Yes it is true that any process will have degrees of contamination. I was just contesting that the distribution is “the same”, entirely process/substance dependent!
Yes, but….. industrial chemicals also have contaminants that are different, potential chirality issues, and quality control problems that are different than ‘natural’ products (scare quotes because most are still industrially processed).
As any chemist will tell you, no process has 100% yield with zero dangerous side products, let alone 100% of the time.
Real processes have mistakes that make it past QA, let alone scams and other issues.
Is the concern generally overblown? Yes. But it isn’t completely unrealistic either.
> We've discussed this in chemistry classes. The compound is the compound. Why does it matter where it's sourced?
Because the purity might not be 100%. There might be some petroleum left in the end product. Especially given that suppliers have a financial incentive to not care about safety that much.
I think it more a result of companies that synthesize the raw material being unwilling to whip up things like SARS variants, and it being quite difficult to figure something out like that from scratch. That may change or turn out to be incorrect, this is just my understanding at the moment.
The chemistry varying isn’t the real world issue, as I understand it, it’s the varying interconnection and cell packaging… aka the plastic and the inter-cell wiring.
Snip snip, a lot slower than it should be, and the actual packages and cell trays should be standardized as well.
I think it’s more poetic. Yes, the results may be different and they have values that synthetics don’t possess, more variability for example or less colorfastness, but to say that overall they are inexplicably better, is overselling it.
Sure, I like indigo, woad and maybe carrots or beets for Easter eggs but that doesn’t mean they are better. There may be preferences, yes. Better? That depends on use.
reply