12 ms·

This article's understandably very critical of the man but is there much in the way of hard evidence he knew just how dangerous these inventions were and wilful

This article's understandably very critical of the man but is there much in the way of hard evidence he knew just how dangerous these inventions were and wilfully ignored the risks? Geninely asking, it just feels like the article is a bit of a hatchet job. Nobody's disputing that his inventions were awful in the long run for humanity and the Earth but it seems a little harsh to criticise someone for lacking the gift of prophecy. As far as I'm aware we only figured out how harmful CFCs were for the environment in the 1970s for example.

0xbadc0de5 5y ago
There is plenty of evidence that he at least new that TEL was extremely toxic - Midgley himself was poisoned by it. Despite this knowledge, he went on to insist it was safe for the public. As for CFC's, the evidence would suggest he did not know of their effects on atmospheric ozone. My reading of the article left me with the impression that Midgley's work on TEL and subsequent marketing was enough to condemn. His work on CFC's appears to be a very unfortunate follow-up.
mcguire 5y ago
"Facing sceptical reporters at a press conference in October 1924, Thomas Midgley dramatically produced a container of tetraethyl lead - the additive in question - and washed his hands in it. ""I'm not taking any chance whatever," Midgley declared. "Nor would I... doing that every day." "Midgley was - perhaps - being a little disingenuous. He had recently spent several months in Florida, recuperating from lead poisoning." (https://www.bbc.com/news/business-40593353 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-40593353) I believe after that press conference he spent several more months in Europe detoxing. High-concentration exposure was known to be dangerous ("On the Thursday of the week before Midgley's press conference, at a Standard Oil plant in New Jersey, a worker named Ernest Oelgert started hallucinating. By Friday, he was running around the laboratory, screaming in terror. On Saturday, with Oelgert dangerously unhinged, his sister called the police. He was taken to hospital and forcibly restrained. By Sunday, he was dead. Within the week, so were four of his colleagues - and 35 more were in hospital. Only 49 people worked there.") and quite a few people were concerned about long-term, low-level exposures.

0xbadc0de5 5y ago

There is plenty of evidence that he at least new that TEL was extremely toxic - Midgley himself was poisoned by it. Despite this knowledge, he went on to insist it was safe for the public. As for CFC's, the evidence would suggest he did not know of their effects on atmospheric ozone. My reading of the article left me with the impression that Midgley's work on TEL and subsequent marketing was enough to condemn. His work on CFC's appears to be a very unfortunate follow-up.

mcguire 5y ago

"Facing sceptical reporters at a press conference in October 1924, Thomas Midgley dramatically produced a container of tetraethyl lead - the additive in question - and washed his hands in it. ""I'm not taking any chance whatever," Midgley declared. "Nor would I... doing that every day." "Midgley was - perhaps - being a little disingenuous. He had recently spent several months in Florida, recuperating from lead poisoning." (https://www.bbc.com/news/business-40593353 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-40593353) I believe after that press conference he spent several more months in Europe detoxing. High-concentration exposure was known to be dangerous ("On the Thursday of the week before Midgley's press conference, at a Standard Oil plant in New Jersey, a worker named Ernest Oelgert started hallucinating. By Friday, he was running around the laboratory, screaming in terror. On Saturday, with Oelgert dangerously unhinged, his sister called the police. He was taken to hospital and forcibly restrained. By Sunday, he was dead. Within the week, so were four of his colleagues - and 35 more were in hospital. Only 49 people worked there.") and quite a few people were concerned about long-term, low-level exposures.