There is some scare news going around (UK) about contaminated soils with 'forever' chemicals. The connotation here is a negative one, as in
'bad, harmful chemicals'.
So I looked up one scientific definition of 'chemical'.
Quote:
"What is a chemical? In science, a chemical is any substance with a
specific composition, whether itrCOs a single element or a compound of multiple elements."
<https://sciencenotes.org/what-is-a-chemical-definition-and-examples/>
According to the above definition, diamonds are chemicals. Hence "a
diamond is forever" is not just a marketing slogan.
As is water.
So, what - on the surface of this earth - isn't a chemical?
On 24/09/2026 14:47, occam wrote:
There is some scare news going around (UK) about contaminated soils with
'forever' chemicals.-a The connotation here is a negative one, as in
'bad, harmful chemicals'.
So I looked up one scientific definition of 'chemical'.
Quote:
"What is a chemical? In science, a chemical is any substance with a
specific composition, whether itrCOs a single element or a compound of
multiple elements."
<https://sciencenotes.org/what-is-a-chemical-definition-and-examples/>
According to the above definition, diamonds are chemicals. Hence "a
diamond is forever" is not just a marketing slogan.
And diamonds are not, of course, forever, being (for instance) combustible.
As is water.
So, what - on the surface of this earth - isn't a chemical?
Any substance, I suppose, that does not have a specific composition.
Gravy? But gravy is made up of chemicals, even if we may not have
identified absolutely all of them.
Popular use is surely that a chemical is a pure compound, probably synthesised in a laboratory, and therefore probably bad. That said, the
word 'pure' is a slippery customer, used especially by advertisers to
mean almost whatever they want, but invariably good. Often accompanied
by 'natural'.
There is some scare news going around (UK) about contaminated soils with 'forever' chemicals. The connotation here is a negative one, as in
'bad, harmful chemicals'.
So I looked up one scientific definition of 'chemical'.
Quote:
"What is a chemical? In science,
a chemical is any substance with a
specific composition, whether itrCOs a single element or a compound of multiple elements."
<https://sciencenotes.org/what-is-a-chemical-definition-and-examples/>
According to the above definition, diamonds are chemicals. Hence "a
diamond is forever" is not just a marketing slogan.
As is water.
So, what - on the surface of this earth - isn't a chemical?
Forever chemical: "/colloquial./ Any of a large group of synthetic
compounds that are widely used in products such as cookware, cosmetics,
and textiles for their non-stick and stain-repellent properties, but
have varying levels of toxicity, and have been found to accumulate in
the body and persist indefinitely in the environment" - ibid..
Forever chemical: "/colloquial./ Any of a large group of synthetic
compounds that are widely used in products such as cookware, cosmetics,
and textiles for their non-stick and stain-repellent properties, but
have varying levels of toxicity, and have been found to accumulate in
the body and persist indefinitely in the environment" - ibid..
"What is a chemical? In science, a chemical is any substance with a
specific composition, whether itrCOs a single element or a compound of
multiple elements."
There is some scare news going around (UK) about contaminated soils with >'forever' chemicals. The connotation here is a negative one, as in
'bad, harmful chemicals'.
So I looked up one scientific definition of 'chemical'.
Quote:
"What is a chemical? In science, a chemical is any substance with a
specific composition, whether itrCOs a single element or a compound of >multiple elements."
<https://sciencenotes.org/what-is-a-chemical-definition-and-examples/>
According to the above definition, diamonds are chemicals. Hence "a
diamond is forever" is not just a marketing slogan.
As is water.
So, what - on the surface of this earth - isn't a chemical?
On 24/09/26 23:47, occam wrote:
"What is a chemical? In science, a chemical is any substance with a
specific composition, whether itrCOs a single element or a compound of
multiple elements."
My wife is always keen for me to look for organic flour, organic
vegetables, etc. So I look for the ones containing carbon.
On a related question, I've been wondering why carbon dioxide is not >considered an organic chemical. The answer seems to be that carbon
dioxide (CO2) is inorganic but carbonyl monoxide (OCO) is organic.
On Fri, 25 Sep 2026 09:34:41 +1000, Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org>Some years ago, the news coverage contained a story about plastic
wrote:
On 24/09/26 23:47, occam wrote:
"What is a chemical? In science, a chemical is any substance with a
specific composition, whether itrCOs a single element or a compound of
multiple elements."
My wife is always keen for me to look for organic flour, organic
vegetables, etc. So I look for the ones containing carbon.
I once saw a sign in a shop advertising "organic eggs", but I don't
think I've ever encountered an inorganic egg.
<https://ondermynende.wordpress.com/2010/03/13/animal-vegetable-or-mineral/>
On a related question, I've been wondering why carbon dioxide is not
considered an organic chemical. The answer seems to be that carbon
dioxide (CO2) is inorganic but carbonyl monoxide (OCO) is organic.
Carbon footprint:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-I_T3XvzPaM>
My wife is always keen for me to look for organic flour, organic
vegetables, etc. So I look for the ones containing carbon.
In that context I would take "chemical" to refer to a substance whose chemical properties remain unchanged for a long time.
Den 25.09.2026 kl. 01.34 skrev Peter Moylan:
My wife is always keen for me to look for organic flour, organic vegetables, etc. So I look for the ones containing carbon.
The Danish word "|+kologisk" is not better.
Carbon footprint:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-I_T3XvzPaM>
Some years ago, the news coverage contained a story about plastic
pebbles sold as rice, in similar enough bags that people bought it as
food. I hope nobody ate any, as it wouldn't become soft when boiled.
I once read a newspaper article about someone arrested in Italy for
selling grated plastic umbrella handles as Parmesan cheese, and
someone arrested in France for selling coloured battery acid as
wine.
A week or two later there was a wine tasting at the local church, run
by a bloke trying to sell French wine. He sang the praises of French
wine, and said it was so much better that South African wine, because
the latter got too much sunshine and was therefore too sweet with too
high a sugar content. I thought that might explain why the French
couldn't tell the difference between wine and battery acid.
People certainly have strong feelings about the sweetness of wine. When
I lived in Califormia I couldn't drink Califormia wine, because of its cloying sweetness. Once, on a plane, I was near someone who was given a glass of California wine -- that was when the airlines were more
generous than they are now -- and he asked for some sugar to add to it.
On 25/09/26 23:47, Steve Hayes wrote:
I once read a newspaper article about someone arrested in Italy for
selling grated plastic umbrella handles as Parmesan cheese, and
someone arrested in France for selling coloured battery acid as
wine.
A week or two later there was a wine tasting at the local church, run
by a bloke trying to sell French wine. He sang the praises of French
wine, and said it was so much better that South African wine, because
the latter got too much sunshine and was therefore too sweet with too
high a sugar content. I thought that might explain why the French
couldn't tell the difference between wine and battery acid.
French wine covers a huge spectrum, from delicious to disgustingly bad;
and the good and bad all appear together on the supermarket shelves,
making choosing difficult for a foreigner like me.
People certainly have strong feelings about the sweetness of wine. When
I lived in Califormia I couldn't drink Califormia wine, because of its cloying sweetness. Once, on a plane, I was near someone who was given a
glass of California wine -- that was when the airlines were more
generous than they are now -- and he asked for some sugar to add to it.
Ar an s|-|| l|i is fiche de m|! M|-an F||mhair, scr|!obh Peter Moylan:
> People certainly have strong feelings about the sweetness of wine. When
> I lived in Califormia I couldn't drink Califormia wine, because of its
> cloying sweetness. Once, on a plane, I was near someone who was given a
> glass of California wine -- that was when the airlines were more
> generous than they are now -- and he asked for some sugar to add to it.
I didnrCOt grow up in a drinking household and I was well into adulthood before I
understood that rCLdryrCY applied to wine meant rCLnot sweet.rCL ItrCOs not an intuitive
meaning at all; the OED just gives it as meaning I.8, rCLOf wines, etc.: Free from sweetness and fruity flavourrCL without comment as to etymology. I would guess it was calqued from French rCLsecrCY in this meaning. The Tr|-sor de la Langue Fran|oaise informatis|- gives that meaning under a sub heading qualified
by -2-ac) P. ext., vieilli, fam. |etre sec. |etre mort. Voir RIGAUD, Dict. jargon
paris., 1878, p. 309.C. P. anal. Qui manque drCOampleur, de moelleux, drCOonctuosit|-.-a-+; the older a wine the more acrid.
There is some scare news going around (UK) about contaminated soils with >'forever' chemicals. The connotation here is a negative one, as in
'bad, harmful chemicals'.
So I looked up one scientific definition of 'chemical'.
Quote:
"What is a chemical? In science, a chemical is any substance with a
specific composition, whether itrCOs a single element or a compound of >multiple elements."
<https://sciencenotes.org/what-is-a-chemical-definition-and-examples/>
According to the above definition, diamonds are chemicals. Hence "a
diamond is forever" is not just a marketing slogan.
As is water.
So, what - on the surface of this earth - isn't a chemical?
Le 24/09/2026 |a 14:47, occam a |-crit :
There is some scare news going around (UK) about contaminated soils with
'forever' chemicals. The connotation here is a negative one, as in
'bad, harmful chemicals'.
So I looked up one scientific definition of 'chemical'.
Quote:
"What is a chemical? In science,
But but, the context here is not science, but current affairs. The >appropriate definition is not therefore a scientific one, but a popular one.
occam <occam@nowhere.nix> writes:
There is some scare news going around (UK) about contaminated soils with
'forever' chemicals. The connotation here is a negative one, as in
'bad, harmful chemicals'.
So I looked up one scientific definition of 'chemical'.
Quote:
"What is a chemical? In science, a chemical is any substance with a
specific composition, whether itrCOs a single element or a compound of
multiple elements."
<https://sciencenotes.org/what-is-a-chemical-definition-and-examples/>
According to the above definition, diamonds are chemicals. Hence "a
diamond is forever" is not just a marketing slogan.
As is water.
So, what - on the surface of this earth - isn't a chemical?
The question is: "is this mental excercise interesting at all"? You know what is
meant, am I right? You read it like ".. bad chemicals found ..", which is exactly what they meant. I assume ;)
On 9/25/2026 12:38 PM, Steve Hayes wrote:
On Fri, 25 Sep 2026 09:34:41 +1000, Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org>
wrote:
On 24/09/26 23:47, occam wrote:
"What is a chemical? In science, a chemical is any substance with a
specific composition, whether it's a single element or a compound of
multiple elements."
My wife is always keen for me to look for organic flour, organic
vegetables, etc. So I look for the ones containing carbon.
I once saw a sign in a shop advertising "organic eggs", but I don't
think I've ever encountered an inorganic egg.
<https://ondermynende.wordpress.com/2010/03/13/animal-vegetable-or-mineral/>
On a related question, I've been wondering why carbon dioxide is not
considered an organic chemical. The answer seems to be that carbon
dioxide (CO2) is inorganic but carbonyl monoxide (OCO) is organic.
Carbon footprint:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-I_T3XvzPaM>Some years ago, the news coverage contained a story about plastic
pebbles sold as rice, in similar enough bags that people bought it
as food. I hope nobody ate any, as it wouldn't become soft when
boiled.
The government stepped in, and confiscated all the plastic rice.
You can probably still find articles about it online if you care.
Bottom line, consider yourself /egg privileged/ that you have never
had to deal with plastic eggs in the supermarket.
There is some scare news going around (UK) about contaminated soils with 'forever' chemicals. The connotation here is a negative one, as in
'bad, harmful chemicals'.
So I looked up one scientific definition of 'chemical'.
Quote:
"What is a chemical? In science, a chemical is any substance with a
specific composition, whether it's a single element or a compound of
multiple elements."
<https://sciencenotes.org/what-is-a-chemical-definition-and-examples/>
According to the above definition, diamonds are chemicals. Hence "a
diamond is forever" is not just a marketing slogan.
As is water.
So, what - on the surface of this earth - isn't a chemical?
Ar an so. lb is fiche de m0 Moan F<mhair, scr0obh Peter Moylan:
People certainly have strong feelings about the sweetness of wine. When
I lived in Califormia I couldn't drink Califormia wine, because of its cloying sweetness. Once, on a plane, I was near someone who was given a glass of California wine -- that was when the airlines were more
generous than they are now -- and he asked for some sugar to add to it.
I didn't grow up in a drinking household and I was well into adulthood
before I understood that "dry" applied to wine meant "not sweet." It's not
an intuitive meaning at all; the OED just gives it as meaning I.8, "Of
wines, etc.: Free from sweetness and fruity flavour" without comment as to etymology. I would guess it was calqued from French "sec" in this meaning. The Trosor de la Langue Frantaise informatiso gives that meaning under a
sub heading qualified by 2 c) P. ext., vieilli, fam. -tre sec. -tre mort. Voir RIGAUD, Dict. jargon paris., 1878, p. 309.C. P. anal. Qui manque d'ampleur, de moelleux, d'onctuosito. +; the older a wine the more acrid.
On 25/09/26 23:47, Steve Hayes wrote:
I once read a newspaper article about someone arrested in Italy for
selling grated plastic umbrella handles as Parmesan cheese, and
someone arrested in France for selling coloured battery acid as
wine.
A week or two later there was a wine tasting at the local church, run
by a bloke trying to sell French wine. He sang the praises of French
wine, and said it was so much better that South African wine, because
the latter got too much sunshine and was therefore too sweet with too
high a sugar content. I thought that might explain why the French
couldn't tell the difference between wine and battery acid.
French wine covers a huge spectrum, from delicious to disgustingly bad;
and the good and bad all appear together on the supermarket shelves,
making choosing difficult for a foreigner like me.
People certainly have strong feelings about the sweetness of wine. When
I lived in Califormia I couldn't drink Califormia wine, because of its cloying sweetness. Once, on a plane, I was near someone who was given a
glass of California wine -- that was when the airlines were more
generous than they are now -- and he asked for some sugar to add to it.
On 26/09/2026 11:39, Bob Vloon wrote:
occam <occam@nowhere.nix> writes:
There is some scare news going around (UK) about contaminated soils with >>> 'forever' chemicals. The connotation here is a negative one, as in
'bad, harmful chemicals'.
So I looked up one scientific definition of 'chemical'.
Quote:
"What is a chemical? In science, a chemical is any substance with a
specific composition, whether itrCOs a single element or a compound of
multiple elements."
<https://sciencenotes.org/what-is-a-chemical-definition-and-examples/>
According to the above definition, diamonds are chemicals. Hence "a
diamond is forever" is not just a marketing slogan.
As is water.
So, what - on the surface of this earth - isn't a chemical?
The question is: "is this mental excercise interesting at all"? You know what is
meant, am I right? You read it like ".. bad chemicals found ..", which is
exactly what they meant. I assume ;)
Well, what if the people who are dumping the stuff don't understand the
same thing as you or I [when talking about forever chemicals]. That
gives them the right to dump anything without any guilt because
'chemicals are chemicals' and they are all forever. The journalists' >accusation becomes meaningless.
occam <occam@nowhere.nix> wrote:
There is some scare news going around (UK) about contaminated soils with
'forever' chemicals. The connotation here is a negative one, as in
'bad, harmful chemicals'.
So I looked up one scientific definition of 'chemical'.
Quote:
"What is a chemical? In science, a chemical is any substance with a
specific composition, whether it's a single element or a compound of
multiple elements."
<https://sciencenotes.org/what-is-a-chemical-definition-and-examples/>
Rule one in science:
never quote an ordinary dictionary for terms in science,
unless you want to draw laughs.
It may be a good way to start a talk.
Praising French wine (abroad) is always a mistake.
Its superiority should be taken for granted.
If you think it tastes foul that just means
that your taste is insuffciently educated,
Tastes have changed a lot. In the 19th century people felt
that wine should be more sweet.
The climate was much colder, and wines contained less alcohol and sugar.
Some remaining sugars was taken as a mark of quality.
(so it was often faked by mixing with Algerienne)
The old 'rouge ordinaire' is no longer made,
vin ordinaire
<https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph? content=vin+ordinaire%2Crouge+ordinaire&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3>
The terms we are discussing here are as used by journalists. 'A
forever chemical' is not a scientific expression, it's a journalistic expression.
On 27/09/26 18:39, occam wrote:
The terms we are discussing here are as used by journalists. 'A
forever chemical' is not a scientific expression, it's a journalistic
expression.
The word "forever" has been in the language for ... well, a respectable
time, anyway; but it seems to me that a new way of using it appeared a
decade or so ago. Pet shops and animal refuges started urging us to give
a dog or a cat a "forever home".
Maybe a forever home is one with forever chemicals.
Le 27/09/2026 |a 08:40, J. J. Lodder a |-crit :
A bit of ObAUE, if you'll allow? Thanks.
Tastes have changed a lot. In the 19th century people felt
that wine should be more sweet.
sweeter
The climate was much colder, and wines contained less alcohol and sugar.
Some remaining sugars was taken as a mark of quality.
sugar
(so it was often faked by mixing with Algerienne)
alg|-rien (in French, wine is masculine, and adjectives are not
capitalised; un Alg|-rien boit du vin alg|-rien)
The old 'rouge ordinaire' is no longer made,
vin ordinaire
<https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph? content=vin+ordinaire%2Crouge+ordinaire&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3>
Maybe a forever home is one with forever chemicals.
In article <119aut0$19kq2$1@dont-email.me>,
Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> wrote:
Maybe a forever home is one with forever chemicals.
You'd be hard-pressed to find one without them, at least in WEIRD
societies.
On 27/09/2026 09:41, J. J. Lodder wrote:
occam <occam@nowhere.nix> wrote:
There is some scare news going around (UK) about contaminated soils with >> 'forever' chemicals. The connotation here is a negative one, as in
'bad, harmful chemicals'.
So I looked up one scientific definition of 'chemical'.
Quote:
"What is a chemical? In science, a chemical is any substance with a
specific composition, whether it's a single element or a compound of
multiple elements."
<https://sciencenotes.org/what-is-a-chemical-definition-and-examples/>
Rule one in science:
never quote an ordinary dictionary for terms in science,
unless you want to draw laughs.
It may be a good way to start a talk.
The terms we are discussing here are as used by journalists. 'A forever chemical' is not a scientific expression, it's a journalistic expression.
On 27/09/26 18:39, occam wrote:
The terms we are discussing here are as used by journalists. 'A
forever chemical' is not a scientific expression, it's a journalistic
expression.
The word "forever" has been in the language for ... well, a respectable
time, anyway; but it seems to me that a new way of using it appeared a
decade or so ago. Pet shops and animal refuges started urging us to give
a dog or a cat a "forever home".
Maybe a forever home is one with forever chemicals.
A 'chemical' in science usually is something that you buy
from a chemical supplies company, for use in a laboratory.
It will have -an accurately specified- composition.
So tap water is not a chemical, in any scientific sense.
Neither is 'steel', or 'diamonds',
In countries where houses are made of timber/lumber, what is the average >lifespan of a house?
In countries where houses are made of timber/lumber, what is the average lifespan of a house?
You can't offer a forever home if the building has a shorter lifespan
than a seagull.
In countries where houses are made of timber/lumber, what is the average lifespan of a house?
You can't offer a forever home if the building has a shorter lifespan
than a seagull.
On 27/09/26 18:39, occam wrote:
The terms we are discussing here are as used by journalists. 'A
forever chemical' is not a scientific expression, it's a journalistic
expression.
The word "forever" has been in the language for ... well, a respectable
time, anyway; but it seems to me that a new way of using it appeared a
decade or so ago. Pet shops and animal refuges started urging us to give
a dog or a cat a "forever home".
Maybe a forever home is one with forever chemicals.
In countries where houses are made of timber/lumber, what is the
average lifespan of a house?
You can't offer a forever home if the building has a shorter lifespan
than a seagull.
I found an article about wodden houses. I quote (translated):
-a-a-a-a-a A correctly constructed and cared for wooden house can easily
-a-a-a-a-a last 80-100 years or more. There are historic wooden buildings
-a-a-a-a-a in Norden that are several hundred years old.
The text is Danish, but you can have it translated. You have to scroll
past several pictures until the text appears.
-a-a-a-a-a https://www.visitnorway.dk/typisk-norge/stavkirker/
It's true that rot, worm, and fire are fearsome enemies (when they're
not a firm of solicitors).
On 27/09/2026 12:32, Peter Moylan wrote:
On 27/09/26 18:39, occam wrote:
The terms we are discussing here are as used by journalists. 'A
forever chemical' is not a scientific expression, it's a journalistic
expression.
The word "forever" has been in the language for ... well, a respectable time, anyway; but it seems to me that a new way of using it appeared a decade or so ago. Pet shops and animal refuges started urging us to give
a dog or a cat a "forever home".
Maybe a forever home is one with forever chemicals.
In countries where houses are made of timber/lumber, what is the average lifespan of a house?
You can't offer a forever home if the building has a shorter lifespan
than a seagull.
Le 28/09/2026 a 06:49, Hibou a ocrit :
It's true that rot, worm, and fire are fearsome enemies (when they're
not a firm of solicitors).
Mysterious are the ways of the mind. I was applying brush to teeth when
this bubbled up (so to speak):
"Mary renewed her attack. 'Which of the contemporary poets do you
like best?' she asked. Denis was filled with fury. Why couldn't this
pest of a girl leave him alone? [...]
"'Blight, Mildew, and Smut,' he replied, with the laconism of one
who is absolutely certain of his own mind" - Huxley, 'Crome Yellow'.
Le 27/09/2026 a 08:40, J. J. Lodder a ocrit :
A bit of ObAUE, if you'll allow? Thanks.
Tastes have changed a lot. In the 19th century people felt
that wine should be more sweet.
sweeter
The climate was much colder, and wines contained less alcohol and sugar. Some remaining sugars was taken as a mark of quality.
sugar
(so it was often faked by mixing with Algerienne)
algorien (in French, wine is masculine, and adjectives are not
capitalised; un Algorien boit du vin algorien)
The old 'rouge ordinaire' is no longer made,
vin ordinaire&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3>
<https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=vin+ordinaire%2Crouge+ordinaire
Hibou wrote:
Le 27/09/2026 |a 08:40, J. J. Lodder a |-crit :
The climate was much colder, and wines contained less alcohol and sugar. >>> Some remaining sugars was taken as a mark of quality.
sugar
Arguable, I think. There are several different sugars in grape juice,
so possibly also in sweet wine.
Real 'sugar' aka sucrose isn't one of them.
(if there is some consumer watchdog may go after the makers)
The old 'rouge ordinaire' is no longer made,
vin ordinaire [...]
I would agree that 'vin ordinaire' is red, usually.
But 'ordinaire blanc' also existed.
So I think it must have been necessary to refer to (vin) 'rouge
ordinaire' occasionally,
Le 27/09/2026 |a 20:20, Sam Plusnet a |-crit :
In countries where houses are made of timber/lumber, what is the
average lifespan of a house?
You can't offer a forever home if the building has a shorter lifespan
than a seagull.
I take it you mean the outside bits. There's a lot of wood in Western European houses, yet some of them are pretty old.
It's true that rot, worm, and fire are fearsome enemies (when they're
not a firm of solicitors).
Le 28/09/2026 a 12:56, J. J. Lodder a ocrit :
Hibou wrote:
Le 27/09/2026 a 08:40, J. J. Lodder a ocrit :
The climate was much colder, and wines contained less alcohol and sugar. >>> Some remaining sugars was taken as a mark of quality.
sugar
Arguable, I think. There are several different sugars in grape juice,
so possibly also in sweet wine.
Real 'sugar' aka sucrose isn't one of them.
(if there is some consumer watchdog may go after the makers)
Several sugars, yes indeed. 'Sugar' as a mass noun covers them - and
goes with your singular 'was'.
The old 'rouge ordinaire' is no longer made,
vin ordinaire [...]
I would agree that 'vin ordinaire' is red, usually.
But 'ordinaire blanc' also existed.
So I think it must have been necessary to refer to (vin) 'rouge
ordinaire' occasionally,
Rarely, it would seem:du+rouge+ordinaire%2Cboire+du+vin+rouge+orginaire&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=fr&smoothing=3>
<https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=boire+du+vin+ordinaire%2Cboire+
Hibou wrote:
Several sugars, yes indeed. 'Sugar' as a mass noun covers them - and
goes with your singular 'was'.
Indeed, but I think 'sugars' is to be prefered in this case
because using 'sugar' suggests the stuff that comes in lumps.
Typical usage:
"Are fruit sugars as bad as ordinary sugar?"
I would agree that 'vin ordinaire' is red, usually.
But 'ordinaire blanc' also existed.
So I think it must have been necessary to refer to (vin) 'rouge
ordinaire' occasionally,
Rarely, it would seem:
<https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=boire+du+vin+ordinaire%2Cboire+du+rouge+ordinaire%2Cboire+du+vin+rouge+orginaire&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=fr&smoothing=3>
I see you already found it in your follow-up to yourself,
at about a quarter of the frequency,
Hibou wrote:
Mysterious are the ways of the mind. I was applying brush to teeth when
this bubbled up (so to speak):
"Mary renewed her attack. 'Which of the contemporary poets do you
like best?' she asked. Denis was filled with fury. Why couldn't this
pest of a girl leave him alone? [...]
"'Blight, Mildew, and Smut,' he replied, with the laconism of one
who is absolutely certain of his own mind" - Huxley, 'Crome Yellow'.
You remind me of a Dutch novel in which the law firm of 'Steel and Gap'
plays a role.
('stelen' and 'gappen' are two Dutch verbs which both mean 'to steal')
Another well known Dutch law firm is 'Grijpse, Houtse, en Plukse',
a dependance no doubt of 'Grabbem, Holdem, and Pluckem',
On 28/09/2026 06:49, Hibou wrote:
I take it you mean the outside bits. There's a lot of wood in Western
European houses, yet some of them are pretty old.
It's true that rot, worm, and fire are fearsome enemies (when they're
not a firm of solicitors).
I agree that some types of wooden houses can, and have, lasted for
centuries with appropriate maintenance.
I was thinking more of modern builds where the selection of materials,
and paring down of structural timber to limit costs, produces a very different form of "wooden housing".
Le 28/09/2026 a 20:43, J. J. Lodder a ocrit :
Hibou wrote:
Several sugars, yes indeed. 'Sugar' as a mass noun covers them - and
goes with your singular 'was'.
Indeed, but I think 'sugars' is to be prefered in this case
because using 'sugar' suggests the stuff that comes in lumps.
Typical usage:
"Are fruit sugars as bad as ordinary sugar?"
Well that's in the ear of the behearer. I didn't visualise lumps myself
(or think of sucrose).
Le 28/09/2026 a 20:07, Sam Plusnet a ocrit :
On 28/09/2026 06:49, Hibou wrote:
I take it you mean the outside bits. There's a lot of wood in Western
European houses, yet some of them are pretty old.
It's true that rot, worm, and fire are fearsome enemies (when they're
not a firm of solicitors).
I agree that some types of wooden houses can, and have, lasted for centuries with appropriate maintenance.
I was thinking more of modern builds where the selection of materials,
and paring down of structural timber to limit costs, produces a very different form of "wooden housing".
That's true enough. We did have to have our roof redone back in Dorset
(I was but a youngster and found it very exciting). It was 200 years
old, had initially been thatched, then at some point had been tiled. The timbers were sagging under the extra weight (there may have been some
rot, too, since the roof was leaking).
Other roofs have done better. This isn't a Barrett box, as you might imagine, but the superb Chrteau de Vaux-le-Vicomte, well into its fourth century:
<https://www.all-free-photos.com/images/chateaux-9/PI79938-hr.jpg>
Le 28/09/2026 |a 12:56, J. J. Lodder a |-crit :
Hibou wrote:
Mysterious are the ways of the mind. I was applying brush to teeth when
this bubbled up (so to speak):
"Mary renewed her attack. 'Which of the contemporary poets do you
like best?' she asked. Denis was filled with fury. Why couldn't this
pest of a girl leave him alone? [...]
"'Blight, Mildew, and Smut,' he replied, with the laconism of one
who is absolutely certain of his own mind" - Huxley, 'Crome Yellow'.
You remind me of a Dutch novel in which the law firm of 'Steel and Gap' plays a role.
('stelen' and 'gappen' are two Dutch verbs which both mean 'to steal')
Another well known Dutch law firm is 'Grijpse, Houtse, en Plukse',
a dependance no doubt of 'Grabbem, Holdem, and Pluckem',
I'm afraid Dutch novels are closed books to me. It's a language I shall
never learn.
Read some Belgian authors, though - Simenon, Nothomb, SchmittrCa. En francophonie, Belgium seems to punch above its weight.
Hibou wrote:
Well that's in the ear of the behearer. I didn't visualise lumps myself
(or think of sucrose).
Earlier in the thread there was a mention of someone who felt
that the Californian wine he was offered on a plane wasn't 'sweet'
enough, and asked the cabin crew for sugar to add.
In article <nhl22jF13qhU1@mid.individual.net>,
Hibou <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
Forever chemical: "/colloquial./ Any of a large group of
synthetic compounds that are widely used in products such as
cookware, cosmetics, and textiles for their non-stick and
stain-repellent properties, but have varying levels of
toxicity, and have been found to accumulate in the body and
persist indefinitely in the environment" - ibid..
More specifically, as usually used today, a chemical with a
poly- or perfluorinated alkyl group attached to it, such as
PFOS (perfluorooctanesulfonate) or a polymer made from such
precursors, like PTFE (Teflon-<). These substances are
extremely resistant to natural biological decomposition, hence
"forever". They can be broken down under high heat, such as a
gas flame, at which point they release more hazardous fluorine
compounds. It is thought that some of these chemicals, or
partially broken-down fragments of them, may disrupt hormonal
signaling pathways in animals including humans.
On 24/09/26 23:47, occam wrote:
"What is a chemical? In science, a chemical is any substance
with a specific composition, whether itrCOs a single element or
a compound of multiple elements."
My wife is always keen for me to look for organic flour,
organic vegetables, etc. So I look for the ones containing
carbon.
On a related question, I've been wondering why carbon dioxide
is not considered an organic chemical. The answer seems to be
that carbon dioxide (CO2) is inorganic but carbonyl monoxide
(OCO) is organic.
On Thu, 24 Sep 2026 15:47:31 +0200, occam <occam@nowhere.nix> wrote:
There is some scare news going around (UK) about contaminated soils with >'forever' chemicals. The connotation here is a negative one, as in
'bad, harmful chemicals'.
So I looked up one scientific definition of 'chemical'.
Quote:
"What is a chemical? In science, a chemical is any substance with a >specific composition, whether itrCOs a single element or a compound of >multiple elements."
<https://sciencenotes.org/what-is-a-chemical-definition-and-examples/>
According to the above definition, diamonds are chemicals. Hence "a
diamond is forever" is not just a marketing slogan.
As is water.
So, what - on the surface of this earth - isn't a chemical?
In that context I would take "chemical" to refer to a substance
whose chemical properties remain unchanged for a long time.
And doesnt "chemical" refer to a substance that has a chemical
reaction with other substances? But perhaps my understanding of
these terms was shaped by the "chemistry sets" I had as a kid.
Well, with a couple of degrees in chemistry, I would not consider
carbon monoxide to be organic. In my experience, an organic
compound is one that has a carbon-hydrogen bond.
On Fri, 25 Sep 2026 09:34:41 +1000,
Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> wrote:
On 24/09/26 23:47, occam wrote:
"What is a chemical? In science, a chemical is any substance
with a specific composition, whether itrCOs a single element or
a compound of multiple elements."
My wife is always keen for me to look for organic flour,
organic vegetables, etc. So I look for the ones containing
carbon.
Okay, that's funny. Does she know?
On a related question, I've been wondering why carbon dioxide
is not considered an organic chemical. The answer seems to be
that carbon dioxide (CO2) is inorganic but carbonyl monoxide
(OCO) is organic.
Well, with a couple of degrees in chemistry, I would not consider
carbon monoxide to be organic. In my experience, an organic
compound is one that has a carbon-hydrogen bond.
On Fri, 25 Sep 2026 09:34:41 +1000,
Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> wrote:
On 24/09/26 23:47, occam wrote:
"What is a chemical? In science, a chemical is any substance
with a specific composition, whether itrCOs a single element or
a compound of multiple elements."
My wife is always keen for me to look for organic flour,
organic vegetables, etc. So I look for the ones containing
carbon.
Okay, that's funny. Does she know?
On a related question, I've been wondering why carbon dioxide
is not considered an organic chemical. The answer seems to be
that carbon dioxide (CO2) is inorganic but carbonyl monoxide
(OCO) is organic.
Well, with a couple of degrees in chemistry, I would not consider
carbon monoxide to be organic. In my experience, an organic
compound is one that has a carbon-hydrogen bond.
Hibou wrote:
Other roofs have done better. This isn't a Barrett box, as you might
imagine, but the superb Ch|oteau de Vaux-le-Vicomte, well into its fourth
century:
<https://www.all-free-photos.com/images/chateaux-9/PI79938-hr.jpg>
Hmm. All those iron bolts and straps look like 19th century
reinforcements.
Some of the pinned joints look like they may be original.
On 29/09/2026 15:35, Ted Heise wrote:
On Fri, 25 Sep 2026 09:34:41 +1000,
Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> wrote:
On 24/09/26 23:47, occam wrote:
"What is a chemical? In science, a chemical is any substance
with a specific composition, whether itrCOs a single element or
a compound of multiple elements."
My wife is always keen for me to look for organic flour,
organic vegetables, etc. So I look for the ones containing
carbon.
Okay, that's funny. Does she know?
On a related question, I've been wondering why carbon dioxide
is not considered an organic chemical. The answer seems to be
that carbon dioxide (CO2) is inorganic but carbonyl monoxide
(OCO) is organic.
Well, with a couple of degrees in chemistry, I would not consider
carbon monoxide to be organic. In my experience, an organic
compound is one that has a carbon-hydrogen bond.
I'd say that the boundary is a bit blurred. Although CO2 is generally regarded as inorganic, I think of mellitic anhydride, still with only C and O, as organic;
and, of course, organic chemistry started with W||hler's
synthesis of urea, with no C-H bond.
On Fri, 25 Sep 2026 06:26:36 +0200,
Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
On Thu, 24 Sep 2026 15:47:31 +0200, occam <occam@nowhere.nix> wrote:
There is some scare news going around (UK) about contaminated soils with >>> 'forever' chemicals. The connotation here is a negative one, as in
'bad, harmful chemicals'.
So I looked up one scientific definition of 'chemical'.
Quote:
"What is a chemical? In science, a chemical is any substance with a
specific composition, whether itrCOs a single element or a compound of
multiple elements."
<https://sciencenotes.org/what-is-a-chemical-definition-and-examples/>
According to the above definition, diamonds are chemicals. Hence "a
diamond is forever" is not just a marketing slogan.
As is water.
So, what - on the surface of this earth - isn't a chemical?
In that context I would take "chemical" to refer to a substance
whose chemical properties remain unchanged for a long time.
That strikes me as a good take,
And doesnt "chemical" refer to a substance that has a chemical
reaction with other substances? But perhaps my understanding of
these terms was shaped by the "chemistry sets" I had as a kid.
Umm... despite decades as a trained chemist, I've never before
encountered anything that implies reactivity is a necessary part
of a compound being a chemical.
Le 28/09/2026 |a 20:07, Sam Plusnet a |-crit :
On 28/09/2026 06:49, Hibou wrote:
I take it you mean the outside bits. There's a lot of wood in Western
European houses, yet some of them are pretty old.
It's true that rot, worm, and fire are fearsome enemies (when they're
not a firm of solicitors).
I agree that some types of wooden houses can, and have, lasted for
centuries with appropriate maintenance.
I was thinking more of modern builds where the selection of materials,
and paring down of structural timber to limit costs, produces a very
different form of "wooden housing".
That's true enough. We did have to have our roof redone back in Dorset
(I was but a youngster and found it very exciting). It was 200 years
old, had initially been thatched, then at some point had been tiled. The timbers were sagging under the extra weight (there may have been some
rot, too, since the roof was leaking).
Other roofs have done better. This isn't a Barrett box, as you might imagine, but the superb Ch|oteau de Vaux-le-Vicomte, well into its fourth century:
<https://www.all-free-photos.com/images/chateaux-9/PI79938-hr.jpg>
Le 29/09/2026 |a 12:01, J. J. Lodder a |-crit :
Hibou wrote:
Other roofs have done better. This isn't a Barrett box, as you might
imagine, but the superb Ch|oteau de Vaux-le-Vicomte, well into its fourth >>> century:
<https://www.all-free-photos.com/images/chateaux-9/PI79938-hr.jpg>
Hmm. All those iron bolts and straps look like 19th century
reinforcements.
Some of the pinned joints look like they may be original.
You may be right. In fact, that particular /charpente/ is inelegant and offends my engineering soul. This one at Azay-le-Rideau (another superb ch|oteau) is much better:
<https://www.azay-le-rideau.fr/var/cmn_inter/storage/images/_aliases/ image_text_webp/5/1/3/3/120363315-1-fre-FR/47dec5eb4db1-Combles_l.de- serres_712x712.webp.webp>
On 29/09/2026 15:37, Ted Heise wrote:
On Fri, 25 Sep 2026 06:26:36 +0200, Steve Hayes
<hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
Talking of the lack of reactivity. I'm sure the sort of people whoAnd doesnt "chemical" refer to a substance that has a chemical
reaction with other substances? But perhaps my understanding of
these terms was shaped by the "chemistry sets" I had as a kid.
Umm... despite decades as a trained chemist, I've never before
encountered anything that implies reactivity is a necessary part of
a compound being a chemical.
object to anything that contains "chemicals" would not reject gold
objects.
Hibou <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
Le 28/09/2026 12:56, J. J. Lodder a ecrit :
Hibou wrote:
Mysterious are the ways of the mind. I was applying brush to teeth when >>>> this bubbled up (so to speak):
"Mary renewed her attack. 'Which of the contemporary poets do you >>>> like best?' she asked. Denis was filled with fury. Why couldn't this
pest of a girl leave him alone? [...]
"'Blight, Mildew, and Smut,' he replied, with the laconism of one >>>> who is absolutely certain of his own mind" - Huxley, 'Crome Yellow'.
You remind me of a Dutch novel in which the law firm of 'Steel and Gap'
plays a role.
('stelen' and 'gappen' are two Dutch verbs which both mean 'to steal')
Another well known Dutch law firm is 'Grijpse, Houtse, en Plukse',
a dependance no doubt of 'Grabbem, Holdem, and Pluckem',
I'm afraid Dutch novels are closed books to me. It's a language I shall
never learn.
No problem, much is translated.
For perhaps best known example:
"The Dinner by Herman Koch" (An International Bestseller in Easy Dutch)
(but perhaps not the best example)
On 29/09/2026 16:38, Hibou wrote:
You may be right. In fact, that particular /charpente/ is inelegant
and offends my engineering soul. This one at Azay-le-Rideau (another
superb ch|oteau) is much better:
<https://www.azay-le-rideau.fr/var/cmn_inter/storage/images/_aliases/
image_text_webp/5/1/3/3/120363315-1-fre-FR/47dec5eb4db1-Combles_l.de-
serres_712x712.webp.webp>
A modern architect would be in tears at the massive overkill.-a You could build another building with the excess timber.
Le 29/09/2026 a 12:01, J. J. Lodder a ocrit :
Hibou wrote:
Other roofs have done better. This isn't a Barrett box, as you might
imagine, but the superb Chrteau de Vaux-le-Vicomte, well into its fourth >> century:
<https://www.all-free-photos.com/images/chateaux-9/PI79938-hr.jpg>
Hmm. All those iron bolts and straps look like 19th century
reinforcements.
Some of the pinned joints look like they may be original.
You may be right. In fact, that particular /charpente/ is inelegant and offends my engineering soul. This one at Azay-le-Rideau (another superb chrteau) is much better:t_webp/5/1/3/3/120363315-1-fre-FR/47dec5eb4db1-Combles_l.de-serres_712x712.webp.webp>
<https://www.azay-le-rideau.fr/var/cmn_inter/storage/images/_aliases/image_tex
nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) writes:
Hibou <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
Le 28/09/2026 12:56, J. J. Lodder a ecrit :
Hibou wrote:
Mysterious are the ways of the mind. I was applying brush to teeth when >>>> this bubbled up (so to speak):
"Mary renewed her attack. 'Which of the contemporary poets do you >>>> like best?' she asked. Denis was filled with fury. Why couldn't this >>>> pest of a girl leave him alone? [...]
"'Blight, Mildew, and Smut,' he replied, with the laconism of one >>>> who is absolutely certain of his own mind" - Huxley, 'Crome Yellow'.
You remind me of a Dutch novel in which the law firm of 'Steel and Gap' >>> plays a role.
('stelen' and 'gappen' are two Dutch verbs which both mean 'to steal') >>>
Another well known Dutch law firm is 'Grijpse, Houtse, en Plukse',
a dependance no doubt of 'Grabbem, Holdem, and Pluckem',
I'm afraid Dutch novels are closed books to me. It's a language I shall
never learn.
No problem, much is translated.
For perhaps best known example:
"The Dinner by Herman Koch" (An International Bestseller in Easy Dutch) (but perhaps not the best example)
I once read a novel translated from Dutch in which, at some point, a character opines on the "beauty of the Dutch Language." There is a
footnote, the only one in the book, whoch reads, "The translator begs
to disagree."
Sadly, (in this a.u.e context) I've long since forgotten the name of
the novel. OTOH, such a footnote is so unsual that it may enjoy
widespread notoriety in certain circles.
On 29/09/2026 16:38, Hibou wrote:
Le 29/09/2026 a 12:01, J. J. Lodder a ocrit :
Hibou wrote:
Other roofs have done better. This isn't a Barrett box, as you might
imagine, but the superb Chrteau de Vaux-le-Vicomte, well into its fourth >>> century:
<https://www.all-free-photos.com/images/chateaux-9/PI79938-hr.jpg>
Hmm. All those iron bolts and straps look like 19th century
reinforcements.
Some of the pinned joints look like they may be original.
You may be right. In fact, that particular /charpente/ is inelegant and offends my engineering soul. This one at Azay-le-Rideau (another superb chrteau) is much better:
<https://www.azay-le-rideau.fr/var/cmn_inter/storage/images/_aliases/ image_text_webp/5/1/3/3/120363315-1-fre-FR/47dec5eb4db1-Combles_l.de- serres_712x712.webp.webp>
A modern architect would be in tears at the massive overkill. You could build another building with the excess timber.
Mike Spencer wrote:
I once read a novel translated from Dutch in which, at some point, a
character opines on the "beauty of the Dutch Language." There is a
footnote, the only one in the book, whoch reads, "The translator begs
to disagree."
I beg to have opinions on the competence of an(y) English translator
to say so.
Isn't French supposed to be the only beautiful language?
But I think that there would be near unanimous agreement among the Dutch
that American is even uglier than English-(the real thing)
Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:
nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) writes:
Hibou <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
Le 28/09/2026 12:56, J. J. Lodder a ecrit :
Hibou wrote:
You remind me of a Dutch novel in which the law firm of 'Steel and Gap' >>>>> plays a role.
Mysterious are the ways of the mind. I was applying brush to teeth when >>>>>> this bubbled up (so to speak):
"Mary renewed her attack. 'Which of the contemporary poets do you >>>>>> like best?' she asked. Denis was filled with fury. Why couldn't this >>>>>> pest of a girl leave him alone? [...]
"'Blight, Mildew, and Smut,' he replied, with the laconism of one >>>>>> who is absolutely certain of his own mind" - Huxley, 'Crome Yellow'. >>>>>
('stelen' and 'gappen' are two Dutch verbs which both mean 'to steal') >>>>>
Another well known Dutch law firm is 'Grijpse, Houtse, en Plukse',
a dependance no doubt of 'Grabbem, Holdem, and Pluckem',
I'm afraid Dutch novels are closed books to me. It's a language I shall >>>> never learn.
No problem, much is translated.
For perhaps best known example:
"The Dinner by Herman Koch" (An International Bestseller in Easy Dutch)
(but perhaps not the best example)
I once read a novel translated from Dutch in which, at some point, a
character opines on the "beauty of the Dutch Language." There is a
footnote, the only one in the book, whoch reads, "The translator begs
to disagree."
I beg to have opinions on the competence of an(y) English translator
to say so.
Isn't French supposed to be the only beautiful language?
But I think that there would be near unanimous agreement among the Dutch
that American is even uglier than English-(the real thing)
Sadly, (in this a.u.e context) I've long since forgotten the name of
the novel. OTOH, such a footnote is so unsual that it may enjoy
widespread notoriety in certain circles.
Possibly, but I hadn't heard of it, and Google doesn't easily find it.
Jan
On 29/09/2026 15:35, Ted Heise wrote:
On Fri, 25 Sep 2026 09:34:41 +1000,
Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> wrote:
On 24/09/26 23:47, occam wrote:
"What is a chemical? In science, a chemical is any substance
with a specific composition, whether itrCOs a single element
or a compound of multiple elements."
On a related question, I've been wondering why carbon
dioxide is not considered an organic chemical. The answer
seems to be that carbon dioxide (CO2) is inorganic but
carbonyl monoxide (OCO) is organic.
Well, with a couple of degrees in chemistry, I would not
consider carbon monoxide to be organic. In my experience, an
organic compound is one that has a carbon-hydrogen bond.
I'd say that the boundary is a bit blurred. Although CO2 is
generally regarded as inorganic, I think of mellitic anhydride,
still with only C and O, as organic; and, of course, organic
chemistry started with W||hler's synthesis of urea, with no C-H
bond.
On Tue, 29 Sep 2026 16:04:55 +0100,
Phil <phil@anonymous.invalid> wrote:
On 29/09/2026 15:35, Ted Heise wrote:
On Fri, 25 Sep 2026 09:34:41 +1000,
Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> wrote:
On 24/09/26 23:47, occam wrote:
"What is a chemical? In science, a chemical is any substance
with a specific composition, whether itrCOs a single element
or a compound of multiple elements."
On a related question, I've been wondering why carbon
dioxide is not considered an organic chemical. The answer
seems to be that carbon dioxide (CO2) is inorganic but
carbonyl monoxide (OCO) is organic.
Well, with a couple of degrees in chemistry, I would not
consider carbon monoxide to be organic. In my experience, an
organic compound is one that has a carbon-hydrogen bond.
I'd say that the boundary is a bit blurred. Although CO2 is
generally regarded as inorganic, I think of mellitic anhydride,
still with only C and O, as organic; and, of course, organic
chemistry started with W||hler's synthesis of urea, with no C-H
bond.
Oh, good point--similar to that from Richard Tobin. I agree it's
blurred.
To Richard's point, carbon tet does strike me as organic, maybe
not least because it's often grouped conceptually with the other chloride-methane compounds (as well as methane itself, of course).
Someone else asked about mellitic anhydride. I guess the aromatic
nature of the compound contributes to considering it organic.
Not sure what to think about urea, though I also think of it as an
organic compound.
To Richard's point, carbon tet does strike me as organic, maybe
not least because it's often grouped conceptually with the other >chloride-methane compounds (as well as methane itself, of course).
On Tue, 29 Sep 2026 16:04:55 +0100,
Phil <phil@anonymous.invalid> wrote:
On 29/09/2026 15:35, Ted Heise wrote:
On Fri, 25 Sep 2026 09:34:41 +1000,
Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> wrote:
On 24/09/26 23:47, occam wrote:
"What is a chemical? In science, a chemical is any substance
with a specific composition, whether itrCOs a single element
or a compound of multiple elements."
On a related question, I've been wondering why carbon
dioxide is not considered an organic chemical. The answer
seems to be that carbon dioxide (CO2) is inorganic but
carbonyl monoxide (OCO) is organic.
Well, with a couple of degrees in chemistry, I would not
consider carbon monoxide to be organic. In my experience, an
organic compound is one that has a carbon-hydrogen bond.
I'd say that the boundary is a bit blurred. Although CO2 is
generally regarded as inorganic, I think of mellitic anhydride,
still with only C and O, as organic; and, of course, organic
chemistry started with W||hler's synthesis of urea, with no C-H
bond.
Oh, good point--similar to that from Richard Tobin. I agree it's
blurred.
To Richard's point, carbon tet does strike me as organic, maybe
not least because it's often grouped conceptually with the other >chloride-methane compounds (as well as methane itself, of course).
Someone else asked about mellitic anhydride. I guess the aromatic
nature of the compound contributes to considering it organic.
Not sure what to think about urea, though I also think of it as an
organic compound.
Perhaps. On the other hand, if, for example, you use four times the >material, and the building lasts four times as long, it works out the
same. You may not want to do this.
Indeed, in mechanical and civil engineering there is a concept called
"excess durability": if a part is made so well that it outlasts the
whole, and it has no useful function otherwise, then it is *too durable*
for the application.
In article <slrn11bq7ht.als.theise@panix2.panix.com>,
Ted Heise <theise@panix.com> wrote:
To Richard's point, carbon tet does strike me as organic, maybe
not least because it's often grouped conceptually with the
other chloride-methane compounds (as well as methane itself, of
course).
Yes, it would be odd if you replaced methane's hydrogens
one-at-a-time which chlorine, and when you replaced the last
one it suddenly ceased to be organic.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 74 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 02:21:11 |
| Calls: | 1,194 |
| Files: | 1,353 |
| D/L today: |
2 files (1,590K bytes) |
| Messages: | 291,157 |
