anne Delong (talk) 21:54, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

It didn't seem to make much sense, and wasn't properly sourced anyway. I've replaced it with something with I hope addresses this. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

General cleanup

I have made a pass of the article adding sources, attribution and neutral language while removing some cruft. I think there is the basis here for something reasonable moving forward, and propose removing the POV and ref tags. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Done hearing no objection. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Whole article stinks

Basically it should be evident that this is crooked terminology being imposed (see; democide or homophobia for previous successful applications) by an industry instead of an interest group or individual as is often the case. It would be prudent to end suuch nonsense before it becomes too widespread. At the very least a different type of terminology is necessary (to describe what the creators of this article note is the fear of man-made substances and not the fear of chemical compounds in general) and it would be necessary to support such an article with examples of medical journals noting this diagnosis. A phobia is a psychological disorder. A disdain for something is not. 46.59.34.174 (talk) 16:27, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not invent terminology. It does not attempt to revise the usage of terminology. It uses terminology as found in published reliable sources. The article is entitled 'chemophobia' because that is the term most commonly used for the subject matter. And see etymological fallacy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:54, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the article in its current state is pretty bad. The explanation that the term is not meant to be the literal sum of its parts was removed here.

The article also appears to have lost interesting statements like these:

According to Sense About Science in Making Sense of Chemical Stories, "In terms of chemical safety, “industrial,” “synthetic,” “artificial,” and “man-made” do not necessarily mean damaging, and “natural” does not necessarily mean better."^[2]

Some^[3] define chemophobia as a specific phobia but most mainstream sources such as the Oxford Dictionary of Psychology do not recognize chemophobia as a psychological condition.

Some people who may be described as chemophobic believe that all chemicals are at best untrustworthy, and at worst harmful. Those with scientific education say that this is an obviously incorrect generalization, because every substance encountered in the universe is a chemical.^[4] Even benign, naturally occurring, or pure substances—including unpolluted air and pure water—are chemicals.
More commonly, these people fear what they perceive to be man-made, synthetic, or "unnatural" chemicals, and accept what they perceive to be "natural" chemicals. The distinction overlooks both the benign nature of some man-made substances and the deadly nature of some natural chemicals. For example, there are numerous natural poisons from plants; and similarly, the percentage of natural chemicals that are carcinogenic is equal to the percentage of synthetic chemicals that are carcinogenic.^[5]

Treatment
Targeted science education can reduce anxiety in people with chemophobia. People are primarily afraid that agrichemicals will cause cancer, and they are reassured when they learn how rigorously pesticides are tested and the unfeasibly high levels of pesticides a human would need to accumulate before coming to harm.^[6]

One practical result of chemophobia is increased political opposition to pesticides, genetically engineered seeds, and other "chemicals" that underlie the green revolution in agriculture.^[7]

^ How industry must win back the public’s faith in chemicals (Joint SCI/CEFIC Global Chemicals Industry Convention) report by Neil Eisberg, Editor of Chemistry & Industry
^ Making Sense of Chemical Stories by Sense About Science.
^ NIH definition of chemophobia.
^ Michelle M., Francl (7 February 2013). "Curing chemophobia: Don't buy the alternative medicine in "The Boy With a Thorn in His Joints."". Slate. Retrieved 27 March 2013.
^ Ames, Bruce N; Gold, Lois Swirsky (2000). "Paracelsus to parascience: The environmental cancer distraction". Mutation Research/Fundamental and Molecular Mechanisms of Mutagenesis. 447: 3. doi:10.1016/S0027-5107(99)00194-3.
^ University of Nebraska, Lincoln, article on chemophobia.
^ Entine, Jon (2011-04-16). Crop Chemophobia: Will Precaution Kill the Green Revolution?. Government Institutes. ISBN 9780844743639. Retrieved 27 March 2013.

These are most not trivial sources, since they include the NIH website, a magazine article written by an undeniable expert (a professor of chemistry whose main area is the cultural relationship with chemistry), a peer-reviewed journal article, a university publication, and a book whose publisher specializes in reference works in this area.

There was also a list of about a dozen sources listed being WP:General references for the article's content that seem to have been removed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:21, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree this article 'stinks' - after Alex's massive set of edits. You wouldn't think, from reading it, that chemophobia was usually used (e.g. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25103941) to describe a prejudice, not a regular psychological phobia. I'll look into restoring its meaning. Ewen (talk) 13:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The article does not state that chemophobia is a 'regular psychological phobia'. WE use the term because it is the term commonly used - and we aren't going to change it because a contributor fails to understand that etymology does not restrict the current meaning of a word. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:36, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm very sorry people don't like my edits. I did ask at the time about them, but got no response. Anyway, it seems to me "chemophobia" is treated in a rather uncertain way by RS - both in its definition and in responding to it. The meanings seem to range from a classic "phobia" to a kind of "anti-chemical-industry" prejudice; the meaning also seem to have changed over time. I don't think it would be right for Wikipedia to be very decided about this when the sources aren't. However, I'm sure we could do more to make clear what that range of meanings is ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:20, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that you had asked, Alex; but not everyone is as attentive to what happens day-to-day as you are. Perhaps you could wait a little longer before assuming that no response means that nobody has anything to say? Of course, this was months ago and you can't be expected to wait that long! What has happened (it seems to me) is that, by clearing away individual occurences of bad practice, the narrative thread of the article has been lost. The 'Definitions and uses' section no longer mentions the most common use of the term 'Chemophobia' - a use in the sense of homophobia and not like claustrophobia. The minor senses of chemophobia as an irrational fear of chemicals, or of a dislike of chemistry as an academic subject, seem to have undue weight. Ewen (talk) 15:17, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, I tried to reflect the good sources I found searching for material on "chemophobia", and the article reflects those. Of course, it might be that I chanced on a unrepresentative selection of sources and we have a problem as a result. It seems to me (just having re-checked) that this "fear of chemistry as an academic subject" is a hot topic among some educationalists/chemists at the moment - see here for example. (I had initially removed this as a minority view, but changed my mind after reviewing the sources). And yes, the article here did equate "homophobia" and "chemophobia" originally, but I deleted this as it seems the comparison is pure OR. Likewise it made a statement that it wasn't a psyschological phenomenon on the basis (it seems) that it had no entry in a psychology reference work ... but I see from a search just now an article in Psychology Today on chemophobia. So it all seems a bit messy. That said, if we have good sources, let's paint a fuller picture ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:26, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/10/american-council-science-health-leaked-documents-fundraising The one source for this word is a lobbyist organisation. As per advice I invoke NPOV as it is an opinionated article and WP:Advocacy as its only definition is payed by the industry which stands to benifit from it and there exists no organisations which declare themselves to be chemophobic yet already certain editors are trying to to use this article to squeeze the word in elsewhere such as the bee article from which I removed it to begin with. I am really not interested in this discussion as much as a policy change so if someone could help me out here it would be nice. Oh I also invoke WP:Notability for the same reason. 46.59.34.174 (talk) 11:51, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

NPOV does not apply to sources. Wikipedia articles must be neutral; reliable sources can say whatever they want. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:40, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Are there any facts about chemophobia?

I just took a look at the article and a couple sources, and did a little searching, and I didn't come across any factual information about chemophobia. My quick search could have missed some, though. Has anyone else found any facts about chemophobia? I don't mean citations for the definition, I mean facts about the actual phenomenon of chemophobia. So far, it appears that the word chemophobia is basically a name-calling neologism, invented to ridicule people who oppose artificial substances on the basis of ignorance of chemistry. If that's really the situation, then there is no topic here, and the article should be deleted per WP:NEO. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 14:51, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, there are three different definitions but also a description of the causes and a study of how to alleviate chemophobia. Ewen (talk) 09:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Have you found any actual facts? Can you give an example? I've clicked on a few of the sources, and so far they've seemed ridiculous. For example, this one is a press release about a conference call about a position paper, and this one is a study of students' anxiety about taking chemistry courses, and this one looks like a propaganda guide to combat chemophobia. (That last one, while not a reliable source, might at least point to some citable facts. Facts about the dihydrogen oxide "hoax" might belong in this article.) If you could point me to a specific fact and source, that could save a lot of time and trouble. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 22:13, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what definition of 'fact' you employ, Ben! The study into students' anxiety has some facts though it uses a minor definition of chemophobia as anxiety about studying the subject. The UNL link has some 'facts' about a survey studying people's attitudes to chemicals. We did have the DHMO hoax linked to this page but it was removed. I'd be happy with it included again. Ewen (talk) 17:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Ben, can you give me an example of the kind of facts you're looking for? "This place defines this term this way" is "a fact", but you seem to be looking for something more specific. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:40, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm looking for facts about the real-life phenomenon of chemophobia—not the definition of the word or mentions of uses of the word, but information about the thing itself. Every Wikipedia article is a collection of facts about its topic. For example, clicking Special:Random leads me to Nova Scotia C@P, which includes "Under CAP, nearly 400 urban and rural public locations such as schools, libraries and community centres are set up to provide computer access, support, and training." Another example, from Elizabeth City, North Carolina: "The declaration of World War II reinvigorated Elizabeth City's industries, particularly in shipbuilding, textiles and aeronautics." Does that clarify my request? —Ben Kovitz (talk) 03:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and this article provides "facts", including the fact that different people have wildly different ideas of what "the thing itself" actually is, as reflected by their differences in defining it. Chemophobia isn't one thing; it's several things, depending on which source you're reading.

So we could have a "fact" that said "Chemophobia affects 1 out of 500 young adults", and this would be meaningless, because the source that says "Chemophobia is a psychiatric illness involving an extremely specific, narrowly defined, irrational fear that disrupts the person's life" would say, "So many? I doubt it", and the source that says "Chemophobia is a fear of flunking chemistry class" would say, "So few? I doubt it", and the source that says "Chemophobia is a fear of synthetic, non-natural chemicals" might say, "That sounds about right to me".

You can't have "facts" about "the thing itself" if "the thing" is actually (at least) three things. That's like saying "Give me facts about things that are called cats, regardless of whether they're Lions or Housecats or theatre productions. Tell me facts that are true for all of them, or I'm going to believe that none of them exist". WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Normally on Wikipedia, if there are three topics, you have three articles and a disambiguation page. But it sounds like you're saying that actually there's no real topic here, just a word whose meaning varies a great deal from source to source, making "facts" about chemophobia meaningless. Is that the actual situation, or are there any genuinely notable topics here? —Ben Kovitz (talk) 07:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, eventually you could have three separate pages. Nobody's gotten around to splitting it yet.

I'm uncertain whether the specific phobia meaning should be handled as a separate page, even though it could be sourced. It's related to the original subject of this page (which is the "natural=good, synthetic=bad" meaning), so it could be kept here without serious disruption. Most specific phobias don't get their own pages on the English Wikipedia, unless there is a lot of unique material to be said about them. Instead, they get described inside a larger subject.

The "natural=good, synthetic=bad" meaning is obviously notable, and most of the sources on this page refer to that meaning. Have you read all of those sources? Most of them are free online sources.

The "people are afraid of chemistry class" meaning may not qualify for its own page. However, it is verifiable, which means that it could easily be merged into Chemistry education, perhaps with a hatnote to redirect people looking for that information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I like your suggestions of putting "people afraid of chemistry class" into Chemistry education and the phobia elsewhere, too. The "natural=good, synthetic=bad" meaning is the one that I'm asking for facts about, since significant factual coverage in reliable sources would establish notability. I clicked on some but not all of the sources; my findings are reported earlier in this thread. I didn't find any facts, and didn't want to go further on a wild-goose chase if there aren't any, and it appears that others have already done a lot of looking. Do you know of any? —Ben Kovitz (talk) 18:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

But when other people, who have "done the looking", point out the facts you say those aren't the sort of facts you're looking for. Ewen (talk) 20:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

UTC)

I already have. Please see my first two paragraphs in this subsection. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 21:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I have to say I'm finding this whole discussion kind of surreal – and that's a fact! Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 20:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Alexbrn, you've put more work into fact-searching than anyone. Maybe you've found some clear-cut facts about the topic. I saw that you put in-text attribution on most of the (non-definitional) information cited, suggesting that the sources merely gave people's opinions. The exceptions were:

"Targeted science education can reduce anxiety in people with chemophobia." The source for this was the propaganda guide I mentioned above—surely not WP:RS.
"The chemical industry has regarded chemophobia as a problem." This looks like it could be a real fact! In the article, though, it leads into another bit of in-text attribution, this time a quotation from a speech.

Have you come across any information about chemophobia (in the "natural=good, synthetic=bad" sense) that we can unequivocally report, in Wikipedia's voice, as facts about it? Have you come across any "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? The Jon Entine book looked the most promising, but it's actually a 21-page pamphlet arguing that synthetic chemicals are safe and valuable, not really documentation on chemophobia—except that it does list some myths, which might belong in the article. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 05:10, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, the other Jon Entine book, which really is a book, might actually provide the significant, factual coverage needed to make a Wikipedia article. Chapter 2 looks like it has an actual discussion of public-health trade-offs with regard to regulatory policy, and how a certain form of chemophobia, "the precautionary principle", can skew those trade-offs. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 05:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

As I indicated above, I am baffled by this discussion. The topic at hand is subjective and intangible and the article is going to reflect that. I re-wrote the article a while ago and included what I could find in reasonable sources (performing as thorough a search as I could). Thus in my view WP is just digesting some of the content treating "chemophobia", as it should. I don't recognize the requirement for articles to contain facts statable in WP's own voice. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't consider it a requirement (we do have articles about opinions), but normally if you're writing an article about something, one of the first things you do is collect some facts. Having some facts usually suggests how to organize and present them; without facts, you're sort of operating in a void (hence the bizarre, rambling form of the current state of the article). Nearly any topic with significant coverage is going to have some obvious facts about it. Even Antiscience has lots of facts. If there are no facts, then we either need to treat the topic in a very special way, or perhaps "chemophobia" is just a name-calling neologism and should be deleted per WP:NEO or WP:NOTDIC. Whatever the situation is, I'd like to be clear about it. Does that reduce your bafflement? —Ben Kovitz (talk) 06:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Having read the sources I suppose I have a fairly settled view of what chemophobia "is" (according to the sources) and yes it's a rather (shall we say) polyvalent concept. All WP can do is reflect what the sources say. I'm not sure what you want of me. If I've not found the sources, then what have I missed? If I've misrepresented the sources then what have I got wrong? If I've organized it badly then how can it be done better? In short: what concrete steps need to be taken to improve the article? If you known, then WP:JUSTDOIT. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:26, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Alexbrn, I'm not criticizing your work. I was trying to find out, from people who've already looked, whether there are any facts to collect, before going off on a wild-goose chase or to determine whether the article should be deleted per WP:NEO or WP:NOTDIC. I'm sorry people complained about your edits. I, at least, believe that pretty much any thoughtful edit advances Wikipedia. Your edits brought out the peculiar difficulty with this topic and led me to raise this question. Without your work, the difficulty would not have been as clear. There's an analogous principle in programming: a good programmer makes bugs more obvious, thereby making it easier to spot, diagnose, and fix them. And without your looking into and checking sources, I wouldn't have been able to ask for your better-informed opinion about the state of writing about this topic. To be perfectly clear, then, thank you for those edits—I have no complaints! —Ben Kovitz (talk) 06:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Well thanks. To continue the analogy, my edits were like some particularly tedious debugging. As background, this all started with a spot of bother in August 2013, with an editor seemed to claim this was an attack page written by the chemical industry. My goal was simply to turn it into something defensible. I think I did a pretty thorough search for sources in scholarly literature mentioning "chemophobia" - but of course I may have missed something ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)