That's brilliant! I wish I'd thought of such a pithy way to put it. I usually end up going on about keeping the full context in mind (something Ms. Rand went to some lengths to emphasize, but clearly not enough given how people interpret her work*), what goes around comes around, etc. * Not that she wasn't batshit crazy about some things. Ever read her essay about why a woman should not want to be President?

Perhaps because the closer something is to what a person wants, the more they're likely to notice and bitch about what's missing. Why bother bitching about the crappy products, after all? You know their makers aren't even trying.

Bugs killed by violent crushing and bugs that die of starvation or age probably emit different chemicals. A few months back I read about how bees carry their dead out of the hive, and identify them by similar chemical markers. If the researcher dabbed a live bee with the chemical, its sisters would drag it "kicking and screaming" out of the hive and would not let it back in. :-)

Considering that the chemicals plastics break down to can have dramatic effects in concentrations measured in parts per billion or less, this is a pretty considerable area.

Sounds like the Taggart Tunnel scene in Atlas Shrugged. (This is not an endorsement of Objectivism(TM). However, Atlas Shrugged, while a bit slow for the first 200 pages, is a rollicking good read after that!)

I smell a crossover with Bubba Ho-Tep!

1986 is not "long ago" except in Internet years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl#Chernobyl_nuclear_reactor_disaster

Thousands of teenagers sending nude pics of themselves to teachers, school board members, and law-enforcement personnel...shudder.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0584.html

The word you want in that context is "averse", not "adverse". This has not been a flame, just a helpful comment. I make no promise for what follows this post. :-)