Sarae.the.wannabe.chemist

@zapatos Ha! I didn't mean you were supposed to know what I'm thinking lol! Should've cleared that up. I meant I expected someone to list off some to "beware of __" ingredients.

@npts2020 Well I wanted to, but I was hesitant to because I figured the things I would put are already researched by me (with reliable sources like the CIR and NIH), so it would be pointless to ask about those ingredients. I was really coming here in hopes of someone telling me about ingredients I may or may not know about. I have received an answer from @exchemist. He said the question is, like, impossible to answer. But feel free to drop some knowledge if you want!

@exchemist That's exactly what I'm doing. I take the systematic route because I wouldn't be me if I didn't do things the long, hard, and mentally straining way (lol). I actually have entire notebooks dedicated to these things, including food science (hence my previous questions. Can you say "nerd"? ha). @swansont I mean bad as in: -sensitizing -irritating -destructive to the skin barrier -comedogenic etc.

@exchemist So I guess it's a trial-and-error kinda thing, huh?

I've been looking into skincare and makeup, reading labels and doing some research of course. What I've noticed is when I google a product and read lots of ingredients, there are mostly-if not completely-good things. Not a problem in the slightest. But there will be forums and articles deterring consumers from certain products that actually work very well. Their reasoning for why it's bad is completely unscientific and illogical, like "It contains silicones!". It's like people learn a new word like "silicone" and spread fear-mongering like it's the Gospel! So, I need to know exactly what is bad to put on your face (in general, because everyone's skin is different).

@exchemist I know. I do it anyway when I'm bored. I like to read threads under biology as a tool to learn from others, even when they're the ones with the questions. Also, biology is the easiest science on this website for me to understand lol.

Ha! Funny how kids work. You sound like a family of dreamers. My kind of people!

Right. I'm actually very interested in child development and how they work psychologically as well as figuring them out based on personalities-because we're not robots. The reason is because I'm quite misunderstood and it seems like people raise kids for all the wrong reasons or are just terribly irresponsible. I am a result of both things. This resource seemed like a really great way for adults in our generation to learn a little about kids, even if it was genetics. Some may overthink, some may need it. Nonetheless, it's an awesome resource and idea. Micromanaging development like you can control it is delusional to say the least, but making sure your kid is cared for in every way you can is loving. I wish my parents cared that much about me, but I guess it was God's way of implanting the desire for parenthood to be as enjoyable and easyas possible, even with all the bumps in the road. Apologies for the completely off-topic rant. Aww! How sweet. What is he getting a degree in? I hope he's very successful and makes our world a tad bit better! 💜

I get it now. I may have misinterpreted your comment because when I read it, it seemed like you were dismissing their dream or discouraging them from adding whatever value they were trying to add to parenthood. Again, these were my previous misconceptions.

Well, it might not be pointless to know. Sometimes genetic malfunctions happen later in life after birth. It would be great to know something basic about genetics so that you could do better at helping your child find the right resources without wasting time and/or money. Health professionals also do appreciate being given more information than having to figure it out themselves, which is, again pretty pricey.

Well, I'm no scientist (yet), but what you've stated seems pretty logical. And if you haven't written the book yet, go for it. I mean, what real scientist who isn't retired has the time to read sci-fi books and point out what's wrong? If anyone reads it, it's most likely going to be regular civilians.

@exchemist @TheVat All excellent points, guys! There were, in fact, scientists whose faith in Christ never conflicted with science. Issac Newton is one of them. Religion is a soul's way of asking why and science answers.

@Gryff Ok. I just wasn't clear if they were separate in anyway that would call for some organization so that things make sense. Thank you!

@exchemist Right. Science is definitely not all wrong. I understand.

@exchemist Understood. I am Christian actually, so I believe science is the reaction to God's words, and when we study it, we're studying God's choices of why things are the way they are. I hope I'm not misinterpreting you here, but when you say more "adult" version, do you mean what everyone else says about God + science? Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Hmm... You bring up an interesting topic. Your knowledge isn't ancient (I suspect) because I was taught this way in 8th grade last year (though our textbooks tend to be pretty outdated themselves, which explains the irrelevant things we "learn" here in America. But that's another topic for another day). I believe this heavily depends on the creature and their binomial nomenclature ranking. Scenario: humans can be either tall or short, depending on their dominant and recessive genes. We don't necessarily NEED to be the former or the latter based on our world today, but that isn't the case for, say giraffes. Giraffes eat tree leaves. Trees are usually very, very tall. So, God made giraffes tall enough to eat from them so that they can survive and have nourishment. If they weren't, then that would be an issue. Trying to find a tree short enough to accomodate their height all the time could take so long that they don't eat at all and die of starvation. So while it isn't entirely safe or dangerous because there are just SOO many different creatures, God does equip those who need certain genetic patterns in their day-to-day life with them.

The wording makes the question confusing, so I'll give you the definiton of enzyme to see if that helps you answer the question. If not, completely ignore me. Enzyme: a molecular protein that acts as a biological regulator. It also affects the rate of chemical reactions.

Thanks CharonY! That makes sense. I was, in fact, talking about a food additive.

Are they the same thing? If not, what makes them different? Someone somewhere (I can't remember where) said they were the same because they both have to go through hydrolysis.

I started studying epidemiology to get some mental webbing going. I was doing research and mini lessons from CDC on one tab and adding viruses and diseases on a Googe doc in another. I'm not really all that clear on what I should have or if I should just make two separate docs for diseases, viruses, etc. and terms. I hope I'm making sense.

Got it! Are there any reputable sources I should seek out for my studies? And just how far back should I look in general? And yes, red 3 was banned. The FDA is giving companies until 2027-2028 to remove it from their products.

You're right. I was told to always look for newer articles because the research is more likely to be more accurate than something from a long time ago. I probably took it a little too seriously 😅 Thanks for your help.

Sorry, I'm not that accustomed to how the topics work yet. Thanks though. I've actually seen this article, but I didn't know if I should trust it since it's over 10 years old. Didn't know if it was outdated or not.

I'm currently researching food coloring additives and their dangers. I've come across a couple that seem like there's no concrete evidence for just how dangerous they are, but we should still be scared of them anyway. I'm not the one for fearmongers, only facts. So, I would appreciate it if anyone came to my rescue and told me what they knew about popular color additives and even ones we don't use anymore.

Will do. Thanks everyone for your help!