This week's question comes from  on Twitter:

"When sitting, your head is in the lower half of a room's volume. Estimate the frequency at which you will asphyxiate because all air molecules have spontaneously gone up to the higher half? Interpret the results."

Statistical Mechanics. My favorite (said with 0.0001% sarcasm). When I asked for homework problems I knew the day would come that I would be a bit stumped. I didn't know it would happen on the first submitted question. Thanks to @fxcoudert for the question. I hope I don't mess this up too much.

The first step in this question is to find the probability that all of the air molecules will be in one half of the room. Statistically this is simple; it's just:

I root for the underdog.

I'm not sure why, really. Maybe it's because I watched Rudy too much growing up or because my city's Minor League Baseball team couldn't win a game for a "Make-A-Wish" kid even if the other team was in on it. I cheer on the Miami Dolphins and go to Utah Jazz games. Lately I've noticed that I've been backing another, much more unfortunate, underdog: Chemistry.

Chemophobia is an irrational fear of chemicals. It can (and been) debated that the word itself creates more of the same irrational fear; that it drives the fear deeper by making it a point to ridicule. Whether that is true I'm not completely convinced. What I am convinced of is that an irrational fear of chemicals runs deeper every day. This fear is seemingly unchecked by the chemistry community at large. I don't mean we don't talk about it. We do. We talk plenty about it. But what are we doing about it?

In early January General Mills announced that it will no longer be using genetically modified crops in Cheerios. You may have heard this but unless you've read it straight from the source you probably missed the part where vice president of Global Communications Tom Forsythe admits that the move actually changes nothing in the Cheerios recipe and is nothing more than a new marketing strategy:

"We did it because we think consumers may embrace it...it’s not about safety...And it was never about pressure. In fact, General Mills’ position on GMOs hasn’t changed."

General Mills' position, by the way, is very reasonable. It's just unfortunate they have tried so hard to hide it from consumers. They admit that 20 years of rigorous testing has shown GMOs to be safe, that not a single disease can be linked to GMO crops, and that a host of benefits come with the technology. So why hide this evidence-based, rational position? Because they see that consumers embrace the opposing position.

Another company, Johnson & Johnson, recently made some radical changes to appease consumers (changes that brought with it some serious chemical misinformation). The famous amber colored "No More Tears" shampoo recently got a new formulation. In the past the well known shampoo contained formaldehyde. Actually, to be more accurate it contained preservatives that over time produced low levels of formaldehyde. How low? You would need to drink 15 bottles of shampoo to get the same exposure to formaldehyde that you get from eating one apple. You heard that right, an apple (and why in the world are you drinking shampoo?That's for washing babies). But Johnson & Johnson went through an exhausting process to reformulate the shampoo and remove the preservatives. All this because it makes them look good and consumers demanded it.

Finally, this morning I read a petition by the self described "Food Babe" to Subway. In it she demands that Subway stop using the chemical azodicarbonamide. She claims that eating a Subway sandwich with azodicarbonamide is the same as eating a yoga mat. This claim isn't new. Chemistry blogger Derek Lowe handily debunked the claim nearly 8 months ago. Azodicarbonamide has been documented to cause respiratory problems but only in high concentrations. The dough contains very, very low concentrations. The bread is made even more safe by the fact that none of the chemical even exists in the bread; it breaks down when heated (a process that I'm pretty sure all the bread you've ever eaten has gone through. Bread needs to be baked after all). Azodicarbonamide is completely safe in your bread and there is no need to worry. Imagine my surprise, then, when just 24 hours after posting the petition on her website the Food Babe gets a direct reply from Subway. It took only one petition and 24 hours for Subway to begin changing their recipe.

So what's the harm? Cheerios don't have GMOs, baby shampoo still looks and works the same, and I don't really like Subway in the first place. Big deal, right? I can keep eating the food I want and using the products I choose because companies will work just as hard to please me as the "chemical free" crowd. Why do I even care what health choices someone else makes? Aren't they making healthy decisions? If Subway removes azocarbanomide from their bread it will only make it more fresh and healthy, right?

The reason this is such a big deal has nothing to do with those individual products. The real damage of chemophobia comes when little by little the word "chemical" becomes a bad thing. The harm comes when people believe that if you can't pronounce an ingredient you should never put it in your body. Ingredients like thiomersal, monosodium glutamate (MSG), and formaldehyde. You'll find these ingredients in vaccines. Vaccines that save lives. Vaccines that - if avoided - will cost lives. So yes, chemophobia kills. I'm not just a pedantic chemist. An irrational fear leads to irrational decisions and every corporate concession legitimizes that fear. When General Mills goes against their own policy to appease the GMO free crowd they misinform the public. This misinformation leads to third-world countries banning GMO crops; the very crops that can help produce a thriving farming industry.

This is all very disheartening but I'm a perpetual optimist. I think chemophobia is something that can be overcome. If the Food Babe can bring about change in as little as 24 hours with one petition then so can we. I challenge organizations like the American Chemical Society to be more vocal about chemophobia. Do it in a way that educates. Do it in an open way, not behind a pay wall or trapped behind the safety of the chemistry blogosphere. Do it in a way that the American public won't be able to ignore. Do it in a way the American people will love you for. Chemistry doesn't need to be scary, but it doesn't need to be boring either. It won't be easy and it won't be cheap. But it is necessary and I think we can do it.

Because I root for the underdog.

I'm in a very awkward stage right now - I'm neither teaching nor taking any classes. This hasn't happened to me in almost a decade. Many (and probably most) of you would say this is a happy time and I should just enjoy it. Instead I've felt absolutely lost. I'm not taking, grading, writing, or studying for any tests. So I've decided to start a new series on this blog I'm calling "Hypothetical Homework". It's basically the questions I wish I could either ask students or answering questions that others send me.

Here's the deal: I'll answer at least one question per week. I do not guarantee the questions will be answered correctly - in fact I suspect I'll get some very, very wrong - but discussing why I'm wrong can be part of the fun (that's what we call fun at least, right?) Submitted questions will take precedence over questions I write for myself, so please send questions to chad (AT) thecollapsedwavefunction.com or ask them in the comments or on Twitter. Any topic is allowed, but chemistry and related disciplines will likely get picked first unless the questions are really awesome.

So, without further ado I present to you:



[Notes]

[1] - Why didn't Eli pick his brother's team for the win? (It's a sport's joke, nerds. Peyton Manning, Quarterback for the Denver Broncos, has a brother named Eli who also plays football)

New Podcast Episode!

Sam and I are joined by James Kennedy, creator of the (now viral) "Ingredients of an all-natural . . . " infographics.

Also, this is our first episode as a member of the Brachiolope Media Network!

You can always find us on iTunes or via RSS.

I've written exhaustively about my feelings on Chemophobia. I've blogged, podcasted, and tweeted about it until my face (and your ears) turned blue. Chemistry is a beautiful science that affects every moment of your life. The air you breath, the food you eat, the iPhones, computers, cars, shoes, medicines, roads, buildings, clothes, etc. that you use every day  are only possible because of chemistry. So when someone says they want a "chemical-free" alternative or claim that our "modern life-style" is killing us I get pretty upset pretty quickly.

And really, that's a problem.

It's a problem because those are real concerns by real people. Not only that, some of their concerns are completely valid. Take the spill in West Virginia of 4-methylcyclohexane methanol (or is it methylcyclohexane or methylcyclohexanol - ok, what spilled? Does anyone know?!?). Whatever it was, this spill has left some 300,000 people without drinking water. If we, as chemists, are calling this chemophobia we need to seriously take a minute to ask ourselves one question: What about this fear is irrational?

Now, it turns out that 300,000 people aren't without drinking water because there is a deadly chemical in the water. 300,000 people are in the hospital because a chemical that we know very little about is in the drinking water - or at least that's what Jeff McIntyre, president of West Virginia American Water has said:

"We don't know that the water's not safe. But I can't say that it is safe,"

In other words - we just don't know what to expect with this chemical. And frankly, that's the worst thing chemists could say. If a chemical with a known toxicity and documented effects spills the public panics and retreats into deeper chemophobia (that is, the next time they see the word "chemical" it is even more scary). When a chemical with unknown toxicity spills the reaction is likely to be even worse. Chemophobia isn't just a fear of chemicals - it's a fear of the unknown.

Chemists should be the first to demand strict policies for chemical safety. We shouldn't be taking the "side" of corporations who insist on turning a blind eye to chemical safety. But that's what we (or at least I) seem to do. Our (my) first reaction is to defend chemistry - almost blindly and universally.

Take as an example the Radium Girls. These young girls are some of the best examples of chemical misuse. The girls were hired to paint the dials of watches with glow-in-the-dark, radium based paint. They were even taught to lick the tips of their paintbrushes to give them a fine point. Over time this exposure to radium was devastating to the young girls' health (see "The Poisoner's Handbook" film - start at about the 1 hour mark. Actually, start at the beginning, but for this particular story see about the one hour mark).

The Radium girls are a perfect example to compare to today's chemical concerns, but not because it's a story of an evil corporation doing harm to its workers. Radium was seen at the time as a miracle element; the perfect health remedy. U.S. Radium, the company the Radium Girls sued, may not have been acting maliciously to poison them but they were guilty of turning a blind eye. This is, I think, the state of modern chemical safety. OSHA does a pretty good job (all things considered) of protecting U.S. workers from known dangers, but major spill of a chemical with no (or at least little) toxicology data is alarming.

If we really think chemophobia is a problem the best thing we can do is be realistic - chemicals can be dangerous. Safety policies should be strict and clear. Major chemicals used in industrial settings need thorough toxicology studies. Evidence-based chemistry should be our goal - not just anti-chemophobia.

In April of last year Sam and I started a new project: Google Hangouts to talk chemistry. By July we had decided that a podcast was the best way to continue and The Collapsed Wavefunction podcast was born. We've had some really awesome guests:

New podcast episode!

Sam and I interviewed Deborah Blum, author of "The Poisoner's Handbook". We had some audio problems, but it's worth a listen.

You can listen in the player below, or if you're an iTunes fanatic subscribe here. Or, you could just import the RSS if you use a different podcast directory.

Don't miss the film version TONIGHT on PBS!


Show Notes:

All times are approximate:

1:30 - What brought about Deborah's desire to write about poison? In her early days Deborah imagined herself being a chemist, but a few unfortunate accidents convinced her off that path.

4:00 - Some musings on the beauty of chemistry - whether or not you have great lab skills.

5:30 - Deborah sees poisons as devious - as devious as the poisoners that use them.

6:00 - What is "The Poisoner's Handbook" about?

9:00 - What was it like to do the research for this book?

12:00 - Strychnine: A poison that didn't make it into the book that has a really great story.

17:00 - A discussion on the narrative of Chemistry - in other words what is the story that Chemistry, as a science, tells. Here's a link to the chocolate chip post she mentions.

26:00 - A great quote "Science is a human story of people trying to understand the world"

27:00 - It turns out Deborah is as anxious to see the PBS adaptation as we are.