The one day of the year when it is acceptable to discharge fireworks and openly show a fascination with all things pyrotechnical is July 4th, National Explosives Day. This day of national deflagration and detonation comes only once per year outside of Disney themeparks. For our pious environmentalist friends, there is even a green fire available for a more righteous, earthy, celebration.
June 22, 2008, Santa Monica, California. Comedian and satirist George Carlin died sunday evening after checking into a Santa Monica hospital complaining of chest pains. He was 71.
Carlin was a brilliant social satirist and comic. He had the ability to look at ordinary things from a different angle and see the obvious obsurdity in things most of us accept as simple background noise. This is one of the key attributes of a successful satirist and comedian.
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
The very existence of flamethrowers proves that some time, somewhere, someone said to themselves, “You know, I want to set those people over there on fire, but I’m just not close enough to get the job done.”
I went to a bookstore and asked the saleswoman, “Where’s the self-help section?” She said if she told me, it would defeat the purpose.
There’s no present. There’s only the immediate future and the recent past.
Not only do I not know what’s going on, I wouldn’t know what to do about it if I did.
-George Carlin
Carlin was a serial quipster who pushed the boundaries of social norms. His Seven Dirty Words ended up as the center of a 1978 Supreme Court ruling that affirmed the right of the state to bar “indecent” of speech on the public airwaves.
While it is common for contemporary comedians to exploit “indecent” speech for shock value today, few seem to have the facility with language that Carlin had. He was able to reduce to a few short humorous sentences the dark uncertainties that many of us have with common subjects. Carlin’s observations on taboo subjects put him well ahead of his time.
German manufacturing culture does many things very well, but a few things particularly stand out. One of these items pertains to the concept of verbund manufacturing. Verbund simply means “integrated” or “linked”. Verbund manufacturing sites are clusters of manufacturing units that take advantage of proximity. Clustering can offer certain logistic and energy advantages if done intelligently.
A cluster of manufacturing sites can operate and share a co-generation plant for the distribution of steam, waste heat, and electricity. Large capital items like steam plants can be shared so funds can be plowed into larger scale for better economy. Rail operations and other transportation resources can be shared as well. Clustering also provides for the possibility of vertically integrated manufacturing on site and a reduction in transportation costs.
Clustered manufacturing may also have the effect of concentrating the supply of skilled workers for the labor pool. A manufacturing nexus can attract community colleges and other vocational opportunities for the next generation of employees.
The USA has many manufacturing sites where similar industries congregate. Look at the Gulf coast with all of the refinery locations. But the extent to which there are synergistic interactions between companies is unclear.
In the US, corporations tend to behave as the Republic of Exxon or the Republic of the Union Pacific. This kind of a fragmented confederation of corporate states is becoming obsolete as we go up against nationalized business entities that control key resources and trade. The key to future vitality is greater efficiency with resources. Synergistic cooperation is one model that is available. But to do this requires trust and the desire to cooperate for mutual benefit. Competition begets gamesmanship and posturing which works against the verbund model for US businesses.
US corporations have much to learn from this business model.
There is tempest in a teapot brewing in regard to the chemical safety of shower curtains. It seems that someone got curious about the composition of the “new shower curtain smell”. The alert has sounded and the troops are scrambling to general quarters. A lurking menace in the bathroom hangs there unnoticed, quietly off-gassing a cruel industrial bouquet of death vapors.
A Google survey of the issue turns up quite a number of hits, all reporting the same meager bowl of gruel. Over 100 toxic chemicals have been detected in the fragrance, they say. It would be interesting to see the actual data.
OK. This is the feedback that the manufacturer needs to reformulate the composition of their product. PVC is extremely useful in manufacturing. But the deal with the devil you have to make if you want durable and flexible PVC is the incorporation of plasticizers. The PVC industry has steadfastly outlived many predictions of its demise. It will outlive this toxic curtain episode as well. However, they will have to address this matter of odor in their products, hazardous or not.
I smell opportunity for manufacturers of other polymers to step in and exploit the fear and loathing over PVC curtains.
It may be foolish to offer an opinion here, but it seems to me that the population at greatest risk are the factory and warehouse workers. They face potentially chronic occupational exposure.
From June 1 to November 30, 2008, manufacturers have the opportunity to register under REACH, the EU program of Registration, Evaluation, and Authorization of Chemicals. Failure to do so may result in having a product banned from the EU. So says Joe Acker, president of the Synthetic Organic Chemicals Manufacturers Association (SOCMA), according to the latest issue of ICIS Chemical Business (June 2-8, 2008, pp 14-15).
Non-EU chemical manufacturers have been slow to realize the effect of REACH regulations. According to the ICIS article, Acker explains that 8,000 to 10,000 chemicals now sold into the EU may be pulled back. The reason is that many low profit specialty products will be discontinued owing to the expense of registration and manpower needed to manage compliance.
EU manufacturers are facing the grim prospect of yet more regulatory compliance expense added to their portfolio of products. This kind of expense only reduces competitiveness for EU manufacturers.
Suppliers who elect to discontinue supply of specialty products will leave users of these materials in need of a new supply or face the shutdown of the end use.
To add to the pain, REACH authorizes the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) to charge for registration, updates, appeals, and most maddeningly, charge an extra fee for confidential disclosures.
My lament here is not that I am hoping for a chinese night market of chemical sales to the EU. My lament is that REACH seems likely to accelerate the chemical deindustrialization of the EU. The uptick in petrochemical raw material costs unfortunately coincides with the startup of REACH and the paper storm that it will cause. It is very bad timing.
It is time to have a frank talk about the fundamental merits of the college chemistry curriculum. This plan of study has remained substantially unchanged for decades (see comment by bchem). Certainly minor changes occur through nudges and bumps here and there pertaining to details. But in the last generation has there been a dialog or debate on the fundamental assumptions of the common curriculum? And I refer specifically to the ACS certified curriculum, which has been the gold standard across the country. Major changes that I have been witness to mainly accomodate an increased emphasis on biochemistry or new computerized instrumentation.
The undergraduate chemistry curriculum is a very logical and thorough survey of the three pillars of chemistry- Theory, synthesis, and analysis. This covers the fields of inorganic, organic, physical, analytical, and biochemistry. Along the way we teach a few other areas of specialty by way of electives.
The current program of chemical pedagogy is certainly true to itself. There is genuine concern and care to avoid dilution of the content and over-inflation of grades, generally. The core domains of the subject are sorted out and given special consideration. Much work has been done to spark interest in the field and textbooks seem to be written quite well as a rule. Resources like J. Chem. Ed. are a continuous stream of clever tools and tricks to make the subject more plain.
Our colleges and universities have been quite good at churning out chemical scholarship. And students are given scholarly exposure in their learning program. Not surprisingly, scholars are very good at producing more scholars.
But has the academy been keeping up with the role of chemistry in the world? Just look around. How many CEO’s and upper executives in the top 100 chemical companies are chemists? I have not seen this statistic tabulated. But I am confident that relatively few chemists populate those ranks. Those that do often arise through marketing or finance channels.
But why should they? The field of chemistry attracts people interested in science, not business. Chemical educators have a responsibility to educate chemical scientists with a minimum proficiency in the field. That requires a minimum number of semester hours of coursework within a 4 year period. There is only so much a department can do and so much a student can absorb.
Yet, the purpose of a college education is to prepare a student for a productive life. A learning program that is internally consistent but blind to the needs of the external world is a fantasy. Have we come to value programmatic tidiness more than practicality?
Chemistry is a highly practical field. It involves problem solving and production. Chemists make stuff. Chemists solve problems. Chemists are specialists in the transformation of matter. But chemists do not operate in a vacuum. They do their work for organizations, and there is the rub.
By training, chemists are woefully prepared to function outside the laboratory. And as a direct result, chemists are poorly prepared to leave the lab and function elsewhere in the organization. Traditionally, education in the organizational arts has been considered on-the-job training. In a sense this is not unreasonable. How can educators anticipate the needs of a student 5 years into the future?
What is under appreciated by educators and students alike are the many opportunities that will follow for a chemist in industry. Many if not most chemists will come to a fork in the road in their careers. Will they stay in the lab or will they go to the business side? Usually, the path to greater opportunity in a business organization is the business side. Technical sales, customer service, marketing, procurement, management, etc.
I am not proposing that chemistry faculty teach coursework that cover such material. I am trying to suggest, however, that chemistry departments take a closer look at what an industrial career really looks like and try to anticipate a few needs that will arise as a result of this career path. Advisors can talk to students about the possibility of a business minor. An accounting or marketing class could be very helpful for a student who is uncertain about his/her career path. These are painless actions that can be of great use to a graduate.
But there is more than the passive approach of suggesting alternatives to undergrads. There is a more active approach that would definitely serve the needs of students and society alike.
Elective coursework covering intellectual property and patents, business law, the regulatory world (TSCA, EPA, OSHA, CERCLA, REACH, etc.), industrial hygiene, and perhaps most importantly an introduction to chemical engineering. This last item I cannot overemphasize. Chemical engineering includes the basics of unit operations, process economics, thermodynamics, and controls. I would offer that the whole package could be called Industrial Chemistry.
There are junior college programs for chemical operators that do provide exposure to some engineering concepts. But this isn’t necessarily for management track graduates.
I would offer that the department with an industrial chemistry program would be very successful in job placement as well as attracting new majors. Comments?
Something happens to some people when they transition to adulthood. They gradually quit becoming and focus on being. To be is to plant a stake in the ground and pronounce what you stand for. To become is to keep looking for better ground. To become is to invite disruption. To be is to find a comfortable spot.
To be is to live in the moment. To become is to delay gratification.
As one grows older, the interest in becoming naturally fades as opportunities to be are exhausted. The trick to staying vital and interesting is to keep finding ways to become. That is the struggle.
For those newbies just coming out of school into the fabulous world of Big Time Chemistry, you have an interesting time ahead of you. You’ll soon learn that your crisp new diploma is really just a backstage pass down the rabbit hole of The World, Inc. Your brain is now as sharp as it’ll ever be … well, after some well deserved R&R. Your capacity to spend long hours in the lab will never be greater. And, your skin has thickened to the abuses from too many years in college. The cleat marks of rabid and unscrupulous profs posturing for tenure will scab over and vanish. Now is your chance to plant your cleats anywhere you please.
For those going into industrial slots, there is yet much to learn. Whereas in school your cohort is confined to a narrow age group, in the world you’ll land in a place filled with workers of all ages. The biggest surprise of all may be the slow realization that perhaps you’re not the only person of Ability in the room. Not all of the really bright people stay in academia or even went to college.
You’ll be able to examine people in various stages of career growth and in various capacities. There is a vast difference in corporate cultures and in time one adapts to the demands of the Machine. This Machine requires much of its people. All company Machines are constructed around a core. This core is the accounting system. Many people are dedicated to the upkeep of this part of the Machine. Scientists fresh out of school are often unaware of the critical importance of non-scientist staff pulling the handles and twiddling the knobs of the Machine so it can keep operating.
I happen to think that chemical plants are really fascinating places whose sophstication and importance is frequently misunderstood. Yes, they are often maligned as unattractive blights on the landscape. But from the technology pespective, chemical manufacturing is a rich part of our technological heritage and more of us need to make that point to our communities.
There are many paths in a good and righteous career in chemistry. Some choose to stay in R&D. Others choose the dark side and enter business development or the even darker side of supply chain management (just kidding, mostly). Many will discover fascinating specialties they never new existed like scale-up, kilo-lab, pilot plant operations, or production support. Then there is quality control, analytical services, technical support, or environmental health and safety.
There are many industry segments that use chemists, so try not to get fixated on just one. It is quite possible to have a good life outside of pharmaceuticals. For students who are interested in grad school, there is polymer chemistry or a variety of material sciences. Polymer science and rheology is fascinating and there is a huge industry out there making polymers. But no matter what you pick, make certain it is something that you really dig. Then it is less of a job and more of a passion.
I’m not an apologist for the chemical industry. Chemical industry has a checkered past in many ways. The pesticide, petrochemicals, and mining industries have left a deep and abiding foul taste in the mouths of many communities. In a previous era, heavy industry has fouled rivers, lakes, air, and ground water. It has lead to illness, death, and loss of livelihood to many people.
But in the modern era much of this wanton issuance of hazardous industrial material into the air and waters has been halted or greatly diminished. At least for the US, Canada, and the EU. And it is not because industry suddenly found religion. The “regulatory environment” became so compelling a liability cost factor that industry set its mind to engineering plants into compliance.
I would make the observation that today, the major chemical health issues before us are not quite as much about bulk environmental pollution by waste products. Rather, I would offer that the most important matter may have to do with the chronic exposure of consumers to various levels of manufactured products. High energy density foods, particularly, high fructose corn sweeteners; veterinary antibiotic residues, endocrine disrupters, smoking, highly potent pharmaceuticals, and volatiles from polymers and adhesives to name just a few.
Modern life has come to require the consumption of many things. A modern nation must have a thriving chemical industry to sustain its need for manufactured materials. It is quite difficult and isolating to live a life free of paint and plastics or diesel and drugs. Choosing paper over plastic at the supermarket requires a difficult calculation of comparative environmental insults. Pulp manufacture vs polymer manufacture- which is the least evil? I don’t know.
Our lives have transitioned from convenience to wretched excess. Our industry has given us an irresistable selection of facile ways to accomplish excess consumption. Individualized portions meter out aliquots of tasty morsels that our cortisol-stressed brains cry out for. These same portions are conveniently dispensed in petroleum- or natural gas-derived packages within packages within packages. These resource depleting disposable nested packages are delivered to our local market in diesel burning behemoths because some pencil-necked cube monkey decided that rotund Americans needed yet one more permutation of high fructose corn syrup saturated, palm oil softened, sodium salt crusted, azo dye pigmented, extruded grain product on Wal-Mart shelves.
Enough already.
All Rights Reserved. Copyright 2008.
Lamentations on Chemistry 