There's an allegory in there. Toxic books.
Evidence stacks up for poisonous books containing toxic dyes
41–50 of 70 posts
Re: Evidence stacks up for poisonous books containing toxic dyes
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is from a movie right? I remember watching it but not the name.
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.
My favourite Bond film. Where he goes undercover as a 14th century Benedictine Monk.
Re: Evidence stacks up for poisonous books containing toxic dyes
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
I'm curious as well.
Re: Evidence stacks up for poisonous books containing toxic dyes
#44Any Nethack veteran knows this can happen to you if you try to read a cursed spellbook.
Re: Evidence stacks up for poisonous books containing toxic dyes
#45Earlier 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.
How many children are expected to eventually die from plastic?
Re: Evidence stacks up for poisonous books containing toxic dyes
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
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.
Re: Evidence stacks up for poisonous books containing toxic dyes
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
For one thing, they really seem to have worried about accidentally being buried alive:
Re: Evidence stacks up for poisonous books containing toxic dyes
#48Earlier 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
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/201fc98c0d74... [1] https://www.cancer.gov/types/common-cancers
Re: Evidence stacks up for poisonous books containing toxic dyes
#49Something 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
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.
Re: Evidence stacks up for poisonous books containing toxic dyes
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
How many children are expected to eventually die from plastic?
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.