Why is it that we panic when we see the word, "chemicals?" Here's an article about "chemophobia": http://www.slate.com/articles/...m_fb_plugin_activity

Fascinating, Geoff. As a nurse, I really found this interesting:

quote:

Meadows is not unique in being seduced into complacency by language. Psychologists call this “processing fluency” —we cope better and trust information more when the words it’s couched in are easy to pronounce and familiar. Terms that don’t roll easily off our tongues make us nervous. Given the choice, more people would rather take smooth-sounding Aleve than naproxen, though they are the precisely the same chemical.

I'm surprised that so few have read this thread since the link, commencing with the third paragraph, is a lesson in language usage. I guess I should have said so in the first place.

I read it all and found it fascinating. And yes, I did notice all the language related aspects of the article. Just didn't have much to say about them.

I did indeed read it, went back & read the Meadows article, & made a tart reply at Slate (yet to be published). The original article describes a medical situation much like one close to home in our family. The Meadows merely supplemented top-drawer conventional medicine with relatively harmless complementary meds and diet refinements. The Slate writer (Francl) distorts & misquotes the facts in what sounds like a pet rant triggered by a some cherry-picked phrases. Standing behind her chemical pedigree & calling those who do not toe her line victims of "processing fluency"? Gratuitious and patronizing.

Good going, B35!

I read the Meadows article, and Francl's response seems fair to me. "Alternative medicine" isn't harmless, and no one has any way of knowing how much the patient is getting.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: goofy,

The lone exception is homeopathic medicine. The more it is diluted, the stronger it gets. The nice thing is you can never get a lethal dose, although you might die from becoming waterlogged.

quote:

Originally posted by Proofreader:
The lone exception is homeopathic medicine. The more it is diluted, the stronger it gets. The nice thing is you can never get a lethal dose, although you might die from becoming waterlogged.

Except that homeopathy is harmful in a more insidious way. It is permitted to prescribe these non-medicines on the NHS and they are sold off the shelf in Boots (our largest chain of pharmacies) lending it a false legitimacy.
It is harmful because people use it instead of medicine. They actually sell homeopatrhic anti-malarials which people take as preventative medicine against one of the world's biggest killers. These are as useless as taking a spoonfool of tap water every day.

The article certainly adopted a ranting tone but the central truth is unchanged: people taking the kind of preparation it is talking about are either suplementing or substituting for a known dose of something with known side effects, an unknown dose of something with unknown side-effects.

I have every sympathy with anyone forced to watch a relative suffering through any kind of illness (been there myself) and I understand the desparation that will drive people to try any kind of remedy at all.
I also understand how, though this isn't such a case, it can lead inevitably to the unscrupulous making money from the situation.

And yes, homeopathy is one of my pet rants. I have less problem with actual herbal prepartions but still think I'd rather take a medicine that has been properly tested than one that hasn't.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: BobHale,

quote:

Originally posted by Proofreader:
although you might die from becoming waterlogged.

You' missed the cleverest bit. The method of dispensing it is to drip the water onto a sugar tablet - from which it evaporates so that not only is there none of the original substance left there is also none of the water.
I suppose too many of the sugar tablets might give you cavities.

Clearly, Bethree, this article brought out a personal passion with you, so I hesitate to get too opinionated here. While I agree that the article had a ranting and holier-than-thou tone, one point that was in the article, and has been discussed here, is that complementary medications (less so "diet refinements," depending on what they are; it can be dangerous, for example, to severely alter one's electrolytes with diet) have not been tested; dosages are murky; and in some cases they have caused serious adverse effects on patients. That can be doubly dangerous when they are naively used for serious conditions that need other treatment. Mind you, I have the medical establishment bias when I argue that.

Beyond the scientific question, I found the linguistic question fascinating. That is, do patients really choose treatments because of the sound of them (aleve versus naproxen)? I have not heard of that before, but I suppose it is plausible.

I agree completely with your point on complementary medicine, Kalleh; my eldest was in fact so sensitive to any sort of substance, OTC or otherwise, that he learned to tread very carefully.

My issue with the Francl article was: rheumatological diseases are as complex, their etiology as little understood, as mental diseases, & similarly, there are no cures, just some things which help some people. The Meadows family wisely maintained the conventional regimen, and reviewed supplements/diet changes carefully with their rheumatologist. It's a common-sense approach under the circumstances. The only on-point thing Francl had to say (which should have been said louder) is: these are relapsing diseases, & no one can say what part of the treatment, if any, brought it to remission.

Linguistically I guess it makes sense that people would tend to relate more positively to a word which is easier to pronounce, or 'process'? But I would bet there are many patients who would be drawn more to unpronounceable chemical-sounding medicines, as they sound more 'scientific'.

I wonder if people even think about the sound of a chemotherapeutic drug, for example, that is recommended to them for cancer. I frankly doubt it.

Drug companies spend heaps of money finding non-scientific-sounding names for their products. Lunesta? Cialis?? Flomax??? Well, at least the latter hints at its function.

On the title of the thread, here's another chemophobic comment from today's MSN "news:" Non-organic strawberries are high in chemicals. Good grief, ALL &&@!%$@# strawberries are high in chemicals! Send these writers to chemistry 101!

Drug companies spend heaps of money finding non-scientific-sounding names for their products. Lunesta? Cialis?? Flomax???

Product naming is one of the few jobs linguistics can find outside of academia.

Interesting, z. I hadn't thought of that. It's too bad they don't write grammar and style books for schools!