Talk:Chemophobia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Portal |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, which collaborates on Psychology and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
|
||||||||
[edit] Reference for Chemophobia as a genuine phobia, not a prejudice.
Here's my old reference for a group who consider chemophobia to be like arachnophobia i.e. not just a prejudice but a psychological problem: Advertisement for a course to overcome Chemophobia
It's not exactly an unbiased group, but does this matter? I was simply illustrating that not everyone has the same idea of what 'chemophobia' is.
Ewen 05:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Please see -phob-#Phobia lists. This website is to grab your money no matter what. All specific phobias are alike and their description and treatment are very alike. And these websites capitalize on this. A person may develop phobia of anything. Unless you have a reputable reference from a serious publication which describes why this particular phobia is interesting or at least there was a recorded case of clinical chemophobia, there is no reason to put it in wikipedia. `'Miikka 15:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- I'd say there is a reason. Let's say someone visits the website I mentioned above, and wants to check out 'chemophobia' before parting with their money. Shouldn't the article try to address the differences between the usual sense (prejudice) of 'chemophobia' and the specific phobia sense used to entice worried people to part with their money. Ewen 07:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- You seem to ignore all I wrote above and failed to read -phob-#Phobia lists section. If you find a reputable source about chemophobia as specific phobia, be my guest and update this article. `'Miikka 14:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- You seem not only ignore my advice you added yet another a snake oil selling website as reference. This site contains outright false information: chemophobia is NOT listsed] as rare disease bt National Institute of Health.
- Please try to understand: internet contains much more GARBAGE and BULLSHIT and direct deception than correct information. PRESE USE REPUTABLE SOURCES. YOu must KNOW they are reputable and not judge from importantly-sounding name of the website. If you don't know which sources are reputable, please avoid editing subjects you don't understand. You have already created a decent and useful artile on a missing and interesting topic. Don't waste your time on nonsense and do something else: there is still much work to do in wikipedia. `'Miikka 14:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Woah! Calm down, mate! What happened to civility? Or assuming good faith?
-
-
-
- I 'seem' to have 'ignored' you? Isn't that unjustified? It's certainly untrue to assume that I didn't read -phob-#Phobia lists - you might note that I added a link to -phob- after you pointed it out to me (thanks for finding it, BTW).
-
-
-
- And you know, having used the internet since Mosaic was cutting-edge, I think I know about its content, thanks.
-
-
-
- Anyway, back to the issue at hand...
-
-
-
- What I said before still stands: It is a fact that some people are using a different definition of 'chemophobia'. I'm not saying it's the correct definition. I'm not saying that these people aren't trying to re-define the word to suit their own ends. I'm saying that there is a place in the article to point out this other definition, because the definition is commonly encountered if you do a naive search for the term 'chemophobia'.
-
-
-
- It's not endorsing their point of view to note that it exists. We could delete the entire snake oil article on your grounds - snake oil was sold by disreputable charlatans so we should delete its very existence from wikipedia?
-
-
-
- I'll wait for a reply but I'm minded to largely revert your changes.
-
-
-
- Ewen 15:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- OK Miikka, I waited and although you were editing other things you didn't reply, so I've updated the article as I see fit and tried to address some of your concerns while I was at it. I hope it is acceptable to you now; but if not, please could you discuss changes you'd like.
-
-
-
-
-
- Ewen 18:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- I suppot Ewen's explanation. Indeed, misuse must also be explained. Otherwise there will be endless revert war with well-meaning but poorly informed additions. Al,thought I have to mention that this text is on a thin edge to original research: someone reputable must be quotes to say that there is no such specific phobia. Absence in 2-3 dictionaries and lists is a shaky argument. Mukadderat 23:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- P.S. Ewen, please keep in mind that waiting from 15:17 to 18:29 in wikipedia is too short time period. Some people have real life you know :-). Usually it is advised to wait at least a day. There is no rush. Mukadderat 23:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- P.P.S. I guess that Miikka was hinting at the rule of Undue weight. We don't have to present unqualified opinions in wikipedia, especially taken from dubious sources. For example, articles like Islamophobia do not say that there is no such disease. But anyway, IMO you handled the issue correctly. Mukadderat 23:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Thanks for considering the issue, Mukadderat. I'd have waited longer but I noticed that Miika was busy with other editing so I presumed he'd chosen to pass on this issue. If he'd been offline it would have been another matter.
-
-
-
-
-
- The status of the specific phobia definition is difficult to pin down. Certainly there are people who choose this definition because it suits their dubious business claims; but now we have the NIH listing it in their toxicology glossary but omitting it from their list of rare diseases (I'm not sure if they'd count a phobia as a disease - the list reads more like rare genetic conditions and infections). I took out the WrongDiagnosis reference as its claim about NIH recognition as a rare disease was clearly untrue.
-
-
-
-
-
- Ewen 05:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] "so low as to be harmless"
"Causes - as a toxicologist you cannot say anything is "so low as to be harmless". That statement is so loaded, I dont know where to begin.." said User:129.137.216.188 when removing a paragraph.
I completely disagree. For example, I've had to answer questions from people asking about how come nickel - a known carcinogen - is used for coins? Nickel is actually a necessary trace element i.e. levels of nickel in the diet can be so low as to be harmful. Yes, levels of nickel can be so high that they are harmful. The low levels of nickel usually encountered in the diet are harmless. Levels higher or lower than the safe range are harmful.
So, there's an example of something where the levels can be "so low as to be harmless".
Ewen 16:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I dont care that much about this to pour over numerous references. The fact is that extremely low doses of many, many chemicals have the ability to disrupt NUMEROUS physiological processes. Pubmed.com should straighten you out...Additionally, certain related compounds (think environmental estrogens, PAHs, even metals) have the ability to produce synergistic effects. My point is that the statement "so low as to be harmless" is loaded, and no concrete evidence is even given, just cherry picked quotes...
as a reference...http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/NewScience/lowdose/2007/2007-0525nmdrc.html.
User:129.137.216.188
- Interesting reference... but it does support what I said about nickel - if you plot its harmful effects against dose you get a U-shaped graph, which falls below zero harm (it actually does us good) in the mid-range. Similarly, it is an area of active research whether low doses of radiation might not only be harmless, but actually beneficial (see e.g. [[1]]).
- Anyway, you do rather miss the point. Let's say that there are chemicals which are harmless at low levels and toxic at higher levels. The point is that detection at low (harmless) levels is often reported, along with a description of the toxic effects at higher levels, but without drawing the reader's attention to the discrepancy in the detected and the harmful levels.
- When I've time I'll dig out some examples of this type of reporting. I saw one two days ago in an advert for a company who will survey your house for radon, at a cost of course. They were very clear about the dangers of radon but failed to say that most houses in the country have negligible levels and houses at risk will have been identified from the geology they lie on and will have been surveyed by the local authority - for free. Talk about scaremongering!
-
- BTW, you can sign your comments by typing ~~~~ at the end, which automatically converts to your username/IP and the date & time.
- Ewen 19:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
