http://scienceblogs.com/chemblog/ A place of pontificating about chemistry-related subjects ranging from relatively innocuous food frauds to such catastrophic events as global warming, passing through pollution, toxic food additives (a favourite), harmful medications, corporate subterfuge, government demagogy and all manner things frightening and depressing: if you don't want to subscribe to my feed, I somewhat understand. en Copyright 2007 Fri, 14 Jul 2006 16:52:14 -0500 http://www.sixapart.com/movabletype/?v=3.21 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss http://www.unitedmedia.com/comics/dilbert/archive/dilbert-20060713.html Which incidentally betokens that, in spite of such examples of amazing stupidity as the Johnny Hart one Pharyngula unearthed, the comics world can still produce something to please scientists and other brain users. Amen to that. ]]> http://scienceblogs.com/chemblog/2006/07/a_cartoon_history_of_water_flu_1.php http://scienceblogs.com/chemblog/2006/07/a_cartoon_history_of_water_flu_1.php Idle Fri, 14 Jul 2006 16:52:14 -0500 Read the rest of this post... | Read the comments on this post...]]> http://scienceblogs.com/chemblog/2006/06/the_words_not_spoken_1.php http://scienceblogs.com/chemblog/2006/06/the_words_not_spoken_1.php Meta Tue, 20 Jun 2006 16:00:48 -0500 is destroying many forms of life, including plants that could be useful to the pharmaceutical industry. This is a very sad statement; not so much because of its subject, but because it betokens the humiliation of science in front of the selfish morons which constitute the common public. It seems that the only way people can understand why biodiversity oughtn't to be massacred is the possibility that it will give pharmaceutical companies a chance to find a better cure for haemorrhoids. Well, as you will see many times in this blog in the future, counting on pharmaceutical companies for anything good, including saving rainforests, is a truly foolish idea. Here are a couple of reasons why: Read the rest of this post... | Read the comments on this post...]]> http://scienceblogs.com/chemblog/2006/06/of_drugs_and_forests.php http://scienceblogs.com/chemblog/2006/06/of_drugs_and_forests.php Inpharmy Sun, 18 Jun 2006 10:21:54 -0500 Assuming that time and money were not obstacles, what area of scientific research, outside of your own discipline, would you most like to explore? Why?
There is little doubt in my mind I'd pursue biology–the multicellular kind, possibly specialising in entomology (an idea that I actually considered before enrolling in my chem. eng. masters program). There are two main reasons for this:

1. Thanks to DNA analysis, zoology (as well as botany and so forth) is finally distancing itself from its semi-artistic descriptive nature, something that still in 1990, when I had to choose the course of my studies, weighed on it like a pall for the more mathematically oriented among us.
2. Within one generation, the rainforests will be reduced to a handful of square kilometres of tourist attractions; this means perhaps a 90% loss in terrestrial biodiversity--possibly much more. It is a last opportunity to study a world doomed by cheap hardwood and Brazilian beef; all other fields of science will still be there for the next generation. Assuming scientist won't be burnt at the stake by then, of course.

Read the comments on this post...]]> http://scienceblogs.com/chemblog/2006/06/todays_ask_a_scienceblogger_qu.php http://scienceblogs.com/chemblog/2006/06/todays_ask_a_scienceblogger_qu.php Idle Tue, 13 Jun 2006 17:00:00 -0500 www.chemblog.hotserv.dk, and you can refer to that site for the next couple of days. Read the comments on this post...]]> http://scienceblogs.com/chemblog/2006/05/the_first_post.php http://scienceblogs.com/chemblog/2006/05/the_first_post.php Meta Fri, 26 May 2006 17:47:46 -0500