We discovered three poisonous books in our university library
theconversation.com
theconversation.com
Had a client in the 80's that used Arsine to make gallium arsnide LED's. Arsine gave the techs and engineers the creeps.
Although with all the other fun chemicals in use, safety training could be summarized as "and this one will kill you in this horrible way if something goes wrong/you do something wrong".
[RFNA leaking from truck, Ukraine, 2015]
example: https://www.bruker.com/fileadmin/user_upload/8-PDF-Docs/X-ra...
https://www.northampton.ac.uk/news/wwii-military-watches-pot...
As well as the lead-free pipes in the U.S., which contain up to 8% lead.
> In 2011 Congress passed the Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act (RLDWA) revising the definition of lead free by lowering the maximum lead content of the wetted surfaces of plumbing products (such as pipes, pipe fittings, plumbing fittings and fixtures) from 8% to a weighted average of 0.25% [https://www.epa.gov/dwstandardsregulations/use-lead-free-pip...]
I remember as a kid wondering how that mantle - which looked like cloth - could glow without disintegrating. Worse yet - break one of those mantles, then breathe in a particle ...
EDIT: Looks like Coleman switched to Yttrium...
And there used to be radioactive thorium used in the making of lanterns. One company that manufactured the lamps in the early 1900's would just dump the leftover thorium into the ground in downtown Chicago.
Now any time a skyscraper is built in downtown Chicago, the soil has to be tested and often remediated.
Examples:
https://www.chicagoarchitecture.org/2012/11/06/radioactive-d...
https://www.chicagoarchitecture.org/2017/07/24/downtown-chic...
https://www.chicagoarchitecture.org/2015/10/27/building-with...
[1] https://www3.epa.gov/radtown/americium-smoke-detectors.html
As opposed to some other countries where they have whole villages dedicated to recycling car batteries by hand[1] and still use leaded glaze on their food dishes[2].
[1]https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/oct/25/backyard...
Maybe it's better to aspire for a higher bar to clear.
I remember reading this was not an issue because the minerals in the water binds with the pipes and create a coating inside the pipe, so any water running through it doesn't come in contact with the actual lead pipe. Does anyone know anything more about that?
Cigarette companies weren't unaware of the health dangers of their products. Asbestosis wasn't a mystery for decades before any serious action was taken.
Results take time to measure.
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4781774/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3184892/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S111056901...
https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposu...
https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/r...
https://www.ewg.org/cell-phone-radiation-affects-brain-funct...
It's an unpopular suggestion, especially at a time when tin foil hat conspiracies abound, but I don't think it's uneasonable. Emf is an observed physical phenomenon so there is nothing supernatural about the possibility of it's effects on human behavior.
I should also add that what we really have is not so much a solid body of evidence but a number of studies which show a lack of evidence. This could just as easily point to the harmlessness of cell phones as our inability to observe their effects.
Do you have any links for the references you made to effects on insect behavior?
Maybe once we finally develop a clone army we can know for sure.
For the most part biology is applied chemistry of organic molecules. Due to something called the photoelectric effect, the thing for which Einstein won the Nobel prize (not relativity) and gave birth to quantum theory, we know that EM radiation below a certain material-dependent threshold is incapable of causing chemical reactions. And this is a property of the frequency, not the intensity--it does not matter how bright or compact the source is, or how close you hold it to your ear! If the incoming EM radiation is below that threshold it will have zero measurable effect on chemistry, just some smaller frequency back-scattering and thermal agitation way below the noise threshold. Things above this threshold is what we call "ionizing radiation" because they create ions which affect chemical processes and is why UV light is so dangerous. Cell phone frequencies are 4-6 orders of magnitude below this threshold, depending on the band. Note also that cell phone frequencies are below the level of infrared and visible-light radiation -- all life is being constantly bathed in higher-frequency radiation than your cell phone gives off. And I remind you, it is only the frequency which matters.
And surprise, surprise, if you're not cherry picking studies[1] there is no measurable effect of cell phone radiation on biological systems. Except, perhaps, as quoted by the GP some insects and birds, which is hardly surprising and already known--these species have sensitive organs we lack that enable them to detect electromagnetic fields for navigation purposes. So a bit of a "duh" there since it is about as controversial a result as "sudden bright strobe lights on freeways at night cause traffic accidents".
The effect of EM radiation on biological systems was heavily studied long before the advent of cell phones. It was known to not cause any measurable effect in humans before mobile high-bandwidth data communications was anything more than a glint in the eye of some dreamy EE.
That's why, for example, technicians working with cell phone tower and microwave antenna installations turn off equipment before standing near the transmitter. They do take proper safety precautions. But the concern here is cooked meat, not some abstract radiation or bio-poisoning thing that will cause cancer 10 years down the line.
The concern over cell phone radio emissions started in part due to the large amount of anecdotal reports from those technicians of insects suffering die off near transmitter stations and migratory birds flying straight into the things, killing themselves. But we shouldn't be surprised -- these insects and birds have large organs meant to sense magnetic fields which operate as crude radio antennas, making them actually sensitive to the EM radiation being put out. But this really isn't any different than, say, deer getting trapped by bright headlights on a dark road, and we shouldn't take it as evidence that the same mechanism might be affecting human beings.
Then again, if you for whatever reason have a conductive surgical implant anywhere near your head or pocket, I wouln't suggest using a cell phone or laptop (on your lap). The concern is not great, but that does put you in the same situation as those insects and birds. I wouldn't be worried about the devices used by poeple around you though (1/R^2 laws and all that).
My immediate concern based on what you said, and not to go off on a tangent here, would actually be for the bees. You mentioned that it is the frequency and not intensity that matters for humans - is it the same case for the animals/insects that are sensitive to the frequencies?
If we are effectively shining flashlights in their faces, increasing the intensity with each successive generation of wireless, can it eventually affect their ability to pollinate? Birds pollinate as well, to a lesser extent, so it would be the same concern here, on top of the pest control and general ecosystem balance that they provide.
I would think it perhaps analogous to ultrasound. Our electronics are giving off all sorts of ultrasonic noise that we can’t hear (but sometimes annoy dogs and millennials). We have ears capable of hearing, but not at those frequencies. But you could nevertheless expect hearing loss if you put a 1kW ultrasonic beacon right next to your ear.
https://www.cancer.org/latest-news/world-health-organization...
There are secondary effects of plastics which accumulate and later release other toxins, but it's a bit disingenuous to blame that on the plastic.
I don't want that to be considered anti-nanotech in any way, as that is my field and hope for the future. But that vision of carbon nanobots swimming our bloodstream is probably not accurate foretelling of the future. We'll probably be using protein components instead for easier bio-biodegradability.
Yes, and that's not mutually exclusive with there being a biochemical risk factor that triggers it or increases susceptibility.
It is certainly a little out there, but if I had to guess at some hidden danger that's ubiquitous in our environment to which we are oblivious, I'd say "prions are more prevalent and dangerous than we think" isn't a bad place to start.