Another good example of that is the word “proof”. First there is the sci/math definition, which is a very restricted thing. There is the usual meaning, which is more like “evidence”. Then again, there is an earlier version which means something like “to test”. As in how a baker proofs their yeast or the phrase “the exception which proves the rule”. The latter is particularly funny since the change in meaning of “proof” completely changes the meaning of the phrase.
3 Likes
…or proving ground.
1 Like
Yesterday someone on my local radio station said that the public demanded “less chemicals in their food”. I almost had to pull over as, being a dyed-in-the-wool pedant, half my brain was seized up with arguments about less versus fewer, and the other half was tied up thinking about what lessening the chemical content would do to the mass of the food.
9 Likes
You want the proof?
You can’t handle the proof!
5 Likes
This is an interesting situation where both less and fewer are probably correct but mean different things. I imagine they meant they wanted fewer chemicals, at least, they think that’s what they want.
1 Like
This is not true in the US. Foods labeled organic have to meet USDA guidelines. This does in fact include banning GMOs, synthetic fertilizers, irradiation and the vast majority of pesticides (exceptions are some plant extracts, fungal derivatives and a few synthetic substances like synthetic insect pheromones that have been deemed very low risk by the EPA).
The same goes for organic livestock which the USDA requires a ban on antibiotics, growth hormones, the use of 100% organic feed and providing animals with access to the outdoors to roam about.
6 Likes
Careful there. Foods labeled certified organic have to meet those criteria.
3 Likes
Maybe so, but I once had to tell a person that, no, he really most likely didn’t have “theories about ghosts”. Pseudoscience is a big misuser of scientific terms.
Actually, the ban is on antibiotics IN THE FEED. Doesn’t stop them from putting it in the WATER.
Those sound like fighting words. I’m sure someone will fight you. But the rest of us will just move on without you.
1 Like
Right, I think it’s already easy to confuse the everyday use of the term with the scientific term. But there are groups out there that are actively working to confuse the terms, like the people who say that the Big Bang is just a theory and that of course their alternate theory that dinosaurs created the world is just as sound, all theories being just conjecture after all.
2 Likes
It should also probably be noted that organic pesticides and fungicides are still toxins, and because they may not be as effective or stable as the ones we’ve come up in labs, they have some other issues. For example, they may need to be used in larger amounts or with frequent reapplication. A relatively mild pesticide from the same source - pyrethroids - that’s well-processed may effectively last a month, while the natural source product may break down in only 12 hours. That means during infestation, you’ll see a lot of respraying in an organic garden.
Some are organic pesticides are highly toxic, and some home gardeners falsely assume that they’ll be safe because it’s “natural”. That puts them at risk when they don’t carefully read labels.
http://www.colostate.edu/Depts/CoopExt/4DMG/PHC/psticid2.htm
You may also want to read this SA article about organic farming. I’m mainly posting it for the section on pesticide use.
He said, as he ate his hot dog.
Why is graphite inorganic while hexane is organic? Is it only because there’s C—H bonds in hexane, and not in graphite? And for that matter, are fullerines inorganic? If fullerines are organic, why would graphite and diamond be inorganic?
Still just wondering about the reasons for excluding carbon containing molecules from the set of organics.
I may have this wrong, this is just how I remember it:
It’s the C–H bonds that make an organic.
Once you don’t have both of them together, it’s not an organic anymore. That’s why coal is still organic, but diamonds aren’t. Fullerines, comprised entirely of carbon, would be inorganic.
Well duh, 1999 -2000 no warming.
Edit: if you follow the late 90’s (1997-2000) trend, we should be at zero change right now.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
