A Conversation for Allotments
Scarp Started conversation Jan 12, 2000
"You can always guarantee that your own vegetables will be chemical free"
This is meaningless.
John the gardener says, "Free Tibet!" Posted Jan 12, 2000
I know what it means.
Aldo the hat Posted Jan 13, 2000
Surely "Chemical-free" might mean free of chemicals added to the soil or watered into the plant?
Or am I missing the point as well as my hat?
Is mise Duncan Posted Jan 13, 2000
you mean the vegetables might be "organic" .
I suppose "chemical fertiliser free" or "pesticide free" would be more meaningful.
(Note to Mr. Tesco - what is this blue powder like stuff I see on my carrots these days? me no like !)
Scarp Posted Jan 13, 2000
Sorry, I was obviously in a bit of a mood when I wrote that — probably got hung up on the thought of veg containing no water, cellulose, chlorophyll, etc. But yeah, that's not how real people think about chemicals, is it? Chemicals are evil things that northern white males make while wearing labcoats and cackling strangely... oops, there I go again
C Hawke Posted Jan 15, 2000
In New Scientist a few years ago, there was a story about a poll taken in USA about this "chemical" DiHydroxide MonOxide, how dangerous it was, can cause brtain swelling in large doses, effect bodilly functions, available across the counter without prescription even to school children etc most americans wanted to see it banned and the sellers shot! Of course we all know it as plain water.
Researcher 1300304 Posted Nov 9, 2007
'chemical free' is not meaningless. this criticism pops up a lot in forums. it is based on ignoring one common definition of 'chemical' as:
of, relating to, used in, or produced by chemistry
chemistry of course meaning the science.
it is not a legitimate criticism of language use to exclude a common meaning of a word and thereby invalidating another persons (correct)use of it.
Key: Complain about this post