Comments on: Green Chemistry – Chemistry Done Right

By: alonaika

alonaika — Thu, 15 Jul 2010 11:38:38 +0000

Hi,
This is worth knowledgable blog. green chemistry could include anything from reducing waste to even disposing of waste in the correct manner. This field of chemistry for sustainability also stresses on using safe chemicals in its applications and designs of safer products. People should also lay importance on designing less hazardous chemical syntheses.
Thanks.

By: Rich Engler

Rich Engler — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 19:42:11 +0000

Green chemistry is about designing chemical products and processes with little or no hazard. For much of chemistry, the hazard is not integral to its function. For example: gasoline is hazardous because it burns and it contains toxic substances. The flammability is integral to its function–it has to burn to be a fuel for an internal combustion engine; however the toxicity is not. If you were designing a new fuel using green chemistry, you would design one that burns in the engine, but is minimally toxic.

The same principles can be applied to chemical processes.

The key point is to think about the function you need and design the chemistry to minimize the hazard.

By: Islas

Islas — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 21:19:00 +0000

I see the green word any where now, from cars to groceries or house items. What is it all about and what does it mean? What is the main objective of the 12 principles of Green chemistry?

By: Maryd

Maryd — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 05:15:28 +0000

I do think that serious legislation needs to be passed that keeps chemists from creating products that have not been tested for safety. There is no logical reason for most of the toxic chemicals in our day to day consumer goods to be legal. The cost is to great to create them, market and sell them for years before we realize oops- this is a known carcinogen or an endocrine disrupter or this product pollutes our air, water, soil. It is very old thinking… And I hope for my children’s sake that we can quickly wise up very soon. It is terrible for corporations to put profit before people and the environment. It is also terrible for the government to allow it. That should not be permitted in our country.

By: Rich Engler

Rich Engler — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 15:20:20 +0000

The carrying capacity of the earth is not a fixed number, but neither is it infinite. It depends on reaching an ideal, sustainable economy, producing energy, goods, food, and clean water to meet the needs of the global population.

Green chemistry is an important part of that sustainable paradigm, but by no means the only part.

By: Rich Engler

Rich Engler — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 15:15:36 +0000

I am sorry you are confused by “green chemistry”. EPA defined the term in 1993 and has been using it ever since. Other terms, such as “clean production” and “cradle-to-cradle” are very similar.

In my opinion, using “clean production” focuses on industrial and commercial chemistry, where “green chemistry” is broader and includes academic chemistry.

By: Johnny R.

Johnny R. — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 17:40:04 +0000

Let’s suppose green technology succeeded in preventing 100% of all polution and the economy kept on growing along with the growing human population. How many people can the Earth support? Someday you will have to answer that question like it or not — but by that time it could be too late to change.

By: charanjit

charanjit — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 13:48:11 +0000

well this idea has brought along a great paradigm shift, maybe it would be looked at with more interest and understanding due to the current scenario of global warming and uncontrollable pollution. I strongly believe that everything we need is there around us in nature, when our needs exceeded we made substitutes, some of which has caused more harm. But we are unable to move out of the comfort zone and demand change!

this needs to be looked at seriously!

By: www.coolerchoice.com

www.coolerchoice.com — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 10:33:24 +0000

i agree we should not need chemistry to make things safer its should be part of normal practice

By: Xun XU

Xun XU — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 16:49:54 +0000

Actually I strongly agree with the statement of the signature collector. As Rachle Carson wrote in her famous book Silent Spring-nature has introduced great variety into the landscape, but man has displayed a passion for simplifying it-do you think it practically rational when human beings and nature are undergoing totally opposite process?

When we take a close look into the chemical-related cases, the result is always about the economy. But how is the economy originated? The answer is human need-we need to live longer,need to look pretty, need to travel faster-so we need chemistry as a tool to realize all the needs which specially belong to MAN. It is awkward to know when we’re satisfying the current needs, the future needs are sacrificed or turned into the negative ones such as the need to see the doctor because of the early exposure to the toxic chemicals.

Generally chemical reactions are instant compared to the natural ones along with huge energy released. What I’m going to express is that Chemistry cannot be sheerly “green” because we’re just a part of the great nature and we cannot take the role NATURE has played for millions of years. The only way that we’re supposed do to is to decrease the use of chemical produces and let the nature back to the stage. I think as long as people consider the development from the perspective of the nature, the sustained development can be truly and effectively implemented.