
We discovered three poisonous books in our university library - fanf2
https://theconversation.com/how-we-discovered-three-poisonous-books-in-our-university-library-98358
======
kragen
Paris green has an LD50 of 22 mg/kg, according to Wikipedia. That's one
thousandth of the lethality of ricin, one fortieth of the lethality of sarin,
half the lethality of sodium cyanide, one two-hundredth the lethality of
alpha-amanitin, one fourth of the lethality of nicotine, roughly the same
immediate lethality as hydrazine, methamphetamine, tetraethyllead, or
aflatoxin B1, and only eight times as lethal as caffeine. It is very
dangerous, and you should avoid getting it on you, but it seems unreasonable
to describe it as one of the most toxic chemicals known. It is definitely not
in the same category of nightmare chemicals as dimethylmercury, chlorine
trifluoride, silane, or red fuming nitric acid. I'll admit that outgassing
arsine if it gets moldy is pretty nasty, though.

~~~
semi-extrinsic
> red fuming nitric acid

[https://m.imgur.com/QMjMw7F](https://m.imgur.com/QMjMw7F)

[RFNA leaking from truck, Ukraine, 2015]

~~~
mtreis86
More of that truck
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKzTy8OPZ6Y](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKzTy8OPZ6Y)

------
rwmj
On a side point, handheld XRF readers are really cool. It's literally you
point the device at a sample and it tells you what chemicals are in it. But
why do they cost such a huge amount of money? Last I looked they were about
$20,000-30,000 range.

example: [https://www.bruker.com/fileadmin/user_upload/8-PDF-
Docs/X-ra...](https://www.bruker.com/fileadmin/user_upload/8-PDF-
Docs/X-rayDiffraction_ElementalAnalysis/mXRF/Brochures/Bro_mxrf_elio_8p_en_lores.pdf)

~~~
HeyLaughingBoy
Divide the cost of development by the number of devices expected to be sold
within a reasonable payback period and add a percentage of profit required to
make it worthwhile developing the thing in the first place and you'd probably
come up with a pretty close approximation to the same price.

------
Gibbon1
Arsenic in museums is huge mess. Really common before 1960-70 to treat things
with arsenic to kill pests.

~~~
Koshkin
Well, we used to have a radium paint in our watches! Not to forget the lead
piping still widely spread in the US.

~~~
ferongr
As long as you didn't grind the dial into dust and inhale it, it was pretty
safe and an excellent solution compared to the weak glow of Super-Luminova
pigment.

~~~
RobertRoberts
I don't think this is true. Army training taught that if the glass over radium
glowing dials in a vehicle was compromised, to cover it with wood or cardboard
(if that is all you had) and tape/secure it down.

~~~
briandear
A squad leader of my Army platoon once had a crate of about 30 compasses that
had radium markings. Anyway, he had the box in his truck, left the gate at
Fort Benning then when he returned later, he set off the radiation detectors
at the entry gate. Caused a full base lockdown and needless to say, he didn’t
have a very pleasant time until they figured out that the compasses set off
the detectors. This was in 2004 when we were on a high alert for dirty bombs.

------
joshfraser
I wonder what the Paris Green of today is - the things that are killing us,
but we just don't know it yet.

~~~
duxup
I often wonder the same thing. It seems likely that something we take for
granted is possibly poisonous considering the number of chemicals we are
exposed to in various ways.

~~~
jonathanoliver
The debate on cell phones and their effects is fun to watch. In another 30+
years we should have a solid body of evidence one way or another.

~~~
garmaine
We have a solid body of evidence now. Cell phone radios do not disrupt
biological systems.

~~~
crazynick4
Although observable physical effects on humans have not been proven,
behavioral effects on insects have been documented. These are interesting
pilot studies because insect behavior is relatively simple and deviations more
easily measured when compared to humans. Any explanations as far as the
physical mechanism would involve changes in brain chemistry/activity which can
be too subtle to detect. I would hold out on a final verdict for now as far as
humans go and I don't think further studies should be ridiculed as paranoid
just yet. Given the global use of cellphones I think it's better to err on the
side of caution.

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.

~~~
dantheman0207
Thoughtful and well made counterpoint to the sometimes overprotective stance
tech industry people take to criticisms of cell phones. Seems to me like the
issue is the dosage - there has never been any organism exposed to this
sustained level of background EMF. Any longitudinal study started after
widespread adoption.

Do you have any links for the references you made to effects on insect
behavior?

~~~
garmaine
I'm not coming from a basis in tech, but rather physics. I have a strong
background in elecromagnetic theory and physical chemistry. What, may I ask,
is the physical basis for the claim that cell phone radiation causes _______
in biological systems?

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.

[1] [https://xkcd.com/882/](https://xkcd.com/882/)

~~~
garmaine
EDIT: The obvious retort is "what about microwaves?" After all kitchen
microwaves operate on the same frequency as your home WiFi. Your desktop
microwave acts not by harmonics with the rotational frequency of water, a
common myth, but by that that effect I mentioned of smaller frequency back-
scattering and thermal agitation. Your counter-top microwave emits 1kW of
power into the food put inside it, which is 100-1,000x as much as your cell
phone antenna puts out. And it does so inside a closed cavity instead of an
omnidirectional antenna. At that power and with full absorption, thermal
effects are no longer negligible.

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).

~~~
crazynick4
Thanks for the post, that's all really great information (I just have a stats
background, not a physicist/chemist).

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.

~~~
garmaine
The short answer is I don’t know, but if I read your question correctly I
suspect the answer is “not much impact, if any.” Cell transmission towers
would be dangerous at close range, but cell phones themselves would be like
flashlights as you say, but not bright ones, and probably not noticeable at
all, except at very close range. They’re not listening to these frequencies.

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.

------
WalterGR
There’s an illustration of a sore-afflicted penis and testicles, in case
anyone is at work and cares.

~~~
B1FF_PSUVM
That's two cases out of nine in a photo of two pages of Gray's anatomy style
illustrations - it takes a sharp eye to quickly identify the dongle, and it's
clearly a medical book.

