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

61–70 of 70 posts

Re: Evidence stacks up for poisonous books containing toxic dyes

#61

Post by colechristensen »

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…

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.

Re: Evidence stacks up for poisonous books containing toxic dyes

#63

Post by insane_dreamer »

alwa wrote: post #53
insane_dreamer wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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...

Re: Evidence stacks up for poisonous books containing toxic dyes

#64

Post by NikkiA »

colechristensen wrote: post #61
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…

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 w…

And yet the US still uses Red Dye #3 for example.

Re: Evidence stacks up for poisonous books containing toxic dyes

#65

Post by mandmandam »

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.

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-...

Re: Evidence stacks up for poisonous books containing toxic dyes

#66

Post by TaylorAlexander »

ThinkingGuy wrote: post #47
viscountchocula wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What was the safety they cared about?

For one thing, they really seem to have worried about accidentally being buried alive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety_coffin

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.

Re: Evidence stacks up for poisonous books containing toxic dyes

#67

Post by hinkley »

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.

Re: Evidence stacks up for poisonous books containing toxic dyes

#68

Post by hanniabu »

insane_dreamer wrote: post #63
alwa wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that more a coal thing or a tobacco thing?

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...

It'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.

Re: Evidence stacks up for poisonous books containing toxic dyes

#69

Post by colechristensen »

NikkiA wrote: post #64
colechristensen wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

And yet the US still uses Red Dye #3 for example.

Eh, 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.
Post reply on HN