Huh well ok then

I am a biochemist.
We do not refer to water as a chemical. 'Chemical' is used both colloquially and in chemistry to mean a compound that's artificially produced. While that is vaguely technically true per the definition, as a chemist, if you were to call water a 'chemical' in the lab and it wasn't made from H, O2 and electricity, everyone would look at you like you were retarded and maybe go call up your alma mater to make sure you really graduated. Water is referred to as a molecule.

Not everything is a chemical faggots. Still though. I hope you get hit by a bus chemical.

I am a car salesman
Surely as a chemist you recognize the distinction between chemical/molecule is an arbitrary one and just because something isn't a chemical doesn't mean it's better for you and vice versa.

>Being so fucking stupid that you think it's a left/right issue

Kill yourself faggot and take Obama's Monsanto-cock-sucking ass with you.

> 'Chemical' is used both colloquially and in chemistry to mean a compound that's artificially produced.
You're a shit biochemist if you believe that.

This poster is bullshitting, we do indeed refer to water as a chemical. Method of synthesis has nothing to do with calling something a chemical.

Unless of course, that user is not actually an English speaker; maybe the nomenclature is different in for'n parts.

>chemical/molecule is an arbitrary one
Abritrary perhaps, but still valid.

Consider the term "poison". We don't call water poison, even though you can die from drinking too much of it. So yeah, the term "poison" is arbitrary too. But you don't go around consuming thinks marked "poison", do you?

Generally speaking, in the context of food, anything that we call a chemical by our arbitrary definition is probably not good for you. That's the point of calling it a chemical. Arbitrary? Sure. Be we all know what it means.

And you're absolutely right that just because something is "natural" rather than a "chemical" doesn't mean it is safe. Snake venom and hemlock are both "natural" but you don't want either one in your body.

Yes, I don't disagree. But my problem is when marketers or activist use the term 'chemical,' vaguely to crtitisize or promote a product. Certain chemicals are bad for you, certain ones aren't. Certain chemicals are only bad for you if you consume too much or in combination with something else.

I just hate the psychology of marketing. And how gullible the population is to it.

Do you think these articles are fake or something? Why does it matter if they say 'chemical' or not, that's what it is, we all know what it means, and those "chemicals" cause cancer. If it were an issue of misleading customers of fake science, sure, argue about the word, but a ton of pesticides are known carcinogens.

>water is elemental
No, it's a combination of two elements dipshit

oohhh, the faggot was trying to use semantics so I followed suit. Water is elemental, suck my dick.

It is an organic chemical

Nope, no carbon bonds, not organic

>im allergic to chemicals
>dies

if we are gonna be assholes, then fuck you, hydrogens are really just protons. its questionable whether you can compare it to something like an actual element like oxygen

Your mother is an electron, and my cock is a proton, she orbits around it.

can i be the neutron bb ;)