>Am I a fuddy-duddy, or is the Potassium Cyanide a **much bigger**
>problem than gun-cotton ?
I have wondered, in reading these old formulas and processes, what the
attitudes were about safe materials handling in times past. My guess is
that "common sense" ruled, but that seems less than adequate where so
little was known about the hazards of some materials. The effects of
cyanide, of course, had been fully documented by the Borgias, et al.,
and the hazards of gun cotton were pretty obvious, but the hazardous
nature of many materials was as yet unknown. My impression is that any
substance not proven to be hazardous was considered safe, and that
precautions would be taken only against proven hazards--no "general
precautions." My grandfather's business was house painting, and one of
my uncles died of lead poisoning largely because (the story goes) he
never bothered to wash his hands before eating lunch.
It seems that the prevailing attitude has always been (and still is)
that things are safe until proven harmful. When I was in college in the
early '60s, I worked weekends at the Museum of Science and Industry in
Chicago. I was assigned to the "Atoms For Peace" exhibit, and carried a
Geiger counter to show visitors how radioactive the ore samples in the
display cases were. I also tested the radium dials on the watches worn
by the visitors (listen to that little box scream!). In the "Electric
Theater," employees several times a day demonstrated the effects of
microwaves by holding an ear of popcorn on a stick in front of an
unshielded microwave generator. It was assumed to be safe because the
harmful effects had not yet been documented. Today we are seeing
problems with things like fen-phen that are assumed to be ok on
insufficient evidence.
I guess the point would be that rubber gloves are Good Things, as are
safety goggles, NIOSC-approved respirators, child-proof cabinet locks,
common sense, and a healthy dose of paranoia.
-- Dennis M. Southwood dms1@home.com