When I was taking organic chemistry my (mid-to-late 60s at the time in ~20010) teacher told us an anecdote about benzene when we started learning about aromatic molecules. She told us that they used to clean their lab bench with benzene solvent to make it sparkling clean. Of course, she also told us it was carcinogenic and then finished by saying a lot of her contemporary colleagues that went into organic chemistry research were now dead. Really drives home that a lot of safety precautions and practices are "written in blood", so to speak.
Chemists used to basically bathe in Benzene back in the day. I’ve heard that they as a group tended to die in their 60’s. Most teaching Chem labs tend to work with small amounts of chemicals today and try to avoid the nasty stuff if possible.
When I went to Belgium I visited
the Red Star Line museum The Red Star Line was a passenger ship company that brought millions of immigrants from Europe to the US in the early 20th century. In order to depart for the US, passengers were required to scrub themswlves down with benzene and let it soak in to kill any potential lice eggs.
Also their luggage was autoclaved (yep, with hot stean) and then drenched in disinfectant.
Benzene, C6H6 and Zyklon B (aka HCN) are very different chemicals and I'm not advocating HCN as a delousing agent. The difference is that the body copes with small amounts of HCN very well as small amounts can be naturally found in food whereas C6H6, an aromatic hydrocarbon, isn't. C6H6 does damage in an altogether different way and its effects are cumulative.
Incidentally, as I've mentioned in an earlier post I've always been very careful to avoid exposing myself to C6H6, but less so to HCN. I used to use HCN in photographic processing and as I mentioned once before on HN I was affected by its fumes—and I'm still here to mention the fact (but I'm not for a moment suggesting that people be lax when using the stuff).
Chemistry used to be a scientific spin on the Jackass franchise. Although to be fair often it was the assistants doing the taste tests - not the chief chemist at the lab.
"She told us that they used to clean their lab bench with benzene solvent to make it sparkling clean. Of course, she also told us it was carcinogenic and then finished by saying a lot of her contemporary"
That was about the same time I was learning the subject. We didn't get an anecdote about cleaning lab benches with benzene but were told it was very dangerous and carcinogenic.
Our teacher brought out a little bottle of the stuff—about 50ml or so—and told us that this was one aromatic hydrocarbon we weren't going to sniff and we should never attempt to do so. He also went on to stress that carbon tetrachloride was nearly as bad and said that none of the methyl chlorides could be 'trusted' as safe and with every extra Cl atom they became more toxic.
Advice I've always heeded. If this was common advice in lab science 50+ years ago then why is it even an issue today? All our chemical tech should have been built around this knowledge, the default should have been that benzene and humans should not mix—this paper ought to be a hypothetical as such exposure should not happen.
Incidentally, around that time there was controversy about removing carbon tetrachloride from dry cleaners, owners of these operations were complaining the new substitutes didn't remove grease as well.
>If this was common advice in lab science 50+ years ago then why is it even an issue today?
[...]
>this paper ought to be a hypothetical as such exposure should not happen.
Of course it shouldn't happen. We all wish bad things didn't happen...
I am having trouble wrapping my head around this comment. I don't think people are purposefully exposing themselves to the chemical... Like yeah, of course everyone hopes that they won't need to know what happens when someone is exposed to benzene, but that doesn't mean we don't study it anyway. I don't think "hypothetical" is the word here since the possibility of benzene exposure is very real.
The implication here seems to be that, as soon as you discover the negative effects of exposure to a certain chemical, that chemical is instantly no longer a threat to anybody. Just because we may have known about this ~50 years ago, doesn't mean that we can just stop worrying about it.
I'm sorry you missed my point that regulation lags the tech and can do so for a very long time—usually because commercial and vested interests block safety regulations.
Where would you like me to start? Perhaps asbestos, it's well known and well documented. 2000+ years ago the Romans were well aware of its dangers and called is effects 'the wasting disease', that's why they only sent slaves and prisoners to asbestos mines.
It was then the subject of several Admiralty inquiries in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries that came to the conclusion that it was dangerous and significantly shortened lives but the reports were overlooked as those lagging pipes on ships were expendable, getting ships ready for war wasn't. And we are still dealing with the stuff 100+ years on.
We could end with the dangers of social media and AI, but the populous at large is so enamored with them it can't even yet see the dangers let alone consider regulating them.
Well I'm not sure that's the point I would have taken away from your comment, but oh well...
What it comes down to (which is what it always comes down to in capitalism), is capital. Accruing (and facilitating the accrual of) and protecting capital is the main function of the state, so it's only natural that regulations to protect regular people at the cost of a fraction of profits of the bourgeoisie, would take decades to be put in place. If ever.
Same thing goes for social media and AI. We sit back and watch as it corrodes and destroys our societies, so a handful of multi-billion dollar corporations can report profits to their shareholders every quarter.
This isn't anything new, there are people way smarter than you and I that figured this out a long time ago... Just don't say his name or else nobody will take you seriously.
Right, that hairy unmentionable and his mate. It's not surprising that 'those in charge of the means of production' and a fucked revolution in the hands of ruthless opportunists have made their names mud.
What truly grates me in this centuries-long battle is that those to whom you refer always end up on top. Capital is like a bobbing cork, no matter how far you sink it, it always has the power to resurface.
In general if you drink decaffeinated coffee I'd check how it's decaffeinated. Even newer processes that use dichloromethane, ethyl acetate or triglycerides are dicey imho. The supercritical CO2 processes seem safe though.
Truth be told I'd encourage anyone drinking decaf to really think about the benefits here.
Wow. I knew decaffeination using dichloromethane (aka methylene chloride) was once a thing prior to the popularization of industrial scale supercritical CO2 but I had no idea benzene was ever employed.
When I was in high school there was this bottle with Mercury floating in it.
We would put it in our hands and mess with it. Mercury has this viscous texture and breaks up and coagulates.
Only later did I find out how toxic it is.
My parents literally rubbed mercury into their open wounds as children in the 60s. Mercurochrome was a tremendously popular antiseptic, and wasn't banned in the USA until 1998.
