Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Evidence stacks up for poisonous books containing toxic dyes

phys.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 70 posts

Re: Evidence stacks up for poisonous books containing toxic dyes

#31

Post by kragen »

harimau777 wrote: post #18

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…

this is backwards. yes, the un-set dye is reactive. but the set dye isn't reactive. that's what's 'set' about it

Re: Evidence stacks up for poisonous books containing toxic dyes

#32

Post by retrac »

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.

Re: Evidence stacks up for poisonous books containing toxic dyes

#33

Post by llm_trw »

tokai wrote: post #22
ralferoo wrote: post #20

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 ris…

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.

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.

Re: Evidence stacks up for poisonous books containing toxic dyes

#34

Post by _ntka »

retrac wrote: post #32

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.

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.

Re: Evidence stacks up for poisonous books containing toxic dyes

#35

Post by amiga386 »

glandium wrote: post #11
golan wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The name of the rose

From the novel by Umberto Eco. With a French director, Sean Connery, Christian Slater, Ron Perlman and more. Great movie.

It was also a good 8-part miniseries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Name_of_the_Rose_(miniseri...

Re: Evidence stacks up for poisonous books containing toxic dyes

#36

Post by hanniabu »

tokai wrote: post #22
ralferoo wrote: post #20

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 ris…

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.

Like how we spray weed killer everywhere even though we know it causes cancer

Re: Evidence stacks up for poisonous books containing toxic dyes

#37

Post by theoreticalmal »

hanniabu wrote: post #36
tokai wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Like how we spray weed killer everywhere even though we know it causes cancer

[flagged]

Re: Evidence stacks up for poisonous books containing toxic dyes

#38

Post by seszett »

glandium wrote: post #11
golan wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The name of the rose

From the novel by Umberto Eco. With a French director, Sean Connery, Christian Slater, Ron Perlman and more. Great movie.

> a French director

Who even has a name: Jean-Jacques Annaud.

Re: Evidence stacks up for poisonous books containing toxic dyes

#39

Post by viscountchocula »

llm_trw wrote: post #33
tokai wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

What was the safety they cared about?

Re: Evidence stacks up for poisonous books containing toxic dyes

#40

Post by BoxOfRain »

_ntka wrote: post #34
retrac wrote: post #32

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.

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.

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?
Post reply on HN