As a former PhD chemist who moved somewhat diagonally to work for a cement magazine, I have learnt, forgotten and re-learnt a lot of chemistry. While my studies, in which I looked at how to get synthetic molecules to selectively bind to carbon dioxide (CO2), were inherently interesting to me, useful to my supervisor (as a source of funding) and of some use to the wider scientific community, they did not represent what I wanted to do from a long-term perspective.
My switch to publishing, strange as it may appear, was due to an intense frustration with scientists' general inability to express themselves effectively in the written form. Considering that written communication constitutes nearly all scientific communication, this can be a huge problem. The pressure to publish (and secure more funding) means that papers are often written quickly, occasionally with little regard to the audience. English is often a second or third language (to both writer and audience), acroynms and shorthand litter the page and abbreviations can lead to potentially dangerous misunderstandings. The result? Unclear communication that, if unchecked, can slow the development of the research as a whole. Even another scientist that works next to the author can have trouble understanding what he or she actually did!
To remove myself from this collection of poorly-communicating scientists I did two things. Firstly, I tried to improve my communication skills, including taking extra courses, removing unnecessary 'clutter' from my written reports and (later on) helping other students with theirs. This remains an ongoing process as I write and edit the work of others on these pages.
Secondly, I stopped being a scientist... or did I? While we spend a lot of time here at Global Cement writing about the latest financial results and the latest trends in different countries, we also look at advances in alternative fuels, emissions reduction, XRD analysis, scrubbers and fans. It is impossible to do this without my scientific training creeping back in - indeed, it is essential. However, it also has the potential to be annoying. Take for example: 'carbon.' One cannot interact with any media outlet for more than 10 minutes without a mention of 'carbon emissions.' At every cement conference you attend there are presenters with slides on 'carbon reduction,' 'carbon leakage' or 'carbon capture and storage.'
But spot the obvious misuse... 'Carbon', as in the element that is found naturally in coal and diamonds, is not a greenhouse gas that has to be 'reduced.' (In fact carbon is already as chemically reduced as it can be). 'Carbon emissions' are not the driving force behind alternative fuel use or reducing a cement plant's clinker factor. That would be 'carbon dioxide,' the fully-oxidised and less reactive cousin of carbon.
I know that this will sound like extreme 'nit-picking' but is it really so much to add the word 'dioxide' on for clarity? It may seem like a small thing, but it constitutes an actual chemical difference to the subject being discussed (and Global Cement may be as guilty as anyone). If it is so easy to 'mis-speak' about this well-understood issue, (even at the recent EnviroCem Conference & Exhibition), what miscommunication is our industry not spotting? Does this hinder the development of good relationships with shareholders, regulators and the wider community?
Also, misunderstandings like this make it easier to misguide the public at large. Consider a climate-change sceptic who is seeking to develop public opinion against what they see as unnecessary restrictions on CO2 emissions. They could make use of the public's uncertainty surrounding 'carbon' and 'carbon dioxide' to highlight the low carbon (dust) emissions from cars. 'Cars only emit 0.0Xg/km of carbon per km,' they could legitimately say, even though the public assumes that they are talking about 'carbon dioxide.' It can be easy to pick up the wrong end of the stick if it is handed to you the wrong way round.
In the 1990s the now-infamous dihydrogen monoxide hoax showed just how easy this can be. Starting as a flyer campaign that gained traction online, various groups called for a ban on this chemical: "Dihydrogen monoxide is also known as 'hydroxyl acid,' a major component in acid rain," they claimed. "It contributes to the greenhouse effect and is fatal if inhaled. Dihydrogen monoxide contributes to the erosion of natural landscapes, and accelerates the corrosion of metals. Despite these dangers, dihydrogen monoxide is often used as an industrial solvent and coolant; in nuclear power plants and; as a fire retardant. Even after washing, materials remain contaminated."
Warnings rapidly circulated university campuses and civic halls, with government officials even caught up in calls to ban the substance. Dihydrogen monoxide certainly sounds scary... But it is not as scary as the ease with which a bunch of internet hoaxers got some local government officials to attempt to ban water (H2O).