Over the past 48 hours, our newspapers have featured an appalling crime - a teenage girl was kidnapped, raped, and then had caustic drain cleaner poured over her, purportedly to cover up any DNA evidence. The poor girl has severe burns and is in a lot of pain, and will no doubt be scarred for life.
But every single newspaper I have seen has reported the story with one serious inaccuracy, even within the headlines. They're referring to this as the "Acid Rape" case.
Telegraph: Teen charged over acid rape attack on girl
Metro: Teenager charged with rape acid attack and Gang "burned rape victim with acid to hide DNA"
Sun: Rapists throw acid on girl
Even the Press Association: Youth charged over rape
The liquid has been described as "caustic acid", "acid" and "caustic soda", but mainly "drain cleaner". The victim apparently said she had been burned with acid. While I would not expect the victim to distinguish between acid and alkali it seems to have been sloppy journalism to take it as rote, especially when it is almost certainly a caustic soda solution.
I wouldn't know the difference between an acid burn and an alkali burn on sight (fortunately the treatment is washing with warm water in both cases). Hell, I wouldn't be able to tell the difference between an acid and an alkali on sight - that is why we have labels on chemical bottles in labs. One colourless liquid looks a lot like another, as my grandfather drummed into me by reciting:
But every single newspaper I have seen has reported the story with one serious inaccuracy, even within the headlines. They're referring to this as the "Acid Rape" case.
Telegraph: Teen charged over acid rape attack on girl
Metro: Teenager charged with rape acid attack and Gang "burned rape victim with acid to hide DNA"
Sun: Rapists throw acid on girl
Even the Press Association: Youth charged over rape
The liquid has been described as "caustic acid", "acid" and "caustic soda", but mainly "drain cleaner". The victim apparently said she had been burned with acid. While I would not expect the victim to distinguish between acid and alkali it seems to have been sloppy journalism to take it as rote, especially when it is almost certainly a caustic soda solution.
I wouldn't know the difference between an acid burn and an alkali burn on sight (fortunately the treatment is washing with warm water in both cases). Hell, I wouldn't be able to tell the difference between an acid and an alkali on sight - that is why we have labels on chemical bottles in labs. One colourless liquid looks a lot like another, as my grandfather drummed into me by reciting:
Little Johnny's dead and gone
His face we see no more
For what he thought was H2O
Was H2SO4
His face we see no more
For what he thought was H2O
Was H2SO4
How would I determine whether it was an acid or alkali? First stop, litmus or universal indicator (although I think phenolphthaleine rocks, and in small doses it can, according to my GCSE chemistry teacher, act as a potent laxative, I think there are regulations on using it now). But I presume the forensic scientists attached to the Metropolitan Police have run a mass spec or similar to determine the precise chemical composition. The spokesman for the Met has said the substance is believed to be drain cleaner.
The overwhelming majority of drain cleaners are alkaline, at the opposite end of the pH scale to acids. Alkaline materials are commonly referred to as being "caustic". An acid is rarely (if ever) described as such, even though the etymology is from the Latin causticus and Greek kaustikos, meaning "burning", something an acid is as capable of doing as an alkali. Alkaline drain cleaners contain bleach (sodium hypochlorite), sodium hydroxide (aka caustic soda) or potassium hydroxide, and can be bought easily in any supermarket. Acid drain cleaners contain 90% sulphuric acid (Little Johnny's downfall) and are only available to professional industrial cleaning companies - when you consider that battery acid is a mere 33% sulphuric acid, you can see why. It could also damage iron pipes, and in contact with metals can release hydrogen (if you need to know why that's dangerous, look up the Hindenburg.
Scientific inaccuracies are often dismissed as being irrelevant. But what if it was an economic inaccuracy? What if, within an article, a journalist had written "House prices are increasing", and headlined it with "House price crash"? The only sensible thing would be to admit "House prices are increasing and our headline should have said boon rather than crash"/"The substance was caustic soda/bleach and our headline should have said alkali rather than acid", or to say "It's definitely a crash, and we were unwise to use the word increasing as it means the opposite"/"It's definitely an acid, and we were unwise to use the word caustic as it means the opposite".
Is it better to have a scientific inaccuracy than an economic inaccuracy? Shouldn't all journalists at least attempt to make the article as factual as possible, no matter what spin is put on it? Have we had to sacrifice fact for the sake of an incorrect word ("acid") that scares people more than the correct word ("alkali")? I'd give up reading the newspapers, but sadly it's part of my job. I become more and more disappointed every day though - especially with the Telegraph, as their science editor has always been a pretty good journalist.
The overwhelming majority of drain cleaners are alkaline, at the opposite end of the pH scale to acids. Alkaline materials are commonly referred to as being "caustic". An acid is rarely (if ever) described as such, even though the etymology is from the Latin causticus and Greek kaustikos, meaning "burning", something an acid is as capable of doing as an alkali. Alkaline drain cleaners contain bleach (sodium hypochlorite), sodium hydroxide (aka caustic soda) or potassium hydroxide, and can be bought easily in any supermarket. Acid drain cleaners contain 90% sulphuric acid (Little Johnny's downfall) and are only available to professional industrial cleaning companies - when you consider that battery acid is a mere 33% sulphuric acid, you can see why. It could also damage iron pipes, and in contact with metals can release hydrogen (if you need to know why that's dangerous, look up the Hindenburg.
Scientific inaccuracies are often dismissed as being irrelevant. But what if it was an economic inaccuracy? What if, within an article, a journalist had written "House prices are increasing", and headlined it with "House price crash"? The only sensible thing would be to admit "House prices are increasing and our headline should have said boon rather than crash"/"The substance was caustic soda/bleach and our headline should have said alkali rather than acid", or to say "It's definitely a crash, and we were unwise to use the word increasing as it means the opposite"/"It's definitely an acid, and we were unwise to use the word caustic as it means the opposite".
Is it better to have a scientific inaccuracy than an economic inaccuracy? Shouldn't all journalists at least attempt to make the article as factual as possible, no matter what spin is put on it? Have we had to sacrifice fact for the sake of an incorrect word ("acid") that scares people more than the correct word ("alkali")? I'd give up reading the newspapers, but sadly it's part of my job. I become more and more disappointed every day though - especially with the Telegraph, as their science editor has always been a pretty good journalist.
No comments:
Post a Comment