Every year, in the fall, I ask my first year chemistry class the following bonus question on their exam:
"One of the more interesting by-products produced by the petroleum industry and discharged as effluent is dihydrogen monoxide. This is a toxic substance that pollutes our rivers and waterways. Should the Federal Government ban it?"
The students are giving the choice of "yes", "no", "if possible", and "not enough information".
It is an interesting question to ask because it really isn't about whether we should ban an effluent or not. Rather it is about whether or not the students understand a chemical name.
In this case, "dihydrogen" means two hydrogen atoms and "monoxide" means one oxygen atom. That is, H-2-O or water.
Given that information, I would suggest that the most appropriate answer is "no". The federal government would meet with fairly stiff opposition if it were to ban water. Or, at least, I hope they would!
The information in the question is correct, though. Water is an industrial effluent. Great clouds of water vapour spew from the stacks at the local pulp mills and the refinery.
Further, water is a leading killer of young adults - through drowning. Even just drinking too much water can lead to death. It is toxic - just not very toxic in comparison to say, arsenic.
So nothing is wrong with the statements. The real question is can the student understand and interpret a chemical name? Can they overcome a fear of chemical sounding names to determine the actual compound and whether or not it is feasible to ban it?
This is important because incredibly simple and important compounds can have incredibly complicated and scary sounding names.
Consider 3,7-dimethyl-9-(2,6,6-trimethyl-1-cyclohexen-1-yl)-2,4,6,8-nonatetraen-1-ol. This is not a name that would trip off the average person's tongue. Indeed, many first year chemistry students would have trouble pronouncing it.
It might even scare a few. But the fact that it is a long and somewhat complicated name doesn't mean that the compound is "bad" or "toxic" or anything like that at all.
I mention this because companies, particularly food producers, are increasingly using chemophobia or their belief that people are afraid of chemicals in their advertising.
Consider a Maple Leaf Foods television commercial which features "Dylan". Dylan always wanted a hot dog, we are told, but his parents are wary because of the additives and preservatives. Finally, the company has made a hot dog for Dylan with "no artificial preservatives and ingredients his parents can actually pronounce."
Being able to pronounce the name of a chemical compound is no surety of safety just as not being able to pronounce the name of a chemical compound is an indicator of harm.
In the case of hot dogs and other processed food, consumers trying to avoid chemical compounds, such as "sodium erythrobate" might opt for the much more pronounceable "sodium nitrite". The latter is a natural preservative produced during the smoking of meat when it is exposed to nitric oxides generated during combustion. Sodium nitrite is a natural preservative.
Yet, there really isn't a lot difference between the two compounds as preservatives. Both are included for the purpose of preventing the growth of the Clostridium botulinum bacteria - the source of botulism. Both are effective. And one could make the argument that of the two, sodium nitrite is potentially a little more harmful for the consumer as it has the potential to form nitrosoamines.
In any case, I would suggest that eating processed meat that hasn't been preserved by a such a compound is a dangerous proposition. Preservatives are included to ensure that there isn't any bacterial growth. There are a lot of very nasty organisms around us that can and will kill people if given half a chance.
The names of the compounds are irrelevant to their efficacy. What matters is do they work?
Another example of chemophobia showed up in last Saturday's Citizen in an article on green cleaners. Stephanie Guico fell ill after inhaling the fumes for an aerosol over cleaner.
"The fumes triggered my first sinus infection," Guico said. "It was horrible. After that, I began reading labels more carefully and realized I couldn't pronounce the majority of the ingredients in the cleaners I was using. Now my basic spring cleaning ingredients are vinegar, essential oils, baking soda, and a good all-purpose cleaning liquid."
The problem with this is that it is not the names of the chemical compounds that were at fault but not following instructions for using the aerosol cleaner. And the names of the compounds found in the essential oils and all-purpose cleaning liquid are just as unpronounceable. Maybe even more so.
We need to stop fearing chemicals just because they are chemicals or because they have long and unpronounceable names.
After all, 3,7-dimethyl-9-(2,6,6-trimethyl-1-cyclohexen-1-yl)-2,4,6,8-nonatetraen-1-ol is better known as Vitamin A and that is essential for a healthy life.
Dr. Todd Whitcombe is an associate professor of chemistry at the University of Northern British Columbia. His column appears Thursdays.
