Hello:

I'd started this blog with the intent of reviewing books on chemistry, as it seems no one else is doing that task. But I went down to my local MegaBook store and discovered the section of the science shelf devoted to "chemistry" was pretty sparse. So I'm going to try and write about science books in general. And from time to time about chemical and scientific issues.

Chemistry will be my main focus because that is where I've made my living for the past twenty-five years. I used to joke that I've been trying to get out of the chemical field for twenty-two of those years. However, I have discovered that if you've been doing something and getting paid to do it for a quarter century, it might be a good idea to stick with it.

I started out as a technician. Then I became a chemist. I've gone to many colleges and universities, although I did my four years at Ohio State University. No, I do not have a PhD. Do you have a problem with that? I'm glad you don't. I have several patents, but as they never made me rich I see no reason to talk about them. Most of my work has been in the industrial chemical field.

Today (7/25/05) the Wall Street Journal begins a series of articles called "Toxic Traces: New Questions About Old Chemicals." The lead story, "Common Industrial Chemicals In Tiny Doses Raise Health Issue, " was mostly a rehash of all the Our Stolen Future arguments that have been going on for the past few years. To wit: a lot of common chemicals used in plastic (Bisphenol A, Dibutyl Phthalate) aren't good for you at any level. Now eight years ago I had a conversation with a biologist who was researching endocrine disruptors and he told me that some of these additives have "no known lower level of biological activity." What I think he meant was that it's not practical to measure the lower level with many of them. Strangely enough, The WSJ article suggested that some of these chemicals are more effective at lower levels than higher ones. Homeopathy anyone?