
Why do synthetic chemicals seem more toxic than natural ones? - sohkamyung
https://www.fastcompany.com/90391949/why-do-synthetic-chemicals-seem-more-toxic-than-natural-ones
======
anewguy9000
this article is disingenuous, esp for the hn crowd. it explains the difference
between causality and causation (ok kids), and talks about how we need to
understand probability, without actually talking about probability. utlimately
though the problem with the article is that its vacuous: the question it
purports to address, 'why do synthetic chemicals seem more toxic'? is not
actually addressed, other than to say that "toxicity depends on dose" (a
comprehensive comparison is impossible). so a casual reading of it implies the
assumption is wrong (ie, natural chemicals are equally or more toxic. it does
remind us that the top toxic substances are natural). sure, but is that
useful? on a supercial level, yes even the word "chemical" sounds "toxic" to a
layperson. add another "sciency" word like "synthetic" on top (vs the
beautiful imagery a word like "nature-al" evokes) and of course the synthetic
"seems more toxic". i summed it up in two sentences. yes, the layperson would
be wrong. but why an article? the significant reality to those with some
education on the subject, which was alluded to, but not addressed, has to do
with doses. where are most humans actually exposed to toxins? via agriculture?
so is there a difference between organic and non organic practises? this is
left to the reader. there is, but its not what you think. i cant help but
think there is an ulterior motive for publishing this scientific-sounding
article in a business magazine, or perhaps the student who wrote it is just..
well.. procrastinating on a paper.

------
lightedman
Because, by and far, they quite often are.

Dronabinol, synthetic marijuana, has been proven so far to have killed 6
people, on its own without other drugs present. How many has natural marijuana
directly killed, under the same erquirements, provably?

