Comments on: The Ethyl-Poisoned Earth http://www.damninteresting.com/the-ethyl-poisoned-earth A collection of Damn Interesting things Sat, 13 Mar 2010 08:31:59 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Frank G http://www.damninteresting.com/the-ethyl-poisoned-earth#comment-25730 Frank G Wed, 03 Feb 2010 20:17:07 +0000 http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=932#comment-25730 [quote]Miss Cellania said: "Even though it wasn’t the “breakthrough” that made him famous, how fitting is it that Midgely was killed by his own invention?"[/quote] Yes Great remark Cellania, if he did not kill himself he might have keep on going to pollute the world. Frank G. [quote]Miss Cellania said: “Even though it wasn’t the “breakthrough” that made him famous, how fitting is it that Midgely was killed by his own invention?”[/quote]

Yes Great remark Cellania, if he did not kill himself he might have keep on going to pollute the world.

Frank G.

]]> By: Frank G http://www.damninteresting.com/the-ethyl-poisoned-earth#comment-25729 Frank G Wed, 03 Feb 2010 20:08:50 +0000 http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=932#comment-25729 This brings me closer to my story about , gm (general motors) yes only in small letters. The most !@#%#$&*^%$#XXXXXXX #@$%^&^%!!! polluting company on this planet. Frank G This brings me closer to my story about , gm (general motors) yes only in small letters.

The most !@#%#$&*^%$#XXXXXXX #@$%^&^%!!! polluting company on this planet.

Frank G

]]> By: Frank G http://www.damninteresting.com/the-ethyl-poisoned-earth#comment-25728 Frank G Wed, 03 Feb 2010 20:01:09 +0000 http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=932#comment-25728 READ ABOUT THIS INCREDIBLY STORY, ABOUT A DESTRUCTIVE CHEMIST , AND LUCKILY A DR. CLAIR PATTERSON WHO THROUGH HIS RESEARCH SAVED OUR WORLD FROM POLLUTING NO LONGER THEN NECESSARY,,, WITH THESE POISONS!!! some teasers here to get you interested, Frank G ************************************************************************************************** In 1921, after a long string of inadequate solutions, a clever but chronically catastrophic chemist named Thomas Midgley developed a fuel additive which eliminated ping problems while increasing fuel efficiency. ************************************************************************************************** Upon learning that automotive fuel with lead was the source of the contamination. Dr. Patterson began to publish materials discussing the toxic metal’s ubiquity and its probable ill effects. Patterson proposed taking core samples from pack ice in Greenland, and testing the lead content of each layer. The results showed that airborne lead had been negligible before 1923, and that it had climbed precipitously ever since. In 1965, when the tests were conducted, lead levels were roughly 1,000 times higher than they had been in the pre-Ethyl era. He also compared modern bone samples to that of older human remains, and found that modern humans’ lead levels were hundreds of times higher. The Ethyl corporation allegedly offered him lucrative employment in exchange for more favorable research results, but Dr. Patterson declined. For a time thereafter, Patterson found himself ostracized from government and corporate sponsored research projects, including the a National Research Council panel on atmospheric lead contamination. ************************************************************************ As for Thomas Midgley, the father of leaded gasoline continued his distinguished career by inventing chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), the refrigerants and aerosol propellants which famously destroyed a considerable section of the Earth’s ozone layer before they were banned. ######################################################################## It is worth noting, however, that in the early years of Ethyl’s availability, basic refinery advances boosted the base octane of fuel by 20-30 points, whereas Ethyl additive only boosted it by about nine points. In retrospect, Ethyl’s octane improvements were somewhat overstated, and the product owed most of its success to crafty marketing, misleading research, and chronic government incompetence. Whatever Ethyl’s benefits, it saturated the planet with an insidious poison, and the true magnitude of its past, present, and future harm are yet to be known. READ ABOUT THIS INCREDIBLY STORY, ABOUT A DESTRUCTIVE CHEMIST , AND LUCKILY
A DR. CLAIR PATTERSON WHO THROUGH HIS RESEARCH SAVED OUR WORLD FROM
POLLUTING NO LONGER THEN NECESSARY,,, WITH THESE POISONS!!!
some teasers here to get you interested, Frank G
**************************************************************************************************
In 1921, after a long string of inadequate solutions, a clever but chronically catastrophic chemist named Thomas Midgley developed a fuel additive which eliminated ping problems while increasing fuel efficiency.
**************************************************************************************************
Upon learning that automotive fuel with lead was the source of the contamination.
Dr. Patterson began to publish materials discussing the toxic metal’s ubiquity and its probable ill effects.
Patterson proposed taking core samples from pack ice in Greenland, and testing the lead content of each layer.
The results showed that airborne lead had been negligible before 1923, and that it had climbed precipitously ever since. In 1965, when the tests were conducted, lead levels were roughly 1,000 times higher than they had been in the pre-Ethyl era. He also compared modern bone samples to that of older human remains, and found that modern humans’ lead levels were hundreds of times higher.
The Ethyl corporation allegedly offered him lucrative employment in exchange for more favorable research results, but Dr. Patterson declined. For a time thereafter, Patterson found himself ostracized from government and corporate sponsored research projects, including the a National Research Council panel on atmospheric lead contamination.
************************************************************************
As for Thomas Midgley, the father of leaded gasoline continued his distinguished career by inventing chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), the refrigerants and aerosol propellants which famously destroyed a considerable section of the Earth’s ozone layer before they were banned.
########################################################################
It is worth noting, however, that in the early years of Ethyl’s availability, basic refinery advances boosted the base octane of fuel by 20-30 points, whereas Ethyl additive only boosted it by about nine points. In retrospect, Ethyl’s octane improvements were somewhat overstated, and the product owed most of its success to crafty marketing, misleading research, and chronic government incompetence. Whatever Ethyl’s benefits, it saturated the planet with an insidious poison, and the true magnitude of its past, present, and future harm are yet to be known.

]]> By: DeLuzional http://www.damninteresting.com/the-ethyl-poisoned-earth#comment-25504 DeLuzional Thu, 26 Nov 2009 17:16:20 +0000 http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=932#comment-25504 [quote]MonkeyBones said: "It is impossible to reap the benefits of technology without reaping the consequences as well. Nobody can claim to have all the answers to a specific question. We can have some answers, but we cannot have all the answers. For example, if someone asks a scientist: “What are the risks and dangers involved with such or such product?” The scientist can only answer to the best of his knowledge. My point is, all the chemical interactions between the elements in the periodic table cannot always be predicted. All the variables involved in the prediction of weather cannot be evaluated. The effects of this molecule or of this radiation cannot always be exactly predicted. There will always be an unkown somewhere, let it be because of arrogance, lack of time, human error, lack of technological knowledge, or pure bad luck. It is impossible to completely erradicate probabilities and replace them with certainties. The only thing we can do is try at least to discredit the arrogant ones in the world who care more about profit than healthy alternatives. No product should be on the market unless it proved within reasonable doubt that it’s safe. Science has made us technological junkies, and a lot of corporate scum only see the dollar sign at the end of tunnel. But hey! They smile in front of cameras, the wear nice clothes, and they promise tax cuts. Don’t worry about lead, don’t worry about mercury, GMO’s, pesticides and chlorinates in tap water, or cancer causing acrylamides in fried foods for that matter. It makes me laugh to see a bag of chips with “NO TRANS FATS” in capital letters on it. If they take the time to label the chips as being trans fat free, why don’t they also label it as being full of cancer causing acrylamides? Because people wouldn’t buy them. That applies to every other product out there that was altered in some way because of our scientific knowledge, may it be by frying potatoes or by splitting atoms, what needs to be done is truthful marketing and labeling of products."[/quote] 'nuff said! [quote]MonkeyBones said: “It is impossible to reap the benefits of technology without reaping the consequences as well.
Nobody can claim to have all the answers to a specific question. We can have some answers, but we cannot have all the answers. For example, if someone asks a scientist: “What are the risks and dangers involved with such or such product?” The scientist can only answer to the best of his knowledge. My point is, all the chemical interactions between the elements in the periodic table cannot always be predicted. All the variables involved in the prediction of weather cannot be evaluated. The effects of this molecule or of this radiation cannot always be exactly predicted. There will always be an unkown somewhere, let it be because of arrogance, lack of time, human error, lack of technological knowledge, or pure bad luck. It is impossible to completely erradicate probabilities and replace them with certainties. The only thing we can do is try at least to discredit the arrogant ones in the world who care more about profit than healthy alternatives. No product should be on the market unless it proved within reasonable doubt that it’s safe. Science has made us technological junkies, and a lot of corporate scum only see the dollar sign at the end of tunnel. But hey! They smile in front of cameras, the wear nice clothes, and they promise tax cuts. Don’t worry about lead, don’t worry about mercury, GMO’s, pesticides and chlorinates in tap water, or cancer causing acrylamides in fried foods for that matter. It makes me laugh to see a bag of chips with “NO TRANS FATS” in capital letters on it. If they take the time to label the chips as being trans fat free, why don’t they also label it as being full of cancer causing acrylamides? Because people wouldn’t buy them. That applies to every other product out there that was altered in some way because of our scientific knowledge, may it be by frying potatoes or by splitting atoms, what needs to be done is truthful marketing and labeling of products.”[/quote]

’nuff said!

]]> By: Mirage_GSM http://www.damninteresting.com/the-ethyl-poisoned-earth#comment-24204 Mirage_GSM Wed, 01 Apr 2009 15:20:18 +0000 http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=932#comment-24204 [quote]A study ... reported a "very strong association" between the exposure of young children to lead, and crime rates twenty years later when they became young adults. ... The sharp decline in US crime rates which began in the early 1990s dovetails perfectly with the reduction of leaded gasoline in the early 1970s; and other countries which followed suit saw similar declines, also delayed by twenty years. [/quote] Hey, the thirties also saw the beginning of WWII and the subsequent Cold War lasted until the beginning of the nineties. Clearly the lead has to be responsible! (Incidentally: http://xkcd.com/552/ ) Regarding the later flame war, I found Sid's postings to be objective and to the point if a bit nit-picky, while Anthropositor seemed to develop a fair bit of paranoia early on and later resorted to mud-flinging instead of argument. [quote]A study … reported a “very strong association” between the exposure of young children to lead, and crime rates twenty years later when they became young adults. … The sharp decline in US crime rates which began in the early 1990s dovetails perfectly with the reduction of leaded gasoline in the early 1970s; and other countries which followed suit saw similar declines, also delayed by twenty years. [/quote]
Hey, the thirties also saw the beginning of WWII and the subsequent Cold War lasted until the beginning of the nineties. Clearly the lead has to be responsible!
(Incidentally: http://xkcd.com/552/ )
Regarding the later flame war, I found Sid’s postings to be objective and to the point if a bit nit-picky, while Anthropositor seemed to develop a fair bit of paranoia early on and later resorted to mud-flinging instead of argument.

]]> By: ronaldcollins http://www.damninteresting.com/the-ethyl-poisoned-earth#comment-22161 ronaldcollins Thu, 17 Jul 2008 05:47:43 +0000 http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=932#comment-22161 hi there, I use water to fuel a car as a supplement to gasoline. In fact, very little water is needed, only one quart of water provides over 1800 gallons of HHO gas which can literally last for months and significantly increase your car fuel efficiently, improve emissions quality, and save money. I found the way through this site http://www.runcarsonwater.us i really recommend it to everybody, it's a nice eBook where you can find the instructions on how to do it! take a look. hi there, I use water to fuel a car as a supplement to gasoline. In fact, very little water is needed, only one quart of water provides over 1800 gallons of HHO gas which can literally last for months and significantly increase your car fuel efficiently, improve emissions quality, and save money. I found the way through this site http://www.runcarsonwater.us i really recommend it to everybody, it’s a nice eBook where you can find the instructions on how to do it! take a look.

]]> By: johnandrews52 http://www.damninteresting.com/the-ethyl-poisoned-earth#comment-22147 johnandrews52 Wed, 16 Jul 2008 09:26:52 +0000 http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=932#comment-22147 Can we run our car with water and gas? Can anybody tell me is the HHO Gas is real working or is another scam? Can we run our car with water and gas?
Can anybody tell me is the HHO Gas is real working or is another scam?

]]> By: sid http://www.damninteresting.com/the-ethyl-poisoned-earth#comment-21105 sid Tue, 22 Apr 2008 16:11:38 +0000 http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=932#comment-21105 [quote]Anthropositor said: "Post #111 had as its' stated purpose the removal of the news story so that all of my own statements could be isolated out for examination. The whole story was deleted for that purpose; so that my remarks could be examined in isolation. Odd though that you would select out these two paragraphs, which clearly demonstrate my point about the paint chips being a part of the story. You were saying the story had nothing about paint chips originally. [/quote] I never said the story had "nothing about paint chips." What I have said, at varying points of this discussion, is: "It had nothing to do with the issue of kids eating lead-based paint." "And while it may very well be true that lead paint is the real threat, and, more specifically, lead paint that has not made it to the soil to be "sludged," nothing in the article even remotely implied the goal of the "study" was to solve the problem of kids eating lead paint chips." "Neither the "study" nor the article had anything to do with protections from ingesting lead-based paint chips." [quote]My statement in #111 is pretty clear: "The rest of the AP story being deleted, we will be able to search for actual error on my part, and find those grossly misleading statements that you charge against me." [/quote] Again, let's stick with #107. However, your statement about deleting the rest of the AP article is, again, in error. Yes, you deleted most of it. But in #111, you included one sentence that made a reference to lead-based paint chips, which I presume you hoped would support your position, then deleted the sentence that immediately followed, which brought the crux of the article back into focus. Again, the article was about a "study" seeking "solutions" to kids ingesting lead-contaminated soil. It was not about "solutions" to kids ingesting lead-based paint chips, which was the focus of your attempt at satire. [quote]So clearly, this was yet another obfuscation or a logic failure on your part. Perhaps an artifact of your long years of lip service of an unidentified sort to one government appendage or another."[/quote] You seem to have a fascination with sex. Good for you, but it probably doesn't help your cause much when you try to interject it into these kinds of dialogues. You may want to consider another tactic at trying to insult your way to victory. [quote]Anthropositor said: “Post #111 had as its’ stated purpose the removal of the news story so that all of my own statements could be isolated out for examination. The whole story was deleted for that purpose; so that my remarks could be examined in isolation. Odd though that you would select out these two paragraphs, which clearly demonstrate my point about the paint chips being a part of the story. You were saying the story had nothing about paint chips originally. [/quote]

I never said the story had “nothing about paint chips.” What I have said, at varying points of this discussion, is:

“It had nothing to do with the issue of kids eating lead-based paint.”

“And while it may very well be true that lead paint is the real threat, and, more specifically, lead paint that has not made it to the soil to be “sludged,” nothing in the article even remotely implied the goal of the “study” was to solve the problem of kids eating lead paint chips.”

“Neither the “study” nor the article had anything to do with protections from ingesting lead-based paint chips.”

[quote]My statement in #111 is pretty clear:

“The rest of the AP story being deleted, we will be able to search for actual error on my part, and find those grossly misleading statements that you charge against me.” [/quote]

Again, let’s stick with #107. However, your statement about deleting the rest of the AP article is, again, in error. Yes, you deleted most of it. But in #111, you included one sentence that made a reference to lead-based paint chips, which I presume you hoped would support your position, then deleted the sentence that immediately followed, which brought the crux of the article back into focus. Again, the article was about a “study” seeking “solutions” to kids ingesting lead-contaminated soil. It was not about “solutions” to kids ingesting lead-based paint chips, which was the focus of your attempt at satire.

[quote]So clearly, this was yet another obfuscation or a logic failure on your part. Perhaps an artifact of your long years of lip service of an unidentified sort to one government appendage or another.”[/quote]

You seem to have a fascination with sex. Good for you, but it probably doesn’t help your cause much when you try to interject it into these kinds of dialogues. You may want to consider another tactic at trying to insult your way to victory.

]]>