4 ms·
It didn't seem to be mentioned in the article, but have these covers always been unsafe to handle, or has the problem got worse as the books get older and maybe
by ralferoo 2y ago
It didn't seem to be mentioned in the article, but have these covers always been unsafe to handle, or has the problem got worse as the books get older and maybe the chemicals are more likely to leech out or be released as dust etc?
If they've always been toxic, I'm kind of surprised that it wasn't noticed at the time. And presumably, there was a point when we stopped using these dyes. Was that because we knew the risks they posed, in which case why did we lose that knowledge, or was it just that we switched to cheaper processes that just happened to be safer?
- tokai 2y agoThey were always toxic, and people got poisoned. Generally safety was not something victorians spend a lot of energy on. Sometimes things are weird like that. Like how lead was put in petrol even when the toxicity of lead was known.
- llm_trw 2y agoVictorians put a lot of energy on safety. It's just that the safety they cared about was vastly different to what were the actual things killing them. If you want a modern take on it observe our obsession with stranger danger for children while we happily fill them up with plastic.
- viscountchocula 2y agoWhat was the safety they cared about?
- jzemeocala 2y agoI'm curious as well.
- ThinkingGuy 2y agoFor one thing, they really seem to have worried about accidentally being buried alive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety_coffin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety_coffin
- TaylorAlexander 2y agoIt is unclear to me how prevalent those fears were. The device was invented sure, someone had this fear or someone thought someone did, but how common was that really.
- idontwantthis 2y agoThey were desperately concerned about women’s uteruses falling out and wanted them to avoid strenuous activities like reading fiction.
- xvedejas 2y agoHow many children are expected to eventually die from plastic?
- rowanG077 2y agoWell we don't know If microplastics are really bad. Let's just assume they are mildly toxic. Since the high amount of children on earth it will still be millions seriously affected.
- pengaru 2y ago[flagged]
- mandmandam 2y agoYou have microplastic in your balls (if you have them). They're in your brain [0] - 0.5% by mass, which is 50% more than 8 years ago. They're in the Mariana Trench, and Everest, and the rain. And production is still rising. 0 - https://edition.cnn.com/2024/08/23/health/plastics-in-brain-wellness/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2024/08/23/health/plastics-in-brain-...
- jajko 2y agoWell, start with BPAs. Then add PFOAs (ie goretex, jackets are cca pure plastic). Micro/nano plastics themselves are still unknown, but those first two have already caused some significant damage. How do you count rate of cancer X raised by some tiny % Y on hundreds of millions of kids, billions if counting longer timescales since plastics were old news even in 80s? If you think eating plastics is fine, feel free to start chewing some of it daily, of course lowest quality and price.
- vsuperpower2021 2y ago[flagged]
- hanniabu 2y agoLike how we spray weed killer everywhere even though we know it causes cancer
- theoreticalmal 2y ago[flagged]
- insane_dreamer 2y agoand keep firing coal plants[0] even though more people in the US die from lung cancer, by far, than any other cancer (2.5x breast cancer, 5x leukemia, etc.; it also has a higher mortality rate than most other cancers[1] [0] https://synapse.maps.arcgis.com/apps/dashboards/201fc98c0d74482d8b3acb0c4cc47f16 https://synapse.maps.arcgis.com/apps/dashboards/201fc98c0d74... [1] https://www.cancer.gov/types/common-cancers https://www.cancer.gov/types/common-cancers
- alwa 2y agoIs that more a coal thing or a tobacco thing?
- insane_dreamer 2y agoMore tobacco, but the share of non-smokers with lung cancer has been increasing lately (probably because less people smoke). Estimated 10-20%. "“If lung cancer in never-smokers were a separate entity, it would be in the top 10 cancers in the U.S.” for both incidence and mortality."[0] [0] https://www.statnews.com/2021/01/26/growing-share-of-lung-cancer-turning-up-in-never-smokers/ https://www.statnews.com/2021/01/26/growing-share-of-lung-ca...
- hanniabu 2y agoIt's a pollution thing, whether that's from industrial plants, cigarettes, or fireplaces. They say the lungs of people with fireplaces look similar to those of smokers.
- kragen 2y agothe copper acetoarsenite covers have always been unsafe to handle, while the others are completely safe
- colechristensen 2y agoMany pigments past and present a pretty toxic and always have been unsafe to handle. Of course it is also worse when old materials degrade and start shedding into the environment to be picked up or breathed in by people. >presumably, there was a point when we stopped using these dyes The discovery of toxicity and phasing out depends on the individual chemical, not really all at once. In the past, it was often quite widely known how toxic these things were and they were used anyway. Paris green was used as a rat poison, insecticide, and a pigment all at the same time, factory workers were often poisoned with it. Today we are really paranoid about these kinds of things, sometimes maybe a little too much, but the comfort levels with known dangers in the past was surprisingly high.
- NikkiA 2y agoAnd yet the US still uses Red Dye #3 for example.
- colechristensen 2y agoEh, different scales of toxicity. "Might give you cancer after years of exposure" is different from "you won't survive until tomorrow". Like people were straight up using this green pigment as rat poison.