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

51–60 of 70 posts

Re: Evidence stacks up for poisonous books containing toxic dyes

#51

Post by vsuperpower2021 »

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.

[flagged]

Re: Evidence stacks up for poisonous books containing toxic dyes

#52

Post by the8thbit »

mandmandam wrote: post #15
SturgeonsLaw wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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 ne…

> 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

Re: Evidence stacks up for poisonous books containing toxic dyes

#53

Post by alwa »

insane_dreamer wrote: post #48
hanniabu wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Is that more a coal thing or a tobacco thing?

Re: Evidence stacks up for poisonous books containing toxic dyes

#54

Post by wafflemaker »

harimau777 wrote: post #23
mandmandam wrote: post #9

> "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 any…

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 periodica…

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).

Re: Evidence stacks up for poisonous books containing toxic dyes

#55

Post by pengaru »

rowanG077 wrote: post #50
xvedejas wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[flagged]

Re: Evidence stacks up for poisonous books containing toxic dyes

#56

Post by mandmandam »

the8thbit wrote: post #52
mandmandam wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 ne…

> 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

Brings a whole new meaning to the word 'neuroplasticity', amirite?

crickets

Re: Evidence stacks up for poisonous books containing toxic dyes

#57

Post by mandmandam »

wafflemaker wrote: post #54
harimau777 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 periodica…

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…

> 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?

Re: Evidence stacks up for poisonous books containing toxic dyes

#58

Post by jajko »

xvedejas wrote: post #45
llm_trw wrote: post #33

Earlier 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, 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.

Re: Evidence stacks up for poisonous books containing toxic dyes

#60

Post by idontwantthis »

viscountchocula wrote: post #39
llm_trw wrote: post #33

Earlier 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?

They were desperately concerned about women’s uteruses falling out and wanted them to avoid strenuous activities like reading fiction.
Post reply on HN