Not logged in [Login - Register]
 Sciencemadness Discussion Board » Non-chemistry » Legal and Societal Issues » Californian chemophobia Select A Forum Fundamentals   » Chemistry in General   » Organic Chemistry   » Reagents and Apparatus Acquisition   » Beginnings   » Miscellaneous   » The Wiki Special topics   » Technochemistry   » Energetic Materials   » Biochemistry   » Radiochemistry   » Computational Models and Techniques   » Prepublication   » References Non-chemistry   » Forum Matters   » Legal and Societal Issues   » Whimsy   » Detritus   » The Moderators' Lounge

Pages:  1
Author: Subject: Californian chemophobia
pyrochemix
Harmless

Posts: 8
Registered: 17-3-2008
Member Is Offline

Californian chemophobia

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 Hazard to Others Posts: 123 Registered: 20-1-2007 Location: USA Member Is Offline Mood: Oooh! Shiny!  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 lab constructor Posts: 5309 Registered: 1-11-2003 Location: USA Member Is Offline Mood: pumped 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 International Hazard Posts: 1547 Registered: 19-9-2007 Location: USA Member Is Offline Mood: Suspicious 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. "There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry ... There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors. ... We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it and that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. And we know that as long as men are free to ask what they must, free to say what they think, free to think what they will, freedom can never be lost, and science can never regress." -J. Robert Oppenheimer The_Davster A pnictogen Posts: 2856 Registered: 18-11-2003 Member Is Offline 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 Administrator Posts: 6031 Registered: 20-8-2005 Location: Netherlands Member Is Offline Mood: interested 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 The art of wondering makes life worth living... Want to wonder? Look at http://www.oelen.net/science Magpie lab constructor Posts: 5309 Registered: 1-11-2003 Location: USA Member Is Offline Mood: pumped 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 International Hazard Posts: 1035 Registered: 8-10-2003 Location: closer to the anode Member Is Offline Mood: Strongly alkaline Decadence without wisdom or intelligence, in general, is a prelude to rampant perdition. In the theater of life its nice to know where the exit doors are located. pyrochemix Harmless Posts: 8 Registered: 17-3-2008 Member Is Offline !@#$ 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 Im 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 Im 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 dont 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
Hazard to Others

Posts: 123
Registered: 20-1-2007
Location: USA
Member Is Offline

Mood: Oooh! Shiny!

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
National Hazard

Posts: 447
Registered: 15-1-2005
Member Is Offline

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.
International Hazard

Posts: 1034
Registered: 9-7-2004
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Member Is Offline

Mood: Patience growing thin !

Ridiculous Laws

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.

Power comes from the barrel of a gun !
MagicJigPipe
International Hazard

Posts: 1547
Registered: 19-9-2007
Location: USA
Member Is Offline

Mood: Suspicious

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.

"There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry ... There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors. ... We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it and that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. And we know that as long as men are free to ask what they must, free to say what they think, free to think what they will, freedom can never be lost, and science can never regress." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
Magpie
lab constructor

Posts: 5309
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: USA
Member Is Offline

Mood: pumped

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
Hazard to Others

Posts: 226
Registered: 14-1-2006
Member Is Offline

 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
A pnictogen

Posts: 2856
Registered: 18-11-2003
Member Is Offline

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
International Hazard

Posts: 1547
Registered: 19-9-2007
Location: USA
Member Is Offline

Mood: Suspicious

"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.

"There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry ... There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors. ... We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it and that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. And we know that as long as men are free to ask what they must, free to say what they think, free to think what they will, freedom can never be lost, and science can never regress." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
Hazard to Others

Posts: 169
Registered: 10-5-2005
Member Is Offline

Pure Stupidity

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
International Hazard

Posts: 1547
Registered: 19-9-2007
Location: USA
Member Is Offline

Mood: Suspicious

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.

"There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry ... There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors. ... We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it and that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. And we know that as long as men are free to ask what they must, free to say what they think, free to think what they will, freedom can never be lost, and science can never regress." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
The_Davster
A pnictogen

Posts: 2856
Registered: 18-11-2003
Member Is Offline

"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]

Hazard to Others

Posts: 169
Registered: 10-5-2005
Member Is Offline

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
International Hazard

Posts: 1547
Registered: 19-9-2007
Location: USA
Member Is Offline

Mood: Suspicious

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!!!!

"There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry ... There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors. ... We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it and that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. And we know that as long as men are free to ask what they must, free to say what they think, free to think what they will, freedom can never be lost, and science can never regress." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
DerAlte
International Hazard

Posts: 779
Registered: 14-5-2007
Location: Erehwon
Member Is Offline

Mood: Disgusted

"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
National Hazard

Posts: 282
Registered: 17-8-2008
Location: US & A
Member Is Offline

Mood: Stochastic

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
International Hazard

Posts: 1035
Registered: 8-10-2003
Location: closer to the anode
Member Is Offline

Mood: Strongly alkaline

 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.

In the theater of life its nice to know where the exit doors are located.
Pages:  1

 Sciencemadness Discussion Board » Non-chemistry » Legal and Societal Issues » Californian chemophobia Select A Forum Fundamentals   » Chemistry in General   » Organic Chemistry   » Reagents and Apparatus Acquisition   » Beginnings   » Miscellaneous   » The Wiki Special topics   » Technochemistry   » Energetic Materials   » Biochemistry   » Radiochemistry   » Computational Models and Techniques   » Prepublication   » References Non-chemistry   » Forum Matters   » Legal and Societal Issues   » Whimsy   » Detritus   » The Moderators' Lounge