[HN Gopher] Evidence stacks up for poisonous books containing to...
___________________________________________________________________
Evidence stacks up for poisonous books containing toxic dyes
Author : Brajeshwar
Score : 96 points
Date : 2024-08-19 14:31 UTC (4 days ago)
(HTM) web link (phys.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (phys.org)
| lupusreal wrote:
| Bad idea to lick your fingers when leafing through Aristotle's
| lost treatise on laughter.
| Bluestein wrote:
| (I was _waiting_ for this comment :)
| baerrie wrote:
| This is from a movie right? I remember watching it but not the
| name.
| golan wrote:
| The name of the rose
| glandium wrote:
| From the novel by Umberto Eco. With a French director, Sean
| Connery, Christian Slater, Ron Perlman and more. Great
| movie.
| mikub wrote:
| Yep great movie. Was filmed in 'Kloster Eberbach'
| germany, not far from where I live, always worth a visit.
|
| https://kloster-eberbach.de/
| amiga386 wrote:
| It was also a good 8-part miniseries: https://en.wikipedi
| a.org/wiki/The_Name_of_the_Rose_(miniseri...
| seszett wrote:
| > _a French director_
|
| Who even has a name: Jean-Jacques Annaud.
| redprince wrote:
| Is is from a movie and a novel which the movie was based on.
| Both go by the title "The Name of the Rose". The author of
| the novel is Umberto Eco.
| klondike_klive wrote:
| My favourite Bond film. Where he goes undercover as a 14th
| century Benedictine Monk.
| DiscourseFan wrote:
| don't remind me of all the great works buried deep in the in
| the cheek of history
| ErigmolCt wrote:
| Definitely a bad idea!
| bashmelek wrote:
| The motif also shows up in the 1001 Nights
| kreyenborgi wrote:
| https://sites.udel.edu/poisonbookproject/ ( via
| https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/08/that-book-is-poison-... )
| lists the New York Cook Book containing the lead chromate. Yum!
| lukas099 wrote:
| It's too bad, because they are some beautiful book covers.
|
| Arsenic green: https://sites.udel.edu/poisonbookproject/arsenic-
| bookbinding...
|
| Lead chromate yellow:
| https://sites.udel.edu/poisonbookproject/chrome-yellow-bookc...
| mandmandam wrote:
| > "I find it fascinating to know what previous generations
| thought was safe, and then we learn, oh, actually, that might not
| have been a great idea to use these brilliant dyes," Weinstein-
| Webb says.
|
| Yep. William Morris was a divil for this, and refused to
| acknowledge the dangers well past when they were known.
|
| I wonder though - in terms of human potential and lives lost, do
| all of those examples put together come anywhere near what we're
| doing today with PFAS, microplastics, agricultural & industrial
| runoff, neonicotinoids, etc.?
|
| It's easy to point fingers now and laugh at the Victorians
| smearing lead pain on their face, or the folks taking radioactive
| suppositories for health... Fun too. But like... We're in the
| most glassy house imaginable.
|
| We know better, like Morris, but we're still letting people away
| with this stuff (and even imprisoning the activists fighting it).
| Takes a lot of the fun out of it :/
| SturgeonsLaw wrote:
| The thing too is that we know better, but we still use those
| toxic substances because the people who are profiting off it
| aren't the ones suffering ill effects.
|
| Well, at least the petrochemical people flooding the world with
| microplastics also have it in their bodies.
| mandmandam wrote:
| > Well, at least the petrochemical people flooding the world
| with microplastics also have it in their bodies.
|
| Hate to smudge your consolation, but the tech is probably
| there for them to filter their blood now, or it will be soon.
| [0]
|
| Course, it will be far too expensive for poor people.
|
| Still! At least the microplastics in their brains will be
| harder to clean! [1]
|
| ... Seriously, these people need stopping. They're never
| going to stop on their own.
|
| 0 - https://www.mdpi.com/2673-8929/3/3/28
|
| 1 - https://www.smh.com.au/national/human-brain-tissue-made-
| up-o...
| the8thbit wrote:
| > 1 - https://www.smh.com.au/national/human-brain-tissue-
| made-up-o...
|
| holy shit 1/200 molecules in your fucking brain is straight
| up plastic jesus christ
| mandmandam wrote:
| Brings a whole new meaning to the word 'neuroplasticity',
| amirite?
|
| _crickets_
| ErigmolCt wrote:
| The comparison between historical hazards like toxic dyes and
| modern environmental issues is a gooood one! The evolution of
| our understanding of risk and safety.
| harimau777 wrote:
| I've been learning to use makeup recently and I've been
| surprised at how common it is to do things that I would
| instinctively avoid. (I realize this is probably all extremely
| pedestrian for people who grew up wearing makeup, but it was
| surprising to me).
|
| For example, it's fairly common to use eyeliner on the
| "waterline" of your eye where it will wash off into your eye
| over time. You need to reapply lipstick periodically; partially
| because some of it ends up getting washed off and swallowed. A
| lot of these eye and lip makeups contain (cosmetic grade)
| glitter. A lot of makeup is in the form of sticky sprays or
| powders that presumably get partially inhaled.
|
| I don't mean this as some sort of hysterical "makeup is a
| conspiracy to kill us!!1!1" sort of thing. I know that it goes
| through extensive testing and is probably mostly safe. However,
| I do wonder if some of these might eventually be found to be
| less safe then we originally thought.
| mandmandam wrote:
| I've worn makeup a few times... What amazed me is how gross
| it feels.
|
| It might be the ADD or whatever, but I really detest the
| feeling of being caked in grease. I've often wondered what
| kind of damage its doing to people's skin to block gas
| exchange, clog pores, soak in weird chemicals, etc.
|
| Gotta say though, it never occurred to me how much goop is
| going in people's eye holes, or how much lipstick they're
| ingesting. The inhalation I've thought about a lot... It's
| not easy to get shit out of your lungs once it goes in there.
| High hopes for earth-friendly (and lung friendly) glitter to
| become more of a thing.
|
| All that said - I get it. We're incredibly shallow,
| generally, and I've seen in myself and others the difference
| a little makeup can make in how you're treated.
| wafflemaker wrote:
| Buying good (not killing you or damaging your skin) cosmetics
| and using them properly is an art, as I've observed watching
| my wife.
|
| To be honest, the best really is to just use retinol creams?
| and take care of your diet. This way you can get away using
| hardly any make up. Bonus is that you don't need to wash it
| off afterwards.
|
| But beauty treatments and knowledge is expensive, that's why
| poorer or less informed people have to make do with make up.
| Don't quote me on this, but usually the most advertised
| brands are also the ones that are most toxic (just repeating
| what I've learned from my wife).
| mandmandam wrote:
| > the most advertised brands are also the ones that are
| most toxic
|
| I truly believe this is true of just about everything.
|
| The harder they have to advertise it, the more likely it's
| actually really fucking bad for us.
|
| What gets advertised the most - sugary snacks,
| pharmaceuticals, huckster lawyers, insurance, pesticide
| laden cereal and grain products, bitcoin, fossil fuel, fast
| food, mortgages, gambling sites, cigarettes (in countries
| where that's still legal)... Where's the ads for organic
| carrots, or watermelon?
| Exuma wrote:
| I like painting, and have always liked emerald green:
| https://www.winsornewton.com/na/articles/colours/spotlight-o...
| dghughes wrote:
| Fine. I won't eat the books then if they're poisonous.
| stavros wrote:
| This is a common mistake, the books are actually _venomous_.
| Don 't let them bite you.
| harimau777 wrote:
| Something that I've noticed, that I wonder if it could be an
| useful (although very blunt force) heuristic for thinking about
| chemicals:
|
| Chemicals with strong effects (e.g. bright colors, the ability to
| permanently set dye, powerful adhesives and epoxies, breathable
| waterproofing, etc.) often achieve their effect via strong
| chemical reactions. Strong chemical reactions have a good chance
| of being able to interact with your body's chemical reactions and
| make you sick. Therefore, you should default to handling
| chemicals with strong effects with caution (e.g. wearing gloves
| and a respirator if there are fumes).
|
| Of course this is just a rule of thumb. Fruit juice is brightly
| colored but generally doesn't require special handling. Mineral
| sunscreen works via physical rather than chemical properties.
| Etc.
| pennomi wrote:
| Fruit juice also doesn't retain its color over long periods of
| time. Good dyes in general are hard to make safely, and we use
| a lot of dyes in our society.
| tokai wrote:
| >physical rather than chemical properties
|
| The field of physical chemistry is going to blow your mind.
| harimau777 wrote:
| Ya, I'm definitely speaking in VERY broad strokes here
| because this isn't my area of expertise! I was just meaning
| that in comparison to what's called "chemical sunscreen"
| which, according to my admittedly limited understanding,
| works by undergoing a chemical reaction when exposed to UV.
| tokai wrote:
| I understand, I just couldn't help myself :)
| kragen wrote:
| this is backwards. yes, the un-set dye is reactive. but the set
| dye isn't reactive. that's what's 'set' about it
| harimau777 wrote:
| Definitely! I use this rule of thumb when I'm crafting to
| know that I need to wear gloves while dying something, using
| adhesives, industrial cleaners, etc. After it's set you only
| need to be careful in as much as you need to prevent bleeding
| colors onto other clothes.
| ralferoo wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| They 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 wrote:
| Victorians 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 wrote:
| What was the safety they cared about?
| jzemeocala wrote:
| I'm curious as well.
| ThinkingGuy wrote:
| For one thing, they really seem to have worried about
| accidentally being buried alive:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety_coffin
| TaylorAlexander wrote:
| It 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 wrote:
| They were desperately concerned about women's uteruses
| falling out and wanted them to avoid strenuous activities
| like reading fiction.
| xvedejas wrote:
| How many children are expected to eventually die from
| plastic?
| rowanG077 wrote:
| Well 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 wrote:
| The greater problem imo is the endocrine disruptors used
| as plasticizers.
|
| But I think people are far too obsessed with mortality
| outcomes. If that's all you care about, you'll completely
| miss that your male infants are all coming out
| underdeveloped and a decade later the public won't stop
| fighting over who can use which bathroom while sucking
| down a starbucks riddeled with bisphenols and phthalates.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endocrine_disruptor
| mandmandam wrote:
| You 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-...
| jajko wrote:
| Well, 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 wrote:
| It's ironic that you say "they cared about was vastly
| different to what were the actual things killing them" then
| immediately pivot to plastic. I wonder where you read that
| from. Can you tell me about fluoride in water too?
| hanniabu wrote:
| Like how we spray weed killer everywhere even though we know
| it causes cancer
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| and 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/201fc98
| c0d74... [1] https://www.cancer.gov/types/common-cancers
| alwa wrote:
| Is that more a coal thing or a tobacco thing?
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| More 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-ca...
| kragen wrote:
| the copper acetoarsenite covers have always been unsafe to
| handle, while the others are completely safe
| colechristensen wrote:
| Many 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 wrote:
| And yet the US still uses Red Dye #3 for example.
| kragen wrote:
| this is overblown
|
| copper acetoarsenite is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_green
| and is deadly, but still used by artists as a pigment today
| (though it's no longer used for things like wallpaper, clothing,
| and rat poison)
|
| lead oxide is a mild concern; it's sweet, and back when it was
| the most common white pigment for painting houses, kids would
| chew on it. at that time there was a massive subclinical lead
| poisoning outbreak that probably resulted in an unprecedented
| decades-long crime wave in the usa, but that was probably more
| due to leaded gasoline than the paint. and the amount that can
| potentially flake off a book is even smaller than what kids got
| chewing on paint chips
|
| but lead chromate is basically nontoxic under any normal exposure
| conditions. it's something you don't want to eat, though people
| commonly use it as a food dye;
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead(II)_chromate says:
|
| > _Despite containing both lead and hexavalent chromium, lead
| chromate is not acutely lethal because of its very low
| solubility. The LD50 for rats is only 5,000 mg /kg. Lead chromate
| must be treated with great care in its manufacture, the main
| concerns being dust of the chromate precursor. (...) It is used
| (illegally) to enhance the color of certain spices, particularly
| turmeric,[8][9] particularly in Bangladesh. (...) Unlike other
| lead-based paint pigments, lead chromate is still widely used,
| especially in road marking paint._
|
| and lead sulfide is pretty much completely nontoxic. there's no
| way to get lead poisoning from it. that's why egg whites are an
| antidote to lead poisoning.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead(II)_sulfide#Safety
|
| if you tried to murder someone with lead chromate and lead
| sulfide, you would fail. they would probably be unharmed
|
| now, it's also possible the lead is in some other form that's
| more dangerous. and it's not clear that you'd put lead sulfide in
| a book on purpose; it's black, but carbon is cheaper, and making
| carbon black is both safer and easier. so maybe the excess lead
| is in some form that's of real concern. but the compounds they've
| identified are harmless, except for the green menace we already
| knew about
|
| phys.org and the acs should be ashamed of having printed this
| baseless fearmongering
| retrac wrote:
| Death, magic, alchemy, transmutation, poison (and so perhaps by
| extension, radiation) are all associated with fluorescent green
| to some degree. (Do a Google image search for "necromancy" or
| "poisonous dragon" and the majority colour is fluorescent green.)
| This might be partly influenced by the arsenic greens of the
| Victorian era.
| _ntka wrote:
| Radiation would perhaps be better pictured with a light blue
| glow (Cherenkov radiation).
|
| The green glow used in pop culture has its origin in the
| widespread use of radium paint to achieve a glow-in-the-dark
| effect (e.g. on watch faces) in the early 20th century. I still
| own a radium watch. The paint was always fluorescent green. And
| it did glow.
| BoxOfRain wrote:
| Isn't it usually the phosphor that wears out rather than the
| radium decaying that stops them glowing? Would it be possible
| for someone with the correct safety equipment to apply a new
| layer of fluorescent paint?
| cyberax wrote:
| It's possible, but it's a bad idea, unless you just want it
| for display in a sealed case.
|
| If you want a sane version, get modern tritium-based
| glowing capsules.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| There's an allegory in there. Toxic books.
| sharksauce wrote:
| Any Nethack veteran knows this can happen to you if you try to
| read a cursed spellbook.
| hatenberg wrote:
| Obligatory William of Baskerville quote
|
| "Monkeys do not laugh. Laughter is particular to men"
| hinkley wrote:
| I thought this was something new, but it's Vienna Green still out
| there causing mayhem every time we forget about Vienna Green.
| Which they don't even mention, they just call it copper
| acetoarsenite. Nobody is going to call a Victorian book or
| wallpaper "copper acetoarsenite" they're gonna call it what it
| is, which is Vienna Green.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-08-23 23:01 UTC)