ACSH Explains: What Is A Chemical Reaction?

By Josh Bloom — November 6, 2017   @ the American Council on Science and Health

Sodium reacting with chlorine. Photo: Angelo.edu

Whether it's in the body or in a lab, chemical reactions are omnipresent; life depends on thousands of chemical reactions as do virtually all of the products that we use every day.
 

The concept is straightforward. A chemical reaction is a process in which a chemical compound (a reactant) is converted into a different compound (a product). The product of a chemical reaction is not only an entirely different molecular entity but also will usually bear no resemblance whatsoever to any of the reactant(s). No chemical reaction demonstrates this better than what happens when sodium and chlorine are combined (Figure 1).

1. Two deadly chemicals can react to form one that is harmless

Sodium is a soft, highly reactive metal, which explodes when added to water. If you put it in your mouth your head will explode. Chlorine is a deadly green gas, which was one of the first chemical weapons ever used (e.g., in World War I). Even a single whiff can be deadly. Sodium chloride clearly retains no properties of the two reactants nor does it revert to either. Two deadly chemicals form one harmless one.

Figure 1. Explosive sodium and deadly chlorine react to give table salt. Source: Saddlespace

2. A harmless reactant can form a toxic product

Figure 1 (above) showed an example of a chemical reaction that made two deadly chemical safe. But it also works the other way around (Figure 2).

Figure 2. The chemical reaction that produces VX gas.

O-(2-diisopropylaminoethyl) O'-ethyl methylphosphonite, which is mercifully abbreviated QL is the synthetic precursor (1) to VX gas (2), one of the worst toxins around. QL has very little toxicity. But when you combine it with sulfur and heat the reaction, look out. It is unlikely that you will make it out of the lab alive. Ten milligrams, less than one drop, is fatal when applied to the skin.

3. Neutralizing the toxin you just made

Chemical reactions can neutralize dangerous chemicals or make them. When used in sequence, they can do both. VX was made by reaction with two low-toxicity chemicals. But when deadly VX is reacted with sodium hydroxide all the toxicity "goes away" (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Neutralization of VX with sodium hydroxide  Source: Chemical and Engineering News

The underlying message here is the essence of chemistry: It doesn't matter how a chemical is made.

Every chemical compound has its own set of physical, chemical and toxicological properties. So when The Food Babe claims that Subway bread is unsafe because it is made with a chemical that is also used to make rubber yoga mats, it is a meaningless statement, something she should know.

Now you do. 

Why I Don't Write About Pottery From the Ming Dynasty

By Josh Bloom

Sometimes it's good to recognize your limitations. For example, I could describe how DNA works, or how to make crystal meth, poison your neighbor or blow stuff up. I won't, but I could. And I'd know what I was talking about.  Perhaps I could also write something about teapots from the Ming Dynasty if I read about it on Wikipedia, but in reality I wouldn't know one if it fell off the Chrysler Building onto my head.

Nicholas Kristof is a columnist for The New York Times. As such, he has written about a wide range of topics such as politics, human rights, poverty, foreign affairs, and economics. He does this extremely well, as demonstrated by his multiple awards, including two Pulitzer Prizes. He also appears to be nothing short of brilliant, and an all-around good guy as well.

But sometime prior to May 2nd, when his last column, "How Chemicals Affect Us" was published, he may have been walking a little too close to the Chrysler Building......To Read More.....

Observations From the Back Row:5-6-11

...
“De Omnibus Dubitandum”

If the congressional, administration and activist conspirators behind this massive deceit were in the private sector – peddling bogus drugs, rather than bogus science – they’d quickly become convicts. Instead of jail time, though, they’ll probably get bonus checks. – Paul Driessen

***Featured Article***

Better Living Through Chemistry (If Permitted)

The overwhelming body of scientific evidence supports the safety of myriad chemicals in use today - A fusillade of recent items by the New York Times, US News, CNN, and others purports to show how certain common pesticides lead to reduced IQs among children of women exposed to these chemicals while pregnant. Dismayed, I carefully went over the paper that lies at the ground zero of the media frenzy. It is a study of the organophosphate (OP) class of pesticides by a group of researchers based at the University of California at Berkeley and led by Brenda Eskenazi.

My Take - I hope this puts a huge damper on this issue.  Junk scientists are as rampant as the flu in January.  Only far more distructive! 

Why Illinois’ proposed ban on trans fats should be stopped: Fact sheet Publisher’s note: A bill has passed the Illinois House that would ban trans fats. Here is a fact sheet that can be used to debunk the ban. Click here for a PDF version of the fact sheet. HB1600 (Trans Fat Ban) Should Be Stopped
Overview. Illinois House-passed bill HB1600 would ban bakeries and other food facilities from using trans fat-containing oils, shortenings, and margarines in spreads, baking and frying. The proposed ban is based on “junk science” and will produce no public health benefits.

Former New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson hopes that Osama bin Laden's death will spur President Barack Obama to promote climate change legislation.“My hope is that from this success in the foreign policy arena two days ago, that he will be emboldened to take once again to the Congress legislation — not just to increase a renewable energy standard — but climate change legislation that this country and the world need,” Richardson said Tuesday at a Climate Leadership Gala hosted by the Earth Day Network in Washington.

My Take – You have got to be kidding! How can anyone at this stage of the game buy into this horsepucky?

Enviros demonstrate case for removing EPA from all real-world decision making Two environmental groups have challenged the air pollution permit for a $750 million iron plant in southwestern Louisiana, which is the first project that was approved under the greenhouse gas regulations that were implemented by U.S. EPA in January. The petition, which was filed yesterday by the Sierra Club and the Louisiana Environmental Action Network, asks EPA to throw the brakes on a $3.4 billion complex being developed in southeastern Louisiana by Charlotte, N.C.-based Nucor Corp.

Editor Junk Science - The US EPA supposedly worries about a few piffling hundredths of one percent of the atmosphere comprised of a particular species of greenhouse gas while (for now) ignoring a greenhouse gas very similar in action but comprising 1%-4% of the atmosphere and exerting 25-100 times the effect. If they want to make any measurable difference to earth’s greenhouse effect then they are going to have to start work on removing the clouds from the sky and drying the atmosphere, although this would not have the result they are looking for either because it would increase surface-absorbed solar energy. Given that their stated aims and purpose are patently stupid it is apparent they have another agenda.

Gasoline Prices and Taxes Everybody is asking that question these days. The average nationwide price for all grades this week is $3.96/gallon; Californians are paying on average $4.26, the highest in the nation. Why does it cost so much, especially considering that the price was below $2.00/gallon just within the last couple of years?

Nearly seventy percent of the price of a gallon of retail gasoline is the price of the crude oil it is refined from. Two graphs from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) make that point. The first shows the price of a gallon of gasoline (left axis) plotted against the price of a gallon of crude oil (right axis). The two move in virtual lock-step; if you know the crude oil price per gallon, add $1.00 and you’ll know the price of gasoline within a few cents. (At $105 per 42-gallon barrel, the per-gallon price of crude is $2.50; add a buck, and you get a gasoline price around $3.50.)….. One last point — even at $4.00, it is difficult to name a liquid product which is cheaper per unit volume than gasoline.

My Take - Unfortunately….this is a liquid that can change the economy drastically. We need to drill…..now! And I don’t what to hear any claptrap about perceived values. The price of energy and its availability is the key to a booming economy. We really do need to get that!

Actually, We Can Drill Our Way To Energy Security!

In the debate over rising gas prices, Washington is creating a massive distraction: whether Congress should eliminate tax “subsidies” for oil and gas companies. Of course oil and gas companies don’t receive checks, grants, or direct payments from the federal Treasury, so the debate is a red herring. What’s really needed is price relief for consumers at the pump. The best way to do that is to produce more affordable energy here at home…… We certainly have plenty of it: according to the non-partisan Congressional Research Service (CRS), America’s combined supply of oil, coal, and natural gas is the largest on Earth. Put another way, America’s recoverable resources are far larger than those of Saudi Arabia (3rd), China (4th), and Canada (6th) combined. And that’s without including America’s immense oil shale and methane hydrates deposits……….. But this administration is saying no. By restricting supply — through its de facto moratorium on deepwater permitting in the Gulf of Mexico, and its restrictions on production on federal lands — prices have gone up. This is exactly what this administration wants. Energy Secretary Steven Chu, for instance, told the Wall Street Journal that “[s]omehow we have to figure out how to boost the prices of gasoline to the levels in Europe.” Consider just Great Britain: consumers there pay over $7.00 a gallon for gasoline.

"The time has come," the Walrus said,

"To talk of many things:

Of shoes, and ships, and sealing wax -

Of cabbages and kings,

And why the sea is boiling hot,

And whether pigs have wings."

###

Bedbugs; The Real Answer!

By Rich Kozlovich

What is the reality of bedbugs? We have them! We don’t want them! The numbers keep getting larger! They are spreading farther afield! The tools left to society don’t kill them! There are species of bedbug that are even more resistant to pesticides than the rest!

The average homeowner is faced with over the counter pesticides that don’t work or IPM or green pest control programs that are either largely ineffectual or prohibitively expensive when they work. The same is true of new technology, such as heat which absolutely works. The reality of bedbugs is this; chemistry was the answer in 1946 and it will be the answer in 2010! And it must be the answer. Why?

Let’s drop back to 1946. Before the introduction of DDT bedbugs were everywhere. After the introduction of DDT they weren’t. After resistance to DDT developed in bedbugs pest controllers changed to Malathion and other products that bedbugs were not resistant to. DDT did the heavy lifting, and Malathion knocked them out.

Those were the tools; that was the chemistry that worked. However, that isn’t the story. Why did those tools work so well? That is the real question! The answer is a combination of chemical efficacy and its availability to the general society. The real story is that DDT, Malathion and all the other life saving products introduced into society were available as Do It Yourself products. That is the real story, and that is the answer to the bedbug problem.

It wasn’t the professional pest control industry that eliminated bedbugs. We had a major role to play, but no professional program will work if the problem continues to persist in a general population that cannot afford to pay someone to do the job for them. The re-introduction rate will be unending. The poorest people must be able to address this by themselves, in their own homes. They are willing to do so because they are desperate to rid themselves of the pest plague. They just need the tools.

We need to stop this nonsense about IPM and green pest control being the “glue” that holds pest control together. We need to stop this nonsense about the theoretical risks the greenies are constantly yammering about. We, the professionals of pest control, are part of that thin gray line that are the defenders of public health. We need to stop crawling on our bellies as if we should be ashamed of who we are and what we do. We need to take the field and raise the Battle Standard for all to see. We need to get back up onto our hind legs and defend what we do, the products we use and demand that everyone else, including the EPA, do the same.

The reality is this; as long as the average person is left adrift with no way to care for themselves and their families, this problem will remain a major societal plague that will never go away. Bedbugs must absolutely be addressed at the lowest levels of the economic spectrum if we are to eliminate them once again. That can only be done with chemistry that works and at a cost that the average person can afford. DIY is what really eliminated bedbugs and effective inexpensive DIY products must be made available again.


.

The Basic Science Of Carbon

A protest against carbon/CO2 cap and trade or tax proposals. This summary is being sent to politicians, media outlets, scientists, and others across the world. It is a protest against the madness of anti-carbon thought and policies.

By Wendell Krossa Apr 18, 2009

The Basic Science of Carbon/CO2: a brief summary (Why are we trying to limit- cap and trade, tax- the basis of all life?)

All life is built from carbon. All life depends on carbon for its existence and functioning. “All living things, starting at the cellular level which is common to all life, is based on carbon compounds, including the DNA that carry the gene sequences of the genetic codes. Of the trillions of cells in the human body, there is not one of them that is not made of carbon.”   

 

We subsist almost entirely on carbon dioxide. “The food used by all living things, to grow and to live, is carbon dioxide…food is carbon dioxide…the food of all plants and animals is carbon dioxide”.   Everything is made of carbon and fueled by carbon. All things need carbon to grow and reproduce.

 
There is only one source of carbon for all life- CO2 in the atmosphere. Plants absorb CO2 from the atmosphere (“they consume almost entirely carbon dioxide for food”- www.bydesign.com) and process it into carbohydrates for the animal kingdom. We get our food from this chain of CO2/carbon processing. “The only gateway through which carbon can enter the food chain to enable the biosphere to exist is through the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. There is no other way. It all starts with CO2 in the atmosphere. The entire chain of life starts with plants absorbing this entirely natural, colorless, odorless, absolutely non-toxic aerial gas called CO2…more than 90 % of the dry matter of plants is simply processed CO2. Whether it is a cow eating grass or humans eating cows, all are eating- and being fuelled- by processed CO2” (Brinsmead, The Vindication of Carbon).

Recent levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have been unprecedented and dangerously low. Plant growth shuts down at 200 ppm (parts per million in the atmosphere). Plant life is stressed and unhealthy at such low levels. Life evolved over the past 500 million years at levels of CO2 that were on average a more healthy 1500 ppm (see paleo-climate graphs at sites such as Geocraft.com). A dangerous upper limit of CO2 in the atmosphere would be from 5,000 to 10,000 ppm. We are in no danger of approaching these high levels. Our atmosphere is currently “CO2 deprived”.

Plants and crops are healthier at higher levels of CO2 than are currently present in our atmosphere (now 386 ppm). They produce significantly more biomass, and are able to cope better with such natural vagaries as drought, heat, and cold. “More CO2 makes plants more resistant to extreme weather conditions…and this expands the habitat of many plants…and enhances agricultural productivity…and helps tropical rainforests”. Animals also survive better with more plant life. The small increase in CO2 over the past century has significantly greened the earth and this has increased populations in the animal kingdom. It has also enhanced the impacts of the Green Revolution with notably increased crop production which has helped to feed the poor.

Higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are more normal and natural.

 

Current world average temperatures are also abnormally low. Higher temperatures on an ice-free earth (a warmer earth) are more normal and natural (see paleo-climate graphs at Geocraft.com). We are in one of earth’s infrequent and abnormally cold ice-age eras (the past two million years). A warmer earth would be better for all life.

CO2 is not a pollutant but is a rare gas (1 molecule to every 3,000 molecules of the atmosphere) that is the essential food of all life. “All plants and animals are growing and living on a rare gas”. And while there are other potential pollutants associated with fossil fuel use, CO2 and carbon are not among them.

CO2 does not cause dangerous global warming. Rising levels of CO2 follow warming periods and do not precede or cause warming periods. CO2 does not cause dangerous global warming. Rising levels of CO2 follow warming periods and do not precede or cause warming periods.

CO2 does not cause dangerous global warming. Rising levels of CO2 follow warming periods and do not precede or cause warming periods. See the Vostok Ice Core research. Oceans, which hold 90 times the CO2 that is in the atmosphere, release CO2 as they warm and this increases atmospheric CO2 levels. The CO2 increases tend to lag behind warming periods by about 800 years.

Oceans, which hold 90 times the CO2 that is in the atmosphere, release CO2 as they warm and this increases atmospheric CO2 levels. The CO2 increases tend to lag behind warming periods by about 800 years.

CO2 is a tiny part of the greenhouse gases and the greenhouse effect.

 
The warming effect of CO2 gets lost among other much larger natural climate drivers. Human emissions of CO2 are even tinier (1 part per 100,000 parts of the atmosphere) and a human fingerprint causing warming is even more lost among natural influences. The human contribution to climate warming, if it were statistically detectable, would amount to nothing more than “a fart in a hurricane”. Natural climate drivers with strong, clear correlations to warming/cooling periods include cosmic rays (see Henrik Svensmark’s The Chilling Stars), solar flare cycles, related cloud cover, ocean current decadal oscillations (changing current patterns), earth’s 100,000 year wobble, and others.

CO2 levels have been as high as 7,000 ppm in the past and no dangerous global warming occurred. During the Late Ordovician Period (some 400 million years ago) CO2 levels were 4,400 ppm and Earth was as cold as it is now. Note also that Earth has been cooling since 2002 despite the fact that CO2 emissions have been increasing. “There is no valid correlation between CO2 emissions and global warming”, concludes geophysicist Norm Kalmanovitch.

Therefore, there is no scientific reason for us to worry about contributing to increasing CO2 levels. We do not need to reduce our carbon footprint. We do not need to reduce CO2 levels in the atmosphere or decarbonize our economies. As the 31,000 plus scientists who signed the the Protest Petition have stated, “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth”

To demonize carbon/CO2, as environmentalists have done, is to demonize life itself. This is ridiculous hysteria and entirely unscientific. The only way to fully understand this anti-carbon movement is to recognize that it is ideologically-driven extremism now gone utterly mad. Its real goal is to slow, halt, and even reverse economic growth and development and it uses carbon as a proxy to fight growth and the human enterprise. But the Green movement in demonizing carbon has become anti-green, anti-life, and anti-nature.

Wendell Krossa wkrossa@shaw.ca